Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6449538" data-attributes="member: 22779">Honestly, I think this is probably a good thing.&nbsp; Once players only advocate for their PC, it becomes a contest between the DM and the player - neither is advocating for the other.&nbsp; Once you involve players on the other side of the fence, by granting some degree of authority on authorial decisions, issues like Majoru Oakheart's reaction to player requests tend to go away.&nbsp; At least, IME.&nbsp; YMMV and all that of course.Note, on the paladin example, I did state more than a few times that this is a pretty basic, and very early form of player authorship.&nbsp; Obviously it's not the full blown authorial control you get in later RPG's.&nbsp; D&amp;D was radical enough with the idea of coooperative play that continued in campaign form from session to session for possibly hundreds of hours.&nbsp; This was pretty much unheard of in games previously.&nbsp; The idea of specifically allowing players to have direct authorial control is something of a bridge too far, at least in the very early forms of the rules, although, as Mark CMG points out, it was likely done at a number (small or large I don't know) of tables in an ad hoc manner by various DM's.&nbsp; So, is a paladin player initiating a quest with a specific reward (an important point since it differs from the players simply choosing a new route - that new route isn't necessarily tailored to the PC's, nor does it necessarily result in achieving or even furthering their goals - they could be wrong after all.&nbsp; The paladin can't be wrong here.) is not full blown story gaming like, but, it is certainly carrying story gaming elements.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6449538, member: 22779"] Honestly, I think this is probably a good thing. Once players only advocate for their PC, it becomes a contest between the DM and the player - neither is advocating for the other. Once you involve players on the other side of the fence, by granting some degree of authority on authorial decisions, issues like Majoru Oakheart's reaction to player requests tend to go away. At least, IME. YMMV and all that of course. Note, on the paladin example, I did state more than a few times that this is a pretty basic, and very early form of player authorship. Obviously it's not the full blown authorial control you get in later RPG's. D&D was radical enough with the idea of coooperative play that continued in campaign form from session to session for possibly hundreds of hours. This was pretty much unheard of in games previously. The idea of specifically allowing players to have direct authorial control is something of a bridge too far, at least in the very early forms of the rules, although, as Mark CMG points out, it was likely done at a number (small or large I don't know) of tables in an ad hoc manner by various DM's. So, is a paladin player initiating a quest with a specific reward (an important point since it differs from the players simply choosing a new route - that new route isn't necessarily tailored to the PC's, nor does it necessarily result in achieving or even furthering their goals - they could be wrong after all. The paladin can't be wrong here.) is not full blown story gaming like, but, it is certainly carrying story gaming elements. [/QUOTE]

Verification