A protagonist is actually the character that the conflict revolves around, and any good writer knows that he needs a change to be dynamic. You can have a protagonist without a change, but that's not much of a story. Tim Robbins was the protagonist, and his change was freeing himself of his guilt over his wife's death. Red, the warden, the old library con-- they all changed too, but they were all foils-- not all were antagonist. Antagonist provides conflict, foils are used for contrast.
Not exactly. It's up to the storyteller to create a game situation witch is interesting for the players, considering the abilities of the characters. Matching obstacles to abilities is just one option. but then you might get super fighters and super mages going to a super dungion to fight super orcs. You can use the super strong characters to create uniqe situations. "Sandman" being one of the best examples for that.
well, I think I formulated my self a bit wrong then. I meant kind of what you said. An obstacle not being just an enemy or a "physical" object but situations and conflicts aswell.
A good GM should design adventures that puts players in situations that compromise their characters' beliefs ANYWAY regardless of the perceived power balance amongst PCs. It should not be used as a buffer to allow overly powerful character concepts.
A player that is not bothered that a fellow player's PC is far more powerful than theirs', is rare indeed. Using roleplaying solutions to address what is a game system/balance issue seems to be addressing the symptoms rather than the disease.
On #1: "Say 'yes' unless the player is being a wanker" isn't really... useful. It's the same as the "golden rule"; it's far too obvious. You are saying that you should always say yes, except when the player's actions are completely illogical. This is a big subjective pothole in the entire rule, because (all things being equal) crossing a busy highway on foot is being a wanker to one GM, and running on water is totally logical for the next GM.
On #2: I totally agree that Disadvantages in RPGs SHOULD work as you suggest. The problem comes in what is a "disadvantage" vs. what is a "preference". Batman doesn't use guns because it is an integral part of his character, and I would argue that any comic that portrayed him using guns didn't understand Batman very well (this includes DKR). Preferences shouldn't really give any points in RPGs, but also don't hinder the character in the least, as Batman is NOT hindered by his lack of guns.
One last thing: please don't see me as just another internet hater. I love your work, love the videos (keep 'em coming!), and can't wait for HoB. I only wish I was early enough to the party to snag a LE copy.
Logic is never in the eye of the beholder, its the whole concept of logic. However, what is rational is something that is up to each person to define himself. But most people can usually agree on some kind of norms that apply on stuff you do in roleplaying. Playing in character is one of those.
This is excellent. For some reason, I want to call you "John". Thanks, John.
Antiks72 1 month ago
A protagonist is actually the character that the conflict revolves around, and any good writer knows that he needs a change to be dynamic. You can have a protagonist without a change, but that's not much of a story. Tim Robbins was the protagonist, and his change was freeing himself of his guilt over his wife's death. Red, the warden, the old library con-- they all changed too, but they were all foils-- not all were antagonist. Antagonist provides conflict, foils are used for contrast.
nstiles42 5 months ago
I really agree with your opinion.
After running around wizards D&D fourms and everyone saying how what do you limit, I think it was accually called what do you say no to.
And I post out, accually I say yes and your completely ignored.
I am glad that I am not the only DM that has the opinion that story is more important than rolls and that articulate it so well.
But the starting really threw me...
It was disconnected from the rest of it and amost made me walk awat before you started.
Caladors 2 years ago
To powerful characters is a myth. Its up to the Storyteller to have an obstacle that matches the abilities of the characters.
W4RW017 3 years ago
Not exactly. It's up to the storyteller to create a game situation witch is interesting for the players, considering the abilities of the characters. Matching obstacles to abilities is just one option. but then you might get super fighters and super mages going to a super dungion to fight super orcs. You can use the super strong characters to create uniqe situations. "Sandman" being one of the best examples for that.
shhxni 3 years ago
well, I think I formulated my self a bit wrong then. I meant kind of what you said. An obstacle not being just an enemy or a "physical" object but situations and conflicts aswell.
WoD; Promethean is a pretty good example of that.
W4RW017 3 years ago
A good GM should design adventures that puts players in situations that compromise their characters' beliefs ANYWAY regardless of the perceived power balance amongst PCs. It should not be used as a buffer to allow overly powerful character concepts.
A player that is not bothered that a fellow player's PC is far more powerful than theirs', is rare indeed. Using roleplaying solutions to address what is a game system/balance issue seems to be addressing the symptoms rather than the disease.
lancerCNCS1 3 years ago
I hate to disagree, but I disagree.
On #1: "Say 'yes' unless the player is being a wanker" isn't really... useful. It's the same as the "golden rule"; it's far too obvious. You are saying that you should always say yes, except when the player's actions are completely illogical. This is a big subjective pothole in the entire rule, because (all things being equal) crossing a busy highway on foot is being a wanker to one GM, and running on water is totally logical for the next GM.
azirk83 3 years ago
On #2: I totally agree that Disadvantages in RPGs SHOULD work as you suggest. The problem comes in what is a "disadvantage" vs. what is a "preference". Batman doesn't use guns because it is an integral part of his character, and I would argue that any comic that portrayed him using guns didn't understand Batman very well (this includes DKR). Preferences shouldn't really give any points in RPGs, but also don't hinder the character in the least, as Batman is NOT hindered by his lack of guns.
azirk83 3 years ago
One last thing: please don't see me as just another internet hater. I love your work, love the videos (keep 'em coming!), and can't wait for HoB. I only wish I was early enough to the party to snag a LE copy.
azirk83 3 years ago
Opinions are good ;)
W4RW017 3 years ago
But.. if the player's action is completely illogical he's a WANKER.
W4RW017 3 years ago
"Logic" is in the eye of the beholder.
azirk83 3 years ago
Logic is never in the eye of the beholder, its the whole concept of logic. However, what is rational is something that is up to each person to define himself. But most people can usually agree on some kind of norms that apply on stuff you do in roleplaying. Playing in character is one of those.
W4RW017 3 years ago
Great commentary John. Really liked the the yes part.
shouit 3 years ago