NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5421277" data-attributes="member: 8835">I'm wary of hussar's approach as may abrogate my right to decline to pursue the hook.  Granted, I have started games in "media res", already in the middle of action, but I try to limit the framing to a state that I think the PCs would realistically be in and minimize assumption of players actual choice.Thus, forcing acceptance of being hired is risky to me.  My PC may have no interest in being a hired guard.  Though as a player, I might be resigned to accept it, for the sake of getting the game going.  I'm certainly wary of a starting situation of "being in jail" as the DM's asssumption of my behavior on how I got there may contradict with my own view on what would get me incarcerated.It's a catch-22, I may not be happy with Hussar's starting me in a scene I didn't actually make a prior decision to accept, versus pemerton's dislike of being presented with a hook that it is implied that you should accept.When I'm GMing, IF you reject my hook and there is no reasonable way to re-use the material, I must aquiesce and make up stuff (possibly pausing the game). I guess pretty good, and I haven't had that happen, but if it does, I chalk that up to a bad GMing decision.On Shaman's reply:Its a style choice of whether the GM gives a hoot if the PCs go into too dangerous parts or parts he hasnt planned on. I'm not sure what you mean here.What I mean is a GM who doesn't care if the 1st level PCs decide to walk the 20 miles to kill the 20th level Lich because he's bad and he's there.  I think there's some GMs who put that stuff in there, hoping the party gets killed, under the argument of "it's realistic that the world has dangers you should avoid".  When its really just idiot bait.Contrasted with a GM who is also vested in the PCs and would like to see them succeed, or fail as a genuine, non-idiot failure, and not because they wandered onto the double-black slopes.There's valid arguments for both styles, and I think it comes down to what the players and GM's goal for the campaign is.</blockquote>

Verification