Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5427134" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I agree with Janx here - and that doesn't necessarily mean I'm radically disagreeing with The Shaman - but I want to take the notion of "meaning" in another direction.</p><p></p><p>Janx gives examples where the choice of city isn't meaningful, because it isn't driven by any sort of concern that the GM is undermining by changing the location of an encounter (eg the pickpocket, or the cloaked stranger).</p><p></p><p>But another sort of meaning is this: maybe the players are choosing Chicago over New York because they want - for whatever reason is important to them or to their PCs - to learn the truth, in the gameworld, about Chicago. If this is their goal, then that goal is not undermined by the GM making up stuff about Chicago on the fly, or moving stuff to Chicago that, in his/her head, the GM had assumed would happen in New York. Because the players are still learning the gameworld truth about Chicago.</p><p></p><p>I've been thinking about this for the past week or two leading up to and subsequent to running a 4e, quasi-No Myth <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/299440-exploration-scenarios-my-experiment-last-sunday.html" target="_blank">exploration scenario</a>. I might start a new thread on this, but in short, I discovered that you can run a scenario in which exploration is the priority - in that the players' main goal is to find out what happened/what is going on in a particular location - without having pre-prepared the answers to their questions. You can make it up as you go along. It still serves the goal of exploration, because the players are still learning the truth about the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>Now <em>why</em> the players would care about the truth in the gameworld - be it the truth about Chicago, or the truth about the time-travel scenario I ran - is another question. Maybe one of the players wants her PC to become mayor of Chicago because she herself was born there. Maybe the players have a magic item which they can only use properly if they understand the truth of the gameworld's history. There are any number of reasons why the players might care about this sort of thing, which don't depend upon there being some pre-determined truth that doesn't change, in response to their own choices and exploratory priorities as actually revealed in the course of play, from what was notionally written by the GM in the campaign handbook.</p><p></p><p>I agree with this, but think that rules in many traditional(-ish) RPGs like D&D could benefit from discussing it a bit more.</p><p></p><p>For example, they often contain GM advice along the lines of "the players may enjoy having their PCs' backstories incorporated into play from time to time" or "follow up on what seemed to interest the players, by including a connection to it in the next adventure". And I see posts on ENworld from time to time that talk about using PC backgrounds as a basis for sidequests.</p><p></p><p>But they don't tend to take the next step, which (in my experience) helps reduce the whole need to worry about "no thanks" of, saying "Combine PC backstories with those elements of prior play that interested the players and <em>make that into</em> the next adventure". Once these things are not peripheral but <em>the game</em>, then you're less likely to get players saying "no thanks". </p><p></p><p>Even under this approach, there can still be local issues of sequencing eg if there are two different things the players want to do - let's say, visit the Feywild and also redeem some slaves in a city on the world - then it is likely that the players and not the GM will determine the sequence, meaning you can have issues of unused prep or alternatively needing to improvise. But from my experience, most of your prep isn't wasted because most of it is prep for <em>excactly the adventures the players want</em>.</p><p></p><p>(And by way of acknowledgement: a lot of people think the Forge is a waste of time, but this approach to adventure design is something that really crystallised for me after reading an essay by Ron Edwards in which he talked about turning the usual conception of the plot hook on its head: instead of the GM offering a plot hook to the players, the players - by building and playing their PCs - establish plot hooks for the GM. Reading that and reflecting on it, and on actual play examples as well as rules from more non-traditional games, really helped me develop my GMing from the previously embryonic stage it had been in, where I was trying to break out of plot-hook driven simulationism but didn't quite know how.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5427134, member: 42582"] I agree with Janx here - and that doesn't necessarily mean I'm radically disagreeing with The Shaman - but I want to take the notion of "meaning" in another direction. Janx gives examples where the choice of city isn't meaningful, because it isn't driven by any sort of concern that the GM is undermining by changing the location of an encounter (eg the pickpocket, or the cloaked stranger). But another sort of meaning is this: maybe the players are choosing Chicago over New York because they want - for whatever reason is important to them or to their PCs - to learn the truth, in the gameworld, about Chicago. If this is their goal, then that goal is not undermined by the GM making up stuff about Chicago on the fly, or moving stuff to Chicago that, in his/her head, the GM had assumed would happen in New York. Because the players are still learning the gameworld truth about Chicago. I've been thinking about this for the past week or two leading up to and subsequent to running a 4e, quasi-No Myth [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/299440-exploration-scenarios-my-experiment-last-sunday.html]exploration scenario[/url]. I might start a new thread on this, but in short, I discovered that you can run a scenario in which exploration is the priority - in that the players' main goal is to find out what happened/what is going on in a particular location - without having pre-prepared the answers to their questions. You can make it up as you go along. It still serves the goal of exploration, because the players are still learning the truth about the gameworld. Now [I]why[/I] the players would care about the truth in the gameworld - be it the truth about Chicago, or the truth about the time-travel scenario I ran - is another question. Maybe one of the players wants her PC to become mayor of Chicago because she herself was born there. Maybe the players have a magic item which they can only use properly if they understand the truth of the gameworld's history. There are any number of reasons why the players might care about this sort of thing, which don't depend upon there being some pre-determined truth that doesn't change, in response to their own choices and exploratory priorities as actually revealed in the course of play, from what was notionally written by the GM in the campaign handbook. I agree with this, but think that rules in many traditional(-ish) RPGs like D&D could benefit from discussing it a bit more. For example, they often contain GM advice along the lines of "the players may enjoy having their PCs' backstories incorporated into play from time to time" or "follow up on what seemed to interest the players, by including a connection to it in the next adventure". And I see posts on ENworld from time to time that talk about using PC backgrounds as a basis for sidequests. But they don't tend to take the next step, which (in my experience) helps reduce the whole need to worry about "no thanks" of, saying "Combine PC backstories with those elements of prior play that interested the players and [I]make that into[/I] the next adventure". Once these things are not peripheral but [I]the game[/I], then you're less likely to get players saying "no thanks". Even under this approach, there can still be local issues of sequencing eg if there are two different things the players want to do - let's say, visit the Feywild and also redeem some slaves in a city on the world - then it is likely that the players and not the GM will determine the sequence, meaning you can have issues of unused prep or alternatively needing to improvise. But from my experience, most of your prep isn't wasted because most of it is prep for [I]excactly the adventures the players want[/I]. (And by way of acknowledgement: a lot of people think the Forge is a waste of time, but this approach to adventure design is something that really crystallised for me after reading an essay by Ron Edwards in which he talked about turning the usual conception of the plot hook on its head: instead of the GM offering a plot hook to the players, the players - by building and playing their PCs - establish plot hooks for the GM. Reading that and reflecting on it, and on actual play examples as well as rules from more non-traditional games, really helped me develop my GMing from the previously embryonic stage it had been in, where I was trying to break out of plot-hook driven simulationism but didn't quite know how.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...
Top