NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6229751" data-attributes="member: 59082">I was speaking directly to pemerton; unless you are pemerton and/or your view is identical to his, then yeah, sure, why not? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />This is where we can see that there is some flexibility in what a DM "is." I love worldbuilding, including (and perhaps especially) big picture stuff like cosmology, world maps, etc. I often find myself fretting over the look of this or that coastline, even though I know my players will likely never even go to 90% of the places on the world map, but that doesn't stop me, for two basic reasons: One, as I said, I love worldbuilding - I do it for my own enjoyment; and two, the more work I do beyond the "edges" of game play ("ludus incognita"), the more it enriches the area of play ("ludus cognita").I find the worldbuilding approach of stopping at what is "sufficient for play to proceed" unsatisfying both as a DM (worldbuilder) and player, because the props, so to speak, end up feeling paper thin - like the western town in Blazing Saddles. This doesn't mean I think you or anyone that takes this approach is a bad DM, by the way - there are many aspects that go into good DMing, and a great worldbuilder and otherwise poor DM still makes for a shoddy game experience (just as an excellent DM can make up for paper-thin worldbuilding and still provide an enjoyable game). It is just that this is an important aspect of D&D for me.I think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] spoke to this better than I could have. My view is similar to his.Yes, I agree with this. But its really a spectrum, really, from utter free form and co-created, ala the "sandbox" approach, and what is pejoratively described as "railroading." I find myself enjoying the spectrum, but preferring an approach that incorporates elements from both extremes. I like a sandbox-style basic set-up, especially at the beginning, with plot-hooks and locations and encounters, and then I like weaving together these plot-hooks, perhaps guided by some underlying (or over-arching) story ideas that I want to instigate. But it isn't about me corralling the PCs in a direction they don't want to go; its about creating a symphony in which they can improvise within - "jazz-classical."So the DM is also the conductor - but not of a pre-written orchestral piece, but a "jazz symphony" in which improvisation is not only possible but encouraged, and which no one is absolutely sure where things will end up. Some DMs want to know and do corral the PCs, I prefer not to - although there are always plot ideas that I'll find a way in if I really like them.I meant "casual" mainly in their overall interest in RPGs. I'm the only one that buys more than a book or two, that thinks about D&D beyond the session, at least significantly, or that posts on forums. But there's a range in terms of how well the players know the rules; some "get it," and some don't. And I can agree with you that for those who get it there's a lot more freedom, but...they still look at their character sheets as a menu of options (resources) and rarely improvise out of it. Or rather, they might come up with a description of what the character does and then they, the player, chooses which power fits that description (or usually vice versa). The problem being that there's a kind of artificial separation between character action and player choice (of resource).Well again, we disagree on the absoluteness of DM power here.Of course the DM has greater knowledge of where the story is heading, at least in the approach I take, because the DM likely has plot hooks that they want to introduce. I'd say guide, not constrain. But the DM always can over-rule the rules.Assumed? No; I agree with you. Planned? Why not? Plans are flexible and can be changed.</blockquote>

Verification