TheRPGSite

This was inspired by some of the comments on the Evil Orcs thread. The issue of world building seems to be behind a lot of the debate there, and I am wondering what people consider deal breakers and deal makers as players in another person's setting. What ruins suspension of disbelief for you? What helps maintain it?

For me the biggest thing is a world that isn't interconnected in any way. Places where you start in one town, and move to another community five miles south and it is as if they don't breath the same air.

Lack of history is another. I don't need the GM to spell out the history for me, but if its clear he just put things on a map and didn't think about how they got there, it kind of irks me.

We have had a few discussion on world building before.

I am a lazy DM usually I just create everything on the fly, but I draw from 30 + years of gaming experience and geekiness so basically its very hard to see the joins.

When I do build a world such as I am doing now as a companion to my Latest fantasy heartbreaker I start bottom up. My degree is in Geography and Anthropology so I have a pretty decent toolset for this.

Start with the geography determine the racial origins map that progression out, then determin languages elements. Use the language elements to build the geographic names. Work out the history impose that ontop of the linguist/cultural forms and then map out the current political and cultural mappings.

The key is to create places that are fun to adventure in so my current world has some barren wilderness to the northwest, then a slew of waring kingdoms that were once a great empire united by a single religion, then a narrow sea scattered with islands and pirates, then a southern continent with city states that are themselves founded on a now disappered 'empire' of an elder race now extinct. then from the East we have the migration of a new human racial group with an active religion that is butting up against the city states.

I currently have no non-humans although I am toying with Lizardmen in a possible marshy area tot eh Southwest of the sothern continent.

(I know everyone hates reading other folks world build notes so I will stop there :) )

The point is that you should be able to feel the history of the place through the cultures and linguistic naming of the places. My northern kingdoms will have similar cothing, customs, festivals some of which will present as fighting styles and weapons (knights effectively) the south will be different more of a patchwork as its more recently populated. Players don't need a history lesson to understand that these 3 kingdoms are similar and share some history that is separate to this city state etc.

Cultural groups need to have motivation. Wars need to have a cause.
I don't want to populate a swathe of land with 'bad monsters you can kill to get stuff' because I want the world to feel old and worn, but you do need places to explore (my northwestern wilderness).

Most importantly the world needs to fit the sort of games you want to play in it. I like political games and city games. I don't like Hexcrawls. the sample games i suggest will be putting the PCs in a Free Company or having them try to build up a small norther kingdom. or living as thieves int eh souther city states etc.

I have a methodical step by step here.

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html

But the simple is answer is that you need to break it down into chunks you can manage. For some that means starting out with a town, wilderness, and a dungeon, for other it means using my steps.

Last do things for a good reason and not just because.

Jeff Rients and his like of gonzo gaming. It may seem nonsensical at first but the difference is that he deliberately likes that style and gear his games around it. And has players that like it as well.

But it is not cut and dry because people are people and interests change. So in the end it boils down to being aware of your players and doing things for a good reason and not just because.

Estar,  are there any setting features or approached to object to as a player?

I don't like really gonzo stuff in my games, unless it's Rifts or Gamma World.

I am also not a fan of the Known World style settings, where a desert sits 20 miles from a tundra and Scandinavian style mountains and fir forests. Especially when all 3 cultures are so completely different from each other.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;478627For me the biggest thing is a world that isn't interconnected in any way. Places where you start in one town, and move to another community five miles south and it is as if they don't breath the same air.

Lack of history is another. I don't need the GM to spell out the history for me, but if its clear he just put things on a map and didn't think about how they got there, it kind of irks me.

I would get behind those two.

Generally, I'm annoyed when I get a feeling that the game world only exists in the PCs' immediate vicinity. A feel that it's a narrative device rather than a 'real' world that exists beyond the PCs' reach.

I like to not know everything about the world. I like to be surprised. I like to have NPCs tell me stories that turn out to be completely wrong or slanted. I like to have a feel of a "used universe" where people do stuff, places aren't pristine all the time, buildings and people have histories of their own you can find out if you want to, that kind of thing.

I hate Schrödinger GMing, that kind of world illusionism made of false choices like if you turn right or left, it doesn't matter, you'll get the encounter with the brigands the GM has prepared for you anyway.

I've played with terrific GMs, some of them my friends, who ended up doing exactly that thinking they were very subtle and we wouldn't notice. I did. I notice this kind of pattern of GMing really, really fast, and it annoys the hell out of me, because there no longer is a point in me playing in the first place.

Quote from: Benoist;478673I hate Schrödinger GMing, that kind of world illusionism made of false choices like if you turn right or left, it doesn't matter, you'll get the encounter with the brigands the GM has prepared for you anyway.

I've played with terrific GMs, some of them my friends, who ended up doing exactly that thinking they were very subtle and we wouldn't notice. I did. I notice this kind of pattern of GMing really, really fast, and it annoys the hell out of me, because there no longer is a point in me playing in the first place.

I agree. These are my two biggest gripes.

On top of these, masses of high level characters piss me off. By the time my character can beat four people in a fight or get a 25 on an average skill check, it kills my emersion in the setting if it doesn't seem impressive.

If every 5th guy can beat up 10 regular guys - how did they get that good and why would anyone else even try?

Quote from: Benoist;478673I hate Schrödinger GMing, that kind of world illusionism made of false choices like if you turn right or left, it doesn't matter, you'll get the encounter with the brigands the GM has prepared for you anyway.

I am not a fan of this either. To me this kind of stuff just makes my choices not matter. I feel like I am passively watching the GM read a story.

Quote from: Benoist;478669I would get behind those two.

Generally, I'm annoyed when I get a feeling that the game world only exists in the PCs' immediate vicinity. A feel that it's a narrative device rather than a 'real' world that exists beyond the PCs' reach.

I like to not know everything about the world. I like to be surprised. I like to have NPCs tell me stories that turn out to be completely wrong or slanted. I like to have a feel of a "used universe" where people do stuff, places aren't pristine all the time, buildings and people have histories of their own you can find out if you want to, that kind of thing.

Totally agree with this. When the party have spent weeks travelling over the Great Nothing to meet the Lord of the Yellow city because the NPC they saved said they would recieve vast wealth if they delivered this scroll, and the yellow city turns out to be a collection of mouldy tents and all their Lord has to offer is a scraggy old donkey and a battered map in a language no one speaks.  You definitely have to make a place feel worn.

I also love foreshadowing. One of my favourite moments as the GM is when the players meet an NPC and from a turn of phrase or a thow away comment they realise that he is someone they heard someone else make a throw away comment about 4 months earlier.

Quote from: Cranewings;478690I agree. These are my two biggest gripes.

On top of these, masses of high level characters piss me off. By the time my character can beat four people in a fight or get a 25 on an average skill check, it kills my emersion in the setting if it doesn't seem impressive.

If every 5th guy can beat up 10 regular guys - how did they get that good and why would anyone else even try?

One of my top D&D gripes is the 'always figjting orcs (evil or otherwise :) ) ' feature.  So wehen you are 1st level the enemies are goblins then orcs then bugbears etc etc so that you always need to roll a ten to hit and you always have to hit them 5 times to kill them even if you are 18th level.

This is key to the game I am working on now. Because I am goign for a swords and sorcery feel. There are no cultural monsters, there are bandits and their are raiders and their are bad arse mother fuckers, but you don't get an army of bad arse motherfuckers they come in pairs at best, you might get a famed bunch of bandits (like a robin hood crew) with a collection of tough nuts. City guards are always 1st level, palace guards might be 3rd the captain might be 4th or more likely he will be a first level guy with a rich uncle.
I find this doesn't work with scaling hit points so I have tweaked how hit points (and in fact all of combat :) ) work so a 6th level warrior can take on 5 guards. He should beat them but if he screws up on tactics and they get lucky 1 hit can cripple him.

Quote from: jibbajibba;478694I also love foreshadowing. One of my favourite moments as the GM is when the players meet an NPC and from a turn of phrase or a thow away comment they realise that he is someone they heard someone else make a throw away comment about 4 months earlier.

Yeah, I love to do this too. :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;478695One of my top D&D gripes is the 'always fighting orcs (evil or otherwise :) ) ' feature.  So when you are 1st level the enemies are goblins then orcs then bugbears etc etc so that you always need to roll a ten to hit and you always have to hit them 5 times to kill them even if you are 18th level.

That kind of stuff sucks the most when a DM wants to stick to whatever he thinks a "fair" encounter is to the PCs. So basically threats scale with the PCs invariably during the course of the campaign, and though it may have its charm in terms of 'scale' and feel of monsters as the PCs rise in power, it more often than not makes the world feel cheap and preordained to fit the PCs neatly, which plays into my dislike of feeling like the world only exists in the PCs' vicinity.

Quote from: Benoist;478699That kind of stuff sucks the most when a DM wants to stick to whatever he thinks a "fair" encounter is to the PCs. So basically threats scale with the PCs invariably during the course of the campaign, and though it may have its charm in terms of 'scale' and feel of monsters as the PCs rise in power, it more often than not makes the world feel cheap and preordained to fit the PCs neatly, which plays into my dislike of feeling like the world only exists in the PCs' vicinity.

Yup. Just as I want 6th level guys in my world to be fighting 6 guards rather than fighting 6th level guards, I also want the PCs to be aware that if a map says 'here be dragons' and they go there when they are 3rd level the dragons won't become ickle baby dragons that are a fair match for them they will be fuck off huge fire breathing horse eating dragons they they should run the fuck away from.

Complete agreement. And when I'm a lowly 3rd level who actually had the balls or insanity to go where the cross says "there be dragons", that I find myself in front of an ancient Wyrm, it might actually be, you know... fun for me to deal with the consequences of my own damn choices. Whether that's fleeing from the Wyrm, attempting to play to its ego so I can survive by being its scout or henchman for the time being, or even die and create a new character.

everything already posted...:hatsoff:

I sum it up as a lack of ambience.
Goes without saying that these are not so much an issue in a gonzo game or "lets go through this module to check it out!" session.

Inconsistant naming of people/places etc. (irks me the most for some reason) given the langauge/culture implied (if any).
Tolkien is a great example of getting it right. With internet sources of info available, it is unforgivable not to have something coherent.
Post Apoc. settings are more forgiving in this regard.

No cultural detail is boring as well. I like to know what sort of food, music and social customs are prevalent in an area.

I like to know some basic info on the season, flora and fauna...ya know all those things I notice in the real world wherever I go...they don't have to be exhaustive but a few details helps breath life into the situation.

"The chatter of a startled troop of 'Robber' Jays greets you as you enter the copse. The scent of Cedar thick upon the mellow airs of evening as the first star of night winks bright. You settle in for camp. Who has first watch?"

Senses invoke feelings and attitudes...they are an integral part of reality.

Some history is nice, a bards tale around a travellers camp is a great way to impart some flavor regarding all of the above and maybe even pick up a few clues regarding an adventure!

Some of this depends on the length/style of the game. For a short module etc. not so much of an issue but in a world that will be used for a lengthy campaign not solely focused on leveling up, cohesiveness/ambiance becomes much more important.

great thread!
:)

Here's an example of me actually doing world-building. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=8875)

I'll discuss it some other time, as it's getting close to bed, and explaining the exact process is more complicated than simply demonstrating it.

Quote from: skofflox;478709"The chatter of a startled troop of 'Robber' Jays greets you as you enter the copse. The scent of Cedar thick upon the mellow airs of evening as the first star of night winks bright.

Personally I'd find that description really hard to follow, coming from a typical DM.  I'd hear "robbers" and prepare to roll init; I'd hear "yellow airs" and think we were under gas attack...  I find that at-table you really need to break description down into very short, single-element sentences if you want players to follow it; don't try to do text that would look good in a book.

I'm not much of a world builder. I'm a fan of the implied setting and things players will just get without any exposition. I find it helps the players be proactive.

