Plot Railroading: How much?

[The Extinguisher]

Wait, back up, when did this become about game system design?

Railroading can happen in just about any system.

It's a gameplay / social / "at the table" issue.

Its all game design really. Each GM creates a game for their players, some use or modify prebuilt systems to do so.

[Frozen_Feet]

Wait, back up, when did this become about game system design?

Game design, not game system design.

There is no game before someone lays out the initial scenario. Designing a game scenario is the part of game design we're interested in.

---

EDIT:

@kyoruy: sure, someone can spend a lot of effort on a railroad.

Why are they not spending a token amount of that effort to make it into a non-railroad linear adventure?

[Tinkerer]

Not sure I agree.

I can imagine a railroad design for an adventure with lovingly-designed, handcrafted encounters, lots of custom creatures, etc. I can see someone putting a *lot* of prep into a railroad game. Prep that wouldn't make sense if you didn't know the players would actually use those encounters.

Why not, I do. Custom creatures can be unleashed any time. I put the same amount of love into my sandbox encounters as my linear ones, I just need more of them. While I almost never do a railroad style it has come up on occasion and they get the same amount of attention. Indeed the encounters often need more attention in a open campaign since there are multiple angles that the players can approach them by. For instance, to use a rather basic encounter, rather than the bandits ambushing the players the players could ambush the bandits.

[Max_Killjoy]

Game design, not game system design.

There is no game before someone lays out the initial scenario. Designing a game scenario is the part of game design we're interested in.

Its all game design really. Each GM creates a game for their players, some use or modify prebuilt systems to do so.

In my experience, when most people say "game design", they are not talking about individual campaigns or such.

But that (individual campaigns, actual gaming groups) is what we've been talking about in this thread, and there's zero problem in that context with applying the common, long-standing meaning of "railroad" / "railroading" that most of us are trying to articulate.

[Tinkerer]

In my experience, when most people say "game design", they are not talking about individual campaigns or such.

But that (individual campaigns, actual gaming groups) is what we've been talking about in this thread, and there's zero problem in that context with applying the common, long-standing meaning of "railroad" / "railroading" that most of us are trying to articulate.

Haha, the main time I've seen it get thrown around in this context are when you have multiple GMs in one physical room. Conferences and the like. I'd say I've seen it used in this context... on about 10 separate occasions?

But regarding your point yeah most of us are debating if a hamburger is a sandwich or not but we know a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle is not a sandwich. I must say though there was a lot more variation in the responses here than I was expecting. Quite surprising and hence why I dropped my statement of railroading having one definition. While our individual definitions were close enough to each other to communicate the basic concept the differences between them made me realize that it might be best to avoid using the term for more precise conversations.

I'm walking away from this debate because as usual it's become pretty obvious that nothing is going to develop from it. The first post gave me some hope but as usual in a few pages it all goes kersplat. Have fun storming the castle! Kindly stop by my next "What is your" post, I am collecting data for a new GMing style that I'll be trying on my new players this winter. Because they are trapped in a house with me in -50 degree weather and cannot escape. Muahahaha!

[2D8HP]

Yes, using more words encourages longer communication, which leads to more thoughtful conversation, better critique and chances to improve. thats the goal.....

I get that, or in K's word precision.

Another thread, another conversation I was asked why if I enjoy "not having DC's set in stone in D&D" as a player, I like "BRP as a gamemaster" (or something like that, if anyone cares I could get the quote), and my answer is that I have different game rules tastes as a player than as a GM.

When I'm in the mood for D&D I'm often still thinking of "GP for XP 'squishy' humans and nearly humans try to rob tombs of gold to spend in taverns, while avoiding getting munched on by Giant Spiders", rather than "Superfriends save the world" (Champions is for that), nor am I usually thinking of "create custom builds for tactical combat according to the rules" (Car Wars is for that), and competitive soliloquies is right out (for me)!

I accept a certain loss of "player agency" for Pendragon (which seems to be more of both a "role playing" and a "roll playing" game to me), that I don't for D&D.

Defining what and why we mean may be useful in crafting and enjoying games, which I think is why we're having this thread, either that or to convince each other to run the style of games that we prefer.

...I stated that it was generally lazier to make a railroad than a sandbox ....

My interest in GM'ing again, fear of not being able to improvise like I once could, and being too lazy/short-of-time to detail a full world sandbox is what initially brought me to this thread (please feel free to give individual advice at this thread, thanks).

[Frozen_Feet]

Campaign design is just scenario design writ large and just as much part of game design. It's pretty eye-roll worthy to me if most people don't acknowledge or aren't cognizant of this. It doesn't matter if you're doing the work as a hobby for your five friends, or professionally for a game publisher, the nature of the work is the same.

Of course this has null effect on your ability to speak about anything. It's just a mildly amusing tangent.

[Max_Killjoy]

Campaign design is just scenario design writ large and just as much part of game design. It's pretty eye-roll worthy to me if most people don't acknowledge or aren't cognizant of this. It doesn't matter if you're doing the work as a hobby for your five friends, or professionally for a game publisher, the nature of the work is the same.

Of course this has null effect on your ability to speak about anything. It's just a mildly amusing tangent.

How did "profession or hobby" or "the right to speak" get into this?

The point was -- only was, only is, only will be -- that when most gamers say "game design", they do not mean designing scenarios or campaigns, they mean design of actual game systems or rules sets, going beyond just RPGs into things like board games, video games, etc. That was all. So when someone says "game design" and they're talking about individual campaigns, most gamers are not going to realize that.


(Just like when most gamers say "railroading", they mean effectively the same thing, and it's not "any planning you do as a GM".)

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes, and? My point was that if most people don't realize scenario design is game design, that'd make me roll my eyes. Because it's on the level of not realizing designing a car's frame is as much part of car design as designing its engine.

Again, this has null effect on the on-going discussion. It's not important. Carry on.

[Mordaedil]

The players can leave.....many leave my game, as I have said. And sure they can ''call'' all they want, but it does not matter to me or the good players, so?

My last 30 games or so I have put small statues of Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson on the table in front of my DM screen. It is a great new way to get rid of problem player.
Player type one-"Ye Waw the South will rise again!, Player type two-*shrugs*"let's start the game", Player type three "I can't play at a table with those two statues it makes me sad and I want this game to be a safe place! Please remove the statues, waaaa." As you might guess, I simply tell the type three player to leave and find another game.

*backs away slowly*

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, and? My point was that if most people don't realize scenario design is game design, that'd make me roll my eyes. Because it's on the level of not realizing designing a car's frame is as much part of car design as designing its engine.

Neither of which is the same as driving the car, or planning a road trip with 3 friends.

From personal experience, I'd say without hesitation that designing a campaign or scenario is not the same as designing a system, and it's the latter that most people mean when they say "game design". Roll your eyes at them all you want, they're not the ones using a term off-spec over a frankly silly "philosophical" point and then looking down their nose at people who don't when it causes confusion in a discussion.

[Darth Ultron]

From what I've seen railroading GMs are generally lazier than sandboxing GMs due to the fact that railroading GMs only need to populate the places where the players will go. Sandboxing GMs need to populate everywhere.

This is what a lot of sandbox DM's tell themselves, but it is not true. I have never seen a sandbox DM with like over a thousand things made so the players can randomly go anywhere. And making just a ''novel like paragraph'' is one thing, but to make any type of action encounter takes a lot more work. Though, there are plenty of simple sandbox type games so that DMs can make up stuff quickly(''the bad guys have 1 or 2 action points''). It is impossible in any complex game, however.

And really it is an insane waste of a DM's time to like make ''ten things'' for every ''player whim'', when the players only pick one.

Why think of creative solutions to the problems if the GM is going to be a brat and go "No that isn't the way I want you to solve the problem so I'm going to arbitrarily block it". If you know that the enemy is going to get away anyway why bother casting dimensional anchor to prevent the teleportation? Or in 2nd edition hold onto an action to disrupt the casting of the spell from the scroll?

