Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5739017" data-attributes="member: 3820">Sorry, within the context you were describing of modules promising goals like &quot;go to a drow city&quot; and &quot;kill Orcus&quot; it looked quite a lot like the situation was essentially set by the GM picking up an adventure, saying &quot;I'm running this,&quot; and then assuming that the players' preferred personal goals will be &quot;loot the drow city/kill the drow&quot; and &quot;kill Orcus.&quot; Yeah, that's more comprehensive. The player goals I find that are not as frequently addressed by published adventures and save-the-world situations are those that involve building something. Founding institutions, starting families (by marriage, adoption or even forging blood-oaths with companions), crafting artifacts, turning run-down or broken settlements into healthy, happy places -- leaving their mark on the world not by subtracting big threats, but by adding positive elements. There's less support for them, because it's a lot easier to support the subtractive &quot;remove a threat&quot; gameplay. And also they're goals that can be accomplished only in full-bore campaign play, which is not always assumed.But I think they have something to do with that whole demographic concept: even something as trite as Farmville shows that there's a lot of interest in gameplay that builds things. And man, it makes for interesting campaigns, so I'm an absolute supporter of the approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 5739017, member: 3820"] Sorry, within the context you were describing of modules promising goals like "go to a drow city" and "kill Orcus" it looked quite a lot like the situation was essentially set by the GM picking up an adventure, saying "I'm running this," and then assuming that the players' preferred personal goals will be "loot the drow city/kill the drow" and "kill Orcus." Yeah, that's more comprehensive. The player goals I find that are not as frequently addressed by published adventures and save-the-world situations are those that involve building something. Founding institutions, starting families (by marriage, adoption or even forging blood-oaths with companions), crafting artifacts, turning run-down or broken settlements into healthy, happy places -- leaving their mark on the world not by subtracting big threats, but by adding positive elements. There's less support for them, because it's a lot easier to support the subtractive "remove a threat" gameplay. And also they're goals that can be accomplished only in full-bore campaign play, which is not always assumed. But I think they have something to do with that whole demographic concept: even something as trite as Farmville shows that there's a lot of interest in gameplay that builds things. And man, it makes for interesting campaigns, so I'm an absolute supporter of the approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification