Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 7399836" data-attributes="member: 6834463">No, it's always true (or I suppose one could qualify this with in 99.9% of all rpgs or some such, but no exceptions come to mind) that the GM will spend a certain amount of time describing the world to the PCs. If a game exists where the GM never describes the existence of an NPC, what they look like, etc. and never sets a scene, etc. then I haven't seen it. Now you can choose to say &quot;That isn't describing the world&quot;, but that wouldn't be accurate. A GM running a &quot;no myth&quot; game, who then describes something in the game world, is describing the game world, no matter how one spins it. Sure, and I was pointing out that there are many ways a specific action will be made difficult to impossible in a ttrpg, not just &quot;worldbuilding&quot;. I will also point out that &quot;worldbuilding&quot; doesn't need to make anything difficult to impossible, so the whole point is even less salient. Sure they can, just like the rules do. Or the table can, etc.The &quot;definite impact&quot; being only that a GM can choose to make certain actions difficult or impossible, on top of things made difficult or impossible by the rules, table consensus, veto powers, etc. Or they can not. Doesn't seem especially definite.What? No! To start with &quot;worldbuilding&quot; =/= &quot;GM writes the dramas&quot;, they might &quot;write&quot; some drama or conflict in the world but by what leap of logic does that mean they write all of it, or that the players must follow their hooks or be spectators? This is not only illogical, and wrong on it's face but it seems to show a very biased and uncharitable attitude to make that jump. And, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but obviously the players can establish drama with or without &quot;worldbuilding&quot; (technically some degree of worldbuilding is necessary unless it's a group of PCs arguing in a vacuum). They do it ALL THE TIME, but they do it within the world.And here you shift to &quot;can&quot;, which I appreciate. I get that you don't like it, but that shouldn't be an excuse to make unfounded leaps in logic that are clearly contradicted by evidence, or to characterize it as causing unique issues that in reality it need not cause and that many other things can cause as well. Hussar just made a bunch of criticisms without doing that sort of thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="happyhermit, post: 7399836, member: 6834463"] No, it's always true (or I suppose one could qualify this with in 99.9% of all rpgs or some such, but no exceptions come to mind) that the GM will spend a certain amount of time describing the world to the PCs. If a game exists where the GM never describes the existence of an NPC, what they look like, etc. and never sets a scene, etc. then I haven't seen it. Now you can choose to say "That isn't describing the world", but that wouldn't be accurate. A GM running a "no myth" game, who then describes something in the game world, is describing the game world, no matter how one spins it. Sure, and I was pointing out that there are many ways a specific action will be made difficult to impossible in a ttrpg, not just "worldbuilding". I will also point out that "worldbuilding" doesn't [U]need[/U] to make anything difficult to impossible, so the whole point is even less salient. Sure they can, just like the rules do. Or the table can, etc. The "definite impact" being only that a GM can choose to make certain actions difficult or impossible, on top of things made difficult or impossible by the rules, table consensus, veto powers, etc. Or they can not. Doesn't seem especially definite. What? No! To start with "worldbuilding" =/= "GM writes the dramas", they might "write" some drama or conflict in the world but by what leap of logic does that mean they write all of it, or that the players must follow their hooks or be spectators? This is not only illogical, and wrong on it's face but it seems to show a very biased and uncharitable attitude to make that jump. And, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but obviously the players can establish drama with or without "worldbuilding" (technically some degree of worldbuilding is necessary unless it's a group of PCs arguing in a vacuum). They do it ALL THE TIME, but they do it within the world. And here you shift to "can", which I appreciate. I get that you don't like it, but that shouldn't be an excuse to make unfounded leaps in logic that are clearly contradicted by evidence, or to characterize it as causing unique issues that in reality it need not cause and that many other things can cause as well. Hussar just made a bunch of criticisms without doing that sort of thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification