Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7603452" data-attributes="member: 42582">Not always, in my experience.But in any event, what is the advantage in having the guard by my old friend Frances? Does the GM have no challeng to put before the players (and their characters) except that of getting past the gate?Huh? I don't think that the main purpose of RPG rules is to curb, or manage, dysfunction. They're to guide the play of the game.I don't think my table is dysfunctional, but we play various games, using the various rules and approaches that those games provide for us.************************************On player and GM authority over backstory: I have always taken it for granted that players can introduce elements into the fiction via their backstory. How excatly this is managed depends on system details. Eg games like AD&amp;D (with OA as an exception) or Rolemaster have no rules framework to manage this, so it's all by way of give-and-take, negotiation and consensus; games like Burning Wheel or Classic Traveller have lifepath PC generation which offers something of a framework, and BW has more bells and whistle on top of this, so it's not just about negotiation but about following the lead of the system.)I also think that the player's backstory is fair game for the GM, but obviously a certain degree of deftness is mandatory - eg the player should have in some sense put his/her backstory at risk. In the example of Frances the guard, if the player's check (say, a CHA check) is unsuccessful then I think it's absolutely fair game for the GM to narrate Frances as recalling some adverse event, or retaining some grudge, that the player hadn't mentioned and that the player's PC hadn't appreciated would be Frances's principal motivation upon their re-meeting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7603452, member: 42582"] Not always, in my experience. But in any event, [I]what is the advantage[/I] in having the guard by [I]my old friend Frances[/I]? Does the GM have no challeng to put before the players (and their characters) except that of getting past the gate? Huh? I don't think that the main purpose of RPG rules is to curb, or manage, dysfunction. They're to guide the play of the game. I don't think my table is dysfunctional, but we play various games, using the various rules and approaches that those games provide for us. ************************************ On player and GM authority over backstory: I have always taken it for granted that players can introduce elements into the fiction via their backstory. How excatly this is managed depends on system details. Eg games like AD&D (with OA as an exception) or Rolemaster have no rules framework to manage this, so it's all by way of give-and-take, negotiation and consensus; games like Burning Wheel or Classic Traveller have lifepath PC generation which offers something of a framework, and BW has more bells and whistle on top of this, so it's not just about negotiation but about following the lead of the system.) I also think that the player's backstory is fair game for the GM, but obviously a certain degree of deftness is mandatory - eg the player should have in some sense put his/her backstory at risk. In the example of Frances the guard, if the player's check (say, a CHA check) is unsuccessful then I think it's absolutely fair game for the GM to narrate Frances as recalling some adverse event, or retaining some grudge, that the player hadn't mentioned and that the player's PC hadn't appreciated would be Frances's principal motivation upon their re-meeting. [/QUOTE]

Verification