Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thia Halmades" data-source="post: 2742135" data-attributes="member: 35863">I hate tennis.  I'm posting more out of a knee jerk, "I should throw my hat in here" than any actual belief that this'll be resolved.  Deep down - seriously - I think that the differences are largely cosmetic.  DM/Player communication is an issue, always has been, always will be.  In terms of expectations, it is the duty of the DM to:a) explain what they want to do.  They're driving, they must have selected some sort of destination.  Even that destination is "I have no idea where we're going, I'm going to hold down the gas while you guys fight over the wheel."  It sets an expectation of freedom and involvement.b) Get feedback on what the players want to do.  "Here's my idea for an Epic war campaign that takes place across at least five real years at two sessions a month.  I need people who grasp what I'm doing within the confines of this story, and once 'training' for your characters is over, the wheels come off.  Events occur outside of what you see, but what you do directly effects outcomes.  Ultimately, like in any great war story, you will determine the ultimate fate of your characters, and possibly the Empire.  Who's in?"As you might imagine, a bunch of hands shot up.  There's still some dithering over who did what to whom and how much impact they have, but they've already created subplots that I hadn't accounted for, and how they handle specific circumstances has specific results.  As Reynard is suggestion, the world is persistent.  Changes matter; actions & reactions matter (see my sig).I've done rounds with Shaman about his sig before, and did a multi-paragraph explanation for what I do (tell a story within the confines of a mechanic) vs. what he's suggesting (plop a bunch of people next to a thesis statement and keep my fingers crossed.)  He grasped my point, although he might not agree with it.  But the point remains unchanged; we aren't doing things which are all that different.Yes, I put a lot of specific thought and planning into my campaign; there are those events which are never going to alter - key events that MUST happen for the story to happen.  But those are few and far between; other than the missions they get assigned, which the party deviates from anyway, I don't see much difference.I'm telling the story I want to tell - a war - within the confines of the mechanics.  Combat can kill you.  Demons are bad.  Big demons are EXTRA bad.  So if the PCs fight, or run, that changes outcomes.  If they win, or lose, that changes outcomes.  I have no interest in a TPK, but I've come pretty close and it was only through the Paladin's willingness to utterly sacrifice himself to the Great Lord Polyhedron that he survived and saved two PCs from an ugly death at the hands of a Sea Demon.As I said before: I'll forego dice rolls if necessary, but 99% of the time, dice add to DRAMA, and in a story of this scope, drama is one of the most important weapons I have in my arsenal.  Who the hell cares about a massive fight your PC is in if their lives, or an outcome, don't hang in the balance?  That's poor storytelling, and poor gaming.</blockquote>

Verification