Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8235730" data-attributes="member: 85555">In some ways we are saying the same thing: the point of having a preference isn't to ruin other peoples' enjoyment. One way to accommodate other peoples preferences is on the player side, with people willing to engage a style that is outside their normal preference, and I see nothing wrong with this. I do that myself a lot. But I also can say from experience play styles can be like straight jackets. I know there is a purity philosophy that can sometimes take hold in a sandbox, and its fine if you happen to have five players who all want a pure sandbox. But my experience is most groups just are not that homogenous and you need to adapt to the needs of the group. Obviously how you adapt is always a potential issue (I can ruin the game for three players by adapting it for one). My point is just, the GM really ought to focus what is happening in real life, at the table, not on some ideal in their head about play styles. There are a lot of ideas that work great in internet discussions and fit neatly into boxes in online dialogue that can break down at a real table. Also my preference tends to be for long campaigns with the same group of players. So there may be a difference there (when I play one shots using a hyper focused playstyle, I am a lot less worried about things breaking down because it is a one shot).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8235730, member: 85555"] In some ways we are saying the same thing: the point of having a preference isn't to ruin other peoples' enjoyment. One way to accommodate other peoples preferences is on the player side, with people willing to engage a style that is outside their normal preference, and I see nothing wrong with this. I do that myself a lot. But I also can say from experience play styles can be like straight jackets. I know there is a purity philosophy that can sometimes take hold in a sandbox, and its fine if you happen to have five players who all want a pure sandbox. But my experience is most groups just are not that homogenous and you need to adapt to the needs of the group. Obviously how you adapt is always a potential issue (I can ruin the game for three players by adapting it for one). My point is just, the GM really ought to focus what is happening in real life, at the table, not on some ideal in their head about play styles. There are a lot of ideas that work great in internet discussions and fit neatly into boxes in online dialogue that can break down at a real table. Also my preference tends to be for long campaigns with the same group of players. So there may be a difference there (when I play one shots using a hyper focused playstyle, I am a lot less worried about things breaking down because it is a one shot). [/QUOTE]

Verification