NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7074620" data-attributes="member: 16814">If the DM doesn't get to play in the sandbox, too, what's the point?  Having the DM adjudicate how the world moves absent player involvement doesn't flip a switch from 'Player driven' to 'DM driven.'  Otherwise you're now calling games that involve things like Fronts DM driven.  Given you've XP'd those responses that have described this mechanic, I don't think you're doing this.Instead, what I'm getting is that you think what's being discussed is the DM fiating whatever they want without regard to player goals.  That's not it, that's just another example of taking the worst case and using it as the general one.You just postulated a cult that destroyed the world because the players didn't engage it, didn't you?  I thought that was the example being used.  I called it a bad example, because it's an example of poor DM skills, to have a campagin ending event occur entirely offscreen.Sure, but he may be doing something extremely similar.  I am, and I hadn't heard of Fronts until this thread.  But I sure have things that use something very similar to the clocks, with players being able to manipulate by interacting with the organization.  The idea of Fronts was immediately familiar to me, because I was already doing that in my games.  A bit less structured, maybe, but clear to my players.Yes, I coined those terms for the same thing because I didn't like the implied binary of 'only DM' or 'only Player' from DM driven to Player driven.  The '-centric' tems do the same work but imply who the primary, but not only, driver of content may be.  In a DM-centric game, for example, the primary producer of fiction is the DM.  But the players can also introduce fiction, if to a lesser amount.  I think it's fair to say my D&D games are DM-centric.I'm not implying any specialize definition with that.  I mean it literally.  You tend to present examples that feature highly negative traits or results, ie, worst case.  You then argue using this very negative example as the stand in for how a particular method works.  I'm pointing out that such worst cases aren't the norm, and using them is detrimental to discussion.Yes, I think you're focusing on one part and ignoring the rest.  The initial conditions presented have been DM authored, but the ensuing fiction is driven by the players -- which part do they engage?  How?  What do they do then?  All of this is up to the players.  This is different from your game, where part of the setup is deciding player beliefs and the themes of the game, which is cooperative between all parties (ie, players can certainly decide their own beliefs, but the DM has to sign off on them as something they want to run or no game).  The only difference, as presented, is the setup.  Lanefan takes on the overhead and prep to set the world up, and lets the players loose to find out what happens.  You share the load up front, and then proceed in the same manner.  How the game actually runs could be very similar.Now, I get that you prefer the cooperative theme development afforded by BW, and that's great, but don't mistake who sets the background for DM/Player driven in actual play.</blockquote>

Verification