Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7402452" data-attributes="member: 42582">The discussions in this thread aren't primarily semantic. They are about real differences of approach to RPGing.As far as I know, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has played a wide variety of RPGs, including &quot;indie&quot; ones like DitV and DW. Judging from his posts (in this thread, but also over the years in other threads) he is also fairly happy with a rather GM-driven game, where the GM establishes &quot;objective&quot; obstacles and the players come up with ideas for resolving or circumventing them. But he doesn't like a lot of exposition or epxloration for the sake of it.To me, that seems like a coherent set of tastes.My tastes are I think) narrower. I don't really care for GM-driven play even of the &quot;overcome obstacles&quot; variety.It seems that some other posters in this thread enjoy the sort of exposition and exploration that Hussar does not. That's a long way from my tastes, but it's in the nature of tastes to vary!From my point of view, the issues of contention in this thread are not claims about what is desirable (although that's how the thread title frames it), but what is possible. Eg is it possible to have meaningful RPGing without worldbuilding? What would that look like? If a game does have heavy worldbuilding, what effect will that have on play? (Eg I'm suggesting it means a fair bit of exposition as part of play.)I think those are interesting questions to discuss.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7402452, member: 42582"] The discussions in this thread aren't primarily semantic. They are about real differences of approach to RPGing. As far as I know, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has played a wide variety of RPGs, including "indie" ones like DitV and DW. Judging from his posts (in this thread, but also over the years in other threads) he is also fairly happy with a rather GM-driven game, where the GM establishes "objective" obstacles and the players come up with ideas for resolving or circumventing them. But he doesn't like a lot of exposition or epxloration for the sake of it. To me, that seems like a coherent set of tastes. My tastes are I think) narrower. I don't really care for GM-driven play even of the "overcome obstacles" variety. It seems that some other posters in this thread enjoy the sort of exposition and exploration that Hussar does not. That's a long way from my tastes, but it's in the nature of tastes to vary! From my point of view, the issues of contention in this thread are not claims about what is desirable (although that's how the thread title frames it), but what is [I]possible[/I]. Eg is it possible to have meaningful RPGing without worldbuilding? What would that look like? If a game does have heavy worldbuilding, what effect will that have on play? (Eg I'm suggesting it means a fair bit of exposition as part of play.) I think those are interesting questions to discuss. [/QUOTE]

Verification