> 3. The setting includes hills, cliffs, and ledges which the
> characters could plausibly have to climb.
>
> This is what I meant by a "detailed" setting.
Ah. That's what I'd call a very vague setting. You're right about it all, of course, it just hadn't occurred to me that that counted.
> Not all NPCS
> have to be individually detailed, but you had to have at
> least a collective NPC (the clan)
That's a lovely phrase!
> You didn't have to pre-map out all the terrain, either, but
> you had to have decided approximately what it looked like so
> that you could plausibly generate terrain as you went
Well... I decided I needed a cliff, I knew they started at river level, so I invented some hills. As I went along, as far as I remember.
> Also, if the characters are ever going to visit this area
> again,
It's part of their tula, I think they will.
> you might need to do some record-keeping work during
> the session and after to map out what they visited, and note
> at least the major features that might be a factor in future
> sessions (e.g. the big cliff).
Oops. I keep forgetting this "record keeping" thing when it's stuff I can hold in my head. I can visualise that map right now, I never drew it, and it was years ago. So I don't book-keep that, because I don't need to. And I probably should...
> I think railroading has worked well for my group so far because:
>
> (a) A couple of them are kids new to roleplaying, who so far
> have been reluctant even to suggest plot hooks or pursue
> their characters' goals, despite prompting on my part.
Yes, you have to have creative players for improv. play.
> (b) Those kids also like to generate (and draw) new
> characters, which in turn can trigger a complete change of
> setting.
And personally I rely on well-developed PCs who interact with each other.
Powered by hypermail