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="ST" data-source="post: 3703868" data-attributes="member: 14053">Just FYI, there are actually games that work this way (Donjon, for one), and they're pretty fun. By which I mean, they allow you to modify the game world, not that they let you define all the conflicts and fiat all the outcomes -- obviously that's never going to be fun. Many more games allow you to narrate in minor changes with a successful roll or expenditure of a resource. One thing that may be tripping you up is a focus on the imagined environment as "the point" of the game. I've been in lots of games where the scene details are changeable by the players (for instance, a Zelazny-style Chronicles of Amber game where you could, in character, say "I round the corner and find a magic sword"), and those games still had interesting conflicts. You just didn't make the stuff you could do "effortlessly" the focus of the conflict.I see that you prioritize things like "surprise" and "sense of discovery", so it sounds like a coherent imagined game-world is important for you. In that case, think of co-DMing as a situation where each of you play a "name level" PC and a lower level character, and when it's your turn to run things, your high level PC sets up situations the other players' low-level PCs have to deal with. That allows for collaborative story creation without jeopardizing the imagined fidelity of the game world.But generally, collaborative-narration games work because their design allows for it. Straight-up collaborative D&D where the player is also the DM doesn't work, because it's not designed for that possibility. Or to try to sum up a too-long post, yes, if the game's about killing things and taking their stuff, you don't let the players handle that part. But if it's about something else, they could.</blockquote>

Verification