[Avalanche] - Should prewritten scenarios be about the PCs ?

[contracycle]

The problem with choosing "might" over "must" is that the players end up skipping the events and not using the structure framework.
(This is the "wasted GM effort" thing, but in the case of a purchased module it is really more of a user experience issue - you want people to use as much of your product as possible and enjoy doing so.)

Your'e attributing motive here.  Ther producer of a product primarily wants it to sell, that is all.  For the most part they don;t care whether you use it as directed or as a doorstop.

Now the virtue here is that this work got done.  It may be that for the specific incidents of my game, it made sense to skip chunks of this external plot.  But then, its not MY efforts and time that are wasted, I have paid someone to do this for me, and probably I lose is about 10c worth of print and paper.  And I still have an environment in which these issues are relevant; even if the players missed a bit, the world would still go on around them and retain its own continuity,

If the players know that they must become involved in an event,

They will only know as much as any CHARACTER knows.  I don't believe any direct player engegement with the structure has been proposed, its a GM tool.

but also know that they decide how their characters become involved and how they resolve the situation, is that still "railroading"? 

No, that is "actual play".  These decisions are made in play, by players acting through their characters.  The characters will be engaged if it touches them or interests them; the situation will be resolved by how they respond and ther decisions they make.

[pells]

I'll comment some more, althougth David and Contracycle pretty much covers it all.

The problem with choosing "might" over "must" is that the players end up skipping the events and not using the structure framework.

Must doesn't exist in what I do, as there is no mention of the PCs.

Now the virtue here is that this work got done.  It may be that for the specific incidents of my game, it made sense to skip chunks of this external plot.  But then, its not MY efforts and time that are wasted, I have paid someone to do this for me, and probably I lose is about 10c worth of print and paper.  And I still have an environment in which these issues are relevant; even if the players missed a bit, the world would still go on around them and retain its own continuity,

That's pretty much the idea. And I'll even go one step foreword. If you buy my product, you know beforehand that you'll only use about 20-30% of it. Your PCs cannot take part in all the events, all the plots. It migth be strange to say this, but this is how you take the most out of my product.

Naturally, you have to be somewhat vauge in describing future events, but what do we do when we have the PCs destroy the artifact, conquer both goblin tribes, and kick the crap out of Mr. X?

In complement to David's comment, what is the best way to manage the players' impact, having a single linear plot all about them or multi plot not related to them ? Even if they make major changes in a plot, then your players will have, let's say destroy about 20% of the web. There would still be 80% untouched.

Since I want to cover many plots, I cannot go into details for any of them. If I was to transposed Avalanche into a novel, the number of pages would be something like 5 times higher. This brings me back to the storyboard idea.

Note : sorry for that, but I love this idea of storyboard !!!

[StefanDirkLahr]

Sorry about all that - I guess i was getting too outside of the box, the topic. I just like the idea of having a structured array of events to play off of in an open-ended manner, and i was carried away.

I'll stop pestering you all - Good luck with the module!