Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5011664" data-attributes="member: 48965">I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'd like to take a second and comment on it...&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Uhm, well going with your analogy, I would say they just dive in. They form connections through play, as opposed to those connections being pre-determined. I don't see either as inherently &quot;better&quot; but I can definitely see the differences suiting different playstyles or even different types of players.&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't think it's that much work to create enough seperate hooks that at least one will interest the PC's... especially if you are familiar with your players, or have played before with these people. I could see how someone brand new to the game might be slightly more difficult to judge, but they aren't likely to know what they necessarily want out the game anyway.&nbsp;&nbsp;Well one good reason I could entertain for not asking the players is that some people play the game to be entertained, and that entertainment is better for them when they are surprised instead of already knowing what the world holds for their character... Honestly, this is what I always liked about the feel of good S&amp;S fiction, the protagonists always seems to be subject more to the fickle hand of chaos than any type of pre-determined destiny or path... some people like that feel when playing the game. &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes the players become the focal point, but &quot;what is going to be used at the table in the first place&quot; isn't pre-determined, but grows organically through the choices the player(s) make. IMO, this allows for the very real chance that the PC's can discover interesting and exciting things that may not have occured to them during pre-campaign plotting. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't know what to say to this, except perhaps... you aren't trying to see the benefits in it, because it doesn't suit the style of game you play. Me personally I see the benefits of both styles and have used both in different campaigns.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 5011664, member: 48965"] I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'd like to take a second and comment on it... Uhm, well going with your analogy, I would say they just dive in. They form connections through play, as opposed to those connections being pre-determined. I don't see either as inherently "better" but I can definitely see the differences suiting different playstyles or even different types of players. I don't think it's that much work to create enough seperate hooks that at least one will interest the PC's... especially if you are familiar with your players, or have played before with these people. I could see how someone brand new to the game might be slightly more difficult to judge, but they aren't likely to know what they necessarily want out the game anyway. Well one good reason I could entertain for not asking the players is that some people play the game to be entertained, and that entertainment is better for them when they are surprised instead of already knowing what the world holds for their character... Honestly, this is what I always liked about the feel of good S&S fiction, the protagonists always seems to be subject more to the fickle hand of chaos than any type of pre-determined destiny or path... some people like that feel when playing the game. Yes the players become the focal point, but "what is going to be used at the table in the first place" isn't pre-determined, but grows organically through the choices the player(s) make. IMO, this allows for the very real chance that the PC's can discover interesting and exciting things that may not have occured to them during pre-campaign plotting. I don't know what to say to this, except perhaps... you aren't trying to see the benefits in it, because it doesn't suit the style of game you play. Me personally I see the benefits of both styles and have used both in different campaigns. [/QUOTE]

Verification