Quote from: Arminius;983421I don't know why but this crystallizes an important point for me--even if you only have one party, it's a useful exercise to think of your prep as if there could be multiple parties in the campaign. To me this argues for simplification at the system level and quick sketches at the setting level, which (because your system is simple) can easily be fleshed out. YMMV of course. In more complex systems it's probably more necessary to pregenerate detailed special NPCs, generic NPCs, and NPC groups.

I have had two groups of characters in my sandbox on several occasions, sometimes with another GM. I run a crunchy system and the NPCs are fleshed out and move around, if and when they move, for their own reasons. I put up a map with pins in it. I had three groups once, with another GM for one of them. Powerful groups of PCs can make major changes in a sandbox ("that inn isn't there anymore and those villagers are very suspicious, possibly violent, about mages with torch-wands") so the GMs have to keep one another informed.

--
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/

That sounds quite cool, but this thread has become hopelessly fragmented. I wonder if the mods could do something to extract the sandbox methods portion from general filosofizin' & flamin'.

Quote from: Voros;983567Not true sorry. Here is what he actually wrote.

Three years of play at the cultural peak of D&D is hardly not 'meaningful.' Most people's most extensive experience playing D&D is from their teens.

Well, from the interview it sounded much more like he tried it a bit. But did not play too much in these "peak years". Again, I spent the better part of two days playing and talking to him and taking the multi-hour interview. I am pretty confident that he did not play a lot of D&D. I remember him being actually disgusted by D&D players when they were wargamers because these supposedly were creeps who would torture animals in their backyard and would be supportive of the Vietnam war.

I might misremember the details, but to me, what he wrote there does not conflict my reading of his verbal account. Actually I prepared for that interview, and I think I read that thing when preparing questions. Because I definitelly bugged him a lot about how much he would be a DM and how often a player, what his characters were etc. I tried hard to talk to him as a gamer, the teenage kind, and all the answers I got were basically pointing to the fact that he only regularly played the way I understand it during his Champions time and from then on.

I took the vids off youtube and am not inclined to put them back on, so it's my words against your intperpretation of a self-promoting piece he wrote.

Anyhow, I find Pundits current political stances so at odds with my own sense of decency, that I will not be posting until he clarifies his position in a manner I find acceptable. At this point in time, I want to disavow any sympathies for Pundit and thereby do not want to be associated with theRPGSite as of now.
Anybody who is backing Breitbart and the Alt-Right at this point in time is actually a force of obscurantism and an enabler of henious acts. And even though the gaming threads are thankfully politics free, this site is owned and associated with a person earning money with this site as well as political journalism.

So, bye.

And John, should you read this:
As a Mason, you most likely know, that there cannot ever be an ultimate dogma, no belief without exception, nothing set in stone 100% of the time. And ultimately even free speech has its limits. I always thought I'd quit this site because of your bannings and some violation of free speech. But your recent blogposts leave me shocked and sad. Sometimes, very seldomly, right now, sticking to your guns and principles of "100% free speech 100% of the time" is wrong. Bye.

EDIT To make it more clear: Free Speech puts a big responsibility on civil society. It's the hard way. And its the best. But it is hard because you can never just use talking points and dogma, you must always be ready to disavow or denounce those that abuse free speech or are just plain Nazis. Voltaire is right, but Voltair'll fight! And our host did not fight, he is silent and making excuses. So now here, from a free speech advocate, my disapproval.

I hate to say it but... Just because you got along with the guy doesnt mean what he was doing was right.

I spent several years RPing with a popular artist and then found out that he was ripping off patrons. LOTS of patrons. Unfortunately I know several people who have commissioned him knowing hes robbed people. Just so they could get some of his art.

Quote from: Settembrini;984696Well, from the interview it sounded much more like he tried it a bit. But did not play too much in these "peak years". Again, I spent the better part of two days playing and talking to him and taking the multi-hour interview. I am pretty confident that he did not play a lot of D&D. I remember him being actually disgusted by D&D players when they were wargamers because these supposedly were creeps who would torture animals in their backyard and would be supportive of the Vietnam war.

I might misremember the details, but to me, what he wrote there does not conflict my reading of his verbal account. Actually I prepared for that interview, and I think I read that thing when preparing questions. Because I definitelly bugged him a lot about how much he would be a DM and how often a player, what his characters were etc. I tried hard to talk to him as a gamer, the teenage kind, and all the answers I got were basically pointing to the fact that he only regularly played the way I understand it during his Champions time and from then on.

I took the vids off youtube and am not inclined to put them back on, so it's my words against your intperpretation of a self-promoting piece he wrote.

Anyhow, I find Pundits current political stances so at odds with my own sense of decency, that I will not be posting until he clarifies his position in a manner I find acceptable. At this point in time, I want to disavow any sympathies for Pundit and thereby do not want to be associated with theRPGSite as of now.
Anybody who is backing Breitbart and the Alt-Right at this point in time is actually a force of obscurantism and an enabler of henious acts. And even though the gaming threads are thankfully politics free, this site is owned and associated with a person earning money with this site as well as political journalism.

So, bye.

And John, should you read this:
As a Mason, you most likely know, that there cannot ever be an ultimate dogma, no belief without exception, nothing set in stone 100% of the time. And ultimately even free speech has its limits. I always thought I'd quit this site because of your bannings and some violation of free speech. But your recent blogposts leave me shocked and sad. Sometimes, very seldomly, right now, sticking to your guns and principles of "100% free speech 100% of the time" is wrong. Bye.

