|
Although the results are not unanimous, there is a clearly a strong feeling that PFS scenarios should be run closely to the script whilst non-PFS scenarios can allow more GM creative input.
The two main caveats to the above are expressions of concern mainly centering around a GMs ability to do justice to the module writer's intent if he starts editing too much or too inexpertly.
Since I'm trying to gauge whether there is a player trend towards asking GMs to stick to the script more (and this is not about limiting a player's options, but about ensuring that the GM runs the module as intended in order to present a challenge balance as intended), can I ask players whether you would prefer:
a) to play in PFS style scenarios, where both rules and module content are more rigidly controlled,
b) to play in non-PFS style scenarios, where it is much more down to GM creativity, or
c) either don't care, or have a preference which is nothing to do with limiting the GMs options.
Thanks once again.
Richard
|
In a home group the player and the GM come to an informal accord about the rules and how much the rules and adventure will vary from written. Sometimes this is as simple as "GM is GOD!" but more often there is a constantly negotiated compromise between the GM and the players. If there are more players the GM can alter maps, add creatures. Likewise with fewer characters they can reduce the threat.
In Organized Play you don't know who you are going to be playing with so there needs to be a formal accord about the rules. Organized play is a set of compromises designed to try and make the game as enjoyable as possible for a random group of strangers. Scenarios are predefined and if they are too easy or too hard the GM can't make adjustments.
Both scenarios have their advantages. Personally, I've seen a lot of benefit to the flexibility that a home group offers. I suspect players who have good or even average GMs prefer the informal structure of a home game. Players who have had bad experiences with GMs or who like to beat their GMs with the rulebooks generally prefer Organized Play because the structure of the Organized Play environment offers certain guarantees.
Although the results are not unanimous, there is a clearly a strong feeling that PFS scenarios should be run closely to the script whilst non-PFS scenarios can allow more GM creative input.
The two main caveats to the above are expressions of concern mainly centering around a GMs ability to do justice to the module writer's intent if he starts editing too much or too inexpertly.
Since I'm trying to gauge whether there is a player trend towards asking GMs to stick to the script more (and this is not about limiting a player's options, but about ensuring that the GM runs the module as intended in order to present a challenge balance as intended), can I ask players whether you would prefer:
a) to play in PFS style scenarios, where both rules and module content are more rigidly controlled,
b) to play in non-PFS style scenarios, where it is much more down to GM creativity, or
c) either don't care, or have a preference which is nothing to do with limiting the GMs options.
Thanks once again.
Richard
PFS involves people from around the world so it has to be done with a tighter leash to keep things fair for everyone.
To answer the question though it is a combination of B and C for me. I want creative DM's, but I want creative DM's that know what they are doing.
As an example when I first started I was messing with all kinds of rules I had no business messing with. I was also oblivious as to how to cater things to players. My current players, who were lucky enough not to witness my learning period think I am great at running things on the fly, and keeping their characters involved. Looking back on it I am glad my much more experienced players(who were DM's also) allowed me to run things for them with my bad DM'ing, and not give me too much of a hard time about it.
|
After having read and replied to both of your previous posts, I'd like to give you an advice. Please, don't consider this an insult or trolling, but I think it would be best If you'd take a step back from your own thesis and look at the results/answers of both threads again.
Part of my schooling in educational science is statistics and one of the first things we were told in statistics class was that it is dangerous to look at results wit a specific answer in mind.
I know, you're just doing this out of personal interest and so it's completely up to you how you deal with it, but it really seems that you do not try to gauge wether there is a trend but rather to find evidence for that trend in whatever answers you get.
To answer your question, so this post isn't just ranting or trolling, I don't play in PFS games and have not participated in organised play since well in the early nienties. I prefer to game with friends in campaigns and adventures that cater more to our style and taste than to the style of an organized gaming club.
Regards
Georg.
I know, you're just doing this out of personal interest and so it's completely up to you how you deal with it, but it really seems that you do not try to gauge wether there is a trend but rather to find evidence for that trend in whatever answers you get.
+1. It is easy to find the truth you are looking for even if that truth is not there.
|
|
I don't think you guys are right, you know.
My interest is to find out if players want a 0 or a 5, as in the previous poll (which I thought brought out some interesting comments, BTW). Now if people answer in case (a) it's a 0 and in case (b) it's a 5, you naturally have to ask whether they prefer (a) or (b).
I'm not trying to find the evidence to fit the hypothesis. I started these discussions with a concern. If that concern turns out to be unfounded, then I'm a happy man!
Richard
|
For the TL;DR contingent my answer is a) to play in PFS style scenarios, where both rules and module content are more rigidly controlled. The reasons are below.
I am not a fan of organized play so I cannot speak to that.
As a DM and a player I have always wanted to DM to incorporate elements relating directly to our characters in their adventures. Be they published or home made.
Having run many adventures (especially epic ones like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil and Return to Ravenloft (I might have that name wrong), and city of the spider queen. I have adjusted the adventures to fit my players goals. They have greatly enjoyed it and felt that the game was more enjoyable for it. Now all of those adventures are lengthy and adjusting one thing has a knock on effect on other things.
But I do a lot of prep and know an adventure from start to end before I run it. That makes it easier for me to adjust things from the get go and even on the fly.
Some DMs do not do a lot of prep (as I have experienced as a player) and they need the tightly scripted adventures to do the work for them.
So my answer is that the adventures should not leave a lot to DM's creativity because the less creative DMs need that work done for them. The more creative DMs can still work around it and break down the structure so that it works for their game.
|
The gaming experience in "rigidly" run adventures SUCKS.
Period.
.
. . . . However, if you have a DM who is not fair, and/or not knowledgeable, and/or not talented as DM, a "more rigid" application of the adventure is better than a bad DM.
Additionally, in an official world-wide, community atmosphere, organizers MUST GUARANTEE standardization. ("Rigid" just isn't the right word.)
But freestyle DMing, with or without a published adventure, is the best.
Period.
a) to play in PFS style scenarios, where both rules and module content are more rigidly controlled,
b) to play in non-PFS style scenarios, where it is much more down to GM creativity, or
c) either don't care, or have a preference which is nothing to do with limiting the GMs options.
"B" in a landslide.