Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charles Dunwoody" data-source="post: 8063984" data-attributes="member: 17927">Great example. I agree with you on how feedback here is important. I do think the feedback comes too late in this case. I am actually turning in an article about how to start a campaign. I agree this start seems typical. GM reads/makes adventure. Players make characters. Play.The part I'd like to see GMs add is a discussion with the players on what they want to see happen in the game, BEFORE the GM makes that first adventure. In your example, the GM may assume the players want their characters to face off against desert monsters. But the players want to face the desert itself as a danger. If the GM knew this ahead of time, she might have incorporated a sandstorm and busted waterskins into the adventure. Maybe started out in a sandstorm instead of facing down gnolls.So not so much feedback but design input from the very beginning.Then, after the adventure, the GM and players discuss again. Did it go like everyone thought it would? Anyone want changes? Additions? Subtractions? With the understanding the GM will throw in some curve balls along the way as well.The GM then makes the next adventure riffing off the events from the first one. And maybe throwing in something new to see if the players enjoy the new challenge.So feedback gets turned into design input and feedback becomes discussion and reshaping. This process is more organic and I think everyone will be happier sooner.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charles Dunwoody, post: 8063984, member: 17927"] Great example. I agree with you on how feedback here is important. I do think the feedback comes too late in this case. I am actually turning in an article about how to start a campaign. I agree this start seems typical. GM reads/makes adventure. Players make characters. Play. The part I'd like to see GMs add is a discussion with the players on what they want to see happen in the game, BEFORE the GM makes that first adventure. In your example, the GM may assume the players want their characters to face off against desert monsters. But the players want to face the desert itself as a danger. If the GM knew this ahead of time, she might have incorporated a sandstorm and busted waterskins into the adventure. Maybe started out in a sandstorm instead of facing down gnolls. So not so much feedback but design input from the very beginning. Then, after the adventure, the GM and players discuss again. Did it go like everyone thought it would? Anyone want changes? Additions? Subtractions? With the understanding the GM will throw in some curve balls along the way as well. The GM then makes the next adventure riffing off the events from the first one. And maybe throwing in something new to see if the players enjoy the new challenge. So feedback gets turned into design input and feedback becomes discussion and reshaping. This process is more organic and I think everyone will be happier sooner. [/QUOTE]

Verification