Akrasia said:
Much of the fun of running a game, for me, comes from the unanticipated course the campaign can take as a consequence of the players' decisions.
Different strokes and all that. Honestly, there are plenty of 'unanticipated' changes of direction even in campaigns I have run which have epitomised what I'm saying. But I just don't want a campaign, which I have built to have a certain style and, yes, to have certain over-arching themes and villains, to veer off into territory that I'm not at all prepared for, or worse, which I don't feel suits the game I'm trying to run. For me, this necessitates a certain control at the table. Achieving that with transparency and finesse is the ultimate goal (for me at least).
The opposite of this style of campaign, which is where a world is built as little more than a sandbox for the whims of the players, is unsatisfying for me. The difference here may be that I tend to run relatively 'short' campaigns (say, 1-2 years of real time) with a definitive beginning and end. It's the
middle bit where the players get to enjoy the most freedom, and can choose any number of goals from the selection on offer. If they want to make their own goals, of course they can, but I'll prepare scenarios around those goals which mesh with the world and, if I can help it, mesh with the campaign arc. It's an unspoken rule and quickly becomes clear in my own games that the story hooks will tend to come from the DM, not from the players. And you know, they seem to have a pretty good time.
I've made my games sound a lot more egocentric than they actually are, but this is just the way that roleplaying has evolved over the 20-some years I've been doing it.