Answer: I'm going to pass on this question because I don't have a good answer other than, "it depends." So I'm going to pull another alternate question.
Answer: I feel this is an appropriate alternate for Day 9's question. For me, open-ended play is the be-all and end-all of role-playing. I understand the appeal of set-length partly because it promises a limited commitment of time from the players. It's easier to say yes to a new game or an unfamiliar group if you know going in that there is a predetermined end-point. That said, I want the latitude as GM to take the time for the campaign world to enfold. As a player, I want that same freedom to dig in and develop my character to the best of my ability. Arbitrary end dates don't allow for stretching out and exploring the game the same way.
My favorite supplements are the kind of campaign setting sandboxes that provide a million jumping off points for adventures, rather than a linear narrative which has a definite ending. A classic example of this kind of open-ended module would be B2 The Keep on the Borderlands; a more modern one would be A Red and Pleasant Land. The current adventure I'm preparing for my next game is Basic Fantasy's Morgansfort. This module is a standard low-level setting with a base of operations, and three separate adventures located in the nearby area. These adventures can all be stand-alone and don't require the PCs to do anything in a specific narrative order. There's enough detail to provide a good time if you run it completely stock, but there's also plenty of room to add your own touches, NPC motivations, and story hooks (all of which I'm doing).
The more a game leans towards a set length, the more prescriptive and railroad-y it's likely to be. That can be fun if you want to keep the game confined to a limited number of sessions or arena of play. Personally though, I think the best expression of role-playing is found in the constant surprises and never knowing quite where the game will go.
No comments:
Post a Comment