Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bastoche" data-source="post: 2757219" data-attributes="member: 306">Ok lots of stuff going on!Right. But if the goal are determined up front by the players via background instead of chosen "of the fly" during the game, it's not the same. The former is still closed but closed by the PCs and the later is open. For the first quote: no it's not god mode because each choice cause a conscequence. In god mode, there's no conscequence. And "god-mode" is not the proper term as I'm demonstrated already in a prior post.In the second quote's example, it's not the same since if the PC choose to "avoid meeting the NPCs" they will not influence them. The kind of choices I'm suggesting are choices that no matter what you choose, you will influence NPC. If NPC = monster and influence = killing them (or bypassing them by talking whatever), you need to "force" the meeting if you want the PC to influence them. On my family example, no matter what the PC choose, he WILL influence both his family and it's rival.I agree 100% but it seems like it's taboo on this board to say that D&D does not support every playing style.I blame my french as english is not my first language. I'll give it another try:In other words, if the NPC's action is a "program" that is executed when and only when the PCs encounter them (same if it's executed in background maybe independently of the PC's actions), it's like a pre-written scenario. The way it will actually be played out is left to the interaction between players and DM but the general outcome is more or less predetermined by the NPC's goals/motivation/plot. What I'm suggesting is that the other way to do it is to have the general outcome determined by the player's choice and right on the spot. To have a choice made on the spot, it has to be conflicting with regards to the motivations of the character.So to return to the active/passive thing:I'm not arguing for or against active/active. I'm arguing that to have open ended play, you MUST only have active/active choices (there may be others but they are to the game similar to buying trail ration or a new sword like a necessary evil. In other words, it's not the object of the game but we have to go through such instances of play eventually. It should always take a short table time).Then it means that the encounter does not provide to the players a conflict/situation/encounter that favors their style of play!!! So the "campaign style"  consideration here is that such an encounter should never happen (at least not that exact same way) in "open-gaming" style. The encounter does not provide a significant choice to make for the players and will be a boring encounter to such player. BAM! There you have it! (I let go the DM screwing the player part as it should be eleminated from any game). You could've started the sentence by: "My playing style is such that..." These desires for a campaign world is incompatible with the "significant/open gaming" style I'm suggesting. Consistency, a world outside of the PC, etc. That's exactly what I was trying to say in my paragraph I had re explained above.In open gaming style, the role of the DM is not to hope the PC "falls" on the plot. You put it in their way. That's the whole point. I'll give an example in few lines. Second, YOU have determined how the world "is" in some part of the world (Al-Tizim for example). Since they never went there, is there really a reason NOT to report the "purge" to the time they get there? The players will NEVER know. It's one adventure or another! (that being said, it's not the open-gaming I'm speaking of. Just a very lazy way to run pseudo-open ended). Suppose your original scenario was the after-purge with the rebellion? You need to provide your players with a challenge. As long as it fits their challenge rating, versimilitude is not there just by that very fact. But it's ok because it's agreed upon that most of the game time will be spent facing encounters of the proper challenge rating. That's the point of this game. One challenge or another? The same in the player's point of view. Our DM runs that way but on top of that, he wants "his story" to go on and that's much worst with regards to versimilitude. He let us run around in circle until "the program" is ready to be executed (because of time frame or "space" frame). I would prefer if he railroaded us. Then we would spend time facing his challenges and he would see us run his scenario. But again, I repeat that this is NOT the open gaming I'm suggesting. I'm just illustrating that the notion of versimilitude does NOT exists in the players mind. Only in the DM's because only He "knows".This is were the confusion creeps up. As was pointed out by Mishihari Lord and Lost Soul, D&D 3E is not the perfect system to run "open" gaming. You need a mechanic that encourage the PC choose between "family" or "duty" (in my example) and not some other "we haven't thought of that" options. That's were the background kicks in. In the way you run things (as my understanding of how you run it), the families just exists because they *do*. To give flavor the the game world. A credibility. Texture, etc, you name it. In my suggestion, the families exists because both duty and familiy are equally important to the player via his character. "My character is a dutyfull knight who prides himself in his flawless respect for it and is very loyal to his family who runs a long tradition of family loyalty." The (devious <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) DM thens create that "no win" scenario where his duty part conflicts with his family loyalty part. It must be emphasized here that the players wants such conflict. If the player does not expect such a play, he might very well feel cheated that his character is "flawed" by the DM's plot. But I'm assuming that such conflict are what makes the game fun for such players and the background supply is there exactly to meddle with one way or another. At the point of the game where the choice is made, either the campaign ends because it was the point (after a climatic battle <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) or the players lists new priorities to meddle with next time. There is many ways to run this. The most intuitive introduction to D&D players IMO is through the riddle of steel.Now I said I was to give an example. Here it is. Frodo Baggins. He is not the only agent of change since he must have opponents. If the ring was returned to Sauron, he wouldn't have changed the world, Sauron would have. The "traditionnal" way to run things is the challenges facing toward mount doom. Success means keeping going on, failure means losing to Sauron (or milder like a set back or false start (the snowy pass I forgot the name because of the avalanche caused be saruman in the movie)). Here, we have to assume a bit of railroading since the "end" of the story is more or less set in stone. But let's assume that the story went that way *by chance* i.e. that was what the players wanted.The way I'm suggesting is that the player (Fordo) WILL get to mount doom. We could also assume that he will destroy the ring. But the "choices" or "challenges" are not bashing the monsters, getting to mount doom with a successful climb check or successfull hide vs the nazgul, etc. Instead the choices are "Should I remain loyal to the group or should I save them by leaving alone with the ring". "Should I be a real good hobbit and stay home not having any adventures or should I go with the ring?". "Should I try to save my friends or not risk losing the ring to the Nazgul (at the tower)?". "Should I kill evil Gollum or follow him to mount doom?". And Aragorn asked at some point "Should I let frodo go or not?" and the long question about "Should I claim kingship and face my demons or remain in the shadows and stay pure for sure?". Boromir and Faramir struggle: "should I take the ring from Fordo or not?" Etc. And the plot was throw "in their faces" by Gandalf and arguably the ring as some sort of NPC/demon, the NPCs weren't there because they *were* but to get the story going. To present choices to the players. In such a game success does not equal to acheiving your goal and failure *not* acheiving it. Success makes achieving your goal easier and failure harder.</blockquote>

Verification