TheRPGSite

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dungeon/savageTide/railroadingInPiazoProducts

Especially watch out for the comments on old-school modules and the comments by the author himself.

Wow, they are actually pulling out the roll vs. role playing argument...the mind boggles.

The issue:

Quote from: HaldefastHi there! I am an avid player of the Age of Worms AP.

But the recent Savage Tide AP has really turned our group down. The "adventures" in which we travelled to the so-called Isle of Dread, and the travels on that Isle wer insulting to us as players.

Three adventures full of a totally strict railroad. Now, we do not mind being railroaded between the dungeon entrances. That is cool with us, as it was in the AoWAP. As long as there is a large, intrigueing, diverse dungeon full of options and decisions.

But the last three "adventures" consisted of strings of single encounters, which were totally scripted, unavoidable and thusly un-fun and insulting to our planning efforts and intellect.
Especially the One-Room-"Dungeons" rose our ire. Even more ridiculous was the "timely" arrival at Farshore right at the moment of being under attack. That totally blew any suspension of disbelief that might have existed.

Okay, we are not allowed to decide which route we follow. But then, we are spoon-fed a single room "dungeon"?
Hello?

Which decisions is Mr. Jacobs and his Union-Pacific cronies willing to let me make, pretty please?
Could you explain me, what my character and moreso I as a player was able to actually do and influence? Oh, yes: I was allowed to barely beat the opposition in a set-piece encounter. I was allowed to prove that the balancing works, that the encounter that was designed to be beaten got beaten. You know, there are people who actually like to do, like, INFLUENCE stuff? Like, making decisions that matter?

The response from the author:

Quote from: James JacobFirst of all... remember that it's not cool to engage in personal attacks on threads here, so please keep the posts civil.

An adventure has to present a storyline. If it doesn't, it's not an adventrue, in my opinion; it's a sourcebook. By this reasoning, the original Isle of Dread is a sourcebook. If your group prefers to set their own course and build their own plot, and rankles at the idea of following a pre-determined storyline, then you should probably avoid running adventures. You should run games using sourcebooks. You can, of course, use adventures AS source books; taking the four adventures set on the Isle of Dread as an overall presentation of the region, you can use it as the background for any number of adventures there. You don't HAVE to follow the script implied by the adventures. Tides of Dread, by the way, is probably the LAST adventure in Savage Tide that I'd call a railroad. Variety is important, and that's why some adventures in an Adventure Path have strict rails (like Sea Wyvern) and others are more like sandboxes (like Tides, Scuttlecove, or Enemies of my Enemy).

But it sounds like the OP's mind is pretty made up, so I guess I don't have much more to say apart from repeating my advice that you probably shouldn't play an adventure if you're not having fun playing it.

Carry on, and again, be kind to each other!

and

Quote from: James JacobPersonally... I think "railroading" is good for the game. I don't call it railroading, though... I call it, "The GM is organized and has a plotline for the PCs to follow." I've been in groups where the GM basically lets the PCs decide what to do, where to go, and how to do it. Those campaings aren't very fun for me, since that basically results in 4 to 6 players each wanting to do something different, lots of arguments about what to do, and lots of false starts and unfinished leads. It all basically comes down to style of play, really.

If your style of play is one where a "railroad" is a detriment to having fun, you should absolutely not run pre-written adventures. ALTERNATIVELY: You should have an extensive library of adventures to draw on at a moment's notice, so that when you find out what the PCs are up to and where they want to go, you can go to your adventure library and find one that fits. In fact, this is the better option, since it means you're buying more adventures. :-)

"we do not mind being railroaded between the dungeon entrances"

This is an excellent distinction, I fully agree with. :)

Thanks for understanding.

BUT:
J.Jacobs is the editor, the author is some Steven Greer (sp?) guy.

He is downright insulting to me and my group. Pretty professional, I must say.

And after he was insulting me, Fanboiz felt free to do so too.

Quote from: SettembriniWow, they are actually pulling out the roll vs. role playing argument...the mind boggles.

This false dichotomy has been the worst thing for RPGs over the years.  A good game has so much more to it than just combat (roll / game) and character acting (role / narrative).

Their reasoning goes like this:

"To have good story, RR is unavoidable. If you complain about RR, you are a hack & slasher, and thusly not a good person and must be mocked succinctly!"


Sound familiar?

the last few adventures in savage tide were a big meh IMO.

Sadly, my misgivings about the partnership of Necromancer Games and Paizo were well-founded. NG hasn't exactly been cranking out the old-school adventures lately, but other than the chaffe churned out by Goodman, they were the only D&D publisher that did occassionaly publish a genuine old-school module.

That ship - commercial D&D - which has been diverging from my vessel of preferences for many years now, just disappeared over the horizon.

This article from Gamasutra is about player choices in games:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040310/fullerton_01.shtml

It includes this breakdown of types of choices in games:
    * Hollow decision: no real consequences
    * Obvious decision: no real decision
    * Uninformed decision: an arbitrary choice
    * Informed decision: where the player has ample information
    * Dramatic decision: taps into a player's emotional state
    * Weighted decision: a balanced decision with consequences on both sides
    * Immediate decision: has an immediate impact
    * Long-term decision: whose impact will be felt down the road

If a game only offers Hollow decisions, or Obvious decisions, or even NO decisions -- it's not really a game at all.  

Now, a a game could transfer the decisions to be about effective character acting or combat tactics -- and that's what a lot of story games and modern D&D style games try and do.  

However, if the quality of your acting has no bearing on the game then it's a Hollow decision.  If the combat encounters are so watered down and balanced, and the tactics to be used so self-evident to players that failure isn't an option then it's an Obvious decision.

These are not good decisions and do not make a good GAME.

(have not read the adventures in question, only read the above editor comments.)

Wow, it's disconcerting that Jacobs really doesn's understand plot as it applies to an rpg as opposed to a book or movie.  A forced plotline doesn't work for rpgs.  If you know how an adventure is going to end, then the characters are observers, not actors.  

Ideally, an adventure plot sets up a a complex situation where the players make a series of meaningful decisions that have the potential to dramatically alter the game.  To me me a plot driven adventure is set up like this:

1. NPC/Monsters, some of which are fleshed out with personalities and goals.  The plot is derived by overlapping and inconsistent goals of the NPCs and PCs.

2. Interesting locations where much of the NPC action occurs so are likely (but not guaranteed) to come up in play.  

3.  A timeline of default actions to advance the plot.  e.g. if the characters don't look for and find NPC Q, Q will kill X on day 4.

4.  A rough tree structure to give the GM advice.  e.g.  If the players to to location G, NPC Q follows them.  If the player goes to location H, NPC Q searches the stable.

As a GM, I love having no idea how things will end up.  But the above is a plot driven structure, not just a series of static locations.

This does indeed suck.

But I'm not sure if "railroading" is the same as "the Forge". Aren't a lot of those games meant to give players *more* options than a traditional RPG?

Quote from: Age of FableBut I'm not sure if "railroading" is the same as "the Forge". Aren't a lot of those games meant to give players *more* options than a traditional RPG?

Actually, Jacob's attitude reminds me of the worst of the AD&D 2E adventures, written by wannabe writers more than by game designers.

One of the problems lies in the type of product they are putting out, they are putting out a series of adventures that had to account for a number of playstyles, and fit in the amount of space alloted in the magazine. It was mentioned that the adventure in particular that the player had a problem with was a different style then others in the series, and from the comments of others who had read the adventure (the poster was a player who hadn't read it) I got the idea that there was more options to at least parts of the adventure then the DM had used/the players had found.  

I don't have as much of a problem with RR sections to adventures as some people, particularly where boats are concerned.  Unless my players have enough money to charter the entire ship or own/crew one themselves, then they aren't going to be the ones calling the shots on where the ship goes or when it gets there, that's what the captain of the ship is for.:)

Quote from: NicephorusWow, it's disconcerting that Jacobs really doesn's understand plot as it applies to an rpg as opposed to a book or movie.  A forced plotline doesn't work for rpgs.  If you know how an adventure is going to end, then the characters are observers, not actors.  

Given the success of the adventure path products, I'd say Jacobs knows exactly what works for today's market. He knows that most players prefer a meticulously crafted sequence of tactical challenges to sandbox play, and he knows that most DMs aren't capable of running the latter anyway. WotC seems to understand this as well; just look at the Delve format. They see D&D as a series of tactical challenges strung together by a prescribed plot.

Now, that wasn't always the case. A lot of players used to enjoy thinking outside the box and driving their own storylines. And a lot of DMs were capable of the kind of flexibility and improvisation required to run such a game. But with 3.x D&D's increased complexity and importance of tactical maneuver and mini-maxing , it has become rare to find players and DMs who enjoy both mechanical/tactial mastery, and story flexibility.

The really sad thing about Jacob's comment is that he obviously believes the first real adventure published for D&D was the Dragonlance series. I don't know what he thinks the rest of us were doing all those years playing the Village of Hommlet, Caverns of Thracia, and the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth.

Quote from: Age of FableThis does indeed suck.

But I'm not sure if "railroading" is the same as "the Forge". Aren't a lot of those games meant to give players *more* options than a traditional RPG?

Not really.  All they've done is generally either embedded the railroading into the system, or given railroad power to which ever player at the table is the loudest, usually at the expense of the GM.

I've had a lot of fun playing and Gm'ing tightly plotted adventures in the past. I also get a huge kick from sandbox campaigns, and am currently running one set in the Wilderlands.

Bearing that in mind it does strike me as a little odd that some people are decrying Paizo as being Forgist. As has been said, the railroad adventure structure can be traced all the way back to 1E Dragonlance (and probably a lot further), so let's try not kid ourselves that this is a new thing.

Quote from: DrewI've had a lot of fun playing and Gm'ing tightly plotted adventures in the past. I also get a huge kick from sandbox campaigns, and am currently running one set in the Wilderlands.

I think there's a ton of room between sandbox and railroad plot.  I think the big error of Jacobs is making plot and railroad equivalent.  You can have strong plot without having a set chain of location/events.  The better CoC adventures have this.

Quote from: NicephorusI think there's a ton of room between sandbox and railroad plot.  I think the big error of Jacobs is making plot and railroad equivalent.  You can have strong plot without having a set chain of location/events.  The better CoC adventures have this.

Absoloutely. There's a broad spectrum of possibilities out there.

All I'm saying is that tightly plotted adventures are not antithetical to fun. Plenty of people played that way long before the story/trad divisions were ever an issue. Many of them, myself included, had a great time with it too.

Quote from: J ArcaneNot really.  All they've done is generally either embedded the railroading into the system, or given railroad power to which ever player at the table is the loudest, usually at the expense of the GM.

Donjon doesn't seem to (haven't played it, only read the rules) - it seems to be meant to be 'traditional' dungeon-crawling, with a built-in mechanism that if a player gets a success they can use it to state a plot fact.

Quote from: HaffrungGiven the success of the adventure path products, I'd say Jacobs knows exactly what works for today's market. He knows that most players prefer a meticulously crafted sequence of tactical challenges to sandbox play, and he knows that most DMs aren't capable of running the latter anyway. WotC seems to understand this as well; just look at the Delve format. They see D&D as a series of tactical challenges strung together by a prescribed plot.

Now, that wasn't always the case. A lot of players used to enjoy thinking outside the box and driving their own storylines. And a lot of DMs were capable of the kind of flexibility and improvisation required to run such a game. But with 3.x D&D's increased complexity and importance of tactical maneuver and mini-maxing , it has become rare to find players and DMs who enjoy both mechanical/tactial mastery, and story flexibility.

I wouldn't mind a game that was a series of mini-board games, with a plot connecting them. But D&D isn't that game, because there's no huge skill or interest in the combats: it's more or less just 'pick the right feat, flank, don't provoke attacks of opportunity'.

(and yes I know they used to say D&D was a wargame, but I'd suggest that it isn't in the sense that the combat doesn't have enough genuine options for that to be the source of interest)

Anyway, in my experience railroady DMs/adventure writers aren't interested in the details of combat, they're interested in showing you their 'brilliant' fantasy plot.

Hmm.

For the players with PCs:
You get 'No Decision' about moving forward in the plot
You get a 'Hollow Decision' for any "Roleplaying" (because there's no real consequences to being a good actor or god awful)
And combat is more or less a series of 'Obvious Decisions' for the players.

What meaningful choices are left for the players to make?

Is the GM making meaningful choices?  If the GM has meaningful Decisions based on their "Roleplaying" (because it makes a big difference if they're good or bad at it), and the players DON'T have meaningful choices to make... then really, the GM is the player and the "players" are the audience.

:raise:

To be honest, Settembrini, you came across very abrasive and rude in that thread. A little more decorum would have gone further I suppose.

As for the attitude of forum posters and Paizo's designers, well, it is just the gaming mainstream which doesn't know the Wilderlands or even Keep on the Borderlands, neither does it give a damn about them. That, or people who have seen and actively rejected their model. The good answer to that is to inform and persuade, but do so without resorting to hard sale tactics. I am certain the games we love can be sold to discerning "customers" on their own merits!

WRT Paizo's deal with Necromancer, I wouldn't be an alarmist. It covers distribution, not creative direction (except giving Necro access to full colour art, which I ironically am not at all enthusiastic about...). If you want to worry, worry about the 4e rules and the game culture it will foster. Or Clark mentioning how he welcomes the end of Vancian spellcasting. ;)*



* ( :eek: )

Haffrung raises a sobering point, alas.

I get along fine with both the old-school crowd and the Forge crowd because both value meaningful player choice. I really hate the style of play commonly associated with Dragonlance and Vampire 1e and think it's no fun at all. Playing like that is barely even an RPG in my book. I kind of don't understand why you'd even bother.

But, a lot of people like it. These are popular products I'm hating on here.

The whole thing that made role-playing, whether dungeon-crawling or angst-ridden character drama, fun for me, was that I was the one making the choices. That was what made it different or better than novels and television. For me.

But, TV and novels kick the ass of all RPGs ever in popularity and sales.

So it may be that most people who gravitate to RPGs, like most people who gravitate to anything, just don't really care about the choice part much at all. They don't have it in their books or movies or shows, why should they have it in RPGs?

And so it may be that actually neither the old-school resurgence nor the Forge-associated 'narrativist' approach nor other newer games that put the emphasis on active player participation of whatever kind without a named ideologically driven approach to so doing actually have any real commercial cache for the broader audience.

It may be that the Railroad is actually what most people want and enjoy out of RPGing. That hanging out, rolling a few dice, listening to your friends, and listening to the DMs descriptions and plot development, with no real risk of death or challenge, is actually the preferred RPG experience for a lot of people.

Which sucks, but it may be how it is.

Quote from: MelanWRT Paizo's deal with Necromancer, I wouldn't be an alarmist. It covers distribution, not creative direction (except giving Necro access to full colour art, which I ironically am not at all enthusiastic about...). If you want to worry, worry about the 4e rules and the game culture it will foster. Or Clark mentioning how he welcomes the end of Vancian spellcasting. ;)*



* ( :eek: )

As I posted on the NG boards (under my alter-ego Merth), the question is whether the commerical mainstream has changed so much that 1E feel, 4E rules is still a viable model. I just don't think Clark, who seems enamoured with the meticulous calibration of stuff like the Shackled City, really gets how different that style of play is from what most old-schoolers enjoy. I have my doubts that any publisher who tries to sell stuff different from the WotC/ Paizo model of adventure will find a sizeable audience, unless it explicitly identifies itself as a throwback for grognards (like Goodman Games). There simply isn't enough common ground anymore for a publisher to be all things to all schools of D&D.

Quote from: CalithenaI get along fine with both the old-school crowd and the Forge crowd because both value meaningful player choice. I really hate the style of play commonly associated with Dragonlance and Vampire 1e and think it's no fun at all. Playing like that is barely even an RPG in my book. I kind of don't understand why you'd even bother.

But, a lot of people like it. These are popular products I'm hating on here.

The whole thing that made role-playing, whether dungeon-crawling or angst-ridden character drama, fun for me, was that I was the one making the choices. That was what made it different or better than novels and television. For me.

Well... "popular" is a relative term.  The entire RPG industry is ghettoized and not sharing the renaissance board games are.  They're "popular" compared to what?  Other RPG products?  Whoopee. ;)
I think it's *precisely* the lack of meaningful choices, or the confusion about which choices really matter that has hurt RPGs so much since they were at the height of their popularity.  Well... that and the business models, social stigma, excessive time requirements, etc etc :haw:

Quote from: CalithenaBut, TV and novels kick the ass of all RPGs ever in popularity and sales.

TV and novels will always be superior formats for people who want a story.

That's NOT where an RPG has it's advantage.  That's why an over emphasis on "Story" is such a bad idea.

Quote from: CalithenaIt may be that the Railroad is actually what most people want and enjoy out of RPGing. That hanging out, rolling a few dice, listening to your friends, and listening to the DMs descriptions and plot development, with no real risk of death or challenge, is actually the preferred RPG experience for a lot of people.

Hanging out, rolling a few dice, listening to your friends -- that's a board game.  That's "Popular"
listening to the DMs descriptions and plot development, with no real risk of death or challenge -- that's a (crappy) RPG.  That's not "popular".

:)

The Delve, well defined by Haffrung above, is obviously awful. Fine. And in the dungeon, remedies to the Delve are easily implementable.

But if for once we could leave the dungeon for the great outdoors, things get a bit more complicated. All playstyles have a deficient mode. The deficient mode of the sandbox style is careening like a flipper ball through a two-dimensional landscape whose cookie cutter population is being randomly generated on the fly by the roll of a die.

So, in the great outdoors, not to mention the urban environment, *something* has to be pre-established, e.g. a general web of power relations and a current dynamic in which the PCs get embroiled. In other words, not just a static "situation" and an inventory of NPCs but an active plot or plots that connect(s) them. Rob Conley has described that approach many times, and it has been my approach also.

Assertion: Those who will reject that approach wholesale by calling said embroilment railroading need to get out of the dungeon more.

Question: But then, what exact criteria might there be for distinguishing said embroilment from said railroading?

QuoteI think it's *precisely* the lack of meaningful choices, or the confusion about which choices really matter that has hurt RPGs so much since they were at the height of their popularity. Well... that and the business models, social stigma, excessive time requirements, etc etc

listening to the DMs descriptions and plot development, with no real risk of death or challenge -- that's a (crappy) RPG. That's not "popular".

I've always believed this too, Stuart, but Haffrung's post made me wonder. I mean, people buy and sell these products, a lot. Roughly half of the new D&D games I go to, even with pretty intensive screening, are just not fun for me, and I leave after one session. Many of those are not fun because it's just a series of fights or a 'stations of the cross' deal with the DMs dog-ass story. Not fun for me. Not fun for everyone? I begin to wonder.

What I got out of Haffrung's post is that maybe the reason that old-school D&D and T&T don't make a real comeback is the same reason that arty, setting-rich games like Amber or Runequest or Seventh Sea or Tekumel never catch on beyond their passionate fans is the same reason that most of the Forge's work has thus far just produced another motivated niche. Maybe what people want out of their RPGs is to sit down, zone out, eat junk food, have the DM describe things and tell them to roll dice, and then go home and do something else. To them it's a slightly more social version of TV or a novel, and nothing more. Maybe that's the market.

I hope not, but I think it's a possiblity we have to face, given the wide popularity of AD&D2 and Vampire, and given the number of D&D3 groups who basically play this way as well.

I think as long as you have SOME choice, you don't have to have EVERY choice in a game.  

You can go through the door to the North, or you can go down the hall to the East.

You can go into the town, or you can go through the woods to the stone circle.

I know some players want complete-freedom-all-choices-all-the-time but you need to balance that out with it being a game as well, rather than just a GM-computer virtual reality simulator. :)

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe deficient mode of the sandbox style is careening like a flipper ball through a two-dimensional landscape whose cookie cutter population is being randomly generated on the fly by the roll of a die.

You need more confidence in human imagination. A good DM armed with a good map and a good random encounter chart can make awesome adventures. Of course, what this comes to is playing connect-the-dots and doing what you describe below in play:

QuoteSo, in the great outdoors, not to mention the urban environment, *something* has to be pre-established, e.g. a general web of power relations and a current dynamic in which the PCs get embroiled. In other words, not just a static "situation" and an inventory of NPCs but an active plot or plots that connect(s) them. Rob Conley has described that approach many times, and it has been my approach also.

You fucking Forgist wankers with your Relationship Maps and Bangs.

QuoteAssertion: Those who will reject that approach wholesale by calling said embroilment railroading need to get out of the dungeon more.

Question: But then, what exact criteria might there be for distinguishing said embroilment from said railroading?

1. (This is the only real answer I have.) Player choices have to matter. Their characters interact with a dynamic structure that changes over time; those changes have to at least partly come about in response to player input, and be felt as so coming about. This requires some DM flexibility.

2. As Elliot always emphasizes, 'matter' in (1) is subjective. If someone really feels they have the right to go to a different city and leave your power relations grid behind, then their dickish game-breaking behavior is the obverse of your railroad.

3. A technique that often works to facilitate 1 in my book is to make at least some of the NPCs on your conflict web want things from the PCs and act on those wants. Harder to stay uninterested or aloof when people are asking you for things, manipulating you to do things, etc. etc.

Quote from: CalithenaMaybe what people want out of their RPGs is to sit down, zone out, eat junk food, have the DM describe things and tell them to roll dice, and then go home and do something else. To them it's a slightly more social version of TV or a novel, and nothing more. Maybe that's the market.

It's possible that's the majority of the current market of people buying mainstream RPG products in stores, circa right now.

My game is somewhere between boardgame and RPG anyway... and since the boardgame scene is so much healthier, that's where I'm focusing.  Of course that means it's a lot more work than if I just did a hand-wavey, no-choice, railroady RPG... but I wouldn't play that anyway.  And you should at least want to play your own game, right? :D

Battlelore finally gave me the mass combat system I've been wanting for D&D since 1977. 28mm painted minis on a double size hex map...the elves are about to cross the Aegyptian desert in search of the promised land...

Quote from: CalithenaYou need more confidence in human imagination.

A quarter century of empirical evidence can dampen the confidence... there are constellations where teh awesome will erupt from teh random, but it's rare. C'mon, you know that.

QuoteYou fucking Forgist wankers with your Relationship Maps and Bangs.

Fuck no!

The mere idea, ew.

But this leads me to postulate criterion 1: It's neither railroady nor Forgey when the conflict web does NOT extend to the PCs. It pre-exists them but in a decentralized fashion. They walk into it, but it's not spun around them. Just like in real life.

Quote2. As Elliot always emphasizes, 'matter' in (1) is subjective. If someone really feels they have the right to go to a different city and leave your power relations grid behind, then their dickish game-breaking behavior is the obverse of your railroad.

3. A technique that often works to facilitate 1 in my book is to make at least some of the NPCs on your conflict web want things from the PCs and act on those wants. Harder to stay uninterested or aloof when people are asking you for things, manipulating you to do things, etc. etc.

No argument here.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBut this leads me to postulate criterion 1: It's neither railroady nor Forgey when the conflict web does NOT extend to the PCs. It pre-exists them but in a decentralized fashion. They walk into it, but it's not spun around them.

On the nose. The "embroilment" shall not be aimed at the PCs unless and until they place themselves in its path. This may, optionally, as a matter of personal taste, include a certain amount of pre-positioning at chargen, such as defining your character's patrons, relations, and especially enemies. (And further optionally: the same can be done via "blue booking"  between episodes of an episodic campaign.)

But even without those options, it's interesting to entertain, for a moment, the idea that the embedded conflicts in a campaign world are railroading. The reason they aren't, IMO, is that while PCs may not be able to ignore OR (seriously be able to) change them, they don't dictate a particular response. This isn't to contradict Calithena's point (1) above that "player choices need to matter". Major world events may be inevitable from the PCs' perspective but they only "matter" insofar as they impact the PCs, and that's where player choices kick in. Epic "stop the dark lord" campaigns are typically railroads; making your way through Thirty Years War Brandenburg isn't, even though you'd better watch your step as various armies crash around on the map.

It's more of a problem when the player-characters just don't care enough to respond more than trivially to any event. Calithena's technique (3) is promising here. Of course it does raise the question for the PCs, "Why us?" (That is, "Are we on a railroad?") I don't have an easy answer for this, though I can suggest that NPC wants directed at the party could/should be provoked by prior PC actions, like finding some coveted treasure or information. Another way of looking at this is what I might want to dub the "Postman always rings twice" perspective: there's nothing special about you, except that you happened to be available. An example: Iazgyus the Grand Zupak of Vrim has a standing offer of 1,000 gold coins to whoever will bring him the head of Bilmin the White Ogre.

Or, depending on how the campaign develops, people may begin to seek out the PCs but only because they've developed a reputation.

But until then part of the assumption has to be that PCs are motivated to do the things that the players are interested in doing...or at least that the PCs are motivated to do things that lead to the stuff that players are interested in playing through. Like, being a mail carrier may not be that exciting in itself (sorry, grubman, just an example); however if it involves occasional encounters with folk who're interesting/dangerous, it may be just the ticket.

Quite so, Rabbit, quite so.

Quote"Why us?"

Because you're the fucking PCs, for fuck's sake.  I've yet to run into any groups or players where this was at all a difficult conceit to grasp, unless they were just being uncooperative imbeciles.  

What a bunch of navel-gazing.

Pierce, I never said anything else. The Grande Outdoors are perfectly handled in Xpert-Set Modules, or the Wilderlands. There´s conflicts, lines and webs of interaction.

But alas, a path carved into the wilds, with Us-Going-In-Circles-Until-We-Enter-Temple (I kid you not! you can´t walk past by it!), or a forced march along a ten foot (or should I say two square?) mountain ledge complete with scripted encounters of the literally unavoidableTM kind, devalues all player input.

@Melan: I was aggressive, because I was pretty angry. When you game weekly for three months hors after hours trying to make an influence, and the modules keep getting more and more encount4rded, it´s tough. Even moreso if you find out that two six hour strategy and course plotting planning sessions were in vain.
And after all that three months worth of shit, you are railroaded at last to a dungeons entrance and hope "At least that´s what they really can do at Paizo!" you are sent into a set-piece-unavoidable-frozen-in-time-single-room dungeon, you would be pretty pissed, too.
And I WANTED to convey the strong emotional side to this. Because it´s our free time, and we WERE very angry at the time of playing, for weeks. This is not something to be taken lightly. The after-hours-workday-scheduled weekly 3.5 game with people out of college is ONLY possible with published adventures, preferrably with a campaign. The whole setups crumbles if the DM needs to up his prep time even more.


BUT: James Jacobs seems to see some of the wrongs in Paizos ways. Here´s another thread opened up by one of the other players (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dungeon/savageTide/beefsWithTheSavageTideSpoilers) in the very same campaign, wherein JJ sort of admits the crime.

THE MOST shocking part for me were the fan responses, though. We are told not to think so much. And that sophisticated RPGers value the "Story" whereas only bad and dumb people like old modules which are only hack & slash anyways.

The mind boggles!

I never encountered more tactically reactive "I waste him with my crossbow"-style-hack & slash than in those Savage Tide Modules.

We were getting so pissed at everything, and our only mode of influence was to kill things. Go figure.

Quote from: CalithenaBattlelore finally gave me the mass combat system I've been wanting for D&D since 1977. 28mm painted minis on a double size hex map...the elves are about to cross the Aegyptian desert in search of the promised land...

I use "Age of Mythology Boardgame" minis in conjunction with it. I stat them up myself, and we already did some nifty battling with the Lords of the Citadel´s Invasion of the Elphand Lands.
It also worked great with the quasi-Siege of Duat.

The PC´s greatest and most important asset: A Lyre of Building.

The Paizo/ WotC model of adventure design isn't primarily about railroading. It's about meticulously laying out a sequence of tactical challenges so that each set-piece has just the right challenge and reward. Railroading is a neccesary element of this style of game because you can't have PCs tackling challenges before they are strong enough and so getting themselves killed, or gaining too much experience on side-treks and then wiping the floor with a tactical encounter that is meant to be climactic.

I was looking at some Paizo adventures at my FLGS on the weekend and I noticed they were all for a specific level. So no more 'An Adventure for Levels 4-6.' Instead, it's 'An Adventure for Level 6.' That has to tell you something about the premise of D&D today. The mechanics of D&D, from class balance, to damage potential per level, to spell power, to CR level, have been so finely calibrated that most players now expect that any fight in an adventure will be perfectly balanced to present them with the just the right level of challenge.

And you know what? They're right. A designer who understands the math underlying D&D 3.x can calibrate adventures and encounters to present just the right level of challenge. A warm-up encounter, followed by three resource-draining encounters, followed by a major enouncter that will push the PCs to the limit (but not kill anyone). Rest, restore, go tackle a couple more resource-draining encounters, and then the big adventure climax. Rest, level up, and you're on to the next series of tactical challenges. The Paizo adventure paths are indeed exemplars of adventure design for the kind of players who enjoy a series of carefully calibrated tactical challenges. And that seems to be most players.

Players who prefer or are accustomed to that model of play will become frustrated at the options and variable challenge level of a sandbox or web-model adventure. They will become frustrated when their PCs face challenges of varying severity, challenges that may be too much for the PCs to face. It's very difficult to present a nice, plotted scale of challenge when the players have real choices about whether to visit the Undying Duke's castle, explore the Dread Smoke Caverns first, or chase down the rumour about the buried treasure on Thrilanka Island.

I personally prefer the web-model of adventure and setting design. Ancient Kingdoms Mesopotamia is an excellent example of this format. You have the Red Wastes area mapped out, with descriptions of the tribes who live in the wastes, a cult, a desert of bones, the ziggurat of the vampire queen, the mines if Shishmesh, and the Lost City of Ibnath, which itself has several dungeon complexes. You have a history of the region, a description of the various factions, their schemes and ambitions, and the location of items that will further these ambitions. Each chapter has several plot hooks of how PCs could get involved, with motives ranging from the heroic to the mercenary*. This is all summarized in a page that breaks the setting down into chapters and possible sequences of playing those challenges. It's flexible, intriguing, and fantastic.

But I don't see how such a format would be appealing to that constituency (which I presume to be a majority of D&D players) who regard Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels as essential parameters governing proper design and fair play.

*Nothing pisses me off more than an adventure that assumes the PCs are heroic world-savers. Give me several motivations for play, that cover as many options from heroism to curiousity to greed to self-preservation to revenge.

QuoteTHE MOST shocking part for me were the fan responses, though. We are told not to think so much.

I just read that thread, and it confirms my presumption that the vast majority of players do indeed see adventures as a series of scripted tactical challenges, and they have no problem with it. It seems that 2E-style railroading is alive and well.

QuotePierce, I never said anything else. The Grande Outdoors are perfectly handled in Xpert-Set Modules, or the Wilderlands. There´s conflicts, lines and webs of interaction.

Oh, I know, Sector Duke. I was just speaking in the abstract.

The funny part re. Paizo: Most responses (but not Clark's) to a recent thread on the subject on the Necro boards are indistinguishable from the Paizo fans' reaction. That one did surprise me.

On a different note, are you saying that in your weekly game you actually, literally play the Paizo modules out of the box? Without even a readthrough first? I could understand that, given my own schedule, but, man, I'd rather not play than put myself at the mercy of that.

Nono, the DM must still prep a lot. Reading up the stat-blocks alone is a chore, you see they go all bonkers with crazy spells, abilities and stuff, he must do a lot of book flipping beforehand to run it as nice & smooth as he does. Hunt out the minis, print out the Dungeons and Handouts and Scissor them, read all the background, advance the timeline. Find pics for NPCs, advance their timelines... It´s quite a Materialschlacht, a "Spellgewitter", if you will.

Great fun and grandiose sights, as long as you can take part in it in a meaningful way.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityBut this leads me to postulate criterion 1: It's neither railroady nor Forgey when the conflict web does NOT extend to the PCs. It pre-exists them but in a decentralized fashion. They walk into it, but it's not spun around them.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOn the nose. The "embroilment" shall not be aimed at the PCs unless and until they place themselves in its path. This may, optionally, as a matter of personal taste, include a certain amount of pre-positioning at chargen, such as defining your character's patrons, relations, and especially enemies. (And further optionally: the same can be done via "blue booking"  between episodes of an episodic campaign.)

This accurately describes RPG use of relationship maps as outlined in The Sorcerer's Soul supplements by Ron Edwards.  He suggested not including the PC's in the relationship map -- matching the detective fiction he was using where the detective was not a part of the tangle of relationships.  Specifically, he suggested taking characters from a modern detective story, mapping out their relationships, and then presenting their tangle of conflicts as a scenario that the PCs may choose to engage with.  

Personally, I'm not so fond of this.  It is a trope of some fiction and some RPGs for the main characters to be rootless wanderers who solve other people's problems.  However, I've usually preferred more continuity where the PCs stay in mostly one place and have a bunch of relations and connections to where they are.  I've usually had the PCs an integral part of the action.  (This is the standard in Amber, for example, where the PCs are usually an integral part of family relations.)  

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut even without those options, it's interesting to entertain, for a moment, the idea that the embedded conflicts in a campaign world are railroading. The reason they aren't, IMO, is that while PCs may not be able to ignore OR (seriously be able to) change them, they don't dictate a particular response.

Exactly.  I don't think there's anything railroady about embedded conflicts or targetting the PCs as long as there isn't a particular path that you're trying to drive them towards.

Quote from: jhkimThis accurately describes RPG use of relationship maps as outlined in The Sorcerer's Soul supplements by Ron Edwards.  He suggested not including the PC's in the relationship map -- matching the detective fiction he was using where the detective was not a part of the tangle of relationships.  Specifically, he suggested taking characters from a modern detective story, mapping out their relationships, and then presenting their tangle of conflicts as a scenario that the PCs may choose to engage with.  

One wonders just how accurately one is able to describe an approach outlined in a book one has never even read; especially when that book was predated by 20+ years of actual play in that vein, including one's own; but which actual play the book seems to reinterpret in terms of the novelistic for its own well-known purposes.

Now, whether or not the waters are being muddied here by either R. Edwards or you or both, can be decided only by purchasing and reading said book, for which obviously there's not a chance in hell.

So, yeah. Thanks for sharing.

I think that targeting them "too directly" (note: subjective measure) can be railroady in effect if not intent. E.g. if the player's become highly attached/invested in some game world element, then endangering/destroying it may leave the PC with nothing interesting--all options look like one (crappy) path. Suppose they've come into possession of a ship; sinking it doesn't force the PCs in any particular direction. So I don't like to see stuff like that happen arbitrarily. I'd rather have it be a consequence of an established "fact" (even if that amounts to a roll on a random events table). Framing it as a challenge might also work: "the ship is attacked", or "there's a bad storm", or "there's a fire down by the harbor" what do you do? But in general, deliberately poking at the PCs just to see what they'll do, when they aren't asking for it is something I'd like to avoid. I'd rather if possible be looking at the big picture and then see how it impacts the PCs.

As for R-maps, I think the difference is that I'm looking for them on several scales (campaign wide down to the local) and with a lot of persistence, so you can leave one and return to it later in the campaign. Another thing that may differ from Sorcerer's Soul is that I expect time to be a factor; the R-map doesn't sit around waiting for the PCs to come and disturb it. I can dig episodic games but the sandbox is ideally something different.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe funny part re. Paizo: Most responses (but not Clark's) to a recent thread on the subject on the Necro boards are indistinguishable from the Paizo fans' reaction. That one did surprise me.

Link?

WRT fan comments on the Paizo boards, I really found interesting how acceptable illusionism (hidden railroading, a.k.a. "All roads lead to Rome") is among the posters. This technique was mentioned multiple times in response to the railroad problem, and went completely unchallenged.

Also: Settembrini, whatever I said about your posts, the comments on strategic/tactical depth are sound ideas. Have you explored the concept more thoroughly outside the Paizo posts?

