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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5653372" data-attributes="member: 98032">Alright, I already got tangled up in just this topic inadvertently when I responded to others in the same thread. My incredulity over their stance had my head spinning.  Then I had to re-read things. Slowly...cause, I'm slow sometimes... From what I can see, we really aren't on that different of a page. Despite my approach drawing analogies to "scripting" (and I suppose by comparison "railroading" and such) and their making claims to completely open sandboxing and such.  So here's the deal, IMO, etc: The DM is truly the Storyteller in a typical DnD game. Period. Pride may cause people to disavow "scripting", but the bottom line is, the DM is ultimately in control of the story no matter how many decisions they say their players make.  Typically, just as you state in the OP the DM has crafted or chosen the game world, has invested time in familiarizing themselves with the story space and they lay down the initial "boundaries" for the campaign. They then proceed to be the main person at the table who provides the players with the context for all of their actions.  These actions by the DM in turn often provide the completely crucial story element we call "conflict" which drives players to progress along whatever path they are on. Honestly conflict is the key to a good story. Not characters. Characters are just the cogs in the wheel. Usually the DM controls this whether they admit it or not.  Now, if there are DnD games out there (and I know some RPGs are built on this) where players choose not only how they react but how the world will react to them, then yes, the story is a completely collaborative one and there is less illusion so to speak and more direct control of the story by players. I hear the rumblings already "Well my players completely choose their path and what they are doing so you are WRONG!" Really? Let me introduce you to Dudley Do-right the Paladin. As the GM I refused to allow a PC named Dudley Do-Right. I refused to allow him to dress as a mountie and saying "eh" all the time. I perhaps destroyed his intended character goals to save Penelope from that dastardly guy and frankly, would not have added either him or a locomotive (train tracks) to my campaign. So right there, his choice was illusion and determined by me cause I'm a "scripting meanie" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Frankly, I know very few DMs that would not have done the same.  In fact, even if a DM would have allowed it, I fully imagine the reaction of NPCs would have been as if he were a mad man, which, is again the DM setting the rules and story direction and not the player who wanted to seriously play a freakin' mountie. We weren't playing "Toon", we were playing DnD and I was running the game. A game that neither had Canada or Mounties (no offense, eh?)  Johnny3D3D: Precisely, love the quote!</blockquote>

Verification