This is just being a hostile jerk player though. If a player is just going to sit there and say ''my character hides under his bed'' as they are afraid of the DM ''doing anything'', then they might as well not even play the game.

And yep things like that sure can happen. But you've said multiple times that you are constantly railroading the players. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they have caught on? If the last 6 things that you did railroaded the group are they supposed to think that this is any different?

Well, no. In a general sense I only game with people that agree with me: so they just want to have a fun game and don't want to nitpick, whine and complain about everything all the time. They show up, have a great fun time, and go home....they don't care ''how'' it is done.

In 3rd edition the GM can do anything. In any edition of D&D the GM can do anything. Out of curiosity what do you mean by it would not matter? Do you mean that you would ignore the result? Because I hate to break it to you but that goes greatly against the spirit of 2nd edition. You seem to think that it's teh super kewl awsum when the random breaks go against the players but when they go against the your little plot you seem to just ignore them like a spoiled baby. Seems a little odd.

It would not matter as the game play would be full of such things, happing to both monsters/npcs AND the PCs. 2E did not have all the ''safe space'' rules to keep the special PC's alive or whole.

And it would not ''break my plot''. As a clever DM, I would never, ever have a ''important'' foe expose themselves like a dumb cartoon villain. After all there is that 1% chance that something might happen. So, for example, my Ancient super intelligent Red Wyrm...would have sent a projected image to ''scare the town'', if I really wanted to do that in the first place...

Restricting player agency is different from not putting options in a game. Player agency is based on the options available to you. Whether a particular option is in the game or not isn't a question of player agency.

Odd, most players that complain about player agency want it to be reality altering side table Dming. They don't just want to try an option, they want whatever whim they have to be game reality and for it to work and play out in exactly the way they want it to in all ways. Basicaly, be ''Dm's'' of the game.

The claim has repeatedly been made (from a very particular quarter) that "railroading" stands as the lone alternative to letting the players do anything want, total chaos, and GMs who are lazy and do nothing.

Wonder who would make that claim? As I've said there are a couple ways:

1.Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
2.Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
3.OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
4.Player By In. Players want to do X, the DM just tosses out X and says ''here''.
5.Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.

In fact, "participationism" (which is what I'm arguing for) really relies on exactly that type of doublethink - we all agree to the fact that it's basically a railroad, the GM tries to hide the tracks, and the players tacitly avoid trying to derail the train. "Illusionism" is the situation where the GM is actively denying that the rails exist *at all*. The primary difference is whether or not the GM is telling the players "yup, this is a sandbox. You can do whatever. Totally. Wouldn't lie to you."

Well, yes, this right here.

That's not what people are saying, and you would know that if you read the things you are saying. Railroading isn't "having a linear game". It's "having a linear game that pretends to be a sanbox until you go off the rails". It's absolutely fine to have a linear game. Have all the linear games you want. Just don't dress them up like sandbox games. If you don't want to give me an option, fine. But don't say you've given me the option, then act all offended when I try to use it.

Agreed.

Not sure why there's an apparent effort to make "railroading" a neutral term for a broader set of things and then work back to "good railroading" and "bad railroading", when there are other terms to cover those other things, and the actual defining aspect of railroading is inherently bad on multiple levels. It violates player agency, violates the "social contract", and breaks verisimilitude. This is an issue on which I will openly and unflinchingly make an objective value statement. Railroading is by its very nature a bad act.

I can agree Railroading has too much negative baggage.....I use DM Agency instead.

On your tangent, as both a player and a GM, that's where I draw the line myself -- players don't get to declare secret passages into existence in that manner, the passageway either exists or it does not. I would not enjoy an RPG or a campaign in which that happened. Here, though, I'll leave room for people who do enjoy that to enjoy it, so long they leave room for the sort of game I enjoy (I say this because I've seen repeated attempts to exclude the middle and paint anything that isn't full shared authorship ("storygames") as if it were a "railroad" or a "gamist hackandslash").

