Quote from: estar;925000My view that circumstance is so rare it can be ignored. It is due to the fact that everything the players knows about the setting comes from what the referee communicates to the players. A dot on a map doesn't count especially if the name is changed. .

If it doesn't matter where the tower is, then putting it on a map is kind of stupid and a waste of ink. The times when it's on the map and the location really doesn't matter are pretty rare in my experience. But I'm probably closer in style to Skarg and I give the players a lot of information. And in the current campaign they could read some history books or Google up a bunch more information if they actually wanted to.

QuoteYes there are circumstances where with could be a problem. But those circumstances are not common to most tables because the problem is always that you didn't give enough information. Not that you gave too much and now you have to own up to it or be viewed as inconsistent.

I find that players forgetting information or mistakenly recalling information that they were already given is a bigger problem than not giving them enough information in the first (or second or even sometimes the third or fourth) place.

I care a lot about consistency. As a GM, fitting things together consistently is like writing poetry with meter and rhyme instead of blank verse or prose. Part of the fun is the artificial restriction that consistency places on my creativity. Moving the tower is like cheating at solitaire. Does it matter? Not in any meaningful sense, but there isn't a lot of deep meaningful sense in a leisure activity game played for fun. It's like asking if it matters if a player cheats on their die rolls. Does it matter? Not on any deep level, but it isn't playing the game we agreed to play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924996Can't argue in the sense that...

Who is going to care that a Tower we hadn't heard about and weren't planning to go anyway, got moved either toward us or away from us?
Like I said, not my thing generally, I play it straight, but I see the argument.

Thanks for answering.

Also I didn't mention it earlier, but I don't consider your summation to be unwarranted or jumping in the middle. You often do a nice job of clearly and succinctly stating things and I think that is helpful both to the content and the tone of this and other threads.

I've been running Storm King's Thunder in Adventurers League games at a local game store, and ironically there is a wizard's tower that appears wherever it needs to be.

Spoiler

The Great Upheaval chapter is fairly railroaded to take characters from 1st to 5th level. It starts with the player characters clearing goblins out of a town that was recently bombarded by cloud giants from a flying castle, and ends with the characters traveling in a tower atop a cloud with a friendly cloud giant wizard whose divination has acquainted him with the player characters. I really expected a lot of difficulty persuading the players that climbing up (a thousand feet, by the adventure's description) was a vaguely sensible idea -- I planned for the tower to follow them at lower and lower altitude until the wizard had the opportunity to rescue them from a tough wandering monster, or just follow them around until they leveled up from the wandering monsters. But they ran right up the cloud stairs with no hesitation. Other fairly safe and obvious courses of action (well, from my point of view, at least) have been dismissed as too dangerous, so go figure.

The campaign book is an odd mix; the second chapter has the player characters defending one of three towns (chosen by DM fiat) and getting a few quests from the locals, but the third chapter is a large number of places with or without suggested encounters to explore as they choose, although one of the featured encounters there is another tower that does not have a fully specified location, all ready to be put on the north or south road as the DM likes. And there are various calls to change encounters to suit the party better; e.g., change a magic greatsword to a greataxe if the players would prefer that. Later chapters detail various major enemies to deal with, with some ordering of those given (both as to expected level and which later ones are revealed at each).

I have never spent so much prep time for each 3-4 hour session in any campaign. I think half of it is studying the book to make sure I haven't missed anything (I've still missed various minor points), but the other half is understanding what is there well enough to make up additional stuff that is consistent. And I expect it will get harder as the players gain more and more freedom of where to go, now that we've reached the third chapter.

Anybody else find published adventures harder to prep than what you make up? Or is it just me, or is it just Storm King's Thunder?

Quote from: rawma;925029I've been running Storm King's Thunder in Adventurers League games at a local game store, and ironically there is a wizard's tower that appears wherever it needs to be.

Spoiler

The Great Upheaval chapter is fairly railroaded to take characters from 1st to 5th level. It starts with the player characters clearing goblins out of a town that was recently bombarded by cloud giants from a flying castle, and ends with the characters traveling in a tower atop a cloud with a friendly cloud giant wizard whose divination has acquainted him with the player characters. I really expected a lot of difficulty persuading the players that climbing up (a thousand feet, by the adventure's description) was a vaguely sensible idea -- I planned for the tower to follow them at lower and lower altitude until the wizard had the opportunity to rescue them from a tough wandering monster, or just follow them around until they leveled up from the wandering monsters. But they ran right up the cloud stairs with no hesitation. Other fairly safe and obvious courses of action (well, from my point of view, at least) have been dismissed as too dangerous, so go figure.

The campaign book is an odd mix; the second chapter has the player characters defending one of three towns (chosen by DM fiat) and getting a few quests from the locals, but the third chapter is a large number of places with or without suggested encounters to explore as they choose, although one of the featured encounters there is another tower that does not have a fully specified location, all ready to be put on the north or south road as the DM likes. And there are various calls to change encounters to suit the party better; e.g., change a magic greatsword to a greataxe if the players would prefer that. Later chapters detail various major enemies to deal with, with some ordering of those given (both as to expected level and which later ones are revealed at each).

I have never spent so much prep time for each 3-4 hour session in any campaign. I think half of it is studying the book to make sure I haven't missed anything (I've still missed various minor points), but the other half is understanding what is there well enough to make up additional stuff that is consistent. And I expect it will get harder as the players gain more and more freedom of where to go, now that we've reached the third chapter.

Anybody else find published adventures harder to prep than what you make up? Or is it just me, or is it just Storm King's Thunder?

It varies.  If I'm just raiding it for ideas or the module is close to what I was looking for, and I just need to give it a new coat of paint, it goes very easy.  Sometimes I want to actually run the module, but not 100% as is, and altering it is like a Rubik's d20.

I think some modules due to their specific nature can be harder to retool than others, but some just seem to be hard to adapt.

Plotted stuff tends to be harder, especially when there's a lot of plots going on and the Where and When's matter, like Power Behind the Throne.  One of the best modules ever, but Oy Vey!

Quote from: Bren;924974Clearly this type of a sense of accomplishment is not what RGrove and Co. play for and he seems to really not be able to grasp that some people want the chance for that sense of accomplishment in addition to (and even at times instead of) a feeling of "fun session," "cool adventure," "nice story," or "wow, that was exciting."

The other problem being rgrove and co keep trying to validate and prove the "whatever" they are defending today is somehow common, supported, is better than other styles, and perfectly fine to do since the players dont know.

As noted. He is right that to the unaware player it can seem like there is no difference between the wizards tower that was A: created on the spot based on prior input, B: moved from where it had been into the PCs path, C: was placed beforehand and the players just happened to choose that direction, D: was randomly placed, E: the tower can move itself, F: is part of a linear story, and so on.

The problem is in the execution of B (And sometimes F) and its removal of the meaning of allowing the players to choose. The rigged shell game is an apt comparison for B.

Now if the players know the game is rigged and are really ok with that then it doesnt matter.

QuoteYou can avoid Illusionism fairly easily, even while running things on the fly. If there are two ways to go, simply decide which way leads to the evil wizard, even if you only made that decison five minutes (or five seconds) beforehand.

--Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures

This quote is from a section headed Avoid Illusionism. Illusionism being defined as what happens when a gamemaster makes sure every choice the players make is the right choice (or vice versa).

Avoid Teleporting Tower Syndrome by deciding what is down each branch of the crossroads before telling the players they have come to a crossroad. If they don't go down the road leading to the tower, they miss the tower. If you are running no or low prep this isn't a waste of time because you didn't spend hours carefully crafting a wizard's tower in the first place.

Where I worry about crossing the line into illusionism is when I advance prepare little set piece encounters to drop into play. Usually just little colour encounters. "At the coaching inn a mysterious stranger will rush angrilly out the door, physically pushing the PCs out of his way, exchange heated words with a lady in a carriage then jump on his horse and ride off in the opposite direction to the coach. Examining the inn yard will reveal that he dropped a monogrammed silk handkerchief."  If the players decide to follow up on this it could become a plot seed, if they don't they may never discover the plot against the Crown that these two are engaged in.  Is it illusionism to place this little scene at "the next coaching inn the party visits"?

Back on topic.

For me. total Zero-prep campaign DMing just comes naturally. Obviously this is in absolutely no way a style that works for others or is even learnable I suspect.

I know I must be doing something right as at least two players regularly made long drives out to our place just to play.

But some methods I like to use.

1: Ask the players for some input. Is there anything theyd like to do? Character goals and/or backstory, if any? Why are they adventuring? Are they adventuring even? EG: plot hooks the players give me instead of the other way around.

2: Do the players have any pref for a start location? Town, city, wilderness, dungeon, etc? This can help solidify a basic idea of where to start things off or spark ideas in me to roll with from there.

3: Now what are they doing at the start location? This is important as it can set the stage for everything that follows.

4: Once things start to get established then I try to think of at least three locations around the site that the PCs know of and at least one, usually more that have some rumours about but possibly not confirmed. I try to set down beforehand some things out there that the players and PCs dont know of and might never get encountered. But they are there and set. Other things have to be created on the fly as the need arises or rolled for depending on the situation.

X: And from there just see what the players do and react accordingly as ideas pop up.

Quote from: Omega;925041The other problem being rgrove and co keep trying to validate and prove the "whatever" they are defending today is somehow common, supported, is better than other styles, and perfectly fine to do since the players dont know.

As noted. He is right that to the unaware player it can seem like there is no difference between the wizards tower that was A: created on the spot based on prior input, B: moved from where it had been into the PCs path, C: was placed beforehand and the players just happened to choose that direction, D: was randomly placed, E: the tower can move itself, F: is part of a linear story, and so on.

The problem is in the execution of B (And sometimes F) and its removal of the meaning of allowing the players to choose. The rigged shell game is an apt comparison for B.

Now if the players know the game is rigged and are really ok with that then it doesnt matter.

Whats really amazing is that so many here seem to feel that the occasional 'rigging' if you want to call it that during a game somehow eliminates all the reward the players get in playing. Its not as if the whole damn game is 'rigged'. Ive said this so many times it makes me wonder what some of you guys are drinking! Its an OCCASIONAL approach when the crux of a scenario or session is obviously geared in one direction, more than likely completely understood by the players. If we sat down tonight to investigate YE FUCKING WIZARDS TOWER then it would be perfectly acceptable if the GM twisted a few facts to make sure they FUCKING GOT THERE. He, me, wouldn't run the whole game that way, would allow total freedom and randomization in any number of other aspects, wouldn't control combat etc. etc. etc. but yeah, I might, MIGHT that is, make sure they talk to the right tavern keeper and get the information they need to make the damn tower the object.

Despite some awesome arguments to the contrary I will never believe that to be a crime of some sort or even a less rewarding way to play. And as to the notion that it isn't supported, common or accepted... one only has to pick up any adventure module since 1977 to be proven wrong.

One last time, I don't have a problem with some GMs doing the ole Zero Prep thing either, Ive stated that several times and have done it myself. My only comment has been that its a deviation from the accepted norm, just as railroading is on occasion. The standard way to play a roleplaying game is to make up an adventure, draw a map and let the players wander across it and do stuff. Making it up as you go, moving shit around in front of them, or whatever is FINE, but not the norm, and both are equally deviant.

Everybody has their opinion and preference. Personally If a GM were to invite me over to play and then told me he had nothing prepared but would wing it as soon as I got there I would decline. I can sit home and make up my own stories thank you! I might even get upset if someone pulled what I have a few times and moved something around without the players notice, if it went against a choice of mine. I get that sure... but lets be honest here, part of the game is not revealing everything. We all typically have detailed maps of our worlds but we don't let the players see them, they would get too much info from them and frankly we might need to change something if we change our mind, get a better idea or whatever. Its not a crime, there is no guarantee of 100% transparency in a roleplaying game. The objective is fun. Being fooled can be fun... see my simulator analogy above.

Some fool their players into thinking they really could have gone a different way. Some fool their players into thinking there really is a world out there waiting for them already and not about to be birthed in the next moment. Its all foolery and completely fine in the context of playing a game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925047Whats really amazing is that so many here seem to feel that the occasional 'rigging' if you want to call it that during a game somehow eliminates all the reward the players get in playing. Its not as if the whole damn game is 'rigged'. Ive said this so many times it makes me wonder what some of you guys are drinking! Its an OCCASIONAL approach when the crux of a scenario or session is obviously geared in one direction, more than likely completely understood by the players.

"It's not as if I'm pissing in EVERY glass of beer I'm serving you! Most of the beer is actually perfectly fine. I don't understand why you feel this has ruined the beer-drinking."

Quote from: CRKrueger;925037It varies.  If I'm just raiding it for ideas or the module is close to what I was looking for, and I just need to give it a new coat of paint, it goes very easy.  Sometimes I want to actually run the module, but not 100% as is, and altering it is like a Rubik's d20.

I think some modules due to their specific nature can be harder to retool than others, but some just seem to be hard to adapt.

Plotted stuff tends to be harder, especially when there's a lot of plots going on and the Where and When's matter, like Power Behind the Throne.  One of the best modules ever, but Oy Vey!

I always find using a module to be more work than coming up with it myself, no exceptions. But yes, the closer I stick to it, the higher the workload:).

Quote from: Omega;925041The rigged shell game is an apt comparison for B.

Now if the players know the game is rigged and are really ok with that then it doesnt matter.

Totally agree.

Quote from: DavetheLost;925042--Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures

This quote is from a section headed Avoid Illusionism. Illusionism being defined as what happens when a gamemaster makes sure every choice the players make is the right choice (or vice versa).

Avoid Teleporting Tower Syndrome by deciding what is down each branch of the crossroads before telling the players they have come to a crossroad. If they don't go down the road leading to the tower, they miss the tower. If you are running no or low prep this isn't a waste of time because you didn't spend hours carefully crafting a wizard's tower in the first place.

Where I worry about crossing the line into illusionism is when I advance prepare little set piece encounters to drop into play. Usually just little colour encounters. "At the coaching inn a mysterious stranger will rush angrilly out the door, physically pushing the PCs out of his way, exchange heated words with a lady in a carriage then jump on his horse and ride off in the opposite direction to the coach. Examining the inn yard will reveal that he dropped a monogrammed silk handkerchief."  If the players decide to follow up on this it could become a plot seed, if they don't they may never discover the plot against the Crown that these two are engaged in.  Is it illusionism to place this little scene at "the next coaching inn the party visits"?

Said section is one of the many reasons I like Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures:p!
There are many more, actually. But this is a major one.

Quote from: Omega;925043Back on topic.

For me. total Zero-prep campaign DMing just comes naturally. Obviously this is in absolutely no way a style that works for others or is even learnable I suspect.

I have taught it to myself, after cutting off what I disliked about other styles. I've taught it to others who had never even considered it.

QuoteI know I must be doing something right as at least two players regularly made long drives out to our place just to play.

I know it for pretty much the same reason, except with local flavour. Some of my players used to stay until late enough in the night that public transport had already stopped working...and they haven't come by car*, nor were they planning a sleepover (though I did offer the option:D).
I'd told them "the session continues until you want to stay and play". That's how the sessions in this campaign routinely surpassed the 8-hour mark, and 1 hours wasn't really an exception.
Obviously they didn't find it boring if they were spending their Saturdays in my house, playing.

