Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3491518" data-attributes="member: 18280">The effect that the characters have on the setting is determined by plot, of by what they are or are not allowed to do within the plot, though, right?  I understand the idea that the DM proscribed the plot on the basis of being in love with the setting status quo; but it is still a matter of plot being proscribed as I understand it.Or, I guess another way of saying it is that love of the setting is the motive, but restriction of the plot seems to be the means by which the motive was achieved.I am assuming that Harrison is talking about the inclusion of details that prevent the reader from "discovering" truths for himself, which would not translate the way that you want it to.  If you've heard the maxim "Show, don't tell", that's the same thing.  No matter how "built" the world is, the narrator doesn't say "Elves are second-hand citizens"; instead he includes details that allow the reader to realize that elves are second-class citizens.  IOW, the use of details rather than dialectic allows the experience of the reader to interact with the prose.  The reader should be enticed to put forth effort for writing to succeed.(There was actually an article in Writer's Digest on this a few issues back.)So, I don't think that this is specifically what Harrison is talking about, although I can see the relationship the problem has with world-building.  How the DM in question, running the game in question, cannot be a "bad DM" at that time, though, I'm not sure.  Not allowing the PCs to affect the world is a cardinal sin in my book.RC</blockquote>

Verification