Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8286624" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I think is where I really disagree with you the most, and why I keep wanting to argue with you about it.&nbsp; &nbsp;IMO, there is nothing elegant about preemptively bending the narrative to serve mechanical or “gameplay” concerns. IME It puts more work on the DM, reduces room for improvisation, and can reduce engagement vs an approach that lets the world be “volcanic”, to abuse a phrase from Brennan Lee Mulligan of Dimension20 and Adventuring Party. &nbsp;To me, elegant is putting any needed additional front-loaded complexity on the actual resolution, where it’s fun, and keeping the world as free as possible from heavy front-loading.&nbsp;&nbsp;IMO there is no benefit to the DM knowing ahead of time exactly how complex the lock is or exactly how it works, with no room to change what you have in mind as the game develops in play, but immense benefit in letting it be “quantum” until the roll has been made.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8286624, member: 6704184"] I think is where I really disagree with you the most, and why I keep wanting to argue with you about it. IMO, there is nothing elegant about preemptively bending the narrative to serve mechanical or “gameplay” concerns. IME It puts more work on the DM, reduces room for improvisation, and can reduce engagement vs an approach that lets the world be “volcanic”, to abuse a phrase from Brennan Lee Mulligan of Dimension20 and Adventuring Party. To me, elegant is putting any needed additional front-loaded complexity on the actual resolution, where it’s fun, and keeping the world as free as possible from heavy front-loading. IMO there is no benefit to the DM knowing ahead of time exactly how complex the lock is or exactly how it works, with no room to change what you have in mind as the game develops in play, but immense benefit in letting it be “quantum” until the roll has been made. [/QUOTE]

Verification