Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8430204" data-attributes="member: 7016699">You seem to be saying the alternatives are "sandbox" and "get on the plot train." I disagree with that. There seems to me to be more middle ground than I get from what you say.[record scratch]The story belongs to the PCs. Maybe you present them with several possible things to do, and maybe some of those are from one backstory or another. They'll still choose what appeals to the party overall, and that's fine. I haven't found "This is (for example) Taman's nemesis" to skew intra-party balance in any meaningful way, so long as it wasn't for the whole campaign. Experiences and tastes vary, of course.While too much is too much, I want the players to put stuff in their characters' backstories I can pull from, to tie them to the setting and the campaign--to make the latter ahout the PCs.I have never seen a player railroad a D&D (or D&D-alike) campaign. Not one time. Every published adventure I have taken part in has been (or felt like) a railroad. Every GM-authored "uber-arc" in any game I've been in has been (or felt like) a railroad.Collaborative experience. Shared responsibility. My gig is to bring a world and scenarios. The players' gig is to bring characters and have those characters react to the scenarios, thereby changing the world. They are as much responsible for the end-result as I am, maybe more.</blockquote>