Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7336619" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Pretty much. We talked out some possible trade route options. We did this precisely so that I could do some high level prep based on their choices. So they came up with a few possibilities. I then, in between sessions, jotted down some possibilities for each route. I also jotted down some ideas that might be usable regardless of the route they chose. This last bit is probably not your cup of tea! But I like to have a couple of options as a back up depending on how everything goes. My selection of the Shades was equally about the existing connection to a PC’s past, what made sense based on the locations involved, and my personal interest. I’ve used them in the past when we’ve played a Realms campaign. I find the concept and possible themes pretty interesting.As an aside, my previous use of them is perhaps what led the player to incorporate them into the character’s background. Kind of a feedback loop that may be the best endorsement I can give about my approach.I didn’t hide the multiple factions from the PCs. Not for any significant amount of time anyway. I don’t mind my players being in the dark about aome things, but I usually (admittedly not always) try to make the major decisions that they face about elements they know. I suppose. To describe it plainly: I came up with a basic scenario of conflict among the Shades, the ruling elite and a rogue group, and then I let the PCs decide how to proceed with each faction, trying to determine the best side to choose and what agreement to make. The negotiations were weighted by what the PCs decided to include. So a Persuasion check to appeal to the ruling faction was easier if the PCs were making large concessions, or offering additional offerings. At this point, it was largely a back and forth DM to players and back, each sode reacting to the other, and making checks where relevant. I’m not quite sure what you mean by the GM carrying the weight for the “crunch”. But I expect that you’d consider the game to be in the second option you describe. I consider it a middle option certainly. If you mean that the narrative leaned largely on the GM at this point, then yes, I’d agree. It was up to me to decide how things ultimately played out. But the breadth or scope of possible results was significantly reduced by the players and their actions. So surely this is not a case of pure GM fiat, or the players being mostly passive and having the DM read his notes to them. But neither is it a case where the players can introduce fictional elements through action declaration. The players essentially tell me what their characters want to achieve given what the characters know, and then I let them know what kind of check is appropriate. So perhaps there are two levels of play going on. A high level, thrust of the campaign, this is where things are going kind of level which is largely determined by the players. And then a lower level, this is what my PC is doing right now level, which although it may involve player agency, also relies on GM judgment.</blockquote>

Verification