Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7401464" data-attributes="member: 42582">As a player: to make choices that will express one's character and shape the outcome of whatever it is that is at stake in play. As a GM: to work with the players to establish whatever it is that is at stake in play, and then push the players (and thereby their PCs) in respect of it.Some people would rather have outcomes be determined by action resolution rather than dictated by the GM's hitherto-unrevealed and unilateral framing. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.Who do you think disagrees with this? Obviously if there is no shop, then no shop can be found.What we're discussing is how it might be established, as part of the preparation for and play of a RPG, that there is or isn't a shop.You have participated extensively in the other worldbuilding thread. In that thread you've read the account of the bazaar- and-feather scene; and taken part in a lot of discussions about it.Now recall how you and some other posters have said that you would handle it - include how you have been critical of the idea of opening the game with the PCs at the bazaar and an angel feather being offered for sale.The fact that the technique is something you're critical of seems to suggest that it is not the same as what is involved in worldbuilding.If the orc kills the PC, and the GM has decided ahead of tiem that this is what will happen, that mode of decision-making is irrelevant to the here-and-now result. Nevertheless, many RPGers think it matters to the play of the game whether the combat is resolved via the standard mechanics, or by the GM deciding the outcome in advance.Action declarations aren't normally made  on a whim - they pertain to the play of the game.But if the players thing that the presence of a sage is plausible (and if they didn't, they wouldn't have their PCs try and find one), then that seems to settle the question of verisimilitude. Doesn't it?Given that there are no shortage of players who prefer APs to "story now", I don't think that published/shared settings are under any sort of threat!Given that it is central to "story now" that there is no "the story", it doesn't naturally lend itself to tournament/convention-type play, although I have played in convention games that approximate to it: normally the first session is used for the players to establish their feel for the PCs while the GM sets the scene; and the second session is the crunch.If this is not already obvious - for instance, if the game is "generic fantasy" then the answer to the questions about transport are horses, carts/wagons, and, if a port town, boats/ships - then if it is just colour someone at the table can make something up, and if it matters then checks can be declared and resolved.Here's an actual play example (sci-fi, not fantasy):That's just one example.Happy as I am to be flattered, frankly I think you're exaggerating in both respects. Keeping track of the events of play is not that hard; and to the extent that it is, I don't think worldbuilding GMs are going to do any better a job of it.I've attached the chart that one of my players maintained for our RM OA game, in pretty much its final state (after about 10 years of play).</blockquote>

Verification