Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8139380" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I'm not playing real life. I'm playing a game. I'm not saying that PCs should be suicidal. I'm saying I don't enjoy when they become overly cautious. They're brave as could be when the risk is minimal....wading into a horde of orcs because they know they have the HP to spare, but then grinding to a halt because a door in a dungeon may have a trap, and suddenly we're debating for a half hour what to do.It's something that happens from time to time and which I find incredibly frustrating. It happened in my 5E campaign when I decided to run Tomb of Annihilation. My bold and daring PCs became tentative, overly cautious duds.Okay. So this aspect of gaming isn't as important to you and your group. The idea that a player may have a somewhat specific idea for the kind of character they want to play, and the kind of things they may want to see come up in play. That's not something your group worries about. That's fine. Other groups do. I know we've discussed this in the past.....you don't want PCs to be the stars of the show, to be "special snowflakes" and for the events of the game to revolve around them. I actually think it's essential to play with high agency.So let's say your PCs run into some nefarious organization......they know that this group is operating in the city, but not exactly what they're up to or why. Do you allow the players any kind of attempt at a knowledge check or similar to see if their character knows anything about the organization? If so, and the check succeeds and it's determined that the PC knows something about this group, how is the impact of this (the character suddenly knowing something that they had not previously seemed to know) any different than if another game let's the player decide it through some other mechanic? In both cases, the character did not seem to know something, and then suddenly does! It's not really an issue because there was never any reason for it to come up until the relevant thing appears, whether it's a nefarious organization, or hills to the north.These are only headaches if you let them be headaches. What the character knows is entirely made up. It can be whatever we like it to be, per the rules and methods of the game. However, to look at it as you're describing it, the character would "know" an unfathomable amount more about their life and their world than the player can possibly imagine. If that prevented us from role-playing or from making informed decisions, then there would be no role-playing. In my opinion, it's better to accept this fact and then craft the game with this in mind, rather than trying to craft the game to somehow try and fight that fact.That's a good question. I'm thinking of some Powered by the Apocalypse games I know where such an action would have a roll, and then based on the result of the roll, the player can either determine X number of facts about a place, or can force the GM to reveal X number of truths about the place. So yes, it's possible that under such a rule system, the player could have a say in what kinds of foes they may face. I don't think I'd limit it to just what the player had determined. But then, a the same time, you have to kind of ask yourself why as a GM, when a player literally tells you what he'd like to see happen in the game, you'd decide to do something else. I think this is a big part of the gulf between our views.....If "tell the GM" is collaborative storytelling, then "ask the GM" is solo storytelling by the GM. Neither is true, and both are a mis-categorization of the approach.End up with, is the key phrase here. You've used "story" to describe things that have yet to happen. This is why I prefer to use fiction. But this just seems to be a matter of preference. I think of that more as backstory. It may be relevant....it may be very relevant.....but it's not the story that we are telling when we play. That story is the story of the PCs. Much like all the stuff about Sauron and Morgoth and all that Silmarillion stuff is backstory, but Lord of the Rings is the story of Frodo and his journey to Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring. Again, I think this is really just our preferred terms. I see many GMs use the phrase story when they have a very adventure path type game in mind, where A happens and B happens and then C, and so on. It's already set prior to play.Why would you care about this at all ahead of time? Seriously, have it erupt or not in some manner that may be relevant to the PCs. But deciding ahead of time that it will erupt on such and such a date regardless of what meaning it may have for the game.....that's not a story.No, that's fine! When it comes to agency, I think it matters quite a bit how all this stuff comes up and why the GM decides to structure things as he has. None of it is bad, by any means. It seems like this is the GM taking existing details of the fiction, and then crafting a situation that may challenge the PCs. That's pretty much what the GM's job should be.You're just repeating what you already said. I know your preference. I'm asking why is it a long way from great?</blockquote>

Verification