Quote from: Narf the Mouse;388707@Justin: Quoting Abyssal Maw: "I still think stories matter. What happens during an adventure matters. Characterization, turn of events, action, conflict, all of that stuff matters, it all draws interest and generates excitement. And it isn't "written" by any particular single person, or even "told" by the DM and handed down to the players. It's participative. It happens as the adventure plays out. "

I fully admit that I may be misreading AM, but the interpretation I'm taking away from the totality of his message is that the DM's job is to pre-design a story and the players participate with characterization, et al. within the structure of that story.

My point stands.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;388703Game sessions are made up of a series of events. Any series of events can be turned into a story. Which means that any game session can be told as a story.

But that doesn't mean that you need to prep plots.

From Don't Prep Plots:
   If you're GMing a roleplaying game, you should never prep a plot.

Everyone's tastes are different. These matters are subjective. What works for one person won't necessarily work for another. Yada, yada, yada.

     But, seriously, don't prep plots.

     First, a definition of terms: A plot is the sequence of events in a story.

     And the problem with trying to prep a plot for an RPG is that you're attempting to pre-determine events that have not yet happened. Your gaming session is not a story -- it is a happening. It is something about which stories can be told, but in the genesis of the moment it is not a tale being told. It is a fact that is transpiring.

The mistake you're making is assuming that the only way an interesting story can be told about a gaming session is if the GM prepares that story in advance. In my experience, the exact opposite is true.

It's hilarious how you quote your own blog as authoritative.

Anyhow, I never said any such thing. I don't actually predetermine events or plots, and I leave plenty of room open for how encounters can turn out.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;388720I fully admit that I may be misreading AM, but the interpretation I'm taking away from the totality of his message is that the DM's job is to pre-design a story and the players participate with characterization, et al. within the structure of that story.

My point stands.

Cover that point with a hat. That was never what I said, think, or have ever done.

Quote from: two_fishes;388683The thing is, the GM has complete control over the game world. So the rules say, "A ledge that is a foot wide requires a DC 12 check" (note: I have no idea if that number is accurate, I pulled it out of my ass for the sake of argument), but the GM has control over whether the ledge is a foot wide, 5 feet wide, or an inch wide. So the take-10 rule is still just the GM either saying yes or demanding a role, it's just providing some parameters to describe the world when he wants to demand a roll.

Correct.

QuoteAnd something is still bugging me about take-10, because it's not "say yes" to everybody, just "say yes" to some people. But if there are consequences to a failed roll, then everyone should have to roll, regardless of the character's skill number--everyone should be subject to the risk, it's simply a smaller risk for the more competent characters. And if the consequences are trivial, then no one should have to roll because who cares? Just say yes to everyone, and describe how the less competent characters have to struggle a little bit more.

And this is where the Take 20 rule part of the rule comes in. That covers the less competent character's having "to struggle a little bit more."

QuoteSo my feeling is still, if you have a situation where some characters can skip the roll and take-10, i.e. a situation where the consequences of failure are trivial, then just "say yes" for everyone. If you have a situation where rolling matters, where there is a consequence of failure, then make everyone roll. You say we're conditioned to roll the damn dice for everything. Well I think take-10 is a part of that conditioning. It encourages DMs to slap a DC on every damn thing the PCs might try instead of saving the rolls for when it really matters.

Perhaps, but it also provides guidelines for when and how to just :say yes", and for when a less competent character is going to be needing more time. This can be helpful for newer GMs and for folks who prefer to not to have to wing stuff like this. It also helps when tracking how long things take because even if there are no immediate or impending consequences for taking longer to accomplish something, it might come into play later on, or even build up to a much larger delay of the players end up choosing to spend more time doing many different things. I have no problem with winging it if the rule system doesn't provide the guidelines like this, but I still think the this rule and similar ones in other systems are a good idea.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388734It's hilarious how you quote your own blog as authoritative.

Yeah, really. You'd think he was quoting my blog or something.

RPGPundit