Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Schmoe" data-source="post: 4421904" data-attributes="member: 913">Personally, I think I'm a lot like Joshua Randall - I want the players to make the decisions on where the campaign goes, but I can't help but think up grand schemes in the background.&nbsp; I tend to alter my schemes based on what the players do, and I only prepare a few sessions in advance, so I'm not sure I've been in your situation.&nbsp; I have a couple questions for you to ponder, though.1.&nbsp; Why do layers 2&amp;3 (which the players haven't really encountered yet) have to be so disconnected from the followup of layer 1?&nbsp; Can you just tweak layers 2&amp;3 slightly to connect them a little more?2.&nbsp; Why do you assume the player's plans won't change as new information comes to light?3.&nbsp; Why is it so important that the deeper layers become revealed early in the campaign?The way I see it, exposition of plot information is your key to pacing and guiding the adventure.&nbsp; I would try to tie things together a little more tightly, so that as the PCs pursue the first layer, they reveal more and more about some of the hidden layers.&nbsp; In addition, I'd continue the plans of the hidden layers in the campaign background, and let the players see indication of the progressing plans at an appropriate point.&nbsp; This way the players don't feel rail-roaded, and they can continue to ignore the deeper layers if they wish.&nbsp; But if they do decide to pursue the deeper layers, they'll have to live with the thought of &quot;What if we hadn't ignored those clues we found earlier.&quot;&nbsp; They'll be able to see the genuine consequences of their decisions.So my advice would be, use your plot as a guideline for the plans of the adversaries, but let the player's decisions impact how those plans play out.&nbsp; Use piecemeal information from interrogated NPCs, helpful allies, journals, symbols, ancient texts, and whatever else you can think of to influence player decisions.&nbsp; Recycle what you can, and change what you must.&nbsp; Remember, the adversaries should react the the PCs' plans just as the PCs will react to the adversaries' plans.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Schmoe, post: 4421904, member: 913"] Personally, I think I'm a lot like Joshua Randall - I want the players to make the decisions on where the campaign goes, but I can't help but think up grand schemes in the background. I tend to alter my schemes based on what the players do, and I only prepare a few sessions in advance, so I'm not sure I've been in your situation. I have a couple questions for you to ponder, though. 1. Why do layers 2&3 (which the players haven't really encountered yet) have to be so disconnected from the followup of layer 1? Can you just tweak layers 2&3 slightly to connect them a little more? 2. Why do you assume the player's plans won't change as new information comes to light? 3. Why is it so important that the deeper layers become revealed early in the campaign? The way I see it, exposition of plot information is your key to pacing and guiding the adventure. I would try to tie things together a little more tightly, so that as the PCs pursue the first layer, they reveal more and more about some of the hidden layers. In addition, I'd continue the plans of the hidden layers in the campaign background, and let the players see indication of the progressing plans at an appropriate point. This way the players don't feel rail-roaded, and they can continue to ignore the deeper layers if they wish. But if they do decide to pursue the deeper layers, they'll have to live with the thought of "What if we hadn't ignored those clues we found earlier." They'll be able to see the genuine consequences of their decisions. So my advice would be, use your plot as a guideline for the plans of the adversaries, but let the player's decisions impact how those plans play out. Use piecemeal information from interrogated NPCs, helpful allies, journals, symbols, ancient texts, and whatever else you can think of to influence player decisions. Recycle what you can, and change what you must. Remember, the adversaries should react the the PCs' plans just as the PCs will react to the adversaries' plans. [/QUOTE]

Verification