Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9669218" data-attributes="member: 1008">Yes, I pretty much agree. Although, again, I'm operating from the assumption that, based on the hypothetical provided by [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER], we're not just talking about an "innocuous random encounter" , we're talking about a significant bandit threat in the region that happens to have resulted in bandit encounters being likely in the region.But, yes, what you're saying/asking makes complete sense.Edit: Although I see you now added in this:Now I disagree entirely. The GM providing the players with background material about world events does not mean those things become the focus.I am constantly aiming to provide the players with detail on many different events going on around the world. Most of those things serve only to show the players that they exist in a living world, where things happen and life goes on when they're not around. They generally only become the focus if the players make a choice  do something about them.I may have one or two large-scale events that are likely to occur at various times throughout a given campaign, but how the players choose to deal such events remains up to them -- and staying right out of may be an option. Normally, if I'm going to involve a large event (eg, a foreign invasion), I make sure it's not going to occur until well into the campaign, so that the players have well established characters and a good feel for what their characters want -- this ensures they don't automatically feel that this needs to be the focus of the game, they should already have things their focusing on, and this is just an additional complication that they can choose to prioritise or use or oppose or ignore.Pre-planning such events (with a timeline, based on "this is what is likely to happen if the PCs never get involved") also provides opportunity for the expected events to be subverted by unexpected behaviour. And, if the PCs have  packed up and left and are exploring a completely different part of the world when it happens -- well, then the invasion goes on without them, and may never even impact them, beyond hearing rumours about it.And yes, an event like that is certainly the GM having an impact on the way the game turns out. As GM, I absolutely do impact events, constantly. But the underlying point is that the players, at all times, are able to decide what they want to focus on, and how. If their actions mean that an event occurs in a way they won't interact with it, then they don't. If their actions completely prevent some event from ever happening, then it doesn't happen. On the other hand, if they choose to head to some location at a time when some dramatic local event is scheduled to occur, and nothing has happened that would upset the schedule, then the PCs have to deal with being there when it happens.But what doesn't happen is that I decide what the players choose to focus on or treat as important. I just keep throwing ongoing world events and opportunities and rumours at them, and they decide what sticks. And if they're in the middle of focusing on some critical mission, I continue to do this. The world doesn't stop having things happen because the PCs are busy. Not only will I not push the PCs towards focusing on the bandits, if they choose to focus on those bandits I will actively undermine any work I put into the bandits by offering the PCs distractions that might result in them ditching the bandit line of interest for something else. It is entirely up to the PCs if they stick with the bandits or go elsewhere.My job is create and maintain the backdrop upon which the PC's story takes place. The players have nearly unlimited ways of engaging with that backdrop.</blockquote>

Verification