Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8239417" data-attributes="member: 85555">Synergy is the way a campaign setting starts to have an energy of its own as the players interact with the GM's setting. To me, it is how the moving parts (the PCs, the NPCs, etc) of the living world create unexpected developments and shift the course of the campaign. I was quoting Justin Alexander from the video I posted where he talks briefly about sandboxes and tries to explain them to people who find them daunting or have had them crash and burn. In the video he talks about this synergy and how the ultimate aim of the sandbox is really to have it run itself. Lol. I don't know that Gygax's description is all that straight forward. It depends on whether you are talking about the white box, the AD&D DMG, etc. I don't necessarily disagree. He did say notes were important. He did say the GM speaks to the players. But he also lays out tons of procedures for things like exploring the wilderness, and while he does contrast D&D as a Game versus other games that maybe make greater attempts at simulating realism, he is definitely giving you tools to create a believable world to explore. That said, Gygax always struck me as very engineer like in this respect and focused on maps and exploration. For me the launching point into living world is Ravenloft. I realize other people have different launching points. But the reason I keep pointing to Feast of Goblyns is because it expands on the concept from the module, and for me that was just a moment where I realized you can treat things like NPCs as living characters in the setting (which I hadn't thought to do before 1991: keep in mind I came to the hobby in '86---not by D&D but in a science fiction campaign using a system that I haven't been able to identify since; it is possible it was mechwarrior--- and didn't start GMing myself until 89 with the 2nd edition rules). I like the White Box, the 1E DMG (that was something that especially helped me get away from the EL/CL adventures I was not enjoying in the early 2000s). But my thinking is largely shaped by my discussions with posters like Rob Conley, Clash Bowley and others, various sandbox threads, as well as GM advise from a variety of sources (blogs, rulebooks, etc), the OSR and experimentation with what works and doesn't for me. And I like Moldvay, and I appreciate much of his advice, but I don't think I don't think I approach the game entirely the same way he does. He is pretty dungeon focused. I do very much like the Moldvay basic set though. I think it is great example of less is more in an RPG. Though it definitely depends on the type of game I am running. Right now I am talking about living world sandboxes, but that isn't the only thing I run. What I am talking about is pretty much not that different from what Crawford describes in stars without number (particularly in the section talking about sandboxes as living worlds).</blockquote>

Verification