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: 5412748" data-attributes="member: 42582">Celebrim, it's probably not very useful to go back and try and re-parse the whole discussion to work out the degree of implied generality in various posts.What I was trying to assert, however, is that there is a style of play which is not a paradigmatic sandbox, because it is responsive rather than exploratory - hence the snakes example, introduced by The Shaman and taken on board by me - but which is not linear/railroady/predetermined. My comments about player preferences were in response to Pawsplay suggesting this in fact a linear play because the GM's preferences are determining the course of play - my reply was that (i) the preferences in question are player preferences (ie the preferences of my particular players) and (ii) the GM only sets up the situations, but the players resolve them (via their PCs and the action resolution rules).I don't know how many people prefer this way of playing. Not so many ENworlders is my impression, but I don't have any reason to think high volume ENworld posters are terribly representative of RPGers in general.On the one hand, I suspect that (quasi-)No Myth with a reasonably high degree of player input might be more common with a lot of more casual gamers than with ENworlders if only because it tends to be light on prep and makes the rewards of play very obvious very quickly. On the other hand, not many published mainstream or traditional RPG texts support this type of play, so maybe it (or approximations to it) aren't very common. Like I said, ultimately I'm not in a position to know.</blockquote>

Verification