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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6134674" data-attributes="member: 6696971">To be sure.  Its a, maybe, 1c "sin" in my sort of  game though as although my table is heavily story now, it is not remotely exclusively so.  Step on up is a deep undercurrent of our creative agenda (such that for all intents and  purposes, 1a is as important as 1c) of our long term 4e game.Certainly.  Not lets move just a wee bit down the continuum from totally shallow, disposable PCs and step on up in WPM (or whatever).  Lets say there is a modicum of pre-game coordination; the PCs agree to be from a particular region, each standing for one particular institution of the region which implicitly infuses them with a strong sense of detached (from a formal collective) nationalism.  Nothing strongly fleshed out.  Just a wee bit of player buy-in constituted as a gentleman's agreement amongst the players and the GM.  That's it.GM presents some cliche, tried-and-true ominous threat to that informal collective (extra-planar invasion, insidious threat from within, OMGDRAGON, what have you) which works off of a reasonable inference borne of that shallow buy-in above (and perhaps shallow PC build tools to support it).  The inference being "the players have reason to act and thusly will engage with the offer in some capacity" much like I would think you would have an expectation of your players to "fight goblins when presented with a goblinoid threat."Railroad?  I say no.  Not if All Roads Don't Lead to Rome; the mechanical resolution is authentic, the decision-points dynamic, and the player choices legitimately influential in shaping outcomes toward, away from, orthogonal to any inexorable, pet metaplot or setting device.</blockquote>

Verification