*That would be unusual around here, at least when going to a session.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;925076"It's not as if I'm pissing in EVERY glass of beer I'm serving you! Most of the beer is actually perfectly fine. I don't understand why you feel this has ruined the beer-drinking."

It's more or less like that, yes;).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;925076"It's not as if I'm pissing in EVERY glass of beer I'm serving you! Most of the beer is actually perfectly fine. I don't understand why you feel this has ruined the beer-drinking."

Sorry , really stupid analogy. Point taken but ..well no...Pont not applicable at all.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925047Whats really amazing is that so many here seem to feel that the occasional 'rigging' if you want to call it that during a game somehow eliminates all the reward the players get in playing. Its not as if the whole damn game is 'rigged'.

Except that we've seen time and again that it can devolve into something more than "occasional". The temptation to "save my creation from disuse!" is strong and once you start... well...
Or evolves into just flat out railroad styles to one degree or another. Which may be a good thing, or a bad thing. WMMV totally there.

And even if its occasional its still not a good thing to do to the players and it is irrelevant to if they ever know its happened or not.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925086Sorry , really stupid analogy. Point taken but ..well no...Pont not applicable at all.

Actually, it's completely exact in my book, and a rather smart analogy.

You not understanding it, or rather you disagreeing it should matter to that degree=/=other people don't feel it matters to that degree.
And while it's your opinion that matters for your group, it's the other people's opinion that matters if you're looking for new players.

What it seems you don't understand is that for some of us, the session is evaluated as a whole, just like beer-drinking is evaluating by all the beer and talk that happened. Doesn't matter that "it only happened at one or two moments", if the thing that happened was 1) illusionism in an RPG session, with people who hate the idea, or 2) someone pissing in your beer when out to drink beer with friends. All of these do ruin the mood for us.

For some people, not even the best beer will compensate for someone pissing in it. If you doubt that, remember the Case of the Disappointed Player that you told us about in this thread;).

Quote from: Omega;925094Except that we've seen time and again that it can devolve into something more than "occasional". The temptation to "save my creation from disuse!" is strong and once you start... well...
Or evolves into just flat out railroad styles to one degree or another. Which may be a good thing, or a bad thing. WMMV totally there.

And even if its occasional its still not a good thing to do to the players and it is irrelevant to if they ever know its happened or not.

When did you see this phenomonon? You played with a GM who used it often enough to turn you against it I assume? You haven't played in my game so you are assuming I've fallen prey to this same over use. I havent.

And my regular players do know and disagree with you enturely. So it's very much and individual opinion, blanket statements dont apply.

Quote from: AsenRG;925097Actually, it's completely exact in my book, and a rather smart analogy.

You not understanding it, or rather you disagreeing it should matter to that degree=/=other people don't feel it matters to that degree.
And while it's your opinion that matters for your group, it's the other people's opinion that matters if you're looking for new players.

What it seems you don't understand is that for some of us, the session is evaluated as a whole, just like beer-drinking is evaluating by all the beer and talk that happened. Doesn't matter that "it only happened at one or two moments", if the thing that happened was 1) illusionism in an RPG session, with people who hate the idea, or 2) someone pissing in your beer when out to drink beer with friends. All of these do ruin the mood for us.

For some people, not even the best beer will compensate for someone pissing in it. If you doubt that, remember the Case of the Disappointed Player that you told us about in this thread;).

Oh I would never argue that someone wouldnt possibly object to it. There are all kinds of gamers for sure. The new guy at are table is a clear example. But his response doesn't somehow make what all the others enjoyed invalid. Still fun to some even if gated by others. Again, no blanket statements please.

That's why I said the beer analogy wasn't a good one. It's safe to say nobody wants beer with piss in it. Call it lime instead and I'm with you. Some will spit it out, others will order another.

Quote from: AsenRG;924980That's my understanding of your post. Apologies if I've misunderstood you, but you spoke about players making accurate assumptions from the maps - not a word about misleading maps...

Oh, no, the accurate maps are for GM eyes only, representing the actual game world. Players only have maps that represent actual maps in the game world, with all sorts of limitations, if they even have a map.

QuoteOnce again - it's about exploring a place that is there. It could have a map. You just don't have a cartographer that could get you anything resembling a decent map.

Yep. The accumulation of actual decent maps and access to actual scholars and cartographers who can add to the players' map collection has often been more valued by players than gold or magic. Many adventures and decisions on where to go in the worlds have been mainly about exploration.

QuoteOh, really? Never played TFT, but I've done that, too.

TFT's main campaign book presents detailed hex maps for regions and towns with rules for terrain, travel, getting lost, etc. My first campaign started using their sample map and extending from there. That was the last map the players had access to, and I soon realized that it was no good having players have access to the "real" map of anything because it was far more accurate/detailed info than their PCs would ever have in-character. I soon re-did the original map and the map in the book became a specific map in the game world, no longer entirely accurate.

Quote(I stopped by player request. My players like exact maps, so they threatened to tear the next inexact one in my head. I felt outnumbered - and given that one of them is my Most Important Player, I didn't want to escalate:p).

Hehe! That's too bad. Even with my map-oriented players, it took a while to wean them off of having access to hex-based maps and being able to use gamey techniques and expectations to make an accurate map. That's when I realized I had to get more detailed on my own map than 12.5km hexes, at least for the places where the players where doing detailed first-hand exploration.

QuoteThere's a difference between not having a map, and not having a map in your head. Did you think I can't visualize the setting?
I can, in exacting detail (according to some players: with too much fucking details). I just can't draw, so it remains in my head. Sometimes, I use random generators until I get something that's close, and then show it to the players as "the map".
And yes, I know it's a substitute at best - luckily, I haven't had to do that in a while.

So, I should say that I (a GM who mostly prefers heavy prep) posted here in a thread about "zero prep" to point out that there are levels of cause & effect & consistent pre-plotted detail beyond the ones being talked about. And I've elaborated because you asked about interesting details. I'm not trying to argue there's a flaw with your GM'ing, especially for your players. IIRC you asked about where the effects were on play comparing what you wrote you do with mapless improv and relation maps, versus what I do with lots of map prep.

I have often run less mapped games and I've certainly played them. And much of my mapped play was at 12.5km hex scale, which is pretty rough and sometimes called for exactly what you always do, which is make up details during play. But I know that for my own brain, even though I also have fairly good mental maps of my worlds (even the 30-year-old ones), I really need the maps to allow the type of play I run, in many ways. I'm not exactly sure where Lesser Fumdum is, or where many of the rivers flow, and when I look at the maps I'm often surprised to remember some stuff, and certainly my brain can't remember anywhere near the level of data contained even on the oldest crudest campaign maps. Also some of the old campaigns are enormous, like 100 or so sheets of hex paper full of terrain and roads and place names and so on. Which is not to say you can't have great campaigns which feel close enough without even having much of a real map. I've enjoyed playing and even sometimes running those. I just enjoy and prefer to play with detailed maps.

QuoteAgain, I improvise on the basis of a setting. It can have maps, but drawing them would totally defeat the "no-prep" idea.
(That's, of course, assuming we're not playing in a setting that has maps. If I use a published setting, which I often do, there's probably a map, everyone has seen it, we can carry on. Add to it that I often play in historical settings, and the lack of map becomes more of a "gentlemen agreement": we don't look at the map, and the GM describes to the best of his ability;)).

Sure. I'm wasn't trying to talk you out of doing no prep; I was just trying to answer what I thought the differences could be.
As for published settings, those always bother me because I don't want the players to have OOC access to accurate maps! Harn is nice but I wouldn't run it for more than a one-off because I react, "But the players could look at the actual maps of stuff nooooo!"
It's probably one of the reasons I tend to avoid historical settings in centuries when people didn't have good maps.
And even in modern and sci fi settings I would always have my own maps at least to show the real details that people don't have. Though with things like satellite images, the unknown is more a matter of filtering and interpreting information rather than having actual unknown or wrong regions.

