Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[pemerton]

It doesn’t particularly need express instructions. It has 6 keyed encounters and no way for them to happen in any order than 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 6.

<snip>

there’s no way for the keyed encounters to occur in any order other than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

I already gave an example of how this isn't true. Maybe the Halfling goes ahead, having no encounter in room 3, but as a result of the encounter in room 4 calls their bigger friends to help, who then have an encounter (with the trap) in room 3.

The encounter with the writing in room 2 could also easily happen in a different sequence from the one you posit.

 

[Umbran]

I already gave an example of how this isn't true. Maybe the Halfling goes ahead, having no encounter in room 3, but as a result of the encounter in room 4 calls their bigger friends to help, who then have an encounter (with the trap) in room 3.

The encounter with the writing in room 2 could also easily happen in a different sequence from the one you posit.

Let us try an example from The Wild Beyond the Witchlight:

Spoiler: Because this is a fairly new adventure...

The characters start at the entrance of the Witchlight Carnival, which is Chapter 1.

There is only one passage in the Carnival to the Feywild. It only goes to one place in the Feywild. There are several ways to find this passage, including one deus ex machina to ensure it can happen. But if you do not choose to go through the passage, the adventure is done. The passage is one-way.

Once you have reached the Feywild, you are in Chapter 2, in a largish area in which to adventure, but you may not leave until you find one of the handful of guides that can take you to Chapter 3, 4, or 5. The guides are placed such that the most likely path is to go linearly though 2 through 5, but there's technically the ability to branch.

There are only four entities in the adventure with the power to allow the characters to leave altogether - three of them are antagonists, and the fourth is in Chapter 5, at the expected end of the adventure.

Strictly speaking, as written, the PCs cannot reach high enough level to free themselves from the Feywild.

 

[Lanefan]

The focus here seems to be on geography: there's a single tunnel with things spread along it.

So the linearity is the geography.

Exactly. And in exploration play, geography is by far the most frequent aspect being investigated and-or discovered.

But there seems to be some other premise at work that I'm not quite getting. Still looking at the dungeon scenario that @Malmuria linked to, I don't see how each of the dungeon rooms is a scene. Different scenes could happen in the same room: for instance, a Halfling could sneak forward from room 2 to room 4, get spotted by the boss, call for help, and then when their bigger friends come running the pressure plate triggers. Now we've had two different scenes in room 3.

Scene sequencing is different than exploration. A railroad often has as one of its easily-identifiable flaws hard-sequenced scenes and-or hard-coded outcomes, and some might name the hard-coded scene sequencing as being linear.

Above, hard-coded scene sequencing would somehow prevent the Halfling from sneaking forward to room 4 until any scenes in room 2 - and then room 3 - were sorted. This can also occur in settings where the geography itself is not in fact linear; as evidenced by the old "whichever way you go there will be an Ogre" meme.

A linear dungeon or map is most easily (as in, immediately) identified by its hard-sequenced geography where one area must be passed through in order to get to the next, regardless of anything that might happen in any of those places. The Halfling can sneak up and down between rooms 1 and 6 all she likes but has no choice on where to go other than up or down through the sequentially-numbered spaces; she can't get from room 2 to room 5 without passing through both 3 and 4, in that order.

This seems to be all about geography. And also seems to equate adventure (as in "linear adventure") with exploration of the imagined geography. And for the reasons I've give above, I don't really see how geography and scenes are being correlated.

Two things:

Geography provides, for lack of a better term, the scenes (as in backdrops) in which the scenes (as in dramas) take place. Perhaps more importantly, geography serves to spatially - and as a side effect, temporally due to the time needed to get from one place to another via available means - connect those scenes together such that they don't happen in isolation.

Further - and 5E D&D nicely codified this in its 3 pillars of play model - geography provides something for the exploration pillar (which is in theory 1/3 of the game, one's own practice may vary widely) to do, as it is slowly revealed as the PCs get to it for the first time.

 

[pemerton]

Let us try an example from The Wild Beyond the Witchlight:

Spoiler: Because this is a fairly new adventure...

The characters start at the entrance of the Witchlight Carnival, which is Chapter 1.

There is only one passage in the Carnival to the Feywild. It only goes to one place in the Feywild. There are several ways to find this passage, including one deus ex machina to ensure it can happen. But if you do not choose to go through the passage, the adventure is done. The passage is one-way.

This seems to be an adventure set in <a certain part of the setting> but that instructs the GM, instead of just framing the PCs in to <that certain part of the setting>, to "lure" the players into choosing to have their PCs go there.

