Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8284424" data-attributes="member: 7016699">Well, I guess I was getting at the thought that if the GM had written the adventure, he'd know what (if any) limitations he had in mind. If the GM knew the players were the sort to go all "combat as war" on the scenario and set out to remove Strahd's reinforcements before (if possible) ambushing Strahd, then I'd hope the GM would either have those limitations laid out or tell the players there were none.(Again, I keep coming to the PCs needing to be able to make an intelligent, informed choice, which is something I'm 99+% sure you agree with. Don't mean to harp on it. Sorry.)I do see the difference/s you're getting at. I think I'd prefer your latter scenario as a player, if only because it seems as though tactics/strategy would be more of a help, there (and I don't care much for Ravenloft, in general). That's taste/preference, though.Obviously the game can (and will) work differently for different people, but when I prep a session the most I do is write up what the situation is, and an instigating event. The rest of the story is all about feedback loops between players and setting and events. I guess it's possible to say I'm "curating story" by picking situations and instigating events, but it doesn't feel like that from inside. Maybe that's why some people claim 5E isn't as GM-driven as you seem to imply.</blockquote>