Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 8241378" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I don't think you are failing as bad as you think.&nbsp; Perhaps I am failing to make my own case clear enough.&nbsp; I absolutely agree that it could not matter at all.&nbsp; I agree that you can come up with instances where it won't matter.&nbsp; The original idea was interesting and the new idea is interesting.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; No loss no gain.&nbsp; My point is that practicing the philosophy of an ever changing world even when you don't have to will result in a world that has more verisimilitude when the PCs do interact with it.&nbsp; It probably comes back to skilled play again.&nbsp; If the NPC villain is up to no good and keeps doing things behind the scenes in a consistent way, the PCs if investigating may intersect those events.&nbsp; As DM you just don't know if they will or won't.&nbsp; So the players acting as their characters, can do a real life investigation and not just roll to discover whether their investigation was successful.&nbsp; So over time, I've found that the level of verisimilitude in my games is higher if I keep the world moving behind the scenes.&nbsp;&nbsp; The part the characters interact with is just better.&nbsp;&nbsp; Maybe it's a technique I'm using to make myself more effective.&nbsp; Could be.&nbsp;&nbsp; I will say though that in my style of play the dice are not the primary drivers of what happens.&nbsp; An influence sure, you can always make a bad roll.&nbsp; But success depends on the decisions of the PCs and the skill they use in carrying out those decisions.&nbsp;&nbsp; It probably comes back to skilled play as an agenda item.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 8241378, member: 6698278"] I don't think you are failing as bad as you think. Perhaps I am failing to make my own case clear enough. I absolutely agree that it could not matter at all. I agree that you can come up with instances where it won't matter. The original idea was interesting and the new idea is interesting. So what? No loss no gain. My point is that practicing the philosophy of an ever changing world even when you don't have to will result in a world that has more verisimilitude when the PCs do interact with it. It probably comes back to skilled play again. If the NPC villain is up to no good and keeps doing things behind the scenes in a consistent way, the PCs if investigating may intersect those events. As DM you just don't know if they will or won't. So the players acting as their characters, can do a real life investigation and not just roll to discover whether their investigation was successful. So over time, I've found that the level of verisimilitude in my games is higher if I keep the world moving behind the scenes. The part the characters interact with is just better. Maybe it's a technique I'm using to make myself more effective. Could be. I will say though that in my style of play the dice are not the primary drivers of what happens. An influence sure, you can always make a bad roll. But success depends on the decisions of the PCs and the skill they use in carrying out those decisions. It probably comes back to skilled play as an agenda item. [/QUOTE]

Verification