Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takasi" data-source="post: 3560989" data-attributes="member: 20194">Another analogy.Every football team needs great quarterbacks, receivers, linemen, special teams, linebackers, etc to be successful.Every team only has so much money to pay for them, and sometimes the offense and/or the defense, will, by circumstance, improve or degrade regardless of how much money or effort is spent to change them.&nbsp; So while, in a perfect world, you would have a team that is perfect at everything, teams are generally judged for their strengths and weaknesses in its elements.&nbsp; Coaches also have a preference for what works best for them, and even fans can have a preference for what improvements they want to see.Similar to a salary cap, a campaign has a &quot;game cap&quot;.&nbsp; There is only so much actual gameplay (and DM development) that can be given to a campaign.&nbsp; Which do you develop most?&nbsp; The action scenes?&nbsp; Work on integrating a character's background?&nbsp; Work on an ongoing metaplot?&nbsp; Prepare more organizations, cities, areas to explore?&nbsp; Do you favor one over the other as a DM?&nbsp; As a player?&nbsp; Some situations, IMO, are mutually exclusive.&nbsp; For example, let's say you have a player who loves having a &quot;base of operations&quot;.&nbsp; He wants a city with reoccuring organization contacts.&nbsp;&nbsp; (This is part of integrating his character development into the game.)&nbsp; There is a 'world' conflict if the DM is spending his time developing the cairns outside of the city, or if the rest of the party want to leave the city.&nbsp; There is a 'story' conflict if DM introduces a metaplot instrument (the ring must be taken to the mountain).&nbsp; There is also an 'action' conflict if the activities in the city are not combat oriented.&nbsp; All elements must be present, but I also think they conflict with each other on occasion.&nbsp; I also do not believe that any campaign can perfectly balance all four elements.&nbsp; I also think you can develop different styles of campaigns by favoring one area over another, and that different players will react to these styles in different ways.&nbsp; And I also think that no two people are going to agree on the ideas of a &quot;perfect&quot; amount of action vs a &quot;perfect&quot; amount of character backstory involvement vs a &quot;perfect&quot; presence of ongoing metastory vs a &quot;perfect&quot; number of finely developed areas to explore.&nbsp; What one person thinks is a perfect balance of all four elements, someone else might think the world isn't developed well enough or another might think his backstory is being ignored while another might think there are too many calls for initiative.What does everyone else think?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takasi, post: 3560989, member: 20194"] Another analogy. Every football team needs great quarterbacks, receivers, linemen, special teams, linebackers, etc to be successful. Every team only has so much money to pay for them, and sometimes the offense and/or the defense, will, by circumstance, improve or degrade regardless of how much money or effort is spent to change them. So while, in a perfect world, you would have a team that is perfect at everything, teams are generally judged for their strengths and weaknesses in its elements. Coaches also have a preference for what works best for them, and even fans can have a preference for what improvements they want to see. Similar to a salary cap, a campaign has a "game cap". There is only so much actual gameplay (and DM development) that can be given to a campaign. Which do you develop most? The action scenes? Work on integrating a character's background? Work on an ongoing metaplot? Prepare more organizations, cities, areas to explore? Do you favor one over the other as a DM? As a player? Some situations, IMO, are mutually exclusive. For example, let's say you have a player who loves having a "base of operations". He wants a city with reoccuring organization contacts. (This is part of integrating his character development into the game.) There is a 'world' conflict if the DM is spending his time developing the cairns outside of the city, or if the rest of the party want to leave the city. There is a 'story' conflict if DM introduces a metaplot instrument (the ring must be taken to the mountain). There is also an 'action' conflict if the activities in the city are not combat oriented. All elements must be present, but I also think they conflict with each other on occasion. I also do not believe that any campaign can perfectly balance all four elements. I also think you can develop different styles of campaigns by favoring one area over another, and that different players will react to these styles in different ways. And I also think that no two people are going to agree on the ideas of a "perfect" amount of action vs a "perfect" amount of character backstory involvement vs a "perfect" presence of ongoing metastory vs a "perfect" number of finely developed areas to explore. What one person thinks is a perfect balance of all four elements, someone else might think the world isn't developed well enough or another might think his backstory is being ignored while another might think there are too many calls for initiative. What does everyone else think? [/QUOTE]

Verification