Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9093587" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I had endeavored to be more gracious about it (at least, moreso than my original response), but yeah, this part did get my back up: "I think some will say players that have success more often weighted in their favor have greater control over the narrative and thus greater agency." Like I said, it comes across as perilously close to "just let the players succeed all the time," which is a pervasive and very frustrating insult pointed at "narrative"/"storytelling"/etc. games. It's happened in this thread, and in (AFAIK) every previous thread where anything related to "narrative"/"storytelling"/etc. has come up.E.g., when I tell folks that my players and I aren't interested in permitting random, permanent, irrevocable* character deaths, a good half of the time, the response is some flavor of, "Oh, so everyone just always succeeds at everything forever and never ever works for anything? Wow, that sounds like absolute garbage, no thanks!" Which is pretty sad, honestly. It's quite rare for someone who thinks death is the only meaningful consequence (a position I thoroughly reject) to approach it as a way to learn something new, instead treating it as something to mock and/or ward off with signs-against-evil.*Random: the result of crap luck or unforeseeable stuff, as opposed to deaths resulting from something the player actually has responsibility for. Permanent: Dead and staying that way, rather than something that will get reversed on its own. Irrevocable: whether in practice or in absolute, the players can't do anything to bring the dead character back. Only when all three apply is there a problem. If it's non-random, it can be permanent and/or irrevocable, etc.</blockquote>

Verification