In order to have a "good, functional game" the players have to be empowered - their decisions have to have an impact on the outcome of the game.
It is possible to GM in a gamist style (i.e. gamism) and not let the character's decisions have an impact on the outcome: the challenges are stacked too much in favor of specific strategies, the NPCs have such high social skills that the PCs are directed from one situation to another, and so on. The players contribution is reduced to rolling dice or dying if they make a wrong decision. This is probably best described as Killer DM style - I'll buldgeon you with the rules but claim it's fair because of the rules.
It is possible to GM in the narrative style and not let the players decisions have an impact on the outcome: this is Railroading, pure and simple.
It is theoretically possible to run in the a simulation and not let the players decisions have any impact on the outcome: this is lecturing, or perhaps playing tour guide, where you show them all the facets of your lovely cimulated world, with which they cannot interact because they are alien elements. While the players can choose where they go next, their characters can take only pictures, leave only footprints.
In these three modes - Killer GM, Railroading, Tour Guide - they aren't games you can actually *play* because you don't actually get meaningful moves. Imagine it as chess where the only piece you have is one pawn, and it's limited to the far row of the board while your opponent moves all the other peices. You're not playing chess, your deciding to move your pawn from R5 to R4 or R5 to R6. Killer GMs will eventually come and take your pawn. Railroad GMs will eventually move their king to the rook position so you end the game taking it with "a moment of triumph!" Tour Guide GMs will ingore the rook row entirely, lest you upset the clever piece movements he's trying to show you. But you're not playing chess because you don't get meaningful moves.
Apparently part of the Big Model is to draw a circle around the three gaming styles that excludes Killer GMs, Railroad GMs and (perhaps) Tour Guide GMs with the statement that what they produce are not functioning games and therefore are not things we want to capture in the model. Just like your earlier solar system resolution questions regarding planetesmials and super-Jovians, they just simply fall outside the discussion of how to improve good functional gaming because they aren't "good functional gaming".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-11 08:05 am (UTC)In order to have a "good, functional game" the players have to be empowered - their decisions have to have an impact on the outcome of the game.
It is possible to GM in a gamist style (i.e. gamism) and not let the character's decisions have an impact on the outcome: the challenges are stacked too much in favor of specific strategies, the NPCs have such high social skills that the PCs are directed from one situation to another, and so on. The players contribution is reduced to rolling dice or dying if they make a wrong decision. This is probably best described as Killer DM style - I'll buldgeon you with the rules but claim it's fair because of the rules.
It is possible to GM in the narrative style and not let the players decisions have an impact on the outcome: this is Railroading, pure and simple.
It is theoretically possible to run in the a simulation and not let the players decisions have any impact on the outcome: this is lecturing, or perhaps playing tour guide, where you show them all the facets of your lovely cimulated world, with which they cannot interact because they are alien elements. While the players can choose where they go next, their characters can take only pictures, leave only footprints.
In these three modes - Killer GM, Railroading, Tour Guide - they aren't games you can actually *play* because you don't actually get meaningful moves. Imagine it as chess where the only piece you have is one pawn, and it's limited to the far row of the board while your opponent moves all the other peices. You're not playing chess, your deciding to move your pawn from R5 to R4 or R5 to R6. Killer GMs will eventually come and take your pawn. Railroad GMs will eventually move their king to the rook position so you end the game taking it with "a moment of triumph!" Tour Guide GMs will ingore the rook row entirely, lest you upset the clever piece movements he's trying to show you. But you're not playing chess because you don't get meaningful moves.
Apparently part of the Big Model is to draw a circle around the three gaming styles that excludes Killer GMs, Railroad GMs and (perhaps) Tour Guide GMs with the statement that what they produce are not functioning games and therefore are not things we want to capture in the model. Just like your earlier solar system resolution questions regarding planetesmials and super-Jovians, they just simply fall outside the discussion of how to improve good functional gaming because they aren't "good functional gaming".