Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5569865" data-attributes="member: 42582">This makes me wonder - why is it the case that players should do all this stuff, if it is not relevant to playing?And my advice - if a GM wants his/her players to take an interest in the setting, make the setting an aspect of play.One consequence of this is that the players will want to shape the setting, as part of the upshot of play. Let them.Unless you're a good writer and the players are in the mood for reading someone else's fantasy story, I'm not sure that this is the best way to proceed.Of course, you know your players and what they like. But to me at least, ingesting all that stuff doesn't sound like playing an RPG, it sounds like reading someone else's version of the appendices to LotR.This rings very true to me. I like to run a game in which the mythology and history are rich and central to play. But this is achieved over time by having it matter to the players in the course of play.Look at it this way: you are approaching the issue from the point of view of the PCs. And of course the PCs would know everything there is to know about everyday details of their world. But the players aren't their PCs. They are people in our world looking for a fun time. Like readers of a novel or viewers of a film, they will probably enjoy the setting more if it is gradually revealed over time, in a way that is relevant to the main elements of theme and plot (very view people start LotR by reading the appendices).And because it is an RPG and not a novel or film, and so probably brings expectations of shared authorship, what will help with engagement is for the players to feel that they have a stake in the fiction. Whereas they have no stake in your setting description as a prelude to play.At least, that's my experience.</blockquote>

Verification