|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 11:54AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
You've made the basic point that you're practiced at making up the most extreme examples of things to cast a certain approach in a weird light, sure. But of course nobody actually plays that way.
The first two RPG's I ever played in were exactly like that. Absolutely everything was determined in the heat of the moment, with previously established lore being referenced only long enough to handwave a reason why it didn't apply. These games were fun, once you learned how to roll with the chaos, but when I tried D&D a few years later I really appreciated having some structure.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 11:59AM
#52
|
|
|
The first two RPG's I ever played in were exactly like that. Absolutely everything was determined in the heat of the moment, with previously established lore being referenced only long enough to handwave a reason why it didn't apply. These games were fun, once you learned how to roll with the chaos, but when I tried D&D a few years later I really appreciated having some structure.
Which RPGs were those?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 12:10PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
Which RPGs were those?
No system, no dice. Totally freestyle storytelling, with a DM, theatre of the mind except when things got too complicated and we started drawing pictures.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 12:36PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Which RPGs were those?
No system, no dice. Totally freestyle storytelling, with a DM, theatre of the mind except when things got too complicated and we started drawing pictures.
I recently became aware that these are a thing. I don't think I'd enjoy them that much.
At the same time, all I'm insterested in doing is making sure that if I do have to block a player idea that it's for an overwhelmingly good reason. I frankly can't really ever be sure, so I will go pretty far to accommodate players, especially if I know them personally. I've had so much more fun playing games, even boardgames, since I became less of a stickler.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 12:40PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2011
|
Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.
You've made the basic point that you're practiced at making up the most extreme examples of things to cast a certain approach in a weird light, sure. But of course nobody actually plays that way.
He could say the same thing.
And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world? This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 12:47PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world? This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.
Often nothing. But when adherence to those parameters comes at the expense of player involvement and player creativity, there can be problems.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 1:04PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2011
|
And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world? This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.
Often nothing. But when adherence to those parameters comes at the expense of player involvement and player creativity, there can be problems.
Agreed that it is a tightrope to be walked, but able to be done.
And luckily, this tightrope is just a game of D&D and so it's only a foot off of the ground. If you (by you, I mean whoever is reading) fall off, it's no big deal to jump back up, learn the give-and-take that your particular players want, and resume play.
Perhaps many of the DMs on this board are in agreement more than they know that the players should be helping to form the world they play in. A lot of the disagreements may only be by degree. (Or style of game...some players are more passive than others/power gamers/watchers)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 1:14PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world? This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.
Often nothing. But when adherence to those parameters comes at the expense of player involvement and player creativity, there can be problems.
Agreed that it is a tightrope to be walked, but able to be done.
And luckily, this tightrope is just a game of D&D and so it's only a foot off of the ground. If you (by you, I mean whoever is reading) fall off, it's no big deal to jump back up, learn the give-and-take that your particular players want, and resume play.
I agree, except that I don't think there's a tightrope. I'm not sure what's in the balance in your analogy. I don't feel like there's much lost by erring on the side of the players' ideas. I feel like the bigger risk is in the DM deciding details.
Perhaps many of the DMs on this board are in agreement more than they know that the players should be helping to form the world they play in. A lot of the disagreements may only be by degree. (Or style of game...some players are more passive than others/power gamers/watchers)
We probably do agree more than we know, and would probably be surprised at how much we enjoyed at least some aspects of how each other runs the game. I continue to feel that erring on the side of the players is not as popular a view or considered as lofty a goal as scripting a story up-front, Tolkien style, so I tend to rather vocally promote a polarized view. I'm actually much softer on it in reality than I am in the abstract.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 1:19PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
As regards winning the respect of the lizards, maybe their warm stones have been cooling off recently, and if the PCs can charge them back up somehow, the lizardmen will be grateful.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 2:12PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
What I would mean by "in-game realism" would be internal consistency. Certain things are different from the real world. That's fine, and expected. But other things work a lot like the real world; there has to be some of that or we couldn't relate to our characters well enough to play. If I say that something is unrealistic in a game, I mean that it sounds implausible and doesn't have a good explanation within the established framework for that game.
Right, and so what's easy to have happen is that non-magical things or beings are simply not enabled to do amazing things, because being cool and balanced is not itself enough of an established framework. But magic, which by definition allows impossible-seeming things to happen, gets a pretty blank check. This has been a problem in past editions, and is very hard to rein in, but some people prefer it, over having to imagine ways in which rapidly firing a crossbow, or not getting able to repeatedly perform a powerful sword attack, fit an "established framework."
Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.
I'll concede that there's potential for that in a game in which a DM can make up or allow anything. Most people find a level of "consistency" they're comfortable with, enabling a shorthand they can use to convey certain threats or certain ease to their players.
No, no magic doesn't. Yes, it can make impossible things happen. But even magic has "realistic" limits woven into the framework of the fiction or game rules to balance it. And in high magic settings, magic is so common, that it is practically as mundane as a fighter with a sword. To break those limits in the fiction and the game are just as bad as breaking the limits the fighter faces with his sword. Magic doesn't get a free pass when it's inherent to the world you play in.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!)
*Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb.
http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
