Recent content by Maxperson

Especially since if they are forewarned about the two paths like that, they might opt to go off trail to avoid both locations. Foreknowledge alters the situation and doesn't keep it to the two paths.

It's not gamist. It's simulationist. If there's a bear over there in the woods, that's where it is at regardless of what anyone succeeds or fails at. It also didn't just appear there in an improvised moment. Advance prep is part of simulating a more realistic environment where things are set...

Whereas I don't mind if I prep some stuff and the group uses a teleport scroll that I forgot they had to bypass a chunk of it. As long as we are all having fun, that's the important part to me.

It's railroading. The players choices are invalidated and no matter where they go or what they choose, they will encounter that ogre. Part of being a traditional DM is having prep that doesn't get used.

This is illusionism, which is a form of railroading. It completely negates player choice. To me, it's the worst form of railroading as it is harder to see than the blatant, "No, you can't do that, you have to do this instead." I don't like any method where the ogre's location is rolled after...

I've been in those situations several times over the decades. They're pretty rare. That said, 100% of the time the DMs told us, if you are still here in X rounds, your character will die. If the DM will put PCs into positions like that and not inform the players of the time limit, that needs...

Maybe I'm not understanding then. The example I gave was of an unknown time limit that could(not would) render all those efforts null. I won't use the term meaningless, because it can still very much have meaning. Sure, it can be disappointing to fail. But disappointment doesn't mean that...

Nobody is saying or implying that from my side of things. And nobody has shown(or can show) the position my side is taking on encounters and die rolls to be without merit. In fact, what you just said about our arguments being without merit is you saying that we over here are playing the game...

I had to expand upon it way upthread since just having cook in kitchen didn't give enough detail. So for my posts, coming from my playstyle, I established more in order for the explanations of how and why I do things to make more sense.

Oh, I appreciate from a technical standpoint a lot of the player facing techniques. They aren't necessarily my cup of tea to run or play in, but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate them. That's why I try to genuinely understand where the other side is coming from, instead of dismissing...

If you run a pre-established setting, much of the pre-establishment has been done for you. The same with pre-written adventures like say, Against the Giants or something like that. :P I used to prepare a lot in advance. These days due to life, I can only prepare some stuff and use a published...

It's not "where the PCs are" It's in the particular spot in the forest that the 2pm wandering monster roll would happen. I just roll it in advance for a better player experience. If they somehow move away from the forest and encounters shouldn't be rolled a 2pm and/or shouldn't be rolled on...

Yes it is optional. In both 5e and 5.5e. The default is not to run skill checks that way. The RULE is in the PHB and it says nothing about fail forward or success with a cost. The DMG option says... "As a DM, you have a variety of flourishes and approaches you can take when adjudicating...

Right, and that works both ways. That's probably why the two sides of this discussion have the preferences that we do.

Random encounters happen when PCs are at a location. I roll them in advance to give me time, but they are already at that location. If they surprise me and leave the area to the point where a random encounter should not have been rolled, they will not have that encounter. What you are doing...