Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rodrigo Istalindir" data-source="post: 3459327" data-attributes="member: 2810">Like when Homer asked if Itchy and Scratchy was broadcast live, and told no, that would be too hard on the animators.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> First of all, there is an inherent give and take between DM and players.&nbsp; They have to come to some mutually agreeable division of labor.&nbsp; At the one end of the spectrum is the total railroad in which you might as well be reading a book.&nbsp; At the other end is rolling on the random encounter table, fighting, and then rolling again.&nbsp; Most group fall somewhere in between, and it's up to them to decide how much of the world they want drawn in, and how much remains 'here there be dragons' territory.&nbsp; The essence of most 'art' whether its writing or painting or music, is its unidirectional.&nbsp; The artist presents and moves on to his next interest; the viewer/reader/listener consumes, and while they certainly form their own opinions and can express them (in excruciating detail sometimes), they by and large have no effect on the artist.I would argue that RPGs are the antithesis of this.&nbsp; While the DM holds certain perogatives, so do they players, and its the interaction of those two that produce (IMO) the most fun and interesting and unexpected games.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't think GRR Martin gives a rat's patootie what I think about his writing; I damn well expect my GM to care whether or not I'm enjoying the game. More to the point, world-building, even if elements of the world never see print or play, is essential to presenting a cohesive story.&nbsp; Glaring plot lapses, implausibilities, continuity lapses, unbeliveable characters, all are symptomatic of instances where a little more world-building would have helped.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rodrigo Istalindir, post: 3459327, member: 2810"] Like when Homer asked if Itchy and Scratchy was broadcast live, and told no, that would be too hard on the animators. :lol: First of all, there is an inherent give and take between DM and players. They have to come to some mutually agreeable division of labor. At the one end of the spectrum is the total railroad in which you might as well be reading a book. At the other end is rolling on the random encounter table, fighting, and then rolling again. Most group fall somewhere in between, and it's up to them to decide how much of the world they want drawn in, and how much remains 'here there be dragons' territory. The essence of most 'art' whether its writing or painting or music, is its unidirectional. The artist presents and moves on to his next interest; the viewer/reader/listener consumes, and while they certainly form their own opinions and can express them (in excruciating detail sometimes), they by and large have no effect on the artist. I would argue that RPGs are the antithesis of this. While the DM holds certain perogatives, so do they players, and its the interaction of those two that produce (IMO) the most fun and interesting and unexpected games. I don't think GRR Martin gives a rat's patootie what I think about his writing; I damn well expect my GM to care whether or not I'm enjoying the game. More to the point, world-building, even if elements of the world never see print or play, is essential to presenting a cohesive story. Glaring plot lapses, implausibilities, continuity lapses, unbeliveable characters, all are symptomatic of instances where a little more world-building would have helped. [/QUOTE]

Verification