Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8398215" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I don't think it is reading the phrase like it is a bad thing, just noting that the &quot;platonic ideal&quot; of neutrality would be running the scenario whether or no the situation that resolves from that scenario is fun. Which I think is a fair criticism of neutrality gone too far. So, if we hold neutrality up as an ideal, which some GM/Storytellers/ECT do, then what do you do when neutrality leads to boring and unfun resolutions? I think this comes back to the post I made a few minutes ago, Empathy not Sympathy. Understand that your players want things, and skew in that direction to make an exciting story, but don't say &quot;I know you really wanted to succeed right there, so I'm going to let you succeed no matter what&quot; Side Note: I'm wondering how useful the idea of scales actually is as a metaphor. A scale has a central pillar and then two sides balancing from that pillar. But if the DM or the world is the pillar... there isn't another side. The DM doesn't have to balance the concerns of the orcs to capture an NPC with the concerns of the party protecting that NPC, because the DM is both the orcs and the NPC. They both want to be captured and want to escape, both sides don't get what they want, the PCs determine which side prevails through their actions.I wonder instead if a more insightful idea of balance would come from holding a very full bowl of water. There is no &quot;other side&quot; but you still have to maintain a level field and not tip too far one way or the other,or you make a mess.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8398215, member: 6801228"] I don't think it is reading the phrase like it is a bad thing, just noting that the "platonic ideal" of neutrality would be running the scenario whether or no the situation that resolves from that scenario is fun. Which I think is a fair criticism of neutrality gone too far. So, if we hold neutrality up as an ideal, which some GM/Storytellers/ECT do, then what do you do when neutrality leads to boring and unfun resolutions? I think this comes back to the post I made a few minutes ago, Empathy not Sympathy. Understand that your players want things, and skew in that direction to make an exciting story, but don't say "I know you really wanted to succeed right there, so I'm going to let you succeed no matter what" Side Note: I'm wondering how useful the idea of scales actually is as a metaphor. A scale has a central pillar and then two sides balancing from that pillar. But if the DM or the world is the pillar... there isn't another side. The DM doesn't have to balance the concerns of the orcs to capture an NPC with the concerns of the party protecting that NPC, because the DM is both the orcs and the NPC. They both want to be captured and want to escape, both sides don't get what they want, the PCs determine which side prevails through their actions. I wonder instead if a more insightful idea of balance would come from holding a very full bowl of water. There is no "other side" but you still have to maintain a level field and not tip too far one way or the other,or you make a mess. [/QUOTE]

Verification