Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7584389" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, all it means is that the scenario is fairly 'gamist' in terms of its framing. That is, the terms of the conflict or opportunity are framed in player-centered terms and not character-centered ones. As you say, this is VERY common in TSR-era D&D modules, most of which started out life as tournament scenarios. They were designed to be playable by a group of pick-up characters with very little introduction and fairly fast paced and highly directed play with an assumed goal. Some of the later ones were a bit less this way, but it was never really the 'job' of a module to spell out how things fit with PC motivations and such. If you injected one into an ongoing campaign then things could often move into 'actor' or 'author' stance. This could be problematic in ways you already described in your last post about B2.This is all another reason why I direct players in HoML to describe a goal, a strength, and a weakness for their characters, plus some contacts (they can describe other traits instead if they want, but these are usually pretty good starting points). Since they can be leveraged, and you start with inspiration, there's a tendency for these things to push play right from the start, even though I must admit that there is often a lot of 'myth' involved in the setting I usually use which might get in the way. Usually I just start new games in a new unexplored area of the map.</blockquote>

Verification