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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8165736" data-attributes="member: 16814">I get where you're coming from, and I'm not criticizing your play -- it looks like a stellar example of that approach (and likely a great deal of fun for the players).   I'm trying, instead, to bring you up to speed on where the discussion is, because you're in a place where you seem to think that your play needs to be explained when almost everyone here has experience with it.  What you appear to be lacking is experience in other approaches, which are what is leading to my analysis of your play above.  This analysis is not looking for something wrong -- there is nothing wrong -- but instead putting it in the context of the larger whole of approaches.  And, yes, when this is done your game is very much about finding out what is in the GM's note.  I 100% believe you that you do not prep plots -- these are not the notes I'm talking about -- but you do finely detail the setting.  The NPCs have pre-determined attitudes and goals, the locations are keyed, and, I'm assuming, some things are afoot that will happen in a scripted way if no one intervenes.  All of this is largely the intent and point of the sandbox approach, with some differences in the exact nature of how they are accomplished (usually small differences and focusing on how things are prepped/presented).  Ultimately, though, this approach using the GM as the primary mechanic for resolution -- what does the GM think is appropriate in these cases.  This usually gets tagged with "fair" and "impartial" and so forth, but as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] posted above, this is largely spin.  Not leveling any accusation of bad faith -- I'm 100% positive there's a lot of good faith here -- but that the reality is that it's a person choosing things according to their conception of the fiction, so "fair" and "impartial" are really just one person's opinion -- it may not be shared at the table.What happens, though, is that, like with most hobby endeavors, you find that you form a group of like-minded people to play with.  This means that the "fair" and "impartial" and even the general approach to games is shared among people with like minds and like tastes.  And that leads into a kind of narrowing of vision -- where it's very difficult to tell what's a social agreement part of the game and what's actually the game.  These things blur.  And, it's difficult to step out of this, even when you're aware of it.  You, and this is no negative criticism, seem to have found people that you enjoy gaming with and a style that you enjoy playing it.  This is the entire point, and I'm happy.  However, you also seem to have a lack of awareness of other approaches, and this means that you're not really evaluating your game in a broad scope of how things can work, but instead only in comparison with nearby styles -- styles that are still, largely, similar to you own.  This is what gives rise to your claims that the players have lots of options to choose from because they do compares to a similar game that has a prepped and planned plot.  Both games feature the GM as the setting and the GM as the core resolution method (ie, the GM decides is the core mechanic -- the GM decides what happens, or the GM decides to engage which mechanic -- the players do not do this).  The difference is whether or not the GM has a planned plot arc that the players are intended to engage in.  So, rightly, in this comparison your statement are true.  However, if we look to a larger field of styles, the similarities between your approach and, say, a published adventure path are stronger than the similarities between your approach and a game where the players really do drive the action (look to Blades in the Dark as a key example).That's my point -- not to say you're doing it wrong (if you're having fun you're 100% doing it right!), but to point out that you placement and assumption of freedom isn't as strong as you think it is, if you just broaden the scope of your comparisons.</blockquote>

Verification