Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 2429774" data-attributes="member: 99">VERY interesting thread so far.&nbsp; I hope I manage to contribute something.&nbsp; And I agree with Barsoomcore that Fusangite's posts make me feel smarter (or at least wish I WAS smarter) for having read them.First up, I must agree with Joshua Dyal that, from my perspective at least, many stories that I read or movies that I watch are based on the protagonists desire to &quot;get&quot; something.&nbsp; It might not be a tangible object, and in fact is more often a concept like &quot;revenge&quot; or &quot;status&quot; or &quot;redemption&quot;, but it is most certainly a goal toward which they are striving.&nbsp; Obviously there are also plenty (if not more) stories of individuals thrust into situations not of their own making and what they do to cope with this or try and return things to the status-quo.&nbsp; In my mind, this represents one major divide in types of story and types of campaigns for RPGs:&nbsp; Proactive vs. Reactive.As I sit here and think about it, I feel like most campaigns will be primarily either proactive or reactive (from the PC's point of view) at a given point, but that they can easily move back and forth across that divide through the course of the campaign.&nbsp; I'd encapsulate these two modes with the following two statements:&quot;If I do X then Good things will happen.&quot;&quot;If I don't do Y then Bad things will happen.&quot;Reflecting back on my history of campaigns, I would say that I tend to start out with a Reactive situation, primarily because it is fairly easy to craft one that involves the whole party.&nbsp; This binds them together (if they were not already bound by backstory) and imparts some initial momentum to the campaign.&nbsp; After the first situation is resolved then I often open things up (by way of various plot hooks) to allow the PC's to pick which direction the story will head.&nbsp; At that point I've shifted to a Proactive posture.&nbsp; But along the way to whatever goal they've established, it is not infrequent that they'll run across other situations that they'll need to react to or face the Consequences.That last word is the other big theme of my campaigns.&nbsp; I try not to constantly put my players in a &quot;damned if you do and damned if you don't&quot; situation but I do convey that doing things and NOT doing things both have consequences.&nbsp; The group collectively selects which set of consequences they cannot abide and pursues a course of action to prevent those from taking place.At this point I can't honestly say that my campaigns are any more organized or thematic than that.&nbsp; I've made a lot of changes to my GMing style over the last couple years since I got a better understanding of what makes my players tick and how to keep them happy.&nbsp; So my style of GMing is very much in flux right now, which makes threads like this very interesting to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rel, post: 2429774, member: 99"] VERY interesting thread so far. I hope I manage to contribute something. And I agree with Barsoomcore that Fusangite's posts make me feel smarter (or at least wish I WAS smarter) for having read them. First up, I must agree with Joshua Dyal that, from my perspective at least, many stories that I read or movies that I watch are based on the protagonists desire to "get" something. It might not be a tangible object, and in fact is more often a concept like "revenge" or "status" or "redemption", but it is most certainly a goal toward which they are striving. Obviously there are also plenty (if not more) stories of individuals thrust into situations not of their own making and what they do to cope with this or try and return things to the status-quo. In my mind, this represents one major divide in types of story and types of campaigns for RPGs: Proactive vs. Reactive. As I sit here and think about it, I feel like most campaigns will be primarily either proactive or reactive (from the PC's point of view) at a given point, but that they can easily move back and forth across that divide through the course of the campaign. I'd encapsulate these two modes with the following two statements: "If I do X then Good things will happen." "If I don't do Y then Bad things will happen." Reflecting back on my history of campaigns, I would say that I tend to start out with a Reactive situation, primarily because it is fairly easy to craft one that involves the whole party. This binds them together (if they were not already bound by backstory) and imparts some initial momentum to the campaign. After the first situation is resolved then I often open things up (by way of various plot hooks) to allow the PC's to pick which direction the story will head. At that point I've shifted to a Proactive posture. But along the way to whatever goal they've established, it is not infrequent that they'll run across other situations that they'll need to react to or face the Consequences. That last word is the other big theme of my campaigns. I try not to constantly put my players in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation but I do convey that doing things and NOT doing things both have consequences. The group collectively selects which set of consequences they cannot abide and pursues a course of action to prevent those from taking place. At this point I can't honestly say that my campaigns are any more organized or thematic than that. I've made a lot of changes to my GMing style over the last couple years since I got a better understanding of what makes my players tick and how to keep them happy. So my style of GMing is very much in flux right now, which makes threads like this very interesting to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification