Author Topic: Control.  (Read 10065 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Control.
« on: November 26, 2008, 01:21:42 PM »
I was talking to a GM buddy of mine, him and I are alike inasmuch as neither of us are very good at playing a TT RPG.  We both kinda suck at it, being too "get to the punchline, get it done" oriented.  But, we do great at running them--albeit in very different ways.

He, we'll call him Agnew, is a much more "miniatures and grids", "by the book", "I won't deign to run that which is a lowly system in mine eyes" kind of guy; I'm a more "don't get hung up on the rules", "cinematic is the science" kind of guy.  Needless to say, that's meant that we have different "go to" games for each of us.  He starts with the system and works his way through planning to get to story, and I start with a story and leave it to the players to pick what system they feel in the mood for in a given night (I'm possibly a bit jaded, having run games almost exclusively for years and years, rarely in love with anything and finding almost everything to be as good as anything else).

So Agnew and I are chatting it up and we get to the issue of GM fiat--whether or not its legitimate or a good idea (two very seperate issues) to change stuff on the fly or use metagame knowledge to influence the game.

The thought-experiment we cooked up to explore the space was you have a group of players, they are very up close-combatty types.  Not by design, but circumstance, they don't have or do much in the way of ranged hoodoo.  Now, you have a part of the story where you want them to face down a dragon (we had to settle on a genre for story, because it was hard to discuss outside of that framework).  Given that they're really good at close-combatty stuff, and given that you had planned on a nice cave with minimal space for running around--is it a legitimate move to reinvent the encounter on the fly such that the cave has a really high ceiling and lots of space and the dragon just happens to like flying around and occasionally dive bombing the shit out of adventurers.

Would it be acceptable to alter the game's storyline to include that, because of knowledge out-of-game about how the players fight?

And further, what if it were a more gross violation--one not so easily played off by saying "oh, it was feasible to do this new thing regardless"?  Something like giving your supervillain boss some kinda mind-burning-psychic-mojo powers, given that the players are quite tanklike and their mental hoodoo is their weakest point? 

Or similarly, in the other direction, changing their fights so that they are more likely to win--maybe the dragon never uses its breath weapon... or the supervillain makes (gasp) a fatal error in the fight?

Agnew felt that it would be an almost unforgivable sin to make such changes--he's of the mind that the world was designed a particular way, the encounters a particular way, and its an unfairness to simply cater to or cater away from player success.

I more or less disagreed, taking a very "very little is sacrosanct" stance about what could or couldn't be altered in the name of making a "wicked cool" story happen

Thoughts?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Control.
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2008, 02:19:34 PM »
I think the your way works better, provided that the players are unaware you are doing it. What is needed in most games is not a rigid, laid out world, but the semblance of one, an illusion, so as to speak.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2008, 03:15:01 PM »
You are misusing the term "GM fiat".

GM fiat is when a GM dictates, during play, whether something succeeds or fails.  What you are talking about is encounter design, and that is the exact thing that a GM is SUPPOSED to do.

Now, whether or not the thought experiment is good design, that's a very valid question.  But it's not GM fiat.


Agnew felt that it would be an almost unforgivable sin to make such changes--he's of the mind that the world was designed a particular way, the encounters a particular way, and its an unfairness to simply cater to or cater away from player success.

I more or less disagreed, taking a very "very little is sacrosanct" stance about what could or couldn't be altered in the name of making a "wicked cool" story happen

Thoughts?

This right here is what it really boils down to.  There was a "discussion" with Elenssar about this very topic not too long ago, and the general consensus is that you are correct here.  The entire point of the game is for the players and the GM to have fun, and if you create an encounter where the PCs are helpless, then you are doing something wrong.  The scenario is not some sacred artifact that you should never modify, it exists purely for the characters to interact with, and if they players won't have any fun because the dragon "has to be flying" then it should be changed.
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2008, 03:51:30 PM »
You are misusing the term "GM fiat".

