Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6106923" data-attributes="member: 42582">As I said upthread, because it was the anchor of a whole lot of intraparty roleplay and player-driven stuff (histories, backstories, relationships, prophecy interpretation).Which is quite unlike the desert in Hussar's game, which was not the anchor of, or the goal of, anything player-driven.He also said that Jacob Marley-style complications would be cool.You seem to think that this involves contradiction. What I think it does is highlight nicely the contrast between a complication that draws the players in ("What we want is in City B. City B is under siege. How are we going to get in?" and compications that fail to draw the players in ("What we want is in City B. In order to get there, we're going to have to spend a session or more faffing around in this unrelated desert.") To me, the difference between a siege of the city - a complication directly engaging the focus of the players' interest - and a desert crossing, is night and day. I wouldn't want to play under a GM who couldn't appreciate that difference.It's not really to the point that, under other circumstances, the desert could be interesting. Because, under these circumstances, it is not.That's a good question! Yet we know that there are GMs who have done that - Hussar's GM(s), with their desert and hiring, and my GM, with is temporal teleport.I think one important thing is that dullness and interest are audience-relative. So the issue is not GMs setting out to do dull, interesting stuff. Rather, it's GMs proceeding with predetermined content that the players aren't interested in. That was roughly the fiat I had in mind, although there has been no indication that it is mandatory that the NPCs accept payment (I'm sure Hussar would have been happy for them to work for free!), nor that they introduce no downstream complications (I don't think Hussar has expressed a view on that one way or the other).In that case, on what basis are you suggesting that my game is CRPG-style with non-talking and/or cardboard cut-out NPCs?No. I'm saying that my game has interactions with NPCs that are more compelling than the hiring of mercenaries: interactions that drive the game forward in ways that are engaging to the players.To my mind, any GM who thinks it is worth spending 90 minutes of game time interacting with NPCs whose opinions and life stories have no connection to anything of signficance to the players and their concerns in the game is not a GM under whom I want to play. To me, it implies one of two things: either the GM has no better material; or the GM is completely incapable of making judgements about what is interesting and engaging and what is not.</blockquote>

Verification