Well, this really goes in circle's though and that is the problem. If a DM makes up something a year before a game then some say it is ''ok'' as it was made before the game. Some say Dm's ''can't'' improvise as it is wrong. Some say DM's can improvise. And then some say the Dm can, but only if it ''makes sense'' and the DM can defend what they do vs the hostile players. Then that leads into what each player thinks and worse what they think on a whim.

And a player will all ways say anything they don't like is a railroad, even if the DM made the location with no secret tunnel a year before the game and the player wants one to be there....and on and on and on.

If the GM openly says "Ooops, sorry, I didn't anticipate this, let's work out a way we can all agree on to move the game forward" or "Hey, sorry, this is outside what I had material for and I need a little time to adjust" has the benefit of the GM being open and honest. Most players I've known would appreciate that a lot more than being stonewalled or deceived.

NOTE: This is one of my other ways: The OOC way.

"Railroading is denying the Players their agency in order to force a specific outcome, many people think this is a bad thing".

So guess this depends what ''agency'' is though....is it DM like control? Is it only when a DM says ''no player you can't do that?''. Is it only when the ''badwrong fun'' DM stops the player from doing anything?

And ''specific outcomes'' does make it sound like if there is no railroading the game will be a mess.

And thinking is a ''bad thing'' is just way too touchy feely. Like saying ''damage is a meany mean thing DM's to to hurt our special precious character!''

[Scripten]

I think I've just hit the point where I can no longer consider you, Darth Ultron, to be both a) intellectually honest about even the smallest of points or b) capable of basic reading comprehension. How in the world can you miss concepts so badly that you argue against strawmen that don't even fundamentally resemble the original argument? Usually people at least pretend that they are debating the other PoV rather than something else entirely.

This doesn't surprise me whatsoever considering the political post you tried to bait us with earlier, but you seem to lock onto particular "trigger" words in other people's posts and then spout off about how you disagree with whatever you see those words meaning, rather than anything the other poster has talked about. From my experience, this is a common sort of behavior from the type of people who enjoy "triggering" others. It's all projection.

For example, sandboxes are not "random". Not by your definition, DU, nor by anyone else's. You just have such a horribly skewed view about what they look like that you refuse to even grok the arguments that people are putting forth so you can rag on them. A decently designed sandbox is a setting with a number of different moving parts that interact with each other independent of the players. The campaign comes from introducing the players into the setting and having the setting take them into account when deciding on their actions. There's nothing inherently "random" about that. But you won't read anything I've written. You will pretend that I've said something entirely different and argue against that strawman for paragraphs.

[BRC]

Well, this really goes in circle's though and that is the problem. If a DM makes up something a year before a game then some say it is ''ok'' as it was made before the game. Some say Dm's ''can't'' improvise as it is wrong. Some say DM's can improvise. And then some say the Dm can, but only if it ''makes sense'' and the DM can defend what they do vs the hostile players. Then that leads into what each player thinks and worse what they think on a whim.

...?

I have heard literally nobody say that a GM can't improvise. In fact, I've seen Improvisation generally agreed upon as a key GMing skill.

[Max_Killjoy]

...?

I have heard literally nobody say that a GM can't improvise. In fact, I've seen Improvisation generally agreed upon as a key GMing skill.

Yeah, of all the crazy things I've seen said about GMing, "never improvise" is NOT one of them.

[Quertus]

That's plainly obvious in this thread, with people saying that linear games are "lazier" then sandbox games, that some rules are better than others, and the fact that everyones point "low player agency" becomes "railroading" is different.

One of the software development maxims I love is, "all good software developers are lazy". Because, if you're expending unnecessary effort, doing things the hard way, it's probably not only not going to be time efficient to build, it's also unlikely to be efficient to run, or to fix.

Not bothering to build a deep, consistent world that keeps running independent of the PCs is lazy, compared to the effort of a good sandbox that has a life of its own. Which is better? Hard to say. Depends on the players, IME.

sure, and once again i agree that people need to talk about the games they are playing before they play them. But not all games need high player agency, or verisimilitude. Calling railroading both a bad thing, as well as a personal preference in terms of player agency is intellectually dishonest.

