|
|
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
| | <br> | | <br> |
| | '''DISCUSS'''<br> | | '''DISCUSS'''<br> |
| − | BEN: I haven't weighed in on this issue. There are a number of reasons for this, but since it's clear that this is a Significant Issue of Substance and Meaning, I'll put in my two cents:<br>
| |
| − | 1.) Most of what was said in that article (although I only skimmed the beginning, in the interest of full disclosure) are things that have been said at least 3 times by Jason, Matt, and Myself. "sandbox style gaming, where you explore a world, and the players control the plot?" See Gemini, the PA game, my suggestion for a Ship game, and Matt's 2nd WFRP game. "open ended schedule, with flexibility about meeting times, attendance, etc?" I wrote about this months ago, and we've been discussing it recently for our own group. In short, I was glad to see these ideas in pring, but I don't see them as novel, especially as they were interpreted by Penny Arcade's Gabe (aka Mike Krahulik?). Furthermore, most of these ideas have been strongly rejected by our group: Gemini, the most sandbox of the sandbox, and Matt's 2nd WFRP, also very much in that vein, did not take long to get the thumbs down from the players.
| |
| − | Secondly, per my maniphilosophesto, I like long form gaming. I'm invested in OAAAA and in Kingmakers. I've been invested in every game we play. I understand games end, but it is often a bitter disappointment to me when we prematurely axe a game, just as I'm really getting into it. I loved the 2nd WFRP game, where I had real "sand-boxy" things going on with Ignotus: that character was built to take advantage of a world sandbox, and I don't think anyone but me really enjoyed that fact. We just started a new game like 2 months ago, and another new one 2 months before that, and now we're going to start another new one?
| |
| − | This segues into my last point, which is that Gabe has said that he really likes rapid turnover of games, especially when he GMs. A sandbox game probably takes 4-6 sessions just to develop any plot at all, for a heavy frontloading of GM work.
| |
| − | I'm excited to see Dieter GM, and I love "sandbox" games: I will definitely make a character, but I can't make a strong commitment to such a game.
| |
Latest revision as of 03:56, 14 January 2010
The Game That Is Our Future
Type: Sandbox-style (see here; game to be run by either [Dieter] or [Gabe].)
Genre:
Fallout
PA
Steampunk
Fantasy
Scifi
Mix & Match!
Suggest Your Own!!
How does this all work??
A great big world will be created, just for you to explore and have fun in. Plot will be non-existent or minimal. Nothing happens if you don't make it happen. Unless you happen to go someplace dangerous. Then you might get eaten. You'll have a safe base of operations from which you sally forth to explore and adventure. Return to said base at the end of every adventure, and you can game as frequently or infrequently as you want, with as large a supporting cast as you want. Simply form parties as everyone's schedule permits.
Games won't happen unless a quorum of 3 players agree on a time & place (GM's schedule certainly permitting). Players must have a set plan and all be up to speed upon arrival for gaming (wiki & email, gents). Once there, the GM will shepard (or stalk) you through your amazing and daring time out in the dangerous wilds. Just make sure you end up back home at the end so everyone's available for future team-ups (holy continuity, Batman!).
The GM's Role
The GM's role in this game is to create a whole huge big world for you to play in. As there isn't any plot for the GM to try and steer you on, the GM will be a neutral being. He'll roll dice in front of you, give you as much information as possible and let dice, chance and your decisions take care of the rest. NPCs will be minimal and the various foes deadly. Make mistakes and the world will eat you. But don't blame the GM. He's just there to reveal the next part of the map and roll for the monsters.
DISCUSS
