Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8340433" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm having trouble following you.I'll pull back a bit to "big picture": RPGing consists in the participants talking their way through a sequence of imagined events or situations. What happens next is one of the most important questions that has to be answered by a group playing a RPG - that is to say, having just finished collectively imagining such-and-such happening, what are we required to imagine now?There are various ways to answer this question.Here's one: the end of each sequence includes a description, by the players, of where their PCs are going. The GM has a map-and-key that is detailed enough - at least in respect of the stuff that matters to play - to provide a largely unique answer to the question what happens next. And so the GM provides that answer, the players declare new actions, and the cycle repeats. This is (in outline) how classic dungeoneering works.Here's another: the beginning of each sequence involves the GM describing a situation which - given what matters to play - compels some sort of response from the players, by declaring actions for their PCs. Those declarations include (either expressly or by clear implication) intentions as to how they would like that starting situation to be resolved. If the checks triggered by those declarations succeed, then the players' intentions are realised; if they fail, then the GM gets to follow through on the threat/pressure that was present in the starting point and make that follow-through a part of the shared fiction. What happens next is determined by the GM picking up on elements of threat/pressure that haven't (yet) been fully resolved. Conversely, once all the threat/pressure is resolved then the game is done. This is (in outline) how Burning Wheel works and how 4e D&D works if played in the spirit suggested by the skill challenge guidelines in the two DMGs together with the advice to "cut to the fun".Here's another: the beginning of each sequence involves the GM describing a situation that compels some sort of response from the players; but unlike the approach described in the previous paragraph, whether the players' declared action succeed or fail, what comes next is decided by the GM independent of player intentions. While player actions might affect the details of how a particular situation within the sequence is described, they don't affect the basic trajectory from event to event within the sequence. This is how the DL modules work. This is how the WotC modules Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, The Speaker in Dreams, and The Bastion of Broken Souls work (this last one even has a sidebar explaining to the GM how to make sure the pre-scripted sequence of events remains unperturbed should the PCs kill the main antagonist earlier than the module author anticipates). I imagine it is how many more recent WotC modules work too.That last one is what I would normally call a "railroad", as a RPGing experience in which it is the GM who has overwhelming authority over what happens next. Whether or not it is degenerate (to use [USER=7020832]@FrozenNorth[/USER]'s term from upthread) would depend upon whether it fits with, or contradicts, the participant's expectations. Given the popularity of WotC modules and Critical Role-type play it seems that for many participants it satisfies their expectations!</blockquote>

Verification