You can't just ignore how the word is used because it doesn't suit your means. Yeah, there are people trying to pin down things they dont like and group them together under a negative banner (which again is all degrees of preference), but people also are using it as line in the sands on what is and isn't a "good" amount of player agency.

Lemme 'splain. Agency is the ability to use the tools we've been given and get the logical outcome. Removing that agency involves removing our ability to use those tools in a certain way, or changing the outcome of certain uses of those tools.

For example, on this website, we have access to letters, size/color changes, emojis, etc. Our agency is curtailed in several ways. Perhaps the most obvious is, I cannot **** a gun, or talk about Moby ****. These are things that we should logically be able to do with the tools that we have been given, but cannot, because our agency to use these tools that way has been removed. **** that!

But what I'm really curious about is, what kind of games do you see not requiring that v word? What games do not need logic and internal consistency (besides Calvin Ball)?

Okay but why? Why take a word, without a meaningful definition, that is used inconsistently even then, only ever in a negative sense, to encompass things that are both personal preference and specific design faults. Whats the point? The word has baggage. It has an implicit and explicit value judgement built into it, which means that any attempt to codify a hard, objective definition is pointless because its an easy place for people to go when they want to say that something is Bad because they didn't like it. It will only ever be a word used inconsistently. You can say that they are wrong for using it that way, but that will not change that people will use it that way.

Instead, you can focus on the actual specifics. Instead of saying "this was railroading" you can say "i didn't like that my options were restricted" or "the illusion of choice was frustrating here" or "why is there a door im not allowed to open". And by doing this, when someone tries to use railroading "improperly" (as you see it) you can say to them "hey thats a poorly defined, nebulous concept what did you mean by that" so they need to air out their greivences and you can see if its bad design or personal preference.

This encourages thoughtful discussion, good critique and inclusive communities.

I think, like with the word "murder", the "baggage" kinda is the definition. Why do you want, in effect, to complain about using the word "murder" as meaningless and filled with baggage?

Yes, using more words encourages longer communication, which leads to more thoughtful conversation, better critique and chances to improve. thats the goal.

Also, i do not care about this forum vs darth ultron thing thats going on. i really dont. its not and has never been my intention to take a side on that particular ball of garbage. im simply using this discussion of railroading to talk about my issues with the concept. i very much dont agree with how they are using it either.

(more work sure, but less work =/= laziness by any stretch of the imagination)



Yeah thats basically it. Its a loaded, inconsistent, garbage word that only exists to cast value judgments on things people dont like. I would very much like it if people stopped using it when critiquing game design because its bad critique that adds nothing meaningful to the conversation.

By this standard the clearest way to communicate is to talk using as many words as possible. Or, rather:

In keeping with the particular goal that this set of sentences puts forth, there is a particular method of moving information from one brain to another brain which has the least possible chance of error, which method is to utilize a large amount of verbiage.

Yeah, no.

Verbosity is kinda my thing, and, I gotta say, extraneous verbiage rarely contributes positively to conversational efficiency. Past a certain point, there is a decidedly negative correlation between additional words and comprehension gained per word - and, for some audiences, a negative correlation between additional words and total comprehension!

That having been said, being forced (dare I say railroaded?) to explain things in excruciating detail to DU does allow us to, however inefficiently, learn things we otherwise would not have stumbled upon on our own.

If that's intentional, then DU is a teaching genius, and the "forum vs darth ultron thing" is the goal. If it's unintentional, then the "forum vs darth ultron thing" is the forum using lots of words and producing increased learning opportunities. So I'm not seeing any reason why it shouldn't continue under The Extinguisher system of logic.

This is what a lot of sandbox DM's tell themselves, but it is not true. I have never seen a sandbox DM with like over a thousand things made so the players can randomly go anywhere. And making just a ''novel like paragraph'' is one thing, but to make any type of action encounter takes a lot more work. Though, there are plenty of simple sandbox type games so that DMs can make up stuff quickly(''the bad guys have 1 or 2 action points''). It is impossible in any complex game, however.

And really it is an insane waste of a DM's time to like make ''ten things'' for every ''player whim'', when the players only pick one.

In the lazy sandbox, I only develop details as needed. If you never go visit the king, the king never has stats. But he does have general drives and goals to inform how the Duke - who, if you are interacting with, does have stats - feels about the king.

This is just being a hostile jerk player though. If a player is just going to sit there and say ''my character hides under his bed'' as they are afraid of the DM ''doing anything'', then they might as well not even play the game.

But that's not a jerk player so much as just a natural outcome to being railroaded.

And it would not ''break my plot''. As a clever DM, I would never, ever have a ''important'' foe expose themselves like a dumb cartoon villain. After all there is that 1% chance that something might happen. So, for example, my Ancient super intelligent Red Wyrm...would have sent a projected image to ''scare the town'', if I really wanted to do that in the first place...

That's your good.

Odd, most players that complain about player agency want it to be reality altering side table Dming. They don't just want to try an option, they want whatever whim they have to be game reality and for it to work and play out in exactly the way they want it to in all ways. Basicaly, be ''Dm's'' of the game.

I don't know about "most", but that's not what I'm after.

Can you interact meaningfully with those of us who aren't interested in narrative authorship / changing reality?

I can agree Railroading has too much negative baggage.....I use DM Agency instead.

So, uh, I'll probably regret asking, but can you define this term that even our resident Lawful Evil paragon sends leery of? And, perhaps more importantly, whatever it means, can you stop using "railroad(ing)" as a synonym, and start using a more standard definition of the term?

NOTE: This is one of my other ways: The OOC way.

And that's your good. Why don't you talk more about this?

So guess this depends what ''agency'' is though....is it DM like control? Is it only when a DM says ''no player you can't do that?''. Is it only when the ''badwrong fun'' DM stops the player from doing anything?

My way of explaining it is, it's when the GM changes the logical outcome of player actions. There's more to it than that, granted, but that's the big one.

And ''specific outcomes'' does make it sound like if there is no railroading the game will be a mess.

A mess? Is a tree "a mess" if it isn't professionally pruned?

Some of us can enjoy natural beauty without telling Mother Nature that she needs to manicure her lawns.

...?

I have heard literally nobody say that a GM can't improvise. In fact, I've seen Improvisation generally agreed upon as a key GMing skill.

Yeah, of all the crazy things I've seen said about GMing, "never improvise" is NOT one of them.

Now, now, DU obviously equates improvising with railroading: improvising is the GMs ability to create ways to railroad the players on the fly, as opposed to having to be a chess master and plan the BBEG's contingencies ahead of time.

Getting him to acknowledge the distinction between that concept and improvising like, "there aren't rules for playing Marbles in D&D - how do we determine who won?", or that from "the GM can change any rule on a whim" seems outside the realm of the possible.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think, like with the word "murder", the "baggage" kinda is the definition. Why do you want, in effect, to complain about using the word "murder" as meaningless and filled with baggage?

I was pondering the same parallel.

The way some want to use "railroading" as a neutral word and then tack extra stuff on to delineate when it's bad, would be a bit like trying to broaden the word "murder" to be a neutral term for ending a life, when the bad is core to the definition of murder and there are already lots of other words for other distinctions on killing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Why think of creative solutions to the problems if the GM is going to be a brat and go "No that isn't the way I want you to solve the problem so I'm going to arbitrarily block it". If you know that the enemy is going to get away anyway why bother casting dimensional anchor to prevent the teleportation? Or in 2nd edition hold onto an action to disrupt the casting of the spell from the scroll?

And yep things like that sure can happen. But you've said multiple times that you are constantly railroading the players. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they have caught on? If the last 6 things that you did railroaded the group are they supposed to think that this is any different?

This is just being a hostile jerk player though. If a player is just going to sit there and say ''my character hides under his bed'' as they are afraid of the DM ''doing anything'', then they might as well not even play the game.

But that's not a jerk player so much as just a natural outcome to being railroaded.

Exactly.

