Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5583838" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I think that I'd classify "undesirable" as "negative" for all intents and purposes. That is, if it is desirable, it's not really negative to the player. To the PC, sure, it might be negative, but even that seems somewhat muted from your examples (such as the paladin willingly taking the beating, as it served to help the PC move in such a way that he's somewhat redeemed).As far as character death goes, I don't hold that any character death is pointless. In my last session (which was a big one), two PCs ended up dead. The second died rather in a rather heroic way, essentially pinning down the magic of two demons and a dragon singlehandedly before being focused on and killed.The first character, however, simply flew up into view of the most powerful demon on the realm, who was anchored in place magically. It killed him. He had been warned, and he ignored it to go after a taunting demon, and it cost him his life. What did this do, however? It caused one PC to literally mourn for days in the tent of his fallen comrade (the same PC who ended up dying), and then go about seeing if he could learn demonic phrases to say when dispatching demons. This character had been largely against combat up to this point (he was a healer), and vowed vengeance on behalf of his friend. Without his friend dying, he may not have been so driven to confront the two demons that eventually killed him, but without him, his three remaining comrades would surely have died (they barely won the fight without him, and only because of what he had contributed thus far).Deaths are only meaningless if the players let them be. I've had several PC deaths, and the funerals or ceremonies that follow often carry with it great avenues to roleplay down.I'm not even going into the "threat of death makes it more exciting" even if I do subscribe to it. I think from a pure RP standpoint, it's much more exciting saying "yes, we killed two of the twelve Imprisoned, but at the great cost of one of our own" and seeing the character development that follows such a sacrifice.And this sounds like a cool story to me, with cool events. I'd probably have a good time playing in it.I don't see PCs as platforms, because I don't see PCs as authors. With my group, it's about immersion, and attaching to the specific character. To that end, the consequences in-game to the character, desirable or not, drive the immersion. Things don't always go the way you want them to. To my group, the point of the experience is the journey, not the destination. So, while we may experience a bump in the road, that bump really drives home immersion in a way that constant meta concerns would interfere with.As I said, it's a playstyle thing. It's right for my group, and undoubtedly wrong with yours. I'd lay odds, though, that I could have fun in your style of game.I would not classify "the demon stops beating paladin out of boredom to pursue what it would naturally do next [such as kill the paladin, or moving on to a town, or tormenting travelers, or any other such activity that seems reasonable for a demon of its mindset]" as guiding the players in the least.With my style, I'm reacting to the decisions the players make as well, I just don't react in any way that will prompt new decisions unless those decisions seem reasonable. From that point of view, I'm not guiding them anywhere. Where they travel to -and the consequences of those travels- are played out based solely on their decisions. If I were to prompt new choices or decisions, then I'd say I'd be guiding them -which, as far as I can tell, is the style you GM from.Now, there's nothing wrong with that style to me inherently (it's how I run M&M, for example), but from my point of view, it's definitely more guiding than mine is. And generally speaking, guiding is a precursor to railroading.That's understandable, but we have a fundamental split in how we play. I think we've explored this somewhat in the past. But, if nothing else, I prefer a simulationist approach while greatly favoring immersion, and I'm not sure you share those goals. In the end, we both have fun, so that's good <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=":)" />My player isn't defined in the way you describe - but my interest and investment in the game is defined by the way I can use my PC to do stuff, which is typically going to be expressed by building up certain relationships in the setting and acting on them.</blockquote>Yeah, this sounds like you achieved things "which I could then use to do the stuff I wanted to do" and that's not a bad thing. Even in my simulationist approach, it's a good thing. However, losing those things is not the devastating thing that it seems to be with your situation (I'm not diminishing it, I know there are other factors, such as the entirely setting changing).From a simulationist point of view, exploring this could be very interesting from the character perspective. From the more narrative point of view, it's stopping you from telling the story you want to. Maybe your GM just had a more simulationist take on things, and your wants went unheard or were dismissed. If the latter is the case, perhaps finding a more satisfactory GM was the answer (which it sounds like you either pursued, or you starting GMing, which are both good answers).That's probably true most of the time. I tend to see the session as joint, but the setting being GM-run. If the GM wants to do that, I think he has more right than any player at the table. Now, it's probably bad GMing to enforce it, and I think players should only play if they're having fun, but I think the responsibility of setting falls to the GM.Well, as you might guess, I probably wouldn't decide to make the "more interesting" decision. I'd make one I thought was reasonable, and stick with it. I think any story that progresses from natural consequences has much more meaning than story that was decided most of the time.My players do love taking down the big bad demons, though, and there's story enough behind them. However, the really epic tales to them are the result of random die rolls, especially via the "Hit Chart" (on a hit, roll d100 to see the effect, which can be anything from a bonus in combat, to a mortal wound, groin shot, or weapon damaged type effect (with saves as appropriate). There are at least two instances where these random rolls have produced player-favorite stories to rehash to our two newer players (one of which included a melee human fighter PC losing both eyes, separately, on two different attacks in the same fight. The PC was played for over two more years real time, and died of old age 70 years later game time at the age of 90).I'd say that "invalidating play choices" is not railroading necessarily. You do that simply by choosing limits. Playable races or classes are the most common. What if one player wants to start at level 10, not 1, for a concept? What if someone didn't want to have a reason to fight goblins, and instead had a concept of some sort of sympathizer?I think, in general, the demand of "needs to be loyal to something or someone" and "needs to be ready to fight goblins" is just as railroady as "this is semi-medieval times, so no guns allowed." That is, I don't think it's really railroady, as it's a setting issue, and a meta issue. When comparing it to "you made a bad decision, and your character had something bad happen to it, even if you don't really like it," I find the latter even more acceptable, as it's even less of a meta issue. It's not a setting issue, it's a playstyle issue.Meta issues draw immersion away from the game. Narrative games tend to be more meta in nature. That's not to say my game doesn't have a plethora of immersion-breaking moments, though. "What do I know about this" or "I'll roll a Knowledge check" do break the immersion somewhat. Narrative games have the advantage of this not hurting the feeling of the game.However, they also don't allow for you to explore the character's mind, and that to me is the big downfall of the approach (though this is personal, and I'm not even speaking for my group right now). When playing a character, I can see how another person might approach things, and it really opens up new ways of thinking. It really let's you explore some depths to your own mind that you wouldn't normally reach. The more meta this becomes, however, the more drawn out of the character you become. This prevents this style of self-exploration that could be taking place, which is probably the most fascinating thing about playing a character to me.Then again, I hate movies where I'm reminded I'm watching a movie. This means that I naturally hate claymation, breaking the fourth wall, most "stupid humor" or the like. This, as a personal preference, carries over into the game I run, and the group shares the playstyle (though definitely not my taste in movies). Escaping the meta is valuable, and really feeling the emotion of the character (not the situation) is what we often seek at the table.At any rate, I really enjoy the long discussion. I'm not sure we're headed anywhere, but I think your style is interesting, and not quite as heavy-handed as I first imagined. I'm pretty sure I'd have fun in your game. As always, play what you like <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=":)" />[/QUOTE]

Verification