Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6793298" data-attributes="member: 6698278">This is a pretty good explanation.&nbsp; It really is a two totally different styles.&nbsp;&nbsp; Fail forward is an &quot;of course!&quot; idea in the story driven approach and it is not in the game approach.When I play I want no forgone conclusions.&nbsp; I like sandbox worlds.&nbsp; I want the players to literally do whatever they want within those limitations.&nbsp; Life and death is determined by the dice and by good play.&nbsp; Victory is achieving character goals that the player as the character has set.&nbsp;&nbsp; The player never intrudes on the game except through his character.&nbsp; The DM spends a lot of time building a really complex and interesting sandbox that his players can explore and enjoy.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is basically my style learned at the knee of Gygax.&nbsp; I'm not claiming any superiority for this style other than that it is what I enjoy.&nbsp; I believe it was the original roleplaying style because when coming from a world of no roleplaying the game approach is the obvious first step.&nbsp;&nbsp; I also realize the story approach has evolved out of the game approach with people wanting to play differently and in their minds better and likely for them it is better.I don't think there is any solution to our debate.&nbsp; I enjoy the discussion.&nbsp; I just think matters of taste are hard to debate.&nbsp; I like X and someone else likes Y.&nbsp;&nbsp; What more is there to say?&nbsp;&nbsp; What I do dislike is WOTC presenting ANY style as a given.&nbsp; I think the DMG needs to spend some time explaining to DMs how to run a great game in the style they prefer.&nbsp; I do think a lot of this stuff is very much a DM/player decision and maybe only needs some guidance on how to use the rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6793298, member: 6698278"] This is a pretty good explanation. It really is a two totally different styles. Fail forward is an "of course!" idea in the story driven approach and it is not in the game approach. When I play I want no forgone conclusions. I like sandbox worlds. I want the players to literally do whatever they want within those limitations. Life and death is determined by the dice and by good play. Victory is achieving character goals that the player as the character has set. The player never intrudes on the game except through his character. The DM spends a lot of time building a really complex and interesting sandbox that his players can explore and enjoy. That is basically my style learned at the knee of Gygax. I'm not claiming any superiority for this style other than that it is what I enjoy. I believe it was the original roleplaying style because when coming from a world of no roleplaying the game approach is the obvious first step. I also realize the story approach has evolved out of the game approach with people wanting to play differently and in their minds better and likely for them it is better. I don't think there is any solution to our debate. I enjoy the discussion. I just think matters of taste are hard to debate. I like X and someone else likes Y. What more is there to say? What I do dislike is WOTC presenting ANY style as a given. I think the DMG needs to spend some time explaining to DMs how to run a great game in the style they prefer. I do think a lot of this stuff is very much a DM/player decision and maybe only needs some guidance on how to use the rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification