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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9646123" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I appreciate the response and the abundance of information here, but I didn't quite get the answer that I'm looking for.  Let me put this another way, but keep in mind that I'm indexing the random encounter machinery of your sandbox.American Football.  You have 4 x downs to get the necessary 10 yards for a 1st down or to cross the goal-line and score a touchdown.This is a (perhaps the) core mechanic of the game.  Because players and the coaches are aware of this and because this core mechanic is stable, they develop tactics and strategies to either (a) call and execute plays which will advance the ball down the field to score a touchdown (or prevent that if you're on defense) or (b) punt the ball to the opposing team on 4th down or (c) attempt a field goal.Now imagine that the referees (or some outside mediator) change the number of downs on a given drive at their discretion. That would be a pretty big deal right?Now imagine that the players and coaches are aware of how/why/when this alteration of the normal, stable number of downs changes. The alteration of play would still be substantial, but now imagine that the players and coaches have little or no idea how/why/when this alteration of the normal, stable number of downs changes.  That alteration of play would be enormous.  We're probably not playing American Football anymore.  It is something kindred, but it is enough of a shift that it is something else.Now imagine that the players and coaches have no idea how many downs they're working with on a given drive.  This alteration of play would be so profound, that the pressures upon the paradigmatic form of play would be so much that it would basically select for an entirely different form of play.  We're no longer in American Football.  It might even turn out that tactical and strategic planning and execution around playcalling, advancing the ball, punting the ball, kicking field goals becomes dysfunctional.  We may have to go back to the drawing board and revise the rules because "the game just doesn't produce a functional playing field." At least with respect to our desires, and perhaps not at all. [HR][/HR]It seems to me that, because your random encounter implementation is neither table-facing nor stable, that it isn't a core mechanic in service to challenge-based priorities.  Decisions around exploration turn action economy and examining and executing prospective lines of plays (whether in town or in the wilderness/dungeon) when indexing that random encounter implementation as a player appears to be substantially or wholly veiled. Circling back, what I'm asking is the following:In BRG's paradigmatic sandbox design and execution, is the random encounter implementation about the kind of tactics and strategies employed and executed in American Football?  (i) Is it in the interest of challenge-based priorities?  Or (ii) is it in the interest of creating the immersive feel for the GM (and through that, the players) that the world has its own volition...that it is doing stuff "on its own."If you feel it is, in fact (i), can you maybe talk about that some more.  What that looks like in your sandbox design and execution.  Because presently, it is difficult for me to wrap my head around it.  However, I can trivially imagine it being in service to (ii).</blockquote>

Verification