Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5170818" data-attributes="member: 40177">I like how in your arguments, the GM who follows your method is a skilled practitioner, while the GM who follows mine is a bumbling bafoon.  Nice. I'm not saying every door needs to be trapped.  What I am saying is, if you have a rogue in your party and there are no traps AND THE PLAYER IS GETTING BORED, maybe it is time to read off that feedback and throw something in.  You are, in essence, giving the player what he/she wants.The player, if he even picks up on this, isn't going to say "hey, I should be stupid so the GM doesn't hit me with traps", what he is going to say is instead "hey, if I give the GM feedback on what I like, I'll encounter more of that".  To me, that is a good thing.  Your mileage may vary, and that's perfectly fine.  Wait, why?  Because I took some feedback from my players and went with it?  Or because I put too many orcs in the dungeon in the first place?  But yes, my dungeons do tend to be pretty bland when I write them up - because I intend on taking player information and seeding them as I go.  If the table seems to go in a silly direction, I silly up the dungeon.  If it's more serious, I drop some horror elements.  It works for us.  But then, I imagine we're a different table than yours.  We're very much "beer and pretzels".This should be good.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />Yeah, I'm winging it.  And yeah, sometimes there are plot holes that pop up because of this.  But you don't really have a grasp on my game.  It does make sense, players are entertained, and (just as importantly) I'm entertained running with the structure and planning I've done.  To use your own words, I'll tell YOU what's "going on here".  You create and run dungeons (or adventures, or whatever) and that is your primary area of focus.  I create and run situations.  They are two entirely different focal points for running a game.  I am at my best with one page of notes, and maybe a scrawled map.  For me, that is my comfort level.  My game does not suffer because of it.For starters, I have my own contributions to add.  I'm not going "hey, Blargney thinks it's the guy with the evil moustache... I should make it that guy".  I'm not above throwing twists and turns at the party.  I'm not just handing freebies out to the party.  And I will almost always twist the party prediction in some way or another, if only so they don't instantly assume I was taking their idea.  It also makes the game more interesting for all of us.Second, you're never playing with yourself.  Yes, in such a game the players assume a bit more of a GM role, whether they realize it or not.  But then, I have a group of five players... who want different things.  Even if everyone in my group knows what I am doing, there is still a hodge-podge of ideas being thrown around... and it becomes my job to mix them up and entertain everyone.I firmly hold it is the GM's job to adapt to his group's playstyle, not the group's job to adapt to the GM.  Other people's opinions may vary (but that's another argument).  Third, if you were my player and made it a point that you didn't like this sort of play, I would be making an effort to accomodate that (while accomodating the other players, of course). But I still hold that you wouldn't realize what I was doing - I'm very good at keeping my players on their toes regarding what's coming next.  For the record, I don't always "chum the dungeon" - if I have a good idea, I stick to it.  But if my idea is too bland or doesn't have traction with the group... I'll change it.  And their ideas are often AWESOME, so why not use them?</blockquote>

Verification