Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5183294" data-attributes="member: 4937">I would generally agree, however, I'd like to suggest that there is an even better technique.  Prior to the adventure remove the empty rooms from the map, thereby creating a world without empty rooms.   In this way, when you play the game, you remove the need to resort to hard illusionism.This by the way is a soft illusionism technique.  Any honest attempt at simulation suggests that there is going to be alot of uninteresting space in the world.  The module B1, as a very early module and grounded in the early simulation mindset of D&D (and early RPGs generally), may well have been designed with the empty spaces for this exact reason - empty spaces where there isn't something particularly interesting are very realistic.  However, what this realistic simulation technique implies is that there is a risk that a random walk through the setting will result in boredom.  In fact, the designer of B1 has inadvertantly created a sparsely populated rowboat setting.  You can go whereever you want (usually at great effort) but there is no gaurantee that you'll actually get anywhere.Since this is generally not alot of fun for the GM either, the experienced GM - who learns to hate empty rooms with a passion exceeding that of the players, because really, describing empty rooms suck - starts removing them from his world, both within the dungeon and the metaphorical empty rooms without.  The result is either, depending on the inclinations of the GM, an adventure path setting (linear), or a more densely populated version of a rowboat setting - aka a sandbox (non-linear).  In actuality, these two things represent playable ideals and most GMs mix and match between them at various stages in the career of the PC's, a technique I've seen elsewhere described as 'narrow-broad-narrow', as PC's move back and forth between adventure paths (of various lengths) and sandboxes (of various sizes) without alot of consideration for the purity of their techniques.  In my opinion, the main advantage of this from the standpoint of entertaining your players is that it allows the GM to manage a mixed group of players who have different tastes.  Some players may relish the freedom of a sandbox, while some other players may detest it.  If you have both players at your table, you can entertain both by having short linear stretches and small sandboxes.  At various times, the individual player isn't getting exactly what he wants, but knows that if he applies himself to the less interesting stretch of play then he'll soon be back to his favorite.  Players in this way tend to get more rounded in thier tastes as well, better enjoying the alternative style of play and the merits of it.  If you have a player who has done nothing but sandboxes his whole career, he's likely to rebel at the lack of freedom he discerns in your adventure path and complain of being 'dragged around'.  If you have a player who has done nothing but adventure paths, he's likely to complain of the lack of direction if you drop him in a large sandbox.   The player feed a mixed diet will more likely be happy in both.</blockquote>

Verification