Low-Prep/No-Prep Play
manatic:
I was pretty much about to type what Callan did. 3:16 has a kind of regulated freedom (oxymoronic, maybe..) that I enjoy. It works with no preparation, provides a solid goal and yet gives the players a lot of freedom.
I believe the whole concept of advancement has some kind of goal as a prequisite. Can you have just generic advancement, or is the ideal simply to make up your own goals and then head for them?
On another note, what about no-prep and inexperienced GMs? Is it possible? Or rather, does it make for a deep, exciting game? I'm highly skeptical on this. While apparently everyone in this discussion has a lot of gaming experience, what about a first-time GM running 3:16, what kind of a game will he be able to run?
contracycle:
Quote from: Wolfen on January 06, 2009, 06:43:50 PM
I offer this: Games that are pre-planned negate much of the accomplishment of the players, because the GM is pressured to make sure that the players can continue to advance. It's hardly possible to continue to advance if you fail to beat the challenges placed before you, is it?
That may be true, but if everyone is willing to accept that illusion then it can be perfectly satisfying. I mean much of the point of this challenge can be the demonstration of your own abilities to the other players. It may be true that the GM would have had to let you through the gate eventually, but it matters if you were the one who singlehandedly scaled the wall, killed the guards and opened it from the other side. Similalry,m if your main interest is to see the world as it is, then the architecture of said gate and the styles of the guards may be more the point of play then the problem it imposes itself.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page