Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3517000" data-attributes="member: 2067">Makes perfect sense to me. You're probably like the majority of DMs that way: a few notes, and away you go.You know all the things you think of before the game?I think of them at the game. It takes but a second to have a thought, another 5-10 to express it. Perhaps a minute or two to consider if it would be a good addition and if it contradicts anything that has come before. You write it down before and reference it later. I write it down at the time, and reference it before I think of the next step.I've just spent a lot of time honing my ability to think consistently and creatively on my feet to the point where creating a world on the fly isn't a problem. Anyone can do it. Does that make it easier to envision? Or does it actually take people more than a few minutes to think up the concept of a villain or an adventure and reference the book it's in?Stat work can make it long, but I don't work on stats -- I use them out of books, and I don't care about getting the numbers spot-on, so I can fudge NPC's out of the DMG (though that makes something like the NPC stats from MMIV amazingly useful for me). Ah, I misspoke. You did say my position is unsupported by actual evidence (like bigfoot), and that you won't believe it without proof. So rather than saying it's totally false, you simply dismissed me as some guy with a fuzzy video, irrelevant to your world. Regardless, the thrust of that statement is that dismissing my position, reducing it to a level of speculation and bigfoot sightings, is pretty much based on, as far as I can tell, you judging me to not be as good a judge of my own games as I assume every other DM is, simply because it is alien to your experience. I say it is, you say prove it, I say I shouldn't have to prove it -- I don't ask you to prove that setting bibles don't interfere with adventure design because I assume you know what you're doing -- I assume you can run just as flexible and action-packed an adventure as any improved game. Why should I have to prove that improv doesn't interfere with depth? Why can't you assume I can run just as deep and worldly a setting as any pre-prepped game? Why don't I get the credit of knowing what I'm doing at a game table? Just because I'm appearing to drive with my legs crossed doesn't mean I'm more likely to get in an accident. Just because it's *different* doesn't mean it's not as good. I'm more than willing to cede that the style isn't for everyone, and that it certainly is a different experience from mostly pre-prep, but I'm not willing to cede that it's somehow a paler experience by logical necessity. A 250 page setting bible can still lead to great action adventures and flexibility and player impact, if done right. A totally improvised setting can still lead to great setting development and campaign, presence, if done right. I assume most who love pre-prep still give their players the adventure and flexibility they demand. I'm a little insulted that I can't be given the same credit without having to prove myself through some trial.</blockquote>

Verification