In German, I did.
We also had some discussions about this and I have some undiscussed observations on DMin technique, we should talk about this sometime.

Link it! I can read German (but can't speak/write it anymore).

Quote from: MelanLink?

http://p208.ezboard.com/Paizo-Necro-and-oldschool-adventures/fnecromancergamesfrm9.showMessage?topicID=631.topic

Didn't you post in that thread yourself? :confused:

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think that targeting them "too directly" (note: subjective measure) can be railroady in effect if not intent. E.g. if the player's become highly attached/invested in some game world element, then endangering/destroying it may leave the PC with nothing interesting--all options look like one (crappy) path.

Sure, but there are a variety of approaches that can be railroady in effect.  For example, one approach is not targetting the PCs, but everywhere they go except for the GM's plot is boring.  The GM may even say to himself that he's letting the PCs do whatever they want, but since he doesn't make any creative effort except in his own corner, the choice is empty.  

A lot of techniques can be used in service of railroading or railroad-like behavior -- but can also be used for other styles.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut in general, deliberately poking at the PCs just to see what they'll do, when they aren't asking for it is something I'd like to avoid. I'd rather if possible be looking at the big picture and then see how it impacts the PCs.

My approach varies depending on the campaign and the genre.  Obviously if they don't want to have stuff happen to them, I won't do it as GM - or at least not more than once (since I might do it before they express such).  However, in a lot of campaigns, I won't wait to be specifically asked for such to do it.  In a superhero campaign or in my Buffy campaign, say, bad stuff would happen to the PCs all the time.  

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs for R-maps, I think the difference is that I'm looking for them on several scales (campaign wide down to the local) and with a lot of persistence, so you can leave one and return to it later in the campaign. Another thing that may differ from Sorcerer's Soul is that I expect time to be a factor; the R-map doesn't sit around waiting for the PCs to come and disturb it. I can dig episodic games but the sandbox is ideally something different.

I think you're stretching here to find differences.  I disagree with a lot of what Ron says, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to do the opposite of whatever he says.  

Sorcerer's Soul doesn't suggest that NPCs attitudes towards each other stay fixed.  They will have betrayals, seductions, revelations, and so forth among themselves -- as fits with modern detective fiction.  Actually, one of its suggestions is to sometimes only map the most primal relations -- blood and sex.  NPCs friendships or hatreds may change, but a brother is a brother and a husband will at least still be an ex-husband.

John, I am not talking about those other approaches that can be "railroady in effect." They may exist or not but I don't see how it relates. What I am saying however is that character-focused "Bangs" aren't part of the sandbox repertoire, as far as I'm concerned.

As for the second quote above, I misspoke: I don't mean to say that I hate all games where the GM pokes the PCs, just that when there's an understanding that this will occur, it (again) nudges the game away from the sandbox ideal. How far does it nudge? Depends on how frequent, how hard, and how direct the nudges are.

Finally, I'm not "stretching to find differences". I really don't know what exactly Sorcerer's Soul says, though I've read two of the other Sorcerer books; all I can say is that from an example I've seen by Ron, plus knowledge of DitV, which I believe is somewhat related conceptually, the approach seems to be aimed at compact, episodic scenarios linked mainly by PC continuity, rather than larger-scale games with world-continuity as an ongoing element.

(never mind, just wrote a huge response amplifying this post and the computer ate it, grump)

Quote from: Elliot WilenJohn, I am not talking about those other approaches that can be "railroady in effect." They may exist or not but I don't see how it relates. What I am saying however is that character-focused "Bangs" aren't part of the sandbox repertoire, as far as I'm concerned.

It relates to the original topic, I think.  In the original post, Savage Tides author James Jacob contrasted "strict rails" adventures like Sea Wyvern with "sandboxes" like Tides, Scuttlecove, or Enemies of My Enemy.  However, it seems that you have a much more restrictive definition of "sandbox" than simply being not "strict rails".  

My point is just that conflict webs, relationship maps (whether or not they include the PCs), and character-focused "Bangs" don't necessarily put a game any closer to "strict rails".  They are all still compatible with a lot of real player choice over direction of the game.  (Also, these have been talked about on the Forge, but they are not restricted to Forge-related games.)  

Regarding the original topic...  In my opinion, a well-prepared non-linear dungeon is no harder to run than a linear dungeon.  It can be difficult to run world-spanning and/or long-term play completely non-linearly.  It can also be difficult to run completely off the cuff.  However, there are a lot of options for well-supported play besides linearly preplotted adventures.  

I'm also skeptical about their popularity, though I don't have any solid basis for this.  It seems to me that it is at least extremely common for players to dislike strict rails in an adventure.

Can someone remind me what a "Bang" is.

Bloody Forgespeak. :rolleyes:

"A bang is a situation that requires a choice from the player as how the character will respond to the situation. "

That's hilarious. :haw:

Quote from: CalithenaThis is true of DitV and Trollbabe, but it is not true of Sorcerer.

Well, I popped into the game store on my way to lunch, had a peek in the R-Map section of Sorcerer's Soul, and it affirmed what I wrote above about compact scenarios. If Ron also describes something more like a sandbox in Sex & Sorcery, then...good for him!

QuoteBangs are not part of the 'core' sandbox repertoire, but they can IMO be a useful technique to add to it - that was related to the #3 in my previous response to Pierce.

Sure, and the concerns I voiced about #3 are pretty much that it can be too Bang-y.

Stuart, a Bang is when the GM inserts an event that necessitates a response from the player. In the narrow sense it's supposed to evoke a response that's "thematically significant" and so, in the narrow sense of that, it creates an opportunity for a moral choice of interest to the player. The idea has been informally applied to general RPG play; to make the repurposing explicit, I'd say it's when the GM "throws something out" which is designed to grab the players' interest and kick them into action, without narrowly forcing a particular action.

The reason I think they should be handled cautiously in a sandbox game has to do with the idea of the sandbox game-world serving as an opportunity and backdrop to character action--a dynamic backdrop, sure, but still a backdrop.

Quote from: Calithena(never mind, just wrote a huge response amplifying this post and the computer ate it, grump)

That'd be the one I partly quoted above, in case anyone's wondering.

John, I think the disconnect in our "railroady" back & forth is that several of us had been on a digression regarding sandbox play, which places a premium on freedom within the setting as opposed to compact but open-ended scenarios.

In fact in my current alternating-GM Basic D&D game, I think we have pretty much of necessity given up the idea of extensive player choice WRT the next scenario (though I'm trying to solicit a little input that I can use to riff off of on my turn), but within each scenario things are pretty wide-open.

No, actually I extended that one out to like a page because I felt more needed to be said, and then the comp ate it. The parts you quoted are OK though.

Sorcerer doesn't have a default 'sandbox' model in any iteration. But, it does have the thing where the GM 'plays the setting' according to its own logic in pretty much one traditional RPG mode, which has a lot in common with sandboxes. Kickers, bangs, and humanity checks serve in this model as 'filters' which focus that kind of play on character-relevant elements.

Which works like a revelation for a subset of gamers but tends to confuse or frustrate others. (I fall into the latter group, FWIW. I have a play mode that is a lot like 'narrativism' but as Clash said in another thread, I tend to use informal social techniques to reinforce it rather than game mechanics, and in general game mechanics for it fuck up my focus on playing the setting. I tend to hold the theory that that's just a matter of the systems I was trained on than anything intrinsically screwed about using mechanics to support that stuff.)

I had some other fine distinctions that I thought might be useful here, but basically it boiled down to the assertion that while Sorcerer is not a sandbox-GM game, it's not quite on the Trollbabe/DitV GM-model either.

Elliot -

Sandbox - inchoate wandering, snapping into form as stuff of interest to the players comes over the horizon. (The wandering is less inchoate when it includes fixed sites and lethal wandering monster tables, but I'd still argue that those things are part of the medium in sandbox play.)

Open-Ended Scenario - Leave out the wandering, and with it the snapping into form; the meaningful decisions are within broader structures imposed by the parameters of the scenario.

Kickers in Sorcerer let the players set major aspects of the scenario themselves, but just because of the kickers it's in this respect more like the second model than the first.

So - damn I hate that I'm thinking this thought on this board, but here it is - kickers are really a technique to let players 'railroad' themselves, which might be more satisfying content-wise than a GM railroad, but can't deliver the experience of spontaneous discovery through play in the same way the sandbox can. Even if you don't know how it's going to come out you know what it's going to be about.

Of course, opponents will point out that wandering for a long time to get to the good stuff has a cost of its own, in time and the danger that you never really get there. Which is true, but at least now we can compare relative merits.

"A bang is a situation that requires a choice from the player as how the character will respond to the situation."

As opposed to the the situations where no choice is required.  The players just stare back at you slack jawed and wait for you to say something else. ;)

So the GM introduces a situation and... wait for it... the player has their character RESPOND?

That sounds like what people have been doing with RPGs since day one.  Calling it a "bang" just makes it that much less straightforward than something like... "situation"... or "encounter"...

Could we all please try and express our ideas in commonly understood english and avoid using any of these made up terms?  :raise:

Thanks!

Quote from: CalithenaSo - damn I hate that I'm thinking this thought on this board, but here it is - kickers are really a technique to let players 'railroad' themselves, which might be more satisfying content-wise than a GM railroad, but can't deliver the experience of spontaneous discovery through play in the same way the sandbox can. Even if you don't know how it's going to come out you know what it's going to be about.

Ding! Ding! Ding!  We have a winnah!

Quote from: CalithenaSo - damn I hate that I'm thinking this thought on this board, but here it is - kickers are really a technique to let players 'railroad' themselves, which might be more satisfying content-wise than a GM railroad, but can't deliver the experience of spontaneous discovery through play in the same way the sandbox can. Even if you don't know how it's going to come out you know what it's going to be about.

I'm not sure that somebody can railroad themselves. You would have the choice to play Sorcerer or not, and the Kicker is up front. You know what you're getting into.

Added to that is that the GM can take the Kicker in many different directions. I think if Sorcerer has a flaw in these terms, it's actually that the breaking-point is whether the GM can do it in an engaging way.

The ideal (Platonic) sandbox set-up is absolutely more wide open to spontaneous discovery, but I think that if you make 'railroading' so broad there are no games without some form of railroading. "You're in the Wilderlands." "I leave and go to another continent." "Waitaminnit!"

Hiya, Droog -

That's why I put 'railroad' in quotes. Though, it must be said, anything can be 'railroading' according to the 'perceived to violate the game's social contract' standard. (This is point that Elliot never gets tired of hammering on.)

I liked the smackdown you put on Pundit in that other thread on the main board, btw.

So, let's try to make the point a little more precise. The point is that up-front content-fixing of a certain kind robs you of the chance of certain kinds of discovery in play.

Response: "But some of the content is always fixed. There are specific characters, a specific setting - this is unavoidable."

Counter: Granted. But, it doesn't change the point that if you choose to fix situational content up front, you don't get to discover what kind of situations you want in play, at the table.

Response: "Well, but you're talking about having the GM provide situation, right? Or else something like a random encounter table input to situation directly? So how is that any better than having the player choose it?"

Counter: The distinction here is not perfectly black-and-white, but it goes like this. The GM and tables provide elements: the GM additionally connects the dots between those elements and creates the sense of a moving, interconnected, organic world behind the surface explored by the players. When things get really interesting to people at the table - this is based both on the actions of players to have their characters focus on some things and not others, and on the GMs and players' aesthetic sensibility - you start adding more and more content to and focus on that stuff, and suddenly you're not wandering any more - you're in situation, but it just grew out of play.

-------------------

When the content above amounts to 'thematic' content and that's what the players at the table want out of play, I think in Ron's terms I might just be describing Ouija Board Narrativism. That passage is one of the only things in his corpus that annoys me sometimes. If so, the annoyance just stems from the fact that the Ouija Board works just fine, like it does for a lot of groups playing with, you know, Ouija Boards.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn fact in my current alternating-GM Basic D&D game, I think we have pretty much of necessity given up the idea of extensive player choice WRT the next scenario (though I'm trying to solicit a little input that I can use to riff off of on my turn), but within each scenario things are pretty wide-open.

