Search results

None of what you said contradicts what I said. And also… I am not saying that GM’s prep is a bad thing in any way. To go back to my recent Mothership campaign which is a sandbox in exactly the way you’re describing… I prepared material (some was material I bought in the form of modules) and...

But whatever system you choose, when you’re running a sandbox, you still should consider the game. I don’t know who you mean by “them”. I also don’t think there’s universal consensus on exactly what constitutes a railroad, as the many threads on the topic make clear. Your ideas on the...

I think this is an interesting thought. I think that what many are citing as sandbox play, while not a railroad in the typical sense because it allows for some amount of freedom for what to engage with, is similar to a railroad in that both types of play are vehicles for the GM’s prep.

Interesting hearing that from someone who seems to have experience with only one kind of game. Because it may not be railroading them to so so? As has since been elaborated upon in subsequent posts. I don’t think you’re considering all factors or possibilities here. I don’t see how or why...

It depends on the game and what the goal of play’s meant to be about. It also may depend on when and how whatever idea the GM has comes up. I don’t think the GM having an idea that they want to see in play is the same as railroading. I mean, it could lead to that, sure, but it doesn’t have to...

Perhaps. But isn’t wanting them to go a specific route kind of leaning in that direction anyway? Like if that’s what a GM wants to do, then just do it.

I think the point is more that IF the GM wants the players to do a specific thing or go a specific way, why not just be open about that? Why be coy about it? The obvious reason seems to be because the GM wants them to think they can do whatever they like, but really wants them to do something...

To clarify a bit… my point was indeed more about combat rules versus social rules. I really don’t want to get sidetracked in the discussion about trust. We use rules in combat because the outcome is uncertain. The complexity of said rules are a matter of preference. But the purpose of the rules...

No, the preferences don’t affect play. If we both play the same game, our preferences don’t matter. Catering to one preference or the other will affect play. Gaming the system vs. the environment… I’m not really sure what you mean here. There is no environment. So is it gaming the system vs...

Wanting to remain as in character as possible is an aesthetic preference. Not caring to separate player knowledge from character knowledge is also an aesthetic preference. I am evaluating agency as it applies to a player playing a game. That is the relevant form of agency to use here. And...

I don't have a peculiar definition of agency nor am I undermining any one's preferences. People can like whatever they like and that's great. I myself play different kinds of games to get different kinds of experiences. I don't consider any of them better than the other. I may have preferences...

I would say that the vague descriptor gives the player the possibility of flat out getting it wrong, not the observer. If we're using a system with a DC, the possibility of getting it wrong is determined by the dice and the DC. Not giving a reliable DC? All it does is under-inform the player...

Well, what’s satisfying or not will vary from person to person. And the level of complexity for rules will likewise vary based on the game and what it’s trying to do. A game that is as combat heavy as D&D is likely going to increase the number of rules and therefore the complexity because...

Yes, very much so. The game very much relies on prep. The GM is meant to create towns that the Dogs visit, and those towns are meant to have sin taken root in various ways. The point is not about can they discover the sin… it’s about what will the Dogs do when they discover it. That’s the...

But wouldn’t this just be the equivalent of when the badass hero shows no signs of fear or concern that the mook can really hurt him? You see it all the time in genre fiction. I mean, I’m not all that crazy about Hit Points… especially how inflated they’ve become… but if someone doesn’t want...

Really? Why? That’s so odd. How can you even tell that’s what they’re doing as opposed to like, being brave or whatever? I mean, as of third or fourth level, characters aren’t anywhere near as fragile, and in my experience start getting played that way. It doesn’t need to be complex...

I'm not saying all guards can be bribed. I'm saying there are other ways to make that work. One... make a roll (Persuade, Bribe, whatever is applicable). If you fail the roll, then it turns out this guard can't be bribed. Two... telegraph that the guard cannot be bribed so that the players can...

Yes, of course it is fine. It's a preference and all preferences are fine. I think where we run into an issue, or difference of opinion, is how this impacts player agency. Gumshoe is an interesting example because I'm not a fan. The reason for that is it's the meaningful events that don't...

This is exactly right. "But we're able to converse so that's the same as a social encounter" simplifies things so much. It eradicates the gap in expertise between the average RPGer and a person who can negotiate incredibly complex and fraught situations (surrender of a hostile force, hostage...

Sure, that's fine! I absolutely understand that. I probably consider the game more important, but it's not like I'm setting up nonsensical things, or contradicting what's been established. I think setting logic and verisimilitude are pretty mutable... like there's a whole range of what's...