Community

Jan 29, 2013 -- 6:30PM, tanstaafl48 wrote:

Jan 29, 2013 -- 6:15PM, YagamiFire wrote:

Better to be direct in tone than disingenuous and indirect.

Better still to be direct in tone without being excessively confrontational about it. If someone's actually interested in having a discussion, then they shouldn't couch the debate in terms of how profoundly unethical the other side is. Especially when the topic is how people play a game.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 6:15PM, YagamiFire wrote:

If you were able to offer them more freedom with a good level of quality might that not increase their fun? If so, wouldn't it be better to work on improving & strengthening the skill & tools you use to improvise rather than continuing to rely on something that does not allow you to build those skills/tools? Do you think that effort put forth would lead to an overall improvement in both your DMing and the game itself in general? And, if it would, why not work towards that improvement instead of stagnating in a style that certainly does limit freedom?

(cut for length)

In a way it is arrogant to assume that they will enjoy what you have worked hard on (with limited freedom) as compared to enjoying the freedom of doing whatever they wish (with limited pre-work done on your part). Basically, it is weighing your effort versus their freedom. You are saying your effort is worth more than their freedom of choice. So really that could be interpreted as arrogance.

What I'm saying is that I understand my own group, or at least I'm confident enough to make a guess at what they'd enjoy more (which is also what you're doing, albeit in the other direction.) Some people like the more structured approach. Some DMs are just less good at free-form stuff and it's not necessarily a skill one can learn(or, alternatively, they find learning how to better prepare things to be more efficient.) Or, even more alternatively, some DMs just don't have the time to hone skills at all, hence the pre-made modules, in which case the choices isn't "Do it lazy" or "Do it right!", it's "Do it this way" or "Don't play."

I just don't think everyone values totally unfettered freedom of choice to the extent that you do, which doesn't mean you're wrong for yourself, just that alternative approaches are not intrinsically wrong all the time forever.

My players don't do well with full blown unfettered freedom. If I give it to them, they usually have no clue what to do with it outside of maim, kill, pillage, and other vile acts. Hell, right now they're building a town from scratch in their game and what do they want to do with it? Build an army and just attack other kingdoms willy nilly because they're evil tyrants and just like making imaginary characters suffer for literally, no reason. How do I know this? I've asked them. That was their damn answer. (well, partly. The other part was they think it's funny)

They're very much the kick in the door style players. I could just throw monsters at them all night and they'd have a blast just fighting things and figuring out good combat strategies. So long as it's paced with smatterings of rewards here and there and the ability to do some shopping on ocassion.

I have no objections to the type of 'total freeform DM'ing' some are proposing.   If it works for them and their group, great.

I personally disagree with the notion that writing an adventure in advance, similar to one you might find in Dungeon magazine, is automatically considered "lesser" for no other reason that it is already written down.   The thinking seems to be that if someone wrote it down, then the players are being railroaded into that adventure.

I think that if you are DM'ing a group of players and tell them in advance that you've prepped and are running the Tower of Inverness and they deside to go elsewhere, then it's your players who are doing something wrong (this says nothing about their actual characters).

I feel that a good DM can improv as necessary and allow a party to have a fairly open adventure that will not feel railroaded in the least, despite the fact that players know in advance they are going to explore the Tower of Inverness.   Whose to say their characters might not have even stated such intentions?

Lastly, I think it is flawed thinking to assume that all players prefer a completely open, utterly-no-railroading type of game vs a more guided experience.  I can say with certainty that I know players who have tried both methods and can find equal or better enjoyment from the latter.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 8:25AM, YagamiFire wrote:

SwampDog, you're missing the actual discussion point. The point is that pre-planned things ONLY become an issue when the DM openly or behind-the-shield invalidates player choices and agency to get them to go along with what is pre-planned.

Pre-planning is not on trial. I pre-plan many things...it is foolhardy to do everything off-the-cuff. What is on trial is using those pre-planned things to justify taking away player agency by providing false options so that the players fall in-line with what the DM has planned.

Fair enough.  But then, isn't pre-planned really taken out of the argument?

I mean that, surely no reason is sufficient to 'justify taking away player agency by providing false options'?  

I guess I would clarify the above statement with two caveats:

1.  It is a huge violation of the rules.  

2.  The players are being utterly obstinate and demanding to run one adventure when they'd previously stated their intentions to run the one the DM prepared.

To be honest, I think the above two happen so rarely as to not be a worry, but those are the only sufficient reasons I can think of off hand.

I can accept that but I will also restate one earlier point I made:

I think it is flawed thinking to assume that all players prefer a completely open, utterly-no-railroading type of game vs a more guided experience.  I can say with certainty that I know players who have tried both methods and can find equal or better enjoyment from the latter.

Yes.    I merely meant that sometimes, for some, limited choices is preferable to anything goes.