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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5811697" data-attributes="member: 3400">Both, pretty much. I don't see how you are reaching your conclusion, nor do I agree with it. Ultimately, neither the CaW nor CaS approach to the game says much about sandbox, DM-driven plots, or other event driven campaigns. I think preferences to those styles are largely tangential. Sandboxing may be at least a little unfriendly to CaS, but I think the other two I listed are neutral. If CaS is more about balanced "fair" fights using planned encounters geared for equal participation by all and sundry, I don't see much of a difference how the encounter is, uh, encountered (if you can forgive too much use of the term 'encounter' and its derivatives). It doesn't matter if it's DM pushed or reactive. The important elements approach to design details and resolution. I don't see any real difference in preference for DM pushed or reactive encounters with CaW. The difference I see is that there is a wider, more open, even more gonzo attitude toward how the encounter is designed and resolved no matter what the encounter's source is. Combat isn't a games to play. It's a war to win. IF we have the prep time, sure, we'll take it to give ourselves whatever advantage we can. But if we're forced to react, we'll still do whatever it takes to come out on top including doing what we can to swing the balance in our favor, no matter if it is outside the conception of the encounter as built.People who view D&D as a game first, simulation later probably favor CaS. They favor balance, rules equally applied to DMs as well as players, rules shaping what the PC can do. People who view D&D as simulation first, game second are more likely to favor CaW. And by simulation, I mean mainly a simulation of a fantasy world/story in which the rules serve to provide help when adjudicating the results of whatever the PC wants to do but are secondary to the needs of the simulation, emphasis on rulings not rules because the rules (or DM's encounter plans) may not cover what lengths the PC will go to. And none of that strIke's me as being anything but agnostic with respect to plot/DM driven encounters or reactive ones.</blockquote>

Verification