Because that's the GM's job in the game?
Here is some text from p 5 of the rulebook:
Here is what you posted about a trip to Greece:
And here are some reasons why I said that this is just wrong:
*The players in my Prince Valiant game are "living in King Arthur's world as their characters" just as much as the players in your game are "living" in your world as their characters. The PCs in my Prince Valiant game include a widowed father and his son. One who started play as a squire was knighted by Sir Lionheart, one of the greatest knights in Britain. All three PCs have married, each to a noblewoman, but in different circumstances. They have lived their religious convictions, and founded a religious military order. They have negotiated with nobles and royalty, and with rebellious peasantry. They have led their warband to victory, and also to defeat. All this has happened in 15 sessions of play.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I see how Prince Valiant lays things out, and I appreciate you taking the time to walk through them.
That said, I was asking less about what the rulebook says and more about why you chose to run it that way. Plenty of RPGs encourage referees to structure things a certain way, but many of us adapt or reinterpret those expectations depending on what we’re trying to get out of the game.
So what I’m trying to understand is, out of all the ways a campaign can be managed, why did you personally choose this structure? Was it just for this game, or is this a general preference you bring to most of your campaigns? What makes it the approach you favor?
That’s the part I’m interested in, because it speaks to your priorities when running a game, not just what the rules permit, but what you’re aiming for creatively.
The last part of your post talks about how your players are living the life of Arthurian knights. I realize now that there was a misunderstanding earlier. I wasn’t questioning whether your style of play allows for that kind of character experience. What I was specifically responding to was this statement:
When I GMed Prince Valiant, I made decisions as a GM about who the PCs encounter, intended to frame them into interesting situations that would require the players to make choices about how their knight errants respond.
That’s what I was focused on, the fact that, at least when it comes to encounters, you choose and frame situations in a way that challenges how the characters respond. I’m curious why you prefer that approach, beyond the rulebook prescribing it. What draws you to it?
I accept that in many styles of play, players live the lives of their characters, but it’s done in different ways. In your case, it seems you place a high value on framing situations that challenge your players' character beliefs and motivations. And I think that’s worth digging into, because it helps clarify why we manage our campaigns the way we do, not just how.
For example, my focus on running living world campaigns began back in junior high, around age 12 to 14, when I was running games for my friends. I came into tabletop roleplaying from wargaming, and early on, we used D&D as a way to run campaigns where the players could carve out realms while I ran the rest of the world, rival powers, neutrals they could win over, and so on.
I found I loved setting the stage and seeing what the players would do. I had a strong sense of fairness from sports and gaming, and I learned through trial and error how to set things up so that play wasn’t just fair, but interesting and fun. I also stumbled onto something important: reusing the same setting from campaign to campaign, and keeping track of what had happened before, made the game even more compelling. My players loved that the world remembered their past actions, and they wanted to come back and see what changed. Eventually, their former PCs became major NPCs in the setting.
Over time, we shifted from conquest and realm-building to more open-ended adventure, but the same approach worked, letting the world move on its own and seeing how the players engage with it. That experience became the foundation of how I run games today.
So I’m genuinely interested in your own foundation. What led you to gravitate toward games like Prince Valiant or Burning Wheel? You’ve written many detailed essays on tabletop RPGs, but what is the underlying reason you run games the way you do? What makes one system or setting more appealing than another to you? Why Prince Valiant? Why Burning Wheel?
