Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1078708No. Do not take the local hive mind as gospel. "Role Playing Game"...you're playing a role...in a game....it's a Role Playing Game...

It's that simple. The rest is overly-wrought, Internet-speed "debate" collected to protect the local darlings from things they feel threaten their world.

The most sane thing I've read in this thread.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078703I don't think I am doing that. If you would kindly reread what has been said above, there was a reference to preplanned railroaded adventures (are there any preplanned adventures who are NOT railroaded? seems muddy). And then this was tied to whole games, the middle school of RPGs, more simulationist games, if you will. And then you came in and mentioned three role-playing games as examples for this, one of which I can competently speak about: 90s Shadowrun. And using 90s Shadowrun's published scenarios as an example for the above is generally false. In fact, the whole existence of the Legwork section in SR scenarios contradicts a linear succession of scenes: in general, PCs visit some kind of contacts to get information, leading to non-pre-planned scenes, and the information acquired in these scenes generally leads to the unlocking of more locations - in SOME order.

And it is my impression that more complex games and games with pre-planned adventures, the 90s school, have been declining in popularity in part because the people who like these games do not do very much to defend them online. Derogatory things are being said about them by by both gamists (usually connected to D&D in some form or another) and storygamers, as a part of gaming politics about which is the best way to play (yes, politics in gaming is not just about SJWs versus the alt-right). I am not sure if either of these groups is any longer used to getting any kind of pushback.

I think Shadowrun is more forgivable in regard to railroads because, even if the actual plots seen in the modules were pretty linear, the actual environments where the meat of the action occurred (corp complexes, gang turf, govmt buildings etc) were akin to D&D dungeons, that is, open to a myriad approaches and resulting in emergent experiences.

The real offenders were things like Dragonlance and Vampire imo, which had modules completely linear or GM instructions of the kind "write your chronicle with twists and climaxes" and all that.

Railroads and story games are not the same thing. Not at all.

"The important thing to keep in mind for the folks that eschew "story" is that railroading is not the only path to story creation. The "modern" games I mentioned above are great example on how to encourage story "flow" without resorting to railroads (some would say that they are incompatible, as there is no story creation if the story is already written). I would even say that this methods are better than the ones originally used by Dragonlance, at least for my tastes. The downside is that the "climaxes", resolutions", etc, aren't guaranteed without previous planning, but clever mechanics may enhance the probability that they should happen at the right time."

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/11/old-school-ramblings-1-play-now-story.html

Aso, until I find a better definition... in role-playing games you're focused on playing a role, while in story games you're focused on creating a story. Easy.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;1078659To my mind, the player experiences a traditional RPG in first person and a storygame in third person.

That does seem a fairly common element too. But is dependent on the storygame and just how it is structuring things. Some put alot of emphasis on just GMing your own character and the environ during that. Others are more distant and each player has some control over the whole party/world/etc.

Then there are the oddballs, the oracle systems where you might control just your character again, or a group. But you do not necessarily know what is going to happen next. Is the door locked? You wont know till you ask. And you dont have to ask where something is obvious. (Though you can to get thrown a possible curveball.) Very dependent on just how much control the player/s want and how much they want left unknown.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078739Wait... is the idea that Story Games are NOT RPGs?

...that doesn't make any sense.

Some of the hard Story storygames have very little, well, game in them. Universalis is my personal experience with such. The book spends alot of pages telling you how to tell a story and how to control your character/s and others via the bidding system. But a bidding system does not a game make. The two sessions I sat in on way back no one bid at all. It was lierally just a round robin storytelling session. No game. No role playing.

Quote from: Trond;1079086For a more serious answer, I have found that many "sand-boxy" games, no matter which system, often take on some characteristics of "story games". For instance when I have played in such campaigns, the players sometimes suggest things that the GM will actually use to flesh out the world further.

But in that all the player is doing is suggestion something. Not dictating something as in more than a few storygames. In fact that was the whole point of some storygames. To either relegate the DM to little more than a vend-bot. Or remove the DM totally. Power to the player. Free them from the horrible oppression of the hated DM! The way some talked youd think the DM raped their sister or something. For a while it was pretty nuts.

Quote from: Itachi;1079113The real offenders were things like Dragonlance and Vampire imo, which had modules completely linear or GM instructions of the kind "write your chronicle with twists and climaxes" and all that.

This keep getting trotted out. But I have the first few DL modules and they are near bog standard wander about and bungle into things waiting to happen. But with an added element of "world in motion". At X time this thing will happen unless the PCs have done something to prevent that. And in at least the early modules the players could actually crash the setting or have a TPK through action or inaction. That was true at least up to module 4. Whereas module 11 is really a board game playing out moments in the war of the Lance and the players are free to go about things however they please after the initial setups, or play their own encounters.

Quote from: Omega;1079131This keep getting trotted out. But I have the first few DL modules and they are near bog standard wander about and bungle into things waiting to happen. But with an added element of "world in motion". At X time this thing will happen unless the PCs have done something to prevent that. And in at least the early modules the players could actually crash the setting or have a TPK through action or inaction. That was true at least up to module 4. Whereas module 11 is really a board game playing out moments in the war of the Lance and the players are free to go about things however they please after the initial setups, or play their own encounters.

I guess Dragonlance is infamous for some railroading techniques - using GM force if the PCs go 'off track' - but is not the linear scene-by-scene railroad of many 1990s 'adventures'.

