Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6122370" data-attributes="member: 85870">The question is, where does the balance of veto power reside? I think Hussar definitely has a point--why should I as a player invest time in playing out scenes that from my view have little to no "relevance" to my character's goals in game, and / or my goals as a player to maximize my enjoyment? Hussar's made it very clear that his tolerance of "tangential" material is low. I can't fault him for that. I currently have a player in my group who's like that as well. I like this player, I want to continue playing with this player indefinitely, and his desire to avoid "superfluous" scenes is something I have to account for. I think this thread has given me some excellent ideas for getting the players to more readily "sync" their agendas through in-character interaction (thanks a ton Celebrim! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />).  However, I will say this as well---if players are getting crappy scenes to interact with, in my experience it's occasionally because the players have never bothered to include "hook points" in their character backgrounds, builds, or attitude. I see players ALL THE TIME who just show up at the table, throw out some wacky min-max character build with only the thinnest line of marginal connection to the GM's prepared material, and then wonder why it's so hard for the GM to give them "the awesome." (I'm not saying anyone participating in this thread does it, I'm just commenting on my own experience.) I think as a player you have to be willing to do one of two things---either bring a good, defined character concept that's relevant to the campaign, or be willing to wade through a GM's herky-jerky, start-and-stop attempts at trying to assimilate the "character concept hodge-podge" into something coherent.I know not all groups agree, but to me the whole reason to have a GM is to have someone there to create a plot, a setting, and a story that allow the players to build their own personal "narratives," both in and out of character. If there's no reason for "story," why not just play a tactical minis game instead? But the question I've been trying to resolve in my head, based on my experience, is why did the "transition scene" from the city to the dig site seem to break down in play? Was it competing player agendas? If so, did I need to take more time to be aware of those agendas? Was it a problem with scene framing, where the consequences of choices were unclear, and thus the players didn't have a clear conception of what to do? Was it bound to happen no matter what I did, given that 3 of the 4 players have (to this point) weakly defined in-game motivations? But if I knew they had weakly defined character motives, should I have presented alternate, or additional scenes in which those motivations could have been expressed in-game?I also don't think that a GM giving players what they want inevitably leads to the GM "missing out" on something. If the players understand that the GM is actively trying to produce certain themes, and interesting scenes to engage, the group can build a synergy toward that goal together.</blockquote>

Verification