Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3405306" data-attributes="member: 4937">A twist which is imposed on the story arbitrarily isn't a twist.&nbsp; It's playing a shell game with the players in which the game is rigged.&nbsp; And I've played both styles of game, and believe me when I say you can tell a difference.Which is great if you have that determined in advance so you can begin slowly feeding in clues and allow the players to determine at what point the story branches, and they'll probably dig that, but about the second time you pull a shell game on your players you are going to have a player rebellion on your hand.Believe me when I tell you that when a DM gets in the habit of doing this it isn't fun.I'm not going to bother fighting this one.&nbsp; Suffice to say that I think every good game - even just a hack and slash dungeon crawl - has a story attached.No, I didn't.&nbsp; I probably would have just lost half my players in frustration, and I probably wouldn't have anything really interesting for several weeks after a big gear change like this.&nbsp; I _might_ could wing it, but in that exotic of a setting that I'd never actually DMed before I'm not even sure of that.No, the approach doesn't work for RPG's because the approach attracts those who aren't interested in games.&nbsp; It most certainly does not attract those interested in 'creating thier own stories'; as others have pointed out, Wright's games aren't really story enablers.Speaking of not understanding your logic, don't you have that backwards?&nbsp; Because it seems to me that the social contract of, &quot;What do you do?&quot; (the one I tend to use I think), is the one that actually empowers the PC's.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3405306, member: 4937"] A twist which is imposed on the story arbitrarily isn't a twist. It's playing a shell game with the players in which the game is rigged. And I've played both styles of game, and believe me when I say you can tell a difference. Which is great if you have that determined in advance so you can begin slowly feeding in clues and allow the players to determine at what point the story branches, and they'll probably dig that, but about the second time you pull a shell game on your players you are going to have a player rebellion on your hand. Believe me when I tell you that when a DM gets in the habit of doing this it isn't fun. I'm not going to bother fighting this one. Suffice to say that I think every good game - even just a hack and slash dungeon crawl - has a story attached. No, I didn't. I probably would have just lost half my players in frustration, and I probably wouldn't have anything really interesting for several weeks after a big gear change like this. I _might_ could wing it, but in that exotic of a setting that I'd never actually DMed before I'm not even sure of that. No, the approach doesn't work for RPG's because the approach attracts those who aren't interested in games. It most certainly does not attract those interested in 'creating thier own stories'; as others have pointed out, Wright's games aren't really story enablers. Speaking of not understanding your logic, don't you have that backwards? Because it seems to me that the social contract of, "What do you do?" (the one I tend to use I think), is the one that actually empowers the PC's. [/QUOTE]

Verification