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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4722550" data-attributes="member: 80487">Setting aside abstractly ideal forms, there is in practice a tension between "telling the players a story" and "refereeing a game."The game itself pretty well takes care of creating stories if one has the resources for a campaign in the grand old style: many players pursuing their own goals, very frequent sessions, a grand-strategic war-game aspect. In such a campaign, the players are creating so many "plot lines" that it's almost superfluous for the GM to do so.That's a context of which some critics of "sandbox play" (a new term, meaning simply what "campaign play" meant in the old days) may be unaware, and for good reason: most folks nowadays don't have those resources. Legendary GMs such as Arneson, Gygax, Barker and Hargrave were always in a somewhat elite league. It was easier to approach when war-games clubs (however informal) were common, and it's probably still easier for young people in school than for most older people with heavy work and family responsibilities. As well, there is more competition these days for one's leisure time.Besides being unnecessary, and perhaps as practical as herding cats, the imposition of a dramatic structure on a campaign made about as much sense in the original context as doing so to a sporting event. Then again, professional wrestling has become very popular!So, we've got different circumstances and a different kind of game envisioned. That different techniques should be brought to bear seems natural.Equating "different" with "better" or "worse" does not strike me as productive here. The OP established some goals, and we may have ideas of ways to further them.</blockquote>

Verification