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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 8851052" data-attributes="member: 90374">Im for sure a post-Hickman style GM in the games I run. I do like pre-Hickman skill play on occasion, but only short lived campaigns. I am very upfront about this as GM and as a player. The three act story is an interesting way of describing campaign play. However, I think with D&D's 1-20 level growth, its more like a series of three act stories along that path. More like a trilogy, but perhaps with even more parts. When I do sandboxes, I tend to think of them in three stages that could be viewed as acts. I do enjoy adventure paths and they for sure have Chekhov's gun on occasion. Its funny how players think about that. In one adventure I ran the PCs were going to delve a huge haunted complex. Before hand, they discovered a cache of items helpful in such situation. One player just wanted to sell it all to make their weapon magic... The group overrode such a suggestion and it turned out very wise they did. I always leave such decisions to them though. I dont always use Chekhov's gun specifically (actual dragon slaying arrow, etc) but the gun might be a general specialized background instead. If Chekov is an expert in esoteric knowledge, then the adventure will include ways for Chekov to exercise that background. When I run a sandbox "Chekov's gun" is turned on its head. There is a grand conspiracy in which the PCs are free to discover, encounter, and deal with as they see fit. If Chekov thinks having a gun is important, then he can quest for it. Once Chekov has a gun, there will be things for him to use it on. So, in this instance instead of the GM setting up the acts for the players, the players set up the criteria for the acts based on their interests instead. I enjoy both these styles. YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification