On Apr 17, 8:44=A0pm, gleichman <fox1_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Two approaches occur to me, focused not on explaining the Threefold
> but rather dealing with learning the GM's style more naturally.
This would have been very useful advice when the campaign was first
getting started. Sadly, it's been running for nine years, so it's a
bit late to try that approach.
I'd like to elaborate a bit on the issue on enforcing consequences. I
have run campaigns in the past where consequences were pretty strictly
enforced, including player character death. I had started off fully
intending it to be the same way in this campaign. I warned my players
at the start that I had let player characters die in my previous
campaigns, don't think you're immune, etc. etc. They seemed to take
it to heart, and they were careful. They were very careful. No one
died. Years passed, but in game world and in real life and none of
the characters died. The PCs became more powerful... and very
selectively more sloppy. They are still super-careful in combat
situations, but they are pretty sloppy in social interactions. The
PCs are now powerful enough that they can and do interact with the big
im****tant NPCs, so the stakes are higher on getting the social
interactions right, the trouble is some of the players react really
poorly to non-combat negative consequences. If I have an NPC rebuff
them for a social gaffe there is much meta-level discussion about how
unreasonable the NPC is being. If I try to telegraph that some action
will likely have negative consequences it gets taken as a cue to not
meddle with that "plot", which is not only not what I intended at all
but tends to frustrate the players, especially the one with the really
strong story POV. I really would prefer to just enforce consequences
for the social gaffes, but I don't think I can do so without this
particular player thinking that I am picking on her, partly because
she doesn't seem to understand anything but the story-based point of
view.
|
