Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BriarMonkey" data-source="post: 5623488" data-attributes="member: 95387">Thanks.&nbsp; I appreciate the critique, and do feel it's valid.&nbsp; Going into this I thought I had plenty of time, but as I mentioned, work suddenly took a turn and I've had late nights.&nbsp; Not an excuse, but for me, it's hard to be creative, or cohesive, when I can't relax and let things flow - things get rushed and awkward instead.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Anyway...&nbsp; Since what, the early '80s (?) I've had a sandbox style of GMing.&nbsp; While I was learning, in the late 70s, I did do a lot of modules.&nbsp; With modules, you have a beginning; a stack of bits in the middle, normally laid out to connect the beginning to the end; and an end.&nbsp; With my GMing style, when I create an adventure, I create a rough skeleton - the rest tends to get fleshed out during play.&nbsp; Thus, instead of a module's start - content - end, mine have a pile of bits.&nbsp; Everything dealing with the start, end, and actual flow of the bits depends on the characters' interactions and how they move through the environment.&nbsp; It's kinda like Lego.&nbsp; I supply the bricks, the characters supply how they are fit together.&nbsp; It's all very open and allows for a lot of diversity.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Having said that, it turned out that my very style was my greatest difficulty with this challenge.&nbsp; It was trying to put my ideas on paper such that they made sense and tried to give enough that the adventure was self-evident.&nbsp; Obviously, that failed.&nbsp; It sounded good in my head - but that didn't translate.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Moving forward, while I don't think I'll get as hung up on that notion, I do need to keep in mind that if it's not on paper, no one knows what I am thinking.&nbsp; So I need to do those transitory statements; those elements to provide guidance as to the idea and flow.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Just my two shekels for what it's worth.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BriarMonkey, post: 5623488, member: 95387"] Thanks. I appreciate the critique, and do feel it's valid. Going into this I thought I had plenty of time, but as I mentioned, work suddenly took a turn and I've had late nights. Not an excuse, but for me, it's hard to be creative, or cohesive, when I can't relax and let things flow - things get rushed and awkward instead. Anyway... Since what, the early '80s (?) I've had a sandbox style of GMing. While I was learning, in the late 70s, I did do a lot of modules. With modules, you have a beginning; a stack of bits in the middle, normally laid out to connect the beginning to the end; and an end. With my GMing style, when I create an adventure, I create a rough skeleton - the rest tends to get fleshed out during play. Thus, instead of a module's start - content - end, mine have a pile of bits. Everything dealing with the start, end, and actual flow of the bits depends on the characters' interactions and how they move through the environment. It's kinda like Lego. I supply the bricks, the characters supply how they are fit together. It's all very open and allows for a lot of diversity. Having said that, it turned out that my very style was my greatest difficulty with this challenge. It was trying to put my ideas on paper such that they made sense and tried to give enough that the adventure was self-evident. Obviously, that failed. It sounded good in my head - but that didn't translate. Moving forward, while I don't think I'll get as hung up on that notion, I do need to keep in mind that if it's not on paper, no one knows what I am thinking. So I need to do those transitory statements; those elements to provide guidance as to the idea and flow. Just my two shekels for what it's worth. [/QUOTE]

Verification