Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 6095418" data-attributes="member: 463">I'm sorry, I never ever run a game where &quot;it's not really actually&nbsp; up in the air whether or not the protagonist is going to get sliced in&nbsp; half by some trap&quot;. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> IMCs there is always a big chance of protagonist failure and death. My PCs don't get script immunity, and Perkins didn't say anything about guaranteed PC success.The reason I like Perkin's advice so much is that it is vital if you want an heroic campaign (whether linear or open - my 'heroic' Loudwater campaign is open). You say the players in an heroic campaign should feel obligated to be heroic even if the world sucks and the NPCs are jerks, and players are disruptive &amp; bad if they don't follow along. And apparently you expect that in story-focused campaigns PCs won't die.Well, whatever, but if I was a player in that campaign I'd walk. I would not play in a D&amp;D campaign knowing my PC can't die, and I would not play in a D&amp;D campaign where&nbsp; I'm obligated to play an heroic PC in a world not worth saving.Edit: &quot;I think most people going for more story-oriented D&amp;D would say that they want the players to have some real power to influence the story and that illusionism is undesirable even if it's really well done, but I rarely see anybody talk about how one can be a better roleplayer, it's all about how GMs can coax good roleplaying out of their players, which seems imbalanced to me.&quot;Playing an heroic character =/= 'being a bad roleplayer'. Failing to comply with a social contract as to how your PC should behave may be a bad thing, but it's not 'bad roleplaying' either.&quot;Why is player choice so important and railroading so bad -- is it just because the presence of the rails is harmful to immersion (i.e. railroading=clumsy storytelling), or is it because there's a metagame shared expectation that the players will be making real contributions to how the story turns out and what it means and railroading turns that into a lie?&quot;It's bad because it's boring - for the player. Film &amp; TV does the passive viewing experience much better. Videogames do the cutscenes + combat much better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 6095418, member: 463"] I'm sorry, I never ever run a game where "it's not really actually up in the air whether or not the protagonist is going to get sliced in half by some trap". :) IMCs there is always a big chance of protagonist failure and death. My PCs don't get script immunity, and Perkins didn't say anything about guaranteed PC success. The reason I like Perkin's advice so much is that it is vital if you want an heroic campaign (whether linear or open - my 'heroic' Loudwater campaign is open). You say the players in an heroic campaign should feel obligated to be heroic even if the world sucks and the NPCs are jerks, and players are disruptive & bad if they don't follow along. And apparently you expect that in story-focused campaigns PCs won't die. Well, whatever, but if I was a player in that campaign I'd walk. I would not play in a D&D campaign knowing my PC can't die, and I would not play in a D&D campaign where I'm obligated to play an heroic PC in a world not worth saving. Edit: "I think most people going for more story-oriented D&D would say that they want the players to have some real power to influence the story and that illusionism is undesirable even if it's really well done, but I rarely see anybody talk about how one can be a better roleplayer, it's all about how GMs can coax good roleplaying out of their players, which seems imbalanced to me." Playing an heroic character =/= 'being a bad roleplayer'. Failing to comply with a social contract as to how your PC should behave may be a bad thing, but it's not 'bad roleplaying' either. "Why is player choice so important and railroading so bad -- is it just because the presence of the rails is harmful to immersion (i.e. railroading=clumsy storytelling), or is it because there's a metagame shared expectation that the players will be making real contributions to how the story turns out and what it means and railroading turns that into a lie?" It's bad because it's boring - for the player. Film & TV does the passive viewing experience much better. Videogames do the cutscenes + combat much better. [/QUOTE]

Verification