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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2261234" data-attributes="member: 27012">I think that this is the way that many DMs/GMs try to "split the difference".  The idea is to create a setting-based game with enough dramatic things going on that the PCs can find something interesting to do and you may even get a good story out of it.  In fact, one of the things that most role-playing style analysis seems to ignore is the fact that almost all types of role-players are willing to tolerate fairly contrived set-ups and setting elements and it's largely how things play out after the game starts where the style differences clash the most.  Most players realize that the GM needs to set the stage before the game begins.  It's how the GM controls the stage after the players take control of their PCs and engage the situation that they have the most issues with.Perhaps, but what you are describing fits into that paradigm.  You are describing is running a setting-based game with a dramatic set-up.  The key distinction is whether the GM decides what happens next based on what would logically happen next in the setting or based on other concerns (e.g., story, challenge, fun, interpersonal issues, etc.) and, if they use other concerns, what those other concerns are.  This issue can't really be avoided because almost every game will have situations where deciding what happpens next based on what would logically happen next in the setting clashes with what would make a good story, a good challenge, the most fun experience, etc. just as what happens in real life often clashes with what would make a good story, a good challenge, the most fun experience, etc.  And when that clash happens, the GM has to decide which wins.What I think you are pointing to is that many (of not most) players are quite tolerant of contrived set-ups designed to create opportunities for a good story, a good challenge, lots of fun, etc.  Generally, a good set up for a game or campaign is one bursting with opportunities for the PCs to get involved in interesting things happening in the setting.  But where the style difference matters is what happens after that set up and during play.  Once you've created your setting full of NPCs with agendas and the PCs find out what they are up to, do you simply let events play out as they logically would if the setting where a real place or do you adjust situations to make sure that the PCs discover certain clues and do certain things to produce a more narrow range of possible outcomes?  Of course there are still limits to how much staging some players will tolerate.  To give you an analogy, if you want to hunt pheasant, it makes some sense to go hunting in a place known to have lots of pheasants rather than picking a random bit of land in the hope that you'll find pheasants there.  On the other hand, a lot of people think that putting pheasants in a box and releasing them in front of a person with a gun so the person with the gun can shoot them is a bit unsporting and artificial and loses a lot of what "hunting" is supposed to be about, reducing it to target shooting.  Similarly, a lot of players will accept GMs providing a target rich set-up that's likely to generate the sorts of adventures that they want but many players don't want the GM to put the adventure into a box to be opened in front of the players with effortless yet predictable results.Of course what I'm still leaving out (and, again, many discussions of role-playing styles as categories overlook) is one of thresholds and limits.  In reality, I think many good GMs will let what logically happens next in the setting happen unless doing so crosses a certain threshold of doing damage to the game.  For example, a GM might not fudge combat results until a PC is about to die.  A GM might not shove a clue in front of the PCs until they miss a clue that will cause the campaign to collapse or end badly.  A GM might not fudge combat encounters until the PCs are about to get slaughtered (or, from the other side, walk all over a powerful villain) simply because the dice are being incredibly one-sided that day.  That can and does provide a lot of shading but it doesn't erase the ultimate conflict between the GM making decisions for setting-based reasons and the GM making decisions for metagame reasons, during play, when those two sets of concerns conflict.(EDIT: Spelling)</blockquote>

Verification