Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5216184" data-attributes="member: 18280">Sorry, butMy thoughts on the encounter and campaign start was that the PCs would close on the enemy ship to fight man-to-man, and then have a fun battle with the enemy grunts. We’d get all the PCs involved in a grand battle. Then the PCs would capture the enemy vessel. When they got to Bral, they could pool their ship and the captured ship together and then buy a really cool ship that they chose for themselves.seems not only like a plan for the encounter, but a plan for how the encounter would sequence into the next incident (Bral).My expectation is not that "A DM creates a battle encounter" but "A DM creates an encounter" that then becomes a battle encounter (or not) depending upon how it is approached (or avoided)."There is an orc in this room.  It is guarding a pie." is fine for the GM's notes, but when the PCs arrive and try to talk to the orc, the GM should decide what the orc should do, and that is not always "Attack the PCs"."There is an orc in this room.  It is guarding a pie." is a frame, but actually running an encounter is larger than the frame.-------In the Spelljammer example given, the DM had quite a few options available to him to salvage the encounter:*  Add another ship, such as a ship that is not friendly to the attacking ship's nation, but is neutral to the PC's nation, which renders aid simply to foil the attackers.*  Have the NPC sailors mutiny and surrender the PC's ship.  The PCs can then still resist surrender, and try to fight the NPC enemy nation marines, capture the new ship, and decide what to do with the mutinous (but now abashed) crew.*  Allow the PCs to evade and escape.  They will have to deal with this ship again -- either through combat or evasion -- to get to Bral.*  Allow the PC ship to be destroyed and the PCs captured.  This changes what the game is about, maybe, but the PCs can always foster a mutiny, be ransomed, etc.Of course, these solutions are acceptable to me primarily because this is the players' introduction to the setting.  Once regular play has begun, I would just let the chips fall where they may.There are many things the DM could have done, and none of them require that the players even realize that what happened was not "planned".------------ The difference, IMHO, between the GM having "plans" and having "expectations" is this:  If things don't go to the GM's expectations, the GM rolls with it, and the game continues.  If things don't go to the GM's plans, the GM tries to either force an outcome that meets his plans or the game ends.If you find that you are either trying force an outcome that meets your expectations, or the game ends when your expectations are not met, then your "expectations" are really "plans".IMHO.  YMMV.No.The dungeon still exists; it can still be used at a later date.  And the players are engaged with the world, which is, IMHO at least, the real goal.And, thank you for calling me a good DM.  <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=";)" />  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />RC</blockquote>

Verification