Do you prefer DM-driven or PC-driven plot lines?
- Thread starter Nifft
- Start date
SylverFlame
First Post
From a POV of a player and a DM I have two main points (they cover both positions).
One: The DM outlines the story and off the players go. Whether they hit a point or not, big whoop, just so long as they get the bigger picture.
Two: As a DM, I occasionally write stories or hooks I want the players to take. For instance, in an adventure I'm writting now I NEED the players to do certain things, in specific places at specific times. And, seriously, players DO NOT ever do what the DM wants. (Damn them and their free will
) So, for that campaign, it'll be all about the nose-leading for certain points. Or, they just be made to run when I tell them to. Murder, of which they are accused, will definitely make them leave a town darn quick. 
One: The DM outlines the story and off the players go. Whether they hit a point or not, big whoop, just so long as they get the bigger picture.
Two: As a DM, I occasionally write stories or hooks I want the players to take. For instance, in an adventure I'm writting now I NEED the players to do certain things, in specific places at specific times. And, seriously, players DO NOT ever do what the DM wants. (Damn them and their free will
) So, for that campaign, it'll be all about the nose-leading for certain points. Or, they just be made to run when I tell them to. Murder, of which they are accused, will definitely make them leave a town darn quick. 
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
There is no such thing as a player led adventure. I'm sure that will sound shocking but there's a lot of truth to it.
If there's any point to having a DM at all then the DM has to provide the adventure. Let's take a look at some examples of adventures without the DM leading:
Paladin player: I go out and smite some evil. What evil does he smite? Why does he smite it? If he's going to create the evil vampire king who rules an adjacent empire and whose forces, led by a cruel ogre named Hulk have overrun the small village where his cousins live, he might as well kick the DM in the junk, take his dice and call himself the DM. (Especially since he can't do that if there are other players in the group--they will have their own ideas about where they are and what the village/city/inn/wilderness is like).
Rogue player: I go and steal something. What's there to steal? I go and steal some cheap wool lingerie like peasant girls wear and plant it in the greedy silk merchant's bedroom where his wife will find it. Who told him about the greedy silk merchant or his domineering wife?
Fighter player: I go and start a rebellion, kill the kings' men and proclaim myself the new king. How many men does the king have? Are they kind? How will the populace react to the rebellion? How will the king react to the rebellion? While this might seem to be the most player driven scenario of the lot, the DM is still calling all the shots--perhaps even more so because the world is going to be reacting to the player, giving the player no choice but to deal with what the DM throws at him. The paladin can say "Oh, he's really just a petty vampire count? I wanted a vampire king. I'll go find a bigger evil to fight." The rogue can say "Really? The silk merchant's place is that well guarded? I think I'll just pretend to be his agent and order flowers and an expensive dress and have the bills sent to his house. The fighter can't say "There are assassins in my bedroom?!? Forget this, I don't think I like this rebel angle after all."
Any adventure that the players come up with will need to be sparked by a situation that the DM has created. Even the most pro-active players need a world with possibilities for adventure before they can create their own. Even the players most determined to carve their own mark on the world need a well imagined world to carve a mark into. And that's what the DM provides.
If there's any point to having a DM at all then the DM has to provide the adventure. Let's take a look at some examples of adventures without the DM leading:
Paladin player: I go out and smite some evil. What evil does he smite? Why does he smite it? If he's going to create the evil vampire king who rules an adjacent empire and whose forces, led by a cruel ogre named Hulk have overrun the small village where his cousins live, he might as well kick the DM in the junk, take his dice and call himself the DM. (Especially since he can't do that if there are other players in the group--they will have their own ideas about where they are and what the village/city/inn/wilderness is like).
Rogue player: I go and steal something. What's there to steal? I go and steal some cheap wool lingerie like peasant girls wear and plant it in the greedy silk merchant's bedroom where his wife will find it. Who told him about the greedy silk merchant or his domineering wife?
Fighter player: I go and start a rebellion, kill the kings' men and proclaim myself the new king. How many men does the king have? Are they kind? How will the populace react to the rebellion? How will the king react to the rebellion? While this might seem to be the most player driven scenario of the lot, the DM is still calling all the shots--perhaps even more so because the world is going to be reacting to the player, giving the player no choice but to deal with what the DM throws at him. The paladin can say "Oh, he's really just a petty vampire count? I wanted a vampire king. I'll go find a bigger evil to fight." The rogue can say "Really? The silk merchant's place is that well guarded? I think I'll just pretend to be his agent and order flowers and an expensive dress and have the bills sent to his house. The fighter can't say "There are assassins in my bedroom?!? Forget this, I don't think I like this rebel angle after all."
Any adventure that the players come up with will need to be sparked by a situation that the DM has created. Even the most pro-active players need a world with possibilities for adventure before they can create their own. Even the players most determined to carve their own mark on the world need a well imagined world to carve a mark into. And that's what the DM provides.
blackshirt5
First Post
I set up the world as a jumping off point and prefer to let the players go from there. Also, I've got various NPCs that the players can go to if they need some motivation in game to get involved in a storyline(Angcuru's got Shirez, his CO in the Warder's Council; Gremore[RakeRon] has Klayore and Bruenor from Khazak-Urborg; and Tak has his family[even though it's always a last resort, since Tak is an NPC and he can't stand his family]), and I've also got the NPC wizard Tak to use as another means of introducing a story(although I try to take care not to make him the center of the action. Not too hard, since they are a party, not just a random collection of adventurers).
Sir Whiskers
First Post
As a player, the campaign I became most involved in was the one where my fighter built his own keep, then had to hang onto it against armies of goblins, etc., and my thief started his own intelligence network. Being allowed to develop my own role in the campaign really made a difference. The GM still had his over-arching storyline - he simply allowed me to pursue my own priorities within it.
As a GM, I would love to have players do similar things, but I'm rarely approached about such stuff, even when I drop hints. I do have one player just now trying to set up his own intelligence network in one of the campaign cities, so maybe there's hope...
As a GM, I would love to have players do similar things, but I'm rarely approached about such stuff, even when I drop hints. I do have one player just now trying to set up his own intelligence network in one of the campaign cities, so maybe there's hope...
ThoughtBubble
First Post
The problem is....
As a DM, I should probablly lead the players by the nose. It's what works. If I plop a dungeon somewhere, and populate it, and drop some hints, my players won't care. However, I'd love it if the players showed some initiative, or provided me some hooks.
As a player, I probablly should be lead by the nose. While the choices with more options all sound great, I don't know that I'm a strong enough player to handle them, and I don't know that my DM could take it. Though it would be cool to play someone who has a large degree of personal motivation, and was able to follow his own agenda, possibly even shaping the story around it.
So, I want both. Or rather, I want one, and want to want the other.
Is it me, or is there something relaxing about the DM pointing me and my group at a problem or two, then fixing/exploding/hacking the problem and patting myself on the back?
As a DM, I should probablly lead the players by the nose. It's what works. If I plop a dungeon somewhere, and populate it, and drop some hints, my players won't care. However, I'd love it if the players showed some initiative, or provided me some hooks.
As a player, I probablly should be lead by the nose. While the choices with more options all sound great, I don't know that I'm a strong enough player to handle them, and I don't know that my DM could take it. Though it would be cool to play someone who has a large degree of personal motivation, and was able to follow his own agenda, possibly even shaping the story around it.
So, I want both. Or rather, I want one, and want to want the other.
Is it me, or is there something relaxing about the DM pointing me and my group at a problem or two, then fixing/exploding/hacking the problem and patting myself on the back?
Similar Threads
