Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7067677" data-attributes="member: 6802765">In response to your first question, how can a game be designed by a third party to take into account the specific tastes and preferences of the players at your table? As I see it, one of the key advantages of having a DM is the ability to tailor the game to the table.Your second question makes me think you missed the part where I described the massaging and nudging as "[having] nothing to do with achieving pre-planned outcomes". If you did miss it, I can't emphasize it enough: it's a key part of the question I asked you. If you didn't miss it, then I don't at all understand your second question: if there are no pre-planned outcomes, the dice would seem to be extremely relevant to determining what the outcomes are. Ok cool--I was misunderstanding what you were saying. Thank you for clarifying.Happy to.When I DM I have certain elements of the setting already in mind. For one thing, I use a persistant campaign world, so, at a minimum, the events of previous campaigns are established lore. (New players, of course, will not know this lore.) On top of that, I usually come up with elements of the starting setting for a new campaign, including geography, culture, NPCs the party might come into contact with (both specifically-placed and generic), events likely to occur in the near future, plots the PCs may be interested in, etc. Based on this thread, it is my understanding that you consider all of that to be "secret backstory". I will use that backstory to inform action resolution: if , e.g., a player asks a local to find out what inns are in town, I will answer with the details I already have (possibly filtered through the opinions of the NPC sharing the information).However, until I share it, the details are flexible. If, at the time the player asks, they're looking for a specific variety of inn, I might well change one of the pre-planned inns (or add one) to provide some or all of what the player is looking for. I will only do this if the following conditons are met:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I think having the type of inn the PC is looking for will make the game more enjoyable for the players as a group.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It's just (or almost) as plausible for that type of inn to be present instead of, or in addition to, the ones I had planned.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I can make the change invisibly.</li> </ol>If what the PC is looking for is plausible but unlikely, I might announce probabilities and then roll percentile dice to determine if it is present. (What I will never do is make the presence of the desired type of inn depend on player's check to gather information.)If instead what the player is looking for is already on my list, I'm not going to remove it from the list to frustrate the player. Exception: if the player is trying to take the game in a direction the other players are trying to avoid and wouldn't enjoy, then I might remove it from the list, depending heavily on the specifics at the table at the time. For example, if the player of a racist PC is looking for an inn catering to Elven patrons specifically to go make trouble in order to hog the spotlight, then I might remove an Elven inn from a premade list (and have an OOC talk with the player after the game). Otherwise, I don't make changes to try to thwart the PCs.I would also consider that railroading, but since I don't make changes to the "secret backstory" to thwart the PCs, your example can't arise under my style.If the presence of the ring was pre-planned, instead I'd make a big deal of the fact that the spell failed, give a vivid description of what the failure felt like to the caster and how unusual it was (or how familiar if the PC had encountered such rings before), and let the players decide if they want to further investigate the cause and/or the significance of the fact that the chamberlain has such a ring.</blockquote>

Verification