Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5412905" data-attributes="member: 4937">I know your general stake in the discussion.&nbsp; I've been trying to pin down exactly what mix of exploratory and responsive elements you are using to see if I could say from this remote distance whether you were primarily responsive in nature or primarily exploratory.&nbsp; However, I conceed that there are campaigns - of which yours may be an example - which are marked primarily by a narrative which is controlled to some extent by the declared narrative goals of the players.&nbsp; I don't however conceed that that doesn't make them generally classifiable along the axis of - Adventure Path/Sandbox (or linear/non-linear).&nbsp; I agree that such campaigns lie somewhat outside the paradigm Adventure Path or Sandbox, because in classic RPG play the players aren't given a high degree of narrative control.&nbsp; That is to say generally speaking, a player doesn't have the power to shape the setting on the metagame level.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the player wants to shape the setting, they must do so within the game through character actions with the assumption that prior to the character impacting the setting through some choice that all details of the setting had been controlled by the DM.&nbsp; Sitting down with the character and saying, &quot;Ok, you want to play a barbarian who opposes a snake cult who has murdered your family, so I'll place a snake cult in the campaign.&quot;&nbsp; is outside the usual paradigm.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, while it is unusual, it doesn't change the linearity of the campaign to do that.&nbsp; It simply means that depending on the implementation, you have an adventure path where the players set the goals or a sandbox where the players populated the setting.&nbsp; (Or of course, you might have some complex mixture of the two since midway on the linearity axis is still a point on the axis.)Who set the preferences of play doesn't really matter IMO.&nbsp; Likewise, &quot;the GM only sets up the situations but the players resolve them&quot; is so generic of a comment that we can't distinguish a railroad from a rowboat using that test alone. I'm not convinced you are doing predominately linear play, but the technique of changing the scenario on the fly (regardless of the reason) is a linear technique.In GNS theory, what you described is generally called 'Narrative' play or 'nar-play'.&nbsp; It is in my experience rather rare.&nbsp; In my experience, it's quite the opposite of casual gaming.&nbsp; Casual gamers are unlikely to hit upon it, and its more likely a sign of very mature roleplaying groups with alot of experience (like 10 years or more).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5412905, member: 4937"] I know your general stake in the discussion. I've been trying to pin down exactly what mix of exploratory and responsive elements you are using to see if I could say from this remote distance whether you were primarily responsive in nature or primarily exploratory. However, I conceed that there are campaigns - of which yours may be an example - which are marked primarily by a narrative which is controlled to some extent by the declared narrative goals of the players. I don't however conceed that that doesn't make them generally classifiable along the axis of - Adventure Path/Sandbox (or linear/non-linear). I agree that such campaigns lie somewhat outside the paradigm Adventure Path or Sandbox, because in classic RPG play the players aren't given a high degree of narrative control. That is to say generally speaking, a player doesn't have the power to shape the setting on the metagame level. If the player wants to shape the setting, they must do so within the game through character actions with the assumption that prior to the character impacting the setting through some choice that all details of the setting had been controlled by the DM. Sitting down with the character and saying, "Ok, you want to play a barbarian who opposes a snake cult who has murdered your family, so I'll place a snake cult in the campaign." is outside the usual paradigm. But, while it is unusual, it doesn't change the linearity of the campaign to do that. It simply means that depending on the implementation, you have an adventure path where the players set the goals or a sandbox where the players populated the setting. (Or of course, you might have some complex mixture of the two since midway on the linearity axis is still a point on the axis.) Who set the preferences of play doesn't really matter IMO. Likewise, "the GM only sets up the situations but the players resolve them" is so generic of a comment that we can't distinguish a railroad from a rowboat using that test alone. I'm not convinced you are doing predominately linear play, but the technique of changing the scenario on the fly (regardless of the reason) is a linear technique. In GNS theory, what you described is generally called 'Narrative' play or 'nar-play'. It is in my experience rather rare. In my experience, it's quite the opposite of casual gaming. Casual gamers are unlikely to hit upon it, and its more likely a sign of very mature roleplaying groups with alot of experience (like 10 years or more). [/QUOTE]

Verification