Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7336535" data-attributes="member: 82106">Interesting, its sometimes hard for me to say if what I'm doing is close to what you're doing. In HoML you can make trade-offs. By expending a resource a player can turn the narrative in a direction he desires, which is generally assumed to be favorable to the player's character, but it doesn't have to be. It is also possible to accept a 'setback' in order to reacquire the ability to spend this 'plot coupon'. I'd note that it ALWAYS requires narrative explanation, which is normally via some attribute of the character. Players are also generally free to establish their character's backstory, etc. As you say, when an adverse check result is produced, then it is up to the GM to 'reveal an unpleasant truth' or even make some sort of 'hard move' (IE introduce a direct threat which the PC must then react to or suffer some immediate effect from). I've found that the majority of my players are also good at introducing general story elements that move things forward. Some of them are themselves pretty accomplished GMs, so there's a fairly deep understanding on all our parts as to what is likely to push a game forward and make it interesting.For instance when I play a character I generally set some fairly ambitious goals and/or some kind of fairly explicit conflict that can be developed because I know that will push the game forward. Even if its a fairly straightforward 'classic' type of game that works mostly on hidden backstory this is a good idea. In the last campaign I played in my Dwarf Transmuter (this was our 5e experiment) as a highly ambitious fellow who was trying to build a whole new barony/kingdom/empire on the edge of civilization. The DM threw lots of problems at him. I'm not sure if that was a 'lets make this interesting' or a 'lets not let this rewrite the campaign world map' reaction exactly, but it certainly drove the character forward through the story!</blockquote>

Verification