Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5689847" data-attributes="member: 59248">I don't think &quot;go with what the players provide, rather than sticking to your plot&quot; has to involve avoiding keeping stuff running (kinda the opposite).&nbsp; Instead, it involves being flexible about what the relationship of the players to your plot is -- or even what your plot is.Hmm.&nbsp; Lemme give an example, mostly because I'm curious about what people will think of it:So, in 1995, at the Worldcon in Glasgow, I played in an adventure set in Marcus Rowland's &quot;Professor Challenger&quot; setting (based on the Doyle stories, using his PD Forgotten Futures rules), run by the epinomious author.&nbsp; This was a great no-combat adventure (pretty close to pure storytelling) -- our YA characters investigated Loch Ness, ran into a boy who claime that the Loch Ness monster was his friend, took the leap of believing him and setting out on the Loch in a small boat, and ended up befriending the monster, who became a now more open celebrity.The thing is, as Marcus explained after the adventure was over, he'd not intended to the make the Monster friendly.&nbsp; In fact, he intended the boy's claims to be a complete fabrication, the Monster an unintelligent beast, and that the adventure would cumulate in a battle against the ancient pleosaur that had been turned in legend into Loch Ness' mascot to prevent it from destroying life and property.So why'd he change it?&nbsp; Because by (to his surprise), going with the &quot;the monster's my friend&quot; avenue, we'd changed the narrative basis of the story.&nbsp; Unlike typical illusionism (where what the GM's going to do remains the same regardless of the player's actions), in this case, the only way to keep the story feeling like a YA adventure in the face of our optimism was to make the story, not about driving away or killing the Monster, but about discovering it and convincing the world that it was nominatively harmless.&nbsp; Fundamentally, in this instance, we (unknowingly) derailed Marcus's plot, and rather than sticking to his initial ideas, he went with what we have instead of his original ideas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mneme, post: 5689847, member: 59248"] I don't think "go with what the players provide, rather than sticking to your plot" has to involve avoiding keeping stuff running (kinda the opposite). Instead, it involves being flexible about what the relationship of the players to your plot is -- or even what your plot is. Hmm. Lemme give an example, mostly because I'm curious about what people will think of it: So, in 1995, at the Worldcon in Glasgow, I played in an adventure set in Marcus Rowland's "Professor Challenger" setting (based on the Doyle stories, using his PD Forgotten Futures rules), run by the epinomious author. This was a great no-combat adventure (pretty close to pure storytelling) -- our YA characters investigated Loch Ness, ran into a boy who claime that the Loch Ness monster was his friend, took the leap of believing him and setting out on the Loch in a small boat, and ended up befriending the monster, who became a now more open celebrity. The thing is, as Marcus explained after the adventure was over, he'd not intended to the make the Monster friendly. In fact, he intended the boy's claims to be a complete fabrication, the Monster an unintelligent beast, and that the adventure would cumulate in a battle against the ancient pleosaur that had been turned in legend into Loch Ness' mascot to prevent it from destroying life and property. So why'd he change it? Because by (to his surprise), going with the "the monster's my friend" avenue, we'd changed the narrative basis of the story. Unlike typical illusionism (where what the GM's going to do remains the same regardless of the player's actions), in this case, the only way to keep the story feeling like a YA adventure in the face of our optimism was to make the story, not about driving away or killing the Monster, but about discovering it and convincing the world that it was nominatively harmless. Fundamentally, in this instance, we (unknowingly) derailed Marcus's plot, and rather than sticking to his initial ideas, he went with what we have instead of his original ideas. [/QUOTE]

Verification