Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8647453" data-attributes="member: 29398">1 and 2.  If the alternative is that narrations and monologues become so short and terse that useful and-or important information might be skipped, I'll take the long form.  There's a happy middle, yes, but most of us amateurs aren't good enough to hit it regularly.3. Situationally dependent.  If the in-game situation doesn't allow for the introduction of a new PC then sorry, that PC's just gotta wait.  Needless delay, however, isn't good; an example being that if you-as-DM know the new PC is a captive in the next room and the wandering monster dice ping in this current room, delay that ping until the room after next so the new PC can get in first.4. Clearly this person never looked at 4e adventure design, which is often predicated on and built around the big long set-piece battle.  Personally, as DM I'd rather plan for three+ hour fights and thus know when to expect one than have them spring up without warning.5. Given that the game both is and creates the story, it's a bit difficult to put either ahead of the other.  However, if by this the author just means "don't railroad" then I agree.6 and 7.  Why the hell not?  For 6, what's wrong with temporary red-shirt characters, and for 7, I'm a let-'em-fight DM as long as it stays completely in character.8.  If the talk is in-character they can go as long as they like - it's called roleplaying.  If someone gets bored of it in-character, sooner or later that character will do somehting to stir the pot and get things moving.9.  The only one of these points with which I fully agree.</blockquote>

Verification