Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6099485" data-attributes="member: 42582">As I noted upthread in relation to "Big Bads" and "MacGuffins", it seems to me that you may be making certain assumptions about RPG play which are not universally shared. In particular, you seem to be maknig assumptions about the role of GM force in shapign the plot. Here you seem to make the same assumption, in assuming that there is some sort of "adventuer arc" to which the GM is privy and which is in some sense outside the knowledge of and control of the players.That is a contentious assumption. I'm not sure what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] thinks of it, but I personally prefer a game that is more player driven and less GM driven than you seem to be envisaging.You may well. But that is an issue of compromise which is completely orthongal to this discussion. I don't see anyone saying that compromise isn't a virtue in RPGing.But you seem to be saying that the need for compromise entails that the game should be driven by near-unrestricted GM force. I know of no evidence in favour of this claim, though, and it is arguably verging on self-contradiction (because it posits a GM who never has to compromise).Maybe the GM had other strengths. Maybe the GM was having an off day. Who knows? I've made mistakes as a GM, and I'm glad my players have tolerated them rather than quitting because of them.But the fact that the players didn't quit doesn't show that I didn't make mistakes. It just shows that I have tolerant players. I don't really see how this relates to my example, which was of reading a different story before finishing the current one.But if you're asking "Do I enjoy exposition-heavy fiction?" my answer is "Not typically, unless the writing is really pretty good." For instance, when I read Dickens it is to a significant sense in spite of the exposition rather than because of it.The last novel I (re-)read was "The Quiet American". The only travel that gets discussed at any length in that book is the trip along the road where Fowler and Pyle are trapped together - and that for good reason. It is not exposition for exposition's sake.That said, there are issues with the "chapter" analysis which go back to the role of GM force. If one prefers (as I do) that the players be co-authors of the plot in an RPG, then there is no pre-determined sequence of chapters. So there are no chapters to skip. The question, rather, is "What chapters are worth (collectively) authoring?"Well, I'm a big fan of Graham Greene and regard him as a preeminent existentialist author. Obviously others' opinions may differ.I don't understand how this relates to the BW example scenario "The Sword", which does not have any randomly generated personalities. The PCs presented for play have been written for very clear and obvious purposes.</blockquote>

Verification