Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="niklinna" data-source="post: 8945679" data-attributes="member: 71235">Who is/are the author(s) of all this? It makes a difference whether it was all the GM, especially the part with the ties between the PCs and the hero, or whether the players had some input—and therefore personal investment.&quot;Should&quot; implies there's a right or proper way for it to proceed. I'd say this is going to depend on what all the participants are looking for in their roleplaying experience.For folks looking for fights, a fight (presumably round-by-round and blow-by-blow) would seem appropriate. But importantly, what does &quot;would not adjust the PC's actions&quot; mean? Who is doing this adjusting, and how?Players looking primarily for combat might object. Players looking to explore the impacts of betrayal and shock through psychological narrative are more likely to be satisfied. But again, who is declaring these psychological impacts and their game-mechanical effects? Are the effects limited to combat effectiveness? (Which, by the way, presumes participants are looking for combat over other things.) Do the players have means and resources to resist the psychological effects? Do they have means and resources to resolve the situation via something other than combat?&quot;Adding psychology&quot; implies that psychology isn't the very basis for play. What if it is the very basis for play? There are game systems that make that a priority over combat—a kind of constraint—and choice of system is something that needs to be considered before the very beginning of this example.That is indeed a possibility.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="niklinna, post: 8945679, member: 71235"] Who is/are the author(s) of all this? It makes a difference whether it was all the GM, especially the part with the ties between the PCs and the hero, or whether the players had some input—and therefore personal investment. "Should" implies there's a right or proper way for it to proceed. I'd say this is going to depend on what all the participants are looking for in their roleplaying experience. For folks looking for fights, a fight (presumably round-by-round and blow-by-blow) would seem appropriate. But importantly, what does "would not adjust the PC's actions" mean? Who is doing this adjusting, and how? Players looking primarily for combat might object. Players looking to explore the impacts of betrayal and shock through psychological narrative are more likely to be satisfied. But again, who is declaring these psychological impacts and their game-mechanical effects? Are the effects limited to combat effectiveness? (Which, by the way, presumes participants are looking for combat over other things.) Do the players have means and resources to resist the psychological effects? Do they have means and resources to resolve the situation via something other than combat? "[B]Adding[/B] psychology" implies that psychology isn't the very basis for play. What if it is the very basis for play? There are game systems that make that a priority over combat—a kind of constraint—and choice of system is something that needs to be considered before the very beginning of this example. That is indeed a possibility. [/QUOTE]

Verification