You certainly should.You see, with D&D, I kinda expect that sort of thing.
Forked Thread: DMs - No one cares how long you worked (was: Rant -- GM Control...)
- Thread starter maddman75
- Start date
Unless of course the mime is actually a mute who can perceive the horrors coming, and tries to inform everyone of the movements of the eldrich horrors and their ways. That invisible wind? It is the presence of the otherworldly. The box that he is trapped inside? The grip of terror, expressed through his motions. But no one takes his warnings seriously.Point taken.
Alternatively the mime could be a tragic person, trying to cope with the horrors by being humorous, and failing at every opportunity. The horrors beyond making him break character.
The way I do it is with a simple principle - nothing in the game world exists unless the PCs interact with it. Any notes, plans, etc are just suggestions of what might be, or what might happen. You had a list of things that you wanted to put in, but the players zigged when you thought they'd zag? Repurpose and reuse.
Example - I was running a HEX game not long ago. The PCs are trying to beat the Nazis to some mysterious power source, and some natives told them that the nearby pirate captain might know something about that. I'd planned for them to have one PC seduce it out of him while the others had all kinds of interactions with the pirates. Instead, as soon as the captain said he had 'ways of finding treasure', one of the PCs put a gun to his head and demanded that he tell them everything and hand over what he had.
Now I thought that was pretty cool, and a fun scene. But I wasn't the least bit upset that they bypassed most of what I'd planned. The lost city of the ancients I was going to tempt the scholar with? Placed it right on their path. Or the saber-toothed tiger encounter one of the PCs was going to be challenged with? It fit nicely in the city they were exploring.
Now if I'd said "But the city is to the south and they're going east there's no way I can do that!" I'd be cutting off possibilities for no reason. I haven't told the PCs what is in what direction. I haven't given them a map. I can put things wherever I please.
So what if they don't see an encounter you prepared. Throw it at them somewhere else! If its fun, then its fun, even if it isn't where you originally thought it would be.
I'd say there are a number of posters who consistently advise that, myself included. The "say yes" set or people like shilsen and I who advocate for what we call "high-trust environments" (which basically means we say 'yes' a lot when DM'ing).
I think you're "reading in" here. From my perspective this has nothing to do with placing value judgments on anyone's contributions --again, that would be silly and unproductive.
I prefer to hand a significant amount of narrative authority to my players because the game just works better when I do. For starters, it makes adventure writing much easier when the players have the ability to essentially invent their own hooks. Related to that it makes DM'ing more challenging, the more narrative authority, the more I'm forced to react to their scenarios, rather than simple wait for them to react to my mine. I like being surprised and I like the feel of working on a piece of collaborative fiction. The players like being given a ownership stake in the tone and direction of the campaign.
So there's no value judgment here, at least from me. Just practical advice.
Last edited:
Storminator
First Post
Once, I was a player in a 25th level 3.5 game. Preparing for that game was a real chore for the GM. Coming up with meaningful challenges for a pack of 25th level PCs is nothing to sneeze at. So, as a player, I instituted a rule, that if we ended a session saying we were going to zig, by god we started the next session zigging! If players want to switch to zagging, do it at the end of the night, so the GM can be prepared.
Naturally things happened during the game that threw him for a loop, but I made sure he at least had a foundation for each session.
PS
I look at it from a slightly different angle: I do have complete ownership of the campaign from the beginning, but freely give out "shares" as needed. It is initially "my" vision when I run an adventure or campaign with (hopefully) the versatility and flexibility to incorporate most any character or player who wants to join.
But I do reserve the right to nerf or nix, as needed, for what is hopefully the betterment of the game for all involved. As an example: A player can be a "lazy" player. His character died (rogue went scouting too far from party and walked right in to the waiting ambush). He comes back wanting to play a Battlerager or Tempest Fighter (he's on boards and people called them "broken") and didn't even pick his skills, just wanted combat stats and to "kill stuff". I nixed both (partly due to the Battlerager Temp HP math) because it would cause delays while he stopped the game to figure out what was going on.
He also has trouble playing within the party concept. He wants to "solo" things. Well, 4E doesn't work that way, at least how I run it. He went through a few characters because he didn't try to work WITH the group. I felt perfectly justified in limiting his options because I know the player and how it effects the group. I also was able to suggest a character he would still have fun with. This was a player who always refused to play a Cleric because he didn't ewant to be a "boring healbot". He was a bit surprised when I ran an NPC cleric that waxed baddies and nerfed Wizards like a madman.
And you know what? The game was still fun for everyone. All it took was a little time for the rant to get over and a little actual discussion.
Arnwyn
First Post
Fascinating. My players want to adventure and "play out their character's issues and goals" because I spend time on my "delicately crafted campaign setting".
I'm glad my players respect the time I put into the game to improve their fun, and also respect how I get my fun.
I feel sorry and hold only pity for those who don't. *shrug*
maddman75: I'm with you.
DMing, for me, is like being a cook. If you want to be a good cook, you need to derive pleasure from your patrons enjoying your work. You can't sit back, make gourmet food, and whine because your customers just wanted a burger and fries. It doesn't matter how great the food might have been in some objective sense. A cook who serves food with fancy french names to a dude who just wanted a burger is a cook who is a failure.
DMing, for me, is like being a cook. If you want to be a good cook, you need to derive pleasure from your patrons enjoying your work. You can't sit back, make gourmet food, and whine because your customers just wanted a burger and fries. It doesn't matter how great the food might have been in some objective sense. A cook who serves food with fancy french names to a dude who just wanted a burger is a cook who is a failure.
Storminator
First Post
Somehow I doubt that you are crafting your campaign setting with no regard for how your players play.
PS
The problem I have with that is that my players are just so unhelpful in finding out what they want to eat. They aren't helpful, they just say 'yeah that's fun', and when I ask 'so what do you want', they just want to 'ride out the adventure'. It's really hard to prepare a meal for someone when you don't know what they like.
Similar Threads
