Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7400614" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is an instance of what I mean when I say that extensive world building by a GM means that a significant focus of play is having the GM tell the players stuff that the GM has made up, triggered by the actions that the players declare for their PCs. (So instead of the players looking through a GM-authored encyclopedia for the duergar entry, to learn what the GM has made up about duergar the players declare as actions for their PCs that they enter certain tunnels, delve deep into the depths of the Underdark, etc.)I took your initial reply to me to be attempt to contradict in some fashion.Obviously all RPGing involves the GM saying some stuff. My point about worldbuilding is that the GM spends a certain amount of time relaying those details to the players. For instance, the players have their PCs wander through a town and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players ask who their PCs' friends or contacts are and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players have their PCs look for a market that might sell a desired item, and the GM narrates stuff about the town, about NPCs, etc - triggering the players to declare more actions ("OK, I ask the gate guard if there is a market in town") which result in the GM narrating more stuff.If the above doesn't happen, then what was the point of the worldbuilding?But the above sort of stuff doesn't happen in a game played closer to "no myth" style.I don't understand the point of your first sentence.One consequence of worldbuilding is that, as a result, certain actions become impossible (eg finding a sage in this town that the GM as already decided doesn't have one). How is it relevant to that consequence of worldbuilding, and whether or not that consequence is desirable, that some other action declarations may be impossible for other reasons?I also don't agree that worldbuilding needn't make anything difficult to impossible. The sort of thing I've just described is a natural consequence of worldbuilding. That's the whole point of it!More generally, it can't be the case that worldbuilding is good because it has certain consequenes but worldbuilding can't be bad in virtue of certain consequences. Either worldbuilding does or doesn't have consequences for RPGing. And if it does - which I think it does - then there is a question as to whether those consequences are good or bad given the preferences of any particular RPGer.I don't agree with this.There are methods for generating believable, consistent and coherent settings which don't involve GM worldbuilding. Likewise for complexity in storylines.Those techniques do generally require giving up some other techniques, for instance this one:Why is this an ideal? Ideal for what? Whom?If the goal is to have a believable, consistent and coherent setting, with complexity and intricacy in the storyline, without having a significant focus of play being the GM telling the players stuff that s/he has made up, then the first step - as  [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has also recently been posting in this thread - is to drop any notion of "neutrality" of the setting.Why? I mean, what is your evidence for this? [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has made the point already - if the game is being run "no myth" or similar, with a non-"neutral" world, then the grounding is established without the need for the sort of details you refer to.And how is this an example of players driving dramatic arcs? All you have here is a GM about to set up another "neutral" hook!</blockquote>

Verification