Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Havelok" data-source="post: 7059924" data-attributes="member: 6874961">Player choice and freedom is paramount in any "Open World" game (which is the type of game I always run). Tabletop games have the potential to be the ultimate realization of this. However, many GMs do indeed inflict their grand premise on the players without the option to break with their story. I do not. My games follow a structure pretty much exactly like any Elder Scrolls game. The Main Quest is there, but it is optional.It teases you rather than forces your hand. It can also be approached from an unlimited number of ways. This, in my view, is the ideal.Say we go with the Heist Campaign example. Sure, they've agreed to be part of a Heist. We start the campaign in a room with the leader describing "the plan". But, because the players have absolute and total agency, they have free reign to change the plan, leave, or even cut the Leader's head off and take control if they want to. This does not offend me. In fact, it excites me.The moment the players take control of their character, they are free to do what they want.However. The Grand Premise is there just in case they want a central plot to partake in. And it serves the purpose of binding the group together.</blockquote>