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

[Malmuria]

I think 'railroad' is a pretty slippery concept and there are many degrees of 'railroading', and I prefer to use the term in this form, as a verb. I think part of the problem is that a LOT of what goes on in classic 'Trad' play (ala 2e or 5e seemingly preferred paradigm) is effectively the same techniques that are used in hard railroading, but generally softer in effect, and potentially leading to much more open-ended play. So it becomes extremely hard to draw any sort of line because what most of us would do if we run, say, a 5e campaign using published material, would use techniques that are called out as 'railroading' pretty often. Yet we would probably not feel that the overall tenor of play we were seeing had the feeling of being 'a railroad' in any overall sense.

Speaking for myself, when playing in a game of this type, and that reasonably fairly describes at least some of my 5e play, I don't expect something else. I know what it is, and when I, for example, make a decision about what my character is going to do next, I make that decision with the apparent overall structure of the adventure in mind and where it is likely 'wanting' us to go. I see this with players too, and in fact its a hard thing to overcome when you run Story Now for people that have played WotC D&D for the past 20 years.

I think my most fun dnd games have involved a sometimes significant amount of “derailing” (also not the most helpful word). Where, it is clear what The Quest is, and then the players don’t do that. The osr ethos helps with this, in that you are more likely to play ‘scoundrels’ than heroes.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I think my most fun dnd games have involved a sometimes significant amount of “derailing” (also not the most helpful word). Where, it is clear what The Quest is, and then the players don’t do that.

I firmly agree with this. When I created my current campaign, I wrote a note to myself at the bottom of the title page: "Remember, this game is meant to be broken. If they never break the game, you've failed."

Well, I stand by that maxim and I am happy to report that our campaign has not been a failure; they've broken the game at least a half dozen times now and I am delighted by it. It forces me to think fast, sure, but it's where much of our best stuff is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I firmly agree with this. When I created my current campaign, I wrote a note to myself at the bottom of the title page: "Remember, this game is meant to be broken. If they never break the game, you've failed."

Well, I stand by that maxim and I am happy to report that our campaign has not been a failure; they've broken the game at least a half dozen times now and I am delighted by it. It forces me to think fast, sure, but it's where much of our best stuff is.

Alternatively, you can approach the game without a planned story that can be broken. I'm not quite sure I agree with the association of the broken planned story with the game, though. The latter doesn't require the former, although that's a perfectly cromulent way to do it.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Alternatively, you can approach the game without a planned story that can be broken. I'm not quite sure I agree with the association of the broken planned story with the game, though. The latter doesn't require the former, although that's a perfectly cromulent way to do it.

This was my first time DMing, so there was no way I was going to build an actual sandbox game--too wide open for me to run as a newbie. In order to find my own footing, I needed a linear approach. So what I did was build that linear game, populate its regions as much as possible in hopes that players would decide for themselves what was an "adventure hook" for some side activity, throw in a few intentional side quests just in case, and then edit each chapter like crazy as we worked our way through it.

It was a rough start because I so didn't know what I was doing back in March, but I think I've gotten into the swing of it to where at least I'm not frantically chewing my fingernails and trying to remind myself of Matt Colville's tips each Tuesday night.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This was my first time DMing, so there was no way I was going to build an actual sandbox game--too wide open for me to run as a newbie. In order to find my own footing, I needed a linear approach. So what I did was build that linear game, populate its regions as much as possible in hopes that players would decide for themselves what was an "adventure hook" for some side activity, throw in a few intentional side quests just in case, and then edit each chapter like crazy as we worked our way through it.

It was a rough start because I so didn't know what I was doing back in March, but I think I've gotten into the swing of it to where at least I'm not frantically chewing my fingernails and trying to remind myself of Matt Colville's tips each Tuesday night.

I get that, for games like D&D where so much is on the GM to provide for play to occur (the GM is pretty much the only source for much of play information, with players reacting to that). It's a hard hill to climb.

It's not the only game in town, though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I get that, for games like D&D where so much is on the GM to provide for play to occur (the GM is pretty much the only source for much of play information, with players reacting to that). It's a hard hill to climb.

