Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7413528" data-attributes="member: 85555">If story is that fundamental, I guess it doesn't matter. If the stories are going to flow anyways, we don't need to worry about making sure they do. But the point of something like sandbox, is provides an easy framework for longterm regular gaming, gives player freedom to go where they want, and can produce lots of unexpected results. Just to take the 7HD example: this does occur in lots of sandbox style campaigns. Total Party Kill can happen, and encounters are not always perfectly balanced like you have in say the 3E/3.5 Encounter Level system. That is part of the attraction as a player. The sense of danger, rather than mere danger through slow HP attrition or boneheaded mistakes, makes the game more exciting IMO. You can go on about the theory here. I think anyone who has played the kinds of games were talking about at length, has enough direct experience with them, to be skeptical of your assertions. One can take a skeptical lens to anything. We could go into a narrative style campaign with the same lens and dismantle it. But all you are doing is making a linguistic argument to dismantle and change the language, so we have to agree with your play style. Personally I don't care why sandbox works. I just like that it works and is fun. And I think story is such a broad term, the problem that occurs in these discussions is people equivocate on it, jumping from its various meanings, in order to build arguments for what good games should include. I think you'd be much better off, making good games, showing them and getting people to play them, than building this highly theoretical arguments for why sandbox might not be as enjoyable as we seem to think it is. Again I am not the best person to make this argument. And I personally don't really care about play style conflicts. I think it is better for everyone when there are multiple playstyles out there to choose from, so people can try different approaches, mix and match, etc. But if your just hostile to a style, with no curiosity about it (except as something to destroy or argue against), you'll never really understand it. Believe me, I've been on the other side of the fence doing that and it does not lead to understanding what excites people about the type of play you think you are analyzing.</blockquote>

Verification