Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 7340696" data-attributes="member: 2656">So long as they are satisfied with the amount of agency they do end up with, it doesn't matter. More agency isn't objectively better, it's only better if that's what the players want, and the referee (if there is one) is OK with it. More agency means more or bigger decisions, and players who don't want these decisions often balk at them like a horse refusing a jump. For such players pre-authored backstory can be an advantage, as such worlds can have enough detail to allow them to keep making a bunch of  small incremental decisions, rather than much smaller number of  big dramatic ones.I want to write something about boxed text, which are a feature of old-fashioned adventure modules. Such adventures often feature a linear adventure model and some railroading may be useful or necessary to keep the players on track. Node or scene based adventures can feature boxed text as well, and may require less railroading.Done right, boxed text allows newbie GMs to run a tolerable game, and newbie players to figure out how to play. When the players make some progress in the adventure, it's often signified by a new passage of boxed text. When run in this style pretty quickly players associate boxed text with adventure progress. Depending on the system, GM and adventure, there may be non-boxed parts of the adventure that the players still find fun, but the GM may downplay excursions off the main adventure path.For better or worse, IMO some players associate boxed text with rookie GMing. They conceal it with improved exposition or avoid it entirely by various means, including just not having boxed text at all. Boxed text doesn't need to be delivered in a monotone, or be boring, or be in a single easily identifiable block.Concealing or removing boxed text potentially removes clear signals to players that they are on the right path (assuming a right path exists-I have to say it annoys me when a referee says there's no right path when the game itself clearly illustrates there is one). It might be necessary to replace missing signals so players have enought information to make meaningful decisions. I'm a big fan of transparency in games, among other things because I've seen so much time wasted in games when the players and referee were at loggerheads but unwilling to talk things out out of character.</blockquote>

Verification