Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8478142" data-attributes="member: 6790260">This is so radically opposite my own experience, I struggle to truly understand it. Every group I've been in as a player, there's been a majority of cautious folks wanting to play things pretty safe. Sure, they'll take risks if that really does seem to be the only way, but it can take a LOT of pressure before they'll truly accept that that IS the only way. The group I run for is very similar--sometimes gunshy to the point of neglecting adventure hooks because they seem too risky.So it's all a bit hard for me to really respond to this. I've never had this experience, not even something like it. If this was how players responded to &quot;we'll only kill off your character total for realsies pinky swear if you and I work it out,&quot; then yeah, I can understand why death would be a necessary stick to keep the players from riding roughshod over the game. But...if that's what the players are doing, they aren't on board for the game being offered.That's kinda the crux for me with how most folks describe making relatively-likely, irrevocable death a campaign feature specifically with the goal of curbing this behavior. It strikes me as indicating that the only way to get the players to &quot;play along,&quot; as it were, is to threaten them with not getting to play at all&nbsp; unless they behave themselves. At which point, wouldn't it be more productive to work with the players to seek a game premise or adventure hook that they find inherently appealing so you can just run that thing and everyone will play along because they genuinely want to? It just seems more useful to build a game where you don't need the &quot;stick&quot; of death, and can instead use other, more intrinsic motivators for both carrots and sticks (e.g. the safety of characters the players genuinely care about, major revelations, personal vendettas/mysteries/goals, etc.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8478142, member: 6790260"] This is so radically opposite my own experience, I struggle to truly understand it. Every group I've been in as a player, there's been a majority of cautious folks wanting to play things pretty safe. Sure, they'll take risks if that really does seem to be the only way, but it can take a LOT of pressure before they'll truly accept that that IS the only way. The group I run for is very similar--sometimes gunshy to the point of neglecting adventure hooks because they seem too risky. So it's all a bit hard for me to really respond to this. I've never had this experience, not even something [I]like[/I] it. If this was how players responded to "we'll only kill off your character [I]total for realsies pinky swear[/I] if you and I work it out," then yeah, I can understand why death would be a necessary stick to keep the players from riding roughshod over the game. But...if that's what the players are doing, [I]they aren't on board for the game being offered.[/I] That's kinda the crux for me with how most folks describe making relatively-likely, irrevocable death a campaign feature specifically with the goal of curbing this behavior. It strikes me as indicating that the only way to get the players to "play along," as it were, is to threaten them with not getting to play [I]at all[/I] unless they behave themselves. At which point, wouldn't it be more productive to work with the players to seek a game premise or adventure hook that they find inherently appealing so you can just run that thing and everyone will play along because they genuinely [I]want[/I] to? It just seems more useful to build a game where you don't [I]need[/I] the "stick" of death, and can instead use other, more intrinsic motivators for both carrots [I]and[/I] sticks (e.g. the safety of characters the players genuinely care about, major revelations, personal vendettas/mysteries/goals, etc.) [/QUOTE]

Verification