Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jshaft37" data-source="post: 5859851" data-attributes="member: 6671287">First off, thanks for all the responses.  A lot of different ways to look at these things, really gets the wheels turning in my brain and allows me to think differently than I normally would!Another question, if I am hit with something that is unexpected but could potentially be boring, is it proper to take a quick break to prepare?  If so, how long?  If I knew for a fact it was going to be awesome, I'd be tempted to take as much time as I needed, even ending the session depending on circumstances.  However, if its not a "main" quest point, I'm always wary about taking time to plan something boring.If a PC decides they want to research a cave system that supposedly holds ancient dwarven ruins, how do you decide whether or not the information is in the library, and how much information they find.  This is a very good example of what I am struggling with.  I will obviously say yes, and I want them to gather information so the player's get more interested in the upcoming quest. "Oh the this is the Dwarven Civilization that supposedly discovered the 'foundation stone' aka the thing we're trying to put back together, awesome!"I may be tempted to make this a skill challenge/series of three checks, and give more or less information depending on their success, but I have a hard time NOT giving them the information.  I suppose in hindsight, I probably should give them the biggest and best piece automatically.  Then give them small pieces after that.  1. The foundation Stone was discovered there. 2. The lowest depths are filled with Noxious Gasses. 3. Legend states that a plague killed off the dwarves.  But probably tell them in reverse order, giving them the "big reveal".  This is what I do the vast majority of the time, and I always say yes.  Sometimes I'd like to play out of the scene more and give the Player's the ability to show their Character's personality in a that isn't overwhelmed by creatures, explosions, etc.  I'm always surprised at what the character's can do left to their own devices, but the risk of having the scenario fall flat makes me leery not to just skip such scenes.When I said "hazards" above, this is actually kind of what I did.  I abstracted mining carts coming at them in a narrow passage (since they were headed to a mine), as well as a pitfall and the carts track went over a wide canyon.  It was ok, but not great.  That's what leads me to believe its best to skip these scenarios, because maybe even at your best, it might only be "pretty good".In another post, I said that travel challenges were probably a bad example, but I'd almost certainly just do a quick narration and be on my way.  If I wanted to point out the environment more, I'd probably do an RP or Combat encounter along the way.As far as the tunnel, I meant for it to be a 5 minute walk (about 1000' in the dark), and I just wanted to attempt to play off the PC's actions.This is the underlying principal I need to do better.  I seem to set up scenarios and forget to harp on the crucial time component.  When I think of it, its late and seems forced.</blockquote>

Verification