Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 4860610" data-attributes="member: 386">I think you have to look at it in terms of a metaplot: If the PCs don't deal with this, bad stuff will happen.For example, when I was first thinking about my campaign I thought that if the PCs didn't deal with Orcus he would eventually usurp the Raven Queen.  Now I'm thinking, no.  The PCs may make that come about, but if they do nothing the status quo will remain.That's because I don't want to give them the non-choice of saving the world vs. doing what they want.  I am only concerned in challenging player choice, not in making them jump through hoops of my own creation.(One problem they are going to have to deal with is some NPCs who are going to return in a few months to establish control in their area; this is based on the actions of now-dead PCs.  Now that's the kind of "metaplot" - PC driven - that I can get behind.)I guess what I'm saying is that, if you want to make player choice drive the events in the campaign, you don't want to introduce a "must do" event.I have played in many short campaigns that ended on a dramatic moment.  It depends on what you want out of the game - that is, to create a story.  D&D is probably not the best system for it - though it's possible - but these games I'm thinking of have been using Sorcerer, The Shadow of Yesterday, Burning Wheel, and other indie games.That probably outs me as a big Forge guy.  I like GNS.  However, I would still not like to see GNS discussed in this thread.edit: Ariosto's last post is very good.  I need to spread some rep around before I can reward him; can someone cover me?</blockquote>

Verification