Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8239036" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I am certainly not denying the GM has power over the world. The&nbsp; GM is arbiter of the setting. That is, I think, part of the point of contention here. But I don't think that power is absolute even in the hardest old school sandbox. The GM still has to consider the sensibilities of the players. What I mean is, my rulings, my decisions about what happens in the setting, they can only steer so far away from the players sense of what is believable. It isn't just about satisfying my own sense of believability. I have a group of people before me, who will make their opinions known if I make a questionable call, if they feel they are not being given adequate freedom to explore, if they feel something should have succeeded that didn't, etc. Their power isn't codified into mechanic like it is in Drama System, and that lack of codification does make for a different experience, and I think that different experience is very important in a living world sandbox, but its still a more fluid and porous conversation than the GM just telling players what they see and what happens. The players have input. But yes, everyone at the table in this kind of game is on board with the GM being the intermediary. That is considered the feature and what makes it work. But it is important for the Gm to be guided by principles that make a living world sandbox functional. A GM who imposes a story on the players, a GM who doesn't follow a lot of the kind of advice you see in the stars without numbers GM section, is going to provide a frustrating sandbox experience to the players (and I think in a sandbox frustration usually emerges as players feeling like there is no sense of direction OR feeling like their agency is being thwarted)</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8239036, member: 85555"] I am certainly not denying the GM has power over the world. The GM is arbiter of the setting. That is, I think, part of the point of contention here. But I don't think that power is absolute even in the hardest old school sandbox. The GM still has to consider the sensibilities of the players. What I mean is, my rulings, my decisions about what happens in the setting, they can only steer so far away from the players sense of what is believable. It isn't just about satisfying my own sense of believability. I have a group of people before me, who will make their opinions known if I make a questionable call, if they feel they are not being given adequate freedom to explore, if they feel something should have succeeded that didn't, etc. Their power isn't codified into mechanic like it is in Drama System, and that lack of codification does make for a different experience, and I think that different experience is very important in a living world sandbox, but its still a more fluid and porous conversation than the GM just telling players what they see and what happens. The players have input. But yes, everyone at the table in this kind of game is on board with the GM being the intermediary. That is considered the feature and what makes it work. But it is important for the Gm to be guided by principles that make a living world sandbox functional. A GM who imposes a story on the players, a GM who doesn't follow a lot of the kind of advice you see in the stars without numbers GM section, is going to provide a frustrating sandbox experience to the players (and I think in a sandbox frustration usually emerges as players feeling like there is no sense of direction OR feeling like their agency is being thwarted) [/QUOTE]

Verification