If you are going to have multiple PC groups in the same sandbox campaign, my experience (just trying all the different methods I could) is this is the only real way to make it work----otherwise it can be maddening keeping track of the different areas and NPCs being affected by PC behavior. If the PCs are not intersecting that much, it is easier to hand wave. But I've had parties in two different campaigns end up in serious conflict with each other, and that proved very challenging to track. Having the time between sessions reflect real time is one easy way to manage it (though it has its downsides). However, honestly I didn't feel it was worth the trouble after about a year and half of trying to do that. I just said 'screw it this is a multiverse and both parties are in slightly different realities'. That approach ended up working a lot better for me personally. It also made things interesting because I got to see two very different realities play out over two campaigns in the same setting. There was still some intersection, but there was enough freedom to alter details, that it made my role as the GM more fun as well.Do you actually do this in your sandbox games?
Culture war?Do you realize how bunker mentality in the midst of an all-important culture war this ...reads as?
You do realise, don't you, that I used the phrase "Mother may I" only because it was used in the post I was responding to.The problem is that nothing you described there comes close to rising to the level of Mother May I. It's a disingenuous use of the term as a pejorative to put down a playstyle that is different than yours.
I did it for about 18 months in my multi-group Wilderlands Stonehell Dungeon game, yup. If group played weekly, a week would pass in game between delves. If fortnightly then 2 weeks passed. I am somewhat doing it (time passes roughly 1 month game = 1 month real) in my current two-group Primeval Thule campaign. In the Thule game adventures last typically 2-3 sessions, not a single session delve, so it needs to be looser.Do you actually do this in your sandbox games?
I've been kinda sorta following this thread, with roughly the same fascination as I would watching the halls of academia debate over the lunch menu for next week*, and I have to ask you one question:This actually happened in 4e. It was a constant, never-ending, scorched earth campaign against a stupid gaming system. It took place all over the Internet, in hobby stores, at tables, and cons.
Right, the single-session delve does seem fairly crucial to making the Gygax system work. (Without the need for loosening.)I am somewhat doing it (time passes roughly 1 month game = 1 month real) in my current two-group Primeval Thule campaign. In the Thule game adventures last typically 2-3 sessions, not a single session delve, so it needs to be looser.
I say "Ok you go home now.'Right, the single-session delve does seem fairly crucial to making the Gygax system work. (Without the need for loosening.)
In the single-session delve sort of game, what do you do if the clock is about to strike midnight and - for whatever reason - the group is still stuck on the 7th level? (As best I recall, the canonical books - Gygax and Moldvay - don't address this.)
I apologize. I did not think that your post was hostile to other games, styles, or ideas. I do, however, get frustrated sometimes by how D&D sometimes monopolizes discussion on TTRPGs. I suspect that my outburst directed towards you likely came more from that frustration than anything else.I found this to be a strange response since my post was not intended to be hostile or dismissive of other games, styles or ideas. I predominantly tackled the realism issue as I understand it, but initially commented on the flexibility of D&D to cater to a larger degree of playstyle as some posts back it seemed as if the use/need of encumbrance and the general accounting of minutiae in the game was being questioned.
About all I said regarding your Frost Giant scenario was that I disliked how you chose to adjudicate it. I was agnostic about whether it constituted MMI. Though at this point you were also trying to drag me into "picking a side" in that discussion between you and pemerton.
Yes and no. Or at least, I'm of several minds about this. I study in a field drowning in incorrect definitions, inaccurate terms, pejoratives, and the like. We have more "correct" terms that we can use, but then sometimes people have no idea what we are talking about, so the subject becomes more esoteric. So many times we have to "bite the bullet" when discussing anything while tacitly acknowledging the inaccuracies and problematic elements of terms.Perpetuating incorrect definitions and/or pejoratives doesn't help a situation. It just makes it worse.
Weirdly enough, perhaps because enough time has passed and 5e "won," I think that there has been a retrospective warming up to 4e online, where even some of its vocal critics have shown more willingness to play it, to praise its strengths, or to reevaluate their initial stance on 4e as a legitimate part of D&D's legacy. And that has even included people pointing to things that 4e did better than 5e.Why are you using the past tense?
Sure, but the two of you demonstrate a mutual ability to engage each other respectfully without presuming malice.I'm sure there is truth in this, but I didn't like the OP either - and I'm definitely not inclined to be prejudiced against Pemerton or in favour of Brendan. So I think it's fair to say the OP is pretty abrasive!
And with that, the followers of lowkey13 fall in behind and to the side of him shouting "D&D had been voted the best game" and "Death to Paladins". The mob led by a grinning lowkey13 then suddenly begins descending on a tight group of travellers led by one known only as Pemerton.Why are you using the past tense?
I think this is a good example of how to handle the terminology. I personally felt that the use of MMI in the original thread was clear. The poster was using it as a way of describing GM authorization of game elements; he wanted to allow the player to introduce elements that interested him without having to rely on the GM for introduction of the content or approval.Yes and no. Or at least, I'm of several minds about this. I study in a field drowning in incorrect definitions, inaccurate terms, pejoratives, and the like. We have more "correct" terms that we can use, but then sometimes people have no idea what we are talking about, so the subject becomes more esoteric. So many times we have to "bite the bullet" when discussing anything while tacitly acknowledging the inaccuracies and problematic elements of terms.
In our RPG context, this often arises, for example, when talking about "race." (And there is an entire megathread where people debated that kettle of fish, which I will not rehash here.) "Race" is common parlance within gaming circles, but there are a lot of problematic issues related to using the term in the context of RPGs, much as there is outside of gaming.
And while Mother-May-I has pejorative undertones, it is also an expression that is fairly easy to conceptualize in terms of the underlying issues being evoked: some form of play entailing a single authority figure granting permission to other players. It asks you to apply your general knowledge of one ubiquitous game to a more niche hobby game. So it unquestionably has some descriptive utility. How and where it applies, however, will be the points of contention. Also, I would note that it is not a pejorative that dehumanizes anyone, as it applies to a playstyle. (Playstyles aren't people.)
If the term is inaccurate, then usually it becomes incumbent on critics of the term to find a more accurate term for the problem described. No one has really offered one so MMI remains the default term in play and with people's default assumptions of its meaning and scope. Unfortunately, when asked about MMI, I think that some dismiss the MMI phenomenon entirely by saying simply "that's just how the game is played." In other words, it's a complete denial that the problem described exists or could exist, which I also find unhelpful.
The players once or twice stayed in the dungeon between sessions (no time passing) but it was their choice.Good luck, or good management? And if the latter, by players or GM? (Eg how far do "generous" rulings go?)
I'm afraid that you are underestimating the pervasive power of Rule -1: Gamemasters will read and play assuming Rule 0 even when the rule is entirely absent.I really think Torchbearer is enormously instructive to this conversation. I would encourage everyone to buy the game and read it through (if not play it).
The game is an interesting combination of: 2) while simultaneously having a significant classic GM role (which includes classic expectations of GM authority but does not include White Wolf’s Golden Rule or Rule 0) simultaneously guided by certain indie principles and techniques
Please, do! And post the link here ...?I’m thinking about doing a play excerpt post, but the system is complex enough that I feel like I’d have to abridge/gloss over some things (and in-so-doing may lose relevant information). Maybe I’ll just do a small, peacemeal excerpt of an Adventure phase.