TheRPGSite

Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.
For instance, in my Wilderlands, two young lovers, Cassandra the Druidess & Polyachus the Apollo priest, both fairly major NPCs, and Cassandra a very long term NPC from a previous campaign, had taken shelter on a remote island to escape the evil Archmage Oriax. Unfortunately that island was later occupied by evil Skandik pirates, and it was assumed the lovers had met a terrible fate. But when the Skandiks had left, and others arrived on the island, they found only beautiful songbirds, never seen before. The legend grew up that the gods had taken pity on the lovers and transformed them into birds, and the birds now seen on the isle are their offspring.
I have no intention of ever proclaiming - or deciding - a definitive truth of the matter.
I do this with other Big Mysteries of the campaign, such as whether or not the gods really exist. I have my suspicions, but have no intention of forming a definitive answer.
I find this approach makes the campaign world feel much more real to me. I've noticed that some other designers use this sort of ambiguity, eg in the Elder Scrolls CRPGs, as a way to create depth and mystery.
Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

I completely agree that you need mysteries. If everything in a setting is clear and understood by the players, it feels smaller. If you are going to allow PCs solve one of the big mysteries of the setting, its a good idea to have another mystery introduced. That keeps the world larger than the PCs comprehension. Of course, you don't need to this if the revelation is the end of a campaign. The revelation can serve as a conclusion.

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

Yes.  Unresolved situations, not stories.

All the time.  Mixed in are other situations that the players can resolve if they pursue a little, and others that they may eventually resolve if they pursue diligently.  I don't telegraph which type is which, either.

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.
For instance, in my Wilderlands, two young lovers, Cassandra the Druidess & Polyachus the Apollo priest, both fairly major NPCs, and Cassandra a very long term NPC from a previous campaign, had taken shelter on a remote island to escape the evil Archmage Oriax. Unfortunately that island was later occupied by evil Skandik pirates, and it was assumed the lovers had met a terrible fate. But when the Skandiks had left, and others arrived on the island, they found only beautiful songbirds, never seen before. The legend grew up that the gods had taken pity on the lovers and transformed them into birds, and the birds now seen on the isle are their offspring.
I have no intention of ever proclaiming - or deciding - a definitive truth of the matter.
I do this with other Big Mysteries of the campaign, such as whether or not the gods really exist. I have my suspicions, but have no intention of forming a definitive answer.
I find this approach makes the campaign world feel much more real to me. I've noticed that some other designers use this sort of ambiguity, eg in the Elder Scrolls CRPGs, as a way to create depth and mystery.
Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

Usually, this is used as an excuse not to write a satisfying end to a story. I don't care how it ends (they live, they die, they get what they want, they don't get what they want) so long as it makes sense and feels right.

I was pissed about the ending to End of Watch, one of the best movies ever for me personally: both Gyllenhaal and Pena should have died in that alley. All that build-up that being a genuinely good police officer does not get rewarded and will condemn you to an ignominious end, it was all for nothing -- in the end, the white guy just had to be saved. The director made it out in an interview like it was some original, never-done-before take with some bullshit "ohh, I didn't want it to end like every other found footage movie" -- oh fuck off, the production company or the studio told you to change it.

And that's just one example. Again, if you're going to put threads out there, I (and others) can tell if you're being illegit.

You know what's crazy, though? The ending of the Vampire Wars trilogy, a godamm Warhammer series, was more legit in its ending than it should have been -- particularly the White Wolf character, made sense and felt right for that character.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056121Usually, this is used as an excuse not to write a satisfying end to a story.

In an RPG? All your examples are from works of fiction.

As far as fiction goes, I don't think not getting an answer to whether God exists in What Dreams May Come made that a bad film (whether it's a good film, YMMV). The question loomed over the afterlife setting, but still was orthogonal to the actual story of the film, the man trying to save his wife from her self-made Hell. Likewise my game was never about Cassandra & Polyachus - they were the heroes of their own story, not that of the PCs. I only have one player who even knows who they were because he's been playing wit me for nigh on 10 years. For him their story is an Easter Egg I guess, for others a bit of local colour.

Like everything else. Used well. It is fine.
Used not well.  And it is a disaster.
And everything in between.

The best is the middleground.
Things have a sort of course they will most likely take.
BUT
That course might be altered a little, or alot by something else. That something might be the PCs presence, or lack of presence. Or it might be something down the proverbial chain that the PCs effected.

example from a MUD.
The rooster crows at dawn every day.
This wakes Farmer Jones who then goes for a walk around town and stops to chat with other NPCs before ending up at the pub.
Jones arrives back at the farm and chases off some crows in the field.
Jones gives the PCs a quest to build a scarecrow to scare off the crows.