QuoteIndeed.
But how will we live unless we explain to each other how wrong the other party is:D?

LOL ya. Though as above, not my intention. I don't really seem to disagree with you on anything.

QuoteNo problem with providing them, actually. I just don't provide them readily. The Great Geographic Discoveries were great for a reason: it was damned hard to achieve them.

Yep.

QuoteAnd well, I've never played with a group that was interested in mapping out an unmapped part of the setting. So that's never come up.

Different groups.

QuoteIt all depends on the group, doesn't it? My players prefer to follow the money trails, or similar, and not the trails in a forest.

Yep.

QuoteSorry-which experiment? The illusionist example? That had nothing to do with a physical map.
The wizard tower? All details fit with how I imagined it.

IIRC you said you experimented with adding a wizard's tower inside your invention/event-horizon and your wife noticed right away.

QuoteYeah, that's the whole idea - meaning, stuff doesn't pop up because you went there, but because it was where it should have been. Backwards or forwards, who cares?
(Or rather - well, if enough people cared, I might try to switch to a sixth style of using games. But as it happens, I don't need to).

Well that's the only point of anything that seems like minor disagreement to me. I agree though that you and your group seem not to care or notice at the level where it does make any difference, because you think it through enough in advance. I just think that I or some of my players, if we were focusing on map-relevant stuff and trying to play the way we do in our well-mapped campaigns, would at least tend to make you think farther ahead and maybe want to take more notes. But even we let go of such stuff when we see we're playing with a no/low-map GM. Again, I've been posting in this thread about what the difference is. When we play with one of our no/low-map GM's, well just use that GM's conversational interface to figure out what we need to know to get from A to B and so on, and only occasionally press them for geography and stuff. But in our own detailed-map campaigns, we're out to get good maps, and when we don't have them, we're at least logging our trip details and possibly making some of our own maps as we go. And as we travel we're doing all sorts of map-related stuff because it matters and we've experienced being bitten by not doing it. Does everyone have gear for the weather and camping? Will we be able to light a fire? How long till the next sources of food and water? Can/should we forage or hunt along the way? Who's scouting for the party? Do we have a wagon or pack animals and how well are they going to deal with the road conditions, fords, etc? Who are we meeting along the road? What do we have to eat? Who's carrying what? Who is the slowest person in the group limiting our speed? Who's getting tired out before others? Who knows how to survive in this terrain and who's clueless and needs to be watched after or they're liable to have a mishap? What threats are we going near and how shall we march to be ready for that? Should we be avoiding certain roads or areas? How screwed are we going to be if/when people get leg/foot injuries? What's our march and break schedule and how fast are we pressing it and how long before it rains or the sun goes down? Are we stocked up on medical supplies? All of that is sometimes cut down to carelessly wandering about or "shit we suddenly need to run out of town with whatever we've got on us at the moment", but we've experienced consequences to not thinking about such things and taking appropriate actions. Ya these call all happen without a map, but the terrain governs a lot of it so if you have a map you can do better at what to expect, especially considering which roads (or roadless shortcuts) to take to get to places and so on.

QuoteSame here. It will always be consistent with what was shown...or it's a good idea to check why it's not. Such discrepancies have been known for getting deadly.


That's a difference in how I was explaining it - but what I was imagining was that the growth doesn't start until a few kilometers on the road.
(Until then, I imagined people from nearby villages are using it, the way we use a highway now - but then they swerve right or left, and go on small tropes).
Tracking checks would have revealed that, BTW.

Ok. Makes sense. I realize it was an example - I was just trying to use it as written.

QuoteBwahaha. It's not. It's just an acid-sprinkling demon that works for the wizard!
(No, I'm not thinking this up now - I had thought about it when describing the spots).
Again, suitable tests would have shown that much. My players are nice, kind souls, with quite a bit of OOC knowledge of chemistry for reasons of education - so they would have thought of something, I'm sure.

