NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9640593">I am fine with clarity but I do have concerns about over simplification or creating an overly rigid sense of how to play. And while I think solid advice in terms of what to expect, how to prepare etc is a good thing, I do think there is no replacement for skills you learn through experience at the table. Running a game isn’t going to be easy at first. What can make it easier is creating casual expectations and not putting too much pressure on anyone to have anything except fun playing a game. I think a good DMG ought to give people an overview of different approaches to running the game, but not bog people down in a whole new lexicon or theory I can't speak for Rob, but this stuff really varies from GM to GM, and even with a given GM, is going to vary depending on how their mind is operating at a given time. These are tools for managing the living world, and there are lots of other tools out there as well. I've certainly shifted methods depending on what I find I need in order to run the stuff smoothly This argument doesn't make sense. Rob is still narrowing it down to what he finds the most plausible. He is just ending up with three somewhat plausible options and then presumably taking the one he considered the most plausible. You are using the theoretical three equally valid options concept to suggest he then is just going to decide for some other arbitrary reason. This is also where dice can come into play. If the GM is genuinely uncertain, they always roll. But this is why it is also super helpful to think in terms of NPCs, instead of events. I find it very easy to know what a given NPC is going to feel about something and how they are going to act about something. I feel like you are imagining a chain of causality in the campaign that the players have zero input on. The GM is going to be reaction to stuff the players are going. So extrapolations aren't purely based on just stuff Rob invented. They are also based on things the players have introduced through their own actions. But even so, as long as the GM is extrapolating while also allowing players to have their freedom to do things in the game and not inventing towards some direction he wants the players to go, I don't see the problem at all The problem is when you say things like GM driven, it sounds like the GM has some pre planned destination in mind like in an adventure path or something. But Rob isnt' describing that kind of adventure. He is talking about an open structure where the players can do pretty much what they want, and he has to respond. So he might be riffing in reaction to them, and extrapolating, but the players pushing on the boundaries is just as important a part of the equation. To reduce this to 'gm driven and focused' misses the full equation I think</blockquote>

Verification