Crazy Jerome
First Post
I'll usually think of the more obvious things that could come up, but when I don't, I'm too lazy to go for the bathroom gambit. What we are ultimately talking about here are the conceits of the campaign. Just what are the limits of strategic play, versus the rolling with the action adventure story?
I simply let the players decide. Then I ruthlessly enforce the logic of their decision on the conceits of the game. It is explicitly framed this way. So for this particular question, they ask, "Can't the researchers cast a ritual that will give us some information?" If I don't have a plan already, I'll immediately turn that around as, "I don't know. Do you want moderately capable but small organizations being able to cast such rituals, for this kind of stuff?"
Then the players debate for a few minutes, and whatever they decide, we do. If they say no, then they are voting for the conceit of marginally less strategic play here in favor of rolling with the story. The neutral and enemy NPCs will thus respect that conceit for the campaign. If they say yes, then they are voting for marginally more strategic play, and the neutral and enemy NPCs will certainly use that to their advantage going forward.
I never get any grief about railroading or shortchanging their plans. I do get a bit of grief for framing the choice this way, and thus throwing it back in their laps. Plus, the ensuing discussion always gives me great feedback about the nuances of how they want the campaign run.
I simply let the players decide. Then I ruthlessly enforce the logic of their decision on the conceits of the game. It is explicitly framed this way. So for this particular question, they ask, "Can't the researchers cast a ritual that will give us some information?" If I don't have a plan already, I'll immediately turn that around as, "I don't know. Do you want moderately capable but small organizations being able to cast such rituals, for this kind of stuff?"
Then the players debate for a few minutes, and whatever they decide, we do. If they say no, then they are voting for the conceit of marginally less strategic play here in favor of rolling with the story. The neutral and enemy NPCs will thus respect that conceit for the campaign. If they say yes, then they are voting for marginally more strategic play, and the neutral and enemy NPCs will certainly use that to their advantage going forward.
I never get any grief about railroading or shortchanging their plans. I do get a bit of grief for framing the choice this way, and thus throwing it back in their laps. Plus, the ensuing discussion always gives me great feedback about the nuances of how they want the campaign run.
