Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8235729" data-attributes="member: 85870">I have to add, by the way --- a lot of people have been saying things like, &quot;I wouldn't like your style of game.&quot;This isn't &quot;my&quot; style of game. I'm not beholden to it. I'm trying out Ironsworn because I completely burned out on GM-led &quot;setting tourism&quot; as a player during a friend's Shaintar campaign two years ago.And what else was I supposed to do other than try something different? Sure, I could have jumped back on the &quot;sandbox&quot; train, come up with some vastly detailed world again, and dropped my players into it. But at some point, I figured I needed to know if this whole player-facing thing actually worked or not. At least know if it was a viable option.And what do you know, it was really different from what I've tried before. (That was kind of the point). And what do you know, it actually works.Truthfully, this thread has actually spurred a desire to start building another detailed campaign world, just so I can try out a &quot;sandbox&quot; style game and compare the results when we're done with Ironsworn next year. I'm actually quite impressed with the level of fervor posited by those who play GM-led sandboxes, because it makes me want to see if maybe I missed something the last time around, or if it could be done better than what I've either run or played in the past.My expositions in this thread are mostly to demonstrate my own experience, and to show that a GM who at one time was highly skeptical that a player-facing style of game would work at all is now saying, &quot;Huh, it does work, and it works pretty damn well to boot.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 8235729, member: 85870"] I have to add, by the way --- a lot of people have been saying things like, "I wouldn't like your style of game." This isn't "my" style of game. I'm not beholden to it. I'm trying out Ironsworn because I completely burned out on GM-led "setting tourism" as a player during a friend's Shaintar campaign two years ago. And what else was I supposed to do other than try something different? Sure, I could have jumped back on the "sandbox" train, come up with some vastly detailed world again, and dropped my players into it. But at some point, I figured I needed to know if this whole player-facing thing actually worked or not. At least know if it was a viable option. And what do you know, it was really different from what I've tried before. (That was kind of the point). And what do you know, it actually [I]works[/I]. Truthfully, this thread has actually spurred a desire to start building another detailed campaign world, just so I can try out a "sandbox" style game and compare the results when we're done with Ironsworn next year. I'm actually quite impressed with the level of fervor posited by those who play GM-led sandboxes, because it makes me want to see if maybe I missed something the last time around, or if it could be done better than what I've either run or played in the past. My expositions in this thread are mostly to demonstrate my own experience, and to show that a GM who at one time was highly skeptical that a player-facing style of game would work at all is now saying, "Huh, it does work, and it works pretty damn well to boot." [/QUOTE]

Verification