EDIT To make it more clear: Free Speech puts a big responsibility on civil society. It's the hard way. And its the best. But it is hard because you can never just use talking points and dogma, you must always be ready to disavow or denounce those that abuse free speech or are just plain Nazis. Voltaire is right, but Voltair'll fight! And our host did not fight, he is silent and making excuses. So now here, from a free speech advocate, my disapproval.

Obviously impossible to respond with no evidence. And even if he says what you say I don't find it damning. One because it isn't like everyone has to like D&D and not liking it is some kind of heresy. And two because everything he complains about I know I encountered as a teen playing D&D, perhaps even worse. I think there are lots of people who had negative, rule lawyering, powergaming and creep experiences as kids and teens and never returned to the game.

I do agree with the political slide into paranoia and irrational hatred in Pundency but have decided to just avoid that cesspool of conspiracy theories same as I do the Youtube comments section.

Quote from: Settembrini;984696I remember him being actually disgusted by D&D players when they were wargamers because these supposedly were creeps who would torture animals in their backyard and would be supportive of the Vietnam war.

He really hung out with people enough to know that they tortured animals? And he didn't call the ASPCA? I would report that in a heartbeat.

Quote from: Settembrini;984696Anyhow, I find Pundits current political stances so at odds with my own sense of decency, that I will not be posting until he clarifies his position in a manner I find acceptable. At this point in time, I want to disavow any sympathies for Pundit and thereby do not want to be associated with theRPGSite as of now.
Anybody who is backing Breitbart and the Alt-Right at this point in time is actually a force of obscurantism and an enabler of henious acts. And even though the gaming threads are thankfully politics free, this site is owned and associated with a person earning money with this site as well as political journalism.

So, bye.

Wow, now that's "tolerance" for other peoples beliefs. Telling the Pundit that you won't play in his backyard unless he changes his beliefs to match yours only proves that you are anti-tolerance, anti-free speech and above all anti-freedom. Once you ban any thought, then any thought can be banned. You might want to go back and read 1984 by George Orwell and ponder the fact that the technology now exists to monitor people to a degree way beyond what Orwell envisioned. When you say you want to ban thought you are saying you want to live in the world George Orwell envisioned. IMO that world would not be one I would wish on anyone.

Can we please move this away from politics?

Quote from: Voros;984453And how would I answer what someone would do in Fate? I'm not familar with the system.

You probably wouldn't answer. But the question wasn't asked of you. It was asked of Anon and of the thread in general. :rolleyes:

Sorry your posts have tended to make sense until now, are you off your meds?

You said: "It's also telling that you felt compelled to comment on that sentence of mine rather than answering the question that Anon Adderlan asked."

Do you remember that? Did you remember to go to the washrooom today? Maybe call your nurse.

Quote from: Voros;985130Sorry your posts have tended to make sense until now, are you off your meds?

OK I get it. You are the only living example of Ron Edwards brain damage theory. Congratulations you have succeeded in proving he isn't 100% wrong. But you are still a moron.

Seriously what are you on about?? You said I didn't answer Anon's question. His question was about Fate. I pointed out I knew nothing about Fate so how could I answer his question. Then you act like you didn't just ask why didn't I answer Anon's question?? Even after I quote yourself back at you you continue to act as if you make any sense.

And you claimed that my not answering Anon's question was somehow 'telling'?? 'Telling' of what?

Not as telling as this all takes place after you ask a question and then declare you had no interest in the answer!

But you're acting as if you're the one making sense?? You think reverting to name calling somehow distracts from the fact that you're not making a lick of sense?

Please explain for all of us how this sentence is not contradictory nonsense:

"What are the procedures in Fate? I've no clue and less interest."

For the record, my question was...

QuoteI think even in #Fate a GM has the right to dismiss an offer if they don't feel it fits. And what procedures are normally used to answer such questions? GM #Fiat? A die roll?

...which is not specific to #Fate.

And the reason I asked is the difference between #Suggestion and #Mandate is an important distinction oft ignored in these kinds of debates, but that distinction depends on the procedures you implement in play. For example, there can be no #Mandate in any game where the GM or Group can simply refuse an offer, or mechanics need to be engaged to decide it, and most #StoryGames fit that description. So I'm curious under which circumstances it becomes such.

P.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;985220For the record, my question was...



...which is not specific to #Fate.

And the reason I asked is the difference between #Suggestion and #Mandate is an important distinction oft ignored in these kinds of debates, but that distinction depends on the procedures you implement in play. For example, there can be no #Mandate in any game where the GM or Group can simply refuse an offer, or mechanics need to be engaged to decide it, and most #StoryGames fit that description. So I'm curious under which circumstances it becomes such.

P.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

At this point I suspect it's a point of pride to derail threads with arguments and politics.

To answer your question from my point of view an my group it's what the GM says goes. We'll discuss after if we think it was unfair but generally we trust that there was good reason.

Have yet to play a system with a mechanical GM overide

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;985220For the record, my question was...



...which is not specific to #Fate.

And the reason I asked is the difference between #Suggestion and #Mandate is an important distinction oft ignored in these kinds of debates, but that distinction depends on the procedures you implement in play. For example, there can be no #Mandate in any game where the GM or Group can simply refuse an offer, or mechanics need to be engaged to decide it, and most #StoryGames fit that description. So I'm curious under which circumstances it becomes such.

P.S. At this point I honestly can't tell if people genuinely hate each other of if it's all just sarcastic banter.

Depends, GMless storygames usually encourage everyone to reach an agreement. Some say that whoever is in charge of the story for that scene or turn has the final say but sometimes that is restricted by their control only extending over their character and not other players' characters. Games with GMs tend to encourage reaching a mutual agreement but the final say is the GMs.