Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7354243" data-attributes="member: 6785785">The GM's judgment. Why MUST it conflict with what the  player wants? Why can't the GM have an idea in his mind ahead of time,  with some ideas about what can or may happen, but not committing to  anything until the players have interacted with the idea? The NPC might be a villain in the GM's mind. But the PCs  are free to ally with him or oppose him...whatever they want. I don't  think that pre-authoring anything means you must commit to it 100% with  no ability to deviate. I feel like the same question could be  asked of framing. What's to stop the GM from framing things that have  nothing to do with what the players want? Certainly a GM could do  that....it just would likely be seen as a contradiction to the goals of  play. Same thing. Yes, the GM has agency in my examples. I am not offering  an example that fits your style. I am attempting to offer you an answer  to your question. To explain why some of us find GM driven elements  useful. Yes.  This is me offering an answer to your question. I don't place the same  level of value that you place on player agency. I like it, and I prefer  it in most instances, but I do not think it must be ubiquitous. So  you asked what is worldbuilding for.....here's something to consider.  As with most things, there may need to be some consideration given in  evaluating it. "Hm is this worth the loss in player agency that will  result?" I think your answer is clearly "No", and that's fine. But I don't think you wanted an echo chamber. And I don't think that your preference for another style somehow eliminates your ability to understand why a different style might appeal to other players. For me, having some predetermined elements may be worth a reduction in player agency in some ways. Sure. I'm just simply not as concerned with that limit as you are. Or at least, I'm not always concerned. There are always some constraints on what the players can have their characters do, so in a case like you describe where you take two stories and tie them together...I wouldn't be averse to that at all. Especially if it was still in line with what the players had established as what they want for their characters. I feel like you aren't analyzing the technique at all. You don't  like the technique, which is fine, but then you don't seem to ever even  allow the possibility that the technique has anything to offer. And you insist upon adding other preferences you hold as being requirements for the technique to even be considered. So  maybe we should take a moment to reset....to look at the question you  posed in the OP again, and ask it of you. What is worldbuilding for? Has  your view changed in any way at all? Or do you feel exactly as you did  at the start? Has anything said here by anyone over the 100 pages made a difference in your opinion?</blockquote>

Verification