Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="phindar" data-source="post: 3984871" data-attributes="member: 37198">I'll be honest.&nbsp; I skipped the middle few pages of the article.&nbsp; I gotta say though, as a player, if a GM said to me, &quot;Hey, I know you guys want to go there, but there's stuff there that needs to be prepped, I haven't prepped it, and I don't want to run it on the fly,&quot; I would be fine with that.&nbsp; The players can't make the GM run encounters he doesn't want to run, but by the same token, the GM shouldn't be forcing PC's into encounters they have no interest in.&nbsp; The group has to work together.I disagree strongly.&nbsp; Once players realize that the decisions their characters make have no impact on the storyline of the game, they lose interest.&nbsp; If every time the players want to do something different they are met with chasms, avalanches, quarantined zones, traps that damage them and force them back to &quot;safe zones&quot; or being captured, they're going to realize that the choices they make have no impact on what they'll be doing (other than chosing something the GM doesn't like means they'll be dealing with chasms and avalanches).&nbsp; When players realize that the choices they make have no impact on the game, they lose interest in making choices.&nbsp; And aside from rolling dice and making tactical decisions, making choices is playing your character.I think it is almost always better to be honest with the players.&nbsp; I think its good to get their imput in what they want their characters to do, and I think its good to work together with them on where the game goes.&nbsp; If a GM is running a module, I know that the game will take place in the module.&nbsp; He doesn't need to surround the module with impassable mountains to keep me there.&nbsp; But a GM who says, &quot;You can go anywhere and do anything you want,&quot; and then surrounds us with impassable mountains is basically lying to us about the concept of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="phindar, post: 3984871, member: 37198"] I'll be honest. I skipped the middle few pages of the article. I gotta say though, as a player, if a GM said to me, "Hey, I know you guys want to go there, but there's stuff there that needs to be prepped, I haven't prepped it, and I don't want to run it on the fly," I would be fine with that. The players can't make the GM run encounters he doesn't want to run, but by the same token, the GM shouldn't be forcing PC's into encounters they have no interest in. The group has to work together. I disagree strongly. Once players realize that the decisions their characters make have no impact on the storyline of the game, they lose interest. If every time the players want to do something different they are met with chasms, avalanches, quarantined zones, traps that damage them and force them back to "safe zones" or being captured, they're going to realize that the choices they make have no impact on what they'll be doing (other than chosing something the GM doesn't like means they'll be dealing with chasms and avalanches). When players realize that the choices they make have no impact on the game, they lose interest in making choices. And aside from rolling dice and making tactical decisions, [i]making choices[/i] is [i]playing your character[/i]. I think it is almost always better to be honest with the players. I think its good to get their imput in what they want their characters to do, and I think its good to work together with them on where the game goes. If a GM is running a module, I know that the game will take place in the module. He doesn't need to surround the module with impassable mountains to keep me there. But a GM who says, "You can go anywhere and do anything you want," and then surrounds us with impassable mountains is basically lying to us about the concept of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification