Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5825377" data-attributes="member: 8835">On roadtrips, I guess it depends on what you consider a roadtrip.&nbsp; When I travel, I don't stop, except for gas.&nbsp; Every couple of years or so, I drive up to see my MN friends.&nbsp; That's 1500 miles in 20 hours in a car.&nbsp; We stop for gas and McD's at the gas station.&nbsp; We don't even sleep.&nbsp; While tales have been told of the silliness that happens from talking in a car for 20 hours, nothing interesting happens along the way.In reading this, Hobo, and RA, I got some ideas. the montage approach is how you PRESENT travel that skips over the boring stuff.Written directly by the GM, that can feel a bit railroady.The traditional hexcrawl feels pokey, because it makes the players play hex by hex through the boring stuff.I propose finding a middle ground.When the players tell you their route/destination, look at the hex map and quickly work up the &quot;boring&quot; description that leads into the first interesting encounter.&nbsp; When they finish that, re-verify their route/destination from their current position, and repeat.Basically, at the presentation layer, make it feel like a montage.&nbsp; But behind the scenes, go through the hex crawl.Though Henry's a seasoned GM, I'll throw in this caution.&nbsp; Don't make the Forst of Too Many Encounters.&nbsp; It's a funny tale from my blog.&nbsp; My GM had a forest with a trail through it to point B.&nbsp; he'd rolled up zillions of encounters for every hex.Then when he ran it, we walked directly from point A to point B, skipping the vast majority of his encounters.&nbsp; He basically wasted his prep-time making stuff he didn't need.This is the other reason linear design and montages work.&nbsp; Because despite all the planning and possibilities of where the PCs COULD go on a hex map, when their goal is get to Point B, the number of choices that matter narrows down a lot.&nbsp; Unless you offer a fork in the road of obvious merit, it is no choice of interest to the players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5825377, member: 8835"] On roadtrips, I guess it depends on what you consider a roadtrip. When I travel, I don't stop, except for gas. Every couple of years or so, I drive up to see my MN friends. That's 1500 miles in 20 hours in a car. We stop for gas and McD's at the gas station. We don't even sleep. While tales have been told of the silliness that happens from talking in a car for 20 hours, nothing interesting happens along the way. In reading this, Hobo, and RA, I got some ideas. the montage approach is how you PRESENT travel that skips over the boring stuff. Written directly by the GM, that can feel a bit railroady. The traditional hexcrawl feels pokey, because it makes the players play hex by hex through the boring stuff. I propose finding a middle ground. When the players tell you their route/destination, look at the hex map and quickly work up the "boring" description that leads into the first interesting encounter. When they finish that, re-verify their route/destination from their current position, and repeat. Basically, at the presentation layer, make it feel like a montage. But behind the scenes, go through the hex crawl. Though Henry's a seasoned GM, I'll throw in this caution. Don't make the Forst of Too Many Encounters. It's a funny tale from my blog. My GM had a forest with a trail through it to point B. he'd rolled up zillions of encounters for every hex. Then when he ran it, we walked directly from point A to point B, skipping the vast majority of his encounters. He basically wasted his prep-time making stuff he didn't need. This is the other reason linear design and montages work. Because despite all the planning and possibilities of where the PCs COULD go on a hex map, when their goal is get to Point B, the number of choices that matter narrows down a lot. Unless you offer a fork in the road of obvious merit, it is no choice of interest to the players. [/QUOTE]

Verification