Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4974114" data-attributes="member: 22424">This is a very good point, and a mistake I have made in the past in my GMing career.Sure, it can be fun to engage in a fight against impossible odds. But gamers seem to have an almost perverse need to apply logic to every scenario, ignoring story concerns. So, Luke can't destroy the Death Star, because of course the Empire put a shield on that weak spot. Bond never escapes the bad guys, because of course they've learned to promptly execute him after capture. And so it goes.And so, the PCs never get anywhere with their "fight against hopeless odds", because as soon as the PCs do anything to attract attention (which they will), the BBEG throws his elite minions after them, and crushes them like bugs. It's only logical.My epiphany came when watching "Stargate: SG-1" (about a year ago - I didn't watch it at the time). Logically, the heroes should have no chance - it should take years to get to grips with the alien technology, the Goa-uld are so much more powerful than our heroes, and O'Neill keeps blundering into trouble. But that would make a bad show. Instead, they keep somehow getting out of trouble at the last minute, they are able to adapt alien tech unrealistically quickly, and eventually they are able to actually defeat their many enemies.That model formed a core part of the foundation for my recent Star Wars campaign (with the "Clone Wars" series providing another important elements), and it worked very well indeed.</blockquote>

Verification