Excerpt - Save My Game - Narrative Threads

[Kzach]

Save My Game: Narrative Threads

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Save My Game: Narrative Threads

Do you want to make us aware that the article is up, or also discuss something specific?

I read it yesterday or so and found it had some useful advice. I certainly am with him on "avoid the long description monologue".

 

[vagabundo]

It is a good article. This sort of stuff needs saying every so often, to correct for errors in navigation.

 

[caudor]

The article was certainly useful for me. I do tend to over-describe things sometimes.

 

[chaotix42]

I really liked this article. I sometimes go on too long about certain subjects, or try to fit in too much information in one sitting. My PCs often lose a lot of the details I throw at them because there's too much to retain. By shortening descriptions I can try to hook my players into asking questions about what catches their attention, and turn the act of learning into an active one on their part. I know that in school I retained knowledge a whole lot better by asking questions and interacting with the teacher instead of being lectured to.

 

[Ktulu]

I am the Harbinger of over-description. Often, I do this because our games get rushed and I feel the need to give out more information. This was a nice article in utilizing skills to push more information and to hold back.

I also really liked the Brick Wall scenario. I never really thought of it that way, but I completely agree with the article on not describing them.

 

[Badwe]

the second part of the article, about verisimilitude, struck pretty close for us. Our current DM takes great joy and pride in world building and creating believable worlds. To his credit, he is also eager to adapt to what a party decides to do and roll with it. Unfortunately, the two do not often mix. Reading in the article about the door and how it was basically impossible to open the door reminded me of in our campaign how we encountered a queen of an evil kingdom who was, for all intents and purposes, unkillable. The veteran players in the group knew how to read the signs of a Pet NPC, but one of the newer players decided that some of the “flavoring” of this evil queen’s battle with an NPC gold dragon was invitation to try and snag her ultra-powerful sword. The following round resulted in the baddie disengaging from our NPC ally (without provoking an opportunity attack), dealing over half of the player’s HP in a single hit, spending an action point to finish him off, and picking up the dropped weapon. A very elaborate “no” to be sure, and it had the unfortunate side effect of sucking the wind out of the table. It was at that point the party got a distinct impression the world belonged to the DM and we were just playing it, not even the stars of the story but feeling like archetypal “mooks” working on behalf of the gold dragon. Don’t get me wrong, it’s all very exciting and compelling, but it made me wonder why even put things within our grasp that we’re not supposed to have? The answer, it seems, is because “Bars have a back door.”

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Good advice all-through.

 

[maddman75]

I liked the part about the Brick Wall. If you put something into the game, you should be prepared to have the players interact with it. This is why I avoid plot based games. It sounds like the GM had planned out that the PCs would go through the front and fight or talk their way in, and them sneaking in the back didn't go along with his plans.

I avoid this problem by not making plans, but providing conflicts. They need something from the guildhouse. If I describe guild members in the front and a locked back door, I should expect that they might fight their way in. They might try to talk. They might try to sneak in. They might stake the place out and wait until there's a good chance to break in. They might try to get some dirt on a member. They might try to burn the place down. They might ignore it completely. They might do something I didn't see coming.

And that last part, for me, is where a lot of fun with gaming comes from. While I might have a route planned, I don't object at all to the players taking a different one. For a recent example from my Cthulhu game, the players were trapped on an island with a bunch of villagers under the thrall of a Cthonthian - huge otherworldly monster. It was dwelling in a mine. I'd given them a path to defeating this monster

- There was one here in the past, but it stopped after a great storm. They found a 'statue' of the last one. When they're exposed to water they turn to stone.
- The storm caused an underground lake to flood the beast's lair.
- They found the overhang at the top of the lair that seperated it from the lake.
- They found an old supply of dynamite.

My obvious road was to blow up the overhang drowning the thing. Taking it on in combat was not an option. However, they didn't piece that together. Instead, they piled the dynamite at the mouth of the cave, and one brave PC threw a stick into the lair to anger it. It chased him out, and the rest of them shot at the dynamite crate, blowing the creature to pieces.

It wasn't what I'd planned, but it was awesome . I didn't call for more and more skill checks until they failed for going off my path, I let them run with it and everyone had a great time. Even the poor bait PC, who was eaten before the rest of the group could destroy it.