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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6308247" data-attributes="member: 6696971">If you and  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] don't mind, I'm going to throw a few pennies worth in here.In a game that is predicated upon hard framed action scene > conflict resolution > possibly a transition scene or straight to another hard framed action scene, there are a lot of player flags and player insurance that the GM is required to observe to even play the game at all.  Fidelity to these things is what ensures dynamic, player-driven outcomes as they engage in conflicts that they emotionally and philosophically have already bought into (at the PC build stage and during the evolution of play).  By definition, if the GM is doing his job properly and obseving the GM principles embedded in those systems, its impossible for play to achieve an "All Roads Lead to Rome" aesthetic.  Now of course, a GM doing a poor/wrong/inept job in observing the principles and techniques that drive play in those systems may very well lead to a railroad, but that is just user error and no fault of the system.  Which is why I quoted this perceptive bit above by Bawylie "I think you hit those pitfalls if you reframe scenarios unprompted."  That is right on the money.  Take Dungeon World for example.  It is precisely what I described above; a quintessential conflict resolution gaming engine, built on fantasy tropes, hard scene framing, player flags/insurance, and GM principles to observe and test PC flags (bonds, alignment statements, PC archetype, PC decisions), "to find out what happens" (eg no metaplot, don't plan much and/or leave much malleable/open to define in play including geography), and to make "fiction first moves that follow from player moves" (all conflict resolution dice is handled player side).  There are plenty of other classic GMing principles such as "put them in a spot" and "fill their lives with adventure" but those are general while the ones above are mandate in a game built upon a chronology of framed scenes and resolved conflicts (rather than a mostly serial passage of, and accounting for, time and process sim task resolution).  As Bawylie said, framing new scenes requires perception of and obeyance to either system embedded prompts or intuitive prompts that happen at the table (eg the dramatic conflict which charges the scene has basically been resolved and aborting before all procedural elements are addressed would maintain pacing and player interest).Quick for instance.  Let us say that one of the PCs is an Elven Ranger.  The relevant bits and bobs to observe might be:- The Ranger fluff text for archetype.- The players chosen look (how it might help to "put them in a spot" or "fill their lives with adventure")- Ability scores and the accompanying basic moves they'll be good at and where they'll be weak.- Auto PC build components for hunting/tracking, volley, augmented perilous journey, animal companion stuff, and any advanced moves. - Chatoic alignment statement of "Free someone from literal or figurative bonds."- 2 of his 4 bonds have to do with another PC; perhaps something about their level of trust and something about a debt (tangible or intangible).All of the above are prompts.  Some of them are about default archetype that insure the PCs thematic material and base archetype proficiency against me framing them into a situation that questions or denies that.  Some of it (such as the bonds and alignment statement) are questions/conflicts that the PC wants to engage during play and for that play to resolve.* As such, I'm never going to frame the PCs into a perilous journey where the scene opener introduces a fiction that makes the Ranger look like a foolish trailblazer et al.  I'm never going to frame a scene around the Ranger's animal companion beligerantly disobeying him or not being his steadfast companion.  I'm never going to frame him into an archery contest where he looks like a bufoon.  I'm never going to frame him into a scene where game/prey has evaded him.  I'm never going to frame him into a scene where his alignment statement or bond has already been resolved by my own fiat; eg I decide the level of trust or matter of the debt.** I will, however, directly frame him into conflicts that test each of those aspects of his PC and we will find out in play through his decisions, the outcome of the confict resolution mechanics, and the subsequent evolution of the scene that observes the GM principle of  "fiction first moves that follow from player moves" (which will follow from other GM principles and the outcome of the conflict resolution mechanics; 10 + success, 7 - 9 success with complications, 6 - failure and mark xp).  This is the entire point of play.If the GM consistently observes ** while mindfully staying away from *, a railroad will never, ever be produced.</blockquote>

Verification