Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 8689726" data-attributes="member: 90374">I guess A. I'm not entirely sure what B means in a trad game? This is how it usually goes for me. Note I have moved away from Mcguffin hunts because they are just too common and played out for my taste. I dont have antagonist sit back and wait either. If one of their underlings or actions of the PCs garner attention, they will become proactive. Adapting the adventure is always expected. So, having an initial plan is great, but don't make it so detailed that it has no room to breath as the game comes to life. I think red herrings are fine, but its best to dead end them sooner than later. I had a GM that would let entire sessions go by with the PCs so far off the trail the entire time. Eventually, he would lose patience and just warp everybody to the right trail. I will give the players clues from the characters. &quot;Your initial sense lead you on this path, but now it just doesn't feel right&quot; that or they catch up to an NPC that flatly convinces them to start over or look elsewhere. A note about The Boys in particular, the McGuffin always fails. The writers of this show are content playing a reset every season game with the viewers. You are Charlie Brown and they are Lucy. On one hand, this can feel like a giant waste of time for gamers, on the other it leaves the possibility for adaptation in organic ways. For example, the big bad is still alive but no longer a threat because of blackmail or some other means of leverage. Maybe, the big bad finds they were manipulated (thanks to PCs) and turns coat to aid them. The important part is to understand the pitfall here, writing a story is not always the same as writing an RPG adventure. They share many of the same traits, but results are not always satisfactory for players as they might be for a reader.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="payn, post: 8689726, member: 90374"] I guess A. I'm not entirely sure what B means in a trad game? This is how it usually goes for me. Note I have moved away from Mcguffin hunts because they are just too common and played out for my taste. I dont have antagonist sit back and wait either. If one of their underlings or actions of the PCs garner attention, they will become proactive. Adapting the adventure is always expected. So, having an initial plan is great, but don't make it so detailed that it has no room to breath as the game comes to life. I think red herrings are fine, but its best to dead end them sooner than later. I had a GM that would let entire sessions go by with the PCs so far off the trail the entire time. Eventually, he would lose patience and just warp everybody to the right trail. I will give the players clues from the characters. "Your initial sense lead you on this path, but now it just doesn't feel right" that or they catch up to an NPC that flatly convinces them to start over or look elsewhere. A note about [I]The Boys[/I] in particular, the McGuffin always fails. The writers of this show are content playing a reset every season game with the viewers. You are Charlie Brown and they are Lucy. On one hand, this can feel like a giant waste of time for gamers, on the other it leaves the possibility for adaptation in organic ways. For example, the big bad is still alive but no longer a threat because of blackmail or some other means of leverage. Maybe, the big bad finds they were manipulated (thanks to PCs) and turns coat to aid them. The important part is to understand the pitfall here, writing a story is not always the same as writing an RPG adventure. They share many of the same traits, but results are not always satisfactory for players as they might be for a reader. [/QUOTE]

Verification