Thomas Shey
Legend
What do you mean problems with authorship?
I mean the authors of the game had some pretty bad accusations directed at them with reasonable support, all the more disappointing since the game itself is pretty inclusive.
What do you mean problems with authorship?
it may be important to note that people may be using "plot" differently and that's where some confusion and disagreement comes from.If the players are the only ones driving play, there still is going to be a plot. If there wasn't a plot to follow, why would you be role-playing such a RPG?
I suppose I'd just rather deal with casually discussed concepts than jargon.
All of that sounds unbearably mechanical to me, like you are reducing the game to, "check these boxes for success however you can"!
Plot lines don't inherently constitute a railroad. If the players don't have to participate in the plot, a railroad doesn't exist. A railroad only exists if the players are forced down a single line of play no matter what they do. Those are rare.
I have never heard fronts used in any context other than a reference to PBtA and similar narrative games.
And how would you run an adventure if you were the GM?Meh, it sounds pretty railroady to me. The option to get on the train or not doesn’t change that the “story” as we’re discussing it is a railroad.
A railraod isn't the same as a linear adventure. In fact railroads aren't things, really, so much as how GMs do tings. In a railroad, the GM only accepts answers and actions that in line with their predetermined sequence of events (the plot). Sometimes this is subtle (quantum ogres) and sometimes it is decidedly not. But that is still different than a linear adventure (although linear adventures lend themselves more easily to railroading).Meh, it sounds pretty railroady to me. The option to get on the train or not doesn’t change that the “story” as we’re discussing it is a railroad.
I have been looking at the plot within the pre-made D&D adventures as a prescribed sequence of events. But they aren't GM-authored railroads because the GM and the players interact with one another to such a degree that every time it is played, it's not going to be the same in each iteration. Player Group A might reach a different ending than Player Group B did.Those of us saying RPG play does not require a plot are using the literary defi ition of a prescribed sequence of events.
If it has potentially different endings, it isn't a railroad, that's for sure.I have been looking at the plot within the pre-made D&D adventures as a prescribed sequence of events. But they aren't GM-authored railroads because the GM and the players interact with one another to such a degree that every time it is played, it's not going to be the same in each iteration. Player Group A might reach a different ending than Player Group B did.
Just a session?There's levels of setbacks and frustrations. "I missed that one roll" is a completely different beast than "We just wasted the entire four-hour session on a red herring the referee intentionally pushed into the game." If someone can't handle rolling poorly, they shouldn't be playing RPGs with random chance. If the referee thinks the players should just shrug off the referee intentionally wasting their entire evening, the referee shouldn't be running RPGs.
When did your party realize that they were chasing a red herring? And were they able to get back on track?I've seen situations where the players (I was one) went so deep after a red herring we ended up spending half a dozen or more sessions in the "wrong" adventure! Thus, that red herring in effect became an unintended adventure hook, causing a big left turn the DM didn't see coming. We-as-players didn't know any of this, though, and just kept on keepin' on.
That's not up to me. The appropriate time could come in 1 second or never. It's entirely up to what the players do. I don't have a "decide to share it" moment.
Then you are acknowledging the preeminence of description. In order for numbers to be equal or better than description, the first example of mine which was numbers only has to be equal to or better than the description.
Sure. At the very least you can determine that it is big, strong and ugly. What can't be determined by PC observation are numbers. PCs can't determine that level of precision without some sort of house ruled super power.
No. That isn't what I said at all. Nothing made it both more and less realistic. That's why it's important to understand that realism is a scale and not a dichotomy.
If I have a wall, that's realistic because walls exist in reality. If I make it brick, it is even more realistic because both bricks and walls exist in reality. If I have flies on the wall, it's even MORE realistic, because all three are in reality. Failing to have flies, however, does not remove the realism that bricks and walls add.