NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4222115" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree. I don't think that there is anything all that common between (for example) Rolemaster and Pendragon in terms of the sort of play experience they deliver. But I work with the theory that I've got.But the theory is not a theory to explain popularity - it explains the relationship between rules and playstyle.To analyse adventure paths without expressing an evaluation of them: the players get to explore character (ie within limits imposed by the GM's world and the adventure designer's plot hook presuppositions the player gets to build and play a particular PC) and also settting, and they may even get to add a little colour here and there.I also think that the theory predicts what experience reveals to be the case: that if the railroading GM does not allow these areas of player choice (eg character behaviour, PrC, or at least armour and style of weapon) then there will be playgroup conflict (and multiple threads about plot-breaking PrCs/whining players/unreasonable GMs), because very few game players want to be completely passive in the playing of the game. I think 3E is probably quite a good ruleset for railroading play because it gives the player so much choice in character build and in the minutiae of action resolution, even if the GM is asserting totally control over the gameworld and the plot.If the choices the players get to make also permit them to exhibit a type of aesthetic sensibility or inclination (such as a special showboating schtick) then the railroady game might even deliver something in the neighbourhood of what narrativist play is aimed at.Anyway, 4e will enhance these player-empowering features, and so may deliver even more railroading fun. Personally, however, I'm attracted to its features that look able to deliver vanilla narrativist fun.Agreed. But I think gaming texts that advocate it need to take care to avoid encouraging abusive GMing that completely disempowers players. I think AD&D didn't do a very good job in this respect.As long as the narrative doesn't get in the way of the game, fair enough - but even on this thread we can see how some posters are complaining that the GM fudging the rolls (ie spoiling the game) in order to preserve the narrative (no PC death) would ruin their fun.I don't agree with the last point - RM doesn't fail at its goal. But it does have a lot of painful features. It also has a lot of attractive features, including (after low levels) providing a half-decent simulationist chassis for a type of very lowkey vanilla narrativism. (Especially because of the metagame richness of its character build rules.)But surely you're not surprised that an academic who works in two literary disciplines (law, and social and political theory) prefers GNS, despite its inadequacies, to Robin Laws!</blockquote>

Verification