Community

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:00AM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Why does honesty in this regard even matter?  I am a fair arbiter of the rules, that is what my players know they can expect of me.  I am a writer and a crafter of stories, they know and expect this of me, too.  A DM's job is 3fold: 1-To be a fair arbiter of the rules. 2-To voice and control all non-PC actions (be they monsters, NPCs or environmental). 3-Ensure that the people playing the game are having fun.

Nowhere in your 3 rules does it mention writing a story for your players. That strikes me as odd when you say before that it is "expected" of you. Yes, it may be expected of you but it should not be expected of a DM.

I also do not agree with your third rule. Why is it the DMs job to ensure people are having fun? I am not their parent. I am not their guardian. I am not their jester. We are all taking part in a game. A DM's job for "fun" is only to ensure that what they are doing is fun for themselves and, in being so, doesn't interfere with 1 and 2, which take precedence over 3. Players should be responsible for their own fun. I find the notion of 3 (that DMs are responsible for peoples fun) to be a ridiculous notion because it is impossible to maintain. No one can ensure someone else is having fun. It is a useless responsibility to force onto DMs and is most likely one of the things holding back the creation of DMs....new DMs that have to worry about making the game fun for everyone when they should be focused on running well. Ruining fun and ensuring fun are two very different things. Players should strive to make the game fun for themselves...and to work towards not ruining anyone elses fun in doing so. Having them rely on the DM for that is not only silly, it's an immature gaming attitude. Everyone at the table is ultimately responsible to themselves but also has a responsibility to their fellow players. It does not rest on the DMs shoulders.

Reason 3 is the reason I don't-for example-allow evil PCs in a party of Good and Neutral ones.  Party conflict leads to player conflict, and that takes away from the fun everyone is having.

And what if that person playing an Evil PC can do so without infringing on anyone elses fun? What if they can create only interesting conflicts or none at all while still being Evil?

The best DM advice I ever heard given was this: "Remember that is both a game and a story.  If the two ever conflict, err on the side of COOL.  Your players will thank you for it.

That sounds like awful advice that advises nothing really. What is "cool"? This seems closer to "Remember that this is both a game and your story. If the two ever conflict, err on the side of what you think is COOL. Your players will thank you for it." Even if not phrased that way, it is arrogant and presumptuous...it presumes the DM knows better than the players because the DM is using their authority to, effectively, change and veto what they think is "not cool".

Of course I'm pulling those numbers from nowhere.  I didn't couch that statistics in the terms of absolute fact.  I said "I'd wager", which is akin to "it's my guess".
Ok, your players want to know the details of how you run the encounters you do, and how you plan for your sessions, even during the game?  I find that hard to believe.

They want to know that what I am presenting to them is done so fairly. They want to know that when they do something they actually accomplish or fail it on their own merits and never because I deem something "cool" one way or the other. If they win what could have been a huge epic battle in a single round, then that is what happens because that is what happened...if they lose the battle they so because they actually lost the battle.

They rely on me to be honest. They rely on me to neutral. And I rely on them to make the game fun for themselves...while they rely on me to stay out of the proverbial way while adhering to honesty and neutrality.

I'm not advocating being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions.  That's a really ugly way to frame what I'm trying to say.

It is an ugly way to say it but you are being unfair or prejudiced towards their actions. Entering into combat and failing IS an action by the players. Fudging the outcome of that decision based on your own assessment of what is better is being prejudiced. There's no two ways about it.

You make it sounds as if I'm advocating making the entire run of the game one big lie that I am perpetuating to make the player's "choices" serve ends that I have already decided.  If that's what you are saying, stop.  Stop trying to read into what I write and extrapolate something else.  i mean what I said.  Taking it any farther is unnecessary and borderline strawman.

You said yourself that there is nothing wrong with invalidating choices as long as the players do not know it. This could easily be extrapolated to mean that the players could NEVER make a meaningful decision and that is okay as long as the DM can artfully and masterfully keep them from ever realizing it. If not, why not? Is the player experience not the same if they are ignorant of what is happening behind the curtain? Where does the difference lie?

If you will note, I explicitly mentioned in that example that the party have a chance "through their own action" to save the guy.  And I try and be subtle about it.  For example:
DM: That's a crit for (rolls) 28 damage.
Player: Aww...exactly @ -10!
DM: Well, it's a x3 crit weapon...got a 15 on the dice, and his str mod is 4, so...plus 12...
Another Player: That's only 27.
DM: ...You're right, 27 damage, not 28
First Player: I'm at -9 then!  Medic!

If you will note, I explicitly mentioned in that example that the party have a chance "through their own action" to save the guy.  And I try and be subtle about it.  For example:
DM: That's a crit for (rolls) 28 damage.
Player: Aww...exactly @ -10!
DM: Well, it's a x3 crit weapon...got a 15 on the dice, and his str mod is 4, so...plus 12...
Another Player: That's only 27.
DM: ...You're right, 27 damage, not 28
First Player: *does math* Oh...actually I'm still at -10. I would have been at -11 if it was 28 damage. Did my own math wrong too.

Tell me...how does that resolve for the DM?

I agree that making it blatant can be terrible.  Last time I got to be a player, we were in a FR game.  If you don't know already, FR has some deities that are REALLY involved with the setting.  But this DM was ridiculous.  Any time you died, there was a 50% chance (rolled behind his screen) that your deity just spontaneously kept you from dying and stabilized you @-1 hp.  It got really contrived and ridiculous.

So again, if you notice it it is bad. If you don't, it's okay. I can't subscribe to that because it relies on the DM constantly being smarter than the players and the players being, in effect, rubes for the DMs shell-game. It requires dumber players...at least dumber than the DM at any given time because it requires them to not catch on. In this case, you saw through the DMs charade, that he was just smooshing you and then fudging all the rolls to always get the "heads you live" result. You were smarter than he thought. He underestimated you...he patronized you...and failed.

I won't go that far, and I'll usually only pull punches at all if it's some piddly crap, and not ever after a certain point (usually around level 9).  My default rule for non-PHB spells is that they have to go through me.  The Spell Compendium is full of crap I just don't allow, but if it previously appeared in a "Complete X" book, I'll at least consider it.  One of my players found a spell, Close Wounds, that can be cast as an immediate action (like Feather Fall), and even specifies in the spell that if cast on a hit that dropped a player in the negatves, and the damage+the healing kept him above 0, he does not fall.  I allowed it, and haven't had to fudge anything since.  We have had some player deaths, they were in a coliseum, and 2 of the party members died in a fight with a gargantuan froghemoth.  The party cleric keeps Revify memorized, and they have the money to make it a full-on Raise Dead.

"Piddly crap" in your opinion. Because, as DM, you know better, yes? That is why the article speaks of "arrogance" on the part of the DM. It is the DM asuming they always know what is best.

Stuff happens.  Sometimes characters die.  most players can deal with it, especially if a Raise Dead is a possibility.  If their death is going to be anticlimactic and stupid, and just the cause of some bad luck (I've got some dice that roll really well, my players would love to see them permanently buried in concrete), I my fudge something.  But i don't do it too often, or the players expect it, or worse, it turns into the example I mentioned above, with the FR game.  Knowing when it's okay to fudge a die roll is an important part of being a good DM.

Again, all this boils down to "Knowing what is best for your players is the most important part of being a DM" which is, again, arrogant. I let my players know what is best for themselves. That includes taking risks. "The players expect it"...in other words, they catch onto the sham. And you can't allow that. You have to remain smarter than them...you have to remain a step ahead. Again, that sounds like arrogance. In fact, I sensed a tone of superiority in regards to that FR DM you were speaking of...actually I don't need to say "sense" because you called him outright ridiculous. And why do you feel this way? Because in the arms race you're positing, you proved to be smarter than him. You caught him. Ha ha, he sucks and is ridiculous. He doesn't know how to fool players well enough, yes?

I'm going to flip the rug on you...
Yes, I tell them.  Over the course of my time as a DM, I have had 4 players express a desire to run a game of their own, because they had great ideas for a story for a game and wanted to make it happen.  And yes, I absolutely told them about "soft railroading", to use the newly coined phrase.  I emphasize the importance of letting the PCs be the stars of the show, and letting them have an impact, and making their decisions matter.  I impart as much of my wisdom as I can, but for the most part, that kind of stuff has to be learned.  Knowing when it's okay to make a houserule, or give a player a discrete "DM bonus" to a skill check for good roleplaying, or turn what should have been a crit by a monster into a regular hit...most of these kinds of things can only truly be learned through trial and error, but I tell them all I can.  And that certainly involved "DM tricks" that take place "behind the screen".  Keeping it "behind the screen" is important, because otherwise, you endanger the trust your players put in you.  Even if most all of those tricks are for their benefit, you don't want them thinking you're a pushover DM.

