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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6108589" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Acceptance that a GM centred approach has risks does not make a player centred approach with equal risks superior.Sure – but this thread seems to indicate we don’t all agree on who those are.  And:If a new player, in his first session, insists that his “creative tactic” should override the game, and follows up by stating that he has no interest in playing out the scenes set, then gets shirty when his desires are not implemented over the desires of the res of the group, should he be invited for a second session While I don’t need the “special label”, I agree that he PLAYER’s reaction to CHARACTER adversity should not b universally negative.  The PC is not thrilled with a lame horse.  The player faces some form of challenge as a consequence which may make the game enjoyable.  The PC would probably prefer all his goals achieved with limited or no danger, adversity, difficulty, delay or negative consequence.  The player would likely find that game pretty dull. A GM placing complications in the way is not, as a consequence, “the enemy” of the players.  Assuming an adversary is one of the issues this thread seems to keep coming back to – treating complications as “punishing” the players is one example of this.  If my critical fail on a Ride puts a ravine in the way of my fellow PC’s, who made their checks, I’m seeing a morphic universe.  Maybe my PC has KS: Geography and should have had some idea there was a ravine in that direction – if I make my check, will the ravine close up again?  To me, the Ride check does not determine whether my horse was lame (it might cause it to become lame) or whether there is a ravine in the area.  It determines how skilled my riding of my horse was. So what happens if a player instead says “I want the final confrontation with our nemesis – that is my one and only goal.  I don’t want to play out the dinner party – skip over it”?  Why do I “have to” play out dining with our nemesis?I like the solution of converting this to an opportunity to bring down our nemesis much better than being so focused on a final duel that all other possibilities, and any possible delay or distraction, are dismissed as “irrelevant”. Now, let’s take it one step further.  We’re looking for that nemesis when we get the invite from the Baron.  Over the protests of a player who does not want to take time off from activity against that Nemesis, we decide getting in good with the Baron is also a worthwhile goal, albeit one we were not currently focused on, so we go.  And discover our nemesis in the foyer, twirling his moustache, on our arrival.   We did not know the dinner invitation was relevant.  Is this “bad GMing”?  If we decide not to attend, not realizing our nemesis is there, and the consequence is that our nemesis advances in the Baron’s favour, is that a complication arising from our decisions, or is it the GM punishing us for refusing to play out his dinner party?  And don’t tell me “bad things” happen to those refusing an invitation from the Baron – that’s just railroading us into playing the scenario your way, you abusive GM, you!  How dare you force us to interact with your NPC’s when we don’t want to?</blockquote>

Verification