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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4864901" data-attributes="member: 7635">Huh. I think I get your point.You're arguing that event-based DMing is about halting the progression of good to bad. (The peaceful kingdom is threatened; stop the menace or all will be ruined) whereas status-quo is about improving the bad into good (the desolate ruined kingdom must be cleared of menaces so it can be prosperous again.) I don't really see a difference, IMHO. The ruined kingdom got ruined by SOMETHING. Its all a matter of when. The peaceable kingdom today that isn't saved by the PCS becomes the ruined kingdom tomorrow the PCs clean out. A good game has give and take. Sometimes Acerack sits around in his tomb waiting for foolish heroes to try to plunder it, but other days he leaves to go do evil things to the local countryside (and thus insure more foolish heroes try to enter his tomb). I can agree though too much metaplot-driven gaming leads to a world where the PCs have no control; if the PCs must decide between stopping the Githyanki incursion or defeating Orcus's plan to unseat the Raven Queen; the world is boned either way since they can't do both at the same time. However, I find again a bit of give and take works; if the the PCs hear a magic sword might be helpful in stopping Orcus's plan, the plot dutifully waits for them while they get the sword. If they decide to forget Orcus and go become pirates; they might have a new god of Death in the near future. Then again, as I stated before; MY PLAYERS LIKE BEING HEROES (even if some are anti-heroes) so setting up a "save the world" motif isn't a bother, its a goal.</blockquote>

Verification