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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7107159" data-attributes="member: 6785785">My point is that the GM who has only had a notion that the NPC may be the PC's father has shaped the outcome to fit a specific possibility. This is prior to the "moment of crunch" as you call it....the GM has shaped the fiction so that the NPC could be the PC's father. Even if at the moment of crunch, the GM decides not to follow through....that doesn't change the fact that he has been shaping things to fit that outcome, realized or not. As I said, this may be minor in many cases, but I'm sure it could also be significant, depending on the circumstances of play and the fiction that's been established. Sure. But is the GM shaping the outcome to fit a specific preconceived narrative? The player introduced the interest in who the PC's father might be. Then the GM came up with an NPC and then determined shaped things so that it was possible for that NPC to be the father. I feel like what you've described here actually fits your definition of railroad from the OP. Yes, there is some player input....but that doesn't change the fact that the GM is shaping things in regard to the specific NPC and putting that NPC forth as the father. Or at the very least, putting forth that this NPC is possibly the father. Does the player having some input remove that requirement that you've proscribed to railroading, in your opinion? Is it not railroading if the GM is steering things toward a preconceived narrative with which the player has had some input? I think perhaps you've snipped a bit too much of my post in your quote....it's lost a lot of context as a result. I wasn't questioning the ability of your playstyle to allow for mysteries. I was instead addressing your statement that players in a Story Now game have causal power to affect the outcome, and that players in a Secret Backstory game have no such power. Which is incorrect. You made a point about the GM having already determined the outcome of the game in a Secret Backstory type game. I refute that as a requirement of such a game. The players are still striving to have a causal effect on the outcome of the game. In this case, they're trying to defeat Strahd and determine the fate of those in Barovia. In your game, the PCs are working to deny that the Dusk War is upon them. In one game, if the PCs succeed, Strahd is defeated, and if they fail, Strahd wins. In your game, if the PCs succeed, then the Dusk War is not dawning, and if they fail, then it is. Causal power is had by both groups of players. It's more a question of degree. Your game allows for more instances of such throughout the game, whereas the Curse of Strahd adventure has probably a handful of meaningful decisions like that for the players to make, and the significance of many of them is likely less. But again...this is where I think you have mistaken a game having mechanics that support a play style you like to equal a game that lacks such mechanics specifically not allowing for elements of that playstyle. To use an example, Call of Cthulhu famously has rules that govern the horrific events of the game and the impact these events have on the sanity of the PCs. By Contrast, Mutants and Masterminds does not have such mechanics. Does this mean that M&M cannot be used to play a more horror-based game? Does this mean that the GM of M&M cannot either use his judgment to impose a horrific atmosphere on the game, or that he cannot come up with some mechanics that do support that theme?</blockquote>

Verification