Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6807064" data-attributes="member: 42582">For me, there are two aspects to this.One aspect is player contribution - when the GM is authoring in response to, and as part of the adjudication of, players' action declarations for their PCs, then the players are contributing to the content of the shared fiction in a fundamental way. They are driving it (to use that nebulous term) even though the GM is the one who is actually authoring it.The second aspect is more practical, but not unconnected. It was an element in my recent discussion with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] upthread. I think that when the GM authors material in this player-driven context, it is more likely to actually engage the players, and the dramatic concerns they are expressing for, and via the play of, their PCs.In my experience, these two aspects interact, each generating positive feedback that strengthens the other.Now you (as does Umbran also upthread) conjecture that a good GM who knows his/her players can achieve the dramatic engagement by deft pre-authoring. In my own experience this hasn't tended to be so - the pre-authoring tends to become an anchor that weighs the game down, dragging effort and attention away from the players' central concerns onto things that matter only because the GM decided, in advance, that they should matter.I'm pretty sure - from talking to other RPGers, and reading their posts - that I'm not the only person ever to have had this sort of experience (which at least in its stronger form tends to get labelled as railroading). That's not to say that everyone has had it. But I think it was a desire to avoid this sort of thing, while still achieving dramatically engaging play, that led to designers like Crane, Edwards et al consciously emphasising &quot;fail forward&quot; (and related devices, like scene-framed play) as a technique.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6807064, member: 42582"] For me, there are two aspects to this. One aspect is player contribution - when the GM is authoring in response to, and as part of the adjudication of, players' action declarations for their PCs, then the players are contributing to the content of the shared fiction in a fundamental way. They are driving it (to use that nebulous term) even though the GM is the one who is actually authoring it. The second aspect is more practical, but not unconnected. It was an element in my recent discussion with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] upthread. I think that when the GM authors material in this player-driven context, it is more likely to actually engage the players, and the dramatic concerns they are expressing for, and via the play of, their PCs. In my experience, these two aspects interact, each generating positive feedback that strengthens the other. Now you (as does Umbran also upthread) conjecture that a good GM who knows his/her players can achieve the dramatic engagement by deft pre-authoring. In my own experience this hasn't tended to be so - the pre-authoring tends to become an anchor that weighs the game down, dragging effort and attention away from the players' central concerns onto things that matter only because the GM decided, in advance, that they should matter. I'm pretty sure - from talking to other RPGers, and reading their posts - that I'm not the only person ever to have had this sort of experience (which at least in its stronger form tends to get labelled as railroading). That's not to say that everyone has had it. But I think it was a desire to avoid this sort of thing, while still achieving dramatically engaging play, that led to designers like Crane, Edwards et al consciously emphasising "fail forward" (and related devices, like scene-framed play) as a technique. [/QUOTE]

Verification