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="Mishihari Lord" data-source="post: 2757896" data-attributes="member: 128">I'm not talking about using things from the player's background, I'm talking about polling them at the end of the last play session to find out what they want to do in the next.  If you object even to this, then I have to ask _why_ you want the style of play you define as open.  The usual reasons cited for people advocating "open play" (which differs from the definition you're using) is to empower the players by letting them determine the story and course of  actions.  This level of openness (open and closed are not your only choices, there is a whole spectrum of play styles in-between) meets that goal and still allows the DM to prepare.  With a higher level of openness, the DM can't prepare and your game will sufferNope.  I let you define "openness"; I get to define "god-mode" <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> "God mode" meanse no chance of failure.  You can choose to win in different ways, but you always win.  I'm not applying this to the game as a whole, since you can still lose still lose in the challenges you meet, just to the choice of course of actions.  You want to "always win" in your choice.  Whatever you do becomes the main story.  I like the choice of courses of action to be part of the game.  The better I choose, the more relevant my encounters will be to my goal and the more succesful I'll be.I'm now wondering if this is a difference between Simulaitonist and Narrativist play.  I'm a pretty hard-core simulationist, and have never been in a really narrativist game.You're not making a general argument for open vs closed play here.  You're making an argument for winging it rather than using prepared material if the point of your game is to explore your characters' personailty.  This is a pretty specific and unusual style of play.I can't really comment on whether you're right or not, because I have little experience with this type of play.  While I do assert that the level of openness you advocate will cause more problems then it's worth generally, it may indeed help you achieve better play in that one very specific style of play.Againg this is an "exploring your personailty" vs "facing challenges in the world" issue.  It's a totally separate issue than open vs closed.Again, "the world revolves around the PCs" vs not is a different issue than open vs closed.  You can have a high level of openness in your game without requiring that your PCs are the center of the universe.  Personally, I find that this style lacks versimmilitude. Where to start?  First, verisimilitude, defined as "the appearance of reality" exists only in the players' minds.  The world never appears real to the DM because he knows where the holes are.One challenge or another is not the same in the players' eyes.  Some challenges are more fun than others.  Some challenges will advance their goals better than others.  Some challenges are harder than others.  (They don't have to be, but I found that having all encounters near a party's CR (again) lacks virisimilitude.It's starting to sound like your desire for openness is due to a DM that's railroading you.  "Nothing happens until you do what I want you to" is just as much a railroad as "You head back to town?  Okay, you're surrounded by a swirl of lights and find yourself entering the dragon's lair"  There are better ways to address this issue.I think the reason I had a hard time understanding you at first is not your English (which is just fine) but the set of assumptions you're working from.  If you had said "I want a super-open game" because it supports exploring characters' personailities, playing with the PCs as the center of the universe, and narrativist play goals  I would have understood much more quickly.  I took this as a discussion of open vs closed play in general terms.</blockquote>

Verification