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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7096796" data-attributes="member: 42582">You didn't quote the second of the above sentences, but I've requoted it because the two go together.As a player, I can tell if the GM is following his/her notes and/or his/her conception of what makes for a good story, or is following the hooks provided by the players via the build and play of their PCs.Most obviously, I can tell if the ingame situation is forcing me to make choices on the basis of said hooks.Well, if a character has a Belief "Now that I've seen my brother [who is possessed by a Balrog], I pity him" then the player of that character can tell whether or not a given episode of play relates in some fashion to the character's pity for his brother.If my character has the Instinct "When camping, always keep the campfire burning" I can tell whether or not a given episode of play contains a campfire.In a system without that sort of explicit signalling via elements of PC build, if a PC is a Marshall of Letherna sworn to upholding and advancing the interests of the Raven Queen, the player of that PC can tell if those interests are at play in some fashion in a given episode of play.That's why when, at some stage upthread, someone said it's just as easy to railroad in a player-driven game as in a GM-driven one I disagreed. You can't keep it secret from the players whether or not the ingame situation, being resolved at the table, speaks to their concerns and goals for their PCs, because that is evident in the moment of play.Upthread you were very exercised by maintaining clear distinctions between player and character. So why, now, are you insisting on running them together?A player can be pro-active - eg establishing thematic concerns for his/her PC - but his/her PC be reactive. Eg the player build his/her PC as a fanatical devotee of the Raven Queen; the GM frames the PC into an assault by Orcus cultists.Because of this:The maruading wolves seem like nothing more than colour. Likewise the "something big". And although the PCs are heading from A to B, it doesn't matter when they arrive at B. And so a player makes up something new - drums sounding through the woods - to give his/her PC something to do.What game do you have in mind?Upthread [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] posted a passage from John Harper which, to me, seemed to be reiterating the Czege Principle, or something in that neighbourhood: that it's not satisfying, in a RPG, to be the one who both frames a challenge and chooses how to answer it.I think the drum example counts as such a thing. Why is the player framing the challenge that his/her PC is called upon to answer - in effect, narrating his/her own opposition?I've played in RPGs where the GM obviously has some sense of what is going on in the fiction, and wants the players to do something, but won't just spit it out and be overt about it, and so much of the play time is spent by the players trying to find out what the "plot" is, so that things can move forward.Another thing that I've found can lead to a lack of clear direction is when the players are all revved up about X, and the GM - for whatever reason - is not interested in X, and through a combination of blocking and attempts at "hooking" tries to steer play away from X and towards something else.I think this sort of issue is mostly down to GMs, not players.</blockquote>

Verification