Samantha Patri's Blog

Bear with me, this is 100% my opinion, and isn't necessarily going to work at your table. Everyone has their own desires at the table, and everyone's table is different -- and if you play a different game with me, it doesn't mean you're playing it wrong . If you're having fun, that's all that matters. Your table, your rules. And with that out of the way. If I'm going to have a new game master -- one I'm not familiar with (and it's been a long time since that's happened) the first thing I ask is this: do you fudge at your table. And if the answer is 'yes', then I walk away. I don't begrudge the GM -- I hope they find good players and have a blast -- but it's not for me.  And here's why: Agency. To me, agency involves the following: freedom of choice in character creation within the bounds of the campaign setting and rules. My attributes, abilities, feats, gear, etc, are all decisions I make. During the game, agency involves bei...

 I'm not a fan of the third act. It feels ... overused in Western storytelling. The first act:   The set up, we learn about the main character, see the social dynamics. The second act: The main character makes friends, is a rising star, that sort of thing. The third act:   The main character fucks things up , everyone turns against them, and they're alone / abandoned until... The fourth act: they make it right. Usually, this doesn't involve the idiot ball ... which is almost a shame, because if it was a case of idiot balls, we could chalk it up to bad writing. But usually... it isn't. This is very much a Western mindset though ... this idea that the main character has to fuck up, has to make additional drama, has to atone or have everyone realise they were right all along. Part of it, I think, is the West's fixation on being the underdog. That the hero has to be abandoned so that they can rise up and say 'see? I was right all along!' or even as some sort o...