As a player, I like a campaign that...

[Redcrow]

Whether I prep a game ahead of time or run "on-the-fly", I always try to have a definite goal for the PCs in mind. However, the path the PCs take to reach that goal and whether or not the final outcome is success or failure is not something I try to have predetermined. While I do create adventures with an A to B to C setup, I try to imagine it more like a giant web with the ultimate goal at the center. The PCs can traverse through any number of different points on the outer edges gradually working their way toward the center goal, but there is more than one path that will get them there.

When I prep ahead of time I always try to answer 2 important questions when planning a scene. 1.)What happens if the characters succeed 2.)What happens if the characters fail.

I try to never create a situation where failure means the characters are unable to continue. Failure may create setbacks or require an alternate route, but its not neccessarily the end of the adventure.

 

[Janx]

I picked 2&3.

I want a story about my character (and the party). Thus, I don't want a generic story about somebody else's problem that the GM assumes the party will fix.

I want the problem to be about the players and their goals, which more safely assumes the players will pursue it.

Thus, the player-gm contract is that the players will willingly pursue his plot hooks, because he has made the plot hooks be relevant to the players.

 

[Lanefan]

I voted for 2 and 4 but niether is quite right for me.

I'd go with "Ref provides clear direction. Players decide *if* (rather than how) it gets accomplished." If the players decide to do something else that's fine; but that's where choice 4 comes in, if they want to take a different road it then becomes largely up to them to drive the bus.

Lanefan

 

[humble minion]

If I was going to vote, I'd vote #3, trending towards 4. But it's not quite as simple as that.

The more 'sandboxy' a game gets, the more it demands from its players and the GM, when it comes to preparation, research, setting design from the GM and setting knowledge from the players, etc, etc, etc. This is not an easy thing to achieve, especially with a group in their 30s or later, when jobs, kids, etc, etc, etc all mean that we have less time (especially out-of-session time) to spend on learning the intricacies of a campaign world, or, for the GM, designing absolutely every single NPC, location, custom, item, historical fact, or political issue that might possibly affect or be leveraged by the PCs to affect the current plot. If you're playing in a pure sandbox game without the GM having given thought to all this stuff, then it's not going to go well or smoothly at all.

I'd rather have a sit-down chat to the other players before the campaign starts, and work out what is the upper limit of time and dedication we can all devote to the game. If we're going to have too many other competing issues happening at the same time, then we're probably better off having a more story- and GM-driven game, where things are more controllable at the expense of flexibility. I prefer sandboxes in general, but I'd rather have a good, slightly railroaded game over a disorganised, unprepared, crumbling sandbox game.

 

[Orius]

Seems like 3 is closest to what I like. I don't like being railroaded, I'd prefer to have a lot of control over what my player does. But it helps for the DM to provide some structure to the world beforehand.

 

[steenan]

I definitely don't like games where someone has a clear story in mind. If there is a pre-prepared story, why am I playing, really? My choices either won't really matter or will crash the game - anyway, it won't be fun.

I also don't like "sandboxes". If it's just a setting, it does not create a dramatic pressure; it does not ask important questions. While it is possible that character actions will create a story, they most probably won't. It's not that I don't like simulationist play; I love it. But I need the game to address what is important to my character and a sandbox is, by definition, oblivious to it.

What I expect from a good game by a good GM is a situation that hooks me in and resonates with character's themes. A situation I may then address as I like, within the bounds of my character concept and the genre of the game. I want to have a direction, like "X is happening and it endangers Y that you care for or gives you a chance to achieve your goal Z" (not "you are given a quest to do X"). I want obstacles and complications - both tactical and moral, but always having something to do with my PC. I want the story to be created by my choices and by a dramatic opposition supplied by the GM.

I think that falls under answers 2 and 3.

 

[TarionzCousin]

When I first saw this poll, it looked just like "[MENTION=99]Rel[/MENTION]" must provide....

"Whoa." I thought. "That'll keep him busy."

 

[Rel]

When I first saw this poll, it looked just like "[MENTION=99]Rel[/MENTION]" must provide....

"Whoa." I thought. "That'll keep him busy."

I mean yeah it's kind of a slow work week but seriously?!

 

[Jhaelen]

Variant 2 is my favorite, but I can cope with 1 & 3. Variant 4 is not something I am interested in as a player.

 

[Hussar]

It really depends on my mood. Sometimes I like being along for the ride, so long as the scenery is interesting and sometimes I want to paint my own pictures. So, I answered all of the above.

I think it might depend on how long the campaign is expected to last. For a short term campaign, being locked on the rails isn't a bad thing. For a much longer campaign, I think a looser campaign might be better for me.