Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9626072" data-attributes="member: 2067">If you sign up to play an adventure game, you expect to go on adventure.If you sign up to play a horror-themed D&amp;D game, you expect the night in the old abandoned house to be spooky.If you sign up to play a D&amp;D game about dragon-slaying and dungeon-crawling, you expect there to be dungeons and dragons.So in this scenario, the players are expecting a D&amp;D game where star-crossed destinies and unfortunate outcomes driven by character flaws play a significant role. It's what they've signed up for. It's what they think will be a fun twist on the formula. In all of the above, the players still have the agency to reject the premise (don't go on the adventure, don't stay in the haunted house, stay at home and run your father's farm instead of fighting dragons), but they're agreeing to limit their agency to work within the assumptions of the premise.If that's the case, why would they try and change those outcomes? Since they're on board with the premise, is there some element of the game play itself that works against it? Is there something in D&amp;D that pulls players toward a &quot;happy ending&quot; even if they are explicitly expecting things to end unhappily in most cases? And as a corollary, how can one help the player still feel empowered in that scenario? Is it maybe that they're empowered...negatively? Like, in a typical adventure, unless the PC's intervene, things get worse. Maybe here, unless the PC's intervene, things would stay status quo or even improve, but then the PC's take action and things go south and then...keep going south? Does that feel like a trap or like a railroad, even if you've agreed to the premise of watching things go south because of your actions?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 9626072, member: 2067"] If you sign up to play an adventure game, you expect to go on adventure. If you sign up to play a horror-themed D&D game, you expect the night in the old abandoned house to be spooky. If you sign up to play a D&D game about dragon-slaying and dungeon-crawling, you expect there to be dungeons and dragons. So in this scenario, the players are expecting a D&D game where star-crossed destinies and unfortunate outcomes driven by character flaws play a significant role. It's what they've signed up for. It's what they think will be a fun twist on the formula. In all of the above, the players still have the agency to reject the premise (don't go on the adventure, don't stay in the haunted house, stay at home and run your father's farm instead of fighting dragons), but they're agreeing to limit their agency to work within the assumptions of the premise. If that's the case, why would they try and change those outcomes? Since they're on board with the premise, is there some element of the game play itself that works against it? Is there something in D&D that pulls players toward a "happy ending" even if they are explicitly expecting things to end unhappily in most cases? And as a corollary, how can one help the player still feel empowered in that scenario? Is it maybe that they're empowered...negatively? Like, in a typical adventure, unless the PC's intervene, things get worse. Maybe here, unless the PC's intervene, things would stay status quo or even improve, but then the PC's take action and things go south and then...keep going south? Does that feel like a trap or like a railroad, even if you've agreed to the premise of watching things go south because of your actions? [/QUOTE]

Verification