Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7072189" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is something like saying: with a halfway competent card shark, who can tell whether s/he's dealing off the top or the bottom? But to some extent the meaning of the experience depends upon the way in which it is generated.I think this is part of what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is trying to get at in repeatedly emphasising the significance of motives, expectations, etc. What counts as good faith vs (at the extreme, say) cheating depends heavily on these facts about the participants.Well, matters to whom? Presumably not you. But that sort of thing matters to me in respect of the games that I'm part of. And some posters seemed to care when I expressed a preference in the OP.Just in passing - there is already quite a bit of assumption built into this. For instance, it already presents the PCs as &quot;A-Team&quot;-types who &quot;go on missions&quot; and then take time off between them. I have not GMed a game that has that sort of underlying structure since around 1986.Well, I personally wouldn't be worried because I wouldn't be playing the game.But if we're asking whether the game just described is player- or GM-driven, I find it very hard to conceive of that as anything but a GM-driven game. It doesn't seem to have the somewhat static, reactive nature of a classic sandbox - which nature is part of what enables the players to drive the play of such a campaign, by choosing which elements of the sandbox to engage.The game seems vulnerable to a player deciding that his/her PC is no longer going to be a soldier of fortune, but instead wants to (say) become a local magistrate. It's not even clear what happens if a player wants his/her PC to become leader of the mercenaries' guild, or of the militia, or become advisor and confidant to Baron Larchwood.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7072189, member: 42582"] This is something like saying: with a halfway competent card shark, who can tell whether s/he's dealing off the top or the bottom? But to some extent the meaning of the experience depends upon the way in which it is generated. I think this is part of what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is trying to get at in repeatedly emphasising the significance of motives, expectations, etc. What counts as good faith vs (at the extreme, say) cheating depends heavily on these facts about the participants. Well, matters to whom? Presumably not you. But that sort of thing matters to me in respect of the games that I'm part of. And some posters seemed to care when I expressed a preference in the OP. Just in passing - there is already [I]quite a bit of assumption[/I] built into this. For instance, it already presents the PCs as "A-Team"-types who "go on missions" and then take time off between them. I have not GMed a game that has that sort of underlying structure since around 1986. Well, I personally wouldn't be worried because I wouldn't be playing the game. But if we're asking whether the game just described is player- or GM-driven, I find it very hard to conceive of that as anything but a GM-driven game. It doesn't seem to have the somewhat static, reactive nature of a classic sandbox - which nature is part of what enables the players to drive the play of such a campaign, by choosing which elements of the sandbox to engage. The game seems vulnerable to a player deciding that his/her PC is no longer going to be a soldier of fortune, but instead wants to (say) become a local magistrate. It's not even clear what happens if a player wants his/her PC to become leader of the mercenaries' guild, or of the militia, or become advisor and confidant to Baron Larchwood. [/QUOTE]

Verification