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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7104211" data-attributes="member: 42582">Right.This is what I've been posting: there's no illusion in framing the PCs into scenes their players want them to be framed into. And there's no illusion in the GM engaging in prep/brainstorming which inform that framing.The difference between,  on the one hand, prep/brainstorming, and on the other hand, authoring elements of the fiction which are secret from the players and will be used to adjudicate outcomes, is pretty crucial to this.Personally, I find this a really toxic approach to GMing. It feels like the worst of the Gygaxian legacy with none of the good bits of that legacy!In D&D play I think it is in part an artefact of (i) mechanical weaknesses conjoined with (ii) certain design features - because (i) the game breaks down when the PCs gain a certain degree of mechanical prowess, and (ii) various NPC/monster opponents are "locked in" to certain HD/levels of challenge, the GM feels it is important to contain things within those parameters.For me, this is one of the striking elements of 4e - it mostly avoids (i), being mechanically playable across the full spectrum of levels, and it is very flexible vis-a-vis (ii) because of the way its NPC/monste-building rules allow levelling up or down very easily with a degree of autonomy from the details of the fiction.But stepping back a bit from the details of D&D and thinking about the point more generally, my own view is that if the PCs succeed at this, that's no reason why I as GM can't go on to challenge them (and thereby their players) by way of that.And at least in my experience, there is no "cheapening of the experience" by the players getting to have experiences of their PCs doing well engaging things they care about.</blockquote>

Verification