I don't have much of a problem with running a sequence of pre-written adventures. What gets up my ass is when those adventures have scripted set-piece battles, or 'dramatic' events where the PCs save an NPC in the nick of time. Hate that shit.

Quote from: CalithenaI liked the smackdown you put on Pundit in that other thread on the main board, btw.

Always a pleasure.

QuoteWhen the content above amounts to 'thematic' content and that's what the players at the table want out of play, I think in Ron's terms I might just be describing Ouija Board Narrativism. That passage is one of the only things in his corpus that annoys me sometimes. If so, the annoyance just stems from the fact that the Ouija Board works just fine, like it does for a lot of groups playing with, you know, Ouija Boards.

I think I agree in general with what you're saying, though I want to make it clear that I don't think it's a distinction between 'better' and 'worse'. Each type of situation generator has its own strengths and flaws.

For instance, the type of adventure path being maligned in this thread is obviously, as you pointed out, quite popular. I'd say, off the top of my head, that the strength is that a lot of work can be put into colour and spectacle. Like I mentioned in the RQ thread, 'The Cradle' remains one of the most memorable adventures for my RQ group, for its epic spectacle (despite being a straight-up railroad). I'm fairly sure I couldn't have generated that sort of colour on the fly. The flaw is that it removes certain types of choice, which you and I currently agree are important types.

The strength of Kickers is that they get to the action quickly and (ideally) ensure that the situation will hold interest for the player. The flaw is as you point out.

I think the main point I'd take away from Ron's OBN is that nobody thinks the planchette is being moved, or everybody agrees to overlook that the planchette is in fact being moved (otherwise it's vanilla nar). I think Ron does say that OBN players vary greatly in the amount of fun they have; also that the wrong player in the group will lead to the planchette-mover being exposed.

Given that this thread has turned into one discussing Forgespeak and is now a kind of advertising/prosletyzing, I'm moving it to off topic.

RPGPundit

You're funny.

What if Paizo just stuck with making really nice maps to use with miniatures??

- Ed C.

Quote from: CalithenaWhen the content above amounts to 'thematic' content and that's what the players at the table want out of play, I think in Ron's terms I might just be describing Ouija Board Narrativism.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's virtually indistinguishable from Incoherence or Sim--especially Sim in the sense of "constructive denial". And the reason it bugs you (or at least me) is closely tied to what Chris Lehrich has said about the way that a hierarchical model treats edge conditions, when it begins to operate prescriptively: "What happens is that innovation at some point starts to push at the edge of the model, and if the model is prescriptive that pushing is interpreted diagnostically: it is a disease." Though in this case it's not innovation but, I believe, a style of play that's always been around but just isn't well understood by the creators of the model. (Also see Sett's comment here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=129421). Describing this brand of "traditional" gaming as a form of Narr is somewhat like calling the society of Kalahari Bushmen "democratic" or "socialist", or saying that Euripides was a capital-R Realist).

Now droog's ears are probably burning and he'd like to explain how the model isn't at all prescriptive, after which I can reframe it in terms of a discourse that's damn well prescriptive even if it may be evolving out of it (though in the course of that, largely leaving GNS and Narr behind)...but I'd rather focus on specific techniques. If someone wants to categorize them using a hierarchical taxonomy that means more to them than it does to me, they can get on with it by themselves.

Quote from: HaffrungI don't have much of a problem with running a sequence of pre-written adventures. What gets up my ass is when those adventures have scripted set-piece battles, or 'dramatic' events where the PCs save an NPC in the nick of time. Hate that shit.

Me too. And when viewed on the sandbox campaign level, it's also risky to create tightly-wound "pregnant situations" which are set to go off exactly when the PCs arrive, even if those situations are themselves open-ended.

Elliot,

Not saying the two things are the same. What I'd rather say is that this traditional model can be pushed in a 'Narrativist' direction, but needn't be (I think most play of this kind in its natural setting should be described as Incoherent in Big Modelese). The sandbox playstyle itself is a connected set of approaches to play, which can be harnessed to serve a variety of CA, or none at all, in accordance with the point of dissension from GNS orthodoxy you and I are agreed on.

Assuming we're right that the subset of this kind of play which is Big Model-Narrativist is what Ron calls Ouija Board Narrativism, though, I'd agree with you about the kind of mistake being made. Except instead of being highfalutin' about 'prescriptive models and edge effects' I'd just say Ron made a factual mistake there. Though the kind of thing Chris was talking about does happen.

-----------

Pundit's behavior here is amusing. Here he's got a thread with serious, systematic critique of his supposed bete noir, instead of the half-baked shit he spews in the absence of knowing what the fuck he's talking about, and he moves it to OT. The dude won't take a rifle for his own fucking war because he's so hot to keep jacking off with blunt knives.

I hate the separate theory forum here and being in the same community as RPGBitch almost as much as I hate the separate D&D forum on Big Purple. Is there any decent general RPG forum left? I prefer Cuntface to livin' in the ghetto, but I'd rather not have to choose.

Yawn.  "Systematic critique" is a waste of time.  It's insulting shit, and all you're doing is validating it by using their terms.  

Get your own fucking ideas, and stop polluting threads by rehashing weak ones that deserve to be forgotten, and then you won't find the threads getting moved.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Quote from: RPGPunditGiven that this thread has turned into one discussing Forgespeak and is now a kind of advertising/prosletyzing, I'm moving it to off topic.

RPGPundit

Pundit, would you kindly stop doing this stupid shit?

Quote from: droogFor instance, the type of adventure path being maligned in this thread is obviously, as you pointed out, quite popular. I'd say, off the top of my head, that the strength is that a lot of work can be put into colour and spectacle. Like I mentioned in the RQ thread, 'The Cradle' remains one of the most memorable adventures for my RQ group, for its epic spectacle (despite being a straight-up railroad). I'm fairly sure I couldn't have generated that sort of colour on the fly. The flaw is that it removes certain types of choice, which you and I currently agree are important types.

This I agree completely. I'm currently running Horror at the Orient Express (Call of Cthulhu), which is maligned by many as the biggest railroad ever. Well, it's one of the most popular Cthulhu adventures I've ever run, so much that my girlfriend played it, loved it so much that he read the campaign cover to cover, and she asked me to play it for a second time (playing NPCs and a support PC) just because she loved the colour so much.

QuoteThe strength of Kickers is that they get to the action quickly and (ideally) ensure that the situation will hold interest for the player. The flaw is as you point out.

This I also agree.

Quote from: J ArcaneYawn. "Systematic critique" is a waste of time. It's insulting shit, and all you're doing is validating it by using their terms.

I disagree with you here, Arcane. I'm no fan of GNS/ Big Model but I think that systematic critique can help people develop their own ideas, which seems to be your proposal. Critiquing a jargon does not validate it, IMO.

Quote from: Elliot Wilenhere (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=129421). Describing this brand of "traditional" gaming as a form of Narr is somewhat like calling the society of Kalahari Bushmen "democratic" or "socialist", or saying that Euripides was a capital-R Realist).

Well, no--if narrativism is a newly created thing, that would be the case. But if it is a description of the way people have played in the past, using the term is fine. It's more like using terms such as 'kinship system' or 'primitive accumulation'.

Otherwise, I think the OBN thing is something of a tangent and I'm quite happy to drop it.

Pundit?
Would you at least consider you know, like, fucking SPLIT the thread?

War is hell.

Quote from: SettembriniPundit?
Would you at least consider you know, like, fucking SPLIT the thread?

Sett - If I remember correctly, you're the guy that originally prompted him to move threads like this one. You practically requested this kind of action.


- Ed C.

Quote from: J ArcaneGet your own fucking ideas, and stop polluting threads by rehashing weak ones that deserve to be forgotten, and then you won't find the threads getting moved.

Yes.  If you want to discuss Forge / Storygames jargon, why not do it on Forge or Storygames? :confused:

Why continually try to force it's use here?

Quote from: StuartWhy continually try to force it's use here?

Nobody's forcing anything, Stuart. It grew naturally out of an exchange between me and Cal.

But the innocents always get hurt.

Speaking personally, I've never felt like I had much in common with the people on Storygames, and the Forge only allows theory discussion in the context of actual play reports, which are a lot of work to write up, though I do post there sometimes when I have one I want to discuss with those guys.

I personally don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Big Model anymore, but its terminology, flaws, disfiguring prejudices, and all, is the only serious, systematic language for discussing RPGs I know of. So it's basically an 'only game in town' thing. Levi's craft stuff, while perhaps more useful to most gamers, isn't really a theory in the sense I mean it, and the rest of the stuff (Threefold, Blacow, Robin's Laws, Real Men, etc. etc.) is at best similar to Levi's work and at worst either empty or wrong.

(Levi's Manyfold might be a theory, but insofar as I've been able to make it out as one, it's basically a variant of the Big Model which allows a greater multiplicity and compatibility of CA. Which claim I would agree with, but that doesn't make it a distinct theory in my mind so much as a challenge within the Big Model to some of that theory's claims.)

But even given a general desire to avoid theoretical discussion about RPGs, this board is the LAST place on the internet I want to talk about Big Model. It's just that, along with the bitchers (Pundit, J Arcane, Balbinus, etc. etc.), some of the most thoughtful, serious critics of the Big Model hang out here (Wilen, Morrow, Sett, Kornelson, etc. etc.) and so it comes up sometimes.

But probably not too much more.

Quote from: CalithenaBut probably not too much more.

Oh, I don't know! It could be a new sort of game. How many threads can you get moved to OT?

Anyone who writes off the Isle of Dread as 'not an adventure' needs their game design license taken away.

I'd also like to note that the introduction of Forge terminology has not done much to help this thread.

Quote from: ImperatorThis I agree completely. I'm currently running Horror at the Orient Express (Call of Cthulhu), which is maligned by many as the biggest railroad ever. Well, it's one of the most popular Cthulhu adventures I've ever run, so much that my girlfriend played it, loved it so much that he read the campaign cover to cover, and she asked me to play it for a second time (playing NPCs and a support PC) just because she loved the colour so much.

You know what? With a title that namechecks an actual frickin' train, I've steered clear of that scenario precisely because I expected a railroad.  Sett, did the fact that you're playing an 'Adventure Path' ever suggest anything to you?  I've never touched that stuff precisely because I expected the path to not have many forks.

Quote from: jrientsAnyone who writes off the Isle of Dread as 'not an adventure' needs their game design license taken away.

I'd also like to note that the introduction of Forge terminology has not done much to help this thread.

Jeff - who said that? That's crazy talk.

Isle of Dread is actually a good example of how a canned setting can lead to pretty fun, colorful play, with nothing more than evocative scenes, good fights, and a half-dozen seeds for stories that might spring up naturally out of play based on where you go and what you do.

The introduction of Forge terminology didn't even help threads on the Forge's own theory forums ultimately, which I imagine is in part why Ron closed them down. This is a drag, and I don't know what to do about it; the well is well poisoned.

I guess making up new terminology could be an option, but that's work, and also it would feel vaguely unclean to do that when so much of it would just be a rewriting of what's on the Forge already. Though I guess Vincent Baker managed to improve things a little in some corners of the internet by rephrasing some things in his own words and making some new contributions of his own.

Quote from: Calithena-----------

Pundit's behavior here is amusing. Here he's got a thread with serious, systematic critique of his supposed bete noir, instead of the half-baked shit he spews in the absence of knowing what the fuck he's talking about, and he moves it to OT. The dude won't take a rifle for his own fucking war because he's so hot to keep jacking off with blunt knives.

No.  
When you start using Forge Jargon in any capacity other than for criticism of the Forge (ie. when you start trying to use the Jargon to analyze games and other such bullshit), you are expressly doing what the Theory Forum wasn't supposed to be about.

So you're off-topic.  

Its been demonstrated that Forge Jargon is nothing but mindless doublespeak intended to promote internal-elitism and control conversation. Its based on flawed theories that ignore reality. Its therefore useless to any real examination of theory.

If you want to engage in a huge pseudo-intellectual circle jerk, you're welcome to do so; in off-topic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CalithenaJeff - who said that? That's crazy talk.

James Jacob - the bigwig at Paizo - said as much when he opined that all adventures should have a plot, and any adventure which doesn't is just a setting book.

As for Forge theory and big model or whatever the fuck it's called, I'd like to note for the record that I've been using the term 'immersion' because that's simply the best word for what I look for in an RPG. Just because someone else uses that word as part of a theory that Pundit hates shouldn't render it verboten. Terms like 'immersion' and 'gamism' have commonly accepted meanings outside Forge-speak. You see wargamers talking about simulation versus gamism all the time, and it isn't because of Ron Edwards, or some grand theory of wargaming.

Quote from: droogNobody's forcing anything, Stuart. It grew naturally out of an exchange between me and Cal.

But the innocents always get hurt.

Bullshit. Unless you're mentally retarded, you could always use the same words that regular human beings use, instead of having to descend into cultspeak.

Next time either make an effort, or fuck off.

RPGPundit

Quote from: droogOh, I don't know! It could be a new sort of game. How many threads can you get moved to OT?

If I get even the passing feeling that you're doing this sort of thing, Droog, you will be considered someone who is intentionally attempting to disrupt the functioning of this site.

So if I was you, and if you really give a shit about continuing to be here (I would think you might if only so that you can continue to try to spread your Forge doctrine for as long as possible), I would be very very careful to avoid injecting conversations in Forgespeak or attempts to dominate the conversation by creating assumptions with jargon.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrientsYou know what? With a title that namechecks an actual frickin' train, I've steered clear of that scenario precisely because I expected a railroad.  Sett, did the fact that you're playing an 'Adventure Path' ever suggest anything to you?  I've never touched that stuff precisely because I expected the path to not have many forks.

Yup, frankly I was never too drawn to paizo's stuff, for this reason among others.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CalithenaI personally don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Big Model anymore, but its terminology, flaws, disfiguring prejudices, and all, is the only serious, systematic language for discussing RPGs I know of. So it's basically an 'only game in town' thing.

It's a bit like saying it's the only brand of oven mitts created for playing the piano.  That might be, but it's still not helpful and you'd be better not to use them. :)

There's actually a fair bit of academic writing about games, interactive narratives, immersive worlds, and roleplaying.  They don't make up as much new jargon specific to RPGs though, and are more about comparing to other forms than creating a scientific model.

Quote from: CalithenaI guess making up new terminology could be an option, but that's work, and also it would feel vaguely unclean to do that when so much of it would just be a rewriting of what's on the Forge already. Though I guess Vincent Baker managed to improve things a little in some corners of the internet by rephrasing some things in his own words and making some new contributions of his own.

I know its crazy, but you could try speaking in motherfucking English...

RPGPundit

Pundit,

You forgot the 'demonstration' part of your demonstration. You're also pushing the edge here, as Melan's posts indicate.

As far as promoting internal elitism and controlling conversation go, there's definitely some of that that's gone on - as well as excessively negative description of common and valid modes of play - but that's just the theory's rhetorical penumbra, the resentments of some of its authors, and irrelevant to serious evaluation.

But anyway, you can put up or shut up on particular topics as you see fit; authoritarian pronouncements prove nothing.

Quote from: HaffrungAs for Forge theory and big model or whatever the fuck it's called, I'd like to note for the record that I've been using the term 'immersion' because that's simply the best word for what I look for in an RPG. Just because someone else uses that word as part of a theory that Pundit hates shouldn't render it verboten. Terms like 'immersion' and 'gamism' have commonly accepted meanings outside Forge-speak. You see wargamers talking about simulation versus gamism all the time, and it isn't because of Ron Edwards, or some grand theory of wargaming.

Immersion in and of itself is not jargon. Saying "immersion" or even saying "narrativism" does not mean you're engaging in Forgespeak.

When you say "immersion" in a way that implies "a faulty way of roleplaying"/"something that isn't really possible"/"what those brain damaged people think they're doing when what they really want to do is create story", etc. THEN you're engaging in Forgespeak.

So its not just about the words. The words only become Forgespeak if they're used in such a way that they attempt to inject certain fundamental ideological assumptions into the conversation in such a way that you can't then remove them without getting into a semantic discussion (ie. you either have to accept that "narrativism" is a real category of RPG play, one of only three that people will enjoy playing, and the most correct and sophisticated way of creating story OR you have to derail the whole thread to get into a debate about narrativism). This is the way the Forgies take over forums; by injecting more and more Forgespeak into the conversation, getting through all kinds of flamewars and thread-derailments from those few who try to resist them, until everyone is finally so tired that they just accept these words as Truth and give in.

Not here.

RPGPundit

Quote from: CalithenaAs far as promoting internal elitism and controlling conversation go, there's definitely some of that that's gone on - as well as excessively negative description of common and valid modes of play - but that's just the theory's rhetorical penumbra, the resentments of some of its authors, and irrelevant to serious evaluation.

That's a bit like saying "well of course there's definitely some Christian prosletyzing going on in Intelligent Design Theory, not to mention some political gamesmanship and such to try to bypass separation of church and state and get the Bible into schools- but that's just the "rhetorical penumbra" of Intelligent design, and the resentments of some of its authors, and its irrelevant to serious evaulation".

When a theory only EXISTS in order to satisfy the resentments and ideological agendas of its authors, then that means the entire theory is itself irrelevant to serious evaluation.

RPGPundit

Actually, the Forge stuff came up in relation to my conversation with Elliot and someone else originally, so droog didn't instigate it in this thread.

That said, if the mod policy here winds up being to ban any talk which derives from Forge theory, then I guess I'd be better served in the D&D ghetto over at big purple.

The immersion thing is interesting. Prominent Forge posters did say all the things that Pundit mentions at some point. I don't consider it part of the theory, and in fact, the theory avoids use of the word 'immersion' for the most part because, well, people over there got stupid about this topic at some point. Here's what the Forge Provisional Glossary has to say about it:

QuoteImmersion
This term has no single definition. Some uses, among others, include: (a) undivided attention to the Shared Imagined Space, (b) the absence of overtly stating features of Social Contract and Creative Agenda, (c) strong identification with one?s imaginary character. See Why immersion is a tar baby 'and 'Immersive Story by John Kim.

(b) is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with immersion. (a) and (c) are both forms of immersion; I suspect they're both forms of a single, more underlying phenomenon, which is the beast we're hunting when we talk about immersion.

That said, Pundit is right that there's a lot of polemic mixed in with the Big Model in a lot of its core expressions, of course. This itself is the source of a lot of the fights it leads to; it's expressed with a bunker, us-vs-them mentality all the way through, so no wonder it tends to encourage people to either gang up in its defense or feel better and resentful at the negativity sent their way. That stuff is there. I just sort of ignore that stuff and concentrate on the factual assertions the theory makes about gaming, many of which I agree with, some of which I do not.

Hmm.

But that's the exactly right thing to say about Intelligent Design, Pundit. If the arguments for ID were good, I'd be a believer, despite my other disagreements with the messengers. The Nazi doctors discovered some things about medicine in their horrible experiments on Jews and others in the concentration camps; the monstrous things they did to make those discoveries doesn't change the fact that they discovered some things about medicine doing them. (There is a case that can be made for striking such discoveries from the history books, to discourage people from doing such things; I don't buy that line of reasoning in most cases, but it's there.) It doesn't make the medical discovery false that it was created in in a morally monstrous way, or for morally monstrous purposes.

I don't believe in any form of intelligent design or creationism because it's not a better explanation of the complexity and adaptation of life on earth than evolutionary theory provides. That's all. The fact that most of the people who support it are also people I have political and religious disagreements with, or that same use the theory to serve that agenda, is simply not relevant.

You know what, random Internet people? I just want a messageboard where I can discuss RPGs without moderation/board segregation fucking up the discourse because of ulterior agendas. Pundit, you are going against the board's basic ideas by working aginst the free exchange of ideas. Don't do it.

(And with this said, I'm off to spend the evening reading Neal Stephenson. Woo-hoo!)

Quote from: RPGPunditGiven that this thread has turned into one discussing Forgespeak and is now a kind of advertising/prosletyzing, I'm moving it to off topic.

To be honest, I don't think it belongs in "Off Topic", either.  How about creating a group specifically as a garbage dump for threads that are about role-playing but fall into Forgespeak (e.g., Forgespeak Garbage Dump or something like that) with a nice sticky message or two at the type where you explain why you think Forgespeak is bad and why threads that use a lot of Forgespeak wind up there?  You could also possibly prevent (if the software allows) users from creating new threads there, so it's only a place ot move other threads.  

This thread doesn't belong among the discussions of bacon and Chuck, either.

Quote from: CalithenaThe immersion thing is interesting. Prominent Forge posters did say all the things that Pundit mentions at some point. I don't consider it part of the theory, and in fact, the theory avoids use of the word 'immersion' for the most part because, well, people over there got stupid about this topic at some point. Here's what the Forge Provisional Glossary has to say about it:

QuoteImmersion
This term has no single definition. Some uses, among others, include: (a) undivided attention to the Shared Imagined Space, (b) the absence of overtly stating features of Social Contract and Creative Agenda, (c) strong identification with one?s imaginary character. See Why immersion is a tar baby 'and 'Immersive Story by John Kim..

Go and read the post I made last night on Immersion (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8133).

It's mostly quotes from academic papers on Immersion and gives a much clearer picture of what people are talking about.

Quote from: jrientsYou know what? With a title that namechecks an actual frickin' train, I've steered clear of that scenario precisely because I expected a railroad.

Dude.

The scenario is called like that because PCs go from one location to another in search of fragments of a statue, using that train. The adventure doesn't take part on the train (except for two brief spots): it's done in the cities along the route. So, you play in London, Paris... and the scenarios there are not very much railroady, at all.

I frankly feel that many complaints of railroading in that adventure come from people who have not played it, but YMMV and all that.

I did, Stuart. I even started a response post with the words "Good stuff", but then I didn't have enough extra to contribute to post it, so I didn't. I'd also add that Forge-associated people e.g. at Vincent Baker's "Knife Fight" have recognized that that's a place where the ongoing body of theory under discussion needs work. In addition to those discussions, some old exchanges between me and Victor Gijsbers and others at the Forge, between me and Morrow and Snead and Baker and lots of others at rpg.net, and some important diagnostic work at Mo's "Sin Aesthetics" blog have advanced things a little IMO.

But, you know what? There is a good moral argument against using Big Modelese, regardless of what the theory gets right or wrong, made most recently to me by Sett and Jreints, which is that it fucks up communication and personal relationships. I like and agree with a lot of what Pundit has to say about a certain kind of gaming, I think FtA is cool, and I also find his brash attitude refreshing on many (though not all) gaming-related issues. J Arcane forced me to be more intellectually honest in my thoughts about religion on the Big Purple, and I deeply respect Balbinus' opinions on eighties-style gaming. But I have serious conflicts with these three people basically solely because of Big Model wars.

So you know what? Fuck it. I'll take your challenge, Pundit. From now on, not only here but elsewhere, when I want to do systematic RPG theory, I'll do it either in English or by coining or appropriating terms that make sense to me and explaining what I mean by them when I use them.

Not because I don't think that Ron & the gang got at least some important things right, but because the language they used makes it impossible to talk about those things in a helpful way.

I suspect Levi got to this same point a long time ago, which is why he's gone the way he did: I know there are some important things he agrees with the Big Model gang on, but he just talks about them in his own way, and I think in light of what's happened to internet discourse on RPG theory, that's probably the best approach.

Quote from: StuartIt's mostly quotes from academic papers on Immersion and gives a much clearer picture of what people are talking about.

To be honest, I'm not sure it does because what people are immersing in and the perspective from which they are doing it matters a great deal.  I think you are, in essence, creating another definition like "simulation", where lots of things seem to fit the definition but they aren't really the same, don't have much in common with each other, and the techniques that encourage on can destroy another.  That never ends well in theory discussions once people start saying, "If you want X, you need Y," because Y helps one form of X but ruins other forms of X.

Quote from: CalithenaI did, Stuart. I even started a response post with the words "Good stuff", but then I didn't have enough extra to contribute to post it, so I didn't. I'd also add that Forge-associated people e.g. at Vincent Baker's "Knife Fight" have recognized that that's a place where the ongoing body of theory under discussion needs work. In addition to those discussions, some old exchanges between me and Victor Gijsbers and others at the Forge, between me and Morrow and Snead and Baker and lots of others at rpg.net, and some important diagnostic work at Mo's "Sin Aesthetics" blog have advanced things a little IMO.

I found the discussion about immersion on "Knife Fight" to be a bit strange for the same reason why the one on Story-Games right now is strange.  Too many people who don't do it or don't really understand it (and quite a few say so at one point or another) are trying to define what it is and how it works from the outside or trying to pick a definition that makes sense and feels comfortable to them.  Defining how other people role-play, instead of just asking them and believing what they tell you, also never seems to end very well, because the guesses are rarely right.

And even though I've had lengthy discussions with Vincent Baker and a few others about immersion, and I'm convinced that they do something like what I do and some other people do (e.g., John Snead), I think the fact that Vincent Baker can reconcile certain techniques with immersion while I can't (and other people can't) suggests that either we're not doing the exact same thing or that different people have different things that get them there or disrupt it.  So what that means is that any generalized statement about "immersion", how to encourage it and how not to destroy it, will almost be guaranteed to be wrong for quite a few people.

Quote from: CalithenaI guess making up new terminology could be an option, but that's work, and also it would feel vaguely unclean to do that when so much of it would just be a rewriting of what's on the Forge already. Though I guess Vincent Baker managed to improve things a little in some corners of the internet by rephrasing some things in his own words and making some new contributions of his own.

You know, I have rankled at the accusations of simple minded techies trying to understand the intricate complexities of "Story" and how they just get it wrong because they have no hope because they are techies. Still, I have to think this preoccupation with jargon is a side effect of techies involved in the analysis of games. Techies use jargon for job security. A very small number of us use it as a tool to compress complex ideas and communicate them to others who must understand those complexities in order to implement a complex system.

Games can be explained in plain English. Technology, if you are good at it, can be explained in plain English. I know, it is one of the things I do. So, I have no problem with a term like "Story Now" being used because I can figure that out from context. Some acronyms I got nothing on. The ones that cheese me the most are the ones that mean something else from what the rest of the world might understand them to mean.

So, honestly Calithena, what are the terms you cannot find alternatives for? Because honestly, someone else said it best, take off the piano mitts. ;)

Bill

Edit: Looks like I was too late. :)

Quote from: John MorrowTo be honest, I'm not sure it does because what people are immersing in and the perspective from which they are doing it matters a great deal.  I think you are, in essence, creating another definition like "simulation", where lots of things seem to fit the definition but they aren't really the same, don't have much in common with each other, and the techniques that encourage on can destroy another.  That never ends well in theory discussions once people start saying, "If you want X, you need Y," because Y helps one form of X but ruins other forms of X.

I'm not sure why you think it's so vague.  I think it's fairy specific -- more specific than a lot of terms we've seen in use to date.  It's much more specific than "Narrativism" or "Simulationism".

Quote from: HinterWeltStill, I have to think this preoccupation with jargon is a side effect of techies involved in the analysis of games. Techies use jargon for job security. A very small number of us use it as a tool to compress complex ideas and communicate them to others who must understand those complexities in order to implement a complex system.

To be honest, I don't think that's always true.  Discussions like those on rec.games.frp.advocacy developed their jargon pretty organically (and some of the Forge terminology seems to have been organically created, too) because people wanted a shorthand to talk about ideas that can't be neatly compressed into plain English of a reasonable length and/or because the original terminology where people used plain English seemed clumsy.  In some cases, I think the original terminology is actually more clear.

Here (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/81db63d48b390693?dmode=source) is an early attempt to summarize the theory discussions on rec.games.frp.acvocacy that, in retrospect, is often a lot clearer than the terminology that was polished over time.  For example, it defines the points that would become the GDS as "Interactive Storytelling", "IC [In Character] Experience" and "Problem-Solving", which are all more clear and straightforward than "Dramatism", "Simulationism", and "Gamism" and, yes, that's the origin of those three styles.

Quote from: droogWell, no--if narrativism is a newly created thing, that would be the case. But if it is a description of the way people have played in the past, using the term is fine. It's more like using terms such as 'kinship system' or 'primitive accumulation'.

This is the nub of our disagreement. I say it is newly created, because of the history of its construction and ongoing usage; you say it's a purely descriptive term. I think you're engaging in idealization here, trying to separate your reconciling of the theory's problems from the problematic context in which it developed and thrives. No doubt we can go back and forth about this for quite a while but ultimately as demonstrated here it amounts to derailing the thread.

Quote from: ImperatorThis I agree completely. I'm currently running Horror at the Orient Express (Call of Cthulhu), which is maligned by many as the biggest railroad ever. Well, it's one of the most popular Cthulhu adventures I've ever run, so much that my girlfriend played it, loved it so much that he read the campaign cover to cover, and she asked me to play it for a second time (playing NPCs and a support PC) just because she loved the colour so much.

This I also agree.

I disagree with you here, Arcane. I'm no fan of GNS/ Big Model but I think that systematic critique can help people develop their own ideas, which seems to be your proposal. Critiquing a jargon does not validate it, IMO.

There's only so many ways you can beat a dead horse.

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure why you think it's so vague.  I think it's fairy specific -- more specific than a lot of terms we've seen in use to date.  It's much more specific than "Narrativism" or "Simulationism".

A lot of people have defined "Simulationism" in a very specific way.  A lack of specificity is not the main problem with that category.  The fact that it includes many things in the same category that don't have a lot in common is.

Yes, you've provided a very specific definition of "immersion".  But if I put everyone who does something that falls into that definition into the same game and apply a particular technique to help the players immerse, will it be likely to help them all or will it help some, do nothing for some, and make the game worse for others?  

What's the benefit of a player saying that they enjoy "immersion" if what they mean, on a practical game-play level, means something very different from what another player means when they say that they enjoy immersion?

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen a theory only EXISTS in order to satisfy the resentments and ideological agendas of its authors, then that means the entire theory is itself irrelevant to serious evaluation.

Is there some way this isn't the spiritual subtitle to The Landmarks?


Now there's a heading you can be proud of.

Quote from: John MorrowTo be honest, I don't think that's always true.  Discussions like those on rec.games.frp.advocacy developed their jargon pretty organically (and some of the Forge terminology seems to have been organically created, too) because people wanted a shorthand to talk about ideas that can't be neatly compressed into plain English of a reasonable length and/or because the original terminology where people used plain English seemed clumsy.  In some cases, I think the original terminology is actually more clear.

Here (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/81db63d48b390693?dmode=source) is an early attempt to summarize the theory discussions on rec.games.frp.acvocacy that, in retrospect, is often a lot clearer than the terminology that was polished over time.  For example, it defines the points that would become the GDS as "Interactive Storytelling", "IC [In Character] Experience" and "Problem-Solving", which are all more clear and straightforward than "Dramatism", "Simulationism", and "Gamism" and, yes, that's the origin of those three styles.

hmm, organic or not, I meant there is a predisposition for jargon. Non-techies do it as well. Just about every profession does. It has to do with basic human nature to be special, to have secret knowledge that can only be gained by the few who are smart enough. This also adds to the idea that something must be complex. If it is complex, and shadowed in mystery, then you are special for knowing it and even studying it. It could just be me, but game theory is complex because it has little to do with actually playing games. Playing games is such a subjective endeavor as to defy abstraction and objective quantitative analysis.

Do not get me wrong, there are complex things in this world. I feel gaming is not one of them, at least not one requiring a whole new lexicon of words to describe it.

Bill

Quotetrying to separate your reconciling of the theory's problems from the problematic context in which it developed and thrives

This is how theories should be read, IMO. With respect to your disagreement, there has always been a subset of gamers specifically interested in imaginative content which focuses on wrestling with moral and emotional challenges, even back in the misty 70's.

As promised in my earlier post, though, I'll leave it to you guys to decide what that means about the Big Model.

Quote from: ImperatorDude.

The scenario is called like that because PCs go from one location to another in search of fragments of a statue, using that train. The adventure doesn't take part on the train (except for two brief spots): it's done in the cities along the route. So, you play in London, Paris... and the scenarios there are not very much railroady, at all.

I frankly feel that many complaints of railroading in that adventure come from people who have not played it, but YMMV and all that.

Dude.

A railroad is about having to follow a prescripted plot. Horror on the Orient Express does it one better. It is a concatenation of singularly idiotic coincidences, linked in time and space by a ride on the plothole train. The Russian Formalists would call that laying bare the device.

"B-But did you play it, PI?"

Dude.

Seduced by the handouts, I bought the most expensive campaign of my gaming career, then read it through cover to cover and realized: My players will eat me alive if I ever serve them this pile of shit.

Coincidentally, I'm with Pundy on this one. As soon as a thread devolves into Ron Edwards exegesis, it's off topic for purposes of this site. The last thing TheRPGsite should become is a substitute for the Forge's closed theory forums.

Quote from: HinterWelthmm, organic or not, I meant there is a predisposition for jargon. Non-techies do it as well. Just about every profession does. It has to do with basic human nature to be special, to have secret knowledge that can only be gained by the few who are smart enough.

I think the motivation is far less sinister and far more mundane.  I think people are simply lazy and want to shorten complex concepts into simple words or phrases so they don't have to keep clarifying and repeating themselves.  

Quote from: HinterWeltDo not get me wrong, there are complex things in this world. I feel gaming is not one of them, at least not one requiring a whole new lexicon of words to describe it.

What makes a lot of this complicated is that people are trying to explain personal preferences of taste to other people who don't necessarily just "get it".  For example, I like spinach and I don't like broccoli.  That's simple.  But if you like broccoli and hate spinach, it's going to be difficult for me to explain to you why I don't like something you like and why I do like something that you don't like, and vice versa.

Quote from: CalithenaI did, Stuart. I even started a response post with the words "Good stuff", but then I didn't have enough extra to contribute to post it, so I didn't. I'd also add that Forge-associated people e.g. at Vincent Baker's "Knife Fight" have recognized that that's a place where the ongoing body of theory under discussion needs work. In addition to those discussions, some old exchanges between me and Victor Gijsbers and others at the Forge, between me and Morrow and Snead and Baker and lots of others at rpg.net, and some important diagnostic work at Mo's "Sin Aesthetics" blog have advanced things a little IMO.

But, you know what? There is a good moral argument against using Big Modelese, regardless of what the theory gets right or wrong, made most recently to me by Sett and Jreints, which is that it fucks up communication and personal relationships. I like and agree with a lot of what Pundit has to say about a certain kind of gaming, I think FtA is cool, and I also find his brash attitude refreshing on many (though not all) gaming-related issues. J Arcane forced me to be more intellectually honest in my thoughts about religion on the Big Purple, and I deeply respect Balbinus' opinions on eighties-style gaming. But I have serious conflicts with these three people basically solely because of Big Model wars.

So you know what? Fuck it. I'll take your challenge, Pundit. From now on, not only here but elsewhere, when I want to do systematic RPG theory, I'll do it either in English or by coining or appropriating terms that make sense to me and explaining what I mean by them when I use them.

Not because I don't think that Ron & the gang got at least some important things right, but because the language they used makes it impossible to talk about those things in a helpful way.

I suspect Levi got to this same point a long time ago, which is why he's gone the way he did: I know there are some important things he agrees with the Big Model gang on, but he just talks about them in his own way, and I think in light of what's happened to internet discourse on RPG theory, that's probably the best approach.

I'm very glad to hear this, Calithena. I think that you'll find that if you actually want to communicate your ideas about RPGs, this is the way to go, especially on this site.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Christmas ApeIs there some way this isn't the spiritual subtitle to The Landmarks?

Landmarks of Gaming Theory:
Which exist only to satisfy the resentments and ideological agendas of their author

Now there's a heading you can be proud of.

