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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9343886" data-attributes="member: 70468">I’ve been running (or attempting to run) hexcrawls for years. I can’t recall whether I read that back then when I got started or here later, but it looks familiar. Regardless, I don’t agree that those are the only remedies to the Quantum Ogre problem, which is something I discovered while working on my homebrew system.I agree, and I do a few things to ensure that. First, I do actual prep. One should not plan out what events that will happen, but it can be used. For example, when I revealed <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/commentary-thread-for-that-%E2%80%9Cdescribe-your-game-in-five-words%E2%80%9D-thread.682741/post-9323158" target="_blank">last session</a> that Lady Emma was the real leader of the raiders, that was straight from my prep and not because it would make for a dramatic reveal or some crap like that.I also use random events. I’m rolling on OSE’s <a href="https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Wilderness_Encounters" target="_blank">tables</a> right now, but I plan to develop something specific to my game eventually. I don’t know yet what exactly form that will take, but I think it’s an important part of content generation.The final piece is a reliable resolution process. Foregrounding consequences is meant to help players reason about what they are doing and prevent GM misplays. If a check is successful, it cannot be negated by consequences. A consequence that is not compatible with success is an invalid consequence.For example, suppose there is an east and west forest. The players know there are ogres out there and want to avoid them. They can Investigate to look for ogre tracks or Research during downtime in town to learn about ogre habits or even use Rapport to find out from local rangers. It’s really up to them. If they succeed, the ogres are established. Even if an event later says ogres are also in the empty forest, it is invalid because it was established that they are only in the other one.Another example is the bandit encounter from last session. It had been established previously that there is a bandit camp in the hex to the east, that they were expanding their interest west, and that they were in the local area (due to an event check).The PCs went into the forest, and one of the consequences foregrounded was finding something they wouldn’t like. They got success + consequences, so they found the trail, and I revealed there were bandits in the forest. Could they have done something about the bandits? Maybe, but they chose not to pursue it and continued on looking for the weretigers.(I say “maybe” because of the possibility the PCs could bungle their attempt in spite of their best efforts.)I try to post <a href="https://www.enworld.org/search/2977098/?t=post&c%5Bthread%5D=682741&c%5Busers%5D=kenada&o=date" target="_blank">recaps</a> in the commentary thread. One can see how the system has evolved over time. This weekend, I hope to try some new stuff relating to skill checks (as described <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-criticisms-do-you-have-for-current-or-previously-used-systems.704169/post-9342776" target="_blank">here</a>).People value different things and prefer different of playing, which I think is fine. I wish wanting or not wanting to do a particular thing wasn’t taken as an implicit attack on the other. That doesn’t lead to productive discourse, and it makes engaging really exhausting.Going back to the instigating quote, I think Baker is assuming functional play. I don’t see how he could suggest live negotiation and honest collaboration as an alternative otherwise. If the GM is bad, that wouldn’t be possible.</blockquote>

Verification