Difference between revisions of "Talk:These Things I Believe"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
And I think I was trying to say a combo of both of what your saying. I mean, I think a reason we like RPGs is that we can try out crazy shit that we'd never think of trying in real life. Players will have their characters, generally speaking, not follow all the rules. And have stats that set them above other people. So yes, they change, but they change the environment around them too. Not saying it HAS to be chaos, I was more trying to elude to the idea that every player brings something different to the table and it is hard to predict how they will solve a problem. | And I think I was trying to say a combo of both of what your saying. I mean, I think a reason we like RPGs is that we can try out crazy shit that we'd never think of trying in real life. Players will have their characters, generally speaking, not follow all the rules. And have stats that set them above other people. So yes, they change, but they change the environment around them too. Not saying it HAS to be chaos, I was more trying to elude to the idea that every player brings something different to the table and it is hard to predict how they will solve a problem. | ||
| + | |||
| + | BEN: I actually still don't really understand point 6. Maybe some examples? you already said you don't think all NPCs should be mooks. In Gemini I can believe that you may have thought there were too many "bad-ass" NPCs. But should a character like Lyra Stoneheart be kept doddering/weaker because she threatens the PCs on some "coolness" level? Are you saying that if the PCs decide to throw down, they should be able to defeat any NPC they meet? <br> | ||
| + | As to point #1: I agree, but see my comment on my discussion page: this isn't possible if the players don't acknowledge the GM as a significant authority. | ||
Revision as of 13:49, 30 October 2009
JASON: 3 and 6 YES. 7, not so much. Thats player immaturity in the majority of cases. Look at good literature and movies. In Chinatown, LA isnt changed at all, its Jake who has changed. If players can only judge their effectiveness by the amount of chaos and/or destruction they have wrought on the environment, thats a pretty lame story. Good stories are usually about protagonists accomplishing something worthwhile and discovering something about themselves in the process.
Edmiao agreed with all points. Jason, i think on #7 gabe means that the players will have an impact on the game world, not that they will make the game world chaotic and crazy. I might disagree with point #2, cus then i would not be able to make up silly names to call the npcs. Goldfarb, anyone? from now on all NPCs will be called Hans.
--Gdaze 12:45, 30 October 2009 (MST) Ed. I don't think anything can stop you from coming up with silly names. The English langauge has been trying but so far has fallen short.
And I think I was trying to say a combo of both of what your saying. I mean, I think a reason we like RPGs is that we can try out crazy shit that we'd never think of trying in real life. Players will have their characters, generally speaking, not follow all the rules. And have stats that set them above other people. So yes, they change, but they change the environment around them too. Not saying it HAS to be chaos, I was more trying to elude to the idea that every player brings something different to the table and it is hard to predict how they will solve a problem.
BEN: I actually still don't really understand point 6. Maybe some examples? you already said you don't think all NPCs should be mooks. In Gemini I can believe that you may have thought there were too many "bad-ass" NPCs. But should a character like Lyra Stoneheart be kept doddering/weaker because she threatens the PCs on some "coolness" level? Are you saying that if the PCs decide to throw down, they should be able to defeat any NPC they meet?
As to point #1: I agree, but see my comment on my discussion page: this isn't possible if the players don't acknowledge the GM as a significant authority.
