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: 6124370" data-attributes="member: 22779">Why would you assume that?  I've repeatedly stated that it is character buy in which determines whether or not a scene could possibly be skipped.  Granted, before I was using the word relevant, which is unfortunate because it has caused a lot of the misunderstanding.But, getting buy in with the choice is pretty easy.  The demonic merchant (who is giving you the choice) says, "Ok, you can plane shift to the wasteland and make your way to the city on your own.  The wasteland is filled with nasty, dangerous stuff that is going to try to stop and/or eat you.  The toils in Gehenna will net you a direct ticket to the city, skipping the desert, but, you will have to do evil stuff in the time you are there."Add in a time dependency on the goal and you've got buy in.  Do the players choose the wasteland, thus preserving their morality, but risk failing to reach the goal in time, or do they sacrifice their morals for the greater good?  Presuming that the goal, of course, is the "greater good".  Now you have instant buy in for whichever choice they make.  Maybe they can keep their morals and still get through the desert in time.  Maybe they can try the toils, but not really do anything evil.  Play with fire sort of thing.  In either case, now the players are bought into whichever course of action and it would be very surprising to see anyone want to skip it.  Particularly in light of a group which has very open group goals and agendas. The problem here is that you keep insisting that relevancy=buy in.  That isn't true.  The scene could be very relevant to the campaign, but still have zero player buy in.  This is still my bad for insisting on using the word relevant about ten thousand times.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Why would leveraging the PC's past not go over well in a group where that past is known and accepted by the group?  That would be perfectly acceptable in my group.  Not only would that NPC from one PC's past have buy in from that player, but at least two other players would automatically have buy in as well.  At worst, the NPC would be two steps removed from any PC at the table.But, bombing in that NPC from the PC's secret past that no one knows about?  Yeah, I'm going to be eye rolling on that one.  I'm not here to watch someone play their own lone wolf game with the GM.</blockquote>

Verification