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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lwaxy" data-source="post: 7730662" data-attributes="member: 53286">You always need to consider both,and the GM is the first audience, while the players ultimately are a secondary audience, dependent on how the GM relates the story. It happens often enough, after all, that a group thinks an adventure is bad just because the GM can't make the story work, or that an adventure is loved because the GM turns it into something special despite a bad base product. As a GM, I prefer if the adventure is structured enough for me to find stuff easily,and for references to be clear. If I like the story enough, I can put the work in to organize it myself, but with a full schedule, I often tend to put those adventures on the back burner. Something else to consider, many GMs use published stuff only as reference to create their own loosely related stories. I hardly ever take the story as is, I need to adapt it to the groups I am running it for. For those GMs, it does not help all that much if the story is not written with them in mind. Also, strengths of a system might be a good point. But really, with few exceptions, my groups play everything with Pathfinder. Most things are easily adaptable. Other groups play everything with Fate, or Savage Worlds. An adventure, as well as a setting, is much better off in my opinion if it does not stick to the system so closely as to make it hard for the GM to transfer it. And even when it comes to PF, I can hardly use the stat blocks as they are, especially in a time where everyone can grab a copy of about anything somewhere from the web. To make sure there is still some surprise for all the players, I need to constantly adapt and twist around. So give me more system less adventures, please, and just make sure the story is consistent. Trust the GMs to decide how to use them, and if it fits into the play style of the group. Playing the strengths of a system can also mean to be too repetitive with those strengths. In Pathfinder and in Shadowrun,for example, there tends to be so much focus on battle, other aspects often drown. Even Paizo has adventures where less dungeons and more intrigue and mystery would be a lot better. When the supposed "strength" of a system is overused, it also becomes dull. And yes, I realize that writing with the players in mind one should manage to avoid that. But some players want those fights and dungeons, others do not. I know my groups, so you need to convince me to use something or not. So, write for the GM first, but don't forget that the GM is a player, too, and should be able to see through the issues from all sides. If she can't, then even the perfect adventure is probably not going to help the group all that much. And yeah, there are a lot of disorganized adventures which would make  great stories if I finally get to organizing them into something usable for today's play styles. That includes many of the older  stuff from the 80s and 90s. The need for well structured easy  instant adventures is not something that existed back then.</blockquote>

Verification