Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9319272" data-attributes="member: 42582">This claim is not true. The gameworld doesn't have to &quot;exist&quot;.The process of RPGing involves the participants saying things to one another, about a shared fiction. In a standard GM/player distribution of roles, the players say things about what particular imaginary people - their PCs - are doing; while the GM says some stuff about the imaginary circumstances in which those imaginary people find themselves, and also some stuff about what happens to them when they do things.This doesn't require that the shared fiction have any particular content, except the people who are doing things, the things they do, the circumstances in which they do them, and the things that happen because of what they do.What it does require is a way of working out new fictional stuff, in particular, the last bit - what happens next.One way of doing that is by having the GM participant infer consequences by imagining other stuff - the &quot;gameworld&quot;. But that's not the only means. The gameworld may be nothing but the sum of the people, their circumstances, their actions, and their actions' consequences.I have no view on whether or not your CoC GM was a tyrant. I do have a view on the gameplay you describe: it appears to be entirely about the players declaring actions that prompt the GM - by way of &quot;poking and prodding&quot; - to tell them more things about the fiction the GM is imagining.And this is entirely a &quot;distribution problem&quot; - from my point of view, it is not a type of RPGing that I am very interested in, either as GM or as player. As a GM, I just don't want to exert my creative effort thinking up a &quot;crappy old house&quot; that I gradually tell the players about, in response to their action declarations for their PCs, which actions the players are declaring because they believe that, or at least wonder whether, &quot;what they are there for&quot; will be revealed to them if only they declare some appropriate action to prompt the GM.The issue that I am interested in is not abut the significance or insignificance of the character in the fiction, but the significance or significance of the player as a contributor to the shared fiction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9319272, member: 42582"] This claim is not true. The gameworld [I]doesn't[/I] have to "exist". The process of RPGing involves the participants saying things to one another, about a shared fiction. In a standard GM/player distribution of roles, the players say things about what particular imaginary people - their PCs - are doing; while the GM says some stuff about the imaginary circumstances in which those imaginary people find themselves, and also some stuff about what happens to them when they do things. This doesn't [I]require[/I] that the shared fiction have any particular content, except [I]the people who are doing things[/I], [I]the things they do[/I], [I]the circumstances in which they do them[/I], and [I]the things that happen because of what they do[/I]. What it [I]does[/I] require is a way of working out new fictional stuff, in particular, the last bit - what happens next. One way of doing that is by having the GM participant infer consequences by imagining other stuff - the "gameworld". But that's not the only means. The gameworld may be nothing but the sum of [I]the people[/I], [I]their circumstances[/I], [I]their actions[/I], and [I]their actions' consequences[/I]. I have no view on whether or not your CoC GM was a tyrant. I do have a view on the gameplay you describe: it appears to be entirely about the players declaring actions that prompt the GM - by way of "poking and prodding" - to tell them more things about the fiction the GM is imagining. And this is entirely a "distribution problem" - from my point of view, it is not a type of RPGing that I am very interested in, either as GM or as player. As a GM, I just don't want to exert my creative effort thinking up a "crappy old house" that I gradually tell the players about, in response to their action declarations for their PCs, which actions the players are declaring because they believe that, or at least wonder whether, "what they are there for" will be revealed to them if only they declare some appropriate action to prompt the GM. The issue that I am interested in is not abut the significance or insignificance of the character in the fiction, but the significance or significance of the player as a contributor to the shared fiction. [/QUOTE]

Verification