Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8085588" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Sometimes one has to read and generate a view from the entirety of text rather than understanding a view from a portion of the text.And I responded that you could do those in 5e. I responded that is might work for your table. I responded that is could produce fun play. My argument for the video is not a new one nor is it an original. People claim stuff all the time about their DM'ing approaches. People write near epistemological diatribes about game theory and how they approach DM'ing. I have played as a player with several. Most of it is well meaninged, but far from truth. It is an ideal, not daily practice. It creeps in, but does not permeate. That is why when someone says, "You don't understand. You don't have the experience I do. Your games can run like this, I do it." I simple ask for proof. Video a session. Talk as DM a little before your session about what you have prepped if anything. Give a little synopsis of the game so far. Then video your session. This way people can learn from the DM that incorporates things that are different than 90% of the tables run. You see, it is more about learning than proving. As of yet, and the ten or so videos my friends and I have askedfor on various play-styles, we've seen zero.Again. Never said D&D was unique in the way it must be run. In this post alone, I have specifically stated two ways it can be run. I have specifically stated both can be fun. I have specifically stated I have experience with both. What you are giving of my statements is completely false. Sorry. If you would like, I will go back through these posts and pull the ten or so quotes of me specifically saying how there are different ways to play.   I included your entire post this time. I will just say this:There is no difference between having a pre-scripted adventure (like an AP), having a ten page notebook detailing a session, or a DM thinking what their players might do the night before a session and writing it in their head. I believe one creates a more fluid story if the DM's are comparable. (Notice, not more fun.) They are all pre-scripting. I have continuously said the players always do something unexpected. Said it five times in this thread. Said it is part of the fun. But that pre-scripting leads to A to B to C. Not always in order. I have said sometimes players jump to F then go back to C. Still pre-scripting unless the players do something where the DM has to make stuff up on the fly. Then it is just random encounters. That is what I have said from the beginning. Some choose to do random encounters only. Kudos. It can be fun. Others stay on the railroad. Great. Have fun. Others choose crossing roads. Excellent. Have at it. It is all pre-scripting until it is random encounters. That was my premise. Then I changed my mind. I asked myself if what you and others have shown (about implementing other DM techniques into 5e) might change these paths. Might somehow combine the random encounter with the paths or railroad. My conclusion was, yes. It is possible. I would still like to learn how this plays out. The best way to do that would be to see an example of D&D being played with these techniques. See what you did there? How you used words to phrase something I never even came close to saying. How you use the words: "I suppose that's okay" as if I think their way is mediocre. Never said, so please don't imply that I did. I said the opposite. I said: random encounters can be fun! My table experiences with random encounters was great. See the difference? It is not about reconciling, it is about learning. I don't try to win arguments. I take a position and try to learn from the other side. Look at my other posts, you will see this to be true. One thing I try hard not to do is summarize another person's feelings about the topic. It does not create a good environment.</blockquote>

Verification