GM fiat is when a GM dictates, during play, whether something succeeds or fails.  What you are talking about is encounter design, and that is the exact thing that a GM is SUPPOSED to do.

Now, whether or not the thought experiment is good design, that's a very valid question.  But it's not GM fiat.

We're, then, working from different definitions of "fiat"--or at least different uses of a given definition for it... I'm kinda coming from the "arbitrary order or decree"/"authorization" standpoint.  So, "GM fiat" as a function of "unilateral authorization" whereas a "multilateral authorization" might be done in congress with "the book", "the module", or "the players". 

Given that I haven't yet run into the Webster's for Gamers, so to speak--I don't think "misusing" is as appropriate as, say, "Some don't use the term that way". 

Sensible?

Quote
This right here is what it really boils down to.  There was a "discussion" with Elenssar about this very topic not too long ago, and the general consensus is that you are correct here.  The entire point of the game is for the players and the GM to have fun, and if you create an encounter where the PCs are helpless, then you are doing something wrong.  The scenario is not some sacred artifact that you should never modify, it exists purely for the characters to interact with, and if they players won't have any fun because the dragon "has to be flying" then it should be changed.

I figured there was a place for adjustment... but what about its extremes?  For instance, an extreme example of fiat, in this case, might be the invention of powers/disciplines/abilities/spells outside the book entirely and on the fly.  Or the GM fudging of hit points to make a battle easier or harder given that the players are doing better or worse than desired.

That still legit?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Control.
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2008, 03:57:17 PM »
No real limit IMO, except that the more extensive the changes are, and the more frequent, players tend to cotton on to what you're doing and for some players, that spoils the game. Some instead go hog wild when they figure out they're indestructible, which could be bad if you had a coherent plot originally.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2008, 04:05:09 PM »
No real limit IMO, except that the more extensive the changes are, and the more frequent, players tend to cotton on to what you're doing and for some players, that spoils the game. Some instead go hog wild when they figure out they're indestructible, which could be bad if you had a coherent plot originally.

So, a very "what happens behind the screen stays behind the screen" way of looking at it--which, personally, I don't disagree with at all.  Angew and I ran a LARP together, back in the day, for a long time, me STing and him ASTing--it was a constant source of annoyance for him that I would change the rules when I needed them changed.  He was my Yang, so to speak.

I can see his position on it, and see how easy a "do what you want" approach can lead to gross abuse--but, I guess its a process vs. product disagreement at heart.
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Straw_Man

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2008, 04:05:48 PM »
You are misusing the term "GM fiat".

GM fiat is when a GM dictates, during play, whether something succeeds or fails.  What you are talking about is encounter design, and that is the exact thing that a GM is SUPPOSED to do.

Now, whether or not the thought experiment is good design, that's a very valid question.  But it's not GM fiat.

We're, then, working from different definitions of "fiat"--or at least different uses of a given definition for it... I'm kinda coming from the "arbitrary order or decree"/"authorization" standpoint.  So, "GM fiat" as a function of "unilateral authorization" whereas a "multilateral authorization" might be done in congress with "the book", "the module", or "the players". 

Given that I haven't yet run into the Webster's for Gamers, so to speak--I don't think "misusing" is as appropriate as, say, "Some don't use the term that way". 

Sensible?

Quote
This right here is what it really boils down to.  There was a "discussion" with Elenssar about this very topic not too long ago, and the general consensus is that you are correct here.  The entire point of the game is for the players and the GM to have fun, and if you create an encounter where the PCs are helpless, then you are doing something wrong.  The scenario is not some sacred artifact that you should never modify, it exists purely for the characters to interact with, and if they players won't have any fun because the dragon "has to be flying" then it should be changed.

I figured there was a place for adjustment... but what about its extremes?  For instance, an extreme example of fiat, in this case, might be the invention of powers/disciplines/abilities/spells outside the book entirely and on the fly.  Or the GM fudging of hit points to make a battle easier or harder given that the players are doing better or worse than desired.

That still legit?

