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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Azul" data-source="post: 1831334" data-attributes="member: 11779">Winging it is a perfectly valid DMing technique, but it is only one technique and anyone who relies solely upon it is limiting their toolkit pretty drastically.Improvised DMing works best with relatively simple situations or encounters.  In my experience, most seasoned DMs will use this method to deal with unexpected plots twists (PCs do the darnedest things sometimes), wandering monsters and other "filler" encounters.As the complexity of the situation increases, it becomes harder and harder to "eyeball" what the stats should be.  Even more importantly, this means that the improvising DM is increasingly likely to make some poor decisions as the complexity rises.  Eyeballing the stats on a basic goblin, ogre or even hill giant is pretty easy.Eyeballing the stats of a 5th level character of any class can be done in a few moments.  Eyeballing the stats of a 20th level barbarian is a bit more challenging but at least that class has relatively few variations.  A 20th level fighter is harder to "guestimate" due to the complex possibilities regarding feat choices.  A 20th level sorcerer is a step beyond that but at least he's a spontaneous caster.  Any 20th level caster that memorizes spells is very challenging to guestimate.  A half-fiend spellstitched red great wyrm dracolich?... forget guestimating unless you are a living computer.Now this all begs the question of "How much statistical detail do you need for your encounter?"  If the encounter is non-hostile, such as the party just chatting with the NPC/creature, then even that multi-templated dracolich can be improvised in a manageable manner.  If the encounter is a fight-to-the-death, then any improving DM runs a severe risk of reducing his game to complete mess due to arbitrary decision making.My advice is to stop and think about how important any given encounter is and how likely it is to become a major point of conflict.- BBEGs can remain vague or unstatted if they are just hiding in the shadows, but they should always be stated out if they are going to be interacting face-to-face with the PCs.  Most BBEGs are pretty complicated NPCs and eyeballed numbers are likely to be rather flakey at best.- Any significant foe, such as a BBEG's lieutenant or a strong monster/NPC of uncertain disposition or any potent ally should also be stated out thoroughly.  This is to avoid falling into the traps of arbitrary decision making --> the foe who somehow has a counter to all the PCs special abilities, the super-ally who outshines the party, etc...- Mooks, lesser foes and other less challenging encounters can be guestimated or you can take a bit of time to write up a few simple stats based on experience (hhmm... chainmail, heavy shield, average dex... call them AC16... battleaxes, kind of muscular 1d8+2 damage sounds right).- Encounters with NPCs you simply hadn't expected to need, friendly lesser NPCs, innocent bystanders, the wandering monster you just invented to fill in a lull... these are the one you should improve.</blockquote>

Verification