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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7090583" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I can understand that. I just think that your use of the term "secret backstory" tends to include the idea that it is being used to thwart the players, but for many of us that may not be the case. It's more a case of campaign or world information that the players do not know, which is something that every game has. So how that information is put to use by the GM is the thing in question, more than simply the existence of such information. Okay, understood. Thanks for clarifying that. I think putting meaningful choices before the PCs based on the players' stated desires for the character and for the game is important. I don't disagree with you in this regard; it's something I try to do in my games at almost every step. So when did you decide this yellow-clad skulker was a Vecna cultist? Was that the intention all along? Or did that arise because of the way the fiction took shape? So that when you first had him show up, you were not entirely sure who he was or what he was up to, but then later on, you decided (in response to the fiction) that a Vecna cultist would be the best option to go with? This kind of goes with my idea of not being married to any ideas if a better one (that doesn't contradict what's been established) comes along. In a case like this, if it were my game, I'd probably have a good idea of who the skulker in yellow was when he was introduced, but I wouldn't commit too strongly to that so that if a better idea came along, I'd be free to go with that. I can understand your aversion to this....but I don't think I share the opinion that it is always bad. I think there are instances where it is perfectly acceptable. I do think that it can easily be abused, and that if the sole reason the GM uses it is to thwart the players or to force things to go a specific way, I'd consider that some poor GMing. I'd say that there are two ways that this can come about. The first is that most APs, even ones that lean strongly toward the Railroad end of the spectrum, allow for some variance in player action, and they offer how to handle instances of this. Usually they only address this at times where such a thing is most possible, and then they usually only cover the most obvious of alternate paths (i.e. "if the PCs lose this fight, they are taken captive" or something similar). So it is possible for the players to pretty much stay within the constraints of the AP, or at least reasonably close enough to them for their game to be considered a straightforward exampled of "Tyranny of Dragons" or whatever AP it may be. The second is that it's possible that the players don't have any desire for their characters other than to play the adventure presented to them. That they don't create personal goals for their PCs beyond the kind of traditional D&D type goals of accumulating experience and wealth. I think this one depends highly on the players and the style of play that they are used to. But even if they do throw in some basic motivations beyond the traditional ones...."I want to find my brother's killer" and stuff like that....the DM can easily incorporate these into the AP. "Turns out your brother was killed by the Wearers of Purple" or what have you. Just for the record, this is similar to elements of my campaign. I take bits and pieces....some small, some large...from published modules or products and incorporate them into my game. Usually they are very modified to fit with what our game has established and our style of play. Sure, I agree. That's kind of my point....that I feel you can largely achieve what you say you strive for without the mechanics having to support that goal. That's not to say it's simple, or that you don't have to tweak a few things in a game like 5E to achieve it. I'd also expect that having mechanics that feed into that goal certainly helps. I was just kind of saying that, ultimately, there is perhaps more of a division of play style and play mechanics than may be obvious. That's more what I meant.....not so much mechanical game systems designed with this intent, so much as general GMing techniques that are aimed at player authorship and a less GM driven style. I won't comment too much on BW or its mechanics, because my knowledge of the pretty much consists of what you've explained to me!But I think that with a more player driven game, there are some trade offs that are made. I think that a story may lose cohesion. That need not be the case, and I am approaching this topic from my perspective of having a game with both GM driven material and player driven material. When I say lack of cohesion, I don't necessarily just mean the GM giving up control...although that certainly happens. But there can be a "too many cooks in the kitchen" effect. If each player is trying to drive the game toward their characters' wants and desires, then it could become a bit jumbled. Things can get pulled in many directions. This can be mitigated by both the GM helping to focus things a bit, and by players who are willing to share the spotlight and understand that the story will work best if some sense of narrative integrity is maintained. But then we're kind of attributing success of this approach to the GM and players being reasonable people willing to play together more so than any mechanical aspect of the game. Also, we briefly touched on player buy in earlier....I don't recall if it was you or [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] who said that they didn't feel that a player driven game required any more or less buy in than other game types. And I don't really disagree with that...I get the point of it....but I do think that for many players, there is a real learning curve for this if they are already used to a more traditional method. This is something I've faced in my game over the years. When I've tried to let the players have more control over the game, they didn't really know what to do. It's taken a lot of time to hone the game to where we are at these days...where they're comfortable with the approach, and I'm mostly comfortable in how I balance the two elements. The one comment I will make on the BW game mechanics you've endeavored to explain to me is that they seem more focused on the fiction than the game, if that makes sense. Hence, the check being made to determine the presence of the vessel to catch the blood rather than some challenge to the character in question. And I can see the usefulness of that....I can understand the appeal of that. However, I don't know if the appeal of it is strong enough that I would want the entire game to play that way. I'm sure that's an opinion that is limited by my knowledge of the game, but it's something I've experienced in other games.</blockquote>

Verification