NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6122998" data-attributes="member: 22779">Again, no.  This is not correct.  What I am saying is that the encounters have zero player buy-in before the encounters are presented.  Which means that they are irrelevant to the players.  Why should they care about something, before it's presented, about which they know nothing?  Reasonable for you.  Not for me.  I don't tailor my games to the group.  Never have.  I run a much more sandboxy campaign where I create encounters and scenarios based on the player's stated goals and motivations.  The capabilities of their characters are largely unimportant except in the broadest sense - no bombing dragons on 1st level parties because that wouldn't be fun.  But specific abilities?  Nope, I don't plan that way.Again, you take irrelevant in an in-game meaning.  Which has always been the breakdown in communication here.  I mean irrelevant to the players  Nothing in your example is irrelevant to the players because all three options are available to the players.  They can choose one of the three options, but, they also have to decide which option to choose, which means, at the very least, they have to interact somewhat with all three options.The desert has zero buy in from the players.  The only reason they have to cross the desert is geography.  The goal is inside the desert.  But, the desert itself is irrelevant to the players because there is no buy-in from the players.Does that make sense?Yup, that could certainly happen.  What's the problem with that?  Is it better to force the rest of the group to deal with Bob's Cult problem by keeping them in the dark?  I'd rather the players get to decide whether or not they want to deal with Bob's Cult Problem and, if it stops being compelling at the table, the problem goes away.  It gets resolved and/or cut short.  No problem.Without player buy-in, I will not use Bob's cult problem.  End of story.  In my games, we have player buy-in before anything happens.  Because, while you are right, the players could buy in after the fact, they also might not.  In your game, the players have no choice.  They are obligated to buy-in to whatever complications are brought to the table.  In my game, they are not.  Whereas, in my game, I would never let a player hijack the game simply to please that player.So, it's okay for players to have their own plots, but, they don't get to decide how important it is in play, are completely dependent on the DM to introduce complications related to the plot and will have their complications pushed into the back seat by the DM whenever the DM feels it should.This does not surprise me in the slightest.  This is what I talked about earlier with players who come from these traditional style tables.  They create characters with virtually not plots, and are perfectly willing to wait for and, in fact expect, the DM to roll up the Plot Wagon and start spooning it out to the players.  After all, why be proactive when the DM can shove your plot into the background at any time?  Much better, in this, to be simply reactive and let the DM frame nearly every scene and every complication.What you have to realize here N'raac is that I, and others, don't play this way.  The campaign is generated, in a large way, during character generation.  Much of the story of the game will be outlined, at least roughly, during chargen.  We don't start with a campaign, then tell the players to make characters and then start play.  We start with the characters first.</blockquote>

Verification