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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9646138">I am not sure I get what you are saying. I think we have a very different outlook on goals, so I am not sure how to answer. But the only thing that really shifts is the time increments (and the TNs). And those are based on things the players would know about based on what is happening (i.e. they are going into a dangerous forest, so the GM shifts from rolling daily to multiple times a day to reflect the increased danger level). The idea isn't to increase the GM's immersion, but the players, and to have the random encounter tools reflect as best as possible what is going on in the setting (and to simplify: grudge encounters are a simplification of having to manage a bunch of conflicts the players have acquired for example). It is all pretty typical living world sandbox stuff. I don't think this approach is really choosing between (i) or (ii). Both sound important to me. I want the players to be engaging challenges, but I also want the setting to come to life and for the world around them to be in a dynamic state. I would say (i) here is less about them gaming a system and more about me having a system to reflect the world (but it is still challenged based and rolls and stuff still matter: if I ask for an encounter roll for each hex, I am not going to fudge). But again I think our paradigm is so fundamentally different that that answer still doesn't feel to me like it really gets at what I am trying to do Just keep in mind this is a + thread so that we can focus on celebrating all different styles of sandbox (whether it is a D&D sandbox, traveller, an Ironsworn sandbox, a HARN world sandbox, etc). I am happy to clarify what I do, I just don't want this to slip into a style/design debate</blockquote>

Verification