Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Teflon Billy" data-source="post: 4601544" data-attributes="member: 264">I think we are probably a lot closer than apart on how we run games. I design a setting pretty thoroughly (but without much depth) and then just turn the players loose. I think I might be blessed, but I've never come across players in my years (and there are a lot of them...players and years <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />) that were incapable of finding something to do.So they do whatever they want and at the end of the session, I alter the setting based on their actions.Write down the names of NPC's I made up that they interacted with, change important NPC's opinions on them based on how much they helped/hindered and prepare the next week's session based on those results.As a DM &quot;World Building&quot; is the game for me. There is no &quot;thing&quot; they should be doing, but usually anything they want to try/look into/explore/etc...I'll see that there is something there for them.But again, none of that is really affected or altered by minutiae. Generally I run games that involve some manner of high-level intrigue, war between nations (or cultures) the return of (unwelcome) ancient gods with blood on their minds etc...My style of DM'ing can definitely allow people who want to dawdle with shopkeepers to do so...but as for the rest? I like to run games about ruthless, cunning men-of-action.Not Laundry owners, Candle Makers, and Cobblers. Even if the players really think that would give them a view into what my world is really like.An Academic Historian (whose name eludes me at the moment) said it best...I'm paraphrasing but it was essentially &quot;History is about what the kings, Popes, Generals movers and Shakers were doing...no one cares what the peasants were up to and no one should. Here's your answer: Subsistence Farming and trying not to die&quot;I agree with him.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Teflon Billy, post: 4601544, member: 264"] I think we are probably a lot closer than apart on how we run games. I design a setting pretty thoroughly (but without much depth) and then just turn the players loose. I think I might be blessed, but I've never come across players in my years (and there are a lot of them...players [i]and[/i] years ;)) that were incapable of finding something to do. So they do whatever they want and at the end of the session, I alter the setting based on their actions. Write down the names of NPC's I made up that they interacted with, change important NPC's opinions on them based on how much they helped/hindered and prepare the next week's session based on those results. As a DM "World Building" [i]is[/i] the game for me. There is no "thing" they should be doing, but usually anything they want to try/look into/explore/etc...I'll see that there is something there for them. But again, none of that is really affected or altered by minutiae. Generally I run games that involve some manner of high-level intrigue, war between nations (or cultures) the return of (unwelcome) ancient gods with blood on their minds etc... My style of DM'ing can definitely allow people who want to dawdle with shopkeepers to do so...but as for the rest? I like to run games about ruthless, cunning men-of-action. Not Laundry owners, Candle Makers, and Cobblers. Even if the players [i]really[/i] think that would give them a view into what my world is really like. An Academic Historian (whose name eludes me at the moment) said it best...I'm paraphrasing but it was essentially "History is about what the kings, Popes, Generals movers and Shakers were doing...no one cares what the peasants were up to and no one should. Here's your answer: Subsistence Farming and trying not to die" I agree with him. [/QUOTE]

Verification