Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8163856">Where have I stated this is a unversal thing? I have clearly told people, this is just one approach, but it is a really common one among sandbox gamers. Believe me, if this thread were involving a high volume of OSR sandbox gamers, you'd be getting tons and tons of push back on the brother. I am sure they would also have other differing opinions, because sandbox isn't a monochrome style of play. But this expectaiton that the GM would govern the state of the brother, I think in your typical sandbox, that would be the norm.Again, I haven't said anything about this being universal. I acknowledged that in the style of play one poster was talking about, it might be a dick move (I even said in my savage worlds campaigns, which tend to include more things like character arcs the player negotiates with the GM) it would be a dick move. But the response I got was, regardless of playstyle, it is a dick move. My point has been in this kind of a sandbox, this would normally not be regarded as a violation of agency or as a dick move. And I am quite certain I am correct about that. Seriously, if you won't even allow us to accurately describe our own playstyle, then who is really engaging in one true wayism here? I've made plenty of room for other approaches in this style and I understand there are modes of play where the player would rightfully expect to be able to set that agenda. But the kind of sandbox I am talking about, isn't one of them. But I've said, you could run a sandbox that way if you wanted to. There are PbtA players who are getting into OSR stuff now, and I could see that. I don't have an issue with it. But that existing, doesn't somehow make it a problem for people to continue to run games where the GM has control over the fate of the brother.To answer your last question, generally, the GM can't just declare a PC dead. That would violate agency, unless some action in the game demanded a ruling of death (for example, you do something that logically in all cases would result in you dying, but there isn't a mechanic in the game for that thing (say get buried alive for days and there is suffocation mechanic in the system). Still I think most GMs wouldn't just decide that but still take the 'there is always a chance' approach from the Moldvay book that [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] mentioned. So in most cases that sort of thing would fall under a ruling. and most likely be a series of checks or other kind of die roll. But your agency, in this kind of sandbox, doesn't extend to your brother.EDIT: Also I really don't think it is at all unreasonable to assert this is the common way sandbox gets approached. I mean I've been running sandbox and involved in sandbox focused communities online for ages. I do get you find differences among them, and I could totally see there being some who might take more of the cain approach. But it would certainly be an outlier. Doesn't mean its wrong. You can do it. But I think it is fair to talk about what the typical sandbox looks like without this kind of hostile, angry reaction.</blockquote>

Verification