Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9513304" data-attributes="member: 6785785">So you’re for players contributing setting details? To say “there’s a tavern I know of down the street here”? You don’t have concerns about that? Overall, I absolutely get this, and this is what I’ve been trying to get at… the issue that the individual has with the style, not some unfounded criticism of the style itself. A quality of the person rather than the style. My only question is what do you mean by players not “seeing the whole picture”?See the quote from Lanefan below, which you liked. See the quite from Lanefan below, which you also liked.And just to clarify… I didn’t say “more” skilled. I said that running a game that way is a skill, and someone may not be good at it or comfortable with it. This depends on the goal of play. I disagree with you entirely about the practice “being stupid”. I think the idea that players will immediately jump on any possible advantage and seek to exploit it to win, while it may be relevant to you and your game, isn’t a concern for many. Now, having said that… when I go with player ideas in play, I do consider possible impact in the future. The examples I’ve shared from my own game that involve divine relationships and support have worked out fine. Nothing bad has happened. The setting is intact, I’ve not struggled with the resultant player ideas. The players are satisfied and so am I. This is why I push back against the idea that this cannot work. It works just fine. If you don’t think it will, then it’s more a case of you not being able to make it work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 9513304, member: 6785785"] So you’re for players contributing setting details? To say “there’s a tavern I know of down the street here”? You don’t have concerns about that? Overall, I absolutely get this, and this is what I’ve been trying to get at… the issue that the individual has with the style, not some unfounded criticism of the style itself. A quality of the person rather than the style. My only question is what do you mean by players not “seeing the whole picture”? See the quote from Lanefan below, which you liked. See the quite from Lanefan below, which you also liked. And just to clarify… I didn’t say “more” skilled. I said that running a game that way is a skill, and someone may not be good at it or comfortable with it. This depends on the goal of play. I disagree with you entirely about the practice “being stupid”. I think the idea that players will immediately jump on any possible advantage and seek to exploit it to win, while it may be relevant to you and your game, isn’t a concern for many. Now, having said that… when I go with player ideas in play, I do consider possible impact in the future. The examples I’ve shared from my own game that involve divine relationships and support have worked out fine. Nothing bad has happened. The setting is intact, I’ve not struggled with the resultant player ideas. The players are satisfied and so am I. This is why I push back against the idea that this cannot work. It works just fine. If you don’t think it will, then it’s more a case of you not being able to make it work. [/QUOTE]

Verification