That suggests that "linear adventure" means lacks the courage of its framing convictions!. I've seen a lot of published modules that exemplify this trait.

Spoiler: Because this is a fairly new adventure...

Once you have reached the Feywild, you are in Chapter 2, in a largish area in which to adventure, but you may not leave until you find one of the handful of guides that can take you to Chapter 3, 4, or 5. The guides are placed such that the most likely path is to go linearly though 2 through 5, but there's technically the ability to branch.

There are only four entities in the adventure with the power to allow the characters to leave altogether - three of them are antagonists, and the fourth is in Chapter 5, at the expected end of the adventure.

So it's a linear adventure if it's set in a small-ish geographical region?

 

[niklinna]

This seems to be an adventure set in <a certain part of the setting> but that instructs the GM, instead of just framing the PCs in to <that certain part of the setting>, to "lure" the players into choosing to have their PCs go there.

That suggests that "linear adventure" means lacks the courage of its framing convictions!. I've seen a lot of published modules that exemplify this trait.

I have too. Another term that people use, although rather more contentious, is "railroad". There are differences but nobody agrees on them, of course.

Note that even when the GM just frames the PCs into the next situation (be it narrative or geographical), if only one sequence is in the script—with PCs unable to affect the sequence or take actions that lead to alternate possible next situations—that's still linear.

And the example shows, a whole adventure doesn't have to be linear. It can be just part.

So it's a linear adventure if it's set in a small-ish geographical region?

Not a requirement.

As I hinted above, a linear adventure can be structured narratively or geographically (or a combination of the two, of course). The key thing is that, at some level of granularity, the players have no choice, except continuing to the single next situation or geographical location, or abandoning the adventure.

A geographical example would be a sequence of rooms that can only be visited in order, or a series of starports the PCs travel to on a fixed itinerary. Geographically linear situations often allow for backtracking. Except for impenetrable doors that lock behind you and such!

A narratively linear sequence typically involves a particular objective or activity for the PCs, such that they must obtain a particular objective or perform a particular activity (maybe combat, maybe a skill challenge, or convincing an NPC to do something), before they can proceed to the singular next situation. Or maybe they just watch something happen; the equivalent of a cutscene.

A linear adventure may further restrict player's options within a situation. I have played in several adventures where the instructions to the GM are explicit that the main villain of a scene cannot be defeated and will escape, no matter what the players do, but that has to happen to progress to the next scene (in which case the point of the fight was just to have a fight, or, slightly better, gain some info or a MacGuffin during the process of fighting). You have likely seen such things too.

An adventure needn't be purely linear, as your examination of Matt Colville's example showed. Order of actions can affect the sequence of situations in that dungeon (perhaps an oversight on the designer's part, perhaps deliberately allowed). But its gross structure is mostly linear, in that there are no branching corridors or rooms with multiple exits, and the expectation is that the whole party will resolve a situation in one room before proceeding to the next.

 

[Umbran]

This seems to be an adventure set in <a certain part of the setting> but that instructs the GM, instead of just framing the PCs in to <that certain part of the setting>, to "lure" the players into choosing to have their PCs go there.

The adventure gives two different framings - One being, "A guy hires you all to go deal with a problem, and the starting point is in the Witchlight Carnival." The other is a framing in character generation that gives each PC a reason to go to the Carnival. The PCs don't know all the details, or where the road leads, but if they want to continue, there is only one path from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2.

The framing, however, is not relevant. The shape of the path through the adventure is what matters.

That suggests that "linear adventure" means lacks the courage of its framing convictions!.

Your personal estimation of the adventure's "courage" is not really relevant.

So it's a linear adventure if it's set in a small-ish geographical region?

No. The smallish geographical regions (or rooms in a dungeon, or information nodes in a mystery) are arranged like beads on a string in a particular order. The only way to get to a later bead is through the previous ones in a prescribed order. They are in a line, not in a web or in a free area, and thus linear.

If an adventure has a pre-written path through it, from A to B to C to D, from which the PCs cannot meaningfully deviate, then you can say it is linear.

So, in the bit you were referencing, the halfling cannot skip room 2 and go on to room 3. Entry into room 3 is gated on something in room 2 that must be dealt with before you can move on.

 

[pemerton]

@niklinna, @Umbran

Thanks for your replies.

I'm still somewhat at a loss: Umbran says the framing is not relevant to an adventure being linear, but then I'm left with nothing but the text, which is inevitably linear (it begins at page 1, and finishes at page <whatever>).

