Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 7375806" data-attributes="member: 2656">Even with GM-driven games in the "weight" or "depth" of game settings, from heavily detailed worlds dripping with lore and consequences under every rock, to lightly sketched minimalist settings that get added detail only when PC action makes it necessary. IMO the sort of bottom-up world development that results from starting in a dungeon, adding a village, then a second adventure location, then a town etc is likely to be closer to the lightly-detailed group of settings.The less detail a setting has, the less consequences are associated with particular locations, and the less there is of detail that would make arbitrary player goals impossible or irrelevant.I've never seen a "No myth" setting for a GM-driven game, but I have seen extremely light settings that get close.Framing PCs into a location in a heavy-weight setting may bring with it lots of consequences, some or all unknown to the players, so it could be railroading. Framing PCs into a location in a lightweight setting has a lot less inherent consequences, and is less likely to be railroading IMO."No myth" locations, as I understand them, only have as much or as little detail as the participants want, and typically don't get in the way of the focus of play which is the player goals. Such locations will often carry no inherent consequences, the focus of play is on the player goals, and the onus is on the dramatic decision points re these goals and their interaction to provide player agency and drive the game, not the location or the setting.  If everyone involved in a group is content with the level of detail of the setting I see their choice as valid whether that's a highly detailed gameworld or a barely there setting. These choices do have consequences for the type of play they encourage,typically highly detailed worlds constrain the PCs more , low detail worlds constrain PCs less.This is on the basis that railroading is obstructing meaningful PC decisions. Meaningful decisions rest in different places in different styles of play, whether location-based, event-based, goal-based etc.I would hope to assume it's obvious that these styles, or any style of play, only works if all participants are sufficiently on board. No style of play can stand up to constant frustration or unhappiness on the part of any of the participants, something has got to give (game changes, players leave, revolution and a new GM, group falls apart etc).</blockquote>

Verification