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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5803966" data-attributes="member: 42582">These are both notions that get tossed around from time to time.I personally favour a game that could well be described using these phrases - though I personally wouldn't use them, given their pejorative tone. I would describe my game as "player driven" and "focused on the situation rather than on exploration", with the GM having strong authority over framing those situations (encounters, scenes).My problem with the phrase "My Precious Encounter" is that it seems to assume that the GM is framing situations in response to his/her own preferences, rather than those of the players.The point of strong GM authority over scene-framing isn't to let the GM's preferences trump: it's to absolve the players of the responsibility of having to both set their own challenge and resolve it, which can create a conflict of interest if the point of play is mostly to find out what the players (via their PCs) do when challenge ensues.It follows from this that the main way in which a so-called "My Precious Encounter" game can fail isn't railroading, but rather being boring: the GM misunderstands or otherwise fails properly to get what his/her players are interested in, and therefore frames scenes that are a waste of everyone's time.It further follows, then, that if a game is to be good at supporting this sort of situationally-focused game, it should maximise the opportunities for the players to tell their GM what sort of things they are interested in doing - while leaving it up to the GM to actually build those encounters. Burning Wheel does this with Belief, Instincts and (to a lesser extent) Traits. 4e does this with choice of race, choice of class, choice of theme (and the Neverwinter book is especially good at calling out this aspect of theme), choice of Paragon Path, choice of Epic Destiny etc.It further follows, then, that a 4e GM who tries unilaterally to constrain player choice of race, class, theme etc - who tries unilaterally to constrain the signals that the players are able to send - is in danger of compromising those signals, and therefore of ending up framing scenes that are a waste of everyone's time.This is why so-called "player entitlement" is a different matter in a situational game than in (say) a sandbox game or an adventure path. It's not about "pushy" or "whiny" players. It's about giving the players the tools to send the signals that the GM needs to do his/her job successfully. A secondary reason for letting players make the PC build choices that they want to make (including, in some systems - like 4e - magic item choices) is to enable them to take their PCs - the ones they have chosen to play - into the encounters that the GM is presenting them with.Of course, there's no reason why a group couldn't buy into a game in which (for example) there is no divine magic - "Hey guys, let's play Dark Sun". But that would be a group decision, not a unilateral GM decision. (The Burning Wheel books have good advice on how to go about putting together a starting situation for the game as a group thing rather than just a GM thing.)Anyway, that's my take on these things.</blockquote>

Verification