I also find that starting off with just loose ideas and then molding the setting around the player character works better for me than starting with fixed ideas on the setting and expecting the players to adapt to it.

The above preferences may in part be due to my overall experience of roleplaying games right from the start has been through shorter games - mini-campaigns which on average span 6 to 9 sessions rather than 6 o 9 years.

That said I am a huge fan of foreshadowing (thank you Stan Lee - everything I know about plotting I learned from you!) and do put some effort in my NPCs. At the end of the day I find individual NPCs much more interesting than history, landmarks and culture.

Quote from: S'mon;478782Personally I'd find that description really hard to follow, coming from a typical DM.  I'd hear "robbers" and prepare to roll init; I'd hear "yellow airs" and think we were under gas attack...  I find that at-table you really need to break description down into very short, single-element sentences if you want players to follow it; don't try to do text that would look good in a book.

:p
Well, the Ranger already identified the type of Jay a while back after some swooped down and stole a bit of food and shiny bauble and if you heard "yellow airs" and thought you were under gas attack I would get a good laugh!
You should pay more attention! :rolleyes:
(My fave Magic system uses "astrological correspondencies" so this sort of info can be important and actualy effect play.)

Many DM's never explore this type of  delivery for whatever reasons.
Once again it depends on the group and the skills of the DM. It is easy to tell what players appreciate by watching their reactions at the table as well as discussing the style of play beforehand.
I would make adjustments in delivery to fit the groups expectations (to a degree, we all should be having fun, yes!) or be more selective.

Games with lackluster delivery that don't engage all my senses are a bit dull IMO and since a good story could come of the sessions I think a bit of descriptive text does wonders to make it complete and engaging. It can lead to cool/funny RP situations as well.
Subtle clues may be contained therein...

I am a bit of a book hound and one of the things I like to do is mine passages from books for words/phrases that I find evocative and use them in play.
I do this with combat and magic descriptions as well.

I reckon I have used this sort of aproach for over 25 years now.
It grew naturaly from enjoying books, hiking and martial arts. I have never had a complaint in this regard and many times out right praise. I find that players seem more engaged with the game world.
It can encourage players to be more descriptive in their delivery as well which some DM's actualy reward. I dont as I expect it as the default.

I agree that it is important to convey the situation quickly and concisely.
:)

Quote from: Soylent Green;478800*snip*
 At the end of the day I find individual NPCs much more interesting than history, landmarks and culture.

:hatsoff:

I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;478973I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

well put Sirrah...:hatsoff:

Quote from: skofflox;479031well put Sirrah...:hatsoff:

Agreed. That's a good post Pundit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;478973I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

Yes, I would agree.

Quote from: RPGPundit;478973I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

Certainly, I agree with you on this.

Quote from: RPGPundit;478973I can handle settings where there is bad geography, unrealistic physics, or crazy history; worlds where the world just ends in a big abyss, or where you have frozen tundra next to arabian desert if the premise is clearly "gonzo" right from the start.  That's not a big deal.

There are two things I have trouble with, however: the first is where you have the author making explicit or implicit claims to "logic" in his world, that is, he tries to present it as NOT gonzo but as a well-thought-out world, when it clearly isn't.

The second, and much more serious issue for me, is a world where the human beings in it don't really act like humans would in the context of the setting.  This is something that appears sometimes in pseudo-historical settings where everyone inexplicably has modern 21st century values and ideas; or even worse in settings that are basically attempts for the author to push a particular ideological concept.  

That's why I don't have a problem with a setting like Mystara, but I have a serious problem with a setting like Aldis (the Blue Rose setting).

RPGPundit

Everyone seems to love it so ... :)

I agree that people need to have a logical and consistent behaviour pattern. I don't think you need to use that as a way to grind your pet hates for liberalism or whatever.
I can build a totally consistent Psuedo-historical world where the general population are atheist marxists or born-again Southern evangelists or tree hugging hippies. The structures of that would would have to make sense and its a psuedo historical world so I would have to state up front that this is not the 'real' historical setting.
Now I would be unlikely to do this mainly cos I don't play histroical games, but in a fantasy game with a Psuedo-historical setting for sure,. In fact I have set up all of these types of places in the past and wouldn't hesitate to do so again.

Quote from: jibbajibba;479102Everyone seems to love it so ... :)

I agree that people need to have a logical and consistent behaviour pattern. I don't think you need to use that as a way to grind your pet hates for liberalism or whatever.
I can build a totally consistent Psuedo-historical world where the general population are atheist marxists or born-again Southern evangelists or tree hugging hippies. The structures of that would would have to make sense and its a psuedo historical world so I would have to state up front that this is not the 'real' historical setting.

Except that most settings that seek to do the former, consistently fail to do the latter.  They present a just-because world where people are all atheist-marxists, or tree-huggers, or born-again Southern Evangelists, or simply accept whatever the ideological bent the writer of the setting is trying to present in his or her quasi-utopia or quasi-dystopia, and there is no actual reason why people would behave so strikingly different from actual human behaviour.

Usually this is because the person is in some way an adherent of an ideology (either the one he is trying to present in the game, or sometimes an opposing ideology) so he simply assumes that "this is how people would behave given the circumstances".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;479268Except that most settings that seek to do the former, consistently fail to do the latter.  They present a just-because world where people are all atheist-marxists, or tree-huggers, or born-again Southern Evangelists, or simply accept whatever the ideological bent the writer of the setting is trying to present in his or her quasi-utopia or quasi-dystopia, and there is no actual reason why people would behave so strikingly different from actual human behaviour.

Usually this is because the person is in some way an adherent of an ideology (either the one he is trying to present in the game, or sometimes an opposing ideology) so he simply assumes that "this is how people would behave given the circumstances".

RPGPundit

Yes, but that point applies far beyond just unpopular viewpoints like Marxism. The romanticisation of medieval society is as much an expression of it as "Lenin of Kalamar".