It's not the only game in town, though.

Right. I do think it is the most conceptually simple paradigm for people to understand. OTOH in some ways I think Story Now can actually be 'more natural', as an example. Kids for instance seem to really take to an SN paradigm. The biggest hurdle there can be just imposing enough order on things so it works as a game and not a free-for-all, lol.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. I do think it is the most conceptually simple paradigm for people to understand. OTOH in some ways I think Story Now can actually be 'more natural', as an example. Kids for instance seem to really take to an SN paradigm. The biggest hurdle there can be just imposing enough order on things so it works as a game and not a free-for-all, lol.

Really anyone that doesn't have a set in mode of thinking how RPGs are supposed to work does pretty well with lots of games. The idea that D&D-esque games are the natural default and therefore easiest to learn is false. It's just the most popular.

 

[niklinna]

Right. I do think it is the most conceptually simple paradigm for people to understand. OTOH in some ways I think Story Now can actually be 'more natural', as an example. Kids for instance seem to really take to an SN paradigm. The biggest hurdle there can be just imposing enough order on things so it works as a game and not a free-for-all, lol.

I was once in a horror con game where we all played little kids at summer camp. The GM just let us do hijinks and little-kid stuff for the first two hours, no form or structure whatever. We forgot it was a horror game, and we arrived at the mess hall for dinner, and everybody else in camp had been slaughtered.

Things ramped up from there, as we snuck around, ran for our lives, and looked for a way to deal with the supernatural menace. It was one of the best game sessions I've ever been in.

In another game a couple years later (same con), we were camp counselors. The GM just let us do hijinks and horny-teenager stuff for the first couple hours, no form or structure whatever. We did remember it was a horror game, and were invoking several tropes of 80s slasher films, but we developed some thick, juicy relationships between our characters and were having tons of fun playing that out. The GM even said, out loud, it was a shame this was a horror game and that the killer had to show up (limited time and all!). And then the rest of the game was suspenseful and such, with us herding terrified campers around and getting picked off by the vengeful spirit. But, we'd been having so much more fun before.

I think it would have been better for the GM to say, eh, screw it, it's a horror con but we're doing this thing and it's going swimmingly, so, no slaughter. If we'd had more time, we could have drawn out both phases for a more satisfying overall session staying true to the premise, but time slots are time slots.

For what it's worth, in the first scenario we actually had a way to defeat the evil thing (and did!), but in the second, it was pretty much impossible. Escape was an option, and one PC did get out (with my possessed character hot on her heels, only to be run over by a police car).

Anyhow, a fair bit of contrast.

 

[overgeeked]

This was my first time DMing, so there was no way I was going to build an actual sandbox game--too wide open for me to run as a newbie. In order to find my own footing, I needed a linear approach. So what I did was build that linear game, populate its regions as much as possible in hopes that players would decide for themselves what was an "adventure hook" for some side activity, throw in a few intentional side quests just in case, and then edit each chapter like crazy as we worked our way through it.

It was a rough start because I so didn't know what I was doing back in March, but I think I've gotten into the swing of it to where at least I'm not frantically chewing my fingernails and trying to remind myself of Matt Colville's tips each Tuesday night.

Congrats on taking the plunge. Good for you. We're our own worst critics, so you're probably doing just fine.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really anyone that doesn't have a set in mode of thinking how RPGs are supposed to work does pretty well with lots of games. The idea that D&D-esque games are the natural default and therefore easiest to learn is false. It's just the most popular.

Mmmmmm, I kind of both agree and disagree at the same time... There's usually an instigator, someone who acts as the 'driver' in these sorts of things, and having a 'DM' who can put together and be in charge of the lion's share of the experience works pretty well with that paradigm. OTOH I don't disagree with you in terms of one way being 'more natural' in a conceptual sense. Its also partly a question of how the rest of society tends to work. Your time is organized by a manager, a teacher, a parent, etc. throughout most organized activities, certainly when talking about younger people.