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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5594195" data-attributes="member: 15538">Correct. They could decide to be turnip farmers, and soon or later, he's going to come along and burn their turnips. That's pretty much the nature of a 20 level campaign involving a big evil thing.I can't prove you're wrong, but I would not recommend this advice to anyone. My viewpoint leans more toward, "No plot survives contact with the players."Discussing hypotheticals is confusing enough without changing details. You didn't say anything before about Burin having a stated goal of avenging his clan. That is a different situation. In that case I could raise an objection like, "What is Burin's player thought this would be a running theme in the campaign, and instead you've set up an act two where he faces off against the giant king's armies, and by the end of the adventure, his clan is avenged?" The point is not the specific details. What I am saying is that Burin's player is definitely telling you something, but he isn't telling you that he likes your concept for the adventure. That remains to be seen. In general, "plots" should be judged guilty until proven innocent.I don't often find much reason to refer to Ron Spencer's opinions, but in this case, he made a useful observation I have to agree with entirely. This is the "impossible thing before breakfast." Either the player's control is illusory, or the outcome of the situation cannot be what you have stated based on the starting conditions.No, it's far from automagic. The telegraphy you are talking about is so strenuous on the story it will deform the entire campaign. Many games can survive it; some definitely won't.I don't want to get too esoteric here. In summary, my opinion is this: the GM's ability to get PCs to do a specific thing can only be one of two things: imperfect, or tyranical.</blockquote>

Verification