A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Also know as the Emily Axford ideology
-
Of course nothing should be inflexible, but I'm just saying there's no reason for every campaign to be derailed completely. If your players are actively going against the scenario something's gone wrong. And yeah, if you give them the opportunity to do something, be prepared for it to happen and roll with the consequences. Unless you play low level John Does every time, characters should know stuff about the world they've lived in their whole lives. And if none of that ties into the scenario are you playing a campaign or in a sandbox?Congratulations. Having high level characters and well rounded players does make everything smoother. If you've had those, I envy you. But not much. I've managed a couple of games but I always made my plots to willfully accomodate chaos. I like to reward stupidity and recklessness. After a couple of disastrous events, the table tends to settle down and the mood tends to loosen up. I'm fairly comfortable saying we have different approaches to playing and play directing. Which is good.
-
Yeah, I think there's a big difference between "I thought they were going to investigate the smith, but they're really suspicious of the wizard now and want to check her out first" and "they decided to forget about the whole civil war for the throne thing and open a BBQ joint for the local goblins" Nowadays I'd probably just explicitly be like "Hey, so, when we started this game we agreed on a certain tone and direction. Specifically, it was going to be about a power struggle for the throne. Running a restaurant business in D&D sounds wild, but that is really a different kind of story and a different game. If you want to do that, let's talk about it. Otherwise, I'm asking you to stay more on theme." Though I say that and my best game had plenty of "beach episodes". One time literally, after they saved some sahaugin from being subjugated by a siren.Exactly! My prep is pretty robust towards different means of achieving an objective. Usually plan for two to three different courses of action and can improf everything in between. My comment was directed exclusively at the "Yeah, that dungeon looks interesting, but I'm gonna troll the king instead" type of shennanigans.
-
Unpopular opinion maybe, but the take on being "I made a thing" narrator and a "I'll break your thing" player feels like missing the point to me. I mean, you can build that dynamic and have fun if that's what you're into, but it is still collaborative, just that the narrator pretends to be challenged. In most ttrpgs, the narrator has almost complete control over the game. You can try to "compete" but it is never a real match, as the narrator can make your character/s disappear in an instant if she/he/they want. Which shows that this was never the point. What to me really makes it work is setting up scenarios with a lot of input from the players and seeing the game unfold wherever they might take it. The narrator is given that power precisely because it should try to avoid controlling the story as much as it can, and instead interpret the world around the players (as if the world is the character the narrator controls) to develop surprising and captivating situations and events that play off of everyone at the table. Also related, "Dungeon master" sounds outdated, as it points to a person that controls a 1 vs many boardgames like Descent, Mansions of Madness or Imperial Assault. Which is why the collaborative storytelling is, to me, what sets it apart from other games. One can definitely have competitive storytelling ([Everyone is John](https://rtwolf.github.io/Everyone-is-John/)), but lets not kid ourselves thinking that's what goes on in most ttrpg games being played.