Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7398955" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I know, and I'm happy that you brought them to my attention. And I understand that's what he was using them for, which is why I'm using them to point out that they also apply quite well for the exact opposite.Because pre-authored material and secret backstory can still be fluid and flexible, not only rigid and unchangeable.He has his preferences, I have mine. I (and my players) are having a blast with the game we run, the way we run it. I hope he does too. That's not to say I can't learn anything from him, you or others. But I have yet to see a valid reason that applies to all RPGs, much less my own game, that proves all secret backstory is bad. I don't care if my brain came up with an idea 10 years ago or 10 minutes ago. If it adds cool stuff to the game, fits the moment, and the narrative, then I'm a happy DM. It's exciting from the DM side to know something they don't know (I am not left handed), and it's just as much fun when the tables are turned, and the PCs do something I don't expect (pretty much every time). As I've noted, I'm finding that I do give the players a lot more input into the fiction as it's happening than I thought, and that the framework we have in place to divide different aspects of the narrative is also working very well. To me, these are all just tools available to help me run the best game I can for my players. To a large degree, it has to do with avoiding extremes. I don't want the players having control over the secret backstory (written or not), and I don't want to make any ideas I put together too rigid and inflexible. The fact is, though, at times the players have had a greater degree of control over the secret backstory of the game too. Just like the players often find their characters develop in unexpected directions, my ideas about a villain, an organization, a scheme, or whatever morphs well beyond what I ever though of on my own.What I'm really coming around to is that my main complaints about Story Now games is that they seem to want to take away many of the tools that I find work well for us. I'm looking for new tools, or to refine the way I use the tools I've got. In most cases I'm not looking to throw out those tools. But his quote really gets to the heart of the matter. That regardless of whatever tools we use, whatever game mechanics, pre-published information, whatever it might be, it's all in the quest to share cool stuff with the players.If you are the sort where pre-authored material inhibits your ability as a GM to provide that experience, then don't use it. But to rebut another thread - that doesn't make world-building bad (I might as well come back to the actual thread...). If you don't feel you need it, and your players agree. Then don't. But we love the idea that there's a greater world out there to explore, and that as players and characters we can experience it. As players, they can read the books, the blogs, the wikis, and come to the table with something that others know too. That there's a consistency to the world and its lore, and yet it's flexible too. That not everything that's written is 100% true. Some parts may be 100% false. That I can pull out a map and they can see what lies along that road, or that river, and they can consult Faeroogle to get answers anytime they want. So it absolutely says it all, "My job as the DM is to share cool stuff with the players."</blockquote>

Verification