"Endanger the trust your players put in you" is funny. I could do everything in front of my players and never betray any trust...because I am not violating their trust behind the screen. If you were being fair you would not be endangering that trust behind the screen either. You know why I use a screen? I keep notes and short-hand stuff on it...that and it hides rolls the players would not otherwise be privy to that could ruin the moment for them (for example knowing what I rolled for a Perception check, etc). Nothing I does endanger players trust...because, again, I never violate it behind the screen. I think it is unethical to violate a trust placed in me. You seem to think it is okay to violate that trust as long as the players don't realize it, yes?

However, I think calling it "lying to them" is a bit excessive.  The whole game is fantasy, roleplay, and essentially "pretend".  I tend to play it straight 90% of the time, if not more.  I just don't condemn the occasional fudging, as it becomes necesary.  Being adaptable to player choices, and, once again, keeping things fun for everyone, is important.

"Fun for everyone" in your opinion as DM...thus making your judgement regarding what is best more important. Again, that seems arrogant. In one paragraph you mention that you take actions that, if the players were aware of them, would endanger the trust they have placed in you...but that "lying to them" is an excessive way to phrase it. How does that reconcile? It seems contradictory. The players are having their trust potentially violated...but you are giving them the appearance that it is not. That...seems like lying to me.

There was a 4e book, don't remember if it was the DMG2 or the Player's Strategy Guide that discused the concept of "Cooperative Storytelling", where the players help shape the world through meta-game discussion, even as they play in-game.  The book even suggests when one player makes it so the area to the north is frequented by tribes of birdmen, that the DM modify his existing goblin encounter to re-fluff them as birds.  According to you and tao, that is reprehensible railroading.

Incorrect. That is a misrepresentation. What would be railroading was if you had planned for them to encounter those goblins...and when they decide to go north instead of whatever direction the goblins were you just go "F it! Feathery goblins then!" and throw the same encounter at them...but with feathers attached. It is lazy...however, the ultimate question that has to be asked of yourself as a DM is "No matter what they did, would I have thrown that goblin encounter at them because it is the most fun?" If so...is that true? Or are you sparing yourself the truth of the matter that you are throwing the goblin encounter at them because you worked on it and they are damn well going to experience it regardless of what they do because I know what's fun! Or does it lay somewhere in the middle?

Oh, and in 3/4 of those cases, I did end up as a player in those games.  I had few issues as a player, and any I did I discussed with him after the session, after everyone else had left, when he usually wanted to talk to me anyway to get feedback about how he did.  The only one I didn't play in was a guy who left my group because he got stationed somewhere else (myself and most of my players are in the Navy), and he called me because he wanted me to help him get started as a DM.  Called me lots of times, actually.

Were you happy knowing that anything you might have accomplished as a player in those games was entirely at the whim and discretion of the DM? That, potentially nothing you did, ranging from hitting with an attack to freeing a kingdom from tyranny, might have been legitimately accomplished because the DM was deciding what was "best" for you? And worst of all...maybe you didn't even realize it because your DM was really good at maintaining your trust while invalidating your choices without you being aware?

That's not what you're doing.  At the very least, it is not at all how you're coming across.  You posit that anyone who does other than you suggest should "develop their skills" and "improve as a DM", thus implying that any way of DMing other than your way is a defeciency.  You go on to accuse anyone who does not do this of laziness.

That is because the majority of the response have been that "not everyone has that sort of time" or "it is easier". I find the first argument there to be totally false while the second is potentially true. I was replying to those that made the claim that they "don't have the time"...I do not believe that that is true. It's an excuse. Those people do have the time, they just choose not to spend it on improving as a DM. They do not have the desire to do so. Oddly, that is a more valid answer than saying "I don't have the time" but saying "I don't have the time" spares their own ego from having to say "I don't have the desire to do that much". People rarely want to admit they don't have the desire to be better at something they take fairly seriously...because they do not respect that it is a spectrum rather than something digital.

After all, I certainly have the time to get better at Street Fighter 4. I have PLENTY of time to do it in. It would require sacrificing other leisure activites though that I also like...it would also involve more work. I simply lack the desire to do so. I have no qualms about that...I do not need to spare my own ego about that reality. I accept it. There are people that are better at Street Fighter than myself and they are better because they have the desire and have put in the work. I do not begrudge them that...I do not find it to be a criticism of me. It is simply reality. Do I envy their skill? Absolutely. Do I envy their dedication to their craft? No because I have that level of dedication in other fields of my life...like DMing.

