Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7757299" data-attributes="member: 23935">I tend to agree.&nbsp; It still happens a bit in the sense someone can extrapolate from the current fiction and outcome to add new stuff, but it avoids the whole &quot;you should have seen this coming, but didn't so gotcha!&quot;&nbsp; that can happen in prepared scenarios.Yeah that's one viable technique.&nbsp; I'm also a fan of the &quot;skip montage&quot;.&nbsp; You're here and heading there.&nbsp; Now you're this much closer want to do something?, now this much and you notice X, and now you're there.Yep.&nbsp; Some games have stronger tools and expectations for pacing and narrative arcs than others.&nbsp; Which is why I always to to map my game play expectations to the system I pick.&nbsp; &nbsp;I agree though another strong facilitator is table understanding.&nbsp; If I skip to a new hard frame, my players can trust there was nothing more they could glean from the current situation (which can be valuable information in itself) and that any information gains along the way between where they were and where they are now are either part of my exposition or immaterial.Even so, it can be hard for the players to let go when they have a mystery to solve.&nbsp; In my Conspiracy-X campaign (which has an awful lot of exploratory play elements), the players were assigned the task of solving a crime.&nbsp; They were called in early; there simply isn't enough clues currently, but the perpetrator will continue to strike giving the PCs more opportunities.&nbsp; The players spent what seemed to be an inordinate amount of table time simply because they wanted to solve it then / didn't want time to pass though they did come up with models and tactics that did alter my expected next scene.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 7757299, member: 23935"] I tend to agree. It still happens a bit in the sense someone can extrapolate from the current fiction and outcome to add new stuff, but it avoids the whole "you should have seen this coming, but didn't so gotcha!" that can happen in prepared scenarios. Yeah that's one viable technique. I'm also a fan of the "skip montage". You're [I]here[/I] and heading [I]there[/I]. Now you're this much closer want to do something?, now this much and you notice X, and now you're there. Yep. Some games have stronger tools and expectations for pacing and narrative arcs than others. Which is why I always to to map my game play expectations to the system I pick. I agree though another strong facilitator is table understanding. If I skip to a new hard frame, my players can trust there was nothing more they could glean from the current situation (which can be valuable information in itself) and that any information gains along the way between where they were and where they are now are either part of my exposition or immaterial. Even so, it can be hard for the players to let go when they have a mystery to solve. In my [I]Conspiracy-X[/I] campaign (which has an awful lot of exploratory play elements), the players were assigned the task of solving a crime. They were called in early; there simply isn't enough clues currently, but the perpetrator will continue to strike giving the PCs more opportunities. The players spent what seemed to be an inordinate amount of table time simply because they wanted to solve it then / didn't want time to pass though they did come up with models and tactics that did alter my expected next scene. [/QUOTE]

Verification