Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5025885" data-attributes="member: 8835">All these seperate quoted topic fragments is getting tricky to manage... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I think this method is going better than previous methods for trying to explain/justify a methodology.  To much arguing/strawmanning, not enough simple question asking.I definitely tend to think the DM is the guy in charge, he does all the work, he decides tons of stuff.  It's a different methodology.I'm definitely not used to that idea.  Your way is foreign to me, though I think I can envision how it would work successfully.  For me it's an ownership->passion->quality.  The guy who truly owns the idea will be most passionate about making it work.  That could have side-effects...Not a problem.  It's not a big deal anyway, just something that has bugged me and my friends when we switch to other rules systems for some campaigns.I tend to not seperate them.  But I also have the philosophy of "if you're going to have fun playing BattleTech, stop finding scientific reasons as to why a 100 ton atlas couldn't walk without sinking into the ground and getting stuck."  Basically, make your fluff fit the rules, or you will never be happy with the fluff.You're right that you could, but as you agree below, the best drama is stuff that happens in game.  If your default assumption is a 1st level PC who is young, he should have "less" drama pre-game, and that will encourage in-game drama to be the high-point.In the monk example, in 2 actual play sessions, the monk failed to achieve some goals.  Failed as in can't retreat and try again, the girl is dead.  So while I've written about planning a probable PC party path through my adventure that also assumes success, I am more than happy to let things change as the party makes serious mistakes.  The monk is from a pseudo-japanese culture, is very Honor and Giri based.  All it took was in-game failure at very personal goals/tasks to disgrace him.  It wasn't like he failed in a mission he was ordered on as a Marine.  He failed at doing some stuff during his shore leave that was Honor related.  For our group, it wasn't some made up before-game reason.  The monk player entered the game, tried to do some "monk" personal side-quest stuff, and failed.  The nature of the side-quests was directly honor related (for him).  He did not want to fail, he didn't decide ahead of time, you know, it'd be fun exploring losing my girl-friend so I think I'll fail this mission.That's what made it all the more richer.  The player failed.  He felt that failure.  And that failure was then reflected in the PC.  And yes, as DM, I had a hand in presenting the opportunity for failing...but then, that's the point of taking on a challenge.  I could have just made some combat encounters for him to get monky on.  Instead, I made encounters that had meaning for the PC.  The player, being invested in the PC, felt what the PC felt.  The failure hurt, because it had in-game and out of game impact.Or I could have done the monk as a Prince who blows his money.  I like the outcome of my method.  Getting an emotional reaction out of a player that is relayed back into the PC is priceless.When I talk about using story elements.  That's what I mean and why I use them.I think that if a DM let the player put in backstory drama, the value would be to use it to drive IN-GAME drama.  Basically, go ahead and have a little pre-game drama, I'll use it to twist the fork and build you some real drama.My main focus is, the in-game drama is where the money-shot is.</blockquote>

Verification