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="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6124724" data-attributes="member: 2656">I think this incredibly long thread is essentially about who can set game goals and disposition of authority within the game. In an old fashioned rpg, the referee controls everything except the PCs, and generally has approval over which PCs are accepted as well. Players have limited information, including possible red herrings and incorrect assumptions, and all information passes through the filter of the referee. Referees typically have goals for the game, but may not disclose some or all of those goals. Players can set goals for their PCs and attempt to achieve them, but given their flawed information their goals may be very difficult or impossible, and some referees won't give any indication of the difficulty of player goals. Some referees may take player goals into account when detailing the setting and plots, others may not. Starting PCs tend to be weak and poor, and have limited ability to decide their own destiny. As they gain power and wealth, they may also gain more freedom of action if the referee allows them to. If there are multiple plots, they can decide to follow some but not others. Some referees will have very linear plots, others won't.However, there are lots of other ways of distributing authority within a game. For instance, player goals can be given more importance within the game by mutual agreement, and more setting elements that are relevant to those goals feature in the game, while reducing the number of irrelevant elements and avoiding elements that contradict those goals. The detailing of the setting isn't neutral, it's designed. Also referees can be more open to requests from the players on non-PC matters, such as skipping particular encounters and plotlines. Such requests are less likely to be accepted if the affected elements are referee goals.I find a lot of players are conditioned to be passive, and it takes effort to show they can be proactive without being punished for it.(There's nothing wrong with being passive as a conscious decision, passive players suit some game styles, but I prefer players to have the option to be proactive). The most important feature in this retraining for me is providing them enough information to make meaningful decisions. Not all the information, but enough (an amount that's subjective and varies from person to person). Starving the players of information is the best way to shut down a game IMO. Obviously the players should work to get that information, but there are limits to how much work is reasonable, and I've seen ridiculous levels of pixelbitching and withholding of information obvious to the PCs but not to the players from referees in the past.Then when they make decisions to attempt a macro-task, give them a reasonable chance of success, or if they have a very low chance of success signal that quickly, or just tell them out of character. Especially if the decision surprises me as referee, tunnel vision is often a sign of inadvertent railroading.  Constant roadbllocks, massive situational penalities, universally obstructive NPCs etc are all conscious or unconscious signals from a referee to stop doing what you are attempting and get back to the approved plot. And succeed or fail, the experience should be rewarding for the player, even if the PC suffers.</blockquote>

Verification