Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5315715" data-attributes="member: 63214">This can definitely be the case, and I don't really see it as a bad thing. Some players would rather have no hand in it, and just see the story unfold and react to their actions. It can be a bit jarring as a player to come with both an action and a reaction. Part of the fun is not knowing what the reaction will be.If the player kills a member of the King's royal guard out of self defense or what have you, it would be weird to the traditional player if the DM asked, &quot;Okay, what do you want to happen?&quot; If the player says no one knows about it and he or she does not get pursued, that makes sort of a lame story especially if the player's word is final. If the player says he is pursued, that's counter intuitive to the kind of game D&amp;D is. It would be like opting to be critically hit. I'm not saying it's bad, but I don't think it meshes with the game strengths of Dungeons and Dragons.Now, coming up with world details and whatnot simply because the DM doesn't really care if dwarves are mountain folk, hill folk, forest folk, or all of the above, is a different issue completely. Allowing active narration of what's going on in the present game time is what is not necessarily a good thing for every group.That said, in other types of games, such as Spirit of the Century, this collaborative story telling is expected and encouraged. To be honest though, when I tried Spirit of the Century, our fairly open-minded group still couldn't bring ourselves to spend fate points to change the story really. It was just more fun for us to have the story, for the most part, revealed to us. Like a novel.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fuzzlewump, post: 5315715, member: 63214"] This can definitely be the case, and I don't really see it as a bad thing. Some players would rather have no hand in it, and just see the story unfold and react to their actions. It can be a bit jarring as a player to come with both an action [I]and[/I] a reaction. Part of the fun is not knowing what the reaction will be. If the player kills a member of the King's royal guard out of self defense or what have you, it would be weird to the traditional player if the DM asked, "Okay, what do you want to happen?" If the player says no one knows about it and he or she does not get pursued, that makes sort of a lame story especially if the player's word is final. If the player says he [I]is[/I] pursued, that's counter intuitive to the kind of game D&D is. It would be like opting to be critically hit. I'm not saying it's bad, but I don't think it meshes with the game strengths of Dungeons and Dragons. Now, coming up with world details and whatnot simply because the DM doesn't really care if dwarves are mountain folk, hill folk, forest folk, or all of the above, is a different issue completely. Allowing active narration of what's going on in the present game time is what is not necessarily a good thing for every group. That said, in other types of games, such as Spirit of the Century, this collaborative story telling is expected and encouraged. To be honest though, when I tried Spirit of the Century, our fairly open-minded group still couldn't bring ourselves to spend fate points to change the story really. It was just more fun for us to have the story, for the most part, revealed to us. Like a novel. [/QUOTE]

Verification