Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8517608" data-attributes="member: 7032025">And perhaps you should consider using words that do not make other readers feel that you are a superior DM for not being faint-hearted, for being consistent (implying that others are not), for creating &quot;complete&quot; NPCs (implying that others are incomplete), for having &quot;mechanically compliant NPCs (implying that others' NPC are uncompliant - which I remind you is only a constraint in 3e, not in any other edition) and in general making others feel as if their game is inferior for not doing what you do.Which is why I stated clearly that it was just my preference, it does not make my game superior, just different, more suited to the tastes at our tables. As for plots &quot;emerging from play&quot;, it is not incompatible. The thing is that I believe that a consistent world is one where the PCs are at the centre of the action, but they are not the only movers and shakers (and that is also the usual approach to the genre). So while not dictating their path and leaving them free to create their plot, I still spend time imagining what the NPCs are doing in the background, so that when it intersects the PC's path, they will have a sense of a living world around them, and feel that their adversaries are dangerous, plotting, nefarious, etc. And the the actual plot emerges from play as a combination of what all actors in the world do, whether PCs or NPCs.Which is why having consistent NPCs is very important to me, and contrary to your opinion, it does not mean that the consistency has to be with PC classes and technical build. This, for me, is more a constraint that prevents me from having NPCs truly consistent between their position, their personality, their abilities, and how these are used in the plot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8517608, member: 7032025"] And perhaps you should consider using words that do not make other readers feel that you are a superior DM for not being faint-hearted, for being consistent (implying that others are not), for creating "complete" NPCs (implying that others are incomplete), for having "mechanically compliant NPCs (implying that others' NPC are uncompliant - which I remind you is only a constraint in 3e, not in any other edition) and in general making others feel as if their game is inferior for not doing what you do. Which is why I stated clearly that it was just my preference, it does not make my game superior, just different, more suited to the tastes at our tables. As for plots "emerging from play", it is not incompatible. The thing is that I believe that a consistent world is one where the PCs are at the centre of the action, but they are not the only movers and shakers (and that is also the usual approach to the genre). So while not dictating their path and leaving them free to create their plot, I still spend time imagining what the NPCs are doing in the background, so that when it intersects the PC's path, they will have a sense of a living world around them, and feel that their adversaries are dangerous, plotting, nefarious, etc. And the the actual plot emerges from play as a combination of what all actors in the world do, whether PCs or NPCs. Which is why having consistent NPCs is very important to me, and contrary to your opinion, it does not mean that the consistency has to be with PC classes and technical build. This, for me, is more a constraint that prevents me from having NPCs truly consistent between their position, their personality, their abilities, and how these are used in the plot. [/QUOTE]

Verification