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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7166667" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Well, I was commenting in regard to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s comments, and not those from that article from almost 40 years ago. I disagree with the author in that regard....I don't think there needs to be a correlation between GM Improvisation and either a sandbox or linear game style. No, I acknowledge that it could limit player agency. I don't think that it must. I think there's a difference between creating content on the fly and changing content to suit a desired outcome.....but you seem to lump those two things together. Dismiss its impact, I mean. You seem to consider the reduction in agency on the part of a DM improvising to be greater than the reduction of agency by having a linear story. I don't agree. To me, a very linear story allows for minimal player choices, and often those choices are pretty minor. And I say this knowing that I have linear elements plenty of times in my game. There's nothing wrong with it, but I think you're biased to assume the worst of sandbox play and/or DM improvisation, and so your comparison is skewed. I was not commenting directly on the article, but rather in comments made about the article. The Tactical Play versus Escapist Roleplaying angle, rather than any kind of DM Improv. But I think it's just a matter of you conflating a couple things, or in me reading such a conflation into your comments. As I said earlier, DM Improvisation can indeed impact player agency. But I don't think it's a case that it must do so. A DM can improv things that don't dismiss player agency. For example, it's possible for a DM to improv the exact same scenario that another DM prepares ahead of time. The two instances could play out exactly the same at the table. I suppose I am just comfortable enough in my ability to construct things on the fly (when needed) that my improved scenarios are not noticeably different from those I've prepped ahead of time. Now, I admittedly have a much looser prep style than you, based on your description, so that's certainly a factor....but not every encounter needs pages of details. Honestly, my need to improv is a direct result of my players having agency to choose things that I may not have anticipated....so it seems weird to think of the result of their agency somehow limiting their agency.  No, I mean specifically if you make an error. Not just a hard encounter....but one that you did not intend to be so hard. Are you saying you would stop the game and discuss it, or would you let things play out and then discuss it? Okay, thanks. I suppose my confusion on this point is your view that something written beforehand is somehow inherently more "pure" than something decided at the table. This is likely because I don't prepare encounters the same way....I don't bother with XP budgets and all that. No, I'm not trying to push you into anything, just trying to get a better understanding of your view. No, I understand the article. I just don't lend it a lot of credence. It's a pretty dated article which also is openly favorable to a particular play style. I won't link to an article about the merits of sandbox style play and then cite it to you as some kind of proof. I suppose that it's the use of the term "DM Taint" that seems to be my main area of contention. I don't see why the stuff you write ahead of time is free of such "taint" but the stuff I decide at the table must always be "tainted" in such a way.</blockquote>

Verification