Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5390183" data-attributes="member: 18280">I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.A novelist has all the power at the keyboard.  A GM is part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and maintain background, including NPCs, monsters, and various adventuring sites/adventures; run the game fairly; try to make play at the table balanced and fun) are balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over background; control over rules).A player is also part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and run a fair and interesting character in a way that makes the game more fun for all concerned) is balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over character creation, except where rules or background might be involved; absolute control over character play, except where rules are involved).Both player and GM have an absolute right to seek out any sort of game that they might prefer; both GM and player have an absolute right to not engage in any sort of game that they do not enjoy.If the players are sitting around bored, both the responsibilities of the GM and the responsibilities of the players have not been met.  Trying to say that it is all the fault of one person is a dodge.No, it is not, because there is no counter to it.  There is nothing to test what "enough" means apart from the result.If I say, "Enough water can balance a 20-pound weight", the term "enough" has exact meaning.  Twenty pounds of water will balance a 20-pound weight.  If I say, "You need enough Vitamin D in your diet for good health", there are recommended daily allowances that the term "enough" can be compared to.If I say, instead, "A hot enough temperature will bring the dead back to life" the statement is tautologically true.  If the dead do not come back to life, clearly it is not hot enough.  That there is no way in which "hot enough" can be tested or measured apart from the dead coming back to life makes it analogous to your statement.  "Enough" has no meaning.  The statement exists merely to assign blame.  The players are disenfranchised (they have no power to make the game fun, because "the GM has all the power at the table") and they are stripped of all responsibility to run a fair and interesting character in a way that makes the game more fun for all concerned.It is a dodge, and it is a dodge of the worst possible sort.  (IMHO, of course.)I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.I also "reject any gaming philosophy that dismisses the GM's responsibility to run their game and instead blames the players for every problem at the table, every mistake or misstep of the GM, or every weakness of the GM's preferred  play style".But, then, I embrace a gaming philosophy that balances rights and responsibilities at the table, and shares them based upon the needs of the game.  This is, perhaps, a foreign concept to some.This 'pure' sandbox style must be an invention of yours.  I am not aware of any gaming philosophy that requires the GM to avoid giving the players hooks to potential action, encounters, context, and/or consequences to their actions.Good grief.  I hope that you are aware that any statement about subjective values is, by its very nature, subjective.  If I say "Chocolate ice cream is best" it does not imply that you believe it is best, or that you must believe it is best.  It only implies that I believe it is best.  The poster ought not to require "IMHO" in mile-high flaming letters.Often true, though.  Every form of gaming has its own benefits, and its own difficulties.  IME, most players do enjoy a well-run sandbox more than anything else.....and while my sample set is not universal, it does run into several hundred players in multiple US states and Canada.  YMMV.  Obviously, Your Experience May Vary, too.  But, if I give advice to someone saying they have problem X, it is going to be based on how I solve problem X.  If that advice doesn't strike the other person as useful, so be it.Obviously.Just as it ought to be obvious that, to a person who enjoys narrative games more, the solutions proposed are going to be along the lines of "Y solves X", where Y is a solution that works well in a narrative game.Really, though, I find it difficult to reconcile your claim of having played in or run, and enjoyed playing in or running, a sandbox with the definition you give for a sandbox.  A sandbox is not a flat, featureless plane.  At least not as I -- or anyone I know -- uses the term.If you believe that a sandbox is a game where the players are required to be "be completely self directing and self motivating" one has to wonder why you also believe that sandboxes "are among the hardest medium for a GM to work in. They require the most preparation, the most player buy in, etc."?After all, the creation of anything that interacts with the players would seem to prevent them from being "completely self directing and self motivating".  AFAICT, the only job for the GM in a "pure" sandbox, as you define it, is rules adjudication!<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />No.In any game that anyone is likely to remain in long, the focus of play is clearly on the decisions the players make concerning their individual characters.  The "99% of the power" that the GM has is exercised to provide context for those choices, and to describe/evaluate the consequences of those choices.  Those choices, though, are the focus.This is true in a sandbox.  This is true in a narrative game.Trying to narrow this complex social interaction into "The GM has all the power" or even "The GM has 99% of the power", though, results in an extremely skewed view of what actually occurs during game play.For instance, even that "99% of the power" is meaningless.  99% of what power?  The power to control game play is shared.  Bored players can simply do something.  A bored GM can simply throw an enemy at the PCs.  If the bored player discovers that the GM will not allow her to do anything, or that anything she chooses to do has no consequence, the solution is clear.  Find (or make) a new game.The power to control PC interactions, except in the case of Charm spells and the like, is entirely in the players' court.  If the bored GM discovers that the players simply will not react to anything she introduces, the solution is clear.  Find new players, or change what you are running.Hussar, that problem is solved by not playing with douche bags.RC</blockquote>

Verification