Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 8955640" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Maybe I'm reading these wrong, but overgeeked seems to be saying that we should keep character creation because it's not necessary to have a campaign lined up in advance, and Teo is saying that character creation is just as critical to the game as the screen writers, who are analogous to those who write the campaign.&nbsp; Do we need reconciling here?On campaigns: yes, a 10-page story of how the GM wants the game to go is tantamount to railroading.&nbsp; I'm all about the world filled with monsters and factions and so on...but 1) I can't come up with it all on the fly, and 2) a lot of the entities in the world are more sophisticated than I am.&nbsp; So it helps a lot to write up scenarios beforehand, to make up for these shortcomings.&nbsp; These pre-written scenarios are more or less what I consider a campaign.And I see a lot of importance in tying these scenarios to the PCs.&nbsp; A lot of published adventures fall flat because there's the simple expectation that the players will want to do what the writers want them to do.&nbsp; If the GM knows beforehand who the PCs are and what they're likely to want, then getting straight into the meat of the game seems a likely outcome.I, too, probably would not take well to a character that my GM just handed to me.&nbsp; But for the OP, I'm picturing a short list of awesome characters, complete with awesome artwork, that sort of speaks to everyone.&nbsp; Even the bard (Edward!) looks awesome, for some strange reason.&nbsp; Would you want to play that, if you could pick from your favorites?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 8955640, member: 6685730"] Maybe I'm reading these wrong, but overgeeked seems to be saying that we should keep character creation because it's not necessary to have a campaign lined up in advance, and Teo is saying that character creation is just as critical to the game as the screen writers, who are analogous to those who write the campaign. Do we need reconciling here? On campaigns: yes, a 10-page story of how the GM wants the game to go is tantamount to railroading. I'm all about the world filled with monsters and factions and so on...but 1) I can't come up with it all on the fly, and 2) a lot of the entities in the world are more sophisticated than I am. So it helps [I]a lot[/I] to write up scenarios beforehand, to make up for these shortcomings. These pre-written scenarios are more or less what I consider a campaign. And I see a lot of importance in tying these scenarios to the PCs. A lot of published adventures fall flat because there's the simple expectation that the players will want to do what the writers want them to do. If the GM knows beforehand who the PCs are and what they're likely to want, then getting straight into the meat of the game seems a likely outcome. I, too, probably would not take well to a character that my GM just handed to me. But for the OP, I'm picturing a short list of awesome characters, complete with awesome artwork, that sort of speaks to everyone. Even the bard (Edward!) looks awesome, for some strange reason. Would you want to play that, if you could pick from your favorites? [/QUOTE]

Verification