4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[eyebeams]

You are really saying that tailored encounters (either for gamism or narrativivsm purpose) is the same as railroading ???

No, I'm illustrating the absurdity of railroading as a concept. It's basically used as a rhetorical sling by people who find a certain game or group isn't meeting their expectations.

Tailored encounters are "Illusionism" with some fancy moves to make people feel better. It's kind of like how in Call of Cthulhu, they give Cthulhu stats that are functionally identical to the GM using fiat to melt your character's brain.

What is useful is examining specific cases and asking where the player wasn't satisfied - *and* treating the player as someone who is actively responsible for their own responses.

 

[eyebeams]

Well, don't use it then. You're using it in a completely inappropriate manner.

I'm using all of the definitions I've seen. Also, you don't own the language.

 

[eyebeams]

I think it's a very useful term for describing a pathological style of gaming where a GM makes a pretence of allowing player choice but then systematically eradicates meaningful choices except for the ones that are "correct" to their meta-game goals.

There is little substantial difference between doing this by sheer fiat and doing it by exploiting the properties of a game system or setting.

 

[eyebeams]

About a box. In which story clearly occurs.

Based on a script.

 

[S'mon]

I'm using all of the definitions I've seen. Also, you don't own the language.

Neither do you, mate.

 

[marune]

Tailored encounters are "Illusionism" with some fancy moves to make people feel better. It's kind of like how in Call of Cthulhu, they give Cthulhu stats that are functionally identical to the GM using fiat to melt your character's brain.

Tailored encounters may lead to Illusionism, but they can also be used in a game where player's choices are critical.

In a Nar RPG, you can have a tailored encounter that force the players to adress the premise in a specific context; the players's answer is what matters.

In a gamism RPG, tailored encouters are sound challenges that will give a good risk/reward ratio.

In a high-concept simulationism RPG, tailored encounters will help the players emulate the genre/theme.

That is not railroading.

 

[pawsplay]

I think you can have railroading without even a pretense of meaningful choice - "sit back & enjoy the ride" type games - and these are the least bad form of railroading, as at least there's no deception. Eg the Dragonlance saga (in module form) was a railroad, but the players could be informed of this and still enjoy the experience.

Of course, that essentially makes the players authorial collaborators.

 

[eyebeams]

Tailored encounters may lead to Illusionism, but they can also be used in a game where player's choices are critical.

If you throw someone in a box with situation and they'll die or something of they don't resolve it, it's an unambiguous use of force to set up a situation the GM desires. The player's choices proceed from what s/he's given, so any option is basically what the GM allowed. Whether this is "critical" in some other sense is a sentimental judgment.

In a Nar RPG, you can have a tailored encounter that force the players to adress the premise in a specific context; the players's answer is what matters.

In a gamism RPG, tailored encouters are sound challenges that will give a good risk/reward ratio.

In a high-concept simulationism RPG, tailored encounters will help the players emulate the genre/theme.

That is not railroading.

It depends on whether the player likes it. Since the the difference between in-system and out of system force is mere propaganda (that is, some people feel that being forced using a system rationale as opposed to freeform judgment is "fairer") and railroading is a complaint, the reaction is all that matters. If the player is unhappy, the complain about being railroaded. If not, they enjoy the scene/challenge/whatever.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm using all of the definitions I've seen. Also, you don't own the language.

You seem to be using it in a different manner than I'm familiar with, at least.

 

[eyebeams]

Neither do you, mate.

It's a good thing I'm not rejecting anybody's definition, then. I'm merely seeing if they're consistent with other statements.