4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[pawsplay]

well, if you're using my meaning, we're not talking about a capitalized "creative agenda" as much as approaching play from a particular point of view (after we accept the basic idea that we're fighting zombies, or in a dungeon, or whatever.) You can't really eliminate this, because this is outside of the designer's power. You can provide minimal to no support for some ways of doing things, which generally fails to serve at least some of your players. If you mean "Not designing to privilege a way of approaching the game," this is probably impossible too, though it needn't be too extreme. What you can do is design and run games that are open to many approaches, even if some receive more encouragement than others, instead of deliberately refusing support.

I'm responding to the identified "agenda" of awesome-ness seeking. I think it is a mistake to aim for a presupposed ending to a game event. I am not talking about "Creative agenda," I am responding to your use of the word here.

 

[pawsplay]

This is really rephrasing my point as a feature, not a bug. There's nothing wrong with this, but you can't very well complain about "railroading" and support this, except to say that you like one version of railroading and don't like the others. This is valid for you, but it's not a broadly applicable critique.

Not. Railroading.

Conditions are not railroading. Without limitations, you have no game at all.

GM: You see a 10' x 10' room. There is an orc in it. He is guarding a pie. What do you do?
Player 1: I draw my lightsaber.
Player 2: I loot his dead body.
Player 3: I knock both of the orcs out by throwing them against each other.

Player 1 is not accepting the limitations of his role; he is (at least in this example) a D&D character, not a Jedi. Player 2 is not accepting the limitations of the system on his actions; he has not yet defeated the orc. Player 3 is not accepting a limitation on his described actions; in this case, he is not accepting that there is only one orc, and that D&D does not have a "knock two thugs together" manuever.

To railroad is to curtail available choices. But characters in a dungeon face only pseudo-realistic limitations. Railroading prevents meaningful choices.

A dungeon setting is simply a kind of physical setting with its own limitations. It is not railroading any more than stating a Marvel Super Heroes game is taking place in New York City or Gamma World on post-apocalyptic Earth or that a vampire in a Vampire:The Requiem game awakens hungry and alone in a warehouse. The dungeon IS the story. At worst, PCs can leave the dungeon, if that is physically possible, and ignore its contents.

 

[Mark]

Railroading prevents meaningful choices.

Nice nutshell.



*Yoink!*

 

[eyebeams]

I'm responding to the identified "agenda" of awesome-ness seeking. I think it is a mistake to aim for a presupposed ending to a game event. I am not talking about "Creative agenda," I am responding to your use of the word here.

Well, I just told you my usage. WRT always hitting the high points ("awesomeness") and brushing past other things, I think it generally deprives a game of meaning. Important things are only important in relation to other events, after all. In my experience, "boring" is often code for "doesn't provide immediate gratification."

 

[eyebeams]

Not. Railroading.

Read.The Rest of. What I wrote.

If you define railroading as something that restricts a choice that should be available according to the game, then a game's design can't have any effect on railroading.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, I just told you my usage. WRT always hitting the high points ("awesomeness") and brushing past other things, I think it generally deprives a game of meaning. Important things are only important in relation to other events, after all. In my experience, "boring" is often code for "doesn't provide immediate gratification."

What kinds of things are you talking about? Let's say we're playing Prime Time Adventures. What do we brush past in order to get immediate gratification?

 

[eyebeams]

What kinds of things are you talking about? Let's say we're playing Prime Time Adventures. What do we brush past in order to get immediate gratification?

I can't make statements in the context of what happened at your table in a fashion that's fair to either of us.

I will however address this in more general terms, though. There are many scenes in shows like House MD that neither develop the characters nor particularly resolve some element of the plot. They exist to create tension. This is paralleled in RPGs when characters reach a sticking point. They try a bunch of things can can't move toward their objectives, and the scene is not particularly illustrative of evolving character personalities. These scenes are frustrating -- and they're *supposed* to be frustrating.

 

[Mark]

They exist to create tension.

Or unity or continuity.

 

[LostSoul]

I can't make statements in the context of what happened at your table in a fashion that's fair to either of us.

Fair enough!

I will however address this in more general terms, though. There are many scenes in shows like House MD that neither develop the characters nor particularly resolve some element of the plot. They exist to create tension. This is paralleled in RPGs when characters reach a sticking point. They try a bunch of things can can't move toward their objectives, and the scene is not particularly illustrative of evolving character personalities. These scenes are frustrating -- and they're *supposed* to be frustrating.

I'm still not sure what you mean. (I've never watched House!) Do you have an example from a game of yours? Or a made-up example to highlight this sort of frustration.

This is what I think you mean:

We're playing D&D, and we want to go into the dungeon. But the dungeon door is locked, and we can't get in. We don't know what to do. We go back to town, have a beer, and putz around until something happens.

 

[marune]

Relevant quote from 4e PHB, p.18...

That's the good stuf like this that make me cry when I see the bad stuff (either "character's shoes" or stuff that says that the DM will take care of managing the effect of failure so that the story won't be lost)