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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="grendel111111" data-source="post: 6793884" data-attributes="member: 6803870">I agree that all games tell a story. The difference for me is in how you get to the story. Are you actively making choices that will result in the best "story" or is the story arising out of what happens during the game. It can be a mixture of both. and there is always a story.One area that this does come through clearly is in character death.Tell some people that your character died and you will be greeted with, You have a terrible DM you should find a DM who won't kill your characters, because you put time into making them.So for some people a character dying will stop the "story". For others the dying is just part of the story of their characters life. For others it's only OK if it is a story significant or meaningful death. So here are some options: Death is just part of life... you died. (Not story focused, but tells a story)Death is only on the line if an omen is in play (as suggested further up this thread). (Very story focused approach.) If the player might die we fail forward so that does not happen. (again a story focused option)Use a fate or luck point to avoid the outcome the dice gave you. (you have x fate or luck points per session) (This uses a game mechanic to put a safely net behind the players, making them more willing to take risks)  You are marked for death. You somehow survive the ignoble death (the goblins dagger glanced off your grandmothers locket) but you will die this day. By the end of the session you character will die (just not this second) so go and make a heroic last stand or do something significant with you characters last breath. An example of this might be if Boromir in the LotR  was running towards the 2 halflings and he is hit in the chest by an arrow as he comes over the hill, killing him with a critical. The DM marks him for death and so Boromir swats aside the arrow just before it hits him. he charges into the horde of orks and makes a valiant last stand. cutting down orks, but at the same time taking arrow after arrow, until he finally fall to the ground exhausted and is killed by the ork leader. (Makes a much better story).The player and tell a flash back or how he had at the last minute before leaving the shire he had picked up a loaf of bread off the table and stuffed it in his pocket, so when it looked like he had been stabbed it had actually just skewered the bread and he was left with a flesh wound instead. (Leverage uses flash backs a lot to explain things in that game).So in all those options a story is told. The tone of the game sets which option or approach is best to use. The first option tells a story as much as the others, but for some people does not tell a satisfying story. At the same time for others it tells a story that for them it "truer" to the game they want to play.I agree that we are looking for something but I am not sure it is a universal approach that is needed. That is the reason we have so much conflict between gaming styles and "approaches". I think 5E made a good attempt to give a range of ways  to deal with things (But I don't think included enough breadth to their options), but presented it badly due to peoples desire to be told the "right" way to play. In fact I think codifying any one way will do more damage than good and is the reason there are so many D and D clones that cater to each possible.I think a good place to start is to find out all the different versions of how people approach skill checks and dealing with the exploration pillar of games, but avoiding overly broad terms like fail forward which clearly encompasses a variety of actual ways of dealing with the same thing.</blockquote>

Verification