Campaign Modules: Automatic Railroading?
Moganhio:
I like to improvise. I like to give players some freedom. And it's really hard to do.
I'm talking about 'mission' oriented systems, RPGs where rules focus in finding out anything, no matter what. Most of games out there are this way. WoD (new and old one) included, despite the 'storytelling game' slogan. In these games, players use to think strategically. And usually they do it better than GM (several people thinking together use to be cleverer than one person who has to focus in lots of characters, rules, atmposphere and so). So improvising, if you're playing those traditional systems, becomes a bloody hard task to do, where probably you're doing too many mistakes when improvising the plot/mission. Railroading and previous preparation is almost essential.
I think this is one of the main reasons that mainstream is focused in this kind of 'mission and tasks' oriented games. As long as they need some railroading in order to make it playable, that gives companies the chance of publish (and sell) heaps of books containing, basically, prepared railroading.
On the other side, narrativism fits incredibly well with improvising. From my point of view that is the reason because narrativist games usually only have one core rules with setting and... that's all. Actually, nothing more is needed, and a big company can't survive with just a book. So narrativism stays as a indie/hippie/crazy thing.
I think a nice middle point is biting from both worlds. Missions are a good resource, because they give players a clear goal. Though usually missions miss the chance of dealing with a theme. You know, the fruitful void, if you want the game to deal with something, avoid it. And make goals in the story a way to deal with it without naming it. But this is not well implemented in traditional games. In WoD theme uses to be always the same: 'world is screwed and vampires are always having problems with their little bad boy. And, well, euuh, that's all'.
And the other world, narrativism, can give some freedom to players and allow them to develop character, subplots and conflicts. When I play, I try to use railroading (up to a point) in the mission, but giving players some chances to develop characters and private conflicts as a parallel plot. So they can feel that the world is not just a railroad. And those private conflicts can slowly scalate and give the chance to prepare some missions related to it. But the question here is: 'system matters'. And when the system is not giving to you some devices to deal with sandbox character's conflicts and improvised plots twists, you suddenly realize that the whole bunch of rules is useless. And that happens with most of current games. WoD again, included.
oculusverit:
From what everyone is saying, and masqueradeball especially for my point that follows, it sounds like most of Sim Exploration occurs in the gaps. I always forget that Simulationism can explore all these different facets, and that thus "story" is meaningless in a Sim session anyway.
Since I'm looking at this from three different (but hopefully interactive, ultimately) perspectives--player, GM, module writer, I'd like to know what opportunities are being missed. For that, I have to know what the point of them is in the first place.
What I'm reading from all this is that a written campaign module can provide a pre-determined "setting" or rails that can be used to take the focus off the need for "story" by Sim players, leaving room for Exploration to happen in other places like Character or System. If so, players going "off the rails" may not matter as long as that fundamental Exploration gets to happen in the way that fits the player's agendas.
--Kinch
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page