Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7390438" data-attributes="member: 71699">For me this seems to say we can end the thread here. All world-building is, is a resource. It can be done by none, one or several authors. How successful it is for any group depends on that group. Most of the roleplaying gaming that I experience and observe (including via Twitch or YouTube) is of the kind that it will be of value. Games like Burning went on to release three world-builds in the form of the setting books, one being inspired by Dune.Yes, exactly! The original and/or evolving world-build is a manifestation of earlier exercises of agency. It is essential in some form or other. Possibly I misunderstand, but your main "question" (and I feel it is perhaps less a question and more a manifesto) is about who does it, how, and at what scale. Those are all good questions and I would share any feeling you might have that various approaches have pluses and minuses. There can be good in the world-build being handled by a sole arbiter: that goes in one direction. And there can be good in the world-build being handled by all, as they go along. The kinds of problems to solve in implementation have commonalities and differences.I'm not sure what you mean by "block action declarations" as you just gave examples of action declarations that should be blocked. If you mean that no one should do so egregiously, then I would agree with you. Generally, we don't want nonsensical declarations, or declarations that falsify what has gone before. The most potent declarations are those that address and move forward the current state of play.If players want to feel entitled to declare anything, even things that make no sense or dismantle what everyone else is enjoying, I'm not for that. And if we've agreed on a system to work within, in order to create interest and challenge for ourselves, then I think their declarations are going to be most enjoyable if they work with that.You go on to accept my premise, so I think we must have a miscommunication/misunderstanding here.Please note that I suggest the opposite to zero-sum. In order to not be zero-sum, gains must be made above the line. The "cost" of those gains is to let them stand. For me, zero-sum would be where for Bob's agency to stand, he must dismantle Alice's. I believe neither is arguing for that.It seems possible that the OP has in mind "egregious world-building shoved down people's throats, to stop them having fun" so sure, I'm redefining it.If the question is whether egregious, fun-killing, creativity dampening world-building has any value in contemporary RPG? Well, no. But then, it never did.Edit - as a footnoteA good DM will produce tenable pacing outcomes. Again, it seems here a possible strawman has been put up - the DM who has no idea of what will be a good obstacle level - and knocked down. I don't see any special reason to trust Luke Crane other than to say that it suits a given group's style of play. I don't think such groups can speak for all groups, though.</blockquote>

Verification