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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6204452" data-attributes="member: 42582">I have explained above why I would not run this scene - namely, because it does not give the players any opportunity to affect the fiction. It is simply for the dispensing of backstory.Is your question "Why doesn't pemerton want to frame scenes that are simply for the dispensing of backstory?" In which case, the answer is because (i) I find them boring, and (ii) they don't actually give the players a chance to play the game - all the players can do is soak up the backstory and thespianise their PCs.If you see that as an issue of pacing, fine. To me it's an issue of whether or not we're actually playing the game. A scene that (i) contains conflict, but (ii) cannot be affected by the players via their PCs, is (iii) one that I'm personally not interested in. They could fail and have the bribe go unnoticed. Having the bribe be noticed is just one possible complication - though personally I think one of the more interesting ones. As to why they can't succeed and be discovered - because having your bribe be discovered means that you haven't succeeded!No. If the players want to see the chamberlain, I frame a scene where meaningful things can happen. What exactly that might be depends on the details and context of play, plus prior revealed backstory. If all we're talking about is an audience with the king to plead a case, I don't see any particular reason why that should be controversial. In the real world, after all, all sorts of people historically have had all sorts of audiences with kings.The players generally don't get to set the consequences of failure. I thought I had stated that pretty clearly upthread.In establishing the goals for success, I think I might have mentioned earlier upthread the idea of the genre credibility test. I don't think the action you're declaring in your example passes that test in just about any game I can think of (unless its deliberately humorous or absurd). A more realistic example would be - "Because we saved your lands from the dragons, make us nobles and bestow wealth upon us." And that strikes me as quite feasible.A lot of your attempts to prove that indie play is impossible seem to turn upon assumptions about players and GM having radically different conceptions of genre, general thematic orientation of play, etc. In my personal experience this doesn't normally happen, and where there have been miscommunications they can quickly be ironed out. Maybe it's a been a bigger problem for you, and that's why you find player-driven play hard to envisage? In any event, as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] mentioned upthread, having everyone more-or-less on the same page as to genre and general thematic orientation is a presupposition of "indie" play proceeding smoothly.What example was that? The only advisor I remember mentioning was the baron's advisor, who was an NPC. I have had a few PCs over the years become NPCs as players leave the group or the country, but I don't recollect mentioning any of them in this thread.I replied to this two or three times upthread. So did [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]. Your description here is quite wrong.You also seem to be confusing particular features of default 4e (which was what Manbearcat was referring to when he suggested that dealing with a king might be low-to-mid Paragon) with other 4e variants (I've mentioned two upthread - Dark Sun and Neverwinter, one of which reduces story scope relative to mechaanical level and the other of which increases it) with indie RPGing more generally.</blockquote>

Verification