Now if the PCs say kill that rooster?
Jones wakes up late.
He talks to different people on his way to the pub.
The crows eat his crops.
Jones gives the PCs a quest to kill the crows.

When a course is obvious - Rooster crows=Jones wakes up - then it should likely happen. But when theres a question will something happen or not. Then roll a die, do a stat check, whatever and see what happens. And think on what that alteration might itself alter.

and sometimes just rolling up a random event can be a fun challenge. 5e D&D DMG gives ALOT of tables for this stuff and you can use as little or as much as you want as a foundation. Oriental Adventures way back had those event tables for things that happened on anywhere from a yearly to a monthly basis and could have quite an impact sometimes. As mentioned in an older thread we had to deal with a famine that swept through a region. Then a plague brought on by the famine. All while escorting around a diplomat who visited out of the blue.

Quote from: S'mon;1056130In an RPG?

Oh that's easy. C'mon S'mon, you know half the godamm adventure books published are prime examples of this crap. Just off the top of my head, some of the Dark Heresy premades and the Black Crusade ones do this. The one set on the prison planet is really bad about this, particularly in the first two scenarios. Lots of "who knows what else [x major npc] they're getting up to?" or "maybe there's another way out of the space station?" or even "you can't possibly think to invade this planet with your own fleet even though this is a WH40KRPG, that's ludicrous!". Shit is egregious. I never use these adventures too, just idle reading while commuting or whatever because I'm a total nerd.

If you've got a good idea, you've got a good idea -- don't try and slather on some enigmatic airs because you're too intellectually challenged to finish it properly. Definitives and specifics are gold. When I write an adventure, I'm telling you EXACTLY what they're gonna do, where and why. And especially don't do it because you feel the GM/players need the illusion of freedom. The GM can do whatever the hell she wants -- she's the godamm GM!

As for specifically focusing on the use of enigma as a motif or framing device in RPGs, your example is an allegory. The Caine myth in VTM is closer to what I think you're getting at. While it's great to read all the stream-of-consciouness metaplot, the reality is that, unless your PCs are Methuselah, they are unlikely to know personally if there's any truth to it... and it doesn't matter because that enigmatic flavor contributes immensely to the elder/neonate motif in the game.

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.

This is what I *strive* for at all times. When the players have so immersed themselves in the game, they've taken it over from top-to-bottom and I as the GM am just as in the dark as they are. That uncertainty becomes so palpable that when I'm playing as an NPC - it feels like I'm just a player and the game is driving itself because I have no idea where it's going.

Uncertainty is the high-octane fuel that really takes your campaign to crazy heights if as a GM you let it loose fearlessly. It's a scary place to be for new GM's. It's tempting place to be for intermediate GM's. For experienced GM's it's the only way to fly.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056143As for specifically focusing on the use of enigma as a motif or framing device in RPGs, your example is an allegory. The Caine myth in VTM is closer to what I think you're getting at. While it's great to read all the stream-of-consciouness metaplot, the reality is that, unless your PCs are Methuselah, they are unlikely to know personally if there's any truth to it... and it doesn't matter because that enigmatic flavor contributes immensely to the elder/neonate motif in the game.

I think that means you're agreeing it's a good thing. :)

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.
For instance, in my Wilderlands, two young lovers, Cassandra the Druidess & Polyachus the Apollo priest, both fairly major NPCs, and Cassandra a very long term NPC from a previous campaign, had taken shelter on a remote island to escape the evil Archmage Oriax. Unfortunately that island was later occupied by evil Skandik pirates, and it was assumed the lovers had met a terrible fate. But when the Skandiks had left, and others arrived on the island, they found only beautiful songbirds, never seen before. The legend grew up that the gods had taken pity on the lovers and transformed them into birds, and the birds now seen on the isle are their offspring.
I have no intention of ever proclaiming - or deciding - a definitive truth of the matter.
I do this with other Big Mysteries of the campaign, such as whether or not the gods really exist. I have my suspicions, but have no intention of forming a definitive answer.
I find this approach makes the campaign world feel much more real to me. I've noticed that some other designers use this sort of ambiguity, eg in the Elder Scrolls CRPGs, as a way to create depth and mystery.
Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

My NPCs will normally give unreliable narrations about things they've seen/heard. Gene Wolff is an expert with such tricks.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1056174My NPCs will normally give unreliable narrations about things they've seen/heard. Gene Wolff is an expert with such tricks.

I guess my question is whether you the GM ever keep the truth uncertain in your own head?

I don't recall ever doing this until quite recently, but it seems to make the world feel a lot more real & engaging to me.

Quote from: S'mon;1056175I guess my question is whether you the GM ever keep the truth uncertain in your own head?

I don't recall ever doing this until quite recently, but it seems to make the world feel a lot more real & engaging to me.

Ok. I always have the real story of what happened with me. But the players might only get snips of it here and there. Often times, there is no way for the players to know the whole truth behind something. Unless they found a journal or a video on the subject.

In one game, the players broke into a hotel room. Some random thing they were doing. The couple in the room I just made up on the fly with their own story. Only I knew their story. The players left the room as soon as they entered. They thought the room would be empty.

Yes, very often with my science fiction games. In that genre, if you do not have questions without definitive answers then the setting does not feel as authentic as it should. A lot of my games have an underlying theme of exploration - so mysteries are part of the adventuring landscape.

I usually treat cosmology this way in D&D games.  If the PCs see three sages they'll receive three different answers about the structure of the multiverse and the true nature of the gods.

Quote from: TJS;1056208I usually treat cosmology this way in D&D games.  If the PCs see three sages they'll receive three different answers about the structure of the multiverse and the true nature of the gods.

Yes, that's how I've been treating it in my Wilderlands

- do the gods exist?  - Are they just harmonic resonances within the Gaea, the World Spirit? What does 'exist' mean, anyway?
- Is Mycr somehow 'more real' than the other Gods?

I've been building a bunch of uncertainty into the default setting of my book.

There are competing religions; The Old Faith (monotheist), the Imperial Church (polytheist), the Astral Court (henotheist) and Bestianism (polytheist) overlaying a general pantheistic folk religion while some arcane scholars argue all these so-called gods are just ancient spells left running so long they gained sapience and point to how ancient magic items also tend to gain sapience by taking on bits and pieces of their past users' personalities.

Similarly, while everyone knows the Cataclysm destroyed civilization 200 years ago, debates rage over who or what caused it and why. The most prevalent theories are a punishment by the gods for man's hubris and/or impiety and/or failure to worship the true gods, an attempt to create a new source of power that ran out of control, a global cold war that suddenly went hot using arcane WMDs, to an ancient conspiracy of demon worshippers unleashing something in an attempt to create a big enough mass sacrifice to breach the Great Barrier that keeps their masters trapped in the Outer Darkness.

Smaller questions include what became of High Priest Malcer (the Mad) after he was overthrown? What is the Black Spire (said to predate even the Demon Empire at the start of recorded history)? Who controls the Hydra River Cartels? Etc.

I have deliberately avoided giving answers to these questions. My section on the default setting in the GM's book provides a list of multiple choice answers to each of these questions (including, "D - something else") so each GM can decide the truth for their particular campaign or even roll randomly for the answer; if it even needs to come up at all. A group whose main goal is clearing out the ruins in a section of the monster haunted Duskwood and building a settlement they can be the lords of, none of those questions is likely to ever need a definitive answer.

Hopefully that's an answer to your question.

Quote from: S'mon;1056151I think that means you're agreeing it's a good thing. :)

(http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/smiles/positive.png)

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.
For instance, in my Wilderlands, two young lovers, Cassandra the Druidess & Polyachus the Apollo priest, both fairly major NPCs, and Cassandra a very long term NPC from a previous campaign, had taken shelter on a remote island to escape the evil Archmage Oriax. Unfortunately that island was later occupied by evil Skandik pirates, and it was assumed the lovers had met a terrible fate. But when the Skandiks had left, and others arrived on the island, they found only beautiful songbirds, never seen before. The legend grew up that the gods had taken pity on the lovers and transformed them into birds, and the birds now seen on the isle are their offspring.
I have no intention of ever proclaiming - or deciding - a definitive truth of the matter.
I do this with other Big Mysteries of the campaign, such as whether or not the gods really exist. I have my suspicions, but have no intention of forming a definitive answer.
I find this approach makes the campaign world feel much more real to me. I've noticed that some other designers use this sort of ambiguity, eg in the Elder Scrolls CRPGs, as a way to create depth and mystery.
Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

I agree, although I also like to know at least roughly what the important truths are that have effects on things, so I can run the game and develop the world in self-consistent ways.

