NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5608559" data-attributes="member: 6668292">This is much too narrative for me to want to play a fantasy setting in it. It's not wrong, at all, but it's not my style, and probably not the preferred play style of other people on these boards (or even in this thread).I'd prefer a different approach to the game. One that isn't dictated by "what would be cool for the story now?" While those games are fine (and I enjoy them with other genres), it's just not for me in a fantasy setting. It's never felt right. I much prefer a reactive, referee-like style for a GM. I prefer the PCs act within an evolving setting, though, too.This is a play style issue. Your way isn't wrong. But, it's not leading to a "better game" for everyone, like Hussar thinks his way would provide.Yeah, corruption is present. There's no reason not to expect it. But, I think things change when the ruler can kill a dozen or more men at once or can injure or obliterate a cavalry line with a spell. And has people loyal to him who can do so.But, I do agree corruption should be present, taken into account, and able to be used by the players if they go about it intelligently.For some guards this will be the case. Not for others. Especially not so if there's a particularly powerful and/or brutal ruler.This is just a play style preference. It's like anything, really. In 3.X, I don't like TBo9S because I'd rather bring magic down than scale melee up. Does that mean I think TBo9S is bad? Not at all. If you like it, use it. But it's not right for me.The same basically goes with what we're talking about. If your players have a lot of say over the setting, that's awesome. I'm honestly really glad you can enjoy yourselves playing in a way I couldn't, really. I think it shows just how dynamic the hobby is. But, it's not for everyone. Letting other people play with their preferred style, by the terms of their social contract, without Hussar telling them how to play a "better game" (because they aren't playing by his preferences) is probably much more productive.On a side note, the idea that guards being loyal is unreasonable to you amuses me slightly. Especially since loyal guards in a game are there "solely to prevent the players from carrying out a specific strategy." I have a feeling we play very different games <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As always, though, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification