>From: "Ian Cooper" <ian_hammond_cooper_at_...>
>
> > If, in fact, the group finds not being able to go
> > on an adventure interesting, then I'd think it was a very bad idea
>for >that not to be the stakes. But for most groups, I think that
>there are >other, more interesting stakes available.
>
>You're right Mike. Good point.
You know, it's ironic that I actually play a bit more simmie this way than most of the people who promulgate the theories that inform how I play. That is, in my game, I'd have failing the Opening meaning returning to port as the stakes, because I never have some "adventure" or "scenario" planned ahead of time that the players won't get to if that happens (in fact it's almost certainly the case that they came up with the idea to go in the first place). Since I don't have a plot to force, any sort of failure tends to work just fine for me. That's not to say I don't try to find interesting failures, of course I do. Merely that occasionally I do go with "standard" type contests because I'm used to manipulating the outcomes into fun conflicts anyhow.
That is, as in my example, if your ship doesn't set sail today, then I'll have some enemies catch up witht the players while they're waiting to go. Almost any failure outcome can be made interesting as long as you don't just leave it as, "You don't get what you want." This is, basically, the "...And" rule that goes with the "No, but" rule of drama.
Mike
Powered by hypermail