Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5653263" data-attributes="member: 98032">I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players. Is it a collaborative story telling where everyone just sort of makes up the world and events as they go along? Fascinating concept. EDIT - Dice 4 Hire was correct on the following portion being "putting words in someones mouth" so I'm just putting in note and leaving to avoid any confusion if I erased it, heh. Totally misread something. Still stickin' by the rest So never when playing the role of GM/Storteller whatever you may refer to it, do you ever consider the abilities of the party at hand when thinking up, completely on the fly as it were, their adversaries and the ongoing storyline? DnD's level system alone makes it pretty tough to just completely ignore party capability. Not to say my PCs haven't stumbled into things which they can't at the time overcome, but I've at least considered that fact and offered alternatives so as to not steamroll them with some encounter they aren't at all prepared for or capable of dealing with. Otherwise, I'd be running a game much akin to another thread where the DM felt it fine to TPK a party for what sounded like lack of area knowledge (from the one-sided info I received anyway).  It's just not my style. Especially since I want players to invest time in their PCs and not think of their PC as just "the next one to die". I suppose they call it "gritty" when a player can open the door to the kobold fortress they invaded and find the Cloud Giant / Sorcerer leader on the other side. Again, just not my style.  Of course, if they chose to knowingly square off against a Cloud Giant at level one, well, gloves are off on that one...but I'm not going to just drop something like that on them to prove "I don't script". I've done things similar to that before but generally it is proceeded by some warning and some helpful hints scattered about. Unless they can handle it. Then I'll nuke them from orbit and let them scramble to sort it out. END EDIT  So, while I also rarely "script" adventures, I find it necessary to at least consider the party abilities/skills/level etc. in most scenarios that arise (whether it comes as part of player sandboxing or the "meta plot", which I do script but which is sometimes altered through player action.) I also find that players truly enjoy encountering problems their PCs can solve and use their specialties on. So while I'm winging it (or not, as the situation demands), throwing in a bone that they particularly like to gnaw on just seems good form. Again, to each his own.  Frankly, I'd call 4e and 3.5e the same in these respects - I'd never volunteer to GM a game in 3.5 with completely open sources. Cherry-picking there was pretty bad. I think it happens with any system as they expand (assuming expanions means "more rules to fiddle with" and not "more story/fluff".)</blockquote>

Verification