Re: mechanics of surprise

On Mar 1, 2:49 pm, Russell Wallace <russell.no.s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Another alternative, often overlooked, is to run a somewhat modified
> version of the setting. In the last campaign I ran in someone else's
> setting (World of Darkness) I made significant changes relative to (most
> people's interpretation of) the official version.

I'll come back to this.


> Well, "rationalization" generally refers to coming up with an elaborate
> explanation in attempt to convince oneself of the plausibility of
> something that one has previously decided one wishes to believe for
> reasons unconnected with the pur****ted explanation

Not the sense I was intending to use the word for. I accept
responsibility for poor usage in this case.

Rather I was trying to describe a method of reverse-engineering in
which all layers of the campaign is examined to determine why certain
genre conventions and expected outcomes are true.

Sometimes that results in either inability to come up with a
reasonable and or acceptable outcome. Thus making changes is the only
option as you noted in the previous quote. I for example have made
significant changes in the SR setting for my own campaign as I had a
different story (and different history) to fit it into.

> To say "wearing gl***** is a foolproof method of concealing your secret
> id- yeah, I can accept that [because I think Superman is a cool story
> and I want to run it as written]" has the great virtue of honesty, not
> to mention the nontrivial virtue of simplicity. I think that's a much
> better way to go.

I disagree.

The background I explained provides a huge amount of insight into the
world, hooks for adventures, ideas for NPCs, etc. etc. that a mere
"Shadowrunners... yeah they can exist and work- sure I accept that"
doesn't.

Add in that some genre conceits just can't be accepted by some people-
and the need as well of usefulness of more complex answers should
become plain.