Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 5012280" data-attributes="member: 20805">You are quite correct. However, if the PC's choose to investigate, the spooky castle can be populated by either undead or be the focal point of a political schema that needs to be spied on... depending on the players, the PCs, and the general feel of the game. The key to sandbox is that, once the details are clarified for the players.. it stays that way. Before then, those details can change as required. An example of this is the port city north of the village IMC. Right now its loosely defined as a port city, and thats about it. If the players choose to go that way I will listen to thier comments about what they expect and play to it. You sir, are lucky. Scheduling a group of players who are married w/ kids and work in the military is a nightmare. I have 8 to 9 players in the game... last session only 4 could make it.However, this is how I ran games when I had a weekly game back in 2e and CP2020. It takes me more time to prep a module or AP than it does to run off the cuff. I have enough old Dungeon modules and ideas of side-treks to be able to pull pretty much anything out of the hat. 4e has made it easier as monster design can be, and has been, done actually during combat.The devil is in the details. The overall campaign setting can be open to allow a variety of characters, play styles, and motivations. I use Eberron as the base of my world.. then place the PCs in the undefined territories that give me room to adapt. Once the PCs get involved, they can build connections and get to know the territory in a way that makes it thiers. Perhaps take over the Thieves Guild or remove the local despot and take over the territory.That being said, my campaign does have some limitations for races and classes that fit into the world, so its not completely open.. but still not overly restrictive.Now, when I run an AP.. then the players have to actively choose to accept the limitations of the module set and be happy to go along with any railroad {real or perceived} due to the GM's investment into the AP {money, time, etc} But even then, its a better game if the DM and players can tie the characters motivations into the storyline. Its just harder to do as the DM needs to internalize the APs world, and both sides need to adapt to the limitations of the stated storyline.I beleive that 'drunk chess' can indeed be a game.. but I don't see the relevance to the discussion here. Even if Drunk Chess has a set of complex rules, referees, and online board discussion groups... DnD is a game that has strong story elements that are more foreground than most other games.  Which, of course, means the debate about whether the story is more important than the game or vice versa.. but the goal of both the story and the game {IMO} is to have an entertaining session... so does the debate really matter as long as the goal is being met?Funny side note. I once ran a CP2020 session that was completely predetermined. I had set up a black bag operation in which the Agency used the PCs to trigger the third Corperate war. Completely a technical railroad game where the PC's choices were guided to what I needed them to be.The following day one of my players put it together and realized he had been led around by the nose..and after a couple swear words he congratulated me on one of the best sessions he had ever played in. Morale of the story... railroading isn't one of the 7 deadly sins. Killing the fun however, thats murder <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification