Campaign Modules: Automatic Railroading?
arithine:
Seems to me that what your asking is "were the players fine with going by the rails because they knew it had defined points, or rails." I would say so, but I always felt that the most fun for both the player and the DM is when the unexpected happens, either the players take the story in a whole new direction and you have to improvise, or you through in a major plot twist no one was expecting. RPGs are not just about the players fun but the GM as well and it is best to keep things loose enough to have some surprises both ways.
Caldis:
The Rails only exist if the players are on them. Something like the Tomb of Horrors is a well defined location but if you play it without any preconceived plotline then there are no rails only setting for what happens. They might all die, they might find a swack of treasure at the end or they may run away screaming. The same is true of any other Campaign Module, if their is an expected path and if your game follows it then you've boarded the train.
oculusverit:
My original question was indeed, "can a campaign module ever provide functional play, or does it restrict Sim freedom of movement [a.k.a., of exploration]?" I added the item in the brackets to clarify my meaning with that last question. So basically a two-parter.
The original response I got from masqueradeball seemed to be that "If it's just a campaign setting, then it's functional." From this response, I thought what that answered implied was that "If it's a module with a story, then it's railroading or GM Force or non-functional illusionism or some other form of non-functional play." My apologies if I misunderstood this, but that's how I'm reading it.
I therefore was asking if a functional method for this type of play would be to make it Participationism, and if making it so would make it functional? (That was my meaning, anyway, apologies for not explaining myself well).
My next question would be then, based on all of these responses--does full-on Participationism mean that the GM should react to their actions in Sim style ("You cover the exits and force the fight here? OK!") or that the GM should disclose ("OK, guys, if you decide to close off the exits the scenes won't go the way they're supposed to, could we let him get away please?"). Which type of play is more functional with this?
Callan S.:
I would think with the former, with a genuinely participationist group, after having 'disrupted things' they will look to the GM for the cues as to 'Okay, where do we go now to get back on track. Give us some cues and well follow them exactly'. That's actually how I read your example. They kicked up a stink, and after having had their fun, went with the GM's flow. I'm pretty sure I've played that way not a few times.
So both your examples work with a group who might go crazy for a bit, but then actively try and find the rails to plant themselves on again (or atleast allow themselves to drift with the current, which the GM is sending in the right direction).
It's not so much what you should be doing as GM, but what the players are prepared to do and are indeed doing.
masqueradeball:
Heres the thing with Exploration... can be functional and limited, the question is simply this: what are we exploring. If we approach D&D, for instance, as SIM, with an emphasis on Exploration of System, than the trapping of a "story" provided a module are simply a place in which to do the exploring and the same can be true about Exploration of Character or any other things... You could say to the players, look, you'll be taking these characters you created through these events and I'm going to use force to keep you within this safety zone, lets see how that would make your characters feel, or how it changes them, etc... All RP requires "participation" on some level, so saying, participate with the contents of this module still leaves lots of room open for other types of Exploration.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page