Monday, 17 October 2011

Campaign control - Roleplaying or rule-based

We have two options on running this campaign: 1) A fixed storyline with thread (storyline) and non-thread (random action that develops or destroys players forces) OR 2) A basic set of rules and a gamemaster.

What do you think?

I am leaning to the more roleplaying version with a game-master.  The force the GM plays will merely be an average of all the other players gains and losses.

The advantage of the GM style is the momentum can be controlled and no end up dragging.  Though the players know the limits of the GM by the basic rules of the campaign.

Do you want a campaign which has a storyline but is a robot and we know where we are going, and we generate scenarios through a fixed rule system, or do you want a GM-controlled campaign.

I have many years of GMing under my belt (and a few more pounds than required), but I am happy to be a player too.

I am trying a new thing, check the poll out on the right-hand side.


  1. When we run campaigns at home, they're role-playing based. We also put our heads together to decide what the most playable and FUN outcome the current scenario might produce in the campaign. Nothing scientific about it, but a lot of fun to play!


  2. I like the idea of a communal decision on effect on the campaign of the mission.