|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 2:18PM
#61
|
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.
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.
Ahh... walking a low tightrope analogy as such; the DM trying to balance over player expectations. He may falter along the way to the goal but the stakes are low and easy to overcome. The DMs journey along with the players will require some give and take on both fronts. But if they hit a snag, he can adjust (no harm,no foul) get back up (hopefully with the player's help ) and continue with the game.
And I too am not as dogmatic as I seem on DM fiat. I love a mixture of input and to whatever degree the game demands and the players expect, I try to adjust.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 4:16PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
I recently became aware that these are a thing. I don't think I'd enjoy them that much.
Since they were my introduction to roleplaying, and the context in which I got to know some of my best friends in college, I remember them fondly. But I also remember that the most important skill was manipulating the GM. He tended to be fairly flexible in letting you do stuff you wanted to do, mostly using a "yes, but" approach. However, you could get him to forget the "but" part or give you things without realizing the consequences if you played it right. One useful technique was to create a situation so complex that he was struggling to keep track, then make a what sounded like an innocuous suggestion that would make things simpler. I became de facto ruler of a planet in this way.
But even magic has "realistic" limits woven into the framework of the fiction or game rules to balance it.
At least it should.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 5:33PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
I recently became aware that these are a thing. I don't think I'd enjoy them that much.
Since they were my introduction to roleplaying, and the context in which I got to know some of my best friends in college, I remember them fondly. But I also remember that the most important skill was manipulating the GM. He tended to be fairly flexible in letting you do stuff you wanted to do, mostly using a "yes, but" approach. However, you could get him to forget the "but" part or give you things without realizing the consequences if you played it right. One useful technique was to create a situation so complex that he was struggling to keep track, then make a what sounded like an innocuous suggestion that would make things simpler. I became de facto ruler of a planet in this way.
But even magic has "realistic" limits woven into the framework of the fiction or game rules to balance it.
At least it should.
That's my thinking anyway. Hell, even if I deemed a world where magic could do literally anything like turning a fireball into a dragon, I would still deem the wizard incapable of doing so based on his skill level and the amount of energy required to make something like that happen. Just because it can happen with magic, would not necessarily mean that the caster can make it possible (for this specific world example).
I think not placing rules or limits on magic based on the idea of "it's magic, it can do anything" is a really bad approach to fantasy. Even Tolkien (who's works are often used as an example), had a mechanical approach to magic that had it's own limits and it couldn't be applied as a "solves all" to every situation.
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/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 5:48PM
#64
|
|
|
I wonder if you guys fundamentally misunderstand the point of the "A wizard did it" approach. It simply means you're playing in a fantasy world... if you're not happy with a particular explanation for something, make up something else. There are practically limitless explanations for anything, but only one reason something can't work in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 5:52PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
I wonder if you guys fundamentally misunderstand the point of the "A wizard did it" approach. It simply means you're playing in a fantasy world... if you're not happy with a particular explanation for something, make up something else. There are practically limitless explanations for anything, but only one reason something can't work in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.
You're also assuming we enjoy that meta approach.
I like building a world with rules and sticking to those rules. To break the rules/consistency of the world I create, even if I haven't stated these rules to the players to make them set in stone, is wrong.
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/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 5:54PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I wonder if you guys fundamentally misunderstand the point of the "A wizard did it" approach. It simply means you're playing in a fantasy world... if you're not happy with a particular explanation for something, make up something else. There are practically limitless explanations for anything, but only one reason something can't work in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.
Where "you" can also include the players.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 6:00PM
#67
|
|
|
Where "you" can also include the players.
True. And Lunar, even in a "world" with "rules," given that it's fantasy, anyone with an imagination can figure out how to circumvent those rules in a way that's consistent with your other rules. So it's really not worth having them in my opinion unless you like or need to be in the position of enforcing them for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 1:15PM
#68
|
|
|
I don't see much need to worry about either issue myself. If the player comes up with something cool, I'll let em try it. But even with this mind set you have to know when to say no when someone's trying to push it too far.
Going with a system is fine, as long as everyone's having fun. Going with the flow is fine, as long as everyone's having fun. As long as we're all having fun, seems a silly thing to worry about to me...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 08, 2012 - 2:03AM
#69
|
|
|
I wonder if you guys fundamentally misunderstand the point of the "A wizard did it" approach. It simply means you're playing in a fantasy world... if you're not happy with a particular explanation for something, make up something else. There are practically limitless explanations for anything, but only one reason something can't work in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.
You're also assuming we enjoy that meta approach.
I like building a world with rules and sticking to those rules. To break the rules/consistency of the world I create, even if I haven't stated these rules to the players to make them set in stone, is wrong.
But there is no meta approach here. Take for example the example the OP has for why his cold-blooded lizardfolk survive in an eternally dark cold dismal swamp: there are heat generating meteor fragments. That is effectively "a wizard did it" explenation that is absolutely internally and rule consistent. What we are saying is that in a Fantasy setting of your own imagination there is always an explenation of why something would work unless you don't want it to be so.
The whole idea that DMs like Iserith nilly-willy accept anything is a bit odd. The players should strife to come with a good explenation on why something works within the constraints of the story/setting, but doing so is hardly ever problematic. Besides, in a shared campaign like this players really don't abuse their power to change the world without any consideration to the rules and world consistency 
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 08, 2012 - 11:49AM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2012
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
|
|
|
