Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7383889" data-attributes="member: 82106">So, basically, the players are some lesser form of beast that doesn't have the ability to decide for itself what it wants? If they want an Altar, they can, by gosh, come up with a story element that potentially involves an altar! Lets suppose one of the PCs is a dwarf cleric of Moradin and he has an established interest in such things, then perhaps that interest will be addressed at this time, its at least a possibility. NO they are not!!!! They are simply 'missing out' on lots of things being irrelevant to their expressed interests in the game. Remember, interests don't have to be narrowly conceived. For instance there was another [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] example of the guy who wanted to conquer the world, remember? That kind of goal could be leveraged for a vast, unlimited, set of possible elements that the GM thinks to add to the game. The giants, the altar, the 'knight hung from the wall', any of those things could be intended as a hook to engage that interest (I'd generally formulate such things in terms of OTHER interests, consequences of past actions, related to known story elements, etc. but that isn't a hard rule). You guys, and maybe there's a subtle distinction here with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], certainly claimed we were railroading players by only presenting specific elements. I think you're splitting hairs here personally. I fully endorse Pemerton's technique, though I stated it could possibly be worth providing an explicit chance for the PCs to do some last-minute prep/tactics in that one situation. RAILROADING is crud like when the GM says "Yeah, that NPC you hired last week was really a spy for the bad guy and he knows all your secret plans, too bad I guess you'll have to assault the castle instead of sneaking in, sorry guys!" or even worse "You missed!" (when you actually hit the NPC that the GM is now giving plot armor to because it protects his backstory). I disagree that it is 'weaker on options'. It is STRONGER on options! Players have an infinite number of things they can think of which are fun. They are JUST AS CAPABLE OF DOING SO as the GM!!!!! To claim that this is not so isn't to claim a weakness in Story Now, it is to claim that players, as a type of game participant, are uniquely unqualified to come up with fun material. This is IMHO just balderdash, not even you actually believe it, but again you're going out on these weird limbs because you simply want to make certain unsupportable rhetorical points, I guess. It simply won't fly, players can take care of themselves.</blockquote>

Verification