Campaign Modules: Automatic Railroading?
oculusverit:
So this is based on an experience with a couple of years of age, but it's pretty relevant to me now.
White Wolf just published a campaign module that I wrote for them for Werewolf: the Foresaken. I hadn't thought about it in a few years--by the way, this does count as Actual Play since I'll be referencing not just the writing but mostly the actual experience of playtesting the module before I submitted it.
I remember being pretty happy with the module when I wrote it, and the GM (Storyteller) that I had run it during the playtest gave it rave reviews. Also, the actual experience of play was reported as being a lot of fun by the participants, so it was a positive experience for them.
However, now that I'm reading over the module myself, and now that I've in the meantime learned a bit more about play styles and role-playing theory and what-have-you... I've noticed far too many illusionist (a.k.a., railroading) statements that I've made. When I read myself writing things like, "Don't let them stray too far from the story", I feel a bit ashamed of myself. I'm putting the unproven fun of the "story" ahead of the choices that the players should be able to make.
Now, from the actual play experience, I do recall that at one point the players definitely went "off the rails". I had written in that one of the main bad guys gets away from one scene, in order to lead the characters on a merry chase to a final showdown in an underground parking lot. In the actual play of this scene, the players decided that the bad guy MUST NOT get away. They cut off his escape routes and forced the battle in the "wrong" place, where they had the distinct advantage. The GM adjusted and went off the plans laid out in my writing, and this resulted in some very memorable play which definitely added to the fun of the game. The players then dutifully went back onto the "rails" of the story and went to the other climactic showdown, enjoying themselves the entire time.
I suppose my question is as follows, based on this experience: based on the fact that the players all knew they were playtesting a campaign module, can such a module provide functional play? Or is it always too restricting to provide true simulationist freedom of movement?
--Kinch
masqueradeball:
It depends on the contents of the module... there was an old Werewolf "module" about Pentex (sorry i can't remember the name) that consisted entirely of a setting and then a time table of events with a lot of hooks for what the players might do in the setting/around the time table. Seems pretty complete and functional, but devoid of instructions for the players, just information for the ST to include and build off of within the context of the game.
oculusverit:
So since all of the players involved in playing a campaign module know that this is a module being run by the GM, whether it's "Tomb of Horrors" or some other dungeon delve, or a written SAS adventure--would this count as Participationism?
Callan S.:
If they all know they aren't going to chance/have any means to change what's really important about the game session (they get to change small fry ephemeral stuff), but are cool with that and decide to turn up to the session anyway, it's participationism. Which is functional (and is probably a good brainstorming environment for writing games where players do change what's important about the game session).
Your 'cut off the bad guy' almost breaks free - but in the end, the important thing was they get to the end boss, and they did. Pushing on the GM so as to break the 'clue chain' was kind of ephemeral, if perhaps anarchistic as it broke the basic structure of the participationism. But then they just go along with going to the end boss anyway. Sort of a bonsai anarchy. Along with the fun of being told a story by someone, probably quite fun to buck the system, without breaking it entirely.
masqueradeball:
?? I feel like I missed some part of this conversation?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page