Search results

I believe you if you say that's how you would respond to that kind of campaign. But for sandbox enthusiasts, the exploration is part of the fun.

Broadly yes, but the specifics will have a lot of variance because good GMs can run many types of games and what good GMing is will differ between them

As far as I've seen everyone believes there is good and bad GMing. There is just disagreement about the principles. For example, I disagree with you about the siege case.

All I can say is that I've played both sides of the table and seen it play out very differently. By "players construct the world" I mean that the players play an important role in constructing the narrative. In determining the structure of the world, what NPCs exist, what their relationships...

I think Bedrock has shown a pretty broad knowledge of social resolution systems so your assumption they had not was unmerited.

I'm sure what you're saying is in line with your experiences. However, I think you are seriously underestimating how differently these adventures can play out at the table. Don't want to stick on this too much. But between "the players construct the world" and "the players act in a fixed...

Yeah, definitely. I guess I'm also confused on how a guard possibly being susceptible to bribery is preferable to them definitely being susceptible if player agency is the real goal. After all, if the roll is made and they turn out not to take the bribe, wasn't it the DMs choice to adjudicate in...

Then, again, I don't get your complaint. I also don't get this. What the GM wrote is what happened before the players got there. How to investigate, who to interrogate, what clues to look for, how to deal with the different factions--these are all exercises of player agency. None of them are...

Yeah, i think this is a good example. In a game like Blades, if you have to get past some guards, you as the player might declare a Prowl action to sneak past or a Hunt to take them out. Then you roll and success depends on the dice. Depending on the results, it may turn out you're completely...

In the case of the guard, if every guard inexplicably has an unwillingness to be bribed, it can start to feel unrealistic. Likewise, if every guard is willing to accept the right bribe, or is willing to hear the PCs out in the name of agency, then the world can start to feel unrealistic.

I've seen statements to this effect a few times now and I think they are worth highlighting. Part of why I liked narrative games when I did (maybe 6 years ago) was precisely this reason: I had some 5e campaigns where I'd ask for basic in-character knowledge, like who the king is, and I'd be told...

Thanks for your detailed response. I guess my main response to it is that it's very much a narrative approach. There's a set conflict, the game is set up to simulate only that conflict, and the narrative moves all take place within that framework. And second, the goals are fundamentally...

But, again, this is exactly how the sandbox scenarion with the guard is working. There are ways to learn that information. So why do you see that as opposed to player agency? A key goal of sandbox style gaming, the way I see it and Bedrock wrote above, is to avoid playing through the GMs story...

So, this sounds to me like, contra your previous post, the information 'being discoverable' by the PCs is insufficient. If the detail is minor, it should be revealed to them without effort on their part. Correct? I don't think your characterization of "a GM's novice mystery novel" is fair, nor...

Indeed, it does not match my experience.

Sometimes hidden information leads to more engaging gameplay. A mystery campaign, for example.

Then I'm confused. There have been numerous posts about the guard scenario which describe how players can learn that information. In your words, they are able to discover it. So what is the issue?

I don't know that I'm just an exception either. There seems to be an unstated assumption in your post that if people were just less skeptical, then other types of games would be more popular. I don't think this is true. People know what they like.

Just speaking for myself--I know about other types of games. I've tried them at length. They aren't for me.

It sounds like more than that to me--like you should be shaping the world in response to what the PCs desire. I.e., if the PCs want to bribe a guard, the GM should make the guard bribable and communicate that to the players because this gives the players the control. Is that characterization...