Author: brianm (---.aol.com)
Date: 03-22-2004 12:09
Ok, I may be way of base here. I have to confess that I’m not sure what “[s]tory is every bit a part of a crazy off-ramp with off track turns and where that leads” means. But if you’re saying what I think you’re saying, I have to disagree. A train can make numerous detours on its route, but it still makes its stops at all the listed stations on its schedule. Likewise, if your story insists that the players face all, or even most, of a list of predetermined encounters, then you are railroading them. Even if you don’t insist on how they reach those encounters or how they overcome the challenges posed by them.
Now, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There’s a world of difference between a nearly ritualized, formulaic play like “Oedipus Rex” and the wacky aimlessness of “Waiting for Godot”. From the point of view of dramatic critique, you really can’t say one is categorically “better” than the other.
However, I would rather gouge out my own eyes than watch “Waiting for Godot” ever again. Likewise, railroaded campaigns don’t have nearly the appeal as open ones do for me.
And not having a scripted story is not the same as a string of random encounters. Stories are records of conflict. (Remember your junior high English teacher talking about man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. self?) Story can grow from conflict between the PCs and villains, without the DM knowing more about what’s going to happen than the villain’s nefarious plans (which the PCs will hopefully, but might not, foil).
I have no idea who William Steinmetz is, but he’s one of the best writers dealing with how to run RPG sessions that I’ve come across. Pick up KODT #78 and read Steinmetz’ article “Avoiding Eden: How to Create Player-proof Plots”. I’m not saying it’ll change your mind about what sort of games you prefer, but it might reveal to you a new way to structure your adventures and campaigns. And new ideas are always good.
- Brian
|
|