It's also why I don't allow the TFT Trance spell to work as written (it allows the caster to get a yes/no answer to any question) as it clearly flies in the face of this principle.

Moreover, I like to both be generous with telling players what their PCs (think they) know, but also to (mostly) only tell them what their characters know, to increase mystery and make a large element of play be discovering things.

Like world maps - I have the "real" world map and never show it to players, and the players can get or make maps, but they won't be entirely the same.

Are we talking just about setting specifics, or story too? Because "making open situations" instead of pre-written stories is the whole thing with PbtA and it's "Play to find what happens" motto, to which I heartily subscribe.

Some of my most memorable sessions, both as player and as GM, were marked by powerful surprises to everyone involved.

Quote from: Skarg;1056229I agree, although I also like to know at least roughly what the important truths are that have effects on things, so I can run the game and develop the world in self-consistent ways.

I haven't really found this an issue. More the reverse really. If it's established that X is not = Y, later on having X = Y would be inconsistent. If I keep it open there's no inconsistency.

When a player tells me his PC met his goddess when he died and was given a holy mission, I can nod and smile. I don't have to decide if he really met his goddess, if he's imagining it, or something in-between.

Keeping the gods mysterious seems to work much better and create a far more "real" feel than be deciding that yes they literally exist a la most D&D settings. And telling players they don't exist - which I know would happen if I decided that - would destroy most players' ability to play religiously faithful PCs.

Quote from: Itachi;1056231Are we talking just about setting specifics, or story too?

Well I think "don't put your players through a pre-written story" is the First Rule of GMing. Hopefully by now we can all agree on that.

Quote from: S'mon;1056232I haven't really found this an issue. More the reverse really. If it's established that X is not = Y, later on having X = Y would be inconsistent. If I keep it open there's no inconsistency.

When a player tells me his PC met his goddess when he died and was given a holy mission, I can nod and smile. I don't have to decide if he really met his goddess, if he's imagining it, or something in-between.

Keeping the gods mysterious seems to work much better and create a far more "real" feel than be deciding that yes they literally exist a la most D&D settings. And telling players they don't exist - which I know would happen if I decided that - would destroy most players' ability to play religiously faithful PCs.

Good points. I too usually agree to keep gods mysterious, and never "you know gods don't exist", though I've also seen other GM's do a good job with existing (but still mysterious) gods.

What I meant was more like, I like to know at least roughly many of the things going on in my developed game worlds, so I can have things exist and (re)act with some logic to them, as opposed to not knowing lots of things and putting stuff in the world and then at some point wondering how something exists or whatever, because that's what my earlier campaigns were like, and I didn't much like when the players (or I) started running into unconsidered territory and I had to think how to retcon or explain things. Currently I'm looking at my first campaign world (which is huge) and I'm attached to a lot of it but dislike the nonsense and inexplicability or outright nonsense of certain parts of it, and I notice most or all of the awkward nonsense would not exist if I had thought some things out in advance like I did with my later game worlds.

Quote from: S'mon;1056233Well I think "don't put your players through a pre-written story" is the First Rule of GMing. Hopefully by now we can all agree on that.

Yep. "The story" doesn't exist except as what happens to happen during play, or something someone says later about the gameplay that happened.

Quote from: Skarg;1056237What I meant was more like, I like to know at least roughly many of the things going on in my developed game worlds, so I can have things exist and (re)act with some logic to them, as opposed to not knowing lots of things and putting stuff in the world and then at some point wondering how something exists or whatever, because that's what my earlier campaigns were like, and I didn't much like when the players (or I) started running into unconsidered territory and I had to think how to retcon or explain things. Currently I'm looking at my first campaign world (which is huge) and I'm attached to a lot of it but dislike the nonsense and inexplicability or outright nonsense of certain parts of it, and I notice most or all of the awkward nonsense would not exist if I had thought some things out in advance like I did with my later game worlds.

Yes - I think the kind of questions I'm considering here don't even arise unless you have a fairly well-considered campaign world.

Quote from: S'mon;1056233Well I think "don't put your players through a pre-written story" is the First Rule of GMing. Hopefully by now we can all agree on that.

Hmm I think there are modes of play where predominantly pre-plotted stories are still desirable, if not mandatory. Investigations and heists are good examples (as seen in CoC and Shadowrun respectively), I think.

