Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 8713681" data-attributes="member: 7635">I think I get where you are coming from, and to be absolutely honest it's far more gamist than most people I've spoken with would have me believe about sandboxes. Much of the time when sandbox play was invoked, there was a heavy element of choices and consequences. As in, you have the choice to ignore a problem, but the consequences will affect you regardless. Note that the consequences aren't always personal; not investigating a local farmer's disappearance might not affect the PC directly but only mean the village is now a ghost town when the PCs pass back though 6 months later. I think this is an issue especially when the PCs are &quot;special&quot; and other bands of heroes, guards and sellswords don't exist to pick up your slack. When you are one of maybe a handful of wizards in the region, you tend to get the &quot;great power/great responsibility&quot; ethos tossed in your face. It actually seems refreshing to consider that occasionally other adventuring parties exist and clean up the messes you missed or even get to your score first. You aren't the heroes of destiny, you're just a bunch of people who live on a diet of adrenaline, luck, and healing potions. I'm usually a narrative DM, the cultists you fight at level one will lead to fighting their demon lord at level 15+. But honestly, a campaign set in a frontier full of monsters, dungeons and evil plots but also rival adventurers competing for your business seems like a refreshing change of pace. And yes, Eliminster might be the one fighting the demon lord because you failed to kill the cult at level one, but that's all off screen because you chose instead to follow up the orc horde and got swept up in the politics of Many Arrows instead. Like you though, there better be a quest giver or three in that tavern before the game becomes Arsonists and Agitators.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 8713681, member: 7635"] I think I get where you are coming from, and to be absolutely honest it's far more gamist than most people I've spoken with would have me believe about sandboxes. Much of the time when sandbox play was invoked, there was a heavy element of choices and consequences. As in, you have the choice to ignore a problem, but the consequences will affect you regardless. Note that the consequences aren't always personal; not investigating a local farmer's disappearance might not affect the PC directly but only mean the village is now a ghost town when the PCs pass back though 6 months later. I think this is an issue especially when the PCs are "special" and other bands of heroes, guards and sellswords don't exist to pick up your slack. When you are one of maybe a handful of wizards in the region, you tend to get the "great power/great responsibility" ethos tossed in your face. It actually seems refreshing to consider that occasionally other adventuring parties exist and clean up the messes you missed or even get to your score first. You aren't the heroes of destiny, you're just a bunch of people who live on a diet of adrenaline, luck, and healing potions. I'm usually a narrative DM, the cultists you fight at level one will lead to fighting their demon lord at level 15+. But honestly, a campaign set in a frontier full of monsters, dungeons and evil plots but also rival adventurers competing for your business seems like a refreshing change of pace. And yes, Eliminster might be the one fighting the demon lord because you failed to kill the cult at level one, but that's all off screen because you chose instead to follow up the orc horde and got swept up in the politics of Many Arrows instead. Like you though, there better be a quest giver or three in that tavern before the game becomes Arsonists and Agitators. [/QUOTE]

Verification