Reference is made to places/rooms being able to be visited only in order. I live in a house where that is largely true, but that doesn't mean every day of my life in my house is the same! Because different things happen, occasionally different people are in one or the other room, etc. It seemed to me that two different groups could play the little 6 room dungeon and have different experiences, depending on choices made, whether or not they have a Halfling who sneaks ahead, etc.

The key thing is that, at some level of granularity, the players have no choice, except continuing to the single next situation or geographical location, or abandoning the adventure.

<snip>

A narratively linear sequence typically involves a particular objective or activity for the PCs, such that they must obtain a particular objective or perform a particular activity (maybe combat, maybe a skill challenge, or convincing an NPC to do something), before they can proceed to the singular next situation. Or maybe they just watch something happen; the equivalent of a cutscene.

A linear adventure may further restrict player's options within a situation. I have played in several adventures where the instructions to the GM are explicit that the main villain of a scene cannot be defeated and will escape, no matter what the players do

In this example, the player's lack of choice seems to consist in, or be the result of, at least the following factors: (i) a commitment to obtaining an objective; (ii) a decision taken by the GM (following the instructions of the adventure writer?) that a necessary condition of obtaining that objective is performing some particular action (or maybe one of a small group of fairly similar actions); (iii) a decision taken by the GM (again, following instructions?) that other actions which, to the players, look relevant to obtaining the objective in fact will fizzle in that respect.

So it might be the case that we could keep "the adventure" largely intact but change the instructions, and now it wouldn't be linear anymore.

The shape of the path through the adventure is what matters.

This is causing me confusion. How do the players find, or engage with, the path of the adventure? How does it manifest itself, given that typically the players aren't reading the adventure book?

The smallish geographical regions (or rooms in a dungeon, or information nodes in a mystery) are arranged like beads on a string in a particular order. The only way to get to a later bead is through the previous ones in a prescribed order. They are in a line, not in a web or in a free area, and thus linear.

If an adventure has a pre-written path through it, from A to B to C to D, from which the PCs cannot meaningfully deviate, then you can say it is linear.

This brings me back to the "cannot". Who imposes the cannot?

It seems like the cannot is what entails the linearity, rather than vice versa. But where does this "cannot" come from?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I already gave an example of how this isn't true. Maybe the Halfling goes ahead, having no encounter in room 3, but as a result of the encounter in room 4 calls their bigger friends to help, who then have an encounter (with the trap) in room 3.

The encounter with the writing in room 2 could also easily happen in a different sequence from the one you posit.

Physically moving into room 3 is encountering room 3. You may not interact with it in any way but you still encountered it.

 

[niklinna]

I'm still somewhat at a loss: Umbran says the framing is not relevant to an adventure being linear, but then I'm left with nothing but the text, which is inevitably linear (it begins at page 1, and finishes at page <whatever>).

In normal reading of a typical novel, you start at page 1 and read everything in sequence to the last page. In a Choose Your Own Adventure book, you might begin at page 1, but instructions on that page will have you go to page 3, or page 72, or page 77 (for example). Some books have footnotes, or endnotes, which you can follow from the middle of the page to the bottom, or to the end of the book (or chapter), and back to where you were. There are more possibilities but these are perhaps most relevant to the issue at hand.

The level of granularity I alluded to, in a Choose Your Own Adventure book, is typically a page or two. IN a typical novel, it's every word of every sentence! There are other levels, I could get into this more if you like.

Reference is made to places/rooms being able to be visited only in order. I live in a house where that is largely true, but that doesn't mean every day of my life in my house is the same! Because different things happen, occasionally different people are in one or the other room, etc. It seemed to me that two different groups could play the little 6 room dungeon and have different experiences, depending on choices made, whether or not they have a Halfling who sneaks ahead, etc.

Yes, like I said, linearity could be geographical, or narrative (or combine them). If the rooms are ordered A-B-C-D, you cannot get from A to D without going through B and C, in that order. Such a setup is linear, even if you run the adventure for different groups who do different things, in that, barring things like teleportation and such of course, they will all (or each) have to progress through the rooms in linear order (in either direction), regardless of what they do in the rooms. The level of granularity is here involves both rooms and individual characters. (Some adventures do not allow groups to split up.)

In this example, the player's lack of choice seems to consist in, or be the result of, at least the following factors: (i) a commitment to obtaining an objective; (ii) a decision taken by the GM (following the instructions of the adventure writer?) that a necessary condition of obtaining that objective is performing some particular action (or maybe one of a small group of fairly similar actions); (iii) a decision taken by the GM (again, following instructions?) that other actions which, to the players, look relevant to obtaining the objective in fact will fizzle in that respect.

Yes, basically:

• For (i), the players must agree to striving for the scripted objective—and attain it. If they don't, no/failed adventure). This can include not knowing or not discovering what the objective even is, a rather severe failure.
• For (ii) , the particular actions may or may not be specified by the script (this would be a lower level of granularity than situation/objective). Torg dramatic skill resolutions, for example, script 4 skill tests that must be performed in order on successive rounds (amongst other details). In that sense, dramatic skill resolutions are linear.
• For (iii), very much so, the GM must agree not to go off-script and allow options the script does not provide for. If the GM does go off-script, the adventure may become branched or nonlinear in some way. Or, as with the Torg dramatic skill resolution, the options available to the players become much broader. And as I noted, I've played in several published Torg adventures where, for example, no matter what we players did, we could not escape capture, or capture the villain—even if we tried mightily! Since the GM didn't want to waste time, he got the point of just letting us know the script so we could move right on to the next scene.

This all presumes a fixed script (or geography), of course—which needn't have been created beforehand. It's possible to improv a rigidly linear set of situations, too.

I'll point out once again that "linear" needn't apply to an entire adventure, from beginning to end, any portion of an adventure could be linear. But the longer a linear sequence is, the more noticeable the linearity will be. Whether that is an issue for the participants is more about the participants.

So it might be the case that we could keep "the adventure" largely intact but change the instructions, and now it wouldn't be linear anymore.

Absolutely possible. The Alexandrian even has some articles about doing that (with examples). I could dig them up if you like.

This is causing me confusion. How do the players find, or engage with, the path of the adventure? How does it manifest itself, given that typically the players aren't reading the adventure book?

They are dependent on the GM to tell them. Published Torg Eternity adventures often begin with the scene courageously framed as a briefing at secret headquarters, or at the dropoff point for the mission, or whatever, and the GM fills the players in on the situation. Likewise, typically when the players satisfy the termination conditions for the scene, Torg Eternity adventures courageously move on to frame the next scene.

This brings me back to the "cannot". Who imposes the cannot?

The GM imposes the cannot. If they don't, the adventure might become nonlinear. As long as the GM is ready to handle that, of course, it isn't a problem! but doing so might involve a lot of work.

It seems like the cannot is what entails the linearity, rather than vice versa. But where does this "cannot" come from?

Linearity is a form of restriction, so yes, the cannot is the crux of the matter. It comes from whoever scripted/architected the situations, with the GM enforcing the restrictions. Those may be the same person, of course.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

@niklinna, @Umbran

Thanks for your replies.

I'm still somewhat at a loss: Umbran says the framing is not relevant to an adventure being linear, but then I'm left with nothing but the text, which is inevitably linear (it begins at page 1, and finishes at page <whatever>).

Reference is made to places/rooms being able to be visited only in order. I live in a house where that is largely true, but that doesn't mean every day of my life in my house is the same! Because different things happen, occasionally different people are in one or the other room, etc. It seemed to me that two different groups could play the little 6 room dungeon and have different experiences, depending on choices made, whether or not they have a Halfling who sneaks ahead, etc.

In this example, the player's lack of choice seems to consist in, or be the result of, at least the following factors: (i) a commitment to obtaining an objective; (ii) a decision taken by the GM (following the instructions of the adventure writer?) that a necessary condition of obtaining that objective is performing some particular action (or maybe one of a small group of fairly similar actions); (iii) a decision taken by the GM (again, following instructions?) that other actions which, to the players, look relevant to obtaining the objective in fact will fizzle in that respect.

So it might be the case that we could keep "the adventure" largely intact but change the instructions, and now it wouldn't be linear anymore.

This is causing me confusion. How do the players find, or engage with, the path of the adventure? How does it manifest itself, given that typically the players aren't reading the adventure book?

This brings me back to the "cannot". Who imposes the cannot?

It seems like the cannot is what entails the linearity, rather than vice versa. But where does this "cannot" come from?

The cannot omes from two things.

1. The adventure may explicit say it is outright impossible to go back the way you came..

2. If where you want to go isn't written in the adventure then it effectively doesn't exist. Perhaps the adventure has a river running through a chamber in a dungeon meant to be an obstacle. If a player decided to ignore the dungeon rooms and just swim "off the map" in some underground river they effectively chose to stop playing that published adventure.