Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6299819" data-attributes="member: 42582">Seriously, is there a rule somewhere in the ENworld terms of use that says that any expression of different playstyle preferences must be accompanied by snide remarks and rampant mischaracterisation?Multiple posters on this very thread have explained how a range of non-Gygaxian approaches to play might work (eg&nbsp; &nbsp; [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] fewer than 20 posts above yours). Your post really just suggests that you don't have much familiarity with those other approaches and techniques.For instance, in my 4e campaign several of the characters are devotees of the Raven Queen and hence foes of Orcus. Thus they meet lots of undead, Orcus cultists etc to beat up on.Who decided that Orcus cultists would be a focus of play? The players, by building those PCs and running them in the campaign.Who stats up the actual culists, decides when they will turn up, what sort of secrets goals they have, etc? Me, the GM.Who decides what happens when the PCs and the cultists collide? The whole table, by applying the action resolution rules.This isn't very Gygaxian (eg there is no &quot;dungeon&quot; which the players explore via their PCs), but it has nothing in common with listening to someone read a wannabe novel.And by your own admission, you play pre-scripted adventure in some circumstances. Is playing a module at a convention like having the GM read you a novel? That's not true of the decent convention adventures I've played, because while the GM establishes the framing, the resolution is determined via actual play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6299819, member: 42582"] Seriously, is there a rule somewhere in the ENworld terms of use that says that any expression of different playstyle preferences [I]must[/I] be accompanied by snide remarks and rampant mischaracterisation? Multiple posters on this very thread have explained how a range of non-Gygaxian approaches to play might work (eg [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] fewer than 20 posts above yours). Your post really just suggests that you don't have much familiarity with those other approaches and techniques. For instance, in my 4e campaign several of the characters are devotees of the Raven Queen and hence foes of Orcus. Thus they meet lots of undead, Orcus cultists etc to beat up on. Who decided that Orcus cultists would be a focus of play? The players, by building those PCs and running them in the campaign. Who stats up the actual culists, decides when they will turn up, what sort of secrets goals they have, etc? Me, the GM. Who decides what happens when the PCs and the cultists collide? The whole table, by applying the action resolution rules. This isn't very Gygaxian (eg there is no "dungeon" which the players explore via their PCs), but it has nothing in common with listening to someone read a wannabe novel. And by your own admission, you play pre-scripted adventure in some circumstances. Is playing a module at a convention like having the GM read you a novel? That's not true of the decent convention adventures I've played, because while the GM establishes the framing, the resolution is determined via actual play. [/QUOTE]

Verification