Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4713055" data-attributes="member: 48965">No, but I think it's a sin to limit "setting" to serving only one purpose and claiming it is the only or main thing it should serve when games and gamers  are quite the diverse lot. That sounds alot like one-true-wayism to me.Mallus I really feel like you might think too much in absolutes, especially when it comes to playstyles (and only a Sith deals in absolutes...). You also make alot of assumptions about the capabilities of DM's whom you have no experience with. How can you quantify what the results of a DM who strives to be impartial are, unless you've played in his particular game.  Perhaps you don't do well or have trouble with a particular style but that in and of itself is not a basis for what another DM can or cannot achieve.Personally I think it's easier for a DM as opposed to an author to disassociate himself from NPC's as opposed to the author's characters (whom the story is actually about), especially if they are created beforehand and have their motivations and relationships mapped out independently of the choices the PC's will make.  It then becomes a logical process to create consistent and logical actions for them as the world changes around them (I mean we're taught to think logically from 1st grade up).  Since I have no interest in these characters besides if, when, how and why they might interact with the PC's... what exactly is the agenda (especially in a non-scripted campaign) for pre-determining their actions in a way based solely on the state of the PC's as opposed to the world or setting... especially if my purpose is to run an organic sand-box campaign?  As an example... I set it up beforehand that in round 3 of the PC's battle with an Ogre (barring precautions that keep the battle silent) the noise attracts 3 Orcs in another room to come and investigate, and it takes them 4 rounds to reach the room.  Now, since this encounter is set up before the actions or motivations of the PC's are known to me, and/or interact with it, it is a neutral situation and not based on the state of my PC's because I have no idea what that will be at the time they interact with it. Instead it is based on the logic and consistency of the "setting".  the noise will attract the Orcs because it's loud and the sounds of battle... it takes n rounds for them to get there because they are that far from the room.  The orcs will investigate because it could mean danger for themselves... etc.Now if I decide the Orcs don't come because the PC's may not be able to handle the fight this is where my reasons are not logical, impartial or consistent.  There are Orcs close enough to hear the noise that, regardless of what it may mean for their own safety choose not to investigate???  Now we step into the realm of illusionism, as I can (through various shennanigan's, lies, or manipulation) make the players think this is what was suppose to happen all along... even though I know that's not true and it doesn't make sense logically, if the Orcs are still in the nearby room.To me this is illusionism, not the first situation above... it is also not a way I enjoy playing the game in sand-box campaigns, it increases and makes arbitrary the fact that the state of the world at any given moment is in flux depending on my whims, makes the actions and choices (good or bad) of the PC's matter less, and it cheapens the fun of the sandbox playstyle... of course this is all with the understanding that we have agreed to use this playstyle.  My group in no way limits itself to only one playstyle all the time. And yet you are unwilling to accept or give credit to those whose ideas and playstyles differ from yours.  IMO, it seems you've created your own "ideal" world and it is based only on Mallus's experiences, expectations and definitions of fun.  do you honestly believe that what applies and is best for you is best and should be applied to everyone else, if that's not the height of applying a certain idealization (based upon your own personal bias) I don't know what is.</blockquote>

Verification