Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7374342" data-attributes="member: 29398">Obviously.  And I further suggest you want side quests, detours, and other optional extras as well.Which is good, as it can keep the campaign going even after the first major goal/belief of each PC has been dealt with.In DM-centered play it would be normal.  In this particular example, however, I know I-as-player would be thinking "OK, he's put me in the bazaar, which probably means something is supposed to happen here, so I guess I should engage with it rather than turn my back on it."  If he just puts me in the town then it's on me to do the digging required to get me to the bazaar.4e module design seemed to do this a lot - sort of want to jump from one elaborate set piece (with fancy battle-map included!) to the next without always bothering to detail what went in between.  As a DM trying to use some 4e modules converted for my game it was annoying, and as a player a DM doing this will put me off a game real quick...and I'm not alone in thinking that way.It's likely we're just using a different level of detail when determining what counts as 'lesser' as opposed to what's relevant.But even there, a DM just saying "You pass many other passageways branching in various directions as you travel" is all I'm asking for, while walking to the reliquary with the angels...well, that and the opportunity to say in response "I glance down each one as we pass to see if there's anything of interest, all the while staying alert for threats."Then it's up to the DM to determine, via whatever means she chooses, whether or not there's anything down any of them for me to see.  If not, all is cool.What's important is that at least a nod is given to the fact that we-as-PCs are part of a bigger world, and that we're moving through it rather than blipping from scene to scene.And the point of the game in Monopoly is pure selfishness.  Monopoly might be the most selfish game ever invented.  (probably not the best example you could have picked...) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sure there is - "my story is more important than any other story out there" sounds like a baked-in tenet of that game system; with it being left to the DM to try and weave these stories together such that more than one can be played out simultaneously at the table.I guess I just take "as we move along we'll look for interesting things to investigate" as the baked-in standard until and unless something changes it e.g. the party is fleeing at full speed, or is for whatever reason intentionally trying to ignore their surroundings (usually a good idea in CoC, from what I've heard).Put that way it sounds like the DM is little more than a CPU or a music streaming service: players input requests for material, DM outputs material to suit.You probably don't mean it that harshly, but that is what it boils down to.Let me get this straight: you're saying something about 4e design is not controversial?4e's very existence is controversial.  Its design elements, from my perspective and having dug into it somewhat on its release*, covered a range between about marginally tolerable to hideous.  Every other edition has had for me at least one "aha!" element, where I see a mechanic or system and think "that's brilliant!".  Even the new PF2 has already shown me one of those...but 4e never did.* - I only bought the initial three core books (DMG,PH,MM) but didn't get the later books as I knew I wasn't going to be doing anything with the system.A DM-driven game can do all of this, and do it more realistically (which equals better IMO).  A DM impartially preauthors the world or adventure or whatever (or should!), then presents it impartially during play either as setting exposition or in reaction to PC actions and-or movements in the game world.  If the players/PCs want to "understand what they're buying into" and-or "assess the risk" they have to take the time to do the requisite investigating or scouting or information gathering, just like reality.  In either system the players in theory know the capabilities of their PCs, and it's perfectly realistic to say they might not always know how well those capabilities will measure up against whatever threat might be looming until some trial and error has occurred.Lanefan</blockquote>

Verification