Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7559823" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I think this is really just a difference of degree though. What PbtA sounds like to me is an approach highly focused on this question. The style we are espousing isn't nearly so focused (and doesn't particularly desire to be). If I understand PbtA based on what you are saying (and I may well not, because I haven't played it and I hear different things about it---which I assume could just be people describing the same thing differently, or people describing different incarnations of the system), it almost casts the GM the being surprised is baked into the system. That is fine if it is the case, but the GMs engaged in the style we are talking about also want to be surprised. If they didn't they'd just run something more like an adventure path or even a railroaded adventure structured around set pieces. The whole point of the sandbox is you don't know where the players will go, you don't know how they will react to situations. It is like chemistry. You put different things into play and the characters interact with them, and you react to that. It is a very exciting process in my opinion. I would definitely encourage anyone who wants some insight into this style to check out some of the blog entries of Clash Bowley on Situational GMing. I incorporate a lot of that approach into my sandbox play (I think this is the initial post on it, but he elaborates more in later entries: <a href="http://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/09/situational-gming.html" target="_blank">http://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/09/situational-gming.html</a>). It is  also not simply a matter of the GM deciding everything that occurs at the table. Many of us have mentioned we frequently use random tools like encounter tables, various procedures for determining unknowns etc (we just are not obligated to if we think we've got it figured out already). For example I use things like Dilemma Tables (which I roll on when things are coming to a head, and where something arises that demands immediate attention and the players and they now need to choose between two very important things, both of which usually have consequences for not being tended to). I also make heavy use of a simplified resolution system to handle 'off camera' tasks. So if players hire two thieves and send them to steal the Bone Breaking Stick, I eyeball the skill level of the thieves and assign them a dice pool, then roll against a dice pool I assign to Bone Breaking Sect's level of security (say 2d10 against 6d10 or something) to figure out if they succeed. I am not obligated to do it. But I often like doing these things and I find it helpful. I think a key difference from what I do, and what someone like Pemerton might want, is I am pretty free to make a ruling on the fly as to how this will be resolved (or if it will even be resolved mechanically). That frees me up to try and invent a lot of different approaches until I find one that fits. I like this because that is how I ended up with this dice pool method, and I am always free to discard it when it stops being useful. But the overall point here is, I genuinely like being surprised too. I just don't feel like I need it to be a central focus of the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification