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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6589421" data-attributes="member: 82106">And see here we have it. Either we're following some ideal of 'neutral DMing' or at the very least process-sim with the players in charge of the process, or we're railroading. I've been accused of 'not understanding' but this is the epitome of not understanding. There's not one shred of railroading involved in what either I or Pemerton are doing. If you think that the contrast is between how you people play and a railroad then you are truly discussing some other thing than our styles of DMing. I'd also note this, JC, you've said something a couple times about 'adventure paths'. I don't play published adventures, and I don't think to a large extent @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> does either from what I've heard. The problem is quite simple, they presuppose the players will follow some particular plot line. Heck they HAVE to, pretty much, or they'd be largely useless. There are very few adventures around that I would run because very few adventures match my agenda and even fewer match my own idiosyncratic style. I thought Phandelver was a pretty good adventure, though I only played through it and haven't read it, so I'm not sure how it is actually written. It doesn't do much to presuppose that the players follow any specific course, and the choices they have did seem to be fairly significant. You could miss entire portions or go through them in various orders, and usually the players have at least some idea of what the significance of the different choices are. Even so, being a pre-written adventure, its hard to cater to the interests of players, unless they happen to be aligned closely with the module's themes. I'd be more likely to utilize its elements as a starting point and let things branch off from there as needed.</blockquote>

Verification