Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5015209" data-attributes="member: 21169">I suspect the play styles are less divergent than they might appear. The internet has a tendency to exaggerate differences, to polarise opinions. Really, it's a crappy communication tool.WotC's <a href="http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html" target="_blank">market survey</a> shows that all dedicated rpgers have the same basic requirements in a game, including &quot;Strong Characters and Exciting Story&quot;, &quot;Requires Strategic Thinking&quot; and &quot;Mentally challenging&quot;. To me, this demonstrates that everyone wants a bit of game and everyone wants a bit of story. The balance obviously varies quite a bit from player to player, but less than that filthy lying whore, the internet, makes it seem.Even in the classic modules, one can see elements of plot/story. Descent Into the Depths of the Earth is a story. Progression of bigger giants, deeper drow. Leaders such as Nosnra and Eclavdra are story climaxes. Sure the PCs' actions determine when the climax takes place, maybe it never does, but the point is - the significance of the encounter is there in the text, these encounters, as written, are more significant than a run-of-the-mill 4 hill giant scullery maids.Likewise when Gary put Scrolls of Protection from Plants in Temple of Elemental Evil, knowing that there are plant monsters, including the BBEG Zuggtmoy. That right there is a story. Maybe the scroll is never found. Maybe the plants are never encountered. It doesn't matter. All a plot is, is a connected series of events. The scroll and the plant monsters form a plot. We don't have to wait until it comes out in play, we can see it in the text. When Gary put that scroll in - he was imagining it being used against the plants. When the reader learns that both elements exist, he also imagines it. He sees how the scroll could be used. At this point, the reader, the GM, has conceived a plot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doug McCrae, post: 5015209, member: 21169"] I suspect the play styles are less divergent than they might appear. The internet has a tendency to exaggerate differences, to polarise opinions. Really, it's a crappy communication tool. WotC's [URL="http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html"]market survey[/URL] shows that all dedicated rpgers have the same basic requirements in a game, including "Strong Characters and Exciting Story", "Requires Strategic Thinking" and "Mentally challenging". To me, this demonstrates that everyone wants a bit of game and everyone wants a bit of story. The balance obviously varies quite a bit from player to player, but less than that filthy lying whore, the internet, makes it seem. Even in the classic modules, one can see elements of plot/story. Descent Into the Depths of the Earth is a story. Progression of bigger giants, deeper drow. Leaders such as Nosnra and Eclavdra are story climaxes. Sure the PCs' actions determine when the climax takes place, maybe it never does, but the point is - the significance of the encounter is there in the text, these encounters, as written, are more significant than a run-of-the-mill 4 hill giant scullery maids. Likewise when Gary put Scrolls of Protection from Plants in Temple of Elemental Evil, knowing that there are plant monsters, including the BBEG Zuggtmoy. That right there is a story. Maybe the scroll is never found. Maybe the plants are never encountered. It doesn't matter. All a plot is, is a connected series of events. The scroll and the plant monsters form a plot. We don't have to wait until it comes out in play, we can see it in the text. When Gary put that scroll in - he was imagining it being used against the plants. When the reader learns that both elements exist, he also imagines it. He sees how the scroll could be used. At this point, the reader, the GM, has conceived a plot. [/QUOTE]

Verification