Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Von Ether" data-source="post: 7768375" data-attributes="member: 15582">While I agree that Old School is matter of attitude, I have two demarcation lines:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The balanced encounters vs. environmental encounters. i.e. Every encounter the party faces is balanced towards their combat effectiveness as compared to encounters being designed to reflect the environment -- thus a party may get in over their head in a fight if they don't read the signs or refused to use other strategies (stealth, parley, etc.) The game world cherry picks between "simulation" and the game being just a game.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> The game leans more on playing group's overall intelligence and knowledge and allows for lots of table talk so if the player of the dumb fighter figures out the puzzle, he can coach the wizard's player through the steps of the solution so as to maintain a suspension of disbelief. </li> </ul>This statement is exaggerated and completely discounts GM improv skills. Just because death maybe off the table for many storytelling games, doesn't mean the GM's railroads the group down one path, or that player decision don't deal with real consequences or create new paths for the emergent story at the table.If you envisioned a old school sandbox game were the GM slavishly went with every random table roll and didn't tweak the results (guidelines, not rules) you might be able to make the same statement about Old School. The main difference being that instead of a GM making an plot outline, the dice did it for him. From what I've seen, a lot of old school GMs use the tables as tools for inspiration, springboards for improve, and to randomize some plot details, but they still make the final call if the results are to be used.And just in case it needs to be said, I don't think either attitude (or combination of attitudes or even switching attitudes) is badwrongfun as long as your group is also on board with it.</blockquote>

Verification