Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7346611" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think my basic answer is "yes, anything can be done badly." lol. See my previous answer, anything can be done badly!Beyond that, balancing different character's needs in the narrative and resolving the various different conflicts can go in different directions. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s example of the Rel Astra scenario illustrates one possibility (IE the agendas of the players and their characters can reach a point where a choice is made to align them or not and that choices forms part of the stakes and consequences of the situation for at least one player).Its also possible that the agenda of one player will predominate. This isn't all that uncommon in any sort of game (see more below). Part of the GM's job is to help players get some 'face time' in the game so they all get what they want to out of it. Again, it can be done well or badly. Is it possible that some scenarios represent situations which inherently cannot address everyone and may even be dilemmas where some needs CANNOT be met if others are? Its possible. This is sort of like the old time 'Paladin problem' though, the players maybe should work that out and the GM should probably not deliberately force things in that direction unless that's what everyone wants.I don't see any reason to believe that 'classical' approaches are more likely to address everyone's agenda than other approaches. I recall the 5e game I was in. I created a character with a pretty strong agenda. I played the character to that agenda and the GM mostly let me do so. At the same time I wasn't trying to monopolize the game, but I think there was a sense in which a lot of it did revolve around stuff that particular character wanted to do. A couple of the other player's didn't seem to really be too wrapped up in their characters, they played and went along, but I will note they also eventually stopped playing. A couple other players simply asserted what they wanted, and it was cool, but the game itself and its nature didn't make this any easier. It required the players and the GM to have a sense of what would be fun for everyone. 5e didn't either help or hinder this. A 'go to the action' narrative focus for the game might have changed the equation some. OTOH the GM of that game wasn't exactly hard-core on any particular way of playing, we just did 'whatever' in terms of technique. It was fine, that table is good, but if it wasn't then things could get borked quickly.</blockquote>

Verification