Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6101396" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the case at hand, the goal is something along the lines of &quot;Explore City B to find/learn about X&quot; (Hussar himself can't remember the details).More generally, I'm not quite sure what you (and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]) are trying to establish. If it's that there can sometimes, in some games with some groups, be reason for the GM to run the desert scene, then I don't think that's in dispute. I even described an example where I thnk that would be so. And Hussar gave an example or two upthread of groups for which it would be good to run the scene.But what I'm trying to show is that there is a viable way of RPGing where it is bad GMing to try and run the desert scene.Here's a quote from <a href="http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">Eero Tuovinen </a>that seems on-point:One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications.Hussar's complaint, as I understand it, is along the lines that the GM in this particular case has not framed a scene according to dramatic needs, which is to say has failed to go where the action is, and has thereby failed to provoke a thematic moment by introducing the complication of the desert.Is that the only standard by which GMing can be judged? Of course not. Someone who loves world exploration would judge GMing by the skill with which the GM preserves the integrity of the gameworld and shows that off in play.But I think it is one reasonable standard by which someone can judge GMing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6101396, member: 42582"] In the case at hand, the goal is something along the lines of "Explore City B to find/learn about X" (Hussar himself can't remember the details). More generally, I'm not quite sure what you (and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]) are trying to establish. If it's that there can sometimes, in some games with some groups, be reason for the GM to run the desert scene, then I don't think that's in dispute. I even described an example where I thnk that would be so. And Hussar gave an example or two upthread of groups for which it would be good to run the scene. But what I'm trying to show is that there is a viable way of RPGing where it is bad GMing to try and run the desert scene. Here's a quote from [url=http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/]Eero Tuovinen [/url]that seems on-point: [indent]One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications.[/indent] Hussar's complaint, as I understand it, is along the lines that the GM in this particular case has not framed a scene according to dramatic needs, which is to say has failed to go where the action is, and has thereby failed to provoke a thematic moment by introducing the complication of the desert. Is that the only standard by which GMing can be judged? Of course not. Someone who loves world exploration would judge GMing by the skill with which the GM preserves the integrity of the gameworld and shows that off in play. But I think it is one reasonable standard by which someone can judge GMing. [/QUOTE]

Verification