Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="loverdrive" data-source="post: 8292279" data-attributes="member: 7027139">Yeah, and when there's no incentive to create a conflict, most of the time the only person interested in creating conflict gonna be the GM. Y'know, the only person who's ability to participate isn't dependent on their character's ability to act.I'm sure there are people who are eager to see their character suffer even without an incentive (I'm one of them), but that doesn't mean that having an incentive doesn't help.I don't know where you've got &quot;not having a challenge&quot; from. There's already a dude who's job is to provide challenge and adversity. Why should I risk my own position to do their job?When I as a player don't risk anything (like, say, in Fate) -- I'm willing to put my character in a bad spot, break them a few bones, break their will, and see them suffer -- I just know that even in the worst-case scenario I can strike a deal and continue playing. And by getting my character in trouble I actually now have more influence on the game state.I know have a leverage to get more successes and outright declare more facts. To lose is a winning move.Losing in D&amp;D is like the opposite of a winning move.&quot;Talking to the GM&quot; isn't a mechanic. I'm 100% at their mercy -- I don't have any bargaining chip other than puppy eyes, and while I can do puppy eyes, I prefer to act with certainty.Running away is another very uncertain thing, as by standard rules it just doesn't work most of the time (as enemies most of the time has at least the same speed as you, probably more) and chasing rules aren't exactly player-facing.99% of the time there's already enough danger imposed by the GM. Creating more is good for the story, but bad for the player.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="loverdrive, post: 8292279, member: 7027139"] Yeah, and when there's no incentive to create a conflict, most of the time the only person interested in creating conflict gonna be the GM. Y'know, the only person who's ability to participate isn't dependent on their character's ability to act. I'm sure there are people who are eager to see their character suffer even without an incentive (I'm one of them), but that doesn't mean that having an incentive doesn't help. I don't know where you've got "not having a challenge" from. There's already a dude who's job is to provide challenge and adversity. Why should I risk my own position to do their job? When I as a player don't risk anything (like, say, in Fate) -- I'm willing to put my character in a bad spot, break them a few bones, break their will, and see them suffer -- I just know that even in the worst-case scenario I can strike a deal and continue playing. And by getting my character in trouble I actually now have [I]more [/I]influence on the game state. I know have a leverage to get more successes and outright declare more facts. To lose is a winning move. Losing in D&D is like the opposite of a winning move. "Talking to the GM" isn't a mechanic. I'm 100% at their mercy -- I don't have any bargaining chip other than puppy eyes, and while I can do puppy eyes, I prefer to act with certainty. Running away is another [I]very[/I] uncertain thing, as by standard rules it just doesn't work most of the time (as enemies most of the time has at least the same speed as you, probably more) and chasing rules aren't exactly player-facing. 99% of the time there's already enough danger imposed by the GM. Creating more is good for the story, but bad for the player. [/QUOTE]

Verification