Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5998512" data-attributes="member: 58416">Framing is an area where I often feel I cannot participate in these discussions because the language and style of play presented by others is somewhat alien to me.&nbsp; I completely understand what framing is; obviously -as a D&amp;D player- I understand what encounters are.&nbsp; However, for me, my preferred method of portraying the world is &quot;here's the world, what do you do?&quot;&nbsp; I would prefer to have things not broken down into scenes and encounters and simply put things in the world were it makes sense for them to be; one the world is set in motion, each piece moves where the in-game logic says it will.&nbsp; If there's not a preset pattern, I roll the dice and let them decide.&nbsp; As I have run and played D&amp;D, I understand how to set up encounters because the game requires me to.&nbsp; However, I'd be most happy if there were not such a solid idea of 'encounter' built into the game in a sort of meta-game way.&nbsp; I'd prefer things grow organically from the world.&nbsp; Yes, as the world builder, I might decide where some of those things start, but -once set in motion- it's wholly possible for what happens next to be just as much of a surprise to me as it is anybody else sitting at the table.&nbsp; I guess I'm trying to say that I have a hard time participating when it comes to this part of the conversation because when it comes to a question of how I would like things framed or divided up into scenes, my answer would be -generally speaking- that I prefer for there to be no division; at least not in the way such a thing seems to be generally defined by others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 5998512, member: 58416"] Framing is an area where I often feel I cannot participate in these discussions because the language and style of play presented by others is somewhat alien to me. I completely understand what framing is; obviously -as a D&D player- I understand what encounters are. However, for me, my preferred method of portraying the world is "here's the world, what do you do?" I would prefer to have things not broken down into scenes and encounters and simply put things in the world were it makes sense for them to be; one the world is set in motion, each piece moves where the in-game logic says it will. If there's not a preset pattern, I roll the dice and let them decide. As I have run and played D&D, I understand how to set up encounters because the game requires me to. However, I'd be most happy if there were not such a solid idea of 'encounter' built into the game in a sort of meta-game way. I'd prefer things grow organically from the world. Yes, as the world builder, I might decide where some of those things start, but -once set in motion- it's wholly possible for what happens next to be just as much of a surprise to me as it is anybody else sitting at the table. I guess I'm trying to say that I have a hard time participating when it comes to this part of the conversation because when it comes to a question of how I would like things framed or divided up into scenes, my answer would be -generally speaking- that I prefer for there to be no division; at least not in the way such a thing seems to be generally defined by others. [/QUOTE]

Verification