Types of gameplay

[lukelightning]

I chose dynamic, even though it's probably more like "multiple secret linear choices but if the players go 'off the map' I'll let 'em."

If the party says "screw it" and decides not to follow up on any of my juicy leads for quests, that's fine with me. If they want nothing to do with stopping the mysterious assassins or rescuing the goblins' hostages, no problemo. The repercussions may or may not affect them; I'm sure whatever they decide to do ("we go on vacation to the Islands of Pleasure!") adventure will happen.

 

[Zakath429]

I use a dynamic story line at this point, I use this to focus on one of our younger player each session and see what happens when the spotlight is on them. So, far it has worked wonderfully each of our "kids" has stepped up to the plate and at least got a single (sorry for the Baseball reference, force of habit).




To All:
Good Luck and Good Hunting

 

[Oryan77]

More Concealed I guess, but I "try" to be Dynamic. Concealed only because I buy published adventures, take the time to read it and prepare for it, and if they don't play along in the adventure then it's a waste of the little time & money I have.

But it's Dynamic because I also let them do whatever they want...at least I make them think they are doing whatever they want. I still manage to get them to follow the paths of my adventures, they just think that they are doing everything on their own. If they do go off path, I let them, but I bring them back on the path later on without them realizing it.

Basically, the players get to do everything they wanted to do (personal agendas & go where they want to go) and I get to do everything I wanted to do (finish published adventures). The way they do things might not be exactly as written in the adventures, but the overall plot gets completed anyway.

 

[ChefOrc]

I am always unconfortable with these so called "categories" of games. RPGs are too complex for that. At most, I can see a dichotomy between player-driven or GM-driven campaigns, and even this is really a continuum. I also think that a lot of the elements that were put into one category could very easily fit into another category. For example, I don't see why the "dynamic" game monopolizes heavy role-playing, or why it is the most rewarding (a lot of players don't want to invest that much into games and therefore are much more happy to be railroaded). One thing I want to add concerning the popular idea that free gaming is best: I think that linear games have a major advantage: they minimize improvization. A DM that had a month to prepare the details of its adventure with minutia is going to provid a much more vivid, surprising, coherent and solid adventure than a DM that has to make it up a week before or on the spot. I see it as a trade-off between flexibility and quality. I don't think one is better than the other, but I feel more confortable with heavy preparation, and my players seem happy with that.

Anyways, I voted concealed linear, although my GMing style includes aspects of all 3 categories. Here are a few comments on my game

- I don't require detailed PC descriptions, although if a player provides one, I will gladly incorporate his story into my campaign and make it relevant.

- I never require that PCs be optimized for my campaign. On the contrary, I adapt the campaign to the PCs possibilities. My players have a braod, but not completely unlimitted, range of PC types to choose from.

- I tend to have a linear meta-plot that is partially reavealed (the players know some aspects of the general direction, but I always surprise them), and unless my players have a major issue with one particular adventure, I find a way to use the material I have prepared. However, on a finer scale, my players are really free to act as they want and resolve adventures the way they want. This means that I do linear gaming at the level of main events, and free gaming at the within-adventure level. In fact, I have 2 groups of players that go through the same campaign, about 6 months apart. I force the same series of adventure, but so far, most have been resolved very differently, and this in return forces me to alter the adventures I have prepared.

 

[Belen]

I am definitely a dynamo GM. I usually send them all my world files and let them choose based on a starting region, then I design the campaign to fit their character histories and add some of my own story elements to it.

 

[Aaron L]

I try to get as much input from the players as I can, to provide storylines they want, and incorporate what they want into storylines that I want myself. I guess dynamic under your options. I have an idea of what I want to do, and I want to mix it with any ideas the players may have.

 

[the Jester]

I think you're horribly overspecifying dynamic game play.

All that's required for dynamic play is that nobody knows for certain what will happen in the end, or how the story will unfold. You don't have to give the players detailed information (though it usually helps). You don't need a bloody questionnaire. You can have NPC plots that, if unchecked, will alter the world - what you can't have pre-determined is that the PCs will attempt to foil the plot.

I agree with Umbran here.

I generally run dynamic games, but my current low-magic experimental campaign is something of a concealed linear game. Still, due to general tendencies, I'm going to vote dynamic.

 

[freebfrost]

A bit of all three, which seems to be a popular choice here.

My new campaign has a revealed linear plot, a secret concealed linear plot, but allows for a lot of dynamic stuff in between.

One of the things I am trying to work into this one is a sense of time passing for the PCs. Parts of the linear (and secret linear) plot are designed to happen X-number of years after some event, so I'm expecting to take the "new" 1st level PCs through 20th level, but at the same time taking them about 40 years into their PC's futures while doing so.

So while I have certain triggers they "have" to hit, they can be years apart in gametime.

 

[Sejs]

Concealed Directional Amorphic.

There is a metaplot that the players are initially unaware of. The overall metaplot is a-personal. Steps toward the advancement of the metaplot are outlined but not delineated; the players are free to use whatever abilities they have available to resolve individual steps. Subsequent steps are formed using lessons learned from the resolution of previous steps. Individual character sub-plots are created and interwoven into the metaplot with the interest of both keeping the individual characters interested, and making them feel like a part of the plot rather than just a participant or motivator. Deviation from the course of the metaplot is both assumed and re-integrated as the deviate events progress.

 

[LostSoul]

So I'm doing Dynamic right now. It's really easy to pull off - come up with some NPCs and tension between them, and what's going on relates to the PCs. Takes me about 1/2 hour.

Then again, I'm not currently playing D&D.