Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5296312" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm one of many who thinks that WotC's 4e modules don't remotely live up to the potential of the system, or even the epxress promises of the DMG.I'm not going to argue with you that GURPS is more open-ended than D&D. Or even Rolemaster, for that matter.Nor am I arguing against those possibilities being open. I think you're interpreting me as a critic of D&D for being so open. But what I'm actually trying to do is to agree with Nameless1 that (i) the OP's problem about passive players might result from the open-endedness of what it means to "play D&D", and (ii) that a solution to this might consist in an individual GM and his/her players agreeing in advance about some aspects of the game like theme, tropes, relationships embedding the PCs into the gameworld, etc. This isn't a criticism of D&D or a suggestion for reform/revision. It's some advice about how to set up the start of a particular D&D campaign.S'mon, and (if I'm understanding you right) you, and (maybe to a lesser extent, because his examples are from a game that I think is more focused than D&D) The Shaman are saying that the OP's issue can be resolved in the course of play, by having active players engage the gameworld to find out what is going on in terms of theme, tropes, possible relationships etc. In contrast to this, I've agreed with Nameless1 and Hussar that I'd rather have a game in which we just cut to the chase. I also think that if your problem is inactive players, a metagame solution might be more likely to work than an ingame solution that presupposes active players.Because somewhere upthread an ex-GM was complaining about players who failed to stumble onto this particular element of the game that s/he was running.</blockquote>

Verification