Quote from: skofflox;478801:p
Well, the Ranger already identified the type of Jay a while back after some swooped down and stole a bit of food and shiny bauble and if you heard "yellow airs" and thought you were under gas attack I would get a good laugh!
You should pay more attention! :rolleyes:
(My fave Magic system uses "astrological correspondencies" so this sort of info can be important and actualy effect play.)

Many DM's never explore this type of  delivery for whatever reasons.
Once again it depends on the group and the skills of the DM. It is easy to tell what players appreciate by watching their reactions at the table as well as discussing the style of play beforehand.
I would make adjustments in delivery to fit the groups expectations (to a degree, we all should be having fun, yes!) or be more selective.

Games with lackluster delivery that don't engage all my senses are a bit dull IMO and since a good story could come of the sessions I think a bit of descriptive text does wonders to make it complete and engaging. It can lead to cool/funny RP situations as well.
Subtle clues may be contained therein...

I am a bit of a book hound and one of the things I like to do is mine passages from books for words/phrases that I find evocative and use them in play.
I do this with combat and magic descriptions as well.

I reckon I have used this sort of aproach for over 25 years now.
It grew naturaly from enjoying books, hiking and martial arts. I have never had a complaint in this regard and many times out right praise. I find that players seem more engaged with the game world.
It can encourage players to be more descriptive in their delivery as well which some DM's actualy reward. I dont as I expect it as the default.

I agree that it is important to convey the situation quickly and concisely.
:)

Yeah, I agree - and I know I personally should use more description at-table.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;479270Yes, but that point applies far beyond just unpopular viewpoints like Marxism...

I guess you don't work in academia, then?  :D

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;479270Yes, but that point applies far beyond just unpopular viewpoints like Marxism. The romanticisation of medieval society is as much an expression of it as "Lenin of Kalamar".

That is true... very true actually. The romantic distortion of any period... the wild west, medieval Europe, the Roman Empire, medieval China, ancient Greece, etc are all expressions of it. I don't mind some of this distorting, IMO it makes these trappings more fun to game with, but otherwise I'm with Pundit. Like beejazz was saying in the evil orcs thread, and in this I agree with him, the game becomes more believable for me most of the time if some effort is made to either conform to what most of us understand about how humans behave, or reasonable justifications are given for why the behavior differs. Blue Rose is a Utopian caricature that completely ignores human nature in favor of a completely unrealistic ideal. I still like the setting, but only modified towards dark fantasy, which it actually is surprisingly well suited to run. I can buy Star Trek's utopian leanings, but for me Blue Rose went just a bit too far with it.

Huh, I wonder how Aldis would play using LotFP? Ditch the magic deer and touchy-feely crap from the Kingdom, make it a "normal" kingdom, and keep the Sorceror King and his society just the way it is. Make the religion more like how I've seen ya'all describe the church in 40k, but at the same time almost all that stands between the undead lords and the helpless common folk... nice. All that would be left is to get wierd with it :) The darker sides of Blue Rose would make some great dark fantasy gaming practically as is.

Quote from: S'mon;479276Yeah, I agree - and I know I personally should use more description at-table.

Me too brother. I am still learning as GM, and I know I could definitely practice more of this as well. I also know that too much get's silly , luckily I've had some great GMs run games for me over the years, even here on our pbp forum, and that has provided me some great examples to aspire to and learn from. Benny's pretty great at it in fact.

Quote from: Sigmund;479305That is true... very true actually. The romantic distortion of any period... the wild west, medieval Europe, the Roman Empire, medieval China, ancient Greece, etc are all expressions of it. I don't mind some of this distorting, IMO it makes these trappings more fun to game with, but otherwise I'm with Pundit. Like beejazz was saying in the evil orcs thread, and in this I agree with him, the game becomes more believable for me most of the time if some effort is made to either conform to what most of us understand about how humans behave, or reasonable justifications are given for why the behavior differs. Blue Rose is a Utopian caricature that completely ignores human nature in favor of a completely unrealistic ideal. I still like the setting, but only modified towards dark fantasy, which it actually is surprisingly well suited to run. I can buy Star Trek's utopian leanings, but for me Blue Rose went just a bit too far with it.

Huh, I wonder how Aldis would play using LotFP? Ditch the magic deer and touchy-feely crap from the Kingdom, make it a "normal" kingdom, and keep the Sorceror King and his society just the way it is. Make the religion more like how I've seen ya'all describe the church in 40k, but at the same time almost all that stands between the undead lords and the helpless common folk... nice. All that would be left is to get wierd with it :) The darker sides of Blue Rose would make some great dark fantasy gaming practically as is.

Keep the deer. Make it stern and unbending, willing to kill any "noble" it sees as transgressing its divine law. Make it choose nobles not just from humans, but from the animals as well, declaring them sacred beasts that frightened humans must placate.

Quote from: Sigmund;479305That is true... very true actually. The romantic distortion of any period... the wild west, medieval Europe, the Roman Empire, medieval China, ancient Greece, etc are all expressions of it. I don't mind some of this distorting, IMO it makes these trappings more fun to game with, but otherwise I'm with Pundit. Like beejazz was saying in the evil orcs thread, and in this I agree with him, the game becomes more believable for me most of the time if some effort is made to either conform to what most of us understand about how humans behave, or reasonable justifications are given for why the behavior differs.

The real meaning of "ideology" should help mediate that, IMHO. "Ideology" is not actually a stand-in for "philosophy" or "worldview" or "belief system" but specifically describes that part of a worldview that is value-laden and ideal but that its adherents treat as being factual or real. Understanding characters in fantasy settings as unconscious adherents of a worldview that ideological components allows one to maintain a dual consciousness of both the factual content of the world and how the PCs perceive and interact with it.

In game, this means that the only times I correct PC statements about the world - even if they are totally false - is if it is an obvious lapse in memory, or a misinterpretation based on a failure to hear or process some obvious, relevant piece of information. I've said before that I don't really care about the alignments of things, but I don't tell the PCs that, so they'll say things like
"They're a bunch of cannibal toadmen, of course they're evil as shit" and I just shrug my shoulders and list off that yes, the Bleeding Finger People are toadmen, and they do eat humans who wander into their territory.

