Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7411928" data-attributes="member: 48965">I'm confused here... are you claiming that in a game based around worldbuilding there must necessarily be a "plot" (in quotations because perhaps I'm not understanding the definition being used here)?  Because I can assure you from actual play that's not the case.  I can only speak to my style of running a game but I have run traditional games that leaned heavily on worldbuilding and what they had wasn't plot but instead situations that the PC's were free to deal with, not deal with or do something else entirely.  I don't think what can happen in DL1 is enough to describe either of our styles and thus why there's umbrage around the statement that a traditional game with worldbuilding is a "Choose your own adventure" game.  It's like me claiming Story Now is just a "Let the dice make whatever up in the moment" game.  It's a simplistic statement that's mildly insulting and fails to capture the nuances of the playstyle.Yes and I (as well as a few other posters who have addressed this)am recognizing that qualitative component by addressing the fact that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s limiters on player agency are different.  However when one starts from a position of wanting to understand something (I assume that was the point of the OP in this thread) but then turns it into a comparison/competition where not only do they use negatively skewed language to describe the other playstyle but also define the parameters of the comparison and the nature of the "win" conditions well it's apt to irritate those who probabnly feel like the entire thread was a bait and switch that has been pulled on them in bad faith.  It feels less like I want to understand and more like I drew you in to this so I could tell you how much better my style is and force you to defend your own.  I can't speak specifically to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] 's games but he's free to comment on this if he wants...  What I can say is that as far as I can tell [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] doesn't run a game where players can just create things on the fly.  They create characters with certain themes, interests, etc. and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] runs adventures around those things.  Again as I stated in a previous post... the same thing can be (and at least by me often is) done with a traditional style of play both implicitly and explicitly. As an example... I have players who want to play in Planescape, they pick whether they are planar/prime... pick race...pick class...pick faction... background and so on... we discuss their characters before the game starts and I in turn set up situations within the Planescape campaign setting around these things.  When session zero + inherent world themes (from worldbuilding) come together for character creation I find it hard to find a good faith scenario where the players interests and concerns don't naturally flow during the actual game sessions.  How does [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game give a higher level of input than this (and note this is all session zero stuff that I think alot of GM's with traditional playstyles use when their players want to be that invested).</blockquote>

Verification