Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9620809">I don't think it is intentional but I do still think this in fact a straw man. I will try to address these point s though:  I found some of this difficult to parse so if I misunderstand a point feel free to correct I would certainly not use this language to describe what I think you are describing, and I think it is even possible we are talking about entirely different styles of play in this thread. What I am talking about is a range of play styles that have come up, encompassing a lot of but generally styles of play where the GM prioritizes player agency, immersion and cause and effect within the game setting. That game setting though, is rarely a model of pure realism or real world. I am not so sure about C and D here. I think you are making assumptions, and those assumptions are rooted in the tendency you and some other posters have to see games in terms of agenda. There are, I feel lots of different reasons players and GMs like this approach. One of the big reasons is to avoid railroads for example. Another one is players like the feeling of being able to try anything in a game world and see where that leads. Obviously logical and causality are important. Puzzle solving may or may not be a feature at all. Yes, every style and approach has trade offs, and I have mentioned the trade offs of a style like this. And yes moving outside the dungeon is always more challenging than that confined space, but I think you are also making a flawed assumption here that this is simply scaling up from dungeon play. No one is denying this. I don't find this to be as much of a problem in practice. It is very much a personality issue of course. But generally you find 1) people who play this way aren't as hung up about this as the critics in these threads often are and 2) There is a lot more collective discussion about cause and effect than you may think in these styles of play. 3) The GM doesn't have limitless power to impose his authority here. You are not just the passive recipients of the GMs decisions about cause and effects. The GM needs to consider how players will react and if they will find certain things plausible. This is a major part of learning how to do this style well. If you are reaching conclusions that disrupt your player's sense of disbelief, that is something people consider a major issue in this style of play. That is immersion disrupting and it would likely prompt a discussion.  Again this is where the straw man keeps coming in. No one is under any illusion that they are simulating a real world. There are certainly GMs who want more simulationist play. My experience is that is actually rare to hear that language used though. And when you encounter GMs who want simulationist (in the sense of simulating a real world) they will often prefer much more involved systems to help deal with that. The other issue is this style is rarely ever all about GM deciding things a lone. Table are significant aspect of this kind of play, in order to help maintain the sense of a world moving around the players. Many things are going to be resolved with die rolls. It isn't always just the GM deciding things. And a lot of times, even when it is the GMs decision, they are going to formulate a ruling that could involve dice. Yes communication issues can arise. But no one is under any illusion that they are communicating things perfectly and this is something you get better at over time. It is also why there often are Q&A's in this style, which people have mentioned many times in the thread. I find 30 minutes of pleading a case very rare. If there is disagreement, that can usually be handled in minutes in my experience. I've almost never seen bad blood emerge in this style of play. I have seen it in some other styles, but this is one  where I have probably had the least difficulty in that respect. That isn't to say problems can't emerge. Because player agency is almost sacred in this style, one issue that can arise and that I have seen more than once is friction between the players themselves (you do want to watch out for 'it is what my character would do' and you want to make sure everyone is absolutely on the same page when it comes to whether there can be any player versus player in this style). I would say these are much bigger causes of problems than arguments of causality Yes this style requires people to be mature adults at the table. There I agree, if I understand your point. But that is true of virtually any style. It isn't a good fit for players who like to argue a lot for example, or for players who have issues with GM authority. It is also not a good fit for players who want certain styles of play This just ins't much of a real problem in my experience. I think there are plenty of problems that can arise in this style. I've been running about 70 percent of my games like this for ages and I've never seen players get confused by how the game state moved from A to B. The bigger issue really is a pacing one, which is sometimes these games are slower to move from A to B because you are prioritizing making sure you understand what the players want to do next and you aren't thinking in terms of say scenes or encounters. There are issues that can emerge around this. I am not sure what the last sentence here really means If you are saying some players can learn to game the GM. Yes that can happen. But that is also why fairness and objectivity are so heavily emphasized. But this can also happen in an adventure path. It is a social game, and people can learn to use that to their advantage. I wouldn't say they are the only thing that matters. I would say they are one of a number of things that tend to be highly valued in this style of play. I wouldn't call this dollhouse play. I think once you do that, you create antagonism in the discussion (like magic tea time or whatever the other label is for this kind of play). If you use insulting language, you aren't going to get an open and genuine conversation from people. That said, yes, of course, when the world is open, when logic and consistency matter, you can have different degrees of 'exploring the mundane'. But that is a group thing. Some groups will be okay with roleplaying at a tavern, some groups will be okay with starting a business in the campaign. Usually though players also expect some amount of excitement and so even these sorts of things probably shouldn't be free of conflict and adventure potential. One reason I call my style drama and sandbox, is this very problem. It was something that was a discussed a lot in discussions about sandbox and living world (because there is a lot of concern in this style about the game feeling artificial through GM intrusion with adventure hooks and such). I eventually reached the conclusion that for me, I want a certain amount of genre emulation and drama in my sandboxes so if the players decide to spend a session visiting an NPC at a beloved property, something interesting will likely arise. And this is also why tables are so useful. World in motion means the world keeps moving, and the mechanics of that motion can be as exciting, adventurous and dramatic as you want. This is a fair concern. And it is an area where you see a lot of discussion among GMs who play in this style. I do think this concern though is kind of an old one. Most GMs have kind of addressed this and moved past the concern if you go to places where this style is common (i.e. there are solutions, if this is an issue for you). But it still might be too rudderless for some players, which is why I woudln't recommend it for every group. I don't think this is the best or only style of play. What it is great for in my experience is players who like agency and the ability to impact a setting, and for long term campaigns (there is usually a lot of front-loaded set up but this style of campaign almost runs itself once it gets going). I am not quite sure what you mean here. But different GMs and groups have different preferences on how naturalistic this stuff should be. For the record, I dont' play in naturalistic or historically realistic mode. My sandboxes are usually very genre heavy. They are like putting players in a Shaw Brothers universe This I don't get. I have seen TPKs but they haven't ever been the product of any kind of breakdown or exasperation (usually they are a product of either bad rolls or bad choices). The rest of this I just haven't seen much of at all I would still content there is a strong straw man here. I am not saying it isn't based on your experience, but that is just your experience. This might not be a good style of play for your personality and preferences. That doesn't mean everyone else is encountering teh issues you are Fair enough, but I have like 15 friends running this style of play who don't have the problem your best friend keeps running into. And I have even more online acquaintances who do so without these issues Then I don't know what to tell you. The fact that there are these variances is one of the strengths of this style. If it were more homogeneous I think that would be a bad thing Yes. See above lol I couldn't invoke Sisyphus over it, but I would say like any other thing in life, yes this variance will have pluses and minuses  I can see how this might be difficult for some people. This has never presented a problem for me or anyone I know who plays this style for more than a few weeks. I think initially it can be challenging to run a game like this for sure. And it isn't a game I would have wanted to run when I first started, because when you are a young gamer, more social issues can arise. But as an adult, never found getting on the same page with people to be hard.  No it isn't. This is where the straw man of simulating a real world comes in. I think the issue is you may come into this style of play with much higher expectations of results than most people who play this style, in which case, sure it isn't a good for you. Again, any game can break down. Groups need to figure out how much focus they want in this style of play. But I don't tink any of this is rocket science</blockquote>

Verification