Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5012211" data-attributes="member: 22779">Talk about changing contexts.At what point did I say that the group was engaging in this on an individual basis?  I believe  I pretty specifically stated that the entire group was engaged in Hussar's Drunk Chess.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I've always, always referred this to the group, not the single player.   You're totally right.  If one player is playing a game that no one else at the table is playing, then he's pretty out of place.  However, that's never really been my point.So, do you agree that players, as a group, can formulate goals and, after bolting those goals onto a pre-existing ruleset, can create a game?  Yes or no.But, that's the problem.  All of the things the players will interact with are separate and distinct from their characters or backgrounds for the most part.  Even if they players read the entire campaign setting back to front, the odds that their particular backgrounds will tie to any specific element are pretty tenous.  That spooky castle on the hill exists in the campaign world irrespective of whatever players or characters are brought to play.To me, I'd much rather change the campaign world to reflect the characters.  If they are playing a bunch of church knights out to slay undead Van Helsing style, then, fine, spooky castle it is.  If, OTOH, they are all playing ninja assassins (shudder), then spooky castle isn't going to cut the mustard.  Instead, it will be a living castle of someone they need to spy on.People talk about this, but, IME, what actually happens is the campaign never gets a chance to gain any depth.  The players are constantly trying to see what's over the next hill, so never stay in one place long enough to make any connections or whatnot to the campaign world.  Ahh, now see here is something intertesting.  "Once a month" group is something I've never experienced.  We've always played weekly.  I quite simply don't have a full month between sessions to work out five different plotlines or scenarios.  OTOH, if we take a session or two (it's never actually taken two, although, it has taken more than one on occassion) to create a party, we're only taking two weeks.Scheduling was an issue I never really thought of.  I can see how having so much time between sessions would allow you to do this.Actually, this bit speaks a lot to my question of depth.  If you are recycling adventures from one campaign to the next, then those adventures, by their very nature, have to be generic.  You cannot have an adventure that requires a cleric, for example, if you want to use this adventure in another campaign.  That's a simple example, but I think you get my meaning.  Generic adventures, probably best epitomized by modules, are pretty shallow.  They aren't tied to the players, or the characters in anything more than the most tenuous way.  They have to lack strong theme or plot requiring specific elements since either one of those things preclude their recycling.So, to repeat what I said earlier, I find that sandbox games do lack depth because they aren't tied to the characters or the players.  It's Father Generic giving Quest #14 to investigate Spooky Castle #3.How can you avoid being generic and bland while still maintaining a campaign so open ended that it doesn't matter who plays what in it?Totally agree on most of the points.  Although, I don't think you need specific rules like you do.  Playing with reasonable and mature players can remove the need for codified rules, but, otherwise, I agree.  If Hussar doesn't tell anyone he's playing this game, then it's not a game at all.But, again, that was never my point.  If both players at the table agree to play Drunk Chess, is it a game or not?</blockquote>

Verification