Search results

I agree. There's no question that the example preserves player freedom. So what's better?

A lot of times people want choices, but only good ones.

It's BS that a GM not only has to plan for a session, but also plan for the contingency that the players might find the session boring (this is like a quantum ogre setup but the party takes the unguarded path and complains they didn't get XP). They have some responsibility to elucidate what they...

If the GM required an Intelligence check would that satisfy you?

Many of the problems and frustrations brought up in this thread can be solved with 30 seconds of out-of-character talk. Even other players in the game I'm in are fond of saying "did you hear that? Was that ... the call to adventure?"

If the group is having fun, it's not a problem. If the GM is not having fun, they are within their rights as a player to express this. Obviously, there are ways to do so that are less confrontational than others, but no reasonable player having spent that long already should balk at "decide your...

Oddly, this sort of GM antagonism to the players' plans is often improvised, because the GM is taken by surprise and doesn't want to admit they're at a loss to proceed.

For me, railroading involves the GM actively countering player tactics as opposed to presenting an obvious path. In the case of the latter, what prevents the players from deciding not to take the path?

Dynamic antagonists and things happening offstage don't violate "play to find out" (unless they are invulnerable to PC input, I suppose). Players should be given no guarantees they will find out every secret of the setting, if they have the freedom to ignore what they want.

This is what I tell people is what makes sports and games interesting. You have a framework of rules in place, but when you sit down to watch it unfold you have no idea if you might witness something epic.

I see simulation as an attempt to create a predictive model of a setting. This leads to some other assumptions: In the absence of information to the contrary, we should expect that things are meant to seem as realistic as possible. A character that doesn't get enough sleep or food will not be...

Mechanical benefit, like in a loresheet.

My first memory with concrete details was playing AD&D, module G2. I'm pretty certain I played in a homebrew one time before that.

I want to shout out to Pelgrane Press for Eyes of the Stone Thief. The conceit is that this dungeon eats other dungeons, and one of its meals was a first edition dungeon formatted old-school, with boxed text and everything. It's very cool.

Yes, a good table is worth its weight in gold. There are also plenty of modules that have too much writing. Stuff that's freely available on Wikipedia is typically unhelpful unless the author has taken pains to heighten its gaming applicability.

I don't think modules are written to be read, but I do suspect many are written to be sold without attention to playtesting or preparation for publishing.

Asking players to come up with things at the table is the way to go. Simply by being there they are in the right mindset to create. Even asking players pointed questions at the end of the session gives you ideas of what to focus on in the next one.

Vampire is the easy answer. Penanggalan the more detailed one.

Besides Conan and the Gray Mouser, there are other fictional thieves the rogue class emulates, like Hal's robber friends in Henry IV. And that burglar from the Shire.

Mmmm ... ankheg.