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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5419834" data-attributes="member: 8835">And thats why he's the only person in my Ignore list.  It does not appear possible to have a discussion of gaming elements with him.Whereas, Shaman's tables of coincidentallly linked random encounters seems like a fascinating way to generate random game content (and thus the GM has little clue what's coming next).  Shaman could sell me on that idea within the framework of how I do things now, and that's a useful dialog.I'm not sold on the idea that a sandbox has to explicitly be non-level appropriate.  Just as GMs in non-sandboxes don't literally make every encounter and every entity level appropriate.  A GM in the adventure path style writes content that is appropriate to levels needed to the adventure, and stuff that's not involved (and thus not assumed to be directly attacked) could be wildly varying in level.  Contrast that to the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion sandbox.  Wherein everything levels up with the PC.  So much so, its a valid strategy to play the game and never sleep (so you never level up), thus making the end encounters easier.Basically, nobody has a campaign world where every encounter, every NPC, every place is literally level appropriate.  Its a style choice of whether the GM gives a hoot if the PCs go into too dangerous parts or parts he hasnt planned on.Likewise, there are no rules to break when determining the reactions of NPCs, the level of the encounters, or any other event or entity in the game.  Rocks fall, everybody dies.Any GM who deliberately counters players choices to force them through his content when they deliberately chose to avoid it is a crap DM.  When the players say, "we ally with the giants", or "we go south to avoid the giants" then the GM has to react to enable that, not actively try to make it fail so he can force them back into fighting with the giants like his adventure says they should.  That is such obviously bad GM behavior, they invented a term for it, "Railroading" that it shouldn't bear discussing or debating with any experienced GM such as would appear in this thread.The questions to be pondered should not be the obvious stuff, as if that proves anything else is also bad.  The question should be what ideas from other gaming styles could be adapted to your own to avoid unfun situations and to enhance your game, not replace your game style with somebody else's.</blockquote>

Verification