Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8997008" data-attributes="member: 6785785">No, of course the DM isn’t going to say that. But there’s no reason to. The DM can instead say any number of things that could happen in the world to explain why the giant attacks have stopped or lessened. Maybe a coalition of nations banded together and fought them back. Maybe another band of mercenaries/adventurers came along and solved the problem, but have also kind of taken over, presenting a different kind of situation. There are all kinds of things you can come up with. Sure, that’s how that game is going. Our previous 5e campaign was more of a sandbox based around a home location. This was a game with rotating GMs where we all contributed to the setting. It was a different kind of game. Having multiple GMs was also eye-opening in exactly how open to interpretation a lot of the standard procedures of play are. I don’t know how big that chasm is. It honestly depends on many factors. It’s possible that it’s huge. Very often, I think folks overestimate this kind of thing. The game I just described above was certainly different than our current one, but not drastically so. The characters were more central, for sure, their goals were left more up to the players than to the GM. It helped that no GM was constant. But the character development was fairly limited. It was mostly about character portrayal or expression rather than development, though I’d say there was at least some development. I’d still place this game closer to our Temple game than I would to some of the other games I’ve run/played.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8997008, member: 6785785"] No, of course the DM isn’t going to say that. But there’s no reason to. The DM can instead say any number of things that could happen in the world to explain why the giant attacks have stopped or lessened. Maybe a coalition of nations banded together and fought them back. Maybe another band of mercenaries/adventurers came along and solved the problem, but have also kind of taken over, presenting a different kind of situation. There are all kinds of things you can come up with. Sure, that’s how that game is going. Our previous 5e campaign was more of a sandbox based around a home location. This was a game with rotating GMs where we all contributed to the setting. It was a different kind of game. Having multiple GMs was also eye-opening in exactly how open to interpretation a lot of the standard procedures of play are. I don’t know how big that chasm is. It honestly depends on many factors. It’s possible that it’s huge. Very often, I think folks overestimate this kind of thing. The game I just described above was certainly different than our current one, but not drastically so. The characters were more central, for sure, their goals were left more up to the players than to the GM. It helped that no GM was constant. But the character development was fairly limited. It was mostly about character portrayal or expression rather than development, though I’d say there was at least some development. I’d still place this game closer to our Temple game than I would to some of the other games I’ve run/played. [/QUOTE]

Verification