Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4712637" data-attributes="member: 162">I am well aware that you like to attack the stance of those who attempt to interact with and portray the world as a thing in and of itself.When an NPC takes an action, I attempt to remove myself - as much as is possible, given the situation and mechanics used - from the decisions made regarding that action. In an ideal world, an NPC's actions in a given situation would be resolvable as a function of the situation and the NPC's personality and abilities.As a GM, such a game is meaningless for me. If the world which I am attempting to present to the players exists only at my whim, and I allow myself direct access to it without interacting with it only through mechanical channels of the system upon which it is built, then running a game is a futile exercise; it has no meaning. No, I do not control their actions. I control the parameters of their creation and in which they operate. In an ideal set of game mechanics, I would be able to simply "turn a crank" in order to generate new NPCs (based upon previously existing NPCs) and determine their actions for a given situation.Is GM interaction necessary, at some points, in order to create a reasonable setting? At this point, yes, and it is probably highly unlikely that that requirement will cease to exist. But that intervention can be minimized, and I seek the most minimization possible. Ramifications towards the players are irrelevant; the world does not exist for their sake. If there is a lake of lava, perhaps the players should make a point of not joining a fight while over it, and - if such an event is unavoidable - seek to remove themselves from such peril at the earliest opportunity.Did I construct the world? Yes. But its evolution over time is hopefully produced by a systematic "turn the crank" procedure in which I have little to no input. GM input is unavoidable, but it can be minimized, with the results of specific instances of GM intervention determined in manners that are sensible in regards to the mechanical foundation of the setting. No one, I think, is claiming that their settings have actual physical independent existence. They are not "real" in the sense that you are describing.They are, however, "real" in the sense that they are mental constructs. A GM can very well, after creating his setting, seek to have as little meta-intervention into it as possible, instead working in the setting through predetermined systems for doing so - in our discussion, that would be game mechanics.Through minimizing the amount of interaction that is completely and utterly meta, I make the setting a more "solid" mental construct; it ceases to be subject to my whims and instead "takes on a life of its own." While the system used to determine events inside that setting was decided upon arbitrarily by me, once the decision is made, it is not unmade, and I specifically do not modify or interact with the world directly. If it makes sense, then the players will have to deal with this situation, either by attempting to fight or by running or by doing any number of other things. Sure, their sense of realism would not be challenged, in this case.However, as a GM, this sort of thing would irk me, because I would know. Not every creature exists to be fought, not every chasm exists to be crossed. And I'm telling you that, as a GM, I don't want to be.</blockquote>

Verification