Search results

I can accept what you mean by imprecise words once I understand it. It is just that with such word choices it is not surprising if misunderstandings happen, and people talk past each other. Also, at this point I still do not know whether other who used the term "linear adventure" understand it...

I literally not was sure what people meant by "linear." Now as it seems that they do not mean linear by "linear" I better understand why people think that "linear" adventures ae different thing than railroading! But yeah, it is a terrible word choice that is bound to lead to confusion, so on...

I mean that there doesn't seem to be a coherent definition of "linear adventure" that is impossible to answer. If people merely use it to mean "a non-sandbox adventure" then I think term "linear" is a colossal misnomer. You can easily have a game with more tightly focused premise than a sandbox...

I don't think having a general premise for a campaign makes it linear. Words mean things. Linear implies that the events follow one predetermined path. If that is not happening it is not linear.

One compromise option where you can have humanocentrism without human ascendancy is that the humanocentrism is merely local; the campaign is mostly set in lands where humans are most populous, but other parts of the world are dominated by other species. This also allows the campaign to evolve...

What makes them linear?

But if the path can branch in such a significant way via a player choice, then it is not linear!

It definitely is not. As a GM I often just present situations. I do not at this point know how they will be solved or whether they will be solved. That is for the players to figure out.

Yeah, that's just bonkers. Of course any adventure will have taken only one path once it is completed! I mean it is not by coincidence, it is by design. The situations are engineered such way that there is only one sensible choice to make. That is what makes it railroady. And I don't think...

I am not sure it is as plain as you seem to think. So is the argument that railroading takes force to block outcomes? And that framing mono-solution situations is not force thus not railroading? Because sure, there is real difference here, I just am no sure it is terribly meaningful one. In both...

Are they though? :unsure:

Whilst I would not put it quite so starkly, you're definitely onto something here. I think the "story" that the latter approach produces is more like an historical account. It does not necessarily follow proper dramatic structure like a novel would. And I think to a lot of people that...

No. Because if the GM frames events in such way, that there is always only the one sensible thing to do, it is still a railroad, just more elegantly done than one where the GM uses force to block outcomes. To avoid this the situations should be more open ended, without one obvious outcome...

Fair to whom and how? Is it fair for GM to block action declarations that do not fit to the story they want to tell? Is it fair for the GM to just frame situations where there is only one obviously sensible action to take? I don't know, that seems like a matter of taste to me. But both seem...

It also having "baseline" helps the fantastic to stand out. Spock or Worf work better as characters when they are contrasted to the rest of the crew who are mostly humans.

Well, I just don't think it is that clear cut. What is "willingly"? How the GM frames things has a huge impact on what actions can reasonably even be attempted. If the GM constantly just frames situations where there is only one direction they can plausibly go (assuming the players don't try to...

I don't quite understand what the definition of "a linear game" is. Because if it is literally linear, from A to B to C etc, no room for deviation or change of the player actions to affect the outcome, I really do not see how it is not a railroad, albeit possibly one the players willingly...

They don't need to be a monoculture, but the cultures will still be informed by the species that develop them. Elves will not develop cultures that are exactly like human cultures (or if they will, then having elves seems rather pointless.) Yes, it is just that in some depictions "washing out...

I don't think that "platonic idea of a sandbox" as you describe it is a sensible one. The idea that the world would be static and nothing would happen unless the PCs make it happen is neither realistic or interesting. To me sandbox implies a living world and living worlds have all sorts of...

What even is ‘an adventure hook’ other than a telegraph that interesting things are happening in the world? I think all RPG worlds should have interesting things happening in them.