Jag spetsar till min fråga: Är spelarnas möjlighet att bestämma förhållanden i spelvärlden (t.ex. the spider hole i exemplet nedan) en oskiljaktig del av play-to-find-out?
"Since the dawn of gaming as we know it, Game Masters have been told that prep is crucial to a good game experience. This has fed an instinct for burdensome and maniacal world-building, the idea that if you have a city, you must know what is behind every door and the stat out every knight and squire before a player character can set foot on its cobblestones. It has led to campaigns where players follow breadcrumbs from planned encounter to planned encounter with little agency and choice, because if they have choice, they may veer off into territory the GM hasn’t fleshed out, and then chaos, insanity, disorder, and other unutterable blasphemies may ensue.
Apocalypse World makes this dogma dig its own grave and then shoots it in the head. In
Apocalypse World, a GM is told to sketch out a few threats to make the characters’ lives interesting, and then start playing. It is low-prep, and makes game more interesting because no one comes to the table knowing what is going to happen.
[...]
Because you play to find out what happens, the GM
and the players collaborate to make the world and the story. In a traditional RPG, the creation of the entire world is the responsibility of the GM. But
Apocalypse World encourages GMs to “Ask provocative questions and build on the answers.”
Ask players how long they’ve known the town sawbones. (“Since I was born.”) Let them describe the spider hole where they store their knife collection. (“It’s a slanting tunnel with a punji pit near the entrance.”) And the GM should take what the players say and build on it. (“You go to your spider hole to add your new Bowie knife to your collection. Inside the punji pit there is a dead dog. It’s the pet of Blood Howler, the leader of the local biker gang…”)"
Hämtat från:
http://geekandsundry.com/3-ways-this-rpg-will-make-you-a-better-gamer/
