Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9022848" data-attributes="member: 2629">I think you're looking at this from a difficult perspective, and a change of frame might make your job easier, might provide more fun for you, and might make the game better for your players.When I prepare for a game I have two phases - build and execution.&nbsp; During build, I am creative and think about what might be interesting from a story perspective.&nbsp; I look at what is possible and makes sense for my setting, and then I build out the idea and shift it into my execution phase.&nbsp; Once something is in execution, my job is to try to not to be creative, or to think about how it impacts the story ... it is to be true to the design intent and let that collide with whatever the players decide to do.&nbsp; In a sense, I try to be two different people with two different jobs: The story writer in build, and the director/actors in execution.&nbsp; Why do I like this approach?&nbsp; Because it prevents me from thinking about &quot;the script&quot; during the game.&nbsp; I am not thinking about where the story is supposed to go, but instead I think about how to unfold the collision of player approach and the materials I've prepared.In your circumstance, during the build phase I'd have prepared the game in a way that anticipated what the player told me they thought they'd do ... and then during execution I'd have watched him collapse my house of cards and change the script.&nbsp; As he did so, I'd manage as the other kingdom looked at the situation and dealt with a demanding princess that wanted immediate war - when they were not set up to do it.Now, there are times where the PCs go into unprepared situations and I have to be creative mid-game.&nbsp; I have been doing this a long time, so I have a lot of &quot;ready to go&quot; ideas that I can drop into a game if the PCs visit an unexpected NPC, if they go off the trail to look for monsters, or if they make a false assumption and decide to break into an innocent noble's house to investigate whether they're secretly a cultist.&nbsp; I can use those &quot;mostly ready&quot; materials and improvise around the things I do have prepared - but when doing so I try to create a central idea for where it is going that is not a direct response to what the PCs decided to do - and then be true to that idea.&nbsp; All in all, I think this results in a better game.&nbsp; It feels more organic.&nbsp; The PCs have more agency.&nbsp; The world feels like they're changing it rather than it feels like they're executing my script.&nbsp; All of these things seem to be good to me.&nbsp; Rather than dealing with players doing too much to change my plans, I worry more that players are not doing enough to insert their own plans.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9022848, member: 2629"] I think you're looking at this from a difficult perspective, and a change of frame might make your job easier, might provide more fun for you, and might make the game better for your players. When I prepare for a game I have two phases - build and execution. During build, I am creative and think about what might be interesting from a story perspective. I look at what is possible and makes sense for my setting, and then I build out the idea and shift it into my execution phase. Once something is in execution, my job is to try to [I]not[/I] to be creative, or to think about how it impacts the story ... it is to be true to the design intent and let that collide with whatever the players decide to do. In a sense, I try to be two different people with two different jobs: The story writer in build, and the director/actors in execution. Why do I like this approach? Because it prevents me from thinking about "the script" during the game. I am not thinking about where the story is supposed to go, but instead I think about how to unfold the collision of player approach and the materials I've prepared. In your circumstance, during the build phase I'd have prepared the game in a way that anticipated what the player told me they thought they'd do ... and then during execution I'd have watched him collapse my house of cards and change the script. As he did so, I'd manage as the other kingdom looked at the situation and dealt with a demanding princess that wanted immediate war - when they were not set up to do it. Now, there are times where the PCs go into unprepared situations and I have to be creative mid-game. I have been doing this a long time, so I have a lot of "ready to go" ideas that I can drop into a game if the PCs visit an unexpected NPC, if they go off the trail to look for monsters, or if they make a false assumption and decide to break into an innocent noble's house to investigate whether they're secretly a cultist. I can use those "mostly ready" materials and improvise around the things I do have prepared - but when doing so I try to create a central idea for where it is going that is not a direct response to what the PCs decided to do - and then be true to that idea. All in all, I think this results in a better game. It feels more organic. The PCs have more agency. The world feels like they're changing it rather than it feels like they're executing my script. All of these things seem to be good to me. Rather than dealing with players doing too much to change my plans, I worry more that players are not doing enough to insert their own plans. [/QUOTE]

Verification