Quote from: Benoist;478669I would get behind those two.

Generally, I'm annoyed when I get a feeling that the game world only exists in the PCs' immediate vicinity. A feel that it's a narrative device rather than a 'real' world that exists beyond the PCs' reach.

I like to not know everything about the world. I like to be surprised. I like to have NPCs tell me stories that turn out to be completely wrong or slanted. I like to have a feel of a "used universe" where people do stuff, places aren't pristine all the time, buildings and people have histories of their own you can find out if you want to, that kind of thing.

I find that a good GM can get away with a lot of on-the-fly stuff with new or newer PCs...But you;ve done this for a while, Ben.

Something rarely mentioned is that advanced or expert player, especially expert roleplayers, need a GM adept at not only running a game, but they need a deeper and more realized setting.  
All players are not created equal.  When running a quick one of a beer-and pretzels, I can create a lot on the fly.  When running a game with good players, I only use my main, well developed settings.

I'm typing on a cell right now. Got my perspective on that but I need a real keyboard to get into it. Will come back to your point Norm.

Quote from: LordVreeg;479363I find that a good GM can get away with a lot of on-the-fly stuff with new or newer PCs...But you;ve done this for a while, Ben.

Something rarely mentioned is that advanced or expert player, especially expert roleplayers, need a GM adept at not only running a game, but they need a deeper and more realized setting.  
All players are not created equal.  When running a quick one of a beer-and pretzels, I can create a lot on the fly.  When running a game with good players, I only use my main, well developed settings.

There's another dimension to this I alluded to somewhere else, but I can't find the original post. Anyway, I think there's a point when you describe your setting, addind elements and NPCs and drawing maps and sketches and all, after which the setting basically takes a life of its own in your imagination.

Ever notice how Tolkien describes Middle-earth as a real place, or when he talks about some point of lore talking about, not "I didn't design that" but "I haven't found out that this means yet", like the truth isn't dependant on him, but exists "out there" for him to find out like he is a visitor, not a demiurge. Or Monte Cook describing Ptolus as a place he just "knows" intimately as if he'd lived there in his introduction of the book? Same thing.

For some people, that'll come down really far down the rabbit hole, and they'll have to have an encyclopedic description of the world before that happens. Others will see that happen very early own, possibly with just a few broad strokes put down on paper. I guess there might be different types of settings that work differently for the very same people as well.

The point is, there's that critical tipping point when the setting exists in your imagination beyond the page's boundaries. Call it the "motion" point if you will where it starts "spinning on its own" if you will.

From there, in the game, when the PCs get off the trails and do something unexpected, you don't even need to actively "improvise" in the strictest sense of the term. You just "see" what's going on. It comes to you almost instinctively, as if you were seeing the PCs turn off the trail and through the bushes and you just see that there are three hills there. You GM didn't know that before, but they seemed to be there all along.

That's a point where improvisation and preparation, what's written on the page and what isn't, sort of blend into each other. It's cool.

Quote from: Benoist;479564There's another dimension to this I alluded to somewhere else, but I can't find the original post. Anyway, I think there's a point when you describe your setting, addind elements and NPCs and drawing maps and sketches and all, after which the setting basically takes a life of its own in your imagination.

Ever notice how Tolkien describes Middle-earth as a real place, or when he talks about some point of lore talking about, not "I didn't design that" but "I haven't found out that this means yet", like the truth isn't dependant on him, but exists "out there" for him to find out like he is a visitor, not a demiurge. Or Monte Cook describing Ptolus as a place he just "knows" intimately as if he'd lived there in his introduction of the book? Same thing.

For some people, that'll come down really far down the rabbit hole, and they'll have to have an encyclopedic description of the world before that happens. Others will see that happen very early own, possibly with just a few broad strokes put down on paper. I guess there might be different types of settings that work differently for the very same people as well.

The point is, there's that critical tipping point when the setting exists in your imagination beyond the page's boundaries. Call it the "motion" point if you will where it starts "spinning on its own" if you will.

From there, in the game, when the PCs get off the trails and do something unexpected, you don't even need to actively "improvise" in the strictest sense of the term. You just "see" what's going on. It comes to you almost instinctively, as if you were seeing the PCs turn off the trail and through the bushes and you just see that there are three hills there. You GM didn't know that before, but they seemed to be there all along.

That's a point where improvisation and preparation, what's written on the page and what isn't, sort of blend into each other. It's cool.

Well, to get more technical...

the more data and information you place and the deeper you go with the setting, the more you are using that data, consiously or subconsiously, to build on top of.

Like if the culture is a certain way in an area, or if you have some far-ranging guilds that you and the players might see in an area, even the weather patterns.

I remember rolling a bulette on an outdoor encounter for the group.  Followed by a wizard later the same day.  So the wizard, for no particular reason, was insane and chasing the bulette, which he called Bill.
The group was actually going to a place called the herb lands (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955636/Herb%20Lands), looking for a certain Druid-type, who was actually out to double cross them.  The Druid was an ex-member of an older adventuring group that had broken up, but that had a serious hate for that particular group.

So the group got a little interested in the weird old wizard.  And then, out of complete bullshit luck a few games later, I roll up another (1% chance, mind you) bulette in the same area.  So of course, I have to make it Bill again, followed by the mad wizard.  It only makes sense.    So now, I change my Wanderer charts near the Tiche Plains and Igtiche (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955659/Igtiche), to add Bill the Bulette and the Mad Mage.  Since they are obviously around there, and becasue the players got a real kick out of them.

The group decides to talk to the mage some more, and he gets a little testy, since he is falling behind Bill.  But they offer him food, and his IS hungry.  But then they start questioning him about the Druid.  
And I get one of those brainstorms.
The Mad Mage was obviously, based on his age and power level, another member of that same old adventuring group that the Druid was in.  So I can now drop in all sorts of hints and fortshadowing about him, including hints to the druid's real name, which a few players know as a historical member of that old group.

So having stuff in place makes it easier, in my book, to hit that point where things start making logical interconnections...which make it look much more deep and 'in Motion' to the players.  Which is, as you said, cool.  Great to experience and to play.

