So, I'm more or less just pointing out points I disagree with. However, I think you did a wonderful job in the explanation of your thoughts and they overall seem quite reasonable.
I don't think RPGs are exclusively set-up to handle GM to player interaction. Now, rules-wise it's more-or-less true, rarely do players roll against each other (although more often they will roll to assist each other); but, they should work together in both planning/discussing and accomplishing goals. So, the game is more of a 3-way communication. GM-Player and Player-Player.
Players steer the game, GMs follow. GMs may have to kick start the story or adventure but players are who shape the story and on a smaller level the world. As for structure, I would say the GM is more bound by structure since consistency in storytelling in key. A GM can't say, "oh yeah, he was wearing a mobile armor, forgot." Both the players and GM has a sort of literary freedom in explaining what's happening. But the players have more "kicking around ideas" freedom than does the GM.
I'll on a personal note disagree about always being an adventure as I often will just sit silently until the players do something I can react to. I've become very anti-plot so I leave making the story up to the players; although, they must do it through their character actions, not just say what they want the game to be.
Despite adventure being possible without setting, the two cannot be divorced. The adventure unless you never describe anything the players don't fight or find, creates a setting. As for adventure being a series of decisions, (and I'm not sure if the phrasing is throwing me off here) it seems that if a story is a preset string of decisions, none of them are decision. If A leads to B and only to B, there wasn't a choice even if there appears to be one. There is only a right and wrong way. This made me think of the CRPG where sometime you hit the invisible wall because that area isn't unlocked or whatever reason. Final note there, I would say the adventure is written for the characters not the players. Think of it like a play, the lines are written for the story for the characters, not for the actors that portray the characters.
Functions are important, but overlooking the carrier seems a bit extreme. It matters to the players whether a fall or a NPC hurt them. Why? Because if you've got a believable setting and players into the game, they will want vengence (not all but many will) if it's a person, but probably won't attack the rocks for giving way (although some will). So the carrier is important as that functions are one moment, but the carrier can be used to further the story.
GM secrets are not 0% player influenced. Secrets are often geared toward the players more specifically the characters each has. But if you have hack and slash players a tome of knowledge will be quite anticlimatic. If those players consider knowledge power the same item could be quite exciting.
I may have slipped off the classic RPG some there, but there it is, whether it makes sense or not. And again, you did a good job, I offer my opinions as constructive criticism not as attacks on your ideas.
My thoughts on your thoughts
So, I'm more or less just pointing out points I disagree with. However, I think you did a wonderful job in the explanation of your thoughts and they overall seem quite reasonable.
I don't think RPGs are exclusively set-up to handle GM to player interaction. Now, rules-wise it's more-or-less true, rarely do players roll against each other (although more often they will roll to assist each other); but, they should work together in both planning/discussing and accomplishing goals. So, the game is more of a 3-way communication. GM-Player and Player-Player.
Players steer the game, GMs follow. GMs may have to kick start the story or adventure but players are who shape the story and on a smaller level the world. As for structure, I would say the GM is more bound by structure since consistency in storytelling in key. A GM can't say, "oh yeah, he was wearing a mobile armor, forgot." Both the players and GM has a sort of literary freedom in explaining what's happening. But the players have more "kicking around ideas" freedom than does the GM.
I'll on a personal note disagree about always being an adventure as I often will just sit silently until the players do something I can react to. I've become very anti-plot so I leave making the story up to the players; although, they must do it through their character actions, not just say what they want the game to be.
Despite adventure being possible without setting, the two cannot be divorced. The adventure unless you never describe anything the players don't fight or find, creates a setting. As for adventure being a series of decisions, (and I'm not sure if the phrasing is throwing me off here) it seems that if a story is a preset string of decisions, none of them are decision. If A leads to B and only to B, there wasn't a choice even if there appears to be one. There is only a right and wrong way. This made me think of the CRPG where sometime you hit the invisible wall because that area isn't unlocked or whatever reason. Final note there, I would say the adventure is written for the characters not the players. Think of it like a play, the lines are written for the story for the characters, not for the actors that portray the characters.
Functions are important, but overlooking the carrier seems a bit extreme. It matters to the players whether a fall or a NPC hurt them. Why? Because if you've got a believable setting and players into the game, they will want vengence (not all but many will) if it's a person, but probably won't attack the rocks for giving way (although some will). So the carrier is important as that functions are one moment, but the carrier can be used to further the story.
GM secrets are not 0% player influenced. Secrets are often geared toward the players more specifically the characters each has. But if you have hack and slash players a tome of knowledge will be quite anticlimatic. If those players consider knowledge power the same item could be quite exciting.
I may have slipped off the classic RPG some there, but there it is, whether it makes sense or not. And again, you did a good job, I offer my opinions as constructive criticism not as attacks on your ideas.