Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5651908" data-attributes="member: 1879">I think I see part of where you're coming from. However I'm inclined to feel that any GM who sets up a single pass/fail check capable of derailing his plot, without planning out at least a couple of ways around it is not much of a GM. Yes, improvisization is a key GMing skill, but in my experience it is far more likely to be called for because the PCs have thought of an approach the GM never considered, rather than because they followed the plot-rail but failed to get past the turn-stile, and the GM had not planned for the results of his own setup. But... Your own example was that the GM was obliged to provide a sage the PCs could consult and thus get back to the plot line he had already setup. Thus negating the concequences of the earlier failure, and turning it into a mere illusion, rather than an actual failure point. Did I misunderstand?Your example is a result of a PC failure delaying the party from reaching their objective, and thus drawing out the course of this scenario as they try to make up for their failure. A check the party succeeded on would allow them to finish the scenario and move on to the next job, or go back to town to celebrate, both of which provide new opprotunities for roleplaying. I suppose, if in your experience, the GM only allows the party to diverge from the railroad when they experience failure, then your point of view is understandable. In my experience however the memorable moments come from when the PCs succeed at something the GM hadn't planned at all, like a diplomacy check to win the trust of the evil cultist, or picking the pocket of your new employer and thus finding he he's the one behind the smuggling ring.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 5651908, member: 1879"] I think I see part of where you're coming from. However I'm inclined to feel that any GM who sets up a single pass/fail check capable of derailing his plot, without planning out at least a couple of ways around it is not much of a GM. Yes, improvisization is a key GMing skill, but in my experience it is far more likely to be called for because the PCs have thought of an approach the GM never considered, rather than because they followed the plot-rail but failed to get past the turn-stile, and the GM had not planned for the results of his own setup. But... Your own example was that the GM was obliged to provide a sage the PCs could consult and thus get back to the plot line he had already setup. Thus negating the concequences of the earlier failure, and turning it into a mere illusion, rather than an actual failure point. Did I misunderstand? Your example is a result of a PC failure delaying the party from reaching their objective, and thus drawing out the course of this scenario as they try to make up for their failure. A check the party succeeded on would allow them to finish the scenario and move on to the next job, or go back to town to celebrate, both of which provide new opprotunities for roleplaying. I suppose, if in your experience, the GM only allows the party to diverge from the railroad when they experience failure, then your point of view is understandable. In my experience however the memorable moments come from when the PCs succeed at something the GM hadn't planned at all, like a diplomacy check to win the trust of the evil cultist, or picking the pocket of your new employer and thus finding he he's the one behind the smuggling ring. [/QUOTE]

Verification