From:	De Herdt Sven Sven.De.Herdt@***************.be
Subject:	DNA/DOH!
Date:	Tue, 14 Sep 1999 08:41:31 -0000

> Scott W[SMTP:iscottw@*****.nb.ca] wrote:
>
> Yep. On that note, has anyone made any major or minor changes to
the
>published adventures when they run them, on the basis that as
written,
>some of them are not within the bounds of believability (for that
GM or
>group, that is)? An example: Miles Lanier, in First Run, shoots a
man
>right in front of the runners. I, as a GM, can't believe he'd do
that,
>so I have Nigel killed in a different room, "off-stage." Anyone
else
>take any liberties like this?

>-Boondocker

Sure, I do. I always try to keep the structure/main goal of the adventure
and all the rest is up to me (the GM) and to the players of course. Once in
a while the runners take a surprisingly different approach that there is no
other way but to adapt the story (it¥s no use sticking to the story, just
because it is written down). You got to have/take some liberty to change it
as long as it improves the game.

Usually the way I prepare adventures is just reading them through,
afterwards I read it again while taking game notes (very basic and necessary
issues that are essential to the game). Most of the time I will only use my
game notes when GMing and the actual adventure book only comes out at
preparation or to give the players an atmosphere overview if there is such
an artwork present in the book (even then I usually use copies to distribute
among the players).

One of the reasons I do this is to keep my players on the "edge". This way
it¥s hard for them to determine if the run is a stand-alone story or part of
a bigger game. It keeps them going and interested in what¥s going on, even
if the run seems useless or pointless.

Just my thoughts,
Sven :)