Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why I don't GM by the nose
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5396323" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Interesting example. I've never quite had it come up - and certainly never in the language of Player 2 - but I tend to agree with what Hussar said in his reply. I do tend to take this sort of approach to a lot of exploration elements (eg I don't fuss very much about food, ammunition, weather, etc unless it emerges out of the mechanical resolution of a skill challenge) but this isn't really altering things real time in the course of play - it's more about adopting a certain approach to play in the first place.</p><p></p><p>The sort of changes I tend to make during play are to assumptions about relationships between the PCs and NPCs, and hence to assumptions about what sort of conflict will happen next. To elaborate: like many GMs (I think), I tend to sketch out a sequence of encounters for a given session, which presuppose (i) some sort of sequence of events that will lead the PCs through those encounters (not necessarily in any particular order, and perhaps not all of them) and (ii) some sort of "orientation" or "comportment" of the players towards those encounters ie whether I'm expecting them to fight, or negotiate, or explore, or . . . These two things are interrelated, because the way that the players approach an encounter obviously affects the way that it unfolds and resolves, and this in turn effects the sequence of events that leads through the encounters.</p><p></p><p>Because I know my players and their PCs pretty well, and I plan with this knowledge in mind, mostly my planning works out. But every now and then, though, the players approach an encounter in a way that I didn't expect, or resolve it in a way that I didn't expect. (I'm not talking here about anticpated variations - like do they save two, one or zero prisoners from ritual sacrifice - but about significant variations, like joining in with the cultists and helping finish the ritual.) This can require both developing or alterning an encounter on the fly (eg if a fight starts, 4e needs a battlemap, and a battlemap needs terrain details that I probably won't have worked out in detail if I was assuming that the room would just be the site of negotiations) and then coming up with new encounters, or resolving entirely new events, as the whole direction of play changes in a way that I didn't anticipate. For me, perhaps the most frustating aspect of 4e is its lack of a good mechanical interface between skill challenges and combat, so making these changes to the "orientation" of an encounter and to the direction of play is sometimes non-trivial.</p><p></p><p>Both from my own play experience, and from what I used to read in old Dragon letters columns and what I read now online, I gather than not all GMs do this. For example, in an adventure path, I gather that the players are more-or-less obliged to follow the directions of the module author and the GM as far as the primary villain is concerned, and also as far as the principal events are concerned.</p><p></p><p>I also know that some people have the view that players have a sort of duty of civility to follow the GM's adventure hooks. Consistent with what I've said above, my preferred approach is to have the players build the hooks into their PCs - either at creation, or through the way that they play their PCs as the game goes along - and then I build and resolve the encounters in accordance with those hooks.</p><p></p><p>I regard this approach to play as a non-sandbox alternative to the railroad. It's my favourite way to RPG, both as GM and player.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5396323, member: 42582"] Interesting example. I've never quite had it come up - and certainly never in the language of Player 2 - but I tend to agree with what Hussar said in his reply. I do tend to take this sort of approach to a lot of exploration elements (eg I don't fuss very much about food, ammunition, weather, etc unless it emerges out of the mechanical resolution of a skill challenge) but this isn't really altering things real time in the course of play - it's more about adopting a certain approach to play in the first place. The sort of changes I tend to make during play are to assumptions about relationships between the PCs and NPCs, and hence to assumptions about what sort of conflict will happen next. To elaborate: like many GMs (I think), I tend to sketch out a sequence of encounters for a given session, which presuppose (i) some sort of sequence of events that will lead the PCs through those encounters (not necessarily in any particular order, and perhaps not all of them) and (ii) some sort of "orientation" or "comportment" of the players towards those encounters ie whether I'm expecting them to fight, or negotiate, or explore, or . . . These two things are interrelated, because the way that the players approach an encounter obviously affects the way that it unfolds and resolves, and this in turn effects the sequence of events that leads through the encounters. Because I know my players and their PCs pretty well, and I plan with this knowledge in mind, mostly my planning works out. But every now and then, though, the players approach an encounter in a way that I didn't expect, or resolve it in a way that I didn't expect. (I'm not talking here about anticpated variations - like do they save two, one or zero prisoners from ritual sacrifice - but about significant variations, like joining in with the cultists and helping finish the ritual.) This can require both developing or alterning an encounter on the fly (eg if a fight starts, 4e needs a battlemap, and a battlemap needs terrain details that I probably won't have worked out in detail if I was assuming that the room would just be the site of negotiations) and then coming up with new encounters, or resolving entirely new events, as the whole direction of play changes in a way that I didn't anticipate. For me, perhaps the most frustating aspect of 4e is its lack of a good mechanical interface between skill challenges and combat, so making these changes to the "orientation" of an encounter and to the direction of play is sometimes non-trivial. Both from my own play experience, and from what I used to read in old Dragon letters columns and what I read now online, I gather than not all GMs do this. For example, in an adventure path, I gather that the players are more-or-less obliged to follow the directions of the module author and the GM as far as the primary villain is concerned, and also as far as the principal events are concerned. I also know that some people have the view that players have a sort of duty of civility to follow the GM's adventure hooks. Consistent with what I've said above, my preferred approach is to have the players build the hooks into their PCs - either at creation, or through the way that they play their PCs as the game goes along - and then I build and resolve the encounters in accordance with those hooks. I regard this approach to play as a non-sandbox alternative to the railroad. It's my favourite way to RPG, both as GM and player. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why I don't GM by the nose
Top