Quote from: Itachi;1056246Hmm I think there are modes of play where predominantly pre-plotted stories are still desirable, if not mandatory. Investigations and heists are good examples (as seen in CoC and Shadowrun respectively), I think.

I would disagree. I'd want my players to come up with their own heist plan. It just needs a detailed target location. And an investigation only needs a crime plus a bunch of detailed NPCs, maybe a clue generating system - but probably works best with player saying "I look for X" and GM then setting a probability and rolling.

There is never any need for a bunch of pre-written scenes IMO. They pretty well always suck.

Quote from: S'mon;1056251I would disagree. I'd want my players to come up with their own heist plan. It just needs a detailed target location. And an investigation only needs a crime plus a bunch of detailed NPCs, maybe a clue generating system - but probably works best with player saying "I look for X" and GM then setting a probability and rolling.

There is never any need for a bunch of pre-written scenes IMO. They pretty well always suck.

By pre-plotted story I meant predefined "stations". And an investigation by definition must have those. Ie: where the clues lie, what are the connections to the culprit, the very culprit and it's place, etc.

No?

Quote from: Itachi;1056252By pre-plotted story I meant predefined "stations". And an investigation by definition must have those. Ie: where the clues lie, what are the connections to the culprit, the very culprit and it's place, etc.

No?

I think you need a culprit with motivations, other NPCs, and a backstory of what happened. I don't really think a clue-focused approach is a good idea, from what I've seen. Let the players come up with ideas for where clues might lie, based on the initial briefing.

Quote from: S'mon;1056233Well I think "don't put your players through a pre-written story" is the First Rule of GMing. Hopefully by now we can all agree on that.

Yep. Don't force a story onto the players. Just give your NPCs their own goals, and role-play them as if they're in a sandbox that you'll be adding the PCs into. Everything else is character-driven after that. As a Referee, you decide when and what types of task checks will be needed to roll for. The "stories" will reveal themselves at the end of each session.

Quote from: S'mon;1056253I think you need a culprit with motivations, other NPCs, and a backstory of what happened. I don't really think a clue-focused approach is a good idea, from what I've seen. Let the players come up with ideas for where clues might lie, based on the initial briefing.

Emphasis mine. But if you already have those elements settled, isn't the plot of adventure pre-planned in a way?

The idea of letting players find the clues wherever they decide to go is good imo, but I can see it getting old/predictable after a couple times. I'm not the target audience for investigations though, so I can't judge (always found them boring precisely because the inherent linear/scripted nature I perceive).

The alternative is improvising as you go, but is this aceptable for those who like this kind of play? Which begs the question: what's the fun of investigations for those who play them? Is it succeeding in solving the cases? Or are the cases supposedly to always succeed and players are there just for the voyage? And if they can't fail, is it still fun? :confused:

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1056254Yep. Don't force a story onto the players. Just give your NPCs their own goals, and role-play them as if they're in a sandbox that you'll be adding the PCs into. Everything else is character-driven after that. As a Referee, you decide when and what types of task checks will be needed to roll for. The "stories" will reveal themselves at the end of each session.

Yep, nicely put.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1056254Yep. Don't force a story onto the players. Just give your NPCs their own goals, and role-play them as if they're in a sandbox that you'll be adding the PCs into. Everything else is character-driven after that. As a Referee, you decide when and what types of task checks will be needed to roll for. The "stories" will reveal themselves at the end of each session.

That's how I've been running for the past 33 years.  I've been told I'm doing it wrong for almost as long, but in my experience (purely anecdotal) some of the best games I've played (not ran) have also been run this way.

Quote from: Itachi;1056255Emphasis mine. But if you already have those elements settled, isn't the plot of adventure pre-planned in a way?

Starting conditions are only 'plot' in the weakest sense.

I'm not big into formal investigation RPGs, but I do like it when mysteries arise naturally in play and players investigate using their own brains combined with PC powers.

I think investigation fiction tends to be very character centric - both the protagonist(s) (>PCs) and the people they interview (>NPCs). Not sure why detective RPGs centre on trails of clues and pre-written scenes, it looks to me like a very cargo cult approach to the genre.

I believe firmly in uncertainty in setting design.

I especially like rumors and legends, especially how the game of Telephone (or Chinese Whispers in the UK) twists facts over time so there may be a kernel of truth that must be sussed out to determine what the reality might be.

