Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8253683" data-attributes="member: 6785785">No, that's fine. I don't think that you should tailor your view on AP style play to match the opinion of others. It should reflect your opinion. If you feel that such adventures are largely railroads, you shoudl say so. If others feel differently, then they should explain how APs are not railroads, not ask you to stop using the term railroad and instead use &quot;sequential scenario depiction&quot; just so they feel better about themselves. Perhaps. My point is that there isn't really a problem. You will have made your opinion known. I can now engage with it and discuss my opinion, and we can compare and contrast. Or I can question your use of one specific phrase for dozens of pages. I prefer the former. There have been some bright spots in this discussion. None of them have been about the challenge of that phrase.I don't think anyone took &quot;GM's Notes&quot; to be all done before play and then never added to or revised based on play. It's an ongoing process.I think you've described your play as never prepping more than one session ahead. I largely do that myself when I run 5E D&amp;D; I have a good idea of what will be next, and I make sure I'm ready for that. Those are how I use notes to help run the game. Do my players sometimes surprise me? Do they sometimes end one session with a plan &quot;here's what we'll do next week&quot; and then we get to next week and they scrap that idea and go with something else entirely? Of course. It doesn't change the fact that a large part of play is about what I as GM have crafted, right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8253683, member: 6785785"] No, that's fine. I don't think that you should tailor your view on AP style play to match the opinion of others. It should reflect your opinion. If you feel that such adventures are largely railroads, you shoudl say so. If others feel differently, then they should explain how APs are not railroads, not ask you to stop using the term railroad and instead use "sequential scenario depiction" just so they feel better about themselves. Perhaps. My point is that there isn't really a problem. You will have made your opinion known. I can now engage with it and discuss my opinion, and we can compare and contrast. Or I can question your use of one specific phrase for dozens of pages. I prefer the former. There have been some bright spots in this discussion. None of them have been about the challenge of that phrase. I don't think anyone took "GM's Notes" to be all done before play and then never added to or revised based on play. It's an ongoing process. I think you've described your play as never prepping more than one session ahead. I largely do that myself when I run 5E D&D; I have a good idea of what will be next, and I make sure I'm ready for that. Those are how I use notes to help run the game. Do my players sometimes surprise me? Do they sometimes end one session with a plan "here's what we'll do next week" and then we get to next week and they scrap that idea and go with something else entirely? Of course. It doesn't change the fact that a large part of play is about what I as GM have crafted, right? [/QUOTE]

Verification