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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 6014594" data-attributes="member: 463">If it were me I would go with whatever approach made me happiest as GM.Normally I appreciate the 'actor' types, especially in online play where the medium supports it much better than mechanistic number-crunching. It could be taken too far, but the GM can always cut a scene if he's getting bored with the chitchat. Personally I would go with the approach of the majority, the 3 actors, but keep an eye out for cutting short any trivial interactions that seem to be dragging. I would expect the other two to step up their game a bit - I don't need 'Hamlet', but I certainly need more than "I roll Diplomacy" ("I talk to the barkee" might be enough for a routine gather info check though, esp if we've played out talk-to-barkeep scenes already).I think the main thing though is to take the approach that maximises your own happiness & satisfaction. Then you'll enjoy the game more, and likely the players will too.Edit: I see a lot of IMO poor 4e DMing advice recently on sites like Critical Hits that advocates the GM being a sort of servant to the players, constantly thinking only of Player Fun. To some extent this can be taken from the advice in the DMG and DMG2. As a reaction to tyrannical pseudo-Gygaxian or '90s-railroad GMing, it probably has merit. But those GMs who give that advice (including James Wyatt in the DMG) also seem to burn out a lot and struggle to run successful long-term campaigns.</blockquote>

Verification