>From: Kevin Blackburn <kevin_at_...>
>
>In article <epn7ff+3oe5_at_...>, frank_rafaelsen
><frank_rafaelsen_at_...> writes
> >....help?
>
>It's not help, but do design in the possibility that the PCs come to
>understand LDoaH's motivations, ...
I think that's good help, Kevin. Frank, what I think several are saying here is that you should try to keep it open-ended. Here's the thing. Looking at what you posted, I think that it's just possible that one of the problems with the campaign as you had it is that you had pre-decided how it was all going to end. Forcing the game to make a grandiose statement about how warring against an intractbly warlike enemy is not a solution to the problem.
That's a laudable notion, one I happen to agree with by turns. But it's not the only statement one can make about the situation in play. By mandating a certain outcome, you remove the agency of the players to have a say in the statement that the game makes.
So what I think I'm hearing being recommended, and what I'd most strongly recommend, is to allow the players to work with you to craft whatever heroquest they're going to go on to solve the problem in question. That doesn't mean you don't get an input, certainly you do as well. But make the conclusion a collaborative effort. Not just the vision of one of the participants.
Just one perspective.
Mike
Powered by hypermail