Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5413997" data-attributes="member: 54877">I see that as more of a circle than a straight line.&nbsp; You go far enough &quot;around&quot; to builds and back story, and you end up back in play.&nbsp; Two very different examples:&nbsp;1. Given a moderately simple system of character constructions, the players will get involved in it, perhaps to the detriment of in-game play.&nbsp; Make it more complex, though, and they'll just want results from the system and will focus again on play.&nbsp; Part of this is attitude of the players.&nbsp; I have one player who hasn't made her own character in years.&nbsp; She always tells me generally what she wants and then lets me make it for her.&nbsp; But she loves complex systems that give her stuff to do in play.&nbsp;2. When the back story gets interesting enough, we just go back and play that.&nbsp; Again, it is kind of an attitude thing.&nbsp; If you value interesting things happening in play ... you value interesting things happening in play and will thus make that happen with whatever system or background story you are working with.&nbsp;As for the attitude changing in published materials, I think it preceded 3E.&nbsp; The first time I noticed it was in Dungeon magazine, the last couple of years of the 2E run.&nbsp; There were several &quot;adventures&quot; where all the really interesting things happened to an NPC before an adventure started.&nbsp; In several cases, there wasn't even a good way for the players to ever learn about any of it.&nbsp; Of course, there is a fine line between giving the DM enough information to sink his teeth into the material, versus resolving the actions before the players get to interact with the situation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5413997, member: 54877"] I see that as more of a circle than a straight line. You go far enough "around" to builds and back story, and you end up back in play. Two very different examples: 1. Given a moderately simple system of character constructions, the players will get involved in it, perhaps to the detriment of in-game play. Make it more complex, though, and they'll just want results from the system and will focus again on play. Part of this is attitude of the players. I have one player who hasn't made her own character in years. She always tells me generally what she wants and then lets me make it for her. But she loves complex systems that give her stuff to do in play. 2. When the back story gets interesting enough, we just go back and play that. Again, it is kind of an attitude thing. If you value interesting things happening in play ... you value interesting things happening in play and will thus make that happen with whatever system or background story you are working with. As for the attitude changing in published materials, I think it preceded 3E. The first time I noticed it was in Dungeon magazine, the last couple of years of the 2E run. There were several "adventures" where all the really interesting things happened to an NPC before an adventure started. In several cases, there wasn't even a good way for the players to ever learn about any of it. Of course, there is a fine line between giving the DM enough information to sink his teeth into the material, versus resolving the actions before the players get to interact with the situation. [/QUOTE]

Verification