Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2179692" data-attributes="member: 2205">OK, gotcha.I'm somewhat familiar with what books on authorship consider story, having read a handful of them.  I'm not talking about some jargonized, specialized use of the word.  A story without a plot is not a story.  My games don't have plots.  They have potential plots, but they aren't realized until the PCs take action and turn them into plots.  Hence, my preparation does not involve writing stories, and the product of my games are stories.  It's really quite simple, and it does involve "laymens terms" use of the word story, not some esoteric Forge iteration.Really, the only reason I bring that up is that I'm very wary of writing a "story" and calling it an adventure for your players to run through.  I'm even more wary of GM's that force the game into this "story."  To get back to the original question, I'd honestly rather not a GM bend or break rules for the sake of the "story" because that often means "his story" that is already predetermined is more important that "our story" that we develop jointly by the PC's actions.  I don't mind a GM making rulings of the fly, or even changing rules that don't seem to make sense.  But I'm wary of GMs who do so for the wrong reason, the "story" is more often the problem than the solution.</blockquote>