Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5086913" data-attributes="member: 80487">As a player, I like to use my autonomy to make sure that my character is in a position so that my actions and decisions have meaningful consequences.At the same time, I find it frustrating to wander around without an objective. Therefore, I choose an objective.The question is, what are those additional techniques?That is the case in the non-storytelling game. The question is, what is different about your storytelling game? Well, as a matter of fact some prior concept of "the story" is necessary in order to "guide" anything toward it and away from something else. You've got to know the way to San Jose before you can choose it on that basis! Otherwise, you're right back to the old "non-storytelling" game in which whatever happens is -- after the fact -- identified as "the story". The arrow of time and causality here is a fact of life.Again, no difference is addressed. The difference that I would like to see addressed is that you are moving the GM from a disinterested judge to a judge with an agenda. The exceptional powers remain, but not the critical distinction in role.So many words, completely to avoid the question! When a GM is forcing events to conform to a "story", he or she is acting like a theatrical director -- not a game umpire. The contrast between what the 'players' are allowed by Orson Welles and the decisive decision-making many people associate with playing a game is the point here.Yet more avoidance of actual dialog? It is frustrating ... depending on what your definition of 'is' is, Senator. I am not talking about whipping out Game X and calling it "D&D" just because one happens to be Bill Slavicsek. I could whip out the same game and call it Macaroni, obviously.Someone could "have a desire for his tractor to fly". However, simply repeating that statement of desire would not answer the really interesting interpretation -- the common-sense interpretation, I think -- of the question, "What makes a tractor a vehicle of choice for flight?" The restatement adds nothing to the conversation!This is a question about practical matters of game implementation, where "the rubber hits the road" -- where new 'editions' might possibly have some justification related to playing the game.As opposed to everyone playing all those other games the same way? I don't see that. Neither do I see how that is any argument at all for doing a 'makeover' of D&D instead of trying to do storytelling with, say, The Storyteller System. Last but not least, I do not see how "people not playing the same way" gives such self-evident -- for so you treat it -- privilege to those who think that playing it as the designers designed it to be played sucks. How is that a warrant for them to dictate what the game shall "Officially" be to those who have made the mistake of choosing the game because  (madness of madnesses!) they actually like it as it is?Help me out here; throw me a bone of logical reasoning. Somehow, it does not appear to me that AD&D became the #1 RPG on the basis of how many people thought it was the wrong design with the wrong design goals. Nor have I seen people flocking to White Wolf because they find the "storytelling" thing such a drag as to demand spending their hard-earned cash on it.</blockquote>

Verification