How I see the way to prepare a game
#HOWTORUNAKUPGAME
In the last weeks I spent the greatest part of the time dedicated to my game on a long-term campaign. I defined several 'adventures' (which have been in part already disclosed in a previous post), and let me add that the list grew with other ideas so that I can have a lot of options to consider along the way.
In the meanwhile I am a bit stuck with the remaining part of the project always due to the fact that there are too many things and it becomes hard to cope with all these topics/'to dos'. I have read once again the chapter from the Lamentations of the Flame Princess Referee Book about the proper way to master such a game. This is because I want to start to write my version of this topic...
Let me say that I like James Raggi as writer and author, he has something peculiar which makes his creations different from the rest of the market... at the same time, even after a second reading of the Referee Book (from the very first edition of this game) I found something not working according to my brain... Please do not misunderstand me: I am fully aware that James is a successful and acclaimed author of the industry and I am a newbie facing these aspects for the very first time... however there is something I feel it cannot work with the way I see mastering a role-playing game, in particular if I am thinking to VI·VIII·X. While I found this book very interesting as it has plenty of good advice and tips (btw I am still waiting for the updated book I supported in the crowdfunding campaign several years ago!), I have finally found what was 'not working': only at the second reading I perceived a subtle 'file rouge' across all these pages that doesn't match with my view!
Let's use a metaphor to explain it: just consider that a campaign is a painting the GM has to complete (needless to say with the help of the players, this is not under discussion!). Following the indications of the Referee Book the approach is to concentrate on the main subject of the painting, being extremely precise in the details of it and leaving the background purposely 'blurred' elements (if not painted at all). On the other hand, the way I see an RPG is the other way round: it is just a painting with a 'good' background, already prepared with many details (and underlying explanations of them) so that the GM can complete it by adding the main subject he develops during the game with the players.
In the first case, in order to complete the painting, the GM has to look after both the main subject and the background. In the second case the GM has a background which he considers good enough to add the main subject only.
In other words, James Raggi thinks, plays and writes with the assumption that the in-game world has to be presented in a game extremely vague and incomplete so that the GM is free to add/invent/complete it with details as soon as they are needed.
In my view, the 'background of the painting' is already prepared, with stories and explanations so that the GM can move consistently in it without any problem in the long term (it could happen that a GM adopts a definition of an ‘blurred’ detail in a certain moment and some time later he realizes that the definition doesn't apply well with other part of the setting he previously had not in mind). This approach leaves the GM the freedom to concentrate on the main subject of the painting, relying on the sound background already 'pre-painted'...
Well I am sure that there will be fellows and mates who have a completely different view and strongly believe I am wrong: the real point is that there is no wrong or right. This is an extremely personal view as to see an RPG... and since too many messages should be present in the setting I am writing, I cannot leave this room empty: my goal is to let players understand the fun in running a game which is far from following in the 'mainstream' and, at the same time, good enough to enjoy it!