Keeping control of your game while keeping illusion of liberty

[LostSoul]

While I don't like the advice personally, I could see how the DM saying "Sorry, you can't go there" would ruin the game for some people.

I don't think the solution is to limit their actions, however. I think the solution lies in two parts:

1. Get the players to tell you, in advance, what their character's goals are. That way you can prep for them.

2. Have a set of techniques that will allow you to run a successful game for those times you don't have the right information prepped.

 

[billd91]

If the author doesn't like fences and ponds blocking movement in computer games, then I don't really understand why he spends most of his time coming up with alternative forms of those impassable barriers.

That said, I really don't like saying "Sorry, I haven't prepped that yet" except when we're already within a half-hour of the session breaking up for next time. If it's early and they're soldiering on, I will throw up delaying encounters and other minor obstacles to give them a good time for the evening and buy time for me to prep for the next week.

I also like to have segments of the overall plot be modular enough that I can put them in the PCs' path whatever path they take. Now THAT'S the illusion of having total freedom while still being on some kind of track (albeit a somewhat different path than the originally assumed one).

 

[atom crash]

I usually have a few stock encounters in mind for when my players go in a direction I didn't plan. That way it buys me enough time to prepare what comes next. Before they get to the nearby ruins they heard about in the marketplace, they come across a brigand camp or stumble upon an owlbear cave or encounter a couple hippogriffs out hunting -- since the rumor about the ruins was just something I tossed out for flavor, intending for them to follow up some leads on court intrigue I've been building up. But if they want to do a dungeoncrawl in the ruins, then that's what I'm going to give them.

I also always keep several options open. And I keep a stack of published adventures on hand to adapt and steal bits from as needed.

My play style is to dangle mutliple hooks in front of the players and let them pick which ones they want to go after. I keep a handful of adventures in mind so I can quickly prepare for whichever direction they choose -- at any crossroads I'lll know vaguely what lies in each direction and have a few "random" encounters planned so I can deal with whatever the players decide to do. Of course, at a crossroads with 3 choices they're just as likely to set off across the open field and ignore the road altogether and create a 4th choice I never anticipated.

My biggest challenge is, once they choose a direction, I have to quickly run ahead of them to build some scenery along that path so that they feel that this is the adventure I've been developing all along, while in reality I could very well be just a few steps ahead of them.

When the session is over, I have enough time before the next session to more fully develop the adventure and tie it all back in to the metaplot. And I always stay flexible enough to tie their choices back into the metastory. If all roads lead to Rome, I like to offer my players the opportunity to pick whichever road they want to take.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

So... I don't get why the author hates water that the player can't cross and then suggests having water that the PCs can't cross.

I have no problem with my DM saying "I didn't prep that". That's the trust I have with my GM. We usually don't end up having that problem by having us players decide what the next session is going to be at the end of the session we just finshed. If we as players have the choices of A, B, C and D we decide we want to do C and give our DM time to prep option C.

In return for givingus the adventures we want we don't suddenly off on a tangent on a whim. Sure, my DM may railroad us for the session but we get to choose what the piece of track is. That gives us "complete freedom" while letting the DM build the plot he wants around the stuff we find interesting.

Oh... and our group would find Haunted Mansions, Guarded Areas and Dragons Overhead as great big neon signs saying "Adventurers Wanted: Apply Within".

 

[EricNoah]

I usually have the opposite problem (they want to be railroaded so I provide them the illusion of contstraint while having a dozen options to pull out of my bag of tricks). It took some effort but I think I have finally got my group interested in wandering off the beaten path a bit more.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Wow, I disagree with just about everything in the article. <snip> Meaningful isn't an illusion.

Amen Brother Ben.

It is disappointing how many GMs believe that they need to lead they party by the nose, by hook or by crook. The notion that having the players run in perpetual circles is the best qualifier for a “good game” is insulting to the players in that it at best is a tacit statement that they are present primarily to serve the whims of the GM. I doubt many players go to the trouble of showing up to a game thinking they are supposed to be tools for the GMs to amuse himself – I doubt that many players believe their ability to enjoy a game should be dependant on fulfilling roles assigned to them by the GM.

On some level the article the article (and the cancerous philosophy behind it) acknowledges it and so it encourages lying and deception to that the GM can achieve his emotional satisfaction at the expensive of the players… and if they don’t like it, they can lump it.

It’s an ugly and vulgar way to treat people.

 

[TerraDave]

Good DMing requires giving PCs interesing choices while nudging the overall campaign in the direction that he thinks is best, or at least to the next part of the adventure, as subtley as possible.

Let me put it like this. The DM decides, we are going to do modules A, then B, and then C. To the extent that he tricks his players, it is to get them to believe that they decided to do modules A, then B, then C.

 

[apoptosis]

I think the best advice I ever got was to let the players come up with the plot that way they are less likely to stray.

And yes I am serious. The players tell me what is important to their characters and want to do and everything evolves from that.

 

[Desdichado]

Keeping control of your game while keeping illusion of liberty? My GMing style could better be described as keeping liberty in the game while giving the illusion of control.

 

[Mallus]

OK, that was an idiotic bit of DM'ing advice.

"Telling your players the truth is bad. Why do you try using these player-control tricks that years of video games have proven to annoy the hell out of people instead?"