Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9769015" data-attributes="member: 6785785">No, I disagree. If a GM is a good enough actor to actually evoke emotion in players that regularly and strongly, then sure, they should continue to do it. If they’re not… and my guess is that the vast majority are not… then they should not expand an area of the role they’re not strong at. They should focus on their strengths. Who said anything about action without reason? The reason can be summed up in a sentence. It doesn’t need to be backed by a performance. Right. So then, if this is what the DM has prepared… what does he do if the players somehow shoot the idea down? You may say “anything else” and that might work for you or for me, but it’s not gonna work for everyone. Again, we were talking about a game with a prepared adventure that is the expected focus of play. I don’t see how. Most likely that hasn’t actually been established already. If it has, you simply include that in the flashback. What’s “properly” mean in this context? I’m offering my preference and explaining why I hold it, but Imm not presenting it as the “proper way” to do it. Because I expect performance is less of an important factor for me than it is for you. I don’t think the game is enhanced all that much by having a drawn out interaction just for us to wind up exactly where we would without it. If my GM was Edward Norton or Daniel Day Lewis, I’d probably be more willing to let them put on a show. But when it’s my old buddy Joe? Set the scene and let’s go, buddy.</blockquote>

Verification