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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5594081" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's repetitive? I'm afraid I don't follow. If I know Bill's dwarf is the last surviving member of his clan after a giant war because Bill told me so, how is adding an element of narrative to the game by saying something like "The giants that eliminated your clan are rampaging in the mountains to the north!" at all repetitive? It guides the player, it guides the character, and it provides an instant narrative arc (Intro: "Burin the Dwarf is the last member of his clan after a giant war." Rising Action: "The giants who killed your clan are rampaging in the hills to the north!" And you fight a few battles. Climax: Fight the giant king. Resolution: Burin is a badass. Or dead. Whichever.). That's the three act structure doing the heavy listing there for Bill's dwarf. Later in the campaign, I use a different PC's goal of becoming a Great Illusionist and introduce a rival illusionist who is also secretly working for a thieves' guild. I have the NPC rival come along and antagonize the PC in a few early scenes, dropping a few hints, and then have him pop up again in a battle of lies with the PC. Again, a three-act structure jumps up: There's a character (PC), a conflict (NPC rival), and a resolution (one of 'em tricks the other). Totally a different kind of gameplay.Maybe I even link them together by letting the giants be paid off by the guild to rampage in the mountains and disrupt trade routes, creating a chronology. I don't understand how your example is dramatically different from the ones above, except that in your example, the temple was part of the world and it didn't matter who the characters were, and in my example, I use character motivations to drive character arcs. I don't really see how one is objectively better or worse than the other.</blockquote>

Verification