Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tortoise" data-source="post: 5823365" data-attributes="member: 146">I'm not sure you're understanding his point. As a 30+ year veteran GM, havng run almost every edition of the game, I grok what the OP is getting at.There is no backwards thinking being espoused by the OP. The OP points out correctly that there are different styles of play and what a couple of them are like and why some people like certain features of either or both.The more random method, what I call the sandbox style, can be a lot of fun for the right group. I am currently running a sandbox style campaign and still mixing in some planned stuff with the random stuff. It is working very well, and I can have a very direct hand in things even with the randomness. My game is what I call a living sandbox where actions of the PCs can get tangled with NPC plots. Example, my PCs attacked and defeated some bandits that happened to be part of a larger organization with a goal that now had to be delayed. That means I as DM need to determine how that group would respond. They hired a necromancer to zombify the bandit corpses (along with one dead PC that was left behind), shrink them, hide them in large clay jars and have them shipped to where the PCs were sleeping. During the night the jars broke - Instant-Undead-Ambush.I certainly don't feel discourages me from being invested in the game or plots at all. I am not the least bit removed from the game world, but I can enjoy some surprises right along with the players.When I'm running a campaign with tighter plotlines I dial back the randomness a bit to keep the game flowing and to make it not as risky of something outside the storyline sending it off in the wrong direction. If the players want to, they can still make me earn my improvisation DM badge, and they have many times.</blockquote>

Verification