Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7732821" data-attributes="member: 42582">If I've understood this properly, this is not what I'm talking about.Upthread,  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION],  [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] (I thinks) and  [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] all endorsed the follow two propositions:(1) If some bit of fiction (let's call it X) is written down in the GM's notes, but has not yet been established, the GM is permitted to change it to something else (Q) during the course of play, if s/he thinks that Q will make the game better. (2) If X is written down in the GM's notes, and during play a player declares an action for his/her PC that cannot succeed if X is true (eg the player looks for the map in the study, but the GM has already written down in his/her notes that the map is hidden in a bread bin in the kitchen), then the GM is entitled to rely on X to declare that the declared action fails (and so can, for instance, tell the player that the search for the map in the study fails without having regard to the outcome of any action resolution mechanics).I assert: in a game that is GMed in accordance with propositions (1) and (2), the outcomes depend primiarliy upon the GM's opinion as to what makes for a good game. If s/he likes Q, then Q can come about. If s/he prefers his/her pre-authored X, then X is how it is and player actions will fail because of it.I'm waiting for anyone else to address this point - ie the interaction of the two propositions. As best I understand your post you haven't, because your example is about X already having been established in play (you use the past tense: "gave him or her information about the original storyline that conflicts with the new, better storyline" - ie X is already established in play). [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] haven't, because they haven't posted again in this thread since I asked the quetsion. And  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] hasn't, because he only responded to (2) - asserting the GM's entitlement to uphold the integrity of his/her world - but without discussing it's relationship to (1) - ie the GM's entitlement to change from X to Q if s/he likes.It is the combination of (1) and (2) that I am asking about.It's not true that there's potential for railroading in every game. A GM who plays Moldvay Basic in accordance with the rulebook can produce a boring experience, but not a railroad, because the outcomes will depend upon the interaction between the GM's pre-authored notes - which establish a maze with various "puzles" (in the form of monsters, traps and treasures) within it - and the players' action declarations in their attempt to solve those puzzles.The game will be boring if (i) the players don't like puzzles the focus of their RPGing (eg that's generally me, as far as RPGing is concerned - I have zero patience for scouting, mapping, optimised looting, etc) or (ii) the GM writes a boring dungeon (that's also me - I'm as bad a Gygaxian GM as I am a player).A GM who plays Burning Wheel in accordance with the rulebook can't produce a railroad either, although (again) it might be boring if the GM does a bad job. It can't be a railroad, because - if the GM is following the rulebooks - then (i) every situation is framed by reference to the Beliefs, Relationships, etc that the players authored into their PCs; and (ii) the GM either says "yes" or calls for a check - so if it is a map at issue, and a player declares that his/her PC searches the study for the map, then either the GM declares that the PCs finds it (if the momentum of the game is such that there is nothing at stake in finding the map itself, such that failing to find the map would be a fizzle) or the GM frames a check (depending on context, this could be Perception or Study-wise or Map-wise or something else) and the outcome of that check determines whether the map is found, or whether some new obstacle or complication emerges instead (which the GM will narrate by reference to those Beliefs, Relationships etc plus whatever more immediate stakes are at issue in the situation as it is unfolding at the table).A BW game will be boring if the GM can't think of compelling situations, or can't think of compelling ways to frame checks (saying "yes" to everything makes for a boring game), or can't think of decent consequences for failure. But it won't be a railroad.This is why I am trying to bypass misleading generalities, and hone in on the pair of propositiongs I've identified above.</blockquote>

Verification