Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5169278" data-attributes="member: 54710">I don't mind at all when the GM decides what adventure the PCs are going to play.&nbsp; Frankly, I prefer it that way.&nbsp; I'd rather play with a group of other PCs who are all interested in accomplishing the same goals, and I'd rather a GM point me towards the most interesting parts of the game, as opposed to just parts that the GM is ready to improvise.&nbsp; Partially this is because GMs benefit from being able to plan ahead, but mostly this is because I want to head to a part of the game world in which my PC's actions can have a significant effect.Of course, the GM needs to know which parts of the game will be the most fun, but... well... I think that's generally a good idea anyway.So, I want a GM to present the PCs with an interesting problem, but I don't want the GMs to dictate how the PCs attempt to solve it.&nbsp; If the players don't have meaningful choices about how they approach the adventure, then I think you're playing more of a combat sim than a RPG.&nbsp; Some WotC modules come a little too close to this for my taste, but there's usually enough to let the players think outside the box.Of course, I think the best railroads (to use your term) have junctions.&nbsp; One of the best ways to give the PCs meaningful decisions is to design a tightly plotted game in which the PCs have the opportunity to make a high-leverage decision.&nbsp; As an example, in the Aalterdam games (playable at AnonyCon, for those of you in the Northeastern US), the first round is often a narrowly pathed travel game in which you discover something about the world.&nbsp; In the second round, the PCs typically get to a major decision point in which the intra-party difference can come to a head and the party (united or not) can have a great impact on the game world.&nbsp; (The decisions of the championship table become &quot;canon&quot; and influence the design of next year's game.)-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5169278, member: 54710"] I don't mind at all when the GM decides what adventure the PCs are going to play. Frankly, I prefer it that way. I'd rather play with a group of other PCs who are all interested in accomplishing the same goals, and I'd rather a GM point me towards the most interesting parts of the game, as opposed to just parts that the GM is ready to improvise. Partially this is because GMs benefit from being able to plan ahead, but mostly this is because I want to head to a part of the game world in which my PC's actions can have a significant effect. Of course, the GM needs to know which parts of the game will be the most fun, but... well... I think that's generally a good idea anyway. So, I want a GM to present the PCs with an interesting problem, but I don't want the GMs to dictate how the PCs attempt to solve it. If the players don't have meaningful choices about how they approach the adventure, then I think you're playing more of a combat sim than a RPG. Some WotC modules come a little too close to this for my taste, but there's usually enough to let the players think outside the box. Of course, I think the best railroads (to use your term) have junctions. One of the best ways to give the PCs meaningful decisions is to design a tightly plotted game in which the PCs have the opportunity to make a high-leverage decision. As an example, in the Aalterdam games (playable at AnonyCon, for those of you in the Northeastern US), the first round is often a narrowly pathed travel game in which you discover something about the world. In the second round, the PCs typically get to a major decision point in which the intra-party difference can come to a head and the party (united or not) can have a great impact on the game world. (The decisions of the championship table become "canon" and influence the design of next year's game.) -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification