Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9065133" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not posting about what is or isn't "a problem" in general.I've made three points in this thread.One is that the OP describes low-agency play.The second is that their are reasonably well-known RPGs that will cover the same sorts of tropes, themes etc [USER=7041885]@ZebraDruid[/USER] seems interested in that will better support high-agency play.The third is that, in low-agency play (aka railroading), the game will tend to break if the GM doesn't make clear to the players what decisions they are expected to make for their PCs. The OP is an illustration of this point.To relate the third point to your post: suppose that the GM decides that NPC A, if unthwarted, will bring the world to an end. And suppose also that the GM keeps this secret from the players. Suppose the GM even goes out of their way to present NPC A to the players as a reasonable person (they are the friendly quest-giver, the sponsor of the PCs' exploits, etc). So the players never declare actions for their PCs that would thwart NPC A's plans and undertakings.The upshot will be a game in which the players go along, doing as they think they are meant to do, only to have the (imaginary) world end. At some tables that may be satisfying RPGing. I think at many tables it might be experienced as a variant on "rocks fall, everyone dies". (The OP suggests something closer to the latter than the former for that table at least.) However the table experiences it, it is clearly super-low player agency RPGing.</blockquote>

Verification