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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7096844" data-attributes="member: 6778044">My comment was in the context of my assertion that the players are the ones writing the story. It's up to them to decide what to do, where to go, etc. If they don't have a clear direction in that situation, it's a problem of the players, not the DM.Yes, I've seen plenty of situations where the expectation is that the DM will provide the story. And the scenarios happen frequently when DM's rely on a prepared story, because either they have to try to keep the players involved (railroading), or the PCs decide to go chasing drums in the forest, which is a story the DM isn't interested in, and tries to block it.So let me try and explain how I run the game, in total, since it seems to be lost in multiple threads, and individual scenarios to illustrate a point, rather than describe DMing in totality.The players and I work on the backstories for the characters.I run a campaign in an established world, with established lore. That lore isn't 100% accurate in my campaign, but I encourage players to read as much as they want so we have a shared knowledge of that framework.I author lore, plots, schemes, history and NPCs by starting with a simple concept, and seeing where it leads once it's "placed" within the campaign. I approach it as if I'm role-playing those characters within that world. That is, I let the NPCs take the lead, in AW terminology.This might be prewritten, which usually consists of a few lines of description and goals, allies, organizations, etc., or it might be written on the fly. Even if it's written, it's malleable and can be changed.Nothing is written in stone until it intersects with the campaign in some way. So if a warlord is building an army to attack a city, and the PCs are never involved in a way that affects that, then they may in fact attack the city. This might enter the campaign as news of the attack, instead of a direct connection, but might then lead to a more direct connection. It may not.In the midst of a living world with events independent of the PCs, the players have full control over their actions and decisions. Their goals are typically related to their backstories, as well as those of their companions, but they might choose to investigate something unrelated to their backstories, or be asked to assist with something by somebody unrelated to their backstory.In addition, some events, NPCs, and encounters will relate to their goals, backstories, and fears, based on what is prewritten (their backstories), and things they say and actions they take during the campaign.Sometimes this means that there will be plots I introduce in reaction to them. For example, they return to town with a legendary sword, and go to every tavern in town boasting of their exploits. Amongst those that hear the story are folks that would like the sword for themselves. It might also bring attention to them to an agent of a larger organization, such as the Zhentarim, who also want the sword. So they may find themselves victims of attempts to steal it.Most of the time, what happens is a more direct response to their actions. They enter an ancient tomb, and they encounter traps, undead, constructs, and find treasure. Typical straightforward dungeon crawls. This also applies to interacting with NPCs in towns and cities, and exploring the wilderness.It's entirely up to the PCs to decide what it is they want to do, and where to go. I can provide an endless number of hooks not related to their history, backstories, and such. But in order to provide hooks that relate to them specifically, motivations, goals, backstory, etc, then they have to provide hooks for me.From looking through AW/BW/DW, the major difference (aside from differing amounts of player/DM authoring of elements outside of the direct control of the PC), is that they narrow the focus to things that only relate to the motivations of the characters. The extent of the world to be defined is only what is relevant to that particular story in that particular campaign.I prefer a much wider living world, where one campaign can have an impact on other campaigns. That like most of us, much of our daily lives is spent doing things that aren't directly addressing our motivations, dreams or goals. That sometimes you'll find yourself in the places you least expect to, and that the journey of a character's life is as important as the exciting bits.As I'm re-reading the AW rules, I'm finding a fair amount that I not only agree with, but already do. There are a number of things I don't particularly like (starting with the entire presentation, which reminds me of the Planescape approach of loading the text with "flavor" and slang. On the surface, that's cool enough as a way to draw you further into the world (Ed Greenwood does it for the Forgotten Realms too), but it doesn't work so well if you don't care for the specific world or setting.I'm sure I'm missing a lot here, because it's a rather complex process. So let's look at it from the AW principles:Barf forth apocalyptica. OK, other than the lame attempt at trying to be funny/cool, yes, providing as much flavor as possible is a good thing.Address yourself to the characters, not the players. Yes. Rules things are DM to player. Answering questions? Depends on the questions. Anything that the characters experience is directed to the characters, and I try to maintain the players stay in character, and I address them directly as much as possible.Make your move, but misdirect. Hmmm. OK, I guess anything I do as a DM is a "move." So they are exploring a dungeon, and find a map in a treasure chest. Or they are in the tavern digging for information and hear a number of stories and rumors. Or a thug attempts to relieve them of their legendary sword. Or they defeat the thug and find out he's part of a secret society, which under further investigation determines that they are recruiting agents actively in an attempt to undermine the local government by replacing existing Lords with doppelgängers. But to me, the majority of that falls under "barfing apocalyptica" and "think offscreen." They'll have dozens of potential things to check out. Just like I see a bunch of ads nightly for places to eat, movies to see, stuff to buy. But it's up to me (or the PCs) to act. What I disagree with is misdirect. Even when there is something hidden to be learned (a plot to assassinate the king - or the fact the king is already dead if the criminals are attempting to cover it up), I don't ever advocate misdirecting the PCs as