Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takasi" data-source="post: 4864343" data-attributes="member: 20194">The thing about analogies is that they aren't always perfect.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Players aren't puppies, but GMs still reward players.  There are positive methods and negative methods.  Players can see progress when they accomplish their own goals, or they can see changes if they fail to accomplish someone else's goals (which are usually something concocted by the DM).  I would love to read about an example of a good game that doesn't involve positive or negative rewards that did not originate from the GM.  I'm sure players can offer each other rewards too, but the final decisions on how the world changes ultimately come from the GM right?GMs can offer a status quo world where players can get themselves into dramatic situations.  It's their choice though, and if they choose to avoid a situation then there are little to no consequences.  The danger of the situations they put themselves into is more important than the impending doom that might befall someone else if they fail.  It's more personal.  Again, you can have bad things happen in status quo games, but it's the result of getting yourself into dangerous situations.  It's not the result of choosing to ignore the GM's ideas.I didn't say they can only follow the story if the entire game is status quo.   Some games have a mix of status quo sandbox play and world changing timed event play.  Most games out there have a mix of positive and negative reward methods.  Any time something happens in the world it's a part of the story.  I never said they had to do anything.  They can sit in the inn if they want.  They can loot and pillage and join in the dark times if that's what they choose to do.  I think what you might be implying is that the players might not like the status quo, or what you have to do to change the status quo.  I agree, because just the fact that the GM is the one who makes those changes is another restriction of freedom from the players.  Ideally the players work together with the GM to tell him what they want the status quo to be like, how dark things are and what their personal character goals will be before the campaign even starts.I've had a few starting sessions where players just sat around a tavern and BS'd with the locals to learn about the area.  Sometimes they get a good idea of the area and stay, other times they move on. I think this entire conversation could use an examination of the difference in style when playing in a 'Heroic fantasy' game:<a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicFantasy" target="_blank">Heroic Fantasy - Television Tropes & Idioms</a>vs playing in a 'High Fantasy' game:<a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HighFantasy" target="_blank">High Fantasy - Television Tropes & Idioms</a>One tends to foster railroading more often than the other, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification