Hi! New here. Heres the last D&D game I played.
Kevin Vito:
Hmmm... well I had an idea for how I would like it to end and I thought maybe the players would get a kick out of it (better than having no end at all), but I see what you mean. Players should have more of a say in how they want things to end.
Maybe I could use my idea as an overall guideline but plenty of other things in there in case players want to go in a different path.
Any suggestions Callan?
Callan S.:
Whoa, I never said 'players should have more of a say in how they want things to end'. I just asked what was encouraging you to decide the end. Is that what you want to do? That's cool - or is there something else you want to do? It's not a trick question - if you want to stick with deciding the ending that's cool. I think what you'd find fun to do will give us the clues we need.
contracycle:
I have seen quite a few texts advocate having an ending in mind, although I would be hard pressed to cite any actual names. Dragon magazine is popping into my head though.
As opposed to "wander about and hope something interesting just happens", it seems an improvement to me. It provides a sense of purpose to immediate improvisation, in effect aids scene-framing decisions, permits the establishment of villains in good time and good order. It can certainly work; the introductory Con-X game with FBI characters of which I gave an AP account some time ago was aimed at delivering the players to a particular point in a particular sequence, where they would witness an actual UFO for the first time; that worked out fine. In my experience (which is clearly not universal), it is always better to have an ending in mind than not. This is why existing ideas about R-maps and bangs just don't work for me.
Valvorik:
I think the difference is between a default "having an ending in mind", and for that matter "having in mind what next would happen in players flail around and don't have answers to the 'what next' query" and an unbending "having in mind the only ending that will be permitted to emerge" and "guiding to that despite player choices" (= railroading).
For me, for example, since player action must matter, the default ending is "it all goes down in flames and here is how, according to the plan of the opposition carried off without effective interference", and then play determines if things move off that outcome as players interefere and/or pursue their own objective. The key is to have an active opposition with "something it wants" that players are conflicting with or that doesn't want players getting their goal, as opposed to "an opposition minding its own business there in its tomb that players have to have a reason to roust".
I see relationship maps, conflicts etc. as the guide for the improvising responses to players when they interfere with the default progression of events. And bangs something to "complicate" (make more fun) the player's lives and throw at them if play lags.
E.G., my understanding that the Flamewardens are helping the Masters of Leng only for cash (not really caring at all about the Masters' goals) and under terms of a contract, helps me decide what a Flamewarden prisoner, who survived a Masters attack on the PCs, tells players when questioned and hints to the players that they can neutralize the Flamewardens with money instead of fighting them if they so choose.
Kevin Vito:
I just really want for the story to end in some kind of huge epic battle against Void and his dragon followers. How the players get to that point and how they prepare for that final show down is completely up to them. Actually, I wouldn't even say thats the ending. The ending will depend on the results of the battle I'd say. I'd kind of like for the players to win the battle though, but I don't want to make it easy on them to insure that they will.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page