Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6314750" data-attributes="member: 6688858">It's cool that [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] showed up in this thread <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />This&nbsp; describes my approach to DMing really well. I'm just recently beginning&nbsp; to move beyond it in realizing that how appropriate it is for the DM to&nbsp; make something up on the spot slides up or down based on how close it&nbsp; is to affecting the PC's HP, GP or XP. I never fudge dice rolls in&nbsp; combat or alter the value or location of treasure on the fly, almost&nbsp; never override morale or surprise rolls, rarely but sometimes override&nbsp; encounter or perception-type rolls, and make up lots of stuff during&nbsp; social/town encounters. I always make sure the players know my general&nbsp; approach, even if they don't know whether I'm deciding a particular&nbsp; thing randomly or by fiat. When I do &quot;massage&quot; the game in a particular&nbsp; direction it's not to produce a better story but to customize the game&nbsp; to my players' ability and create a smoother learning curve for them.&nbsp; Like a guitar teacher altering their lesson plan to make learning to&nbsp; play a little smoother and more enjoyable for their student. If I want&nbsp; to make an adventure easier then I generally give the players more&nbsp; information rather than alter encounters or fudge rolls.Regarding the tendency of hands-off DMing to lead to the occasional&nbsp; boring session, I think you should always try to solve this with better&nbsp; game content first. If you put something interesting in every direction&nbsp; then you don't need to guide the players to the interesting thing (my&nbsp; dungeons have far fewer empty rooms than those produced by the random&nbsp; generator in the 1e DMG). The DM doesn't need to fudge to get the&nbsp; players out of difficult situations if the players can retreat or&nbsp; activate an &quot;ejection seat&quot; type ability to escape at a cost. Obviously&nbsp; it's best for these to take the form of in-game abilities but if&nbsp; necessary fate/luck points serve the same purpose.I definitely&nbsp; think that if you're going to run a sandbox, you need to make the&nbsp; gameworld unrealistically dense with interesting stuff. Making the&nbsp; gameworld more realistic broadens the scope of player strategy but the&nbsp; returns diminish pretty steeply I think. As long as each &quot;encounter&quot;&nbsp; makes sense and responds logically to player interaction I think that&nbsp; gets you 95% of the way there. I don't think that monster ecosystems and&nbsp; architecturally realistic dungeon layouts add anything significant to&nbsp; gameplay. I think the old school gonzo dungeon is right in the sweet&nbsp; spot here. Fortunately I've found that aesthetically my players also&nbsp; care most about the immediate details (e.g. if I describe a ghoul in a&nbsp; sufficiently creepy way they don't care how it got there).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 6314750, member: 6688858"] It's cool that [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] showed up in this thread :) This describes my approach to DMing really well. I'm just recently beginning to move beyond it in realizing that how appropriate it is for the DM to make something up on the spot slides up or down based on how close it is to affecting the PC's HP, GP or XP. I never fudge dice rolls in combat or alter the value or location of treasure on the fly, almost never override morale or surprise rolls, rarely but sometimes override encounter or perception-type rolls, and make up lots of stuff during social/town encounters. I always make sure the players know my general approach, even if they don't know whether I'm deciding a particular thing randomly or by fiat. When I do "massage" the game in a particular direction it's not to produce a better story but to customize the game to my players' ability and create a smoother learning curve for them. Like a guitar teacher altering their lesson plan to make learning to play a little smoother and more enjoyable for their student. If I want to make an adventure easier then I generally give the players more information rather than alter encounters or fudge rolls. Regarding the tendency of hands-off DMing to lead to the occasional boring session, I think you should always try to solve this with better game content first. If you put something interesting in every direction then you don't need to guide the players to the interesting thing (my dungeons have far fewer empty rooms than those produced by the random generator in the 1e DMG). The DM doesn't need to fudge to get the players out of difficult situations if the players can retreat or activate an "ejection seat" type ability to escape at a cost. Obviously it's best for these to take the form of in-game abilities but if necessary fate/luck points serve the same purpose. I definitely think that if you're going to run a sandbox, you need to make the gameworld unrealistically dense with interesting stuff. Making the gameworld more realistic broadens the scope of player strategy but the returns diminish pretty steeply I think. As long as each "encounter" makes sense and responds logically to player interaction I think that gets you 95% of the way there. I don't think that monster ecosystems and architecturally realistic dungeon layouts add anything significant to gameplay. I think the old school gonzo dungeon is right in the sweet spot here. Fortunately I've found that aesthetically my players also care most about the immediate details (e.g. if I describe a ghoul in a sufficiently creepy way they don't care how it got there). [/QUOTE]

Verification