So now every DM who does things different than you do is both inferior AND lazy.  You do not allow for the idea that maybe, just MAYBE, this subject isn't as cut-and-dried as you think.  It's your opinion, and not some kind of objective truth.  Even in the above statement of ours, you CONTINUE to be guilty of the same talk.  "Wrong choice" "wrong thing for the right reasons" "developing those skills".  Its not your place to make a value judgement on the way I run things in my game.  Feel free to discuss hypotheticals and your opinions about what's better.  But don't tell me, or anyone else that I am somehow your lesser because of it.

The biggest difference I see here is that I have run things the way you run them now (from what I understand of how you run games)...I have done so at length. For years...all the while working to get better, to improve. I have embraced and believed what you are stating now. Years ago I would have agreed. I have walked in your shoes. I have worked to get to the point I am at now through a lot of reading and a lot of trial and error with games. I have moved beyond the familiar. I have tried new things. I have failed at them. What you are talking about is a very common style of DMing...it might, realistically, be THE most common in the current game culture. The way I DM is NOT the zeitgeist...I realize that. I accept it. However, have you embraced my style? Have you tried it? Have you tested it? I have done what you have done...I do what I do...have you done what I do?

You seem pretty well versed in philosophy from our previous discussions.  Perhaps you are aware of one of the greatest failures in Western thinking that is best emphaized in Taoism.  The idea that things that are different are not necessarily seperate, and not always opposites.  Most westerners, for example, depict a Yin-Yang symbol as black and white, because we think of black and white as opposites.  In China, yoou won't ever see a black and white yin-yang in any Taoist monastery.  They're almost always depicted in black and red.  Not because they are opposite, but because black is the absence of color, and red is the totality of only one color.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />To apply here, you fail to understand that just because your way is right for you, it does not represent an absolute scenario of Right/Wrong.  There is no universaly truth in this matter.

And I would counter with "One does not know until one does."

This isn't medicine, or conning people out of money, it's a game.  And the measure of success is the enjoyment of the people playing it.  Your analogy fails because you are conflating something as vital and important as someone's health with a game.  I can't stress enough how much of a difference that makes.

Games are as important as someone's health. Perhaps more so. Without joy, no man would suffer to live. How we have fun...THAT we have fun through games is one of the defining points of humanity.

Are we...still talking about encounters?  Or "medicinal plants"? J/K, please don't answer that, I don't want a CoC violation for either of us.

lolwut?

Look just because there's a lot of snacks when we play, don't start jumping to conclusions...

But anyways...what does planning encounters have to do with respecting player choices?  If I can work the encounters I've worked on into a scenario that grows from player choices, how is that any different than planning for all eventualities, save that I don't end up with a bunch of stuff that never gets used?

You are positing an either-or. I do not plan every encounter...I do not plan none either.

Note your reluctant to make things that "never gets used". This is classic justification at work. As was stated on the great Hack & Slash blog...the act of being creative does not impede further creativity...it exercises it. A DM worrying about making something and having to discard it is tantamount to an artist worrying about never showcasing pieces of art he's done. If you are worried about that as an artist you are not an artist...you are an egotist that needs to present everything he does for adulation & adoration from your audience. I have made plenty of encounters, NPCs, and even settings that I have NEVER used...and it does not diminish their creation because it helped me continue to learn and flex my imagination. The act of creation was its own reward...not presenting it.

Those are opinions, not facts. And, to boot, opinions contested with the design of some editions of D&D.  In 4e, if the players don't have level-appropriate equipment, they will be utterly ineffective in combat.  3e was not as drastic, but was still key.

I could never see the odious phrase "level-appropriate" for the rest of my life and be quite happy. My players have "wealth by action" not "wealth by level".

I don't know how you get that from what I said, other than being incapable of seeing outside your own bias.  really, I thought you were better than that. I have explicitly said that the players' choices shoul have an impact and be able to make them a part of the world.  I have never advocated the players just be there rolling dice for a story that the DM writes all the scenes for.

But ultimately the DM can and will overrule those actions or invalidate them through fudging or whatnot...and that is okay so long as the players are not smart enough to catch on?

You sidestepped the point entirely.  You strawmanned the scenario in question.  He was discusing only having some of the encounters along the route be pre-planned.  Obviously, one of those was something that was NPCs actively seeking out the PCs.  And you turned that into the kind of "hard railroading", where the DM forces the players back into a plotline that they have no interest in continuing.

I have issues saying something definitively as a DM because it posits that there is nothing that the players can do. Or at least implies it. Dangerous thinking there.

I don't think YOU think very highly of players, to be honest.  Other than ones who behave exactly like the ones you're used to.  You're so convinced of the superiority of your own method and your own group, that you sneer derisivley at every DM or player who is different.

I think more highly of players that are self-motivated, do not rely on their DM to provide them with fun, and look to have a fair game where they can make choices and thrive & survive by those decisions, some effort and, perhaps, a bit of luck. In the same way, I think more highly of Street Fighter players that put in more time to be better at the game and seek to improve in it. That goes for myself as well. I think more highly of DMs that put in more time for their game and work harder at it than I do...because I respect their efforts. I also have no ego about saying that it is ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE that what they do might very well be better because of those efforts and their work. It is why I look to them for advice and put weight in their words. I do not need to shout them down...I do not need to argue with them that my way is superior. Will I challenge them on things? Yes. Will I think less of them if they cannot give an adequate explaination for the superiority of something that I have challenged? Yes. Do I still scrutinize what they say? Of course.

I do not, however, say that my way must be superior for myself and my group simply because it is what we are currently doing and what we are currently doing is working for us...because that would be arrogant. It would be me assuming I always know what is best for myself and for my group...and I will not make that assumption. I work off experience...not assumptions. And that experience includes speaking out against things I have tried and rejected...and I am not afraid to point to WHY I feel what I do now is superior. That some people cannot stand to hear someone speak that way is more telling than anything else. They cannot broach the subject that what someone is doing might be superior to their way...why? Arrogance. That seems to be the reoccuring theme. The DM "knows better"...the DM "knows what is more fun"...and that is all wrapped up in justifying why they can fudge and invalidate...because they "know better" because they "know what is more fun"...it is arrogance. Those two things seem heavily entwined. A DM should never have to hide what they are doing from their players out of a fear that it will endanger the trust their players have put in them because it necessarily means the DM is violating that trust. I will repeat..

A DM should never have to hide what they are doing from their players out of a fear that it will endanger the trust their players have put in them because it necessarily means the DM is violating that trust.

And quite often, not at all engaging.  I used to create Random Encounter Tables for every time my players entered a new wilderness area.  Honestly, I did it all the way up until the advent of 4e.  There's nothing sacred about random encounter tables, and nothing especially enriching to a game in which they are used.  If I want a "random encounter", I'll take the time to craft a level-appropriate encounter that is fun and engaing.  What makes it "random" is that there is no connection to nything that is going on with the players or the story, other than geographical location.  Example: party was trekking through the mountains, hunting for lycanthropes (the Silver Hunt I mentioned earlier).  I made an encounter with 3 harpies and 2 griffons on a rather narrow bit of cliff.  This was a subset of the Skill Challenge which involved tracking signs of the pack of wereboars they were following.  To the players, this felt exactly identical to an encounter I could have rolled up on a chart.  What's the difference?  To the players - none.  That's all that matters.

Encounter tables are a minor part of what I do and how I do it.

You quoted jplay, not me.  I coined the term "soft railroading" as an "at worst" way to view it when one creates the illusion of randomness in a planned encounter (like the harpy thing I mentioned above).  That was me framing the point from your POV that it's still some form of railroading.
By the definition you espouse, any kind of planning of plot, events, or encounters is some form of railroading, or at least 9to use your term) "laying down the rails".  It doesn't matter if I "lay down the rails" and the players choose, or their own free will, to follow them.  In fact, it's worse if they do, according to you.  Because according to you, I am now railroading them.

Incorrect. Planning events is just fine...in fact, I know an event that has already occured in the world that my players are not aware of. However, I do not presume to know how my players will react to it...nor would I invalidate the choices they make in dealing with an event. When a DM does that it is railroading because you have actively decided that what you believe is better than what the PCs did. Arrogance.

That's not actually possible.  You need the Double-Jump to reach Olrox's quarters, and, by extension, the Coliseum.  So you must have already HAD the double-jump.

Yes I think what I am referencing is using the double-jump WITH the mist form to reach a few ledges that are normally only reachable with bat-form. You'll forgive me, I haven't played Symphony of the Night entirely through since it came out.

