Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9671184" data-attributes="member: 13383">First off, thank you for taking the time to write such a comprehensive and thoughtful reply to my posts. I want to be upfront that I’ll be pressed for time this week, I'm about to launch a Kickstarter and have two tabletop sessions taking up most of my hobby bandwidth. So I’ll likely post my full response on Saturday afternoon or evening (EDT).That said, I’ve gone through your reply, and I believe this list summarizes the core points you’ve raised that I’ll aim to address in my follow-up:Concerns to Be Addressed<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Asymmetry and Scope of Hidden Information</li> </ul>The referee knows more than the players and controls the context of play, this is real and structurally baked into the system.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Soft and Mutable Constraints on Altering Bounds</li> </ul>The concern that constraints can be ignored or changed at will, especially in the absence of visible mechanics.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Players’ Inability to Audit or Verify Changes</li> </ul>Without procedural transparency, players must rely on trust or social enforcement mechanisms.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Incentives to Treat Prep as Non-Binding</li> </ul>The temptation to ignore or retroactively alter unused prep can undermine the world’s persistence.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Concerns About Trust Being Assumed Rather than Earned</li> </ul>Some object to the idea that referees deserve trust simply by virtue of their role, rather than earning it through consistent practice.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Black Box and NPC Goals</li> </ul>Even preplanned NPC behavior may feel like hidden authorship if players lack ways to discover or influence those goals.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Referee-Created Encounter Tables as Circular Constraint</li> </ul>If the referee authors and modifies the tables, are they really serving as a meaningful limitation?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Non-Visible Constraints as a Broader Pattern of Concern</li> </ul>Past experiences with opaque systems can make non-visible constraints feel inherently suspect or open to abuse.Clarifications You’ve Requested<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More information on domain-level procedures</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How NPC goals function as constraints</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Clarification on how encounter tables serve as limitations</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How a sandbox referee creates continuity</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How a sandbox referee earns trust without visible mechanics</li> </ul>I really appreciate that you're not just aiming to critique, but to better understand how this kind of play works. The goal is to build mutual understanding between different approaches.If I’ve misunderstood or omitted anything, feel free to let me know, and I’ll make sure it’s addressed in the final reply this weekend.Finally, no need to apologize, your reply was thoughtful, fair, and engaged with my points in good faith. That kind of response is more than enough and very much appreciated.</blockquote>

Verification