Player-led games vs. GM-led games

[Lorsa]

My relentless procrastinative thinking about RPGs, and D&D in particular, has led me to a certain way of categorising games and I'm interested in seeing if people agree with this model and if so which type of game they prefer.

There are GM-led games and player-led games. In the GM-led game, the GM presents a scenario with a goal, and the players engage with that scenario and try to achieve that goal. In a player-led game the GM provides only an environment, a world, and the players explore it at their leisure and choose a goal themselves; the GM is there to facilitate this process and make it as much fun as possible.

I think this is slightly different form the distinction between "linear" and "sandbox" games. The way I see it, if the GM presents a small scenario - a village and its surroundings, even a single dungeon - with a definite goal but leaves the players to figure out how to go about achieving the goal, that's essentially a miniature sandbox. But it's still a GM-led adventure because the GM chose the objective, not the players.

Now an admission: it seems that the majority of players want player-led adventures. Player agency seems to be by far most people's first priority, and freedom to achieve a goal however you like is meaningless if the goal has been dictated by the GM. I feel I'm very much in a minority in that, both as a player and as a GM, I favour GM-led adventures. I find player-led adventures often fun but not ultimately satisfying. They sprawl out in too many directions, they go on indefinitely and tend to involve at least as much deciding what to do as doing. Most of all they become vague, incoherent. There's a story but it's baggy and stretched out, like a novel that hasn't been edited. There's a lack of focus. To me, total player agency is not worth this.

By contrast, in a good GM-led adventure (whether it's a published module or something the GM designed themselves) I feel like I've taken part in something tangible, something that's a work in the sense that a novel or film is a work. It seems paradoxical, considering that the player-led game is intended to give you the chance to properly explore and roleplay your character, but as a player I find myself much more able to do this if my character is dropped into the GM's scenario than if he's left to wander around and decide for himself what to do.

Of course it is entirely subjective, and I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind about how RPGs "should" be played. What I am interested in is getting an idea of how many people feel the same way as me. Do you prefer GM-led adventures? Do you prefer player-led adventures? Do you think it's a false dichotomy and I'm talking ****e?

I think it's an interesting way to try and analyze games. Like most things though it's more of a scale and not a simple binary choice. Most good games I've been in start off being more GM-led at the start and then move on to being more player-led as the game progress. This is according to your definition that is.

As we are into definitions and discussion railroads vs. sandbox with Darth Ultron yet again (who seem to be speaking a completely different language to the rest of us), the way I see things is this:

Railroad = The GM has written a book and wants players to experience it
Sandbox = The GM has created a world and wants the players to experience it

GM-led = The world has clear adventure hooks, problems or situations the players can choose engage with
Player-led = The world offers no such adventure hooks, problems or situations, the players create their own

With these four axes, the games I often run would be described as GM-led sandbox games. The worst type of game I could think of would be the player-led railroad game. I have actually been in one that could be described as such, and it was awful.