It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
but you get to trot it out as an example of how awesome prep is only because it worked out that time.
If you're dancing physics, you're dancing contact. If you're dancing chemistry, you're doing something else.
if you have to believe in something for it to be true, I am skeptical of its value
I think throwing my plot hook NPC wherever the PCs go next is pretty invisible, though. So, if it isn't violating our social contract, I don't see where the problem would be.
You're right, Jonathan, but when there's an interesting and fruitful discussion about the nuances and variation of prep idioms, it's frustrating when someone with a completely opposite goal — improv idiom — enters the fray and argues completely through that lens.This discussion also made me recognize something in an off-forum discussion I've been having over mail with one of my best friends. She's running a game in the "Stories are interesting" overlap part of GDNS official, canonical theory and instead of helping her, I hindered her by just criticizing those corners (in favor of sandbox play) instead of looking at the strengths of those corners and how to do them better.I was doing to her what I perceived Airk to be doing to me, but from the other direction. We're not so different, after all, we humans.♥
but the bullywug scene was the first scene [...] where it's even possible for your choices regarding it to matter.
WM, throwing the other play styles (sometimes more than) a couple of bones is a hallmark for Rails play and the way you describe it, it seems like that's what you're doing. Classic, functional, 90:s style, Rails play. Congrats, I never got it working, and then I found something that was more my thing.Dialects is a good addition to the theory, sure.
the primary reason I can think of that a GM would do any of this stuff is because it makes them more comfortable.
That's when the card was turned face up. That's not when the bets were placed. You don't select your card after seeing the opponents bet. That invalidates their choice.
What I really meant to say was that, if some GM is damaging their own fun sense of the gameworld as a solid entity, then hopefully they'd catch that and stop. Cuz they might not! We're all susceptible to bad habits.
Uh, yes, that was my point. The Bullywug scene was when the cards were flipped. But up until that point, you were still free to adjust your bet. :P
How would the players adjust their bet? The players have already expended resources and risk in order to get the mirror on their cart. They can't get that back.
They've expended turns and noise.
And, they've declined an opportunity to look at something that could've been valuable info for them.
Do [turns and noise] actually have a cost?
I think this is very much pushing the idea of "expending" anything, because they haven't declined, they have postponed.
And it's obviously not player choice; who would chose a random a TPK?
I agree, though I've always found that sitting down and creating stuff and writing it down destroys my sense of the game world as a solid entity, because I am creating stuff right then. Like, literally, sitting down and writing "The town Frogmort has a population of 1200 people...." has just demonstrated to me that Frogmort is not real, because I just made up something about it and wrote it down. =/