Sure, sounds good. Again, I've not been trying to say you do anything wrong, or even that I haven't done such things myself in detailed mapped campaigns. I've just been trying to point out and answer questions about what I think the differences can be with established detailed maps versus not having them.

QuoteAgain, the crossroad is a city.
Now remember, this was a hypothethical example - but there's a good reason to assume they didn't bother to ask what's near the city and/or that they had to leave in a hurry. (PCs needing to leave in a hurry? When has that happened?)
Why? Because if they had asked, I would have come up with the "bandits, wizard tower, or roll on the table" that much sooner, possibly in a previous session (their question would shift the time when it becomes relevant).
Details wouldn't have changed, either (unless they have changed or were wrong for IC reasons) - I'd have taken a note afterwards about what was revealed, and what wasn't revealed, but I had decided it. Because here Apocalypse World is right in instructing the GM to "say what honesty demands".

Since they didn't have such info, we can safely conclude that they neither bothered to ask, nor have they mentioned planning to leave in front of a friendly local NPC.
(Maybe they had plans for the city and having to leave was a nasty surprise? Maybe it was simply halfway through the first session?
Frankly, I don't know. I haven't thought up the whole campaign just for the sake of an example in the forum, so either one is possible! I suspect it was simply one of the first sessions, and they were doing relatively well, or thought they were doing well, until an enemy stopped smiling at them and started a PC-hunt!)


Yes. See above: they hadn't done that.


Here's the thing: when I make up the local geography, I'd know almost anything from the start of the road to the tower. While I was describing the outgrowth, I came up with 1) how far from the city it starts (about a league), the description of the dark spots, and their explanation (the two always go together - I never throw a detail without knowing what caused it).
While describing those, I came up with the idea for 1) the personality and powers of the wizard, 2) the description of the tower.
While describing that, I came up with 1) the wizard's enemies he's guarding against and 2) his allies.

Yep that all makes sense.

QuoteYes, I agree. If you have been talking about geography, I would have agreed - but you started about maps, and I explained my reasons for not allowing them.
The difference is, Earth had a geography long before there were maps.

Again, I don't allow players to see the real maps either.  Our GM maps represent the actual real world, and seem like an invaluable thing to map out on paper. I'd rather reduce the need to hold geography in my head than reduce prep time, both practically and also because I love making maps. Also it makes me nervous that I won't be consistent if I don't have a map.

QuoteSee above why neither of these is the case, though.


But I didn't imagine him or her as chatty, just a bookish type that wants to be left alone. That wasn't in order to limit information, either. If I'd imagined the wizard differently, some details would have been different. Like, if he or she wanted non-demonic company, there could be people going to and from the tower.

Right. These are just examples to talk about potential effects. Practically all of our disagreements seem to be about example details or unclear expression and not actual disagreements.

QuoteIt did. No brigands, for once, I didn't even consider those.


Yes, that's possible, and I try to account for it. But I choose to do it more "theatre of the mind".
My wife would still get me if I tried to abuse that by replacing the setting's reality with the illusion of such, so I have a constant check to keep me honest:D!


If the major wizards are that powerful, they would be on my power relationship lists.
Since this one isn't there, the reverse also applies - that's not such a powerful wizard.


It is, but I just want to point out (also for rgrove) that the lack of a physical map doesn't mean the setting doesn't have a geography, and a map in the GM's head.


Depends on the scale. I almost definitely have a world map, maybe random generated, or scribbled on a sheet of paper - for no other reason than to keep me honest (old habits die hard, and all that). But are all wizards on it? They aren't.

Sure.

QuoteDo I have a smaller-scale map of just the local area? Of course I do, but it's probably just in my head.

Sure. Again, I'm not trying to argue about the best way and most of my mapped campaigns have most of their space not yet detailed below something like 12.5km hexes showing terrain type, rivers and large villages or greater, forts larger than small keeps, and roads larger than trails that don't help at 12.5km scale.