I ad lib nearly everything, but I do it in a kind of an odd way.

Because I have GMed a lot of City games and from there gone on to Gm a lot of Modern day stuff and cyberpunk maps are pretty useless. Nothing spoils a chase through the backstreets quite as much as the GM breaking the mood every 3 minutes to check the map I really moved up a level from the map when plannign the game. When I started GMing Amber in the early 90s you really have to move up another level.

So I adlib at the macro-level while the players are rolling their PCs I am thinking about the backstory They wanted a game with some courtly intrigue but there was a feeling that a there should be a black /white good evil thing going on as well.So I ad-lib a kingdom with 3 brothers and the 2 younger are plotting but 1 is just ruthless whilst the other has opened a portal to a Greater Evil. The game will start in a second city where the youngest bother is very popular so the PCs will get very +ve reports but infact its the king the elder brother who is the real good guy thought the locals will have nothing but venom. One of the PCs is a wizard so I will add 2 wizardly brotherhoods that he can aspire to join. In reality both brotherhoods are good but a third are linked the as yet undecided big bad and recruit from those that fail to enter the other two. Oh and I want to set up some recuring opposition but I don't want them to be deadly so I decide that the King has a 'police force' the Royal Rangers.

So I ad lib all that stuff just like I did there in 10 minutes, while the PCs are rolling hit points or picking what colour of armour to wear, and the world kind of builds itself. Now it doesn't work for Dungeon crawls,  I have tried it and I am not satisfied, the reason is really because of the element that Ben points out where the players end up int eh same place whatever they do,  but it works for everything else and I challenge any player with any degree of experience to spot the joins. You just drop links and foreshadows to the big story. it doesn't actually matter if the big story hasn't really taken shape yet. The hints you drop become the plot and the players can help that process because you want them to uncover the PLOT so let them feed you.

Recently, one of our GM's ran Forgotten Realms.

Using Palladium Fantasy.

Anyways, all that's fine, but then he's like:

"In Daggerdale, the knights ride Chocobos."

Crickets, right?

I said hell with it.  I'll ride a giant chicken/ostrich...and it won't be the first time!!  Anyone remember Joust?


All that said, I think if they ever wanted to include Wraethu in the milieu I might have to say something about it exceeding my comfort zone.

Quote from: jibbajibba;479651the reason is really because of the element that Ben points out where the players end up int eh same place whatever they do,  but it works for everything else and I challenge any player with any degree of experience to spot the joins. You just drop links and foreshadows to the big story. it doesn't actually matter if the big story hasn't really taken shape yet. The hints you drop become the plot and the players can help that process because you want them to uncover the PLOT so let them feed you.

Schrödinger GMing, you mean, where whether you turn left or right you get the encounter with the brigands the GM prepared? I notice. And I don't like that. My choices do not matter, I am subjected to the same "plot" no matter what I do, so in the end, I might as well not subject myself to this long-dragging "storytelling" exercise and enjoy a good book or watch a movie instead.

Especially since its just lazy.  Its a simple enough solution to have two potential things "On offer", or a series of them.

RPGpundit

Quote from: Benoist;479743Schrödinger GMing, you mean, where whether you turn left or right you get the encounter with the brigands the GM prepared? I notice. And I don't like that. My choices do not matter, I am subjected to the same "plot" no matter what I do, so in the end, I might as well not subject myself to this long-dragging "storytelling" exercise and enjoy a good book or watch a movie instead.

This really gets to me as well. If a GM is going to do this kind of stuff at least let my choices have some impact on the railroad.

Quote from: Benoist;479743Schrödinger GMing, you mean, where whether you turn left or right you get the encounter with the brigands the GM prepared? I notice. And I don't like that. My choices do not matter, I am subjected to the same "plot" no matter what I do, so in the end, I might as well not subject myself to this long-dragging "storytelling" exercise and enjoy a good book or watch a movie instead.

You got to read the post mate. I said it doesn't work for dungeons. The day to day adventure you get has nothing to do with that plot I noted. The plot stuff is the background the stuff that makes the world 3d.

You do not hit the party with that brigand thing because you provide 2 options each time they make a decision and you reject the one they ignore. Its not hard you just have to have done this shit for years and we ahve all done that :)

So the PCs arrive at city you hit them with 3 hooks, a guy wants to hire a bunch of folks to guard his store after a series of attacks, a merchant is offering a reward for anyone that can recover a chest he lost in a caravan train to the SW and a local politician is looking to end some theives that are blackmailing him. Alternatively they can do whatever they want and then you come up with 2 or three other things that can happen. You file the other stuff away as the hints they got about it will be interesting as foreshadowing later. (when they join the thieves' guild and find out that someone is hunting and killing local thieves, or when a local politician is kicked out of power for dabbling in the black arts, or when they meet a local gang that are robbing local stores). The options are literally endless.

All that Plot or "long-dragging stroytelling" shit that you refer to is in the background. It is what makes a world feel real. I do the same thing when i actually build a world. Surely all GMs populate their worlds with actual events and NPCs and plots ? I just make em up on the fly. Now you might never have anything to do with any of it, hell you might sign on to a caravan train heading down to the Old City of Hass via the jungles and have a totally different adventure, that is fine, I will make up some more stuff and when you get back that king you heard about will be dead and his brother will be in charge. Or maybe you never come back and instead you marry a vampire queen and get to be king of some desert tribe. The world will feel all the more real for that because the world is in motion and the plots of this king or that brotherhood of wizards will proceed even if you have nothing to do with them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;479980You got to read the post mate. I said it doesn't work for dungeons.

And you're assuming too much, my friend. I've seen this happen with all sorts of games and settings, most of them not featuring dungeons. The dear friends I was talking about who thought they were Oh-so-smart doing this? That was going on with Vampire the Masquerade.

I notice Schrödinger GMing. And I don't like it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;479980All that Plot or "long-dragging stroytelling" shit that you refer to is in the background.

