Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7385582" data-attributes="member: 42582">No.&nbsp;&nbsp; [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] says that combat or landslide equals interesting. He makes no similar assumption about, say, meeting a friendly border guard. Or a pleasant fellow traveller. It is this assumption that physical danger, with combat as the paradigm, is the core of what is interesting that I am questioning. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Only in wargaming is there a straightforward equation of combat = interesting.I have no idea what this means. It's all just words.I mean, what does unless the PCs can see it mean? Or it's dead except when interacting with the PCs? The PCs don't exist. So what they can see, and what interacts with them, depends completely on what we make up. And I can - and do - make up just as much stuff as you can! You imagine the PCs in your game hearing all these wild tales of far places when they sit around in taverns? Well, so do I.But until you actually tell those tales, in real time, to real people, sitting at a real table, they make zero contribution to the depth of a setting. You sitting at home reading a FR book fillled with &quot;rumours of Waterdeep&quot; doesn't make your gameworld deep. Those rumours only establish &quot;depth&quot; for your setting when you mention them to your players. And I can do that too.But regardless of rumours of far places, I play a game in which meeting a friendly border guard might be as important and interesting as fighting a combat.&nbsp;&nbsp; [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] (it seems) doesn't. Nor - to judge by your agreement with him - do you. From my point of view, that is case closed on depth of setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7385582, member: 42582"] No. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] says that combat or landslide equals interesting. He makes no similar assumption about, say, meeting a friendly border guard. Or a pleasant fellow traveller. It is this assumption that physical danger, with combat as the paradigm, is the core of what is interesting that I am questioning. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. [I]Only in wargaming[/I] is there a straightforward equation of [I]combat = interesting[/I]. I have no idea what this means. It's all just words. I mean, what does [I]unless the PCs can see it[/I] mean? Or [I]it's dead except when interacting with the PCs[/I]? The PCs don't exist. So what they can see, and what interacts with them, depends completely on what we make up. And I can - and do - make up just as much stuff as you can! You imagine the PCs in your game hearing all these wild tales of far places when they sit around in taverns? Well, so do I. But until you actually [I]tell [/I]those tales, in real time, to real people, sitting at a real table, they make zero contribution to the depth of a setting. You sitting at home reading a FR book fillled with "rumours of Waterdeep" doesn't make your gameworld deep. Those rumours only establish "depth" for your setting when you mention them to your players. And I can do that too. But regardless of rumours of far places, I play a game in which meeting a friendly border guard might be as important and interesting as fighting a combat. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] (it seems) doesn't. Nor - to judge by your agreement with him - do you. From my point of view, that is case closed on depth of setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification