Before I answer any questions I just want to make something clear. Yes, leveling is awesome. But ... I view it as mostly just a way to tell different stories. At low levels you're dealing with street gangs at high levels you're dealing with ancient dragons, arch-demons and Cthulhu wannabes.
@Oofta
Could you describe the
game portion of your play within the following contextual boundaries?
1) How many consequential moments of mechanical action resolution occur within the confines of a session (I’m talking framed obstacle > Player navigatedecision-point and deploys means to resolve obstacle > not say yes, not say no, but mechanical resolution > significantly changed gamestate as output).
By mechanical you mean rolling dice? Or decisions made by the PCs? Well, if up to half my game is combat (I honestly don't really know, I don't time it and it varies wildly) then for the former probably 55%. Maybe? Dice rolls for various things come up, mostly in sort-of-skill-challenges scenes but many things are just straight RP.
2) How much of the overall trajectory of play in your campaign to date is derivative of 1) above; most, a lot, some, or a little?
If we're talking mechanical resolution, very little. How goals are achieved may be more or less difficult, while I try to avoid loose ends or dead ends sometimes allies are won/lost enemies are made/defeated/avoided. But a lot of that is through RP.
For example if the group is tracking down a murder, there may be clues that would give them a leg up. Find the clue, follow the lead and they have a chance to surprise the murderer or prevent further tragedy. Fail and more people may die, the murderer may ambush the group, any number of options depending on the scenario. There have been critical moments when fate was decided by the roll of the dice, usually multiple rolls of the dice, along with decisions being made. But it's rare.
3) Advancement is consensus-based and not derivative of game, correct (given what you’ve just said above)? What about the inverse? How often do characters deal with non-death fallout? When they do, is that derivative of game or is it similar to Advancement (eg when the tables reaches consensus on pacing or “the story” feels right)? If it’s negotiated consensus, what informs the reasoning for this choice vs that choice?
Failure happens, less-than-optimal outcomes happen. Sometimes the murderer gets away, sometimes the nemesis I was setting up gets tromped on because they were clever or lucky. Sometimes they make a deal with the devil and the fine print comes back to haunt them later.
The players are not dictating the story per se, they are telling me what their PCs are saying and doing. The interaction of the PCs with the world is what matters.
4) How much of any given session’s play trajectory is some combination of free play + negotiated consensus as you’ve described for Advancement above; most, a lot, some, or a little? To whatever degree it’s free play + negotiated consensus, what informs the reasoning for this choice vs that choice?
I would say the majority is decided by free play, actions and decisions of the PCs. I do a sort-of-sandbox campaign. I provide leads, drop hints, set up scenarios but the group always decides what they want to do. I set up something similar to chapters, small story arcs. When one chapter ends I give the group options of what they can do next and they can always suggest something themselves.
I almost always have more going on than the group can deal with and the world goes on whether they interact with things or not.
Hopefully that answers your questions.
www.enworld.org
