Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8232399" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm still at the point that you're strongly recommending GMs learn from APs because they're more likely to find flaws in the AP.&nbsp; That aside, your argument is still pretty flawed.&nbsp; The skills needed to prevent flaws are the same ones you're recommending people learn.&nbsp; You use more tools if you're ahead of the curve, not less.&nbsp; The skills were used and practiced -- in the encounter design.&nbsp; You're discounting good design work on the one hand, and then saying that doing good design work when fixing bad designs is how you use and practice good GMing.&nbsp; You can't have it both ways -- either design is important or it is not.&nbsp; Why you engage in that design work doesn't increase the skill involved.Right, the only way you'd know is if the GM tells you.&nbsp; Even if you ask, the changes aren't necessarily going to come up.&nbsp; When I do a design, it's often an iterative process, where I try things until I find the right setup.&nbsp; Often, though, I can short circuit this because I've done it before and have a handy set of guidelines I can use to quickly create an exciting scene.&nbsp; This means little change is needed, but not because I'm not practicing my skills but because I've already done that practice, and I'm using the results to not have to do so much work.&nbsp; Your argument boils down to suggesting that poor AP design that requires fixing because it wasn't well designed to begin with is more valuable for teaching good GMing than the long practice and lessons learned that go into a GM's own designs.&nbsp; And your metric is just changes.&nbsp; This is a flawed approach -- you're discarding the very thing you're claiming to build up -- good GMing skills!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8232399, member: 16814"] I'm still at the point that you're strongly recommending GMs learn from APs because they're more likely to find flaws in the AP. That aside, your argument is still pretty flawed. The skills needed to prevent flaws are the same ones you're recommending people learn. You use more tools if you're ahead of the curve, not less. The skills were used and practiced -- in the encounter design. You're discounting good design work on the one hand, and then saying that doing good design work when fixing bad designs is how you use and practice good GMing. You can't have it both ways -- either design is important or it is not. Why you engage in that design work doesn't increase the skill involved. Right, the only way you'd know is if the GM tells you. Even if you ask, the changes aren't necessarily going to come up. When I do a design, it's often an iterative process, where I try things until I find the right setup. Often, though, I can short circuit this because I've done it before and have a handy set of guidelines I can use to quickly create an exciting scene. This means little change is needed, but not because I'm not practicing my skills but because I've already done that practice, and I'm using the results to not have to do so much work. Your argument boils down to suggesting that poor AP design that requires fixing because it wasn't well designed to begin with is more valuable for teaching good GMing than the long practice and lessons learned that go into a GM's own designs. And your metric is just changes. This is a flawed approach -- you're discarding the very thing you're claiming to build up -- good GMing skills! [/QUOTE]

Verification