  GM fiat as is used here does not include your definition, all respect to Webster due. It means ambigous rulings or unclarity that the GM rules on unilaterally; implying there is a polyphonic discourse that the GM ignores. On the issue of encounter design you should not be discussing with your players, so its not fiat as I'd call it.

  Pulling too much and too far on the fly damages GM credibility. "So your bad guy has a school of magic we've never heard of and we can't ever learn .... and its twice as strong as anything we've got ....   :twitch:mad".  Hitpoints or a custom power thats quite similar to an existing effect falls easily under the suspension of disbelief rules.

  Must agree with Veekie though, sometimes over-smoothing the adventure leads to lazy play or assumptions of invulnerability, which I don't see as very fun.
"No, no, don't think, Maya." Ritsuko chided. "We will not gattai the Evas or their pilots.

Such thoughts lead inevitably to transformation sequences."

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2008, 04:18:40 PM »

We're, then, working from different definitions of "fiat"--or at least different uses of a given definition for it... I'm kinda coming from the "arbitrary order or decree"/"authorization" standpoint.  So, "GM fiat" as a function of "unilateral authorization" whereas a "multilateral authorization" might be done in congress with "the book", "the module", or "the players". 

Given that I haven't yet run into the Webster's for Gamers, so to speak--I don't think "misusing" is as appropriate as, say, "Some don't use the term that way". 

Sensible?

Quote
I figured there was a place for adjustment... but what about its extremes?  For instance, an extreme example of fiat, in this case, might be the invention of powers/disciplines/abilities/spells outside the book entirely and on the fly.  Or the GM fudging of hit points to make a battle easier or harder given that the players are doing better or worse than desired.

That still legit?

The thing is, you're talking about two different things here.  Changing the scenario before play begins, i.e. making the cave large enough to accomodate the dragon's natural flying abilities, is very different from doing things on the fly.  Neither one is really GM fiat, but that's not really important to the discussion.


Assuming you're running an AA game, the key here is that you want your scenarios to challenge the players, but still give them a legitimate chance to win out and save the day.

Making things up outside the books just to screw the players is usually pretty lame.  Making the dragon unbeatable is pretty lame.  If the players have made uber-melee characters, completely nerfing those abilities time and time again is lame. 

As far as fudging things on the fly, there's a very fine line there.  I'm generally OK with fudging a number here or there every once in a while.  But changing the way that the rules work, just to make a one-time event happen, cheats the players out of any control of the game and it will cause problems down the road.  Once the players realize taht they don't actually have any influence over their fates they give up trying.
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2008, 04:51:15 PM »

We're, then, working from different definitions of "fiat"--or at least different uses of a given definition for it... I'm kinda coming from the "arbitrary order or decree"/"authorization" standpoint.  So, "GM fiat" as a function of "unilateral authorization" whereas a "multilateral authorization" might be done in congress with "the book", "the module", or "the players". 

Given that I haven't yet run into the Webster's for Gamers, so to speak--I don't think "misusing" is as appropriate as, say, "Some don't use the term that way". 

Sensible?

Quote
I figured there was a place for adjustment... but what about its extremes?  For instance, an extreme example of fiat, in this case, might be the invention of powers/disciplines/abilities/spells outside the book entirely and on the fly.  Or the GM fudging of hit points to make a battle easier or harder given that the players are doing better or worse than desired.

That still legit?

The thing is, you're talking about two different things here.  Changing the scenario before play begins, i.e. making the cave large enough to accomodate the dragon's natural flying abilities, is very different from doing things on the fly.  Neither one is really GM fiat, but that's not really important to the discussion.

Now that's interesting.

Is there a difference, really?  Should I change something before play or do it before the encounter or do it before the conclusion, am I making any meaningful difference at one part of the timeline or another?

I don't think I am.

