Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6401827" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>As Pemerton mentioned above, for me it becomes a "say yes or roll the dice" situation. I almost never have anything pre-determined like that. I want to be surprised as a DM and allowing either the players or the dice to drive the campaign allows for that. Since there is no contradiction from the player's point of view, I don't really see a problem. I'll rewrite entire swaths of my plans based on that one addition if I need to. </p><p></p><p>But, I think as a DM, it helps to build a lot more flexibility into the campaign. Is it absolutely necessary that that specific ruler is opposed to the players? Why? Why not simply shift "A noble opposes your efforts" a couple of steps to the left and instead of Baron Von Turkeywaddle being opposed, now Marquis De Gravy is. From the player's perspective, nothing has changed. They don't know an of that and you get to keep 99% of the prep that you've done. Or, maybe that becomes a "Yes,and" situation. Sure, that ruler will help you, but the important people in his court oppose the PC's, so, now the PC's have to convince the court for help.</p><p></p><p>Note, this is something of an odd example too, since the players have never actually had any dealings with this NPC, it would be very odd for a player to declare what the intentions of that NPC should be. By and large, you don't make declarations in a vacuum, you should have something connecting the dots. Particularly when trying to declare future events. Adding a magic item into a setting based on the back story of an existing item isn't too much of a stretch, IMO, but, declaring the reactions of an unknown NPC is something I've never seen players do. They want to be surprised too.</p><p></p><p>I really, really shy away from having pre-determined results in PC/NPC interactions. Unless the interactions either have no real consequences (who really cares what the bartender says to you?) or the results are very obvious (or bloody well should be) to everyone at the table (yes, walking out of a ball held in your honour by the king (or in this case queen) is going to have negative repercussions on your interactions with the queen down the line) I'm perfectly willing to let the PC's and the dice drive the car.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6401827, member: 22779"] As Pemerton mentioned above, for me it becomes a "say yes or roll the dice" situation. I almost never have anything pre-determined like that. I want to be surprised as a DM and allowing either the players or the dice to drive the campaign allows for that. Since there is no contradiction from the player's point of view, I don't really see a problem. I'll rewrite entire swaths of my plans based on that one addition if I need to. But, I think as a DM, it helps to build a lot more flexibility into the campaign. Is it absolutely necessary that that specific ruler is opposed to the players? Why? Why not simply shift "A noble opposes your efforts" a couple of steps to the left and instead of Baron Von Turkeywaddle being opposed, now Marquis De Gravy is. From the player's perspective, nothing has changed. They don't know an of that and you get to keep 99% of the prep that you've done. Or, maybe that becomes a "Yes,and" situation. Sure, that ruler will help you, but the important people in his court oppose the PC's, so, now the PC's have to convince the court for help. Note, this is something of an odd example too, since the players have never actually had any dealings with this NPC, it would be very odd for a player to declare what the intentions of that NPC should be. By and large, you don't make declarations in a vacuum, you should have something connecting the dots. Particularly when trying to declare future events. Adding a magic item into a setting based on the back story of an existing item isn't too much of a stretch, IMO, but, declaring the reactions of an unknown NPC is something I've never seen players do. They want to be surprised too. I really, really shy away from having pre-determined results in PC/NPC interactions. Unless the interactions either have no real consequences (who really cares what the bartender says to you?) or the results are very obvious (or bloody well should be) to everyone at the table (yes, walking out of a ball held in your honour by the king (or in this case queen) is going to have negative repercussions on your interactions with the queen down the line) I'm perfectly willing to let the PC's and the dice drive the car. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supplemental books: Why the compulsion to buy and use, but complain about it?
Top