Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8137223">I think you are painting in extremes here. Degenerate is not a term I would adopt to describe play styles, art or any form of entertainment. For a host of reasons. These sorts of things are not always frowned upon: they are prevalent gaming styles and many of them were dominant in different eras of the game. I remember the 90s, where the GM became the storyteller, and you regularly got GM advice to override the dice to make your story happen (and you say this at the tables in play). During 3E the standard way to make an adventure was around encounter levels, building a series of encounters that were supposed to happen. Not all tables played this way, but it seemed to be the default. And it was this style of play that led me to re-read the older books and look for alternatives until I found something suitable to my taste. Obviously it is easy to oversimplify the history. There is plenty of variety at any given time but these reflect he bulk of what I saw. But my point is these were and are common play styles. There is nothing wrong with them either if people are enjoying themselves. We have seen variations of some of these sentiments in threads here, where priority is given to pacing of encounters, or drama, and that might mean something like fudging a roll (even if it undermines a choice a player made about what attack to do). So I think I disagree with the assumptions in this post. Total freedom to explore the setting isn't the norm. And it probably shouldn't be in every campaign. Maximum freedom to explore means the players can completely reject an adventure the GM prepped and go in some other direction (that could mean exploring someplace else in search of adventure, or it could mean something like trying to build a salt empire in a nearby city------all kinds of possibilities). But most campaigns don't operate that way. Most at least assume there is an adventure the GM planned and all of the freedom we exercise will be within the context of that adventure (and there is nothing wrong with that). Many go further and have more narrow pathways within the adventure (like the encounter based adventures I mentioned). If you do adopt a more open style of play, where the players can do what they want in the setting, that isn't easy. It takes time to learn how to run a game that way. And it certainly isn't the norm (though I am glad to say it does seem to be growing in popularity). But it isn't the only way to play. It isn't the best way. But I would say it is a way that prizes agency. Now you can prize agency, and enjoy this style, but it doesn't mean those preferences will translate into wanting what some here are suggesting (a system or campaign where the players can shape the narrative). That is a different thing. There is nothing wrong with it. It isn't better or worse than the open style I just mentioned, but I don't think a player who enjoys what I am describing would see what you are talking about as giving them more agency.</blockquote>

Verification