Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg
I have seen some pretty amazingly questionable GM'ing, but that seems to me an issue with those GMs.
Personally, unless it's a one-shot "this is the one cool adventure that is the scope of the game", my preferred campaign type is open world play, where I like it when a good GM isn't too attached to any particular adventure or series of events happening, and instead sets up situations and finds out what happens by playing it out. I appreciate it when finding something really means the characters found something, and that there was a chance they might not find it, and might do something else besides whatever adventure might be nearby, and that's embraced as really playing the situation and seeing what happens, instead of pretending that's what's happening but really driving the players into some pre-planned plotline.
|
Yep, I like sandboxes too -- for exactly those reasons. (Plus it's so EASY to run TFT "off the cuff" and improvisationally that it practically begs to be run as a sandbox.) My earlier response was more predicated on the idea of a "typical" adventure-arc type of campaign, but honestly, as I get older, I find those less interesting than just seeing what comes up and letting the chips fall where they may. Besides, I think the PLAYERS actually get more out of it when THEY are the ones more or less creating the "story arc" on the fly than when I try to impose one on them. Plus, they always seem to see patterns and connections where none actually existed, and that sort of thing
always makes the GM's work easier and simpler! ;-)