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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5498878" data-attributes="member: 55271">Completely agreed. There's nothing inherently wrong with railroading, and lots of people have great experiences in railroaded games.I don't think anyone's disputing that the rules control and/or affect pacing. But:(1) In general, I think GMs and players are better are effectively controlling pace than a set of simplistic mechanics will ever be. I'm not convinced that "everything should take exactly the same amount of time" or "every combat should be paced exactly like every other combat" are actually good examples of effective, dramatic pacing. It doesn't match my experience at the game table, and it doesn't match what effective, dramatic pacing looks like in any other medium, either.(2) In specific, pemerton keeps claiming that this mechanically-controlled pacing has something to do with "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the   players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)   and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this   thematic material".Not only am I failing to see the connection, but mechanically-enforced pacing seems to run completely contrary to the idea of GM-controlled framing. To take a simple example: Without ignoring the actual rules (which appears to be what both pemerton and Hussar advocate), you can't cut away from scenes in the way that Czege and Edwards argue for when framing scenes.</blockquote>

Verification