Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Haltherrion]

Do you mean that you expect to spend 2 to 10 hours per session in addition to your months of preparation?

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

Your "true sandbox" is definitely not the only alternative to your story driven game. Neither is it, in my experience, normative. No advice I recall having received, or would ever give, about playing Dungeons & Dragons, would suggest such a labor-intensive scheme.

Not that I spend that much attention to the fluffy parts of the DMG but that amount of time is fact what the latest DMG recommends on game prep. But regardless, I do indeed spend that amount of time on session prep.

As for sandbox versus referee driven, I have never discussed it as an either-or. It's a spectruum. As I've said before I tend to play in the middle with some campaigns more sandbox-ish and others somewhat less so. Additionally, what I've been saying is that referees should consider that full spectruum of options and decide based on their needs where to place their own campaign along that spectruum because, to me, there is no particular virtue playing in one spot versus another spot.

Two key ingredients that seem to figure much less prominently in your model are organic growth and improvisation. You are approaching the game more as object (body of data), relative to the emphasis on it as process.

We just haven't gone there yet. If you like, how about starting a new thread to explore all these axes.

 

[Haltherrion]

That is probably for sound reasons, I think, at least on the commercial basis of concern to the people responsible for such products. Their responsibility is in part to be more responsive to certain segments of the public, not necessarily those well represented by myself, or The Shaman -- or marcq!

I agree- makes a lot of commercial sense but you two don't seem like module users. I don't use them myself but don't have any issue with them.

So, I think a DM should do whatever he or she does best. For some, that may be "accommodating characters"; for others, maybe some other approach.

If I don't like That DM's game, then I can find another -- or start my own. Someone who has never been in that position might find that the experience of running a campaign and dealing with players broadens one's mind when it comes again to being a player dealing with a DM.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Ariosto]

As for sandbox versus referee driven, I have never discussed it as an either-or.

My reference there is to:

sandboxes can take a lot of out of game time, for instance which you had better enjoy

and

I mean preparing a true sandbox that allows players to roam where they will requires a detailed world setting, which I maintain does take more time than creating single-use scenarios.

One can only wonder how

referees should ... decide based on their needs where to place their own campaign along that spectruum

when

to me, there is no particular virtue playing in one spot versus another spot.

That simply makes no sense!

 

[Haltherrion]

You seem to have been following my posts; there have been repeated references to a continuum. When discussing such a continuum it is of course useful at times to speak in reference to the extremes.

One can only wonder how
Quote:
referees should ... decide based on their needs where to place their own campaign along that spectruum
when
Quote:
to me, there is no particular virtue playing in one spot versus another spot.
when That simply makes no sense!

Wow. It seems to me perfect sense to me. Let me try saying it another way.

The referee has a range of options regarding how much he or she intervenes in the "story" from little to none to completely referee driven to all points in between.

The referee should feel free to select a point on that continuum suitable to his or her needs, those needs being a combination of the referee's vision for the campaign, the players, and other related factors.

Any point on that continuum is viable (except perhaps for the absurd extremes). Going sandbox heavy or ref-driven heavy is no more virtuous than one spot over another.

Perhaps, here's the point of confusion. By virtuous I don't mean better or worse for that particular situation, I mean better or worse in an absolute sense of being a better referee or worse referee, or having a better or worse group of players because one felt a need to go more ref driven.

When you make comments like:

I think that notions about "kids today" or "lifestyles today" can indeed be to an extent self-fulfilling -- in a feedback loop of selectively both attracting and encouraging certain tendencies.

It sure sounds like you are implying that there is less virtue in a style of play where the referee finds it necessary to intervene more in the story. Perhaps I misread your intent.

 

[Ariosto]

Marcq, thank you for explaining. The phrase "no particular virtue" commonly does not (in my experience) mean what you seem to think it means.

It sure sounds like you are implying that there is less virtue in a style of play where the referee finds it necessary to intervene more in the story.

In a sentence that has nothing at all to do with that? Neither "a style of play" nor any sort (much less amount) of 'virtue' is the subject. Get somewhere at least within joking distance of real!

