Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8244295" data-attributes="member: 85555">The mechanic is going to vary from game to game, which is why I haven't addressed the core mechanic. But I think most sandboxes and living worlds tend to be run using something like this or like I described (players say they try to do X, GM says what happens or what they see, etc). But the problem is this break down misses all the nuances me and others have been trying to draw your attention to (the questions and answers part of the game, the stuff that constrains what a GM can say, the fact that there is supposed to be this model of a world that the GM is expected to be cleaving to, etc). The problem is you are focusing in on a very narrow slice of play and that is going to miss the essence of a style like living world (it will be a flawed analysis if this is where you put all your focus). But I do think you hit on things lots of living world GMs discuss and debate (and there is no one answer here). The idea of how to give players the information they need to make decisions, of how much to reveal from behind the curtain so they know illusionism isn't occurring etc, is stuff people talk about and have arrived at general advice for. I think this is complicated by the fact that skilled play is often strongly valued in these games, so there is a reluctance to just hand players information (there is an idea of players needing to work to get results, but also an idea of good work should be rewarded). I think when the style breaks down it is often because people at the table are not communicating with one another well, have differing expectations and this can result in the sense  that they are just guessing. Actually Matt Colville talked about his in his recent video and I feel he made several good points about it. A lot of it is the players need to be able to both take initiative and ask questions. They should also be letting the GM know when things are not clear. In terms of foreshadowing, I think some things will be, some things won't be. But what shouldn't happen is a 'no matter what' situation. It is somewhat artificial for example to have every trap have a clue or warning before hand, for example. But if players do something to test for the trap, and that would set it off, the GM shouldn't ignore their efforts. This also comes up with monsters and threats. What I tell my party very clearly is: some monsters and enemies will be way more powerful than you, some way less, some in your range of power, characters can die (because of bad dice rolls, choices you make, and choices monsters and threats make), so caution is advised. Now if we are talking about consequences that stem from something like an interaction with an NPC that goes south. I think that is the sort of thing where a good sandbox GM does not just make the negative consequence happen because that is what he or she wants, it should be a logical outcome of what the players say or do (against the personality and motives of the NPC) and/or a product of the dice (if dice are used for the type of situation in question). The player responsibility in this kind of situation is to play smart and try to learn or glean what they can about NPCs before getting into a situation like that. But sometimes situations arise unexpectedly, and players just happen to say the wrong thing. I don't think the GM has a duty to telegraph that if such a situation arises (just like in life I may find myself in a situation where I meet someone and say the one thing that sets them off without realizing it).</blockquote>

Verification