>Which sounds great in theory. What bothers me as a player is that it
sounds much harder for players to take ownership of things. My
inclination has never been to sit back and wait for the Narrator to tell
us >what is next, but rather my preference is to find out what is going
on, then go make things happen in our own way. Part of this of course is
to try and find an easier way to solve things: Can we counterfeit the
>Bishop's Heart somehow, or blackmail the witnesses so that they'll
tell the truth? But part is a player view of what is interesting: what
if we use this mis-carriage of justice to rouse the other merchant lords
to >fund a revolution to overthrow the arbitrary and capricious First
Confessor, or on the other hand what if we feel like running a prolonged
siege? I would think that for many narrators it might be all the harder,
>when players change the intended plot like that, to maintain both the
'objective' ratings and the story flow appropriate ratings. It is a lot
to keep in your head at one time while also improvising, I'd think!
See, again, I think this is probably easier. If you don't have prepped stats, then reacting to your players going "off the reservation" should be easier to my mind. The castle isn't "Impregnable 5W2" - it's "Impregnable" (or, possibly, "well defended"). So if the players go right ahead an lay seige, you can still have it be ridiculously hard. If they are "due" an easier challenge, offer them another option more in line with their abilities. If they ignore you, hose 'em if you like. If they go off and do something else entirely, decide how hard it is. Not having to keep a scale in your head while improvising, but just reacting to what seems right and using the players (or the "base level") as your measure seems far easier to me.
LC
Powered by hypermail