Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6102939" data-attributes="member: 22779">Again, let's not forget, this is a nuclear option.&nbsp; Not something that is done just because a player feels like it.&nbsp; The player in question should HATE what's going on.&nbsp; I've maintained that all the way along.&nbsp; And it always gets ignored.It's not a case of me feeling a bit put out by the scene.&nbsp; Hell, I have lots of patience.&nbsp; I'll sit back and let scenes unfold all the time.&nbsp; But, I also don't mind the players having the option of cutting to the chase when they feel like things are dragging too much.&nbsp; I trust that the players are honest enough and have the best interests of the game at heart.&nbsp; I realize that others want to place all that power in the hands of the DM.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; I don't.And, this is why we should never game at the same table.No, the Duke is not setting.&nbsp; The Duke is plot.&nbsp; Setting is where the plot happens and nothing more.&nbsp; Setting isn't even really required.&nbsp; Look at something like Keep on the Borderlands which has virtually no setting beyond the most bare bones, generic fantasy elements.&nbsp; Yet it's considered one of the best modules of all time.&nbsp; IMO, it's considered that because it doesn't screw around with all this setting stuff and gets right into the action - ie.&nbsp; plot.But, again, that's just how I like to play.&nbsp; All that scenery stuff that DM's seem to love to paper their campaign with?&nbsp; Pretty much of zero interest to me.&nbsp; Yes, I realize you need some setting.&nbsp; Of course.&nbsp; You cannot have a story without ANY setting.&nbsp; But, again, setting and setting consistency is the lowest priority AFAIC.&nbsp; If it has not been established in play, it is not a fact, only an opinion and subject to change at any time.&nbsp; Again, this is totally my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6102939, member: 22779"] Again, let's not forget, this is a nuclear option. Not something that is done just because a player feels like it. The player in question should HATE what's going on. I've maintained that all the way along. And it always gets ignored. It's not a case of me feeling a bit put out by the scene. Hell, I have lots of patience. I'll sit back and let scenes unfold all the time. But, I also don't mind the players [u]having the option[/u] of cutting to the chase when they feel like things are dragging too much. I trust that the players are honest enough and have the best interests of the game at heart. I realize that others want to place all that power in the hands of the DM. Fair enough. I don't. And, this is why we should never game at the same table. No, the Duke is not setting. The Duke is plot. Setting is where the plot happens and nothing more. Setting isn't even really required. Look at something like Keep on the Borderlands which has virtually no setting beyond the most bare bones, generic fantasy elements. Yet it's considered one of the best modules of all time. IMO, it's considered that because it doesn't screw around with all this setting stuff and gets right into the action - ie. plot. But, again, that's just how I like to play. All that scenery stuff that DM's seem to love to paper their campaign with? Pretty much of zero interest to me. Yes, I realize you need some setting. Of course. You cannot have a story without ANY setting. But, again, setting and setting consistency is the lowest priority AFAIC. If it has not been established in play, it is not a fact, only an opinion and subject to change at any time. Again, this is totally my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification