I do, however, have to disagree (at least semantically) with you Gary about “ignoring” plot opportunities. I think a GM should not expect the players to pursue every plot opportunity. In fact, I think a GM should fully expect that the players will not follow many of them (that’s the nature of the beast). However, in my mind, that is different than simply ignoring them. Assuming it is presented appropriately, the GM should be able to expect that the PCs will consider plot opportunities in light of the game and consciously elect to pursue them or not. I believe that is different than simply ignoring them. A game that is more collaborative probably requires that the players be consciously selecting (or even creating) plot opportunities to pursue…if they simply ignore them, such a game starts to break down.

Here’s an example from my most recent campaign. One of the characters was something of an itinerant archaeologist and had had numerous run-ins with undead in his explorations of various tombs throughout his pre-campaign years. At the start of the campaign, the PCs shared a camp with a traveling merchant and her two guards. During the night, a pack of ghouls attacked the camp and the merchant’s two guards joined in but on the side of the ghouls. The merchant was nowhere to be found but, after the battle, could be heard yelling a threat (from afar) at this particular PC and even used his full name (which had not be given to the merchant previously). That appears to have all the trappings of an early plot opportunity and many of the other players saw it as such. The player of the threatened character, however, just responded with something like, “Yeah, yeah, whatever” and appeared to have dismissed it out-of-hand. That is simply ignoring a plot opportunity and rather different than proactively choosing not to pursue it. The latter is fine but the former is problematic as I expect players to be proactive. After all, the whole point of plot opportunities is so the GM doesn’t railroad the game…if players ignore such opportunities, those tracks start to be more appealing.

Plot devices can be used in this context — the key is to present them as plot opportunities (i.e., the party has a choice), and “bait” them well enough that the players will almost certainly take the opportunity. If the players take the bait, the plot goes where the GM was driving it, the players feel as though they made the choice which drove the plot, and everyone is happy. To do this successfully, a GM must know his players and their characters well; and also resign himself to the fact that sometimes they will ignore his “opportunity”.

The dark side of this is that plot opportunities can seem like plot devices if the players don’t realize that they have choices or don’t understand them. A party that isn’t being railroaded can feel like they are if the GM does a poor job of presenting opportunities.

Impro is more robust, short-term, as it can’t be shattered as anything planned can. There is the risk of hitting a block mid-session, in which case consulting the players is one option, as is taking a break.

On long term impro becomes more fragile as the probability of significant inconsistencies increases.