Last article, we looked at a model of a shared roleplaying world. I talked about each of the seven groups I had playing campaigns that affected that shared, or 'living' world and examined the way I had chosen to weave the groups into each other.
This is an example of a living world. Which is the model presented above. A game world that is affected by several play groups and the knock-on effect of actions in one game, change those in others.
Sometimes, roleplaying games can become very focused on the heroes.
What's session zero? The GM gathers a group and informs them about the game; you discuss expectations and characters. Where did it come from?
We've finally got to the point of my articles about universal terminology in the RPG community, where we need to talk about the term 'homebrew'.
Ok, this is maybe the most frustrating thing I have encountered as a player.
So you have a group of wandering heroes. They need to get from a village in a woodland to the far north, an orcish settlement surrounded by ice and snow, to see if they can treat with the leader of the clan.
You thought you were ready. You'd planned a series of twenty or so hooks in the city. A massive hotbed of intrigue and factions. Session three, the players leave the city because they've angered the law and never look back. You have to improv in the wilderness. None of it sounds as good as the city would have done.
In reality, some of the comfort of certain games comes from their predictability.
I think 'The Wangrod Defence' is the perfect example of what happens when we refuse to view the meta.