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="apoptosis" data-source="post: 4582171" data-attributes="member: 3226">Agreed some games (Dogs in the Vinyard) are good examples of games that are neither sandbox or railroading, but are also not illusionism, the players are fully aware that 'x' type of conflict will occur and are given tools to also make sure that they do.My point was not about whether the DM sets up a setting/overarching conflict, i think they should and I also think player input should be involved in making this overarching conflict so all groups get out of the game what they want.I personally though do not like games where after an initial set up and buy in, future events will occur regardless of what my decisions are (given that my character/player should reasonably be having an impact on this event)That the country of Crazy Orcs is going to invade HappyLand basically no matter what my character does but itself would not bother me if i had the expectation that this is far beyond the scope of what my character could control.This is very different than the Necromance scenario that Cadfan pointed out earlier where, if you do X you get attack band A and if you do Y you still get attack band A.For some, the challenging conflict (fighting attack band A) is what is important to them, for me the impact of my actions on the final result of either facing attack band A or attack band B is much more important in a general FRPG campaign.I do fully realize that this is a continuum and not an 'either' 'or' issue though.Another example, if a band of assassins are planning to attack my character at the market, but I instead go to the tavern. If the assassins still attack at the tavern (when they should have been waiting to ambush me at the market), this does not really bother me given that the decision to go to market or tavern was really knowledge neutral (i had no idea that anything significant would happen at either location) and to which place I went was really a meaningless choice to me (in this example).Now if i was being a cautious player and covering all my trails and chose places based on whether I thought i could get ambushed or not and got ambushed because the GM thought it would be cool (he wanted some combat), then that might be more of an issue as it removes any effects from meaningful choices that I made. Now obviously the GM could (retroactively) make up any reason why they could track me (they had a permanent scrying on me or something) for the ambush, but on some level I would want the GM to respect meaningful choices that my character (or player) makes.These are different resolutions though there is obviously a big grey area.Apoptosis</blockquote>

Verification