Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7387758" data-attributes="member: 42582">No I didn't. Here's the quote, for anyone who missed it first time around:That says nothing about the player not being interested. The player is not the protagonist. The PC is the protagonist.Even bracketing the bizarre confusion of player and PC, this is wrong. Something can be of interest to a person although, as a matter of current psychological state, that person is not interested in it because (eg) s/he doesn't yet know about it.For instance, if my PC description includes servant of the Secret Fire, then the fact that an NPC wields the Flame of Udun is of interest to me, and engages my PC's dramatic need, although I mightn't yet know that the NPC wields the Flame of Udun (eg because at the moment the GM is portraying the NPC as a friendly person helping me to stable my steed). Part of the skill of GMing a "story now" game is being able to think of situations, and story elements, that will speak to PCs' dramatic needs in new and engaging ways. <a href="https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">Eero Tuovinen expresses this requirement</a> when he says that:One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to . . . frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . The GM . . . needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences.All this reinforces what is already clear, namely, that you don't understand how non-GM-driven play works.The notion of overlook has no work to do hear. Suppose I go to a carnival. I choose to go on the ferris wheel rather than the ghost train. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the ghost train more - who knows? But I didn't overlook that possibility. I choose to do something else. Suppose that there was also a superslide that I didn't know about - maybe I would have enjoyed that the most! But I chose the ferris wheel. C'est la vie. I'm certainly not going to spend my life scouring every carnival I might go to trying to identify what ride I might enjoy the most! And I'm not going to be dragged around by someone else, being shown rides rather than going on one.In the context of "story now" RPGing, the notion is doubly inapplicable - not only for the reasons that can be extrapolated from the metaphor of the carnival ride, but also because the players have their PCs sheets in front of them, and are playing their PCs, and so will know if their PCs are sneaky sneaks or forthright assailants. These are some of the most basic of fantasy tropes. The players aren't going to overlook their PCs' fundamental natures.The notion of "plotting out possible things" and "playing mental chess with the GM" is also bizarre. Well in advance of what? Given that your complaint is that the narration of the trip to the giant cavern takes only a few seconds, where do you envisage this "mental chess" taking place? And who are you trying to outwit?To reiterate: GM - "Players, are you going to the giants?"; Players - "Yes"; GM - "OK, you're at the giant cave". Where did this mighty struggle of wits take place? Was it in the Gm asking the question "Are you going to the giants?' Or was it in the players saying "Yes"? And once the players say "Yes", do you really think they're going to be shocked to be told that their PCs are at the cave?You are treating "Are you going to the cave?" as short hand for "Are you ready for all these things that I'm going to tell you about your trip to the cave?" Which, in a GM-driven game, it may well be. But that wasn't what I, or [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION], or [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], was talking about.</blockquote>

Verification