Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9043816" data-attributes="member: 85555">Some of this is a language issue. We have a particular language we use when speaking of game issues and you have a different language, and there is even something of a different theoretical frame work. I do think a lot of this boils down to play techniques. But I also think there is no real getting around the importance of verisimilitude, setting consistency and plausibility in this play style. Players in this style want the setting to feel like a real place and they want it to feel like it is operating in a way that isn't just oriented around what the PCs do. You can do that in other approaches but the point is as the GM is using all these techniques and approaches, he or she is expected to be keeping things like verisimilitude in mind when making decisions about what happens, when establishing setting details, when introducing setting details. There is an expectation that certain things are objective for example and not determined in the moment. A certain degree of that is inevitable, extrapolation exists for that reason and it isn't a hard and fast rule, but you will meet more resistance the more you do things butt up against this. And when we are extrapolating we are expected to be abiding by some of these principles (principles I generally file under fairness to the players). That isn't to say it works for everyone, or that you are going to have the same reaction to it. But I know when I talk with Rob about gaming, GMing and design, we are able to get on the same page when we use this kind of language.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 9043816, member: 85555"] Some of this is a language issue. We have a particular language we use when speaking of game issues and you have a different language, and there is even something of a different theoretical frame work. I do think a lot of this boils down to play techniques. But I also think there is no real getting around the importance of verisimilitude, setting consistency and plausibility in this play style. Players in this style want the setting to feel like a real place and they want it to feel like it is operating in a way that isn't just oriented around what the PCs do. You can do that in other approaches but the point is as the GM is using all these techniques and approaches, he or she is expected to be keeping things like verisimilitude in mind when making decisions about what happens, when establishing setting details, when introducing setting details. There is an expectation that certain things are objective for example and not determined in the moment. A certain degree of that is inevitable, extrapolation exists for that reason and it isn't a hard and fast rule, but you will meet more resistance the more you do things butt up against this. And when we are extrapolating we are expected to be abiding by some of these principles (principles I generally file under fairness to the players). That isn't to say it works for everyone, or that you are going to have the same reaction to it. But I know when I talk with Rob about gaming, GMing and design, we are able to get on the same page when we use this kind of language. [/QUOTE]

Verification