Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5027607" data-attributes="member: 22779">My point here is that this is not the only way of doing things.&nbsp; When designing a campaign, another approach is to start by asking the players, &quot;what game do you want to play?&quot; and working as a group to hash out a rough outline of a game - typically high level stuff like theme, genre, maybe a couple of highlights.My solution is to not play with people like this any more.&nbsp; Since you have a choice of players, why would you include someone at your table whose play style you obviously don't share?&nbsp; If someone is trying to abuse the system to gain mechanical advantage, and continues to do so despite being told that such play is not preferred at the table, why play with this person?This is certainly one approach to gaming, and IMO, probably the most common one as well.&nbsp; I've certainly played, continue to play and DM in this style as well.&nbsp; Not all the time, now, but, there's certainly nothing wrong with it.My ((proabably terribly described)) argument has been that this does not have to be true.&nbsp; That it is entirely possible for the players to be actively engaged in setting creation, even during play.&nbsp; They can also be actively engaged in theme and plot as well.&nbsp; It does require a very different mindset from the players though.&nbsp; The players have to be willing to take a different view of the campaign - in other words, they have to become a LOT less passive in their consumption of the game.&nbsp; To me, there's nothing wrong with this.&nbsp; The play goals are simply very different from a standard (if that's the right term) campaign.&nbsp; Instead of &quot;experience the adventures and see what happens&quot; goals shift towards explorations of themes or concepts.&nbsp; If the group agrees to play a campaign centered around gender politics, for example, the events of the campaign are less important than that exploration.&nbsp; The events act as a framework or catalyst for generating that exploration.I guess, at the end of the day, it comes all the way back to the usual disagreement I have with Raven Crowking - how important is the setting?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />&nbsp; If exploration of setting is very important (which to RC and others I believe it is) then obviously it makes sense for the GM to have a much greater control and emphasis on the setting.&nbsp; OTOH, if exploration of the setting is less important, and exploration of concept is more important, then setting gets to fade back and plot becomes a lot stronger.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5027607, member: 22779"] My point here is that this is not the only way of doing things. When designing a campaign, another approach is to start by asking the players, "what game do you want to play?" and working as a group to hash out a rough outline of a game - typically high level stuff like theme, genre, maybe a couple of highlights. My solution is to not play with people like this any more. Since you have a choice of players, why would you include someone at your table whose play style you obviously don't share? If someone is trying to abuse the system to gain mechanical advantage, and continues to do so despite being told that such play is not preferred at the table, why play with this person? This is certainly one approach to gaming, and IMO, probably the most common one as well. I've certainly played, continue to play and DM in this style as well. Not all the time, now, but, there's certainly nothing wrong with it. My ((proabably terribly described)) argument has been that this does not have to be true. That it is entirely possible for the players to be actively engaged in setting creation, even during play. They can also be actively engaged in theme and plot as well. It does require a very different mindset from the players though. The players have to be willing to take a different view of the campaign - in other words, they have to become a LOT less passive in their consumption of the game. To me, there's nothing wrong with this. The play goals are simply very different from a standard (if that's the right term) campaign. Instead of "experience the adventures and see what happens" goals shift towards explorations of themes or concepts. If the group agrees to play a campaign centered around gender politics, for example, the events of the campaign are less important than that exploration. The events act as a framework or catalyst for generating that exploration. I guess, at the end of the day, it comes all the way back to the usual disagreement I have with Raven Crowking - how important is the setting? :p If exploration of setting is very important (which to RC and others I believe it is) then obviously it makes sense for the GM to have a much greater control and emphasis on the setting. OTOH, if exploration of the setting is less important, and exploration of concept is more important, then setting gets to fade back and plot becomes a lot stronger. [/QUOTE]

Verification