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: 6123188" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Like "Kas will show up eventually because I want him to show up"?  I guess my question is the required degree of player buyin.  I see nothing wrong with the GM introducing Kas as an NPC villain - let's see where it takes us.  I don't think the players first need to request that Kas show up, or even give the GM permission to have Kas show up.  He shows up.  We play out the encounter and see where it takes us.I would see it as problematic if the GM tries to force combat with Kas, or negotiation with Kas, or fleeing from Kas, or allying with Kas, or what have you, as "the only choice to resolve the encounter".  Maybe all of these are not viable (Kas is beyond their capabilities to defeat in combat, or he is diamerically opposed to their goals so alliance is impossible),  but the players should have choices on how to deal with the encounter (beyond "hit him with a sword or an axe").  And I would see it as problematic if the players resolve matters with Kas, and the GM tosses him back in, over and over, despite the plaers clearly being done with "all that is Kas".  Or, for that matter, having Kas unexpectedly disappear when the PC's go looking for their old ally, Kas, or old enemy, Kas, in game.I have no problem with AP play, so I'm probably not as opposed to this as you are, but it comes down to social contract.  And maybe we get part way through that AP and decide it's just not great, so let's move the game down another path.I don't disagree that there is a degree of difference there, but I also believe the players should be invested in their characters.  Again, however, I dont see the GM requiring player permission to have an unknown enemy take action against the PC's, and I would expect the PC's to react in character in an effort to deal with this threat.Now we've moved beyond "relevance", though.  For me, I would MUCH rather have a game session surrounding the trip through the desert (even if it is chock full of irrelevant, but entertaining, encounters) than a game session where we play out  toil in the slavepits of Gehenna as payment for a teleport spell directly into the city, despite that immediate city relevancy.  But that's me - I was OK with "the desert is between you and the city, so you must cross it if you wish to get to the city", just as I would be OK with "Kas insists that your killing of Vecna is a prerequisite to sealing your alliance with him".  I'm not OK with a boring game (relevant or irrelevant though those boring encounters may be).  And I would find a series of combat encounters with no storyline, purpose, etc. boring, so there's a relevancy aspect to making the game "not boring".Why would you play PC's whose interests are utterly opposed to the interests of the players?  I might run a "reluctant rebel" in that Star Wars campaign, but I would not run a conscientious objector who will refuse to get involved.  I might run a character who does not want to get involved, but has other aspects that mean he will nonetheless get involved, and I think the onus is on me to create a character who logically WILL get involved.</blockquote>

Verification