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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3405263" data-attributes="member: 2067">How do you figure? It's immensely popular, and very rewarding for those who do it. It doesn't discount the way things are done today, it just gives another possible way to do things. Why is it so threatening?The comment is completely irrelevant to discussing this particular idea's possible iteration in D&D. Your personal dislike of Wright doesn't say anything about this specific idea. I'm hardly holding the man up on a pedestal, here, merely discussing his ideas.The players tell the DM what challenges they want, rather than the DM telling the players what challenges exist. It's a different kind of social contract: rather than the DM asking "what do you do?", the players say "What happens next?" The flow of world-building then flows from the PC's to the DM and back, as a cycle, rather than from a DM to the PC's alone. Rather than setting out to tell a story with a beginning, middle, and end, you let players determine which part is which, give them a field to create their character's world rather than telling them the constraints in which they must exist.Assuming that's true, that's only true for a story, however, and if the players want a story, then that's how you can give it to them. It's not true that this requires a good deal of planning. It actually requires very little planning, just an ability to notice patterns.If you want a story with a twist, go for it. A twist doesn't need in-deapth planning, though. You just see a pattern, and guess about what ELSE could cause that pattern."The great evil witch is marshaling forces to the north! But the REAL threat is that it's a distraction from the quiet doppelganger revolution happening in the capital city."If you know the basic principles of storytelling you can apply them in countless iterations of slightly different stories. Shalayman proved this, by twisting slightly different stories over the course of a handful of movies. <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=";)" />Again, you can let the players determine the twist. If they pursue political scheming instead, you can reverse the twist on the fly so that the primary villain is actually a decoy.Yes. There's never been a problem with dungeon crawls, barroom brawls, player-on-player contests, simple exploration...not every D&D game needs a story, and, in fact, sometimes the game could be better served by ignoring the story if the players don't really care about it.#1: You just did it.#2: These concepts don't have to run at cross-purposes. A bit of creative thinking and rules-nudging can enable a low-magic low-level tribal magic beholder just as easily as it could make a 21st level space shaman. The DM must always balance player spotlight time, analyzing what the players want to play and how they'll work together. He's not doing anything new here.#3: Well, since you just did it, it can't be as tough as all that. <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=";)" />So...the approach doesn't work for RPG's....because...the approach attracts those who are interested in creating their own stories?I'm not following your logic on this at all.</blockquote>

Verification