Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9285745" data-attributes="member: 70468">But the clues point to one conclusion. One may allow different solutions, but the PCs end up at the same place. That’s the point of the structure. When you have multiple of these happening at the same time with clues intertwined and pointing to different nodes, Justin calls that <a href="https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/8171/roleplaying-games/advanced-node-based-design-part-1-moving-between-nodes" target="_blank">advanced node-based design</a>.I’ve written adventures using this structure. I think it’s fine for what it does, and I suspect I’m less down on it than [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER], but what you have is not a situation when the PCs need to take a certain action or reach a certain conclusion. It’s a blind spot for Justin. According to his <a href="https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto" target="_blank">definition of railroad</a>, it’s not a railroad if you get to make choices along the way. It doesn’t matter that all stops lead to the same destination. The GM has to act overtly.Not when you only prep the explosive situations and stop there. For example, in the session I described today in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/commentary-thread-for-that-“describe-your-game-in-five-words”-thread.682741/page-30#post-9285689" target="_blank">post #294</a>, I prepped quite a bit of information on the raiders. There are some potential conflicts, but I don’t leave clues to make them happen. The purpose of this prep is to give me things to say when the raiders come into focus. None of what actually happened in the session was prepped. I just responded to what the PCs were doing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 9285745, member: 70468"] But the clues point to one conclusion. One may allow different solutions, but the PCs end up at the same place. That’s the point of the structure. When you have multiple of these happening at the same time with clues intertwined and pointing to different nodes, Justin calls that [URL='https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/8171/roleplaying-games/advanced-node-based-design-part-1-moving-between-nodes']advanced node-based design[/URL]. I’ve written adventures using this structure. I think it’s fine for what it does, and I suspect I’m less down on it than [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER], but what you have is not a situation when the PCs [I]need[/I] to take a certain action or reach a certain conclusion. It’s a blind spot for Justin. According to his [URL='https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto']definition of railroad[/URL], it’s not a railroad if you get to make choices along the way. It doesn’t matter that all stops lead to the same destination. The GM has to act overtly. Not when you only prep the explosive situations and stop there. For example, in the session I described today in [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/commentary-thread-for-that-“describe-your-game-in-five-words”-thread.682741/page-30#post-9285689']post #294[/URL], I prepped quite a bit of information on the raiders. There are some potential conflicts, but I don’t leave clues to make them happen. The purpose of this prep is to give me things to say when the raiders come into focus. None of what actually happened in the session was prepped. I just responded to what the PCs were doing. [/QUOTE]

Verification