Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5028068" data-attributes="member: 8835">I'm OK with that.&nbsp; On just about anythread here, we should ALL assume the other person is talking about their methods and how they are working for them.&nbsp; Thus, Hussar talks about HussarWayism, and Ariosto is talking about Ariostoism.&nbsp; Where some folks take it to onetruewayism is by attacking somebody else's wayism.I don't disagree with this.&nbsp; In any of the games that I have had minimal planning with my PC and the DM and the world, before game start, they probably have minimal depth.&nbsp; I believe I have made memorable characters despite that, though some were less memorable than others.&nbsp; I believe that my more memorable of those characters were because I brought a depth to those characters, despite the lack of material to work with.&nbsp; I won't claim &quot;acting skill&quot;, but what I'm talking about is how an actor can bring a character to life.&nbsp; At times, I can make more out of what little I've been given to work with.&nbsp; And as the game goes on, it gets better.Yup, that sucks.&nbsp; But I'm a story GM, not a sandbox GM.&nbsp; SO I do try to prevent PC death when I can.&nbsp; I have to make the PCs believe death is very possible.&nbsp; And at times, the dice have to fall where they may.&nbsp; PC death is a tricky thing.&nbsp; There are side effects for protecting PCs and benefits.&nbsp; There are side effects for killing them off willy nilly, and benefits.I think I said something to the same effect.&nbsp; Exceptions don't count.&nbsp; They're interesting, they're anecdotal.&nbsp; For the purposes of making a general rule or observation, they don't count.&nbsp; Yet people like to cite them anway.I like to think that people play RPGs to get away from the real world.&nbsp; To do what they can't, and NOT have the same consequences and limitations that block them from venting their frustrations in real life.I don't disagree with you here.&nbsp; Ariosto has been chastized at least once by a moderator in this thread, and in the earlier pages he seemed to be the &quot;dogs suck, why would you want one&quot; type person at a dog show.&nbsp; He could use to show a little respect and tone down the rhetoric when he's in a thread about a topic he disagrees with.Yeah, I do assume a lot of combat, but then I'm mostly talking D&amp;D.&nbsp; Even D&amp;D doesn't have to be pure combat.&nbsp; But then, the base topic of that point was PC death, which generally happens in combat....My point was that some folks cited earlier in this post will take anything said here to mean railroading, as evidenced by the length of this thread and how much it was NOT about using plot, and instead trying to explain how plot was not railroading.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5028068, member: 8835"] I'm OK with that. On just about anythread here, we should ALL assume the other person is talking about their methods and how they are working for them. Thus, Hussar talks about HussarWayism, and Ariosto is talking about Ariostoism. Where some folks take it to onetruewayism is by attacking somebody else's wayism. I don't disagree with this. In any of the games that I have had minimal planning with my PC and the DM and the world, before game start, they probably have minimal depth. I believe I have made memorable characters despite that, though some were less memorable than others. I believe that my more memorable of those characters were because I brought a depth to those characters, despite the lack of material to work with. I won't claim "acting skill", but what I'm talking about is how an actor can bring a character to life. At times, I can make more out of what little I've been given to work with. And as the game goes on, it gets better. Yup, that sucks. But I'm a story GM, not a sandbox GM. SO I do try to prevent PC death when I can. I have to make the PCs believe death is very possible. And at times, the dice have to fall where they may. PC death is a tricky thing. There are side effects for protecting PCs and benefits. There are side effects for killing them off willy nilly, and benefits. I think I said something to the same effect. Exceptions don't count. They're interesting, they're anecdotal. For the purposes of making a general rule or observation, they don't count. Yet people like to cite them anway. I like to think that people play RPGs to get away from the real world. To do what they can't, and NOT have the same consequences and limitations that block them from venting their frustrations in real life. I don't disagree with you here. Ariosto has been chastized at least once by a moderator in this thread, and in the earlier pages he seemed to be the "dogs suck, why would you want one" type person at a dog show. He could use to show a little respect and tone down the rhetoric when he's in a thread about a topic he disagrees with. Yeah, I do assume a lot of combat, but then I'm mostly talking D&D. Even D&D doesn't have to be pure combat. But then, the base topic of that point was PC death, which generally happens in combat.... My point was that some folks cited earlier in this post will take anything said here to mean railroading, as evidenced by the length of this thread and how much it was NOT about using plot, and instead trying to explain how plot was not railroading. [/QUOTE]

Verification