Of course not.  player ingenuity should always be rewarded.  If the players want to spend a spell slot to cast Passwall or something to bypass the door, more power to them.  I have crafted ONE way of getting through the doors.  I have never, and would never done or advocated the insta-wall of force thing, because once again, you are describing "hard railroading".  And thus you are creating a strawman.  Once again.  You seem incapable of responding only to what I am posting and describing and not reading into it, to extraoplate it into something worse.  Why is it that you can't just respond to the scenario "as-is"?  I don't advocate slamming players with a "No! Do it my way!" kind of thing.  In fact, I have said numerous times that I don't.  And yet, your only method of responding seems to be to assume that such is exactly what I would do, and that's what you respond to.

STOP IT.

You are repeatedly taking things I ask with ?s at the end as statements. I am asking you questions. if your answer is NO simply say No and I will have a better understanding of what you are talking about. Stop assuming and invoking this "strawman" bullcrap. It is lazy in the extreme and reactionary. I am asking you honest to god questions, Chiba. Relax, take a breath and realize I am not attacking you...I am attacking your position. I like you, man. Calm down. You put forth a situation...I extrapolate and clearly ask questions. Do not read into those questions...you need only answer them.

Fair enough, but I was crafting a hypothetical situation, and asking you to look at it under the pretenses that I prescribed.  You failed to do that.

Because I noted something in your wording of the situation that red-flagged me so I asked for understanding. When you say there is one way into something I think it is reasonable, since you are the DM in the situation, to clarify to what extent you will enforce the "only one way" you yourself stated. Fair?

Yes, saying "there's only one way" immediately invalidates any possible alternatives, some of which might even be more fun than the one thought of initially.  But I haven't been advocating that in actualy play.  If you recall my earlier example a few posts ago, I mentioned how, towards the end of my long-running 3.5 game, I gave my players a destination and let them figure it out.  Granted, in that instance, they hired a guide and put it back in my hands, but it was their choice to do so.

Stop accusing me of things I have already expressed as verboten in the way I run things. 

When you put forth hypotheticals I cannot be sure you are necessarily discussing an approach you yourself adhere to entirely or if you are simply crafting a hypothetical to make a point. Hence my asking for clarification. Again...fair?

Feb 3, 2013 -- 1:08PM, Chiba_Monkey wrote:

Okay, but that's finding a connection AFTER the fact of the encounter.
My whole point was that there's nothing about rolling on a table for an encounter that is, in any way, superior to a DM crafting an encounter.  Nothing about rolling on a table is makes player choice MORE valid, nothing makes the game richer and more engaging, nothing makes the games a better experience.
If the players decide to travel through the Happy Sunny Forest of Grisly Demise, I could either roll on a "Woodland Encounters" table, or I could pick a monster that dwells in forests, and make an encounter myself.

I agree with that point.  A random encounter is neither superior nor inferior to a pre-generated encounter.  It is just an encounter.  Either type of encounter whether determined by a random table or thought out ahead of time has the potential to be either a flop or one of the most memorable encounters the party has ever had.

I also agree with you that just because you choose to use a random encounter, that does not make a players choices MORE or LESS valid.  I prefer to make my plans ahead of each session.  I base those plans on what occurred during the session that was just completed.  I also have a general idea of what MAY happen 2 to 3 sessions out.  However, the "general idea" is an ever-changing things as each session that we have can add or subtract ideas from the general idea.  So for example if my players want to hunt down a mummy that's been screwing with a local village.  For that next session I go ahead and make up an idea for how the mummy encounter might go.  I come up with ideas on what information will help them to locate the mummy, among other things. 

Then I think to myself...."What would happen if the mummy gets away? would he/could he become a recurring problem?  What if the PCs find a way to negotiate with the mummy?  Is it now an ally?  Does it stop terrorizing people if the party agrees to retrieve its lost pet mumified dog rover?"  I think up lots of different ideas on what the party might do and how that could affect the game world around them.  What if they find and kill the mummy.  Was the mummy some wizards little experiment he was performing and now that it's gone he has to find a new project to occupy him and what will that be.  It could be something that actually is worse for the small local village than the mummy ever was.  Basically I come up with an loose idea based on the players actions that I what they do during the current game session.  Prepare stuff that will MOST LIKELY happen during the next, and come up with a basic idea of WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN in the future, and change plans and ideas as I go.

Some call this railroading, I call it building off of what the players have shown you they are interested in and adapting as you go along to be prepared how THEY are building THEIR story.