Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="redrick" data-source="post: 7322743" data-attributes="member: 6777696">Yes, I read [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s situation upthread. It's a little different from what I'm talking about, primarily because it involves more work on the part of the DM! In Nagol's case, they are describing a situation where a piece of the DM's fiction is acting autonomously (from the players) and, in certain situations, takes actions behind the curtain that have consequences that might pop up in player view later. I certainly like to think about the actions my major NPCs are taking when the PCs aren't looking, but, for practical reasons, it tends to be pretty limited to the scope of immediate adventures and is more about NPCs reacting to the actions of PCs.In my case, I'm thinking more about some of the static presumptions of a setting. What I am trying to avoid is the feeling of things being too convenient, because everything that players encounter has been created/put there off the top of the GM's head and in response to their actions. I want some sense that, for instance, the journal is in the drawer in the bedroom, because that is where the journal is. Not because that is where the PCs looked.The converse of this is that, without care, things become far too inconvenient, and we wouldn't want that either. I consider that to be one of the balance points that I walk as a DM. A world that feels like it existed before the PCs showed up, but also a world that is able to adapt to the needs of an entertaining session. I'd never want a session where, "Door #1 led to the successful completion of the quest. Door #2 led to a delightful though tangential side mission, which might have gotten you all killed. But you chose door #, which, and I'll show you where I wrote this in my notes, led to an endless series of winding passages and empty rooms where absolutely nothing will ever happen. And that's all the time we have for today."</blockquote>

Verification