Search results

That's really interesting. The first one's pretty straightforward; yes, advancement through thematically charged conflicts isn't realistic. It's pretty darn common in fiction of all kinds, though. The other two are fascinating! What they've said is basically this: "It wouldn't work, because the...

Darn it, you figured it out. :) Yes, reward systems heavily influence play, so a reward system that's player-driven leads to player-driven play. That's absolutely what Clinton (the author) was going for. The Shadow of Yesterday uses that system, and there the players are expected to call for...

Heck yes, they're special. They actually have stats. :)

I guess there's really three ways -- first person dialogue, first person description, and third person. As GM, I use a lot of third person narration, with some dialogue. As a player it's first person with some dialogue. Not sure why I do it differently; I haven't really thought about it. In...

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'll mention again that not all of us GMs run our games in a heavily immersive fashion. Some of the most emotional scenes we've played out in a game have been largely third-person narration, with a little dialogue sprinkled in. I could definately see how this level...

Keys work really well in play; glad you gave it a look. :) The guy who wrote The Shadow of Yesterday (which is all about Keys as a way for the players to drive the plot forward, and even decide what the plot will turn out to be) was cool enough to release that part of the system as OGL.

Oh yeah, I hear you. These moments are the point of play, for me. Here's what I tend to do: Have the players create their PCs together, kicking ideas around the room. I heavily encourage them to create characters with strong motivations, goals, and beliefs, and complex relationships -- and I...

Dude, I read the original post, and I didn't see anything about you being impolite. All I saw was, you stopped being a (deleted for Eric's grandma) doormat. Good for you.

What ForceUser said. Unfortunately, pulling that off requires everyone at the table, players and GM, to think about why they play, what they want to get out of it, and be able to communicate that. I don't know if people can do that are all "great players", but they're certainly rare. I don't...

Man, this seems like the perfect thread to bring up the Five Geek Social Fallacies. http://sean.chittenden.org/humor/www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html They seem relevant to half the posts in this thread.

Personally, I get a lot more satisfaction out of campaigns where the players are internally motivated. It's not necessarily giving anything up -- it can be liberating.

I like orangefruitbat's idea. The idea I had was fairly similar -- have everyone make up a wizard and a cohort. Most adventures consist of one player running their wizard, the rest running their cohorts. If you want to dodge the leveling issue entirely, it might be worth checking out Sweet20...

Heck, I ask the players to grab NPCs all the time. I'll pretty much let them play anybody but the BBEG. :) For instance, one of my players typically plays her PC's spouse, who tends to cause enough added complications that it feels like she's co-GMing. But I'd always expect them to play cohorts...

Quick note: If someone's nice, except for being rude, snide, and dismissive of one person? They're not actually nice. I promise you that this is true.

Man, I don't think I'd ever play in a game with alignment again. Blech. A character grows and changes, or even falls well short of their ideals -- and that's bad roleplaying? Heck, I think it's a lot more interesting than seeing a character always lock-step act exactly like the little value on...

If you don't want to deal with certain possible actions out of your players, then you should restrict those actions up front. If you don't, then you have to accept that while you don't agree with what they're doing, it's their call. But personally, I don't see anything wrong with it -- it...

Voted Other: In my games, a PC can only die if the player decides that's what they want to happen. Otherwise, they can suffer all manner of horrible fates, but they won't die until the player's decided their story's complete.

Works great for us. Haven't had any problems. We're pretty rules-light, though.

The last campaigns I've run have been FATE, Sorcerer, and a homebrew that drew a lot from Primetime Adventurers. None of the players ever read the rulebooks. (I offered excerpts and "quickstarts" online if they wanted them; one or two might have glanced at them.) It didn't hurt play at all...

Uh, he's offering to help. Usually when I hear someone go "But my guy would...", I figure it's an unsolvable problem -- but this guy's willing to come up with another character that would fit better. Why on earth wouldn't you go that route?