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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chzbro" data-source="post: 5080208" data-attributes="member: 83964">I find this discussion amazingly interesting.Because I'll be spending time behind the DM's screen for the first time in a long time soon, it's something that I guess I've been thinking about without really knowing I was thinking about it.Obviously, every player (and DM) likes different things out their games, and I can only speak for myself. So it struck me while reading the OP's compelling post, that while I do enjoy a DM who "sits back" and lets me create my own trouble every once in a while, I typically much prefer having a pretty good idea of what the story is going in. So, in the parlance of the OP, if the story is in the cave and not how we get into the cave, I prefer to just get into the cave.It's worth noting that I'm a long-time player (started around '80), so I don't think that such feelings are necessarily generational. I'm also a creative type (Master's in Creative Writing), so I don't feel that I'm the kind who needs to have a story presented to me because I just can't think of anything. That said, when I play I want to be a part of the story being told...one of the heroes, certainly, and with a degree of narrative control...not creating the story as I go.There is little that I dislike more in a game of D&D (and I am fully aware that this will be considered heresy to many on these boards) than having a DM describe an innkeeper who greets me with a hearty hello, and then proceed to stare at me with an expectant look. It's not that I can't roleplay or am completely uncomfortable with the notion, it's that I hate fishing for information that, by implication, the innkeeper clearly has without having even a little clue as to what that information might be.If anyone has seen the Wizards podcast featuring the Robot Chicken writers, that's an excellent example. The dwarf-face bas-relief starts talking. He's clearly got stuff he needs to say for the purposes of the adventure. Chris Perkins says something to one of the players and looks at him expectantly...to which the player responds, "Please, sir, I have a History of but 2."With no offense intended toward Mr. Perkins, this made me laugh because I know just how that player felt. If you have something to tell me, just tell me; otherwise I feel like I'm just guessing for the right response.And while I know that there is no right response, that doesn't change the nagging certainty in the dark recesses of my mind that there could be.I'm happiest when my D&D games are like a collection of scenes from a book or a film. The exciting ones we play out and the boring ones are a montage. Rarely in the books and films I enjoy does the hero meet a supporting cast member and fumble through five minutes of awkward, clumsy conversation before finally figuring out what comes next. I know this kind of storytelling is fun for some, even many, people, but it never has been for me.And so I'm thinking now that all of this planning I've been doing for my upcoming campaign has reflected this...even though I wasn't really aware I was doing it. I've been plotting out scenes--areas where the story progresses--and making sure each one has a relatively explicit clue or quest about what comes next. The players don't have to follow it, of course, but I suspect they will just because it's the most obvious course of action.It's not sandbox, that's for certain, and while the idea of a sandbox campaign has always appealed to me, it sure seems like it fits a lot better with the "sit back" style of DMing than it does with "story-driven" DMing...Great topic. Thanks for the insight and "thought provocation."</blockquote>

Verification