Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4680056" data-attributes="member: 162">I find little purpose in playing in or running a setting that changes on a whim. Such a setting would lack consistency.For one thing, I wouldn't do something to &quot;build up a sense of urgency.&quot; The ritual would be completed when it is completed.I also do not write into my adventures how issues are meant to be resolved. The players may be especially clever and find a way to speak to the king (sneaking in, teleportation, etc). They may say &quot;screw it&quot; and get help elsewhere. Rather than try to get an army they may attempt to sneak in and disrupt the ritual on their own. And so on and so forth; their chosen path may work, or it may not.The games I run are not stories. They are a series of events. I don't care &quot;what makes for a better story.&quot;Consistency over what you would like to call playability.If the players fail to find a way to stop the bad guys, then yes, they have to deal with the aftermath. There are consequences and repercussions. Without these, there is - for me - no point in gaming. I have no interest in running or playing in a setting where failure has no consequences.I think you missed the part where I said that the games I run focus on the PCs, because that's what that particular game is interested in. That doesn't mean there aren't things going on in the background, but regardless of events in the world, they are dealt with via the perspective of the PCs in a given game.I find it ridiculous that a group would get upset if they heard about another group of adventurers doing things in the world. The PCs in a given group are not special snowflakes; just because you exist does not mean that you are meant to solve certain things, nor does it mean that you are supposed to be the best just by nature of your existence.I don't think I have said, anywhere, that these kinds of things are cut from the games I run.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GnomeWorks, post: 4680056, member: 162"] I find little purpose in playing in or running a setting that changes on a whim. Such a setting would lack consistency. For one thing, I wouldn't do something to "build up a sense of urgency." The ritual would be completed when it is completed. I also do not write into my adventures how issues are meant to be resolved. The players may be especially clever and find a way to speak to the king (sneaking in, teleportation, etc). They may say "screw it" and get help elsewhere. Rather than try to get an army they may attempt to sneak in and disrupt the ritual on their own. And so on and so forth; their chosen path may work, or it may not. The games I run are not stories. They are a series of events. I don't care "what makes for a better story." Consistency over what you would like to call playability. If the players fail to find a way to stop the bad guys, then yes, they have to deal with the aftermath. There are consequences and repercussions. Without these, there is - for me - no point in gaming. I have no interest in running or playing in a setting where failure has no consequences. I think you missed the part where I said that the games I run focus on the PCs, because that's what that particular game is interested in. That doesn't mean there aren't things going on in the background, but regardless of events in the world, they are dealt with via the perspective of the PCs in a given game. I find it ridiculous that a group would get upset if they heard about another group of adventurers doing things in the world. The PCs in a given group are not special snowflakes; just because you exist does not mean that you are meant to solve certain things, nor does it mean that you are supposed to be the best just by nature of your existence. I don't think I have said, anywhere, that these kinds of things are cut from the games I run. [/QUOTE]

Verification