Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5017290" data-attributes="member: 80487">Setting aside &quot;sandbox&quot; as too vague and substituting the original D&amp;D campaign model (which is also, e.g., the original Traveller model), I think you are wrong and I think I see where you made the wrong turn.If you are in a chain of command, then that is part of your character role. It is a subset of the situations possible in the world. It does not suddenly change the nature of the world!In an open campaign, you can get yourself out of the chain of command -- and disobeying orders is one way to do that! You're not forced to keep doing whatever your boss says just because &quot;that's the story&quot;.The part in bold is plain &quot;beating your wife&quot; style rhetoric. The next sentence is slightly veiled, but the implication is that, in games played differently from yours, characters do not build relationships or have impact on the setting. Your &quot;questions&quot; are sheer nonsense unless one gives assent to your predicate claims.The real answer is that those claims are simply false. There is no need to &quot;justify&quot; with a &quot;how&quot; a state of affairs that is nonexistent in the first place.The rest of us just don't share your additional stipulation that the world must be &quot;made to order&quot; for my player-character, a projection of the persona. We are less interested in that kind of wish fulfillment than in building relationships with people and places and phenomena having their own identities. That is more like the relationships we have in our lives, and more like the relationships that fictional characters are usually portrayed as having with the people and places in their worlds.As to &quot;impact on the setting&quot; we are more interested in doing that by actually playing the game than in just saying, without any actual challenge in accomplishment, Oh, my character is so boss! She did that and that, and got this and this, and then she met those guys, and they went over there, and it was totally rad, and then that other thing was awesome, but not as awesome as ...Making it future tense (&quot;My character is going to be so awesome! He's gonna do this, and own that at level x, and then become something else) is not a big difference if it's basically an entitlement and &quot;playing the game&quot; is just putting in time on the track to scheduled stations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5017290, member: 80487"] Setting aside "sandbox" as too vague and substituting the original D&D campaign model (which is also, e.g., the original Traveller model), I think you are wrong and I think I see where you made the wrong turn. If you are in a chain of command, then that is part of your character role. It is a subset of the situations possible in the world. It does not suddenly change the nature of the world! In an open campaign, you can get yourself out of the chain of command -- and disobeying orders is one way to do that! You're not forced to keep doing whatever your boss says just because "that's the story". The part in bold is plain "beating your wife" style rhetoric. The next sentence is slightly veiled, but the implication is that, in games played differently from yours, characters do not build relationships or have impact on the setting. Your "questions" are sheer nonsense unless one gives assent to your predicate claims. The real answer is that those claims are simply false. There is no need to "justify" with a "how" a state of affairs that is nonexistent in the first place. The rest of us just don't share your additional stipulation that the world must be "made to order" for my player-character, a projection of the persona. We are less interested in that kind of wish fulfillment than in building relationships with people and places and phenomena having their [I]own[/I] identities. That is more like the relationships we have in our lives, and more like [I]the relationships that fictional characters are usually portrayed as having with the people and places in their worlds[/I]. As to "impact on the setting" we are more interested in doing that by [I]actually playing the game[/I] than in just saying, without any actual challenge in accomplishment, [I]Oh, my character is so boss! She did that and that, and got this and this, and then she met those guys, and they went over there, and it was totally rad, and then that other thing was awesome, but not as awesome as ... [/I]Making it future tense ("My character is [I]going to be[/I] so awesome! He's gonna do this, and own that at level x, and then become something else) is not a big difference if it's basically an entitlement and "playing the game" is just putting in time on the track to scheduled stations. [/QUOTE]

Verification