Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Malmuria]

The examples of node based design I saw on The Alexandrian I would are basically something I would consider a railroad because while they offer a choice in the order of scenes both player goals and outcomes are still assumed. Very much like most choose your own adventure books. Not all node based design necessarily fits, but the techniques Justin Alexander is advocating certainly does in my estimation.

But what would you call a situation where a GM denies player choice within that structure? For example, the players meet someone coded as an antagonist. The GM has prepared this as a combat encounter, but the players decide to negotiate. For me, railroading is useful to describe a gm who just says “roll initiative” rather than improvise an npc response to their negotiations (leading, perhaps, to an unexpected resolution to the scenario for the gm). The fact that this encounter was likely (though, again, not necessarily inevitable) due to the scenario structure is not a railroad in that same sense (choose your own adventure is a good description though).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've heard "advanced railroad" used to describe them. Not sure I entirely agree... but I have to say it's hard to see a huge difference between A-B-C and B-C-A.

If the nodes play pretty much the same regardless of the order, I'd agree. But if earlier nodes somehow alter or recontextualise the latter nodes then it is less of a railroad.

 

[overgeeked]

The haunting has worked for me, though in the current version at least you have a ‘patron’ who sort of indicates there are all these places to find clues. And you can go to the house first, because there’s also stuff that happens in the neighborhood. I guess as keeper you can either provide hints as to where to go (I find giving them a map with locations is helpful) or let the scenario ‘fail’ (haven’t had this experience yet). I think it works fine as an introduction, but yeah, not the most complicated structure

It is CoC, so I'm not sure what you mean by "let the scenario fail". It's CoC. Failure is always an option. PC insanity, PC death, PCs abandoning the scenario, PCs not finishing the scenario with a positive outcome, etc. Do you mean railroading the PCs into completing the scenario with a positive outcome? That's a legit "does not compute" for me. It's Call of Cthulhu. Why are you running CoC if you cannot abide a less than happy ending?

 

[Thomas Shey]

The examples of node based design I saw on The Alexandrian I would are basically something I would consider a railroad because while they offer a choice in the order of scenes both player goals and outcomes are still assumed. Very much like most choose your own adventure books. Not all node based design necessarily fits, but the techniques Justin Alexander is advocating certainly does in my estimation.

Well, its certainly possible to have node based design be a railroad; its dependent on whether all roads lead to Rome, as it were. Its just not intrinsic to the general premise.

 

[Malmuria]

It is CoC, so I'm not sure what you mean by "let the scenario fail". It's CoC. Failure is always an option. PC insanity, PC death, PCs abandoning the scenario, PCs not finishing the scenario with a positive outcome, etc. Do you mean railroading the PCs into completing the scenario with a positive outcome? That's a legit "does not compute" for me. It's Call of Cthulhu. Why are you running CoC if you cannot abide a less than happy ending?

I mean, maybe they go to the house, die, game over. Not the most satisfying ending, but lesson learned at least!

 

[Campbell]

But what would you call a situation where a GM denies player choice within that structure? For example, the players meet someone coded as an antagonist. The GM has prepared this as a combat encounter, but the players decide to negotiate. For me, railroading is useful to describe a gm who just says “roll initiative” rather than improvise an npc response to their negotiations (leading, perhaps, to an unexpected resolution to the scenario for the gm). The fact that this encounter was likely (though, again, not necessarily inevitable) due to the scenario structure is not a railroad in that same sense (choose your own adventure is a good description though).

I'd say if the GM is playing to an assumed an outcome or expecting players to act in accordance with a goal set by the GM then it's still a railroad or at least "nudging" which is a nice way of saying railroad.

If they play it straight then it's not. I just think assumed outcomes tend to lean towards nudging in that direction.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, maybe they go to the house, die, game over. Not the most satisfying ending, but lesson learned at least!

It's a nihilistic cosmic horror game. The fun is the shock and horror. A satisfying ending to a CoC game is horror. It's not the PC grindhouse game that so many people mythologize it to be, you can run very satisfying campaigns with it and characters can last years of regular play, but my players are far more happy and satisfied when characters die gruesomely or fall to madness and start blasting the rest of the party. "Random" PC death and madness work far better here than in games like D&D because it pushes genre emulation rather than it's just there and random. Maybe we take a more genre emulation mentality rather than game to beat mentality when we play?

 

[Aldarc]

I feel like I keep circling back around to this point- it's the Goldilocks argument. The jargon used by some people is "just right," because ... reasons, I guess? People who do not want to use that jargon aren't taking the game seriously enough, and people that want to look at what academics or people in the last 15 years have been doing ... well, that's too serious?

I think that it's a more accurate assessment, at least on my part, to say that while the questions that interest hobbyists and academics overlap, they are not necessarily synonymous. So it is not that the academic jargon or frameworks are "too serious," but, rather, that a lot of the principles, frameworks, and concepts behind the jargon that hobbyists developed tend to be a little more helpful for developing and honing my own play preferences and aesthetics. Maybe that constitutes Goldilocks style "just right," but it's not necessarily because the academic frameworks are "too serious," but, rather, because they typically have a different focus and purpose.

All that said- when I use the phrase, "re-inventing the wheel," I want to stress that I don't mean that there is nothing new that comes out. I think it should be obvious that the games of today are different than those of the 70s and 80s and 90s. I try to keep reiterating that vital work gets done from these movements that react to what is around them. But, just like other areas (computer games, for example). It's about how the hobbyist community doesn't recall that these debates already occurred. It's like seeing someone post something on enworld, and not realize that it's been done before. Except ... for fifty years. However, I do agree with you that the debate gets re-contextualized when the debate occurs at different times. It's just that in most fields, the people that are re-contextualizing the debate are aware of the prior debates. I mean ... imagine having a PhD candidate in English say, "Hey, I have a new idea no one has ever had before. Imagine if ... we didn't worry about the author's intention? I know! Totally new, right?" It's not that the debate can't be re-contextualized, so much as it's helpful to know that the debate already occurred.

As an obvious point where we likely agree: it's difficult to recollect debates that many hobbyists never participated in for a variety of reasons (e.g., age, discussion venues, etc.), and a general lack of access to those past records make it difficult to familiarize themselves with what debate came before. It's likely that a reason why theory-crafting from the Forge has the resilience it does (for better or worse) has to do with the medium in which it was discussed and disseminated (i.e., the Internet).

Anyway, appreciate the response.

And likewise.

 

[Malmuria]

It's a nihilistic cosmic horror game. The fun is the shock and horror. A satisfying ending to a CoC game is horror. It's not the PC grindhouse game that so many people mythologize it to be, you can run very satisfying campaigns with it and characters can last years of regular play, but my players are far more happy and satisfied when characters die gruesomely or fall to madness and start blasting the rest of the party. "Random" PC death and madness work far better here than in games like D&D because it pushes genre emulation rather than it's just there and random. Maybe we take a more genre emulation mentality rather than game to beat mentality when we play?

Sorry, what I meant is a satisfying play session not a satisfying ending. Let’s say the PCs go investigate the house without searching for other clues, stumble around, and die quickly. That’s fine, even though the writers of the module wanted the PCs to go to those other “nodes” first. I think that’s fine, though I can see a keeper wanting the players to get to more “nodes” to get clues, or the players feeling like they don’t know what they did wrong if they went to the house to investigate first

 

[overgeeked]

Sorry, what I meant is a satisfying play session not a satisfying ending. Let’s say the PCs go investigate the house without searching for other clues, stumble around, and die quickly. That’s fine, even though the writers of the module wanted the PCs to go to those other “nodes” first. I think that’s fine, though I can see a keeper wanting the players to get to more “nodes” to get clues, or the players feeling like they don’t know what they did wrong if they went to the house to investigate first.

Sure.

To me that's because of poor scenario design and the designers not making their preferred play loop explicit in the text. The referee can either give the players advice, railroad them into hitting the nodes first, or let them flail. For first time players, letting them flail is a terrible idea. For more experienced players, they should know better.

A lot of advice about running The Haunting includes a more pronounced initial push to take your time and not rush to the house. I think my favorite form of that is from Seth Skorkowsky's review/overview of the scenario where he suggests having the quest giver offer a per diem instead of a flat rate. With the explicit suggestion/nudging from a friendly NPC to take a good day or two researching the house up front to pad their bank accounts.