Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6101364" data-attributes="member: 42582">In my view, it depends a lot on what the underlying play is like. [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] has had some interesting posts recently about a type of gamist classic D&D that is in some ways light (ie no one take it too seriously) but in other ways hard core (in that the gamism is really front and centre). In the sort of game that Libramarian has described, the imagined setting is very important, because that's what the players engage with via their PCs, and character is unimportant - after all, you might be cyling through lots of them, especially at low levels!In that sort of play, if the players get so attached to their PCs and the story that is building up around those PCs that they would rather get to City B than engage with the barriers in the way, then the game has drifted away from what Libramarian had in mind; likewise if the barriers become "logical" rather than White Plume Mountain gonzo. (This is obvious if you look at Libramarian's sample dungeon rooms <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?334670-5-Chamber-Dungeons" target="_blank">here</a>.) At that point the group might have to stock take what they're really looking for in their game.In my earlier post that I quoted, I also referred to a type of serious simulationist play, where the group is dedicated to exploring the world even if - at times - it gets a bit boring. For that group, it would make sense to resolve the "logical barriers" even if they are a little bit boring, either at the fictional level ("There's not much in this desert besides sand and escarpments") or the mechanical level ("OK, make another Use Rope check.").But if you've got players who are prioritising getting to City B over exploration as such, than once again the game has drifted away from that simulationist goal, even if simulationism was where it started. Again, perhaps a stock take is needed. (And I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has told us that he took stock, and quit the game.)In my post I said that the GM who prioritises the "logical barriers" over going to where the action is (in terms of players' emotional investment) isn't a GM I would want to play with. I'm not saying that no one else should play with that GM either, and above I've tried to sketch out at least one playstyle I'm familiar with - world exploration simulationism - where that could count as good GMing. It's just not a playstyle I'm very keen on (either as player or GM).</blockquote>

Verification