Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.
3 removed unnecessary edit note
source | link

For starters, I will tell you one thing that I learned from Murphy: No plot is player-proof.

There have been several games where the bare bones plot dictated certain events happening in a certain order, and no matter how hard I tried to plan for the chaos factor known as the party, they always seemed to find a way around my staunchest and meticulous designs. Evolving my style, I do take a somewhat Whovian stance on how to GM: There are fixed points in time that need to happen, but everything around those - the other 98% - are completely malleable to the players' will. Yes, the allied count will be assassinated; however the players have built a stronger allied network so the blow to morale is less severe. No, the battle will not be a victory overall, but with the overwhelming victory that the players accomplished from their leg of the fight, they get plot point Z a full (in game) month in advance (and of course the lack of party death).

 

Edit 1: To address the question of if one should make locked points, it's all a matter of the party in general. Some players call BS when their efforts are in vain, and other love rolling with the punches as long as they get their character development. If you're looking for permission to do it, then I grant it because it's something I do more often than not with more success than not. However, if you do make set plot points, don't forget the PCs. When you make the players feel like they matter, they are the most agreeable.

For starters, I will tell you one thing that I learned from Murphy: No plot is player-proof.

There have been several games where the bare bones plot dictated certain events happening in a certain order, and no matter how hard I tried to plan for the chaos factor known as the party, they always seemed to find a way around my staunchest and meticulous designs. Evolving my style, I do take a somewhat Whovian stance on how to GM: There are fixed points in time that need to happen, but everything around those - the other 98% - are completely malleable to the players' will. Yes, the allied count will be assassinated; however the players have built a stronger allied network so the blow to morale is less severe. No, the battle will not be a victory overall, but with the overwhelming victory that the players accomplished from their leg of the fight, they get plot point Z a full (in game) month in advance (and of course the lack of party death).

Edit 1: To address the question of if one should make locked points, it's all a matter of the party in general. Some players call BS when their efforts are in vain, and other love rolling with the punches as long as they get their character development. If you're looking for permission to do it, then I grant it because it's something I do more often than not with more success than not. However, if you do make set plot points, don't forget the PCs. When you make the players feel like they matter, they are the most agreeable.

For starters, I will tell you one thing that I learned from Murphy: No plot is player-proof.

There have been several games where the bare bones plot dictated certain events happening in a certain order, and no matter how hard I tried to plan for the chaos factor known as the party, they always seemed to find a way around my staunchest and meticulous designs. Evolving my style, I do take a somewhat Whovian stance on how to GM: There are fixed points in time that need to happen, but everything around those - the other 98% - are completely malleable to the players' will. Yes, the allied count will be assassinated; however the players have built a stronger allied network so the blow to morale is less severe. No, the battle will not be a victory overall, but with the overwhelming victory that the players accomplished from their leg of the fight, they get plot point Z a full (in game) month in advance (and of course the lack of party death).

 

To address the question of if one should make locked points, it's all a matter of the party in general. Some players call BS when their efforts are in vain, and other love rolling with the punches as long as they get their character development. If you're looking for permission to do it, then I grant it because it's something I do more often than not with more success than not. However, if you do make set plot points, don't forget the PCs. When you make the players feel like they matter, they are the most agreeable.

2 added 543 characters in body
source | link

For starters, I will tell you one thing that I learned from Murphy: No plot is player-proof.

There have been several games where the bare bones plot dictated certain events happening in a certain order, and no matter how hard I tried to plan for the chaos factor known as the party, they always seemed to find a way around my staunchest and meticulous designs. Evolving my style, I do take a somewhat Whovian stance on how to GM: There are fixed points in time that need to happen, but everything around those - the other 98% - are completely malleable to the players' will. Yes, the allied count will be assassinated; however the players have built a stronger allied network so the blow to morale is less severe. No, the battle will not be a victory overall, but with the overwhelming victory that the players accomplished from their leg of the fight, they get plot point Z a full (in game) month in advance (and of course the lack of party death).

Edit 1: To address the question of if one should make locked points, it's all a matter of the party in general. Some players call BS when their efforts are in vain, and other love rolling with the punches as long as they get their character development. If you're looking for permission to do it, then I grant it because it's something I do more often than not with more success than not. However, if you do make set plot points, don't forget the PCs. When you make the players feel like they matter, they are the most agreeable.

For starters, I will tell you one thing that I learned from Murphy: No plot is player-proof.

There have been several games where the bare bones plot dictated certain events happening in a certain order, and no matter how hard I tried to plan for the chaos factor known as the party, they always seemed to find a way around my staunchest and meticulous designs. Evolving my style, I do take a somewhat Whovian stance on how to GM: There are fixed points in time that need to happen, but everything around those - the other 98% - are completely malleable to the players' will. Yes, the allied count will be assassinated; however the players have built a stronger allied network so the blow to morale is less severe. No, the battle will not be a victory overall, but with the overwhelming victory that the players accomplished from their leg of the fight, they get plot point Z a full (in game) month in advance (and of course the lack of party death).

For starters, I will tell you one thing that I learned from Murphy: No plot is player-proof.

There have been several games where the bare bones plot dictated certain events happening in a certain order, and no matter how hard I tried to plan for the chaos factor known as the party, they always seemed to find a way around my staunchest and meticulous designs. Evolving my style, I do take a somewhat Whovian stance on how to GM: There are fixed points in time that need to happen, but everything around those - the other 98% - are completely malleable to the players' will. Yes, the allied count will be assassinated; however the players have built a stronger allied network so the blow to morale is less severe. No, the battle will not be a victory overall, but with the overwhelming victory that the players accomplished from their leg of the fight, they get plot point Z a full (in game) month in advance (and of course the lack of party death).

Edit 1: To address the question of if one should make locked points, it's all a matter of the party in general. Some players call BS when their efforts are in vain, and other love rolling with the punches as long as they get their character development. If you're looking for permission to do it, then I grant it because it's something I do more often than not with more success than not. However, if you do make set plot points, don't forget the PCs. When you make the players feel like they matter, they are the most agreeable.

1
source | link

For starters, I will tell you one thing that I learned from Murphy: No plot is player-proof.

There have been several games where the bare bones plot dictated certain events happening in a certain order, and no matter how hard I tried to plan for the chaos factor known as the party, they always seemed to find a way around my staunchest and meticulous designs. Evolving my style, I do take a somewhat Whovian stance on how to GM: There are fixed points in time that need to happen, but everything around those - the other 98% - are completely malleable to the players' will. Yes, the allied count will be assassinated; however the players have built a stronger allied network so the blow to morale is less severe. No, the battle will not be a victory overall, but with the overwhelming victory that the players accomplished from their leg of the fight, they get plot point Z a full (in game) month in advance (and of course the lack of party death).