I don't think anyone has had much trouble understanding me. Though there are some RPGing techniques that some of those who have replied to me don't seem to be familiar with.
So, upthread I said - of a mooted approach to GMing prep - that "To me it seems a bit railroad-y."
You might infer from that that it is describing something that is "more linear than I personally prefer", although I don't really know what "linear" means here, given that all play is
linear in the sense that
this event of play comes after
this previous event of play, generally (except I guess in the most avant garde RPGing) following the arrow of time (flashback-type techniques not withstanding).
I don't think it's
insulting to convey that I don't especially care for what some others might consider "a perfectly normal style of play". I've read plenty of modules that instruct the GM on how to make decisions, and how to manipulate hitherto-unrevealed backstory, in order to bring pre-determined events or characters onto the stage. These same modules are, presumably, oriented towards perfectly normal styles of play (given that they are being commercially published by TSR or WotC or other publishers). I don't think that precludes me from explaining that, and why, I don't especially care for them.
As for what I consider "railroading", the previous paragraph is a good enough first approximation:
the GM making decisions, and manipulating hitherto-unrevealed backstory, in order to bring pre-determined events or characters onto the stage. The key idea is that it is the GM who is deciding
what the shared fiction is about. The alternative is that the players play a key role in deciding what the shared fiction is about.
What sort of material?
Obviously, "fronts" are a type of prepared material. But they are not the preparation of "plot points" or "story beats" or "character spotlight moments". And it is that sort of prep that I described as seeming a bit railroad-y to me.
On the issue of GMing without prepared material - it's reasonably straightforward, and I've done it on numerous occasions. Systems used have included Cthulhu Dark, Wuthering Heights, In A Wicked Age, and Burning Wheel. And I've GMed AD&D, 4e D&D, Torchbearer 2e and Classic Traveller where the only prepared material has been creature/NPC stats.
Even where prepared material might include, say, a map; or a world's stats (I've rolled up worlds in advance as prep for GMing Classic Traveller); or a description of a situation (say, a knight blocking the way through a forest clearing - this one is from Prince Valiant); that is not the same as preparing "plot points", "story beats" or "character spotlight moments".
I don't know what sort of improvisation you have in mind.
But if you're asking, "Do I regard RPGing as railroading if the GM has decided, in advance, what the key events or antagonism or resolutions will look like?" then the answer is
yes,
My reason for querying the notion of
improvisation here is that I regard it as somewhat inapt. RPGing is conversation, and one doesn't normally describe non-scripted conversation as
improvised. I mean, I had a conversation today with a friend at work - each of us more-or-less spontaneously said things, and responded to what the other had said, without rehearsal or significant anticipation or preparation. But it would be unusual, I think, to describe us as
improvising. We were just conversing.
RPG systems structure the conversation in various ways - eg who gets to say what when - and they focus it in various ways - by establishing fictional elements and a fictional context for what we say. But within those structures and guided by that focus, spontaneous conversation in RPGing is not any more difficult than it is with a friend.
What seems to me a bit railroad-y is where the GM tries to plan out their part of the conversation in advance.
After the event, then unless literally nothing happened in the play session, there will of course be a series of activities that the PCs engaged in.
The issue is, who decides what those activities are (or will be), and when do they decide this? When I read about the GM preparing and laying breadcrumbs, for instance, the picture that I take away is of
the GM deciding in advance what they would like those activities to be, and using various methods to get the players to have their PCs engage in them. The "adventure hook" is a fairly well-known example of this. The GM "preparing an adventure" often seems to be taken to mean
identifying a whole suite of such activities, and associated/facilitating events, and then getting ready to lead the players into and through them. And this is what I am calling "a bit railroad-y".
There are plenty of people whose preferences in RPGing are fairly similar to mine, although some of them no longer post on ENworld. And there are plenty of fairly well-known RPGs that are intended to provide structure and focus to make the spontaneous conversation easier and more interesting.
So, in the same way that you think I don't match "just about anyone else" so I feel that you don't match "just about anyone else". I find that it's incredibly straightforward to get players to write goals and aspirations and thematic ideals for their PCs. Mostly, just by asking them to do so.
Who said that players are "random number generators"?
I agree that players have a sense of story, and want to collaborate in creating the fiction. That's why I don't really like the GM planning out, in advance, what their own contribution to the conversation is going to be.
So I'll give one example. I'm giving this example not because it's definitive, or the best alternative, but because it is (i) illustrative and (ii) fairly straightforward to explain.
In A Wicked Age is a RPG written by Vincent Baker (who, later on, designed Apocalypse World). The game comes with a list of oracles - 4 thematically-grouped lists of 52 characters, places, events etc. At the start of the session, the group decides (using whatever means they prefer) which oracle to draw from, and then deals 4 cards from an ordinary deck, and reads those oracle entries.
Then, everyone goes around the table, identifying a character who is stated, implicated or suggested by the entries. After everyone is happy that all the characters have been identified that they want to identify, the players choose one to be their PC, and the GM gets the rest. There are then rules for statting up - the GM's characters are more simple than the players', as makes sense given the GM has to stat up a bunch. Then everyone chooses some
best interests for their characters - the point being to choose
best interests that implicate a character into conflict and dynamic relationships with other characters. (Eg last time I GMed a session of In A Wicked Age, one of my NPCs had as a best interest to acquire the gold of one of the PCs; another PC had as their best interest to ally with a particular NPC; etc.)
Once the characters are ready to go, the GM starts by framing a scene. The GM advice in the book is brief but effective, and focuses on different approaches to scene-framing so as to modulate the intensity and immediacy of the conflict in the scene. There are rules for resolving declared actions. And advice on how to build scenes on previous scenes, and resolutions of actions, so that matters move towards a resolution of characters' best interests (whether by success or defeat).
There are further bells and whistles for this game - eg how players can have recurring PCs across sessions - but what I've outlined above is the gist of it. It self-evidently does not depend upon the GM preparing anything at all, and certainly doesn't require preparing "plot points", "story beats" or "character spotlight moments". I've GMed it for RPGers with decades of experience across multiple systems, and for teenagers whose only experience is a bit of 5e D&D. And I can report from that experience that the system works to produce colourful characters, and engaging situations, and wacky hijinks, and resolutions for the characters whether happy or sad.
To reiterate, this is just one reasonably clear example of play that is not railroad-y, and where the conversation between players and GM is spontaneous. It's not the only way that can be done. (And while I think it's a clever and fun system, it's not my favourite FRPG.) But it shows that it
can be done.
(If you're interested in more elaborate thoughts, that go beyond this one example system, this thread might be interesting:
Advice for new "story now" GMs)
Critical Role is my idea of "perfect play" D&D.
