Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HeinorNY" data-source="post: 4019759" data-attributes="member: 16178">Pretty much that. When I started playing AD&amp;D, I had a DM that we consider to be a tyrannical Evil DM, but today I understand he was a narrativism aficionado.He was the kind of DM that used to give xp bonus and penalty regarding roleplaying. When sessions ended, he decided if it was a productive session not by the overall fun and good time, but by how well the story was developed and how far we went into his plots.Once we are debating about gaming styles and I proposed a &quot;fictional&quot; gaming situation to better understand his style. I said: &quot;The PCs manage to create a brilliant plan to steal a very powerful magic item from a blacksmith. The plan is flawless and there is nothing in the rules or in the gameworld (and in the blacksmith's house) preventing that plan to work. Would you allow them to steal the item?&quot;He answered: &quot;No. The story is more important, if PCs get that item, the story and the plot is gonna change too much, or will be ruined. I'll just create some metagame situation, anything, but they will never put their hands on that item. No matter how good their plan is.&quot; When character's achievements may be limited for the sakes of the story, you are playing a narrativistic game. When they are limited by the sakes of game balance, it's a gamist game. Simulationist games are limited only by in-game circunstances, never by metagame or metastory intrusion. And DMing is much more complicated <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That's negative railroading. Positive railroading is simpler, the story is there, character will have to go there so the game may continue; If in-game factors are not enough, metagame circunstances arise to accomplish that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HeinorNY, post: 4019759, member: 16178"] Pretty much that. When I started playing AD&D, I had a DM that we consider to be a tyrannical Evil DM, but today I understand he was a narrativism aficionado. He was the kind of DM that used to give xp bonus and penalty regarding roleplaying. When sessions ended, he decided if it was a productive session not by the overall fun and good time, but by how well the story was developed and how far we went into his plots. Once we are debating about gaming styles and I proposed a "fictional" gaming situation to better understand his style. I said: "The PCs manage to create a brilliant plan to steal a very powerful magic item from a blacksmith. The plan is flawless and there is nothing in the rules or in the gameworld (and in the blacksmith's house) preventing that plan to work. Would you allow them to steal the item?" He answered: "No. The story is more important, if PCs get that item, the story and the plot is gonna change too much, or will be ruined. I'll just create some metagame situation, anything, but they will never put their hands on that item. No matter how good their plan is." When character's achievements may be limited for the sakes of the story, you are playing a narrativistic game. When they are limited by the sakes of game balance, it's a gamist game. Simulationist games are limited only by in-game circunstances, never by metagame or metastory intrusion. And DMing is much more complicated ;) That's negative railroading. Positive railroading is simpler, the story is there, character will have to go there so the game may continue; If in-game factors are not enough, metagame circunstances arise to accomplish that. [/QUOTE]

Verification