> I'm afraid I find this rather absurd. Surely it would be much more
> selfish for a GM to impose some hoops to jump through and then FAIL
> to think about how the players might accomplish this
I'm not sure who you're agreeing or disagreeing with here. The point isn't...
>a more cooperative model in which the GM spends
> tim thinking not just what puzzles need to be solved, but also how
> they might be, how it can all be staged, and how to rpesent it in
an
> entertaining manner.
... but rather the arrangement of matters to allow players (and characters) to succeed or fail on their own merits, and by their own methods, rather than pre-arranging a fixed end result to which all player efforts are diverted, because the referee has decided it's the most dramatic way. This is indeed leading them by the nose, the style of computer games, with campaigns which never change no matter the actions of the player, or else continuous "Mission Failed: Try Again?" screens, with only one way through.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail