Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8695318" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Did I specify a number of hours? Hmm, doesn't seem like I did. How odd. Perhaps, instead of a snarky comment, it would be more constructive to engage in actual conversation.Okay. It's pretty clear from every Youtube video, every forum post, and every live-person conversation I've ever had that "fudging" means being secretive. That's rather a weird bubble to have somehow maintained.Because it's clearly not a world that has any durability or weight to it? There are no consequences. Nothing matters. Things "change" only so they can stay perfectly the same. The world continuously rearranges itself in order that exactly the same curve is drawn, no matter what order you pass through its parts.I don't have everything preplanned, as I said. I have forced myself not to, because I know that's much too much of a temptation for someone like me. But if they choose to go west instead of north, I will improvise different things if I haven't prepared anything. (And, in general, I've done at least a LITTLE prep, so I have something to go off of. That's why I have a map that is drawn...and yet full of blanks.)There absolutely are. I was one, before I got involved in debates like this. It's part of why I find the practice so problematic and shocking. It has made me second-guess some of my past DMs.People having problems with absolutism? Here's a flawed absolutist stance for you.People have (in effect) told me I play DW wrong. My players are happy and I enjoy running the game, so...I dunno what to say. I've always found it incredibly weird that people harp so hard on DMs having absolutely nothing pre-existing when two of the Principles ("draw maps, leave blanks" and "think offscreen, too") and one of the explicit instructions for How To DM ("exploit your prep") require that you have, y'know, things prepared and stuff that definitely exists without prior player input. You cannot have "no myth" and also have, and I quote, "They don’t know that the attention that just fell on them was the ominous gaze of a demon waiting two levels below, but you do."Nnnnnnnnnope.There is a "real version." Just because it's fictional doesn't mean there is absolutely no weight to it whatsoever...unless you've decided there should be no weight to it.My fictional worlds do, in fact, have weight to them. Things exist, in a fictional, narrative sense. Choices matter, in a fictional sense. Just as they do in, say, books or movies or TV shows. Continuity is vital, for instance. Rational relationships between things are important. "Babylon 5" and "Star Trek" don't exist in the sense that you or I exist, but they do exist in a narrative sense, and that narrative existence is extremely important. The fictional world I share with my players exists in a narrative sense. Doesn't your fictional world exist in that sense? It has a history, for example, that shouldn't be changed for light or transient causes.Yeah, sorry, I don't buy it. I've seen through DM illusions before, and my players are WAY too sharp to not see through any of mine (hell, they've already pretty much seen through 3/4 of everything I've done thus far, they just don't know they have, it's intuition rather than evidence.) It's not a matter of skill. It's a matter of numbers. Four or five brains vs one. That's not a winnable game. It's just not.Because "recycle" is not the same as "reuse." Remember those old commercials? Reduce, reuse, recycle. "Reuse" means to use the same thing again, like using a Ziploc baggie for more than one snack, or using paper plates more than once. "Recycle" means to take a thing, break it down into its materials so those materials can be used in something else, like taking milk jugs and turning them into planters.I would not reuse a fight if it didn't fit--period. But, for example, one of the components of that aforementioned obsidian golem was some shadow-magic spider-bot things. Perhaps their makers discovered the golem later (the grotto in which the PCs found it was essentially deserted after they left), meaning those makers could try to create something intentional built off the same (accidental) principles of the golem. That would be recycling the old fight that never happened so I could build something new and interesting as a result, anchored in plausible plot events, with the specific details necessarily altered because the situation is quite different.</blockquote>

Verification