or would probably be better qualified to write this post, but I wrote it anyway.
17 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 41 previous comments
- in hindsight, "the world" or better yet, "_the group's_ world" would've been a better choice of words for me, yeah.
Words are fucking hard, I guess I'm going for that the inclusion of player-introduced setting dressing and interesting shit in general can be prompted (either directly or covertly through NPC dialogue and whatnot) instead of just being picked up when it shows, but forgot to specify it as something that is primarily dressing or background and not gamey bits. I prefer the player answers to be voiced diegetically (and unreliably, subject to GM veto, in case the players suggest stupid shit).
Starting to feel like a broken record here, maybe we should drop this tangent or take it elsewhere?8w
- Yea totally, keep in mind that these are all just vague feelings I have rather than anything I truly know.
For instance, the Barbarian player in my game has concocted a whole tribe up in the Frozen North, and I'm totally fine with that.
Am I fine with it because it fits my conception of the frozen north?
Or because it's far enough away from the main campaign map that it doesn't impinge upon "my" world?
Or because it's a character background thing?
I don't truly know, and I suspect it's a mix of all of those things.8w
- Oh and I'm fine with player input on set-dressing as long as it's in that sort of investigating-and-expanding-the-imaginary-space way that happens in game bereft of Perception checks.
"We're in a forest, I'm going to find a big branch"
"We're in a market, are there orphans around? Like pickpocketing ones?"
"We're in a dungeon, are there torch sconces? How much weight could one take?"
All questions that a character would know or ask, rather than authorial declarations. Even if these questions could potentially make a chandelier "appear" in the throne room that otherwise might never have been there.
As ever, I break these "rules" occasionally and without much thought.8w
- Now that I think about it, the core seems to be that I want to ask the players what they'd want to see in the game as an audience instead of as actors (and maybe this would need definitions for game narratives to make better sense) and actively baiting for that input instead of just seizing the opportunity when it shows.
I don't think it's that important to think what makes things to make the cut, things that just fit get included regardless of the underlying criteria.
simultaneous post edit : those effects are immediate, not the "what does Zargothrax (and how about Bob, for a second opinion) believe to be behind that mountain range?" which has a more distant payoff that allows for that "GM as illusionist"-type "called it!" gratification.
Authorial stance from the players tends to sound off (but not inherently wrong in all cases), yeah — diegetic character voice is preferable, but not entirely necessary.
further edit: taking it outside (https://plus.google.com/112329542179415783034/posts/2AKEkik1BFo) 8w
- I see what you mean, basically you're doing the classic "listen to player speculation" technique but actively asking for it directly.
It's a good idea, especially if you don't know what's over the hill yourself.8w
- Great advice! Usually the question I ask myself when I need to make a ruling is "Does this give me/the players and unfair advantage?" But this is strictly a gamist way of looking at rulings.7w