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: 7097257" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Absolutely. I agree that pre-determining everything is a lot of effort. And don't get me wrong....I am fine with leaving an NPC's actual motivations unknown, and only establishing them once it makes sense to do so, and in a way that makes sense for the story. I am just aware that doing this is along the lines of illusionism. Because you are right....motivations change in the real world. People are fickle and hypocritical and so on....they change their minds. Changing a motivation from A to B is something different from having no motivation at first and then establishing it as B at some later point. Well, in the real world, people tend to have motivations all along....they don't spring into existence at the convenience of story. Or drama or going where the action is or whatever label you want to put on it. And I'd also say that the whole "from the point of the PCs, there's no issue" argument is pretty much exactly what people say in defense of illusionism. That's cool, I can't blame you for preferring that. I don't see the two things as being in opposition, but I can understand your choice between the two. It doesn't necessarily have to be about a GM introduced challenge. I find the idea of the players introducing solutions to the story entirely on their own to be troublesome. Not to say that it can't be done effectively and fairly...I'm sure it can. But I think it can also be abused. Or lead to some less interesting or dramatic resolutions to the problems the PCs find themselves in.</blockquote>

Verification