Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="darjr" data-source="post: 5170683" data-attributes="member: 52905">One thing. This isn't to cover up a screwup. It's to take that one thing you heard and use it. I think this is an essential difference.In fact, if you took that twist mentioned and used it in another adventure with the same players then you have done it.Play the adventure exactly as written and use the feared or hopeful utterances of your players for future as yet unplanned for things, it's done.Would that be a cover-up for a screw-up? I don't think so.The fish event, did you have the NPC already written as a connoisseur of fish? If not then you've done it, right there.If you had it prewritten then that is cool, but imagine if you had not. Imagine if you had serendipitously scribbled down in your notes 'likes fish' upon first hearing the running joke by the players. Imagine that you then said the same thing in answer to the PC's queries? Would that have broken the trust? Are you saying that it would have been a bad thing? Would it have broken the game?I understand the issues with the railroad. This isn't that. It's a tool that could be used to force users on the track, but in and of itself it isn't railroading. I think it could be used to do exactly the opposite.Don't get me wrong. I'm absolutely not dismissing your DM style. Not one bit. What I'm failing to see eye to eye with is the sense that you seem to say that others only use such a thing to paper over some mistake or that it is somehow, even used lightly or just once, a break of the trust between DM and players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="darjr, post: 5170683, member: 52905"] One thing. This isn't to cover up a screwup. It's to take that one thing you heard and use it. I think this is an essential difference. In fact, if you took that twist mentioned and used it in another adventure with the same players then you have done it. Play the adventure exactly as written and use the feared or hopeful utterances of your players for future as yet unplanned for things, it's done. Would that be a cover-up for a screw-up? I don't think so. The fish event, did you have the NPC already written as a connoisseur of fish? If not then you've done it, right there. If you had it prewritten then that is cool, but imagine if you had not. Imagine if you had serendipitously scribbled down in your notes 'likes fish' upon first hearing the running joke by the players. Imagine that you then said the same thing in answer to the PC's queries? Would that have broken the trust? Are you saying that it would have been a bad thing? Would it have broken the game? I understand the issues with the railroad. This isn't that. It's a tool that could be used to force users on the track, but in and of itself it isn't railroading. I think it could be used to do exactly the opposite. Don't get me wrong. I'm absolutely not dismissing your DM style. Not one bit. What I'm failing to see eye to eye with is the sense that you seem to say that others only use such a thing to paper over some mistake or that it is somehow, even used lightly or just once, a break of the trust between DM and players. [/QUOTE]

Verification