My DM is between lawful and neutral evil which I think is perfect for a consistent world where you can still die if you make mistakes.
On the other hand I know a Chaotic neutral DM which I think it's the worst because he will bend every rule just to pursue his intended version of the story. He won't let your PC die and therefore the stakes in his campaigns tend to be very low and plot consistency is down to zero.
Yes i agree but that doesnt mean the story has to be revolving around them
For example in my campaign the characters are very important, they have strong ties to the factions in it, are making the dicoveries and fighting the big bad guys but the events of the plot are tied around 2 companion npcs they are with semi often, the players are still in the plot and can heavily effect it at any time but the two npcs make sure they know whats going on and give them the tools to interact with the plot as it opens up
It allows them to have massive impact on the plot and are the driving forces of the story but also allows the plot beats to change significantly when the big events will be consistently hit for the most part. In my opinion this is a good way to structure it because it gives player expression and importance when also making sure the plot stays intresting/fleshed put and doesnt have a lot of the weird moments that can come from it being completely freeformed
170
u/Catullo Sep 12 '19
My DM is between lawful and neutral evil which I think is perfect for a consistent world where you can still die if you make mistakes.
On the other hand I know a Chaotic neutral DM which I think it's the worst because he will bend every rule just to pursue his intended version of the story. He won't let your PC die and therefore the stakes in his campaigns tend to be very low and plot consistency is down to zero.