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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6123027" data-attributes="member: 22779">The word you are looking for here is investment, not interest.  The players have no investment in the encounters in the desert.Yup.  I don't tailor the scenarios to the abilities of the characters.  I'm not terribly interested in the exact abilities your character has, and likely couldn't tell you what they were.  But, I am interested in making sure that every scenario is indelibly linked to the shared backstory established by the table, which would include goals and whatnot for the group. In which case, they've veto'd a scene that didn't interest them.  What's the problem?   But, the siege does have buy-in because the siege is going on where their goal is.  They have buy-in for reaching that goal - we agree on that much I think.  Since the siege is tied to that goal, they likely have buy in.  Granted, the DM might be wrong here.  You'll note, that I never added the siege, that was someone else.  And, if the DM is wrong, no harm, no foul, skip it and move on.  I think that the siege has a fair degree of buy in, simply because it's so easily linked to the goals within the city. But, you are right, it could simply be a roadblock too.  If that's the case, then skip it. That's kinda the point of a group template.  When you have a group that is together for a reason, then group buy-in is a lot easier to assume.  Unlike the group of random strangers thrown together by fate.  In that case, buy-in is much more difficult to assume. Well, for me, it is better because we don't waste hours of table time on random cultist attacks for something no one wanted to play through (other than Bob) in the first place.   I suppose that's true.  But, again, for me, one "no" outweighs all "yes" votes. Um, what?  Because all of this is established at chargen, player goals will automatically be central to the entire campaign.  Because no one's goals will ever be mutually exclusive, it's guaranteed that everyone's goals will be front and center most of the time.  And, as an added bonus, at least two other players at the table will be advocating for your goals all the time too, because at least two other players share strong links with your character.Because there isn't one.  Not for you.  My style of game won't work for you.  We've established that pretty early on.  You want a much more DM centric, DM controlled game where the players are much more reactive and the campaign is largely centered squarely on the DM's shoulders.  Very traditional style play.  Totally understandable.  Not what I want to play, but, it's certainly not inferior in any way.  It's not for me, but, that doesn't mean it's bad.Oh, totally.  That's the point of collaborative writing.  Not every idea is going to survive the process.  Totally get that.  You might have to wait until the next campaign to play out this idea, whatever it happens to be.  Again, I have no problem with that.  I find the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.But, N'raac, the difference here is that you are trying to "win".  You are trying to prove that one way is better than another.  It totally isn't.  It's just different ways of approaching the game.</blockquote>

Verification