Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5885855" data-attributes="member: 22779">haakon1 - that's a very distorted view of other styles of GMing.The Storyteller doesn't railroad in the sense that you mean it.&nbsp; The storyteller should be perfectly fine with the PC's challenging the threat too early, but, instead of simply choosing the easiest route - the threat TPK's the party - he will choose the option that makes for the most interesting story, based on his understanding and the tables agreed upon criteria.&nbsp; So, instead of the big threat just automatically killing the PC's, he'll have the big threat toy with them, kick them around then send them on their way after making them cry in their boots.IOW, annoy the crap out of the party (and the players) to the point where they really, REALLY have a hate on for this guy and will now do virtually anything to get back at him.And, the balance master isn't concerned with balance in the way you mean it.&nbsp; If the PC's bite off more than they can chew, that's on them.&nbsp; The Balance Master is concerned with making sure that all the players are engaged in as equal a manner as possible (no one rides the pines if it can be avoided) and that game elements interact in such a way that no option becomes so good that it becomes the default.Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with coddling players or anything like that.I get the immersion approach.&nbsp; I do.&nbsp; But, do we really need to dismiss other playstyles in such a way?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5885855, member: 22779"] haakon1 - that's a very distorted view of other styles of GMing. The Storyteller doesn't railroad in the sense that you mean it. The storyteller should be perfectly fine with the PC's challenging the threat too early, but, instead of simply choosing the easiest route - the threat TPK's the party - he will choose the option that makes for the most interesting story, based on his understanding and the tables agreed upon criteria. So, instead of the big threat just automatically killing the PC's, he'll have the big threat toy with them, kick them around then send them on their way after making them cry in their boots. IOW, annoy the crap out of the party (and the players) to the point where they really, REALLY have a hate on for this guy and will now do virtually anything to get back at him. And, the balance master isn't concerned with balance in the way you mean it. If the PC's bite off more than they can chew, that's on them. The Balance Master is concerned with making sure that all the players are engaged in as equal a manner as possible (no one rides the pines if it can be avoided) and that game elements interact in such a way that no option becomes so good that it becomes the default. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with coddling players or anything like that. I get the immersion approach. I do. But, do we really need to dismiss other playstyles in such a way? [/QUOTE]

Verification