And sometimes, the truth is lost in the mists of time.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1056254Yep. Don't force a story onto the players. Just give your NPCs their own goals, and role-play them as if they're in a sandbox that you'll be adding the PCs into. Everything else is character-driven after that. As a Referee, you decide when and what types of task checks will be needed to roll for. The "stories" will reveal themselves at the end of each session.

Well said and Damn Good Advice.

(Should someone be checking the temperature in Hell about now? :D )

I usually adopt these kinds of legends when present. I guess I never considered it before. This legend is beautiful! Very romantic. :-D

I think it's important that as the GM YOU know what happened.  But the Players need not ever find out the truth.

Quote from: S'mon;1056296Starting conditions are only 'plot' in the weakest sense.

I'm not big into formal investigation RPGs, but I do like it when mysteries arise naturally in play and players investigate using their own brains combined with PC powers.

I think investigation fiction tends to be very character centric - both the protagonist(s) (>PCs) and the people they interview (>NPCs). Not sure why detective RPGs centre on trails of clues and pre-written scenes, it looks to me like a very cargo cult approach to the genre.

I think it's less about emulating genre and more about that being one of the emergent structures that really work well for rpgs.

Quote from: TJS;1056819I think it's less about emulating genre and more about that being one of the emergent structures that really work well for rpgs.

Linear trails of pre-written scenes linked by clues work really well in RPGs? My mileage varies.

In my DCC campaign, there's TONS of insane stuff that looks utterly crazy and like it makes no sense. In some occasions, the PCs find out that something does in fact have a reason for existing or being the way it is; and now they get that anything that they don't know the reason for still has a reason that I know. That's very important, and in some ways even MORE important for a successful Gonzo setting than for a setting that has more obvious sense to it.

Quote from: S'mon;1056296Starting conditions are only 'plot' in the weakest sense.

I'm not big into formal investigation RPGs, but I do like it when mysteries arise naturally in play and players investigate using their own brains combined with PC powers.

I think investigation fiction tends to be very character centric - both the protagonist(s) (>PCs) and the people they interview (>NPCs). Not sure why detective RPGs centre on trails of clues and pre-written scenes, it looks to me like a very cargo cult approach to the genre.

I also prefer when mysteries or heists come up in mid of a sandbox, because this usually means the players can approach it loosely/how they see fit, or simply drop it altogether, and whatever the outcome it simply affects the related entities or factions in the sandbox framework and move on.

BUT this is not what happens in dedicated investigative or heist games. Ie: both CoC and Shadowrun have clear advice on how to plan and structure their adventures and in both this means heavily scripted plots, sometimes even whole scenes. And in my experience the very audience expect a more meticulously planned story from these games. That's the reason I find these games are usually more prone to railroads than other styles of games.

Now, if you never play those dedicated games, that's fair. But you can't dismiss they comprehend the most representative stances of their styles and will be the assumed benchmark when the matter comes up.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057160In my DCC campaign, there's TONS of insane stuff that looks utterly crazy and like it makes no sense. In some occasions, the PCs find out that something does in fact have a reason for existing or being the way it is; and now they get that anything that they don't know the reason for still has a reason that I know. That's very important, and in some ways even MORE important for a successful Gonzo setting than for a setting that has more obvious sense to it.

I much prefer when I have confidence the GM has a reason for the gonzo. I prefer it even more when the reasons (when known) feel somewhat plausible. When things are just gonzo, or even gonzo with a gonzo backstory that I can't make myself believe at all, that tends to make it really hard for me to be very interested in the world.

Quote from: Itachi;1057497I also prefer when mysteries or heists come up in mid of a sandbox, because this usually means the players can approach it loosely/how they see fit, or simply drop it altogether, and whatever the outcome it simply affects the related entities or factions in the sandbox framework and move on.

That's how I feel, too.

Quote from: Itachi;1057497Now, if you never play those dedicated games, that's fair. But you can't dismiss they comprehend the most representative stances of their styles and will be the assumed benchmark when the matter comes up.

Yes, I appreciate that. I think writing it all out in advance like a Poirot script is a bad approach, but I do realise that is what most investigation games tend to do.

Mind you the adventures in my old Games Workshop hardback copy of Call of Cthulu 2e are pretty much location based sandboxes, not railroads at all. So there was another way.

Yes. If you're running a gonzo game and it just feels like there's no reason for anything, it causes players to think there's really no reason to do anything. It all just becomes "OMG so random".

Whereas if they get a sense there's a reason to everything, even if they don't know what it is, they get more deeply involved with the world.