[DITV] We keep stumbling when it comes to the supernatural stuff
Noclue:
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on November 01, 2010, 10:27:04 AM
"well, can I tell if she's possessed or not?"
I don't think you've instilled a confidence in the players that you will let them know when a demon rears it's ugly head. And that you will reveal the town to them without the need for any "Solve the mystery" behavior on their part. So, they feel the need to ask these kind of questions and to try to search out clues. But you still get to decide who is possessed.
"Well, can I tell if she's possessed or not?"
"Of course you can, you gaze upon her and sense that her soul remains her own, but you can see the demons circling round her feeding on her fears and weaknesses, twisting her hopes and dreams into barbs that have left her soul in tatters, weak and vulnerable and in need of healing. She will not last long without help."
lumpley:
Dan! It's not your job to second-guess your players, who they'll blame, what they'll do about it. It's your job to create a town that goes to hate and murder. If it has an obvious villain in it, that's fine! The game works fine when there's an obvious villain in the town.
-Vincent
JMendes:
Hoy, :)
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on November 01, 2010, 10:27:04 AM
A few sessions later we decided to do a revisit of this town. Building on the way they left things with the cousin [...]
I don't know if this is significant or not, given that it's a bit on the off-topic side, but it sort of segues from Vincent's last post, so, maybe there's something there...
Anyway, I've always been leery of revisiting towns. It sort of puts the GM in a position where he has to extrapolate consequences out of the Dogs' intervetion. Almost like he's saying, "you resolved the main issue, but oh, look, you didn't handle this, and you ignored that, and now this other thing is developing"...
I think part of the strength of the game is that the Dogs' judgement is definitionally correct. Who they say is at fault is at fault. That sort of implies to me that it's not the GM's job to "judge back" on their judgement and actions. Rather, his job is to escalate, which I take it to mean, on the next town, present the same issue, but with a bit more shades of gray in it. And on the next town, even grayer, and so on and so forth. (Which, in my mind, is part of the reason the game works well with a clear villain, by the way.)
So, by revisiting the town, you may be unwittingly nudging them into problem-solving mode. They won't want to screw up a second time, after all...
Or maybe I'm over-reading into it. :)
Cheers,
J.
lumpley:
Yeah, I'm not super excited about "what the Dogs say is right, IS right." Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes you'll think they're right and I'll think they're wrong, too; there is no REAL right or wrong for them to be.
The rule is, as GM, you can never have God tell the Dogs whether they're right or wrong. It's not at all the same thing as "the Dogs are always right."
-Vincent
JMendes:
Hoy, :)
Quote from: lumpley on November 04, 2010, 07:42:12 AM
The rule is, as GM, you can never have God tell the Dogs whether they're right or wrong. It's not at all the same thing as "the Dogs are always right."
Ah! See, I was over-reading it. :) Never mind, then.
Cheers,
J.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page