Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6133250" data-attributes="member: 177">Or, maybe they're fine at doing it, but just prefer the more directed playstyle.That's rather dismissive of what the player's doing and getting out of the game.&nbsp; It isn't necessarily &quot;color&quot; and &quot;a bit of local content&quot; - that makes it seem that nobody is really interested in those bits.&nbsp; It may, in fact, be the part of the game the player's actually interested in.&nbsp; These discussions usually come down to &quot;meaningful choices&quot; - does the GM remove the player's meaningful choices?&nbsp; What gets missed is that &quot;meaningful&quot; is subjective - player dependent.&nbsp; It is a meaningful choice if the player finds meaning in it?&nbsp; So, how do any of us know what is &quot;meaningful&quot; to *all* players?&nbsp; What if the player does not find the choices of determining &quot;the plot&quot; to be meaningful?&nbsp; For example: What if your player is less a tactician, and more an improv actor?&nbsp; Improvisational acting is not done really ex tempore.&nbsp; Improv artists work from an outline.&nbsp; The details moment to moment are new each time, but there are set points along the way that everyone in the cast is expected to reach, agreed upon beforehand - rehearsed, even!&nbsp; So, the railroad provides that outline, and now the player can go to town, comfortable that the points of tension and release will be hit, because someone will take them there.&nbsp; The player can then concentrate on representation of the person of their character.And, don't you then have to front-load with tons of rich campaign-world-information for the players to riff on?&nbsp; All we're doing it fitting the amount and type of information fed to the players match what kind of choices the players are interested in making!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6133250, member: 177"] Or, maybe they're fine at doing it, but just [I]prefer[/I] the more directed playstyle. That's rather dismissive of what the player's doing and getting out of the game. It isn't necessarily "color" and "a bit of local content" - that makes it seem that nobody is really interested in those bits. It may, in fact, be the part of the game the player's actually interested in. These discussions usually come down to "meaningful choices" - does the GM remove the player's meaningful choices? What gets missed is that "meaningful" is subjective - player dependent. It is a meaningful choice if the player finds meaning in it? So, how do any of us know what is "meaningful" to *all* players? What if the player does not find the choices of determining "the plot" to be meaningful? For example: What if your player is less a tactician, and more an improv actor? Improvisational acting is not done really [I]ex tempore[/I]. Improv artists work from an outline. The details moment to moment are new each time, but there are set points along the way that everyone in the cast is expected to reach, agreed upon beforehand - rehearsed, even! So, the railroad provides that outline, and now the player can go to town, comfortable that the points of tension and release will be hit, because someone will take them there. The player can then concentrate on representation of the person of their character. And, don't you then have to front-load with tons of rich campaign-world-information for the players to riff on? All we're doing it fitting the amount and type of information fed to the players match what kind of choices the players are interested in making! [/QUOTE]

Verification