a DM. While I don't have a problem with ambiguity (No, you can't see the king, and you don't have the right to know why), there are clues that there's something not quite right. Something that might be worth investigating, if they choose to. It's not my job to direct them towards that, and not every situation or encounter will assist them on that task.But to actively misdirect them, like red herrings, false clues, and things like that, is a really complicated thing. And even harder to do well. So I can't say I've never done it, but it's got to be the right situation. Puzzles and things like that are OK. And I've had dungeons designed (by the designers in world) to specifically prevent easy mapping and things like that. But those sort of things work best when it's something the players can figure out. Otherwise it's just skill checks and telling them how to solve the puzzle. Which means you really need to know your players well to be able to design a puzzle that they can figure out. The "three clues" rule combined with "reward creative solutions" that others are proponents of is something that I think applies well in these scenarios. Since I don't typically have mysteries or puzzles with specific solutions pre-planned, dropping new clues and handling creative play is relatively easy.Make your move, but never speak it's name. Well, since I don't assign catchy names to my moves, that's not really an issue. Instead I simply describe what the PCs experience. If they can't see, hear, smell, touch, or taste it, then they don't hear it from me. If an NPC or monster acts, then they know it. If they simply make diabolical plans to destroy the PCs later, then they don't know that unless the NPC tells them about it. But it will be evident in time. Of course, if they thwart a villain but don't manage to capture or kill them, then they should expect it anyway.Look through crosshairs. Every NPC is expendable. However, not every one is likely to be caught in a position where they will be killed. Folks like Al Capone, for example, are very, very difficult to take out, even when you are their enemy (another gangster or the feds), and more importantly, once Capone knows you're after him, he's very dangerous indeed.Name everyone. Make everyone human. Yep.Ask provocative questions and build on the answers. Not entirely. Related to the fact that I only address the characters - I only address the characters from within the world. In other words, it's never the DM talking to the characters - it's NPCs, or a description of what's going on. So the only time I get to ask provocative questions is as an NPC. However, I do get to potentially put them in provocative situations. Moral dilemmas, etc., since the bad guys are, well, bad.Respond with f-ery and intermittent rewards. Again, aside for my strong distaste for the presentation, no. I as the DM aren't trying to screw with the players/characters, and I'm not rewarding them either. The "rewards" they earn in the world are enough. Be a fan of the PCs.Of course, the entire campaign is about them.Think offscreen too.A huge yes. The world is a living place, things are happening everywhere, most of which the PCs don't have any direct impact. Offscreen is what provides endless opportunities for things to come onscreen.Sometimes, disclaim decision making. Put it in your PC's hands. Absolutely, and I'll add put it in the world's hands. I try to make as few decisions as possible. I'm not trying to write an interesting story for them, nor guess what will be exciting for them. It's a smorgasbord, take what works for you. The world will continue living around you, and my decisions are always taken from the "role-playing" point of view when possible. That is, it's in the NPC's/world's hands.If it's a appropriate to turn over to the players/PCs, then that's fine too. A countdown? If appropriate. Not in the gamey way using an external construct like the countdown clock - she's injured, and probably won't make it if you don't get her to help that you don't have right now. How long will remain a mystery (to them). I track it with established rules (which could be similar to the countdown clock), so everybody knows that it's fair and on the level (not that it's ever been a problem). I'm a big proponent for whatever happens in the world be supported by the rules. So if they are fighting a wizard with some strange spell, that spell has been defined and works within the magic system of the campaign. So fairness isn't generally a problem since they understand that.Make it a stakes question? Yes, that's often the case. This falls within the countdown clock approach. I'm not the one deciding this, the PCs and the rules are. For example, I have rules for fatigue and exhaustion. Climbing is quite tiring - how many of us remember rope climbing in gym class? - if somebody is hanging on for dear life after a day of combat and traveling, you know you have a limited amount of time to get to them. In the meantime, getting them to drop anything to lighten their load, and working as quickly as you can. My rules always have variables, I'm not a fan of automatic failure or automatic success. In this case they'd be using the combat fatigue rules, and that means a failed save makes it worse. It won't get better until you can get a rest. But it might be several attempts before failure, and you have to go through 6 levels of failure. So the amount of time could be as little as 6 rounds, or as long as...a pretty long time. The DCs increase, and the fatigue makes the chance of failure more likely, though.So there's very little that I don't agree with here. In another thread from a long time ago, I saw somebody indicate that D&D is players vs DM, and AW isn't. But when I look at these rules, there are specific rules that instruct the DM to make the PC's lives difficult. No, you're not trying to kill them, but you're complicating things.I'd prefer to let them complicate things themselves. Like the time when the PCs were trying to escape from a black dragon, made it into a tunnel that the dragon couldn't enter (and the dragon was already leaving, when the bard decided to run back down the passage (chased by several others) and taunt the dragon, casting vicious mockery. Of course, the dragon wasn't amused. And it climbed back up to the passage with the bard and breathed into the tunnel. They didn't really have anywhere to go...(and were not happy with the bard). The ranger had the good sense to leap out of the tunnel and down the rope they had climbed and go hide. Which is the only thing that saved the badly injured party.</blockquote>

Verification