Check out the Escapist interview to read what 3E and 4E designer Andy Collins had to say about generations, lifestyles, attention spans, intervention, "the story", defining markets -- and much more.

 

[Haltherrion]

Marcq, thank you for explaining. The phrase "no particular virtue" commonly does not (in my experience) mean what you seem to think it means.

I think virtue has strong connotations of right and wrong. Used in this case, apart from what the group may require, someone might think that one way might be right for its own sake. I tend to think the opposite, that within a wide range of latitude, they are equally right.

From dictionary.reference.com for virtue (my first hit on google):
1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.
2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.
3. chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue.
4. a particular moral excellence.Compare cardinal virtues, natural virtue, theological virtue.
5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing one's weaknesses.
6. effective force; power or potency: a charm with the virtue of removing warts.
7. virtues, an order of angels.Compare angel (def. 1).
8. manly excellence; valor.

These are nearly all meanings that imply some correctness in terms of an absolute sense.

So: I say pick your methods to suit your game needs. This is a relative judgement. One method is no more virtuous than other. I.e., the method chosen is not better than another in an absolute sense of goodness, admirability, comparison to some gaming ideal. I don't see any misuse of the word virtue in the way I used it.

In a sentence that has nothing apparent to do with 'virtue' at all? Get somewhere at least within joking distance of real!

Perhaps you didn't mean it but your earlier phrasing seems loaded with condescension, which to me implies that you feel the methods that serve such demographics are less worthy, less virtuous.

But if we are agreed that refs can choose the methods that suit their group (I believe we did agree on that) and that within a wide range of the sandbox to ref-driven spectruum one method is no more better a way to play an RPG than another, then color me happy.

 

[Ariosto]

People today, the young kids today, are coming into exposure from D&D after having playing games that have very similar themes, often have very similar mechanics ... they understand the concepts of the game. So in some ways they are much more advanced as potential game players. But in other ways, they are also coming from a background that is short attention span, perhaps, less likely interested in reading the rules of the game before playing.


And I'm not just talking about younger players now, but anybody. I know when I jump into a new console game, for instance, the last thing I want to do is read the book. I want to start playing. And that's a relatively new development in game playing and game learning. And we've been working to adapt to that, the changing expectations of the new gamer.

The Escapist : The Truth About 4th Edition: Part One of Our Exclusive Interview with Wizards of the Coast

 

[The Shaman]

As for referee attitude, one could puzzle at all styles of refereeing. Where, for instance, does it say the referee cannot help drive the story?

Much of the referee advice in games published for the last couple of decades does exactly that. There's even a healthy subset of roleplaying games called, appropriately enough, "storygames."

You're defending an approach to gaming which is alive and well and arguably far more widespread than the more status quo-setting, player-driven style I prefer, which leads me to wonder exactly from whom you're defending it.

It's easy enough to toss stones at different styles.

Please show me who's tossing stones, and we'll ask them to stop together.

 

[Hussar]

Well, The Shaman, having been told at the very beginning of this thread that if I don't play sandbox games I'm automatically railroading - I'd say that there is some pretty healthy stone throwing. It seems that there are a fair number of gamers out there for whom sandbox or "statuis quo" games can cure the common cold and no other styles of play can possibly be a good.

For example:

The problem only arises because the DM is railroading his players. Remove the railroad and the problem resolves itself.

Looking at BOTE's subsequent posts, there is definitely a sense that if the DM doesn't play a sandbox, he's automatically railroading.

Heck, you yourself accused me of Badwrongfun posts for suggesting that the DM accomodate players.

I've made no secret that I don't prefer status quo style campaigns, but, that's just my personal preference. Unlike, say, BOTE above, who automatically presumes that any different style is automatically inferior. Apparently asking questions about styles is verbotten too. :/

 

[The Shaman]

Heck, you yourself accused me of Badwrongfun posts for suggesting that the DM accomodate players.

Back that up with links, Hussar, or admit that you're just trolling.