Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 4864288" data-attributes="member: 2205">More the latter.&nbsp; I say that I don't do dungeons, but that's not exactly true, it's slightly more accurate to say that I just don't do the paradigm of static, site-based adventures.&nbsp; It's also true that I rarely do actual dungeons, but on occasion, yeah, I'll have PCs stumble through a castle or temple, or even a cave complex.&nbsp; But it's more about the paradigm of why I'm playing that I don't follow anymore, and to be honest with you, never really did.&nbsp; I think my D&amp;D prodigal son days were severely influenced by the fact that I was disappointed with this (to me) paradigm of pretty pointless playing.I disagree with that pretty emphatically.&nbsp; My players are not puppies, needing to be molded, we're all highly creative adults.&nbsp; In fact, my players are, in fact, mostly also all GMs of various games.&nbsp; Running a game is a collaborative process.&nbsp; The GM doesn't call all the shots, and &quot;push&quot; his players towards a certain playstyle, he presents options, and all the players (including the GM) work together to get the game they all want.In other words, I don't think your analogy represents any good game I've ever been involved in.&nbsp; It does, however, resemble a number of really bad games that I've been involved in, and which I happily left behind.Who cares?&nbsp; It's not the real world.&nbsp; These characters aren't actually the players.&nbsp; Having characters be in a situation that's worse is entertaining.&nbsp; How many good books have you seen where the characters didn't confront problems?&nbsp; How interesting movies have you seen where the characters just went about their routine?Yeah, bad things happen.&nbsp; That's kinda the whole point of playing in the first place.That may be true for a subset of GMs out there, but everyone who's said anything about it in this thread to date has made it quite clear that that doesn't resemble their games at all.You've set up a false dichotomy in calling this &quot;positive&quot; and in implying that GMs can only follow the story of the players if it's site-based, &quot;sandbox&quot; gaming.&nbsp; You've seen an awful lot of evidence, if you've paid attention to any of it, that that's not true in this thread.No, no, no, no, no.&nbsp; What are &quot;story&quot; changes?&nbsp; The environment changes and evolves.&nbsp; NPCs have agendas.&nbsp; They do things.&nbsp; Things happen.&nbsp; That's not the story.&nbsp; The story is the PCs.&nbsp; What do they react to?&nbsp; Which problems do they think are interesting, and which do they decide to let go?I think it's a bit disingenious to say that's the slippery slope to railroading, that the environment changes.&nbsp; I'd argue that that slope really isn't very slippery at all. This already is much more railroady than any game I've ever run.&nbsp; Who said the players have to be heros?&nbsp; Who says that they must confront evil?&nbsp; Who says they have to foster progress?&nbsp; See, in my &quot;event-based&quot; games, I make none of those assumptions.&nbsp; That's all stuff for the PCs to decide.&nbsp; Many, many, times, I've had players not want to follow that predictable, &quot;railroaded&quot; route, and done other things entirely.You say that the PCs could stay in the inn and not do anything, therefore your game isn't railroady, but honestly... is that true?&nbsp; Have you ever had anyone do that?&nbsp; What kind of game would you have, in that case?You've created another false dichotomy.&nbsp; You don't have a game if your players don't engage the site you've got.I don't know that heroically deliverying society from evil feels very sword &amp; sorcery to me.&nbsp; That's kinda in opposition to most sword &amp; sorcery.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 4864288, member: 2205"] More the latter. I say that I don't do dungeons, but that's not [I]exactly[/I] true, it's slightly more accurate to say that I just don't do the paradigm of static, site-based adventures. It's also true that I [I]rarely[/I] do actual dungeons, but on occasion, yeah, I'll have PCs stumble through a castle or temple, or even a cave complex. But it's more about the paradigm of why I'm playing that I don't follow anymore, and to be honest with you, never really did. I think my D&D prodigal son days were severely influenced by the fact that I was disappointed with this (to me) paradigm of pretty pointless playing. I disagree with that pretty emphatically. My players are not puppies, needing to be molded, we're all highly creative adults. In fact, my players are, in fact, mostly also all GMs of various games. Running a game is a collaborative process. The GM doesn't call all the shots, and "push" his players towards a certain playstyle, he presents options, and all the players (including the GM) work together to get the game they all want. In other words, I don't think your analogy represents any [I]good[/I] game I've ever been involved in. It does, however, resemble a number of really [I]bad[/I] games that I've been involved in, and which I happily left behind. Who cares? It's not the real world. These characters aren't actually the players. Having characters be in a situation that's worse is entertaining. How many good books have you seen where the characters didn't confront problems? How interesting movies have you seen where the characters just went about their routine? Yeah, bad things happen. That's kinda the whole point of playing in the first place. That may be true for a subset of GMs out there, but everyone who's said anything about it in [I]this[/I] thread to date has made it quite clear that that doesn't resemble [I]their[/I] games at all. You've set up a false dichotomy in calling this "positive" and in implying that GMs can only follow the story of the players if it's site-based, "sandbox" gaming. You've seen an awful lot of evidence, if you've paid attention to any of it, that that's not true in this thread. No, no, no, no, no. What are "story" changes? The [I]environment[/I] changes and evolves. NPCs have agendas. They do things. Things happen. That's not the story. The story is the PCs. What do they react to? Which problems do they think are interesting, and which do they decide to let go? I think it's a bit disingenious to say that's the slippery slope to railroading, that the environment changes. I'd argue that that slope really isn't very slippery at all. This already is much more railroady than any game I've ever run. Who said the players have to be heros? Who says that they must confront evil? Who says they have to foster progress? See, in my "event-based" games, I make none of those assumptions. That's all stuff for the PCs to decide. Many, many, times, I've had players not want to follow that predictable, "railroaded" route, and done other things entirely. You say that the PCs could stay in the inn and not do anything, therefore your game isn't railroady, but honestly... is that true? Have you ever had anyone do that? What kind of game would you have, in that case? You've created another false dichotomy. You don't [I]have[/I] a game if your players don't engage the site you've got. I don't know that heroically deliverying society from evil feels very sword & sorcery to me. That's kinda in opposition to most sword & sorcery. [/QUOTE]

Verification