Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6116236" data-attributes="member: 85870">I can't XP you Celebrim, but this is a FANTASTIC analysis of the situation as I'm seeing it develop at the table, particularly this part: THIS is ABSOLUTELY the problem. And I think this is really what I felt as being the "surprising the GM" part of it all--the willingness to abandon, or disregard two potentially serious complications simply to continue pursuing the character / player's agenda. Now in retrospect, this isn't entirely unreasonable. In several ways, across several different sessions, I had emphasized that there's something "big" and "important" going on at this dig site, to the point that major guild organizations, rulers, and others were taking an interest in it. That said, I was troubled that Player 1 was so willing to ignore all of the other clues / hooks, especially as they related to Player 3's character. The discussion was primarily done out-of-character, rather than in-character, which would definitely have changed the complexion of the end decision, I think. Part of the problem was I don't think I was clear enough in establishinga) The fact that the NPC was missing was, in fact, an extraordinary circumstance that may be a serious cause for concern. b) That Player 3's circumstances warranted his character handling his "duties" first and foremost, regardless of other party concerns. Some of that lack of force was purposeful, however, because I didn't want it feel like I was "railroading." I did, however, want to present three potentially interesting "frames," with consequences for each that needed to be negotiated at the table. If the party DOESN'T go immediately to the dig, does the rival crime syndicate get there first? Are they endangering additional NPCs they've previously encountered (two assistants of the archaeologist)? If the party DOESN'T address Player 3's guild request, will there be consequences? Retribution? If the party DOESN'T explore the missing NPC of their order, will they be missing important future information? Are they being disloyal, or negligent toward their obligations toward the order? Each decision carries with it consequences, and I want to be "realistic" in the way those consequences are resolved. I don't think the world should remain "static" as the party goes off to explore the dig sit. I try not to EVER have pre-planned resolutions to scene frames; the characters' actions should determine the ultimate success or failure. The party was likewise free to pursue different agendas entirely, if they felt so motivated, but the world WILL react to whatever choice they make. In terms of "bullying," Player 1 isn't a bully. He's actually a very smart, intelligent, witty guy who actively pursues his agenda. It never felt like bullying at the table, but I did feel like perhaps there was a disconnect between Player 1's pursuit of his agenda, versus the potential consequences implied by the "framing." And that's why I'm trying to improve in this aspect, in determining how to present potential "frames" and their underlying "substance" as they apply to the PCs.This is also an excellent point--would forcing the players to play through the acquisition of travel resources lead to more consideration of what they were actually pursuing? Or would it have appeared to be, in the vein of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's complaints in the "Surprising the GM" thread, forcing them to engage with "stuff" they're not really interested in, since the dig site is the "goal"? </blockquote>

Verification