Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imagicka" data-source="post: 3188988" data-attributes="member: 4621">Greetings...I found that when I end the sessions at a cliffhanger... or at a natural and logical place to cut things off.  (Such as between two adventures, when the first one has ended); is usually the best way to interrupt the game.  When I do the cliffhanger thing, the players come back to the table (next week, next month, whatever) more readily remembering where we left off last session, as well as being more geared up to play again.  "So, let's see... we had just killed the werewolves last session, and you said just before we stopped that we could see a swarm of bats coming towards us? -- Yeah, I cast Silence in the area in front of them!" Try it sometime.  Try figuring out how long it's going to take the party to go through various planned sections of the adventures.  Now, I'm not saying that you should cut off the adventures in pre-determined locations, regardless if the party is slow as molasses, or burning through the adventure.  But, try thinking of the story-arc in a series of contained chapters and adventures, and see how your players react. Usually, if I end a game early (or late), it gives the players time to talk out-of-game like what they thought of Eragon or whatever else has gotten these geeks all giddy.  Or I get their feedback on the game and see what they like about it, or not.Unrealistic?  That there are always  natural leaders to any group or hierachy?  *blinks*  I think contrary to that idea is unnatural and unrealistic.  Within any group of 'beings' that congregate for any purpose would gravitate to a model where there is a leader.  Only with a 'hive' mentality would there not be a leader necessarily.  -- Though I do agree that a nominal leader of a bandit gang may not be considered a BBEG.  He is the guy that calls the shots, and should at least the CHA to reflect that, if not a feat like Leadership, or have enough ranks in Diplomancy and/or Intimidate to do the job.  Of course, in any situation where we are dealing with a group/organization that is lawful, they would naturally gravitate towards having a leader.  Regardless of being good or evil, the idiom that the cream rises to the top hopefully holds true.  That for whatever reason there is a leader in power calling the shots.  However, if that leader is inept, there should be a reason for it, because there is no logical explanation as to why incompetent 'masterminds' are running around mucking things up.  Sure it may be amusing to have the BBEG a bumbling idiot.  But leaders are leaders for a reason.  Those incapable of doing the job don’t have it for long. You might consider it cliché that there is a mastermind behind some powerful organization.  I consider it logical.  Given the idea that there are powerful and intelligent beings out there, that are equally as capable as they are ruthless and evil... just as others are compassionate and good... is hopefully an axiom you can agree upon.  Given this axiom, you then have to ask: Why wouldn’t someone try to organize the crime syndicates, or organize the various powerful groups that are able to keep the peace in a particular city?Sure, you can steer away from campaigns where there are secret puppetmasters.  But the fact is they are out there, doing their thing.  Trying very hard to make you believe they don’t exist.  -- Plus, it makes things more interesting. I tend to be a little more heavy-handed and beat my players over their collective heads with the railroad tracks that I'm laying down for them.  I tend to say: "Here's a dangerous place -- here's a hint where you can get more information on how dangerous it is, if you want. -- Here's a reason to go there. -- Here's a few personal modivational points for one or two...or more characters to go there. -- Here's an idea of what will happen if you don't go there. -- Decide what you want to do." I think it's just good GMing if you lay out the carrots for the players, and let them choose the one they want.  It gives them the illusion that they have freedom and free will.  Usually, for me, any carrots left behind either become problems on their own that the players may or may not have to face sometime in the future.  Or they just get recycled for some other carrot-patch of choices the players will come upon later on down the road.</blockquote>

Verification