Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9285811" data-attributes="member: 70468">I agree with the initial framing of the second example, but once the PCs choose to investigate it, it ends up effectively being turned into the plot. That’s the whole point! Justin makes this clear in his essay. Adventures risk stalling out when there is only one way to reach the conclusion. He refers to this as a chokepoint. If there is only one way to find the kidnapper, then either the PCs have to get lucky, or the GM has to act overtly to make sure they can’t miss it. When you use multiple, then it avoids having that happen due to redundancy. It’s nice if the PCs can find every path to the conclusion, but it’s not required.I think our disagreement (and I assume also [USER=7034611]@mamba[/USER]’s) is one of feel. For most people, these feel different. While both lead to the same conclusion (finding the kidnapper), the play is not the same. In the first, the GM will probably need to act overtly to influence play. If not, then there’s always the possibility. While I think that’s fine if you signed up for it, I’m probably unusual in having that view. I know it tends to be wildly unpopular with a lot of people. In the second, the GM remains hands off after designing (or choosing) the scenario. That tends to feel better, and people like it more, because the GM can sit back and run the scenario without having to act overtly.Note that I say most people. When one doesn’t want to play through a GM-authored scenario at all, then either approach can seem like the same thing regardless of any differences between the processes used to play it. From that perspective, you’re solving a problem the GM provided either way. The sort of play where that’s not desired is when the GM tends to function more as a facilitator in support of what the PCs need from the game.</blockquote>

Verification