Whether I'm making the ice dragons shoot fire before the game, or pull that out on the fly before the go in the cave, or just let him do it halfway through the fight--what's the significant difference?  It seems like we can only judge by behavior and outcome, which would mean we can't really justify issues with particular motivations or interference.  No?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2008, 05:08:25 PM »

Whether I'm making the ice dragons shoot fire before the game, or pull that out on the fly before the go in the cave, or just let him do it halfway through the fight--what's the significant difference?  It seems like we can only judge by behavior and outcome, which would mean we can't really justify issues with particular motivations or interference.  No?

I don't really understand the last sentence in your previous post.  Maybe you could clarify it for me? 


As far as when you make the decisions concerning game content, it doesn't really make a difference, you're right.  What I was trying to say in the previous post is that you are supposed to make those decisions as a GM.  Whether you do it during session planning, or while the players are busy running away from the plot you designed for them, doesn't really matter too much.  But as the GM you're presenting the players with the game, you decide on the content.  If you're running a module, and you don't tweak it to work better for the characters in the game, then you're doing your players a disservice.

What matters here is motivation.  Why would you make the ice dragon shoot fire?  What's the point of that?  If you're trying to keep your players on their toes, then make up something new.  If you're trying to screw with your players because they came to fight an ice dragon, and spent hundreds of GP on potions of cold resist so they could pull it off, then you're just being a dick, and that's kind of mean.  At that point, you're abusing your GM powers.  If it's a fire dragon who disguises itself as an ice dragon, then at least drop a hint or two on your players so they don't feel overly manipulated.  I believe the word is "deprotagonizing".
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

Straw_Man

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2008, 05:18:33 PM »

  That is the word indeed. D&D is about heroes who win. Generally.

  And your confusion might be over my addressing the use of the word fiat earlier. Fiat happens when you decide something, usually something unclear during the session. Its your decision unilaterally.

  Planning an encounter usually happens before the game, but you can choose to make spot decisions, like your epic boss was oneshot killed in the first round, you may choose to fudge his HP so the players get a better story and battle. But thats not fiat, especially if your not announcing it to players, "He's dead, but I'm going to rule he's alive."
"No, no, don't think, Maya." Ritsuko chided. "We will not gattai the Evas or their pilots.

Such thoughts lead inevitably to transformation sequences."

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2008, 05:36:51 PM »
I don't really understand the last sentence in your previous post.  Maybe you could clarify it for me?

I mean to say that it appears that the only meaningful criticism we can have is on the outcome (possibly people's reaction to it).  So, whether you made the ice dragon shoot fire or especially vulnerable to the PC's as a big ole change before the game started or halfway through the fight (or, similarly, that you did it in order to be more dramatic or in order to spite their success/failure) seems really negligable if it was fun/enjoyable/beyond-criticism. 

That may very much be a function of the players not knowing what happened "behind the scenes", but not necessarily.  I'm wondering if we have more solid justification for stuff like this than "well, what was the result"--I'm not seeing that we do.

  And your confusion might be over my addressing the use of the word fiat earlier. Fiat happens when you decide something, usually something unclear during the session. Its your decision unilaterally.

  Planning an encounter usually happens before the game, but you can choose to make spot decisions, like your epic boss was oneshot killed in the first round, you may choose to fudge his HP so the players get a better story and battle. But thats not fiat, especially if your not announcing it to players, "He's dead, but I'm going to rule he's alive."
My confusion?  Shoggoth's confusion?

For my part, terminology isn't the problem--I don't figure I get your point there. 
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Zeke

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Bi-Curious George
  • *
  • Posts: 540
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2008, 10:54:42 AM »
I've been following this argument. I am personally  not neccesarilly oposed to changing things in the middle of the game. Flannell is right that intent is important. I would not be upset as a player if the things you described happened to me. My only caveat would be that the rules of the game need to remain intact. It's not OK to place inappropriate chalenges or subject PCs to conditions without resolution mechanics.

woodenbandman

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2008, 12:11:34 PM »
There's nothing wrong with altering an encounter to make PCs have a better time.

"Is that all you got?"

*500 more behind him- "No."

"OH MY GOD WE'RE DEAD"

"I THINK I LEFT THE IRON ON AT HOME!!!!"

