Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5283418" data-attributes="member: 21169">Good thread.I used to do that about ten years ago. It was wrong, I know that now.I don't think there's any need for a massive sandbox with dozens and dozens of adventure opportunities. A half-dozen or so, tops, should be fine for each session.It's right, I think, that players follow the GM's lead, waiting for him to initiate with an adventure hook. The GM will, probably, have a limited amount of prepared adventure material. The players, having turned up to a session, presumably want to interact with that material. So it makes sense to wait for the GM to signpost it. Otherwise you run the risk of missing the adventure. (Otoh, the most enjoyable moments always seem to be improvised, like the 'Whale' name mentioned above.)Players want to be fed at least one adventure hook. But they don't want to feel forced to follow the GM's plot, ie railroaded. My feeling is that the adventure has a whole does have to be 'forced' on the players, but what they do with that adventure is up to them, to a large extent. Sometimes it just won't work. For example siding with the bandits against the villagers in a Magnificent Seven setup would make the game too easy. Tho the GM could maybe improv some other, opposing heroes.Some adventure hooks are themselves too forced, too railroady. The start of G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, for example, where the PCs will get beheaded if they don't defeat the giants. Yes, if there's only one hook then the players do have to follow it. But you don't have to shove the lack of freedom in the players' faces. At least have the pretence of a sandbox.</blockquote>

Verification