Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5554893" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes.&nbsp; He started with that premise, that running through the published module was agreed upon before play.I think you're underestimating player's cognitive abilities, in general.&nbsp; Players are an observant bunch, and they generally know the difference between following the hooks presented and starting out a freebooting mercenary company out of left field.&nbsp; Well, sometimes you'll find a gaming group that's like a rock band that breaks up over &quot;creative differences&quot;.&nbsp; But in general, that sounds awful hyperbolic to me - in collaborative work, there's always going to be some correction from time to time.&nbsp; That's expected, and not that difficult to do, so long as everyone is on board with it.&nbsp; Last time I checked, one of the base assumptions of gaming was that everyone at the table is at least marginally sentient, and capable of some form of communication with the other players.&nbsp; While maybe when everyone at the table is 14 and full of ego and not much understanding of others, things still go awry, but if you're gaming with folks beyond a certain level of maturity, you have a conversation about what everyone wants, you get a bit of compromise give-and-take, and you move on.&nbsp; There shouldn't be a whole lot of a problem here.It seems to be that saying, &quot;the players always get their choices,&quot; is about as domineering and unfair as saying, &quot;the GM always gets his/her choices.&quot;&nbsp; Collaborative work is sharing, not drawing hard lines in the sand over who gets to do what.Ah, yes.&nbsp; Back in the day, when everyone played the same way, in the best of all possible worlds?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5554893, member: 177"] Yes. He started with that premise, that running through the published module was agreed upon before play. I think you're underestimating player's cognitive abilities, in general. Players are an observant bunch, and they generally know the difference between following the hooks presented and starting out a freebooting mercenary company out of left field. Well, sometimes you'll find a gaming group that's like a rock band that breaks up over "creative differences". But in general, that sounds awful hyperbolic to me - in collaborative work, there's always going to be some correction from time to time. That's expected, and not that difficult to do, so long as everyone is on board with it. Last time I checked, one of the base assumptions of gaming was that everyone at the table is at least marginally sentient, and capable of some form of communication with the other players. While maybe when everyone at the table is 14 and full of ego and not much understanding of others, things still go awry, but if you're gaming with folks beyond a certain level of maturity, you have a conversation about what everyone wants, you get a bit of compromise give-and-take, and you move on. There shouldn't be a whole lot of a problem here. It seems to be that saying, "the players always get their choices," is about as domineering and unfair as saying, "the GM always gets his/her choices." Collaborative work is sharing, not drawing hard lines in the sand over who gets to do what. Ah, yes. Back in the day, when everyone played the same way, in the best of all possible worlds? [/QUOTE]

Verification