Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6565705" data-attributes="member: 6775031">There's also the very strong possibility that the players play in-character, the GM runs the world as a sim-engine, and interesting stories happen anyway.I used to follow a podcast, where they made frequent mention of something called &quot;the adventuring paradigm&quot;; which is just a way of saying that the world is set up in a way such that interesting things are likely to happen. The best example given was of Shadowrun, where the world is naturally set up so that anyone can (essentially) pick up a dangerous quest from a mysterious stranger in a tavern. The GM doesn't need to manipulate any dice, or arrange for unlikely coincidences in order to get things going, because that's just the premise. Even when you're actually on the run, the GM doesn't need to make anything more interesting, because the natural course of events should be interesting enough.I would say that D&amp;D also has a strong adventuring paradigm, without DM intervention. There's a world that exists, with dungeons that contain monsters which make sense for the area, and there are people who want to explore these dungeons in the hope of finding loot. That's the premise, and if you just follow with that, it seems like you should still have a fun time of things.I've never been a fan of protagonism, and I've never seen it as critical to any edition of D&amp;D (with the possible exception of 4E). Maybe it's because I started with 2E, and that edition had more of a participationism ideal. For me, whenever something happens because you're the hero, it just feels hollow and kind of pointless; I would rather read a book, or watch a movie, than play that sort of game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6565705, member: 6775031"] There's also the very strong possibility that the players play in-character, the GM runs the world as a sim-engine, and interesting stories happen anyway. I used to follow a podcast, where they made frequent mention of something called "the adventuring paradigm"; which is just a way of saying that the world is set up in a way such that interesting things are likely to happen. The best example given was of Shadowrun, where the world is naturally set up so that anyone can (essentially) pick up a dangerous quest from a mysterious stranger in a tavern. The GM doesn't need to manipulate any dice, or arrange for unlikely coincidences in order to get things going, because that's just the premise. Even when you're actually on the run, the GM doesn't need to make anything more interesting, because the natural course of events should be interesting enough. I would say that D&D also has a strong adventuring paradigm, without DM intervention. There's a world that exists, with dungeons that contain monsters which make sense for the area, and there are people who want to explore these dungeons in the hope of finding loot. That's the premise, and if you just follow with that, it seems like you should still have a fun time of things. I've never been a fan of protagonism, and I've never seen it as critical to any edition of D&D (with the possible exception of 4E). Maybe it's because I started with 2E, and that edition had more of a participationism ideal. For me, whenever something happens [I]because[/I] you're the hero, it just feels hollow and kind of pointless; I would rather read a book, or watch a movie, than play that sort of game. [/QUOTE]

Verification