Point is, you should make encounters the right level of challenge for you players, and that varies by group. Throwing a dragon from the ceiling at them when they can't possibly damage it is just dickery. Putting the dragon in a short room, while a dumb tactic, makes the encounter viable.

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Control.
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2008, 01:19:25 PM »
Putting the dragon in a cave that's now too small for it(insert enchanted sleep curse here), because it's now too big to get out of a cave it laired in as a wyrmling makes for an awesome story on top.

I personally like the illusion of difficulty, 500 guards yes, but level 3 warriors backed by maybe 4 level 10s trying to take on a 12th level party makes for one of those. The players don't strictly know that they can win or not, because they don't know the level until combat starts. It makes them try to pursue other options.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2008, 02:41:24 PM »
The whole other side of the fence is doing these changes and tweaks so the players win or succeed.  same behavior, different motivation (though I'd probably argue not significantly different).
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2008, 03:00:57 PM »
The whole other side of the fence is doing these changes and tweaks so the players win or succeed.  same behavior, different motivation (though I'd probably argue not significantly different).

I think this comes down to the preferences of the group, and the kind of game you're playing.  In the past I've tweaked numbers and flubbed a bad-guy roll or two to keep a party alive, but I always felt kind of crappy about it.  These days I tend to run games where player death is less difficult, and failure can still mean something besides the end of the plot.  That's where games like Burning Wheel and Spirit of the Century come in, you don't have to pull any punches and the game will still work out to be fun.
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: Control.
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2008, 03:47:14 AM »
I do not hesitate to fudge numbers. The point of the game is fun, not adherence to a system. If ignoring a rule or giving a creature more HPs or letting someone hit when they didn't or whatever, if that stuff makes the game more fun without ruining long-term fun, then go for it. I like the rules. I rely on the rules. Sometimes ignoring the rules is the best thing in the world.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2008, 06:11:52 AM »
I do not hesitate to fudge numbers. The point of the game is fun, not adherence to a system. If ignoring a rule or giving a creature more HPs or letting someone hit when they didn't or whatever, if that stuff makes the game more fun without ruining long-term fun, then go for it. I like the rules. I rely on the rules. Sometimes ignoring the rules is the best thing in the world.

If you are not adhering to the system, you are not playing the game.

Fun at the game table from the game should come from the game.  If you don't find a game fun, don't play it.

Quote
Would it be acceptable to alter the game's storyline to include that, because of knowledge out-of-game about how the players fight?
Let me rephrase this:
"should I make fun interesting adventures?"

Well when it is put that way.

There is no "altering the storyline" here, you had not made the story yet.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: Control.
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2008, 01:29:43 PM »
Quote
Let me rephrase this:
"should I make fun interesting adventures?"

Well when it is put that way.

There is no "altering the storyline" here, you had not made the story yet.

Let's put it back the way it was, I was being as literal as possible.  Fun-ness aside, interesting-ness aside, and the premise that one had a storyline in line (modules are great examples of that, let's say encounter #4 is the "poo monster" that has a short ranged "cone of poo" or something as a primary weapon for both fluffy and appropriate encounter level reasons etc.)...

...now, you've gone through encounters #1-3 and the players, not knowing what they're up against, seem to like running off at the start--climbing trees and getting behind rocks and fighting like the Minute Men of the American Revolution by shooting and throwing stuff from behind them at a distance. 

Would it be alright to alter the storyline (change the line the story was plotted to be), change out some stuff (the poo is only ranged, and only medium-to-long range; or maybe its a "hide behind rocks and trees as well" kind of more other monster--with appropriate fluffy changes to the storyline to make that make sense after the fact), in response to not just the stats on the page and the dots on the register, but merely /how/ the players like to fight?

Maybe its to make it more fun, or less fun, maybe just to make it more hard, maybe just to be ironic, maybe etc., etc., etc.--any given motivation at all (though, perhaps we're saying motivation is important, which I think is a cool argument).

Is the action ever justifiable?  See what I'm sayin'.
. . .. ... .....
*wink*