Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8223462" data-attributes="member: 6790260">IMO, as I said above, this is comparing best-practices sandbox style to worst-practices &quot;party&quot; style. You have ensured the former features the groundedness, while ensuring the latter cannot, even in principle.Working off the example of the quantum target, which 10% exists and 90% doesn't exist in any given town, we can see an example of an intensely ungrounded but clearly in your terms &quot;(2)-style&quot; (it has no care for what actions the players take!) situation. By comparison, a best-practices &quot;party&quot; style would figure out a rational idea of where the target would wander to and then place both carrot and stick prompts in front of the party to encourage them to run into the target when it would be thematically appropriate to do so. This preserves the grounded nature of the target--its movements have nothing to do with the party's choices--yet naturalistically encourages events to happen in a narratively and mathematically appropriate context.Just as with best-practices sandbox play, you cannot GAURANTEE perfect success without creating problems and weakening the groundedness of the experience. Accepting that your solutions will always be approximate and needing player buy-in is arguably the first step on the journey of learning best practices for either style. But it is perfectly possible to play a highly grounded &quot;party-style&quot; game, just as it is perfectly possible to play a highly non-grounded sandbox-style game--and, in general, best practices for each style lead toward more, rather than less, groundedness. There may still be some lingering differences, but they will not be nearly as extreme as the example you gave.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8223462, member: 6790260"] IMO, as I said above, this is comparing best-practices sandbox style to worst-practices "party" style. You have ensured the former features the groundedness, while ensuring the latter cannot, even in principle. Working off the example of the quantum target, which 10% exists and 90% doesn't exist in any given town, we can see an example of an intensely ungrounded but clearly in your terms "(2)-style" (it has no care for what actions the players take!) situation. By comparison, a best-practices "party" style would figure out a rational idea of where the target would wander to and then place both carrot and stick prompts in front of the party to encourage them to run into the target when it would be thematically appropriate to do so. This preserves the grounded nature of the target--its movements have nothing to do with the party's choices--yet naturalistically encourages events to happen in a narratively and mathematically appropriate context. Just as with best-practices sandbox play, you cannot GAURANTEE perfect success without creating problems and weakening the groundedness of the experience. Accepting that your solutions will always be approximate and needing player buy-in is arguably the first step on the journey of learning best practices for either style. But it is perfectly possible to play a highly grounded "party-style" game, just as it is perfectly possible to play a highly non-grounded sandbox-style game--and, in general, best practices for each style lead toward more, rather than less, groundedness. There may still be some lingering differences, but they will not be nearly as extreme as the example you gave. [/QUOTE]

Verification