Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3400770" data-attributes="member: 2067">That's what I said, actually. And the idea as I see it isn't to divorce a DM (or a computer interface) from the game, but to make the DM's influence less of a guiding force and more of a building force. The players provide a guidance, tell you what to create, you create it (putting in your own ingredients) and bring it back to them, letting them mess with it and tell you what to create next. A good example seems to be that elfin asian kingdom. Even though it went against two prohibitions in the campaign, the DM allowed it and it enriched the game for years to come, because the player provided the direction and inspiration for it. The player said "I'm going to make this elf ninja!" and instead of saying "No," the DM said "Okay, but tell me his story." It opened up a communication, instead of a simple adherence to a rules-railroad.In Wright's line of work, this means making the computer recognize what a player wants to do and then address the needs of that player within the game. You want your Sims to fall in love, they can. You want them to hate each other, they can. You want them to determine what they do in a totally random fashion and just watch, you can. You want to kill them in hilarious and painful ways, you can. At no point does the game say "No, that's not allowed." But at the same time, you might not control every facet of that. The game says "Okay, you try to fall in love, but your flirting isn't appreciated. Are you going to keep trying?"In our line of work as DMs, it means recognizing what the players want and then addressing that need in the game. This often isn't the same thing as they say they want. Someone may say "I want to be a Beholder as a PC" when what they might really mean is "I want the challenge of making a bizarre, alien creature into a functional character." A DM could recognize what they're really saying, and adapt to it: "Okay, but you'll be a little Baby beholder and you have spidery legs you walk around on." "Give them the challenge they're telling you they want," seems to be Wright's idea here. No, we do. What made Gili or Pluto Nash bad movies? They didn't do what we wanted them to do. They didn't act like we wanted them to act. They sucked because they didn't conform to our wishes.But all players generally agree to go along with other character's stories. I mean, as long as the Rogue gets time to explore his undercity contracts, he's happy to help the Wizard explore the world for arcane apocalypse devices.A reactive DM's position seems to be like any DM: give equal spotlight time to all stories, to all characters. Weave them together if possible (to discover the apocalypse device, we'll need an illegal substance that only the rogues contacts can provide).I mean, that's not even an issue. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification