Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5269534" data-attributes="member: 80487">What Mr. McCrae said:It is not, in the old style, the case thatThe Volunteer Fire Department's activities are not necessarily directly causing, or being caused by, those of the Noisy Bridge Rod and Gun Club, or the Fight Club, or even Tristero.What is essential is that entities can affect one another, that effects propagate within the field of play that is an imagined universe. That distinguishes it from &quot;a series of one shots&quot;.Each player is free to make what use of that fact he or she pleases. It is not necessary that there should be any continuous alliance.This is pretty much part and parcel with the &quot;sandbox campaign&quot; as I usually meet the term. The &quot;monolithic party&quot; is the root of many problems these days, when people in other respects carry forward unexamined &quot;legacy&quot; assumptions from the old game. We can have such a thing, rather than the player, as the basic unit of play. The Party can be a free-range monad, and we can call that a &quot;sandbox&quot; -- and for some purposes of discussion that will be dandy. It is not the &quot;campaign&quot; arrangement, though, for which the original rules were set up. Prohibiting certain moves can radically change a game, possibly &quot;breaking&quot; balances that helped make it interesting.The 3e and 4e games have books that discuss their own structures quite admirably, one field of endeavor in which I have seen improvement. How they define &quot;encounters&quot; and &quot;adventures&quot; and &quot;campaigns&quot; as technical jargon is a key part of the explication of &quot;edition&quot;-specific mechanisms.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5269534, member: 80487"] What Mr. McCrae said: It is not, in the old style, the case that The Volunteer Fire Department's activities are not necessarily directly causing, or being caused by, those of the Noisy Bridge Rod and Gun Club, or the Fight Club, or even Tristero. What is essential is that entities [i]can[/i] affect one another, that effects propagate within the field of play that is an imagined universe. That distinguishes it from "a series of one shots". Each player is free to make what use of that fact he or she pleases. It is not necessary that there should be any continuous alliance. This is pretty much part and parcel with the "sandbox campaign" as I usually meet the term. The "monolithic party" is the root of many problems these days, when people in other respects carry forward unexamined "legacy" assumptions from the old game. We can have such a thing, rather than the player, as the basic unit of play. The Party can be a free-range monad, and we can call that a "sandbox" -- and for some purposes of discussion that will be dandy. It is not the "campaign" arrangement, though, for which the original rules were set up. Prohibiting certain moves can radically change a game, possibly "breaking" balances that helped make it interesting. The 3e and 4e games have books that discuss their own structures quite admirably, one field of endeavor in which I have seen improvement. How they define "encounters" and "adventures" and "campaigns" as technical jargon is a key part of the explication of [i]"edition"-specific[/i] mechanisms. [/QUOTE]

Verification