Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6313366" data-attributes="member: 6698278">This is why I tend to prep for my games far in advance of running one.&nbsp; I may work six months on a campaign before even discovering who my players will be.&nbsp; I put out a notice that I'm running a game and here is the flavor and ground rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; Those interested opt-in.&nbsp;&nbsp; I always have plenty wanting into the game.&nbsp;&nbsp; I believe there are many ways in roleplaying to have fun so I'm not criticizing other approaches.&nbsp; I am saying that my own style matches up with what Pulsipher says and I do that style really well.&nbsp;&nbsp; I base that upon the demand to get into my campaign.I do a sandbox and I never force my players down any path.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's just like our real world.&nbsp; I know if I jump off the roof I can't fly.&nbsp; It's not a limitation on my freedom that gravity pulls me downward.&nbsp; I present the players with a world.&nbsp; It has rules and it works in a certain way.&nbsp; I fill that world with interesting NPCs and monsters who have their own agendas.&nbsp; The PCs are then totally free to do what they want within the context of the design of that world.&nbsp; When I talk about thinking out things, I'm not talking about designing a single adventure that the group has to play.&nbsp; I'm talking about designing and NPC and making sure that NPC plays appropriately to his intelligence and has a set of preplanned actions given certain events so that I am not tempted to unconsciously make a biased decision.&nbsp; That NPC may never appear on stage in the game.&nbsp; If the PCs turn left they might meet a totally different NPC and the first is never met.&nbsp; I have no agenda when it comes to what the PCs do.&nbsp; In fact I avoid like the plague any scenario like a &quot;save the world&quot; scenario.&nbsp; I want the world to operate with or without the PCs input.&nbsp; I want the PCs to affect the world but in the manner of their own choosing.I think you are over thinking.&nbsp; Many of us aim for perfection but no one hits it.&nbsp; That does not mean though that that is not our goal.&nbsp; I honestly believe that from what I read of the article that my game is very much the sort of game he is talking about.&nbsp;&nbsp; I realize that I learned my playstyle from Gary Gygax and people of his philosophy (during the late 70's and 80's).&nbsp; I made it work and work well so I haven't wanted to change it since.&nbsp;&nbsp; I want my players AND characters challenged.&nbsp; I love puzzles and traps.&nbsp; I love when the players figure out a way to totally turn a tough fight into an easy one.&nbsp;&nbsp; I love when they use the dungeons traps against the inhabitants.&nbsp; All of that sort of play is exactly the game I love.&nbsp; I'm not saying others can't enjoy their own approaches.&nbsp; I just have one that for me works great.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6313366, member: 6698278"] This is why I tend to prep for my games far in advance of running one. I may work six months on a campaign before even discovering who my players will be. I put out a notice that I'm running a game and here is the flavor and ground rules. Those interested opt-in. I always have plenty wanting into the game. I believe there are many ways in roleplaying to have fun so I'm not criticizing other approaches. I am saying that my own style matches up with what Pulsipher says and I do that style really well. I base that upon the demand to get into my campaign. I do a sandbox and I never force my players down any path. It's just like our real world. I know if I jump off the roof I can't fly. It's not a limitation on my freedom that gravity pulls me downward. I present the players with a world. It has rules and it works in a certain way. I fill that world with interesting NPCs and monsters who have their own agendas. The PCs are then totally free to do what they want within the context of the design of that world. When I talk about thinking out things, I'm not talking about designing a single adventure that the group has to play. I'm talking about designing and NPC and making sure that NPC plays appropriately to his intelligence and has a set of preplanned actions given certain events so that I am not tempted to unconsciously make a biased decision. That NPC may never appear on stage in the game. If the PCs turn left they might meet a totally different NPC and the first is never met. I have no agenda when it comes to what the PCs do. In fact I avoid like the plague any scenario like a "save the world" scenario. I want the world to operate with or without the PCs input. I want the PCs to affect the world but in the manner of their own choosing. I think you are over thinking. Many of us aim for perfection but no one hits it. That does not mean though that that is not our goal. I honestly believe that from what I read of the article that my game is very much the sort of game he is talking about. I realize that I learned my playstyle from Gary Gygax and people of his philosophy (during the late 70's and 80's). I made it work and work well so I haven't wanted to change it since. I want my players AND characters challenged. I love puzzles and traps. I love when the players figure out a way to totally turn a tough fight into an easy one. I love when they use the dungeons traps against the inhabitants. All of that sort of play is exactly the game I love. I'm not saying others can't enjoy their own approaches. I just have one that for me works great. [/QUOTE]

Verification