"Wandering" or "Direction"

[Ibram]

as others have pointed out this is not realy a choice, because every campaign involves at least a little of both. Pure games, on both sides, can get a little boring.

Pure Direction: treads close to computer games, which are fun, but after a while grow dull (which is why it takes me months to get through a CRPG, i get bored).

Pure Wandering: gets boring even faster then Pure Directon as it devolves into a series of random monster encounters.

Direction is the more important aspect of the game though, as without it the players sit there for hours just wandering around looking for the plot.

 

[nopantsyet]

Wandering. I have to disagree with the building sentiment that hints and opportunites equate to direction. Unless "all roads lead to Rome," as it were, there is a big difference between letting players pick up on what they think is interesting and important and pursue it, than funneling them through an unavoidable series of events. Players learn quickly that they need to have some motivations for their characters or they end up pursuing too many things at once and being very ineffective. But once they get the hang of it, they will surprise and amaze you.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Polls should have an other option because...

Neither.

The players indicate the direction they want to go and I prepare that adventure. Essentially it is at the end of the session that direction is decided depending on the session developments just been.

 

[Wombat]

In the words of Grampa Simpson, "Well, a little from column A and a little from column B"

I usually start a campaign with a directed adventure, then have goals set for them here and there, but allow them to wander off the course whenever they so desire, as long as they realize that certain events are "timed" and will take place no matter what they do (unless they take out the situation somehow ahead of time).

 

[ForceUser]

In the words of Grampa Simpson, "Well, a little from column A and a little from column B"

I usually start a campaign with a directed adventure, then have goals set for them here and there, but allow them to wander off the course whenever they so desire, as long as they realize that certain events are "timed" and will take place no matter what they do (unless they take out the situation somehow ahead of time).

What he said. This poll should have had more options. Life is rarely a "this or that" experience.

 

[D+1]

BOTH. If I have to choose only one option then it must be "directed". I can still derail things. But the two are NOT mutually exclusive options. Some DM's cannot provide an interesting campaign by "wandering". Some can. Better if they can "direct" you to an adventure, but be able to handle it if you choose to "wander" away from it in what seems a more interesting direction.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I usually start a campaign with a directed adventure, then have goals set for them here and there, but allow them to wander off the course whenever they so desire, as long as they realize that certain events are "timed" and will take place no matter what they do (unless they take out the situation somehow ahead of time).

Target.

 

[tetsujin28]

Neither. We tell the GM what we're going to be doing the next week, and he plans for some of the eventualities. It's how I ran my Runequest game for nearly 20 years, as well.

 

[Ron]

Both as player and as DM I prefer "wandering". It is nothing like Brownian motion, though. Good "wander" DMs should inform their players about potential adventures here and there so they can made a choice. I also like to, from time to time, bring the adventure to them when they are not expecting. So mixing would be a good answer, but far more wandering than directing.