Well, the Landmarks aren't a theory, they're a manifesto about theory, demanding that any theory, to be useful, must base itself on certain inherent self-evident truths (particularly that regular roleplaying is what most gamers actually play, and ENJOY playing).

RPGPundit

Just to clarify my own position here: Discussions, including those on message boards, don't happen in a vacuum. They have a historical dynamic to them. What was productive about debating issue X in Spring 07 becomes tedium in November.

We know where we stand on issue X. What was to be learned was learned. We're done. The issue can be and occasionally is being kept alive, or rather undead, for all sorts of reasons, but just not for purposes of meaningful intellectual exchange aimed at producing mutual insight whether or not one may agree with one's interlocutor.

The very function of the debate about the issue has changed, and for the worse. That's why I'm increasingly hostile to this shit.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityCoincidentally, I'm with Pundy on this one. As soon as a thread devolves into Ron Edwards exegesis, it's off topic for purposes of this site. The last thing TheRPGsite should become is a substitute for the Forge's closed theory forums.

I am too! But fuck, you could have just nicely spliced the infested part off.

You know, thread splitting. It´s not unheard of here, is it?

Quote from: droogThe ideal (Platonic) sandbox set-up is absolutely more wide open to spontaneous discovery, but I think that if you make 'railroading' so broad there are no games without some form of railroading. "You're in the Wilderlands." "I leave and go to another continent." "Waitaminnit!"

Ironically... or perhaps I should say 'illustratively' my players did just that to me in my RQ AP thread.  They were in the big city, had a half dozen 'adventure hooks' they could follow up on, and they went half way across the continent (actually: Harder than if they'd simply hopped on a boat and sailed to the other continent....) with a pepper caravan... then stayed in the new land instead.

No real Waitaminnit! from me other than here. THey wanted to go East, they went East and I adapted.

Is that Platonic? Or just how the game played out?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf I get even the passing feeling that you're doing this sort of thing, Droog, you will be considered someone who is intentionally attempting to disrupt the functioning of this site.

So if I was you, and if you really give a shit about continuing to be here (I would think you might if only so that you can continue to try to spread your Forge doctrine for as long as possible), I would be very very careful to avoid injecting conversations in Forgespeak or attempts to dominate the conversation by creating assumptions with jargon.

RPGPundit

And you can suck my wanger.

Quote from: SpikeIs that Platonic?

No--sounds like a bitch for you, though.

Anyways, back on topic.

It's been my experience that the planned series of increasingly difficult tactical encounters as described by Haffrung is the way D&D players in my community here play the game.  It's one of the more significant reasons why I have such a hate-on for D20.  I found that conversation over at Paizo that Sett linked to to be profoundly unsettling.  Makes the war talk here seem a lot less annoying, considering that the majority of the conversation is among open-minded people.  But over at Paizo, fuck those people were like zombies.  Blaming the OP for having read the adventure after and saying that's the only reason he knew it was a railroad.  They are such slaves to the Encounter Level or whatever it is called that they've sacrificed their own freedom to ensure a perfect climax.  I guess it must work, but it sure doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Spike, the droog quote is showing he doesn´t understand the Sandbox mindset. The problem he adresses doesn´t exist.
If the players go somewhere else, you roll up somewhere else.

Quote from: SettembriniSpike, the droog quote is showing he doesn´t understand the Sandbox mindset. The problem he adresses doesn´t exist.
If the players go somewhere else, you roll up somewhere else.

Settembrini, my old cabbage! You just can't stay away!

Of course I understand your precious mindset. I was doing sandbox when you were playing in a sandpit. A few years ago I was statting out the entire Earth of the 6th century AD, from China to Africa.

Quote from: droogNo--sounds like a bitch for you, though.

It was something of a challenge, but I also cheated a little. Since they wanted to jump on a caravan to 'someplace else' I gave them some bait to an area I had recently been developing, then I dragged the caravan process out a few sessions to give me more time to refine my ideas.

So: They picked where to go, but I controlled the pace of how fast they got there...:D

Quote from: walkerpAnyways, back on topic.

It's been my experience that the planned series of increasingly difficult tactical encounters as described by Haffrung is the way D&D players in my community here play the game... They are such slaves to the Encounter Level or whatever it is called that they've sacrificed their own freedom to ensure a perfect climax.  I guess it must work, but it sure doesn't sound like much fun to me.

The worst thing about this dominant model of adventure design is not simply that it sacrifices player freedom (though that does suck), but that players nurtured on this model regard any setting or adventure that isn't built on a finely calibrated CR/EL/XP rollercoaster as bad design. They assume that an anomalous deadly encounter is evidence of an incompetent designers, and that any adventure that gives players different motivations and different ways to do things is unfocused.

The success of Paizo can't help but shape the D&D adventure market, and punish those designers who don't follow a strict CR/EL/XP progression model. Sure, happy ghettos like the Dungeon Crawl Classics can survive, provided they explicitly declare their old-school allegiances. But I doubt any 4E publishers will find any traction among the mainstream WotC market for anything but inflexible clockwork adventures.

Which means that you and I, Haffrung, are free to play the kind of D&D we like in whatever system we like, from the brown books to 4e.

If the community won't support us, there's no cost in playing the game we want to play it.

That said, I think that there is a certain phenomenon of 'fanboy retrenchment' on the internet. When people criticize something we like, we tend to want to defend it, even when the criticisms are valid. So there may be some of that going on there. I'm not going to read the thread to find out.

Quote from: SpikeIt was something of a challenge, but I also cheated a little. Since they wanted to jump on a caravan to 'someplace else' I gave them some bait to an area I had recently been developing, then I dragged the caravan process out a few sessions to give me more time to refine my ideas.

So: They picked where to go, but I controlled the pace of how fast they got there...:D

So you did actually control the process a bit. You nudged them in a specific direction, which starts to get away from the Platonic ideal.

I wouldn't fault you for that, either as a player or a fellow GM (I've done it myself), but I'm just saying that it's 'railroading' in Cal's broad sense. He revised what he was saying later, so it only applies to his original formulation.

Settembrini suggests that you can just 'roll up' another area. Well, possibly--if you have charts for every possible area the PCs could take it into their heads to visit. I do think that even if this were the case, you run into the 2D problem Pierce mentioned. Say you've got the Wilderlands in all its detail; how can you detail another environment to that level in a reasonable time? Considering you bought the Wilderlands to save on prep time in the first place?

My own solution, if I were to run a game like this again, would be to come clean and say "Look, guys, I need a few weeks to prep if that's where you're going. Let's play another game next week."

This is where at least some minimal implication of the characters in the setting, or commitment of the players to it, is necessary in practical terms. And yes, in some very broad senses, it could be seen as railroading (or self-railroading when there's some collaboration in selecting or constructing a setting). But in a practical sense, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You can only have a completely open setting if it extends infinitely in all directions...and if the rules are different in different places...etc. My life is 'railroaded' by virtue of being confined to the 2d surface of the earth--would that that were the extent of my constraints!

Just getting Spike up to speed.

droog, you seem to be assuming that the caravan leaves the campaign map.  Is that so?  Personally I would have no problem telling the players that the campaign map constitutes the entirety of the gameboard, especially if I was working with so large a setting as the Wilderlands.  On the other hand, the players will want to leave the Spinward Marches (or whatever) at some point, if only to satisfy their curiosity as to what lies beypnd the known borders of the setting.

Quote from: jrientsdroog, you seem to be assuming that the caravan leaves the campaign map.  Is that so?  Personally I would have no problem telling the players that the campaign map constitutes the entirety of the gameboard, especially if I was working with so large a setting as the Wilderlands.  On the other hand, the players will want to leave the Spinward Marches (or whatever) at some point, if only to satisfy their curiosity as to what lies beypnd the known borders of the setting.

It just grew out of what Cal and I were talking about--to some extent there is a measure of railroading (in the broad sense) in every sort of game. It's pretty obvious and limiting when you talk about a linear track (like the Paizo adventure), but there's still some of it happening if you tell me we can't go off the board.

If you do let me leave the board, you immediately run into problems of depth and development, which is very likely to cause another sort of railroading (GM throws something at the players to hold their attention). This is compounded if your original area is highly detailed: the contrast is obvious. I see only a couple of solutions, one of which is to halt play until you catch up, the other being to spread a very thin layer of prep over a very large area and do a lot of improvising.

So I argued to Calithena that Kickers are simply another sort of 'gameboard' in that sense, and that all methods of generating situation have their drawbacks. He then revised his terms and we're sweet.

Quote from: droogIf you do let me leave the board, you immediately run into problems of depth and development, which is very likely to cause another sort of railroading (GM throws something at the players to hold their attention). This is compounded if your original area is highly detailed: the contrast is obvious. I see only a couple of solutions, one of which is to halt play until you catch up, the other being to spread a very thin layer of prep over a very large area and do a lot of improvising.

I think reasonable players in a sandbox game will understand that the more latitude they have for going anywhere and doing anything, the less detail they can expect when they get there. And a good GM give cues about where the opportunities for adventure lie. He may offer rumours and plot books for the three or four locations he has prepared in detail. He may have mentioned in passing a couple places or organizations that he has at least sketched out. And for the places where they may just wander into during the next session or two, he should probably have a random encounter table, and maybe a few scripted encounters that are illustrative of the location or culture.

Bill Webb of Necromancer Games outlined his method for running a Wilderlands exploration game in just this fashion. With a few hours work, he can prepare for several sessions of play in a region.

Now, if the players ignore all the cue from the DM and make a bee-line for the far corner of the map, then they can't reasonably expect to find much detail when they get there. So are these cue railroading? Not really. There's a big difference between laying out the options of exploring the Caves of Dread, hiring on as guards for a caraval on the Winedark Sea, trying to recover the Chalice of Faldirk from an abandoned shrine, and exploring the region of the Dreadwood north of the Roglaroon Estuary; and scripting a chain of encounters so the PCs arriving just in the nick of time (no matter what they do) to see the Duke murdered by the Sorceror of Myrk, and then making sure the ensuing battle with the sorceror's minions yields just enough XP for the PCs to level and so tackle the next stop on the tracks.

Total freedom of action is hardly possible in a campaign that involves anything more than random encounters. But you can offer a wide scope of free action with less work than some are suggesting. You just have to be able to improvise, telescope in an out to varying degree of detail, and give and receive cues to your players about their range of options.

William of Guile, 10th Level Fighter: "Well... I'm not wandering about the map. I'm gonna get my sword, and I'm going into that dungeon, and I'm going to kick that son-of-a-bitch Dragon's ass so HARD... that the next Dragon wanna-be is gonna feel it. Now who wants to go home... and who wants to go with ME! "

:haw:

I know all that, Haff. You need to read my comments specifically in relation to the discussion Cal and I were having about Kickers.

Quote from: HaffrungI think reasonable players in a sandbox game will understand that the more latitude they have for going anywhere and doing anything, the less detail they can expect when they get there.

I've run entire games and campaigns, even, with barely any prep.  I know other people who have done that, too.  Heck, years ago the GMs in my group would run one-shot games by asking each player for a word or two to describe the game that they wanted to play and then just running a game based on those words.  At that point, the level of detail is pretty constant no matter what the players do.  I've also played in games where the GM had such an excellent understanding of their setting that pretty much no matter where the players decided to go, the GM had a decent idea of what they might find there.  And so long as the players aren't mindlessly wandering just to see what's out there, the destination and behavior of the players will also often drive interesting adventures.  Run an interesting setting like a real place and the characters like real people, and it works pretty well in my experience.

Basically, I understand why people might think this is a problem in theory but I just don't see it in practice.  Why?  Because in my experience, good players push the boundaries of the sandbox for a reason and good GMs are able to roll with it.  And for GMs who can't just wing it, I've seen GMs write about stopping their games so that they can prep for the next session when the players wander off of the edge of what they planned for.  That works for some groups, too.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity1: It's neither railroady nor Forgey when the conflict web does NOT extend to the PCs. It pre-exists them but in a decentralized fashion. They walk into it, but it's not spun around them. Just like in real life.

Actually, both R-Maps built around the PCs AND R-Maps where the PCs "just walk into" have absolutely no relation to "real life".
Don't have to.