Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7334238" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Okay, understood. I can see how you wouldn't like it, but I do think that GM determined backstory is a useful tool. And I don't think it need be "where ever the players look to engage the fiction". The GM can determine some things, and leave others to be established during play. APs tend to be like that, yes. I have incorporated elements from some published modules, but I tend to alter them so that they are more open and less linear. I don't really see a problem with the game being about what the GM would like. Or at least, I don't see the problem if it's reasonable. If the players share the feeling, or are willing to go along with it, or if they're allowed to add things that they want so that the game is a collection of things wanted by everyone....then it's simply not a problem. I don't see why a random table result can't generate declaration blocking elements. I can see how it doesn't have to, but I think the risk of it is still there, no? As for the GM being locked onto one track...I don't think that need be the case if he remains flexible. If my players don't show interest in a story hook or element that I've introduced, then I will change or replace that element based on what their interests seem to be. Okay, but if we compare the search for the letter and the attack on the orc, I don't think they're exactly alike. One is the player actively seeking something, the other is the player responding to action from the game world. What if the orc is 100 feet away from the PC and is attacking them with a bow? Is not allowing the PC to retaliate with a melee attack denying their agency? Is the player free to resolve the issue of the orc in any way he sees fit? Or is he bound by the constraints of the fictional world? Is that any different than the hidden letter? It's location determines the chance of finding it. The orc's location determines the chance of hitting it with a sword. Both have restrictions based on where the things are in the game world. The PC choosing to draw his own bow and retaliate is the same as moving to another room to search there. No?I think the default assumption of many games, and of D&D certainly, is that the player should describe what the character does and then let the GM determine the outcome based on what's been established and the results of whatever check may be required (Search or Perception or what have you). The player is limited to describing what his character attempts to do. I think that the approach for the player to attempt to establish game elements beyond their character's actions is less common. No less viable, and certainly it has advantages to it that can create interesting play, but I don't think that many players would expect this to be the case. Not unless it was a specific game designed with mechanics that promoted this approach. I have incorporated this kind of approach in my game from time to time...not necessarily through player action declaration...but I have asked players to provide world details...."you find yourself in a dungeon....what brings you here?" and the like. They struggled with this at first....and this is a group of players who love to come up with story elements for their characters with the intention they be folded into the game. A creative group of players, for all intents and purposes. But it took a real shift to get them to think that way. It's probably a byproduct of the fact that most of their gaming experience has come from D&D in its many iterations, and similar games. And with using published modules as a template for how to construct an adventure scenario and run a game.</blockquote>

Verification