Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 9084295" data-attributes="member: 6901101">I have found it interesting on this thread that other DMs/players seem to think people discussing more traditional style of play haven't played or DMed the style in question. So to clear the air, and to state experience, I have DMed and played in a campaign that is very much what you describe. (Although, to be fair, in [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] 's world, this is not a campaign, it is an interlude since they each only lasted three or four months.)I DMed a court intrigue campaign. The players made their characters and built an entire faction around their character. Decided where they fell in that faction, and the NPCs for the faction. They also created the faction's goals. For example, the cleric in the group belonged to a church, the rogue was part of the thieves' guild, the fighter part of the military's navy, and the wizard part of a Harry Potter style school. They each had goals to influence the court, nobles, and kings. I created opposing factions. The group would sometimes do courtly things (think masquerade balls, have secret meetings, dinner parties, etc.) and also go off adventuring to gain renown and also find ways to undermine their opposing factions.This was almost all player driven. And it was fun. It did lack some consistency from my side of the screen, but it was still an enjoyable experience. When we moved to our next campaign, the vote was to play possibly the most linear adventure ever - Hoard of the Dragon Queen. It was fun. It lacked lateral movement from my side of the screen, but it was still an enjoyable experience. I bring this up only to say to you: I understand, like, truly understand where you're coming from. (And I will gladly admit it is a limited experience compared to some.) Yet, I don't see it as an increase in player agency. I don't see it improving the players' experience, nor the DM's experience. I just see it as different.</blockquote>

Verification