Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8996716" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yeah, the Temple of Elemental Evil game is about the adventure site and the goings on there. Once we resolve the threat (which seems to be to deal with the evil powers that are present in the Temple), the game will be over, and we'll move on to a new campaign with new characters. Regarding your list, I don't know if I agree with all of them. I think the biggest questions relate to your second and third points... what is play about, how is that brought up in play, and who decides these things? Those seem to be largely related to the idea of control as it pertains to the game. I don't think that's what it's about. As I said, I'm playing in a 5e game with pretty standard levels of GM authority. I don't think I'm being abused nor am I beleaguered. But nor am I as free to decide what the game will be about as I am in other games. Constraining GM control and sharing it with players will allow that. Again, neither is right or wrong. It's just preference. But trying to claim that a game with the kind of &quot;standard&quot; GM control that's been discussed in this thread will allow for as much player freedom... it seems self evidently false to me. I think there's an impulse to say &quot;my game can do that too!!!&quot; without really looking at the pros and cons of each kind of game. I think this is pretty accurate! What's standard, or what's preferred seem to be pretty varied. You posed the question of how much control is needed... essentially challenging the standard paradigm of absolute control by the GM. I think that even with a game like D&amp;D 5e where that's largely assumed, the answer is &quot;Not as much control as people may think is necessary or that they prefer&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8996716, member: 6785785"] Yeah, the Temple of Elemental Evil game is about the adventure site and the goings on there. Once we resolve the threat (which seems to be to deal with the evil powers that are present in the Temple), the game will be over, and we'll move on to a new campaign with new characters. Regarding your list, I don't know if I agree with all of them. I think the biggest questions relate to your second and third points... what is play about, how is that brought up in play, and who decides these things? Those seem to be largely related to the idea of control as it pertains to the game. I don't think that's what it's about. As I said, I'm playing in a 5e game with pretty standard levels of GM authority. I don't think I'm being abused nor am I beleaguered. But nor am I as free to decide what the game will be about as I am in other games. Constraining GM control and sharing it with players will allow that. Again, neither is right or wrong. It's just preference. But trying to claim that a game with the kind of "standard" GM control that's been discussed in this thread will allow for as much player freedom... it seems self evidently false to me. I think there's an impulse to say "my game can do that too!!!" without really looking at the pros and cons of each kind of game. I think this is pretty accurate! What's standard, or what's preferred seem to be pretty varied. You posed the question of how much control is needed... essentially challenging the standard paradigm of absolute control by the GM. I think that even with a game like D&D 5e where that's largely assumed, the answer is "Not as much control as people may think is necessary or that they prefer". [/QUOTE]

Verification