Not really, no. You seem to be presenting an artificial choice between "storytelling" or "no background at all" which just isn't the case. I have literally hundreds of pages of notes and diagrams and maps from my 20-year-old Paris by Night campaign. I don't run "stories". I have a damn lot of background and the setting very much exists outside the boundaries of the pages and game table, however.

Quote from: Benoist;479981And you're assuming too much, my friend. I've seen this happen with all sorts of games and settings, most of them not featuring dungeons. The dear friends I was talking about who thought they were Oh-so-smart doing this? That was going on with Vampire the Masquerade.

I notice Schrödinger GMing. And I don't like it.

whatever ;)

Is it strange that I've a map in my head of where things occur, and if PC's avoid certain areas they miss it?

  I do have some events that "float" simply due to their nature. A pack of trolls hunting the characters, a bandit camp along the road which has a reasonable chance of striking anywhere along the track between two towns. Those can be anywhere along the paths PC's may take. If they decide to say take the river, it might be missed of course but traveling along certain paths do have things which are likely to happen.

Quote from: Benoist;479743Schrödinger GMing, you mean, where whether you turn left or right you get the encounter with the brigands the GM prepared? I notice.

I think y'all are talking about two slightly different things: Benoist is talking about illusionism (where no matter which box you choose, it has the same shit in it). Jibbajabba is talking about improv design (where the GM doesn't know what's in a box until you choose it because he hasn't made it up yet).

The latter may still tweak Benoist's buttons, but it's a distinct technique and I think the distinction is important. The illusionist is presenting a false choice; the improviser is offering a real choice without fully knowing the outcome themselves.

The place where I, personally, rebel against the improv technique is when it either crosses over into either (a) the world being rewritten or (b) my exploration of that would being functionally meaningless.

A key example is the technique I see bandied around every so often where the GM running a mystery scenario is supposed to listen to the table chatter until the players come up with something "nifty" or "interesting" as a potential solution and then make that the solution.

Speaking as a player: No. Fuck you. I want to actually solve the mystery, not jack off for a few hours.

But it doesn't sound like that's what jibbajabba is doing. It sounds like he's rapidly improvising a bunch of material with a rough understanding of what that material is like (good brother vs. bad brother, good wizarding guilds vs. bad wizarding guild, etc.) and then letting the players making meaningful choices between those options while filling in more details as they go.

Or, to put it a different way: I have no problem the GM improvising details of the game world if that improv work could have just as easily been down as actual prep work.

To put it a third way: I want the game world to be a place I'm actually exploring; not a piece of Play-Doh that rearranges itself to dramatic convenience.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;480056I think y'all are talking about two slightly different things: Benoist is talking about illusionism (where no matter which box you choose, it has the same shit in it). Jibbajabba is talking about improv design (where the GM doesn't know what's in a box until you choose it because he hasn't made it up yet).

The latter may still tweak Benoist's buttons, but it's a distinct technique and I think the distinction is important. The illusionist is presenting a false choice; the improviser is offering a real choice without fully knowing the outcome themselves.

The place where I, personally, rebel against the improv technique is when it either crosses over into either (a) the world being rewritten or (b) my exploration of that would being functionally meaningless.

A key example is the technique I see bandied around every so often where the GM running a mystery scenario is supposed to listen to the table chatter until the players come up with something "nifty" or "interesting" as a potential solution and then make that the solution.

Speaking as a player: No. Fuck you. I want to actually solve the mystery, not jack off for a few hours.

But it doesn't sound like that's what jibbajabba is doing. It sounds like he's rapidly improvising a bunch of material with a rough understanding of what that material is like (good brother vs. bad brother, good wizarding guilds vs. bad wizarding guild, etc.) and then letting the players making meaningful choices between those options while filling in more details as they go.

Or, to put it a different way: I have no problem the GM improvising details of the game world if that improv work could have just as easily been down as actual prep work.

To put it a third way: I want the game world to be a place I'm actually exploring; not a piece of Play-Doh that rearranges itself to dramatic convenience.

Aye, but he won't listen :)
Unless your game world fills 3 exercise books 200 index cards and 4GB of maps on your PC Ben will notice and be pissed by it ;)

Now one caveat, if the PCs throw up an idea I might use it to foreshadow a greater event. By which I mean I would never let let throw up an idea that solves their current scenario but I might use an idea they throw up to solve an underlying plot thread they won't uncover for 3 or 4 scenarios.
I'll give you an example. I ran a game called Mud. It was improved because the guys wanted to play some D&D after a long WoD game. I had just seen some historical film where it was always raining it might heva been the begining of Kingdom of Heaven or it might have been Name of the Rose, It might even have been a Japanese movie, doesn't matter. I wanted a world where it rained and the PCs arrive in a small town that is under the yoke of oppression. They can join in they can do a Few Dollars More or they can free the locals I was easy about it.  They had some adventures they lost a few PCs and eventually hit a groove. Early on I had thrown in some Herne the Hunter celtic religious stuff. One of the PCs had mentioned something about The Wild Hunt. 3 months later as they were being chased across the world of faerie by The Wild Hunt with the ground itself growing arms and grasping after them (they were rescuing an elven PC that had died ...) the player who had raised them 3 months and a dozen sessions earlier was cursing his foresight.
We ran that Improved game for a year  by the way as the PCs rose to 6th level and became champions of Herne travelling the multiverse.

I'll go with a firm "it depends!". I went through a "player choice is everything" GM phase, the approach has it's merits but as with all things you can take it too far.

Take this example. The GM expects the party will going from town A to town B. He places a bandit encounter on the road. Maybe it serves to foreshadow future events, maybe it's there to remind the players how lawless the realm is, maybe it's there just to allow the players to kick a bit of ass.

The players decide to go by river. One school of GMing will say "Awesome, the clever players avoided a danger!", Another school of GMing will say "What's the fun in avoiding danger. People round the table didn't drive an hour just avoid stuff." then promptly rename the bandits to river pirates and move the encounter to the river.

