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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5187566" data-attributes="member: 8835">I don't think it's wrong for the GM to only have 1 adventure prepared, though it may be a bit lazy.  I try to run short sessions, so I can prepare the right amount of material I think I need, and little more.I also don't think it's wrong for the players to utilize a shortcut to bypass content.  I don't think it's best DMing practice to veto such ideas, soley on the basis of GM unpreparedness.In an ideal world, I would remember to include enough material for "if they shortcut this" to make the new shortcut interesting (though still fairly short).I also don't like the idea of the GM building a pile of barriers and nerfs just to prevent the players from getting off the trail of material they've written.I think the "they light it on fire" problem is different than what the OP is asking.Back to the OP and his OT:if you have a situation that the PCs are deciding a course of action that you know has deeper ramifications, and the players don't seem to be discussing it, why don't you mention it to them.  Personally, I'm not against the GM giving players advice by pointing out pros and cons of a course of action (while generally not directly suggesting any specific action).It could easily be done by passing a note to the wisest or smartest PC, and letting them decide to bring it up.  Or you could have an NPC mention it as a "what about the children?!?!" type comment to the PCs discussion.Granted, this is one way to bring such a Choice to the attention of inattentive players, potentially correcting any GMing gaff of neglecting to relay information previously.  Basically, if your players don't think about the consequences, assume you might have made a mistake in making those consequences more obvious to the PCs.That's seperate from setting up such Dilemmas (I say Dilemma, OP says Question).  I think the trick to setting up these dilemmas is contextual, it depends on what you have going on in the campaign world, and very much ties into how you can frame it.You could turn to fiction, to see how they are set up, and emulate that.  Classic dillemas are:do you trust the enemy of your enemy to help youwhat do you do with the wives and children of your enemies?what do you do with an enemy who surrenders?How do you ration supplies in a shortage?Modern topics also can be setup: Euthanasia (an ancient NPC wants to die)Abortion (an NPC is pregnant with an alleged abomination)Racism (D'rizzt-like problems)Biological manipulations (a wizard is altering/enhancing people)Drug abuse (an apothecary has a new line of performance enhancing potions)Unfair Governance (not pure evil, just not fair)The challenge to these dilemas is to make the player and PC vested in it.  One trick I sometimes employ is to get the PCs situated and comfortable with the status quo or "wrong" side of the argument.  Basically, hide the bad stuff about it.  then, when they're pretty happy with it, you start revealing how others are getting screwed by it, and eventually if feasible, make the bad stuff start happening to them.  This method assumes that there is a right or wrong, and may not work for all dilemmas.  Even the term right or wrong may be used loosely.  For Racism, I hope that all of us agree that real racisim is bad, and as such, can be presented as "Racism is bad, see how they're treating the elves" type example.  Other situations, can be setup where it's not truly right or wrong.  Presenting the situation of the party finding out that women in a village are giving birth to abominations, or soon will, sets up the situation for the PCs to figure out what to do.  In this scenario, I'd avoid making a "wrong" answer, except for "do nothing".  The players may come up with a solution to the problem (teleport baby spells), or make a really hard choice thats for the good of the community (stopping monsters is usually such a choice).</blockquote>

Verification