Quote from: David RNicely put. So does this mean, Jack is going to be a regular around here?

I wouldn't bet money on it.

Siblings, maybe, but not money.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrSo you know how annoying it is.

Hey, as the story-whore who started this thread I don't mind different attitudes.  If I wasn't open to ways other people run games I wouldn't have started to experiment.  The only thing that gets annoying is repeated unsubstantiated statements, like Settembrini's insistence that story structure limits player freedom.

So how about it, Settembrini?  Would you like to present an argument that using story structure as I've outlined in this thread necessarily limits player freedom?  If this is a potential pitfall I'd like to keep a watch out for it.

QuoteIf this is a potential pitfall I'd like to keep a watch out for it.

Mmm. That`s really hard, because you don`t seem to view the limitations you are imposing as limitations. I do.
How can I convince you?
You are sacrificing things you don`t care for, so to you it`s not a real sacrifice. For me it is.
Easy as that.

The fact that you are GMing to emulate a TV structure alone is a very harsh restriction on the development of the fictual situation. The fact that you are not extrapolating the actions of fictious parties on their own merit, but only as the interact with the players.

You are not creating a world of conflict, you are creating conflictous situations for your players characters, and orchestrate them into a certain time-slot.

This is very much freedom lost. Freedom you don`t want. Everyone has different preferences, but to make your set of preferences the "zero" mark, like 0 K is, well, not helping.

Your felt-freedom is only 0°C, not 0 K.

QuoteYou are not creating a world of conflict, you are creating conflictous situations for your players characters, and orchestrate them into a certain time-slot.

I just don't see orchestrating them into a time slot (love that analogy btw) as restraining their freedom if I'm not doing it against their will.  If I go to cut and a player says "Wait, I wanted to go check out XXX" I'd change gears and set a new scene with the player checking out whatever he needed to check out.  In fact, if the player wants to check it out, then that is important, not whatever I might have had in mind.  It can still be a red herring, but if it's getting screen time then it's an important red herring.  I control the pace by adjusting the time needed to do stuff and the level of detail given, not constraining actions.

Maybe the problem is that when you say they are losing freedom that makes me think that you mean I'm not letting them do what they like.  Are you meaning something different?

QuoteMaybe the problem is that when you say they are losing freedom that makes me think that you mean I'm not letting them do what they like. Are you meaning something different?

I see. Yes I mean something different. You are restraining the fantastiverse, thereby restraining the possible outcomes of the game. And in a certain indirect way, you are restraining player freedom also. In that they don`t have all possibilities they would have in a more open, wide and unstructured fantastiverse.
I`m sure, they can do a lot of stuff. But by chosing your style of play as I understand it, some stuff will just not crop up on the radar screens of the characters. And conflicts will not develop according to plausability, but to dramatic purpose, which is the heaviest of all your transgressions against freedom. (I´m sure you try to get them together, but ultimately you opt for drama, I´d say)

Let it be said though, that I`m not saying you curtail freedom in a harmful way. I`m saying you curtail freedom at all, which you deny.

Quote from: SettembriniI see. Yes I mean something different. You are restraining the fantastiverse, thereby restraining the possible outcomes of the game. And in a certain indirect way, you are restraining player freedom also. In that they don`t have all possibilities they would have in a more open, wide and unstructured fantastiverse.
I`m sure, they can do a lot of stuff. But by chosing your style of play as I understand it, some stuff will just not crop up on the radar screens of the characters. And conflicts will not develop according to plausability, but to dramatic purpose, which is the heaviest of all your transgressions against freedom. (I´m sure you try to get them together, but ultimately you opt for drama, I´d say)

Let it be said though, that I`m not saying you curtail freedom in a harmful way. I`m saying you curtail freedom at all, which you deny.

*light goes on*

Gotcha.  I think the freedom you're talking about, to explore a fictional fuly formed world, is illusionary anyway.  I make it all up anyhow.  I don't use maps at all.  

I recently did a game in a mental hospital full of ghosts.  Didn't map anything, just a general description of the areas.  As far as the details - the position of the beds, the location of restrooms, and other such details are made up on the spot as needed.  To be honest, I realized that there's not really a difference between making it up beforehand and doing it on the fly, except if it's on the fly I'm a lot more flexible and and less likely to railroad.  See if I've done the work to really detail the musty basement but just did some basic sketches of the creepy empty patient rooms then consciously or not I'm going to guide them to the basement.  By doing it dynamically I can explore wherever the PCs naturally go.

I get what you're saying now, it's not about freedom per se, but exploring of a world in real time with all the details of how what and when.  I have no idea how far it is from the graveyard to the high school, apart from 'not very far'.  Yes, that is something I give up, because I'm not really looking for it in an RPG.

I don't think that's what he's saying. It looks to me like he's saying that your having decided that the evening will be an "episode" about a haunted hospital curtails the party's ability to decide to go to the high school.

You are both right.
I mean both instances.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't think that's what he's saying. It looks to me like he's saying that your having decided that the evening will be an "episode" about a haunted hospital curtails the party's ability to decide to go to the high school.

I don't decide that it's going to be a haunted hospital episode.  That what I prepare for, but if they want to go to the high school all night instead then we'll have a 'the gang explores the high school' episode.  I'm not deciding anything in advance other than presenting it as an episode.  If they'd declined to go to the hospital, well the Big Bad would have converted a whole wing of patients into his undead demon army.  

How often does it happen that the group doesn't head towards where you've prepared for? I do something similar when I'm running, but without an episodic layout, and it seems like my group almost always heads where they're pointed. Not always, but usually.

Quote from: Maddman*light goes on*

Gotcha.  I think the freedom you're talking about, to explore a fictional fuly formed world, is illusionary anyway.  I make it all up anyhow.  I don't use maps at all.

It is and it isn't. Obviously we can't make up fully formed worlds beforehand. But the approach to GMing can be more or less simulative of the experience of exploring a world, as opposed to emulating a fictional structure. E.g., by not making a map of the hospital, you fill in the blanks as necessary. What criteria do you use when asked to fill them in? Let's say that in the first half hour of play the PCs have explored the north wing of the hospital. Did they run into a ghost? No? Was it because the ghost encounter was "being saved" for the second half hour? In that case, what if they'd begun by exploring the south wing of the hospital--would they have run into the ghost then?

From a player perspective, do the answers to those questions really matter?

Edit: if you don't know what's happening I mean.

QuoteFrom a player perspective, do the answers to those questions really matter?

Edit: if you don't know what's happening I mean.

They matter most. They make the difference between all that is important to me.

Quote from: Elliot WilenE.g.,... Let's say that in the first half hour of play the PCs have explored the north wing of the hospital. Did they run into a ghost? No? Was it because the ghost encounter was "being saved" for the second half hour? In that case, what if they'd begun by exploring the south wing of the hospital--would they have run into the ghost then?

So, if, following this, the ghost was in the south wing, then what happened while exploring the north wing for the last half hour?

How can they be important to you if you don't know they're happening? you've got no way of knowing that the ghost isn't marked on the map in room three. All you know is that about 30 minutes into the game Scooby started shaking and you heard rattling coming from out in the hall.

If it is noticable, and feels like taking a ride on the Story train then by all means let me off, but if I can't tell and the game is fun then strap me down for the ride.