Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7341510" data-attributes="member: 82106">Is any of this really a big issue? Is it really related to what sort of model of game you choose to accept? I mean, I wouldn't imagine that, in a game I ran, that the players would have doped out all of exactly what the CONSEQUENCES of regicide would be. OTOH I would imagine they would have considered the possibilities, weighed their options, and chosen (hopefully based mostly on RP considerations mixed with their agenda etc.) We didn't delve into the motivations of the characters, or the players for that matter, in my example. So, yeah, the consequences of killing the king are probably complex, and perhaps so variable that in a realistic sense you wouldn't know what they would be. In a dramatic story they might well be more definite, but that's not a given. I'd say that the wager the players are making, character interests put up against steering the narrative, means that the players get SOME say in what happens next. That doesn't mean that the GM (or the players themselves for that matter) can't produce a narrative where the consequences are out of the PC's hands, or different from what they have expressed in-game as their desires. Remember, the goals of the characters and the players need not coincide. Usually players are advocates for their characters, but that doesn't mean they can't wish complications and setbacks on them. Certainly the GM is free to introduce 'unpleasant facts' as Dungeon World puts it. This is a part of moving to the action. Once the assassination has happened, then the GM is going to once again 'move to the action', so perhaps some of the noble houses ally with an outside power against them, they find themselves taking to the battlefield outnumbered. Will they achieve victory or go down in defeat? Will the Princess rule or the Bastard? Come back next week to play it out!</blockquote>

Verification