Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9420758" data-attributes="member: 7025508">So, about APs and such. Yes, technically the players might have chose to play it, but that is one choice that limits their (and the GM's) choices massively for the whole campaign.APs are twenty or so sessions of preplanned content, with some, but no much room influence what's going on. It limits all participants and gives them less options to add their own stuff.Generally I don't think GMs plan their own stuff like they were APs. I sure don't. I don't plan a massive twenty session story in advance. I might have some elements and ideas I might want to include in some point, but it is way more vague and flexible. And what happens during the play, is that the players make choices, express interest in things and the characters display their nature. And this in turn influences and inspires what new content the GM generates. This sort of feedback loop simply cannot happen in APs.Now I've had experiences of GM invented campaigns, that have some massive central metaplot (usually world threatening thing that eventually needs to be thwarted or something.) This is a structure I've grown to dislike. Whilst it is not as limiting as APs, it still warps everything to be about that and limits how much the players can influence the direction of the game. When I started my current 5e campaign, I made very conscious decision not to have such. There are of course more local "big events" that might compel some sort of reaction from the PCs, but ultimately they can move on and do something else of their choosing. Blades in the Dark campaign I'm playing in also works like this, and that is an aspect I really like about it.</blockquote>

Verification