Quote from: S'mon;1079142but is not the linear scene-by-scene railroad of many 1990s 'adventures'.

And which are the linear scene-by-scene railroad 1990s 'adventures' other than White Wolf's? Call of Cthulhu's vaunted scenarios/campaigns? WFRP's The Enemy Within? Technically they were from the 80s but I fail to remember 90s 'adventures' differing too much from their formula. MERP's 'adventure' modules? Name names, guys, other than Vampire. I need specifics to be able to distinguish 'adventures' from 'real adventures.'

I suppose Paranoia's adventures were very heavily railroaded (sometimes literally so! ) but then again that was only thematic.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079164And which are the linear scene-by-scene railroad 1990s 'adventures' other than White Wolf's? Call of Cthulhu's vaunted scenarios/campaigns? WFRP's The Enemy Within? Technically they were from the 80s but I fail to remember 90s 'adventures' differing too much from their formula. MERP's 'adventure' modules? Name names, guys, other than Vampire. I need specifics to be able to distinguish 'adventures' from 'real adventures.'

I suppose Paranoia's adventures were very heavily railroaded (sometimes literally so! ) but then again that was only thematic.

A lot of the later 90s Ravenloft adventures felt a bit railroads (at least more so than the early 90s adventures). They were no all linear but they often had things the GM has to force, or many were structured in Acts. There was still good content in them, but I ran them again not too long ago and had to step around the railroad bits.

Quote from: Omega;1079121Some of the hard Story storygames have very little, well, game in them. Universalis is my personal experience with such. The book spends alot of pages telling you how to tell a story and how to control your character/s and others via the bidding system. But a bidding system does not a game make. The two sessions I sat in on way back no one bid at all. It was lierally just a round robin storytelling session. No game. No role playing.

...so by that definition, Amber is not a roleplaying game. The only thing it has is a bidding system, at character creation. (And I love me some Amber, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good definition.)

Quote from: Omega;1079123But in that all the player is doing is suggestion something. Not dictating something as in more than a few storygames. In fact that was the whole point of some storygames. To either relegate the DM to little more than a vend-bot. Or remove the DM totally. Power to the player. Free them from the horrible oppression of the hated DM! The way some talked youd think the DM raped their sister or something. For a while it was pretty nuts.

Trying to grasp a bit more: so is the problem shared power or how the shared power is represented? I've read some games that share much more power among the players, played a few, but I do not recall any being quite like this in how it presented itself. Is there a solid example I can look at?

Quote from: S'mon;1079142I guess Dragonlance is infamous for some railroading techniques - using GM force if the PCs go 'off track' - but is not the linear scene-by-scene railroad of many 1990s 'adventures'.

Theres actually not much of that either in at least the early modules. There are some elements that could bee seen as railroading by some of the more loony types out there. You know. The ones that proclaim that Keep on the Borderlands is railroading.

Some that popped out to me in DL2 for example was the an attack survivor who will kick the bucket no matter that the PCs do. This struck me as very wrong. If the PCs do all they can to save this fellow then barring some external threat he should live with alot of bedrest.
But...
The PCs can actually totally miss this encounter by merely passing through the area quietly and inadvertently not attracting the poor fellows attention. Though if I recall correctly the encounter happens with the first ruined town the PCs cross so it is one of those iffy cases some of us dislike using as a DM. The mobile encounter.

On the other hand on the same page there is an encounter where the PCs are captured if they dither too long. Except that the encounter can end with a TPK or the PCs somehow winning. Or the PCs could totally avoid the event by their choice of route.

There is alot of that in the module. Something will happen if the PCs do X. But the outcome of that encounter is up in the air. There is at times a bit too much reliance on stacking the odds against the PCs to get a probable desired outcome. But in several cases it at least makes sense and again the outcome is totally up to the players about every time.

Another one that rubbed me the wrong way was another early set encounter in 3 or 4 with the party getting ambushed at sea by a dragon. This is either the same dragon they faced last module, or a new one if they killed the other. Makes sense when you think about it. But the presentation was a little heavy handed with no explanation. Just theres a dragon no matter what the PCs did. But what bugged me is that the PCs boat is going to get either wrecked or at least foundered no matter what they do. This is another one where as a DM I would have the PCs make stat checks and whatever to beach intact rather than it being inevitable.

And that is mostly it. Little things that for whatever the hell reason seem to get blown out of proportion. At this point I am starting to suspect that most are just parroting what someone else said without ever bothering to look. Either that or they are one of those "everything is railroading!!!" loons.

But overall the early DL modules at least are not much different from other normal modules like the Giants series for example.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1079167A lot of the later 90s Ravenloft adventures felt a bit railroads (at least more so than the early 90s adventures). They were no all linear but they often had things the GM has to force, or many were structured in Acts. There was still good content in them, but I ran them again not too long ago and had to step around the railroad bits.

I thin that may have been a problem of people coming after, looking at say Dragonlance, and seeing only these set encounters and totally missing the point that those set encounters could be avoided or that the outcomes were usually totally up to the PCs actions to win fail or die.

Its like someone seeing a pretty painting and all they can think of when making their own is that you need expensive paints and brushes.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1079169...so by that definition, Amber is not a roleplaying game. The only thing it has is a bidding system, at character creation. (And I love me some Amber, so I'm having a hard time seeing this as a good definition.)

I dont know? I have never seen Amber played. Though one of my players has it. I thought there was more to the game than just bidding at chargen?