I think the crucial question is "why did the characters choose to go by boat in the first place?". If it was indeed a tactical choice, the player character's information or intuition made him think going by boat would be safer then moving the encounter from the road to the river would be a crime against roleplaying.  I would however try and ensure that once the player characters got to town B, they would somehow learn that there were bandits on the road, perhaps from other travellers, so they can bask in the glory of knowing they made the smart choice otherwise what's the point?  

If the players chose to go by boat because one of the players wanted to show off his boating skills, moving the encounter to the river might be a really good idea. A fight scene on the river is a perfect chance for that player to really show off his seldom used boating skills and no one should have to miss out on fun game content just because a few hours ago the GM wrote "bandits on road" rather than "pirates on river" in his notebook.

My point being good GMing relies on understanding what your players what and what matters to them and then adapting your style of GMing accordingly.

Quote from: Soylent Green;480090I'll go with a firm "it depends!". I went through a "player choice is everything" GM phase, the approach has it's merits but as with all things you can take it too far.

Take this example. The GM expects the party will going from town A to town B. He places a bandit encounter on the road. Maybe it serves to foreshadow future events, maybe it's there to remind the players how lawless the realm is, maybe it's there just to allow the players to kick a bit of ass.

The players decide to go by river. One school of GMing will say "Awesome, the clever players avoided a danger!", Another school of GMing will say "What's the fun in avoiding danger. People round the table didn't drive an hour just avoid stuff." then promptly rename the bandits to river pirates and move the encounter to the river.

I think the crucial question is "why did the characters choose to go by boat in the first place?". If it was indeed a tactical choice, the player character's information or intuition made him think going by boat would be safer then moving the encounter from the road to the river would be a crime against roleplaying.  I would however try and ensure that once the player characters got to town B, they would somehow learn that there were bandits on the road, perhaps from other travellers, so they can bask in the glory of knowing they made the smart choice otherwise what's the point?  

If the players chose to go by boat because one of the players wanted to show off his boating skills, moving the encounter to the river might be a really good idea. A fight scene on the river is a perfect chance for that player to really show off his seldom used boating skills and no one should have to miss out on fun game content just because a few hours ago the GM wrote "bandits on road" rather than "pirates on river" in his notebook.

My point being good GMing relies on understanding what your players what and what matters to them and then adapting your style of GMing accordingly.

For me the bandits don't move the fact that I just made up the Maudlin Brotherhood and decided their leader, Spence, was once a courtier of the king with a perchant for playing the lute whist listenign to the screams of his victims on the Rack is irrelevant. Not he River has other threats as the Nymph Adume lives in the reeds of the Great Meander. I might bring Spence and the brotherhood back sometime.

Quote from: Soylent Green;480090I think the crucial question is "why did the characters choose to go by boat in the first place?". If it was indeed a tactical choice, the player character's information or intuition made him think going by boat would be safer then moving the encounter from the road to the river would be a crime against roleplaying.  I would however try and ensure that once the player characters got to town B, they would somehow learn that there were bandits on the road, perhaps from other travellers, so they can bask in the glory of knowing they made the smart choice otherwise what's the point?  

That's good GMing, yup. There's nothing wrong per se with a floating encounter that is not location-specific, but it has to 'fit' - if you force it on the players then it is railroading, and bad.

Quote

Quote from: Soylent Green;480090I'll go with a firm "it depends!". I went through a "player choice is everything" GM phase, the approach has it's merits but as with all things you can take it too far.
*snip*
My point being good GMing relies on understanding what your players what and what matters to them and then adapting your style of GMing accordingly.

Nicely put here.

I would add that this should go both ways...the players should strive to understand the DM's goals/wants and facilitate as well.
This is best hashed out when the group is formed to avoid frustration later on.
RPG 101 as we all know here...:)

I'm into Situational GMing. Clash, talks about it here (http://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/09/situational-gming.html).

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jibbajibba;480082Aye, but he won't listen :)

Actually, maybe it's you who have piss poor way of explaining what you do. When I asked you whether you were talking about Schrödinger GMing you could have told me "No Ben, that is not what I'm talking about. I am not doing the 'false choice' thing at my table." Instead you seemed to imply you did, but that I wouldn't notice.

I actually agree with Justin's distinctions.

Quote from: David R;480114I'm into Situational GMing. Clash, talks about it here (http://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/09/situational-gming.html).

Regards,
David R

This is pretty much how I run most games ( at least modern and urban games------oldschool fantasy I run a bit differently). I've usually called this Character/Event Driven adventures, but it seems to be what Clash describes.

Quote from: Benoist;480153Actually, maybe it's you who have piss poor way of explaining what you do. When I asked you whether you were talking about Schrödinger GMing you could have told me "No Ben, that is not what I'm talking about. I am not doing the 'false choice' thing at my table." Instead you seemed to imply you did, but that I wouldn't notice.

I actually agree with Justin's distinctions.

Sorry mate I sometimes forget English isn't your first language :D (kidding, kidding)

I almost wrote an entre essay giving clear and precise details of what I did maybe I need to use more annotated diagrams going forward.

Also I got the slightest hint in your scathing critique that you were accusing me of Storygaming .........

Quote from: Soylent Green;480090I'll go with a firm "it depends!". I went through a "player choice is everything" GM phase, the approach has it's merits but as with all things you can take it too far.

(...)

My point being good GMing relies on understanding what your players want and what matters to them and then adapting your style of GMing accordingly.

I actually completely agree with this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;480163Sorry mate I sometimes forget English isn't your first language :D (kidding, kidding)

You douchebag. :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;480163I almost wrote an entre essay giving clear and precise details of what I did maybe I need to use more annotated diagrams going forward.

Also I got the slightest hint in your scathing critique that you were accusing me of Storygaming .........

Would that be really useful to go into that storygaming vs. storytelling thing again? I don't think so.

If you mean to say that I was implying that the "false choices" illusionism (what I call Schrödinger GMing here) often goes hand-in-hand with the preparation of a strict narrative structure on the GM's part prior to the game that he feels is "the adventure to play", and therefore "telling stories", yes, that's what I was implying.