This is pretty much it spelled out... said DM constantly railroads players -- arbitrarily blocks their attempts to use their PCs' actual abilities or be creative, and deviates from established rules and "fiction", when it doesn't suit The Plan -- and when the players have the natural human reaction to all their efforts being stonewalled and rendered useless, and throw their hands up at the futility of it, said DM considers the players "hostile" and "jerks", and disdainfully refers to them "hiding under the bed".

There's a "hostile jerk" problem here, but it's not the players.

[Frozen_Feet]

Neither of which is the same as driving the car, or planning a road trip with 3 friends.

False analogy. A road trip is not part of a car. Driving the car is not designing a part of it.

A scenario is part of the game and it logically follows designing a scenario is part of designing a game.

From personal experience, I'd say without hesitation that designing a campaign or scenario is not the same as designing a system, and it's the latter that most people mean when they say "game design". Roll your eyes at them all you want, they're not the ones using a term off-spec over a frankly silly "philosophical" point and then looking down their nose at people who don't when it causes confusion in a discussion.

*Sigh*

You just had to make your argument obtuse, didn't you?

How about you open Wikipedia page on "game design" and look under "elements of game design". I'll wait.

. . .

There. Did you see it?

No-one here is saying scenario design is same as systems design. What's being said is that systems design and scenario design are both game design, because both the system and the scenario are parts of the game. Saying "scenario design is game design" is not off-spec. It is the standard. People who think "game design" is synonym to "game system design" or only limited to it are the ones being off-spec.

If it's really the case that "most people" don't realize this, as you claim, then I must conclude "most people" do not engage in game design, and hence I can dismiss their opinion on what is or is not game design, because they obviously don't know what they're talking about.

To give another comparison point, I'm sure you could find a lot of people who don't realize "natrium
sulfate" is a salt, because they only ever use "salt" to refer to natrium chloride, or table salt. It's not a great big crime, I don't expect people to know or remember everything. But if I'm talking about chemistry and they insist that I do not use "salt" to refer to "natrium sulfate" because "that's not how most people use the word", I don't have to give them time of my day.

This is not a "silly philosophical" point. Realizing that scenario design is part of game design, just like realizing that natrium sulfate is a salt, is of great practical value on its relevant field. At first, I didn't think it was important to dwell on this in-depth. But now I must conclude I was wrong, since you apparently feel like championing a failure of people to realize a well-known set-subset relation as a benchmark for valid definition.

[Max_Killjoy]

If it's really the case that "most people" don't realize this, as you claim, then I must conclude "most people" do not engage in game design, and hence I can dismiss their opinion on what is or is not game design, because they obviously don't know what they're talking about.

So you can dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as ignorant and wrong because they don't agree with you.

OK.


Here's the original comment that started this "discussion".

Yeah thats basically it. Its a loaded, inconsistent, garbage word that only exists to cast value judgments on things people dont like. I would very much like it if people stopped using it when critiquing game design because its bad critique that adds nothing meaningful to the conversation.

In that context, using "game design" as you and evidently they are using it isn't clear communication, it's adding to the confusion. Which is pretty damn ironic given the rest of that paragraph.

Insisting that "game design" is the proper term for a single GM laying out a single scenario for one group and should be understood as such in the given context, is like insisting that "urban planning" is the proper term for someone remodeling their house... and should be understood as such when someone says "I wish people would stop urban planning using textured wallpaper" and then dismissing anyone who is confused by that comment as an ignorant lout whose opinion you can dismiss.


PS: someday I'll go through the Wikipedia entries on WW2 tanks and give a rough percentage of what the people editing those pages get dead wrong.

[Frozen_Feet]

As far as I can tell, you are the only one to whom The Extinquisher's comment was at all unclear. I saw no problem at clarifying it to you anyhow. Likewise, I had no problem with your claim that "most people" would find it unclear - eyeroll worthy if true, but not materially important.

This tangent should've ended there. But instead it appears you've developed a sudden need to make obtuse remarks and false analogies. As such, feel free to do the following:

1) Prove that it is indeed most people who find Extinquisher's comment unclear.
2) Prove that actual game designers don't consider scenario design as game design.
3) explain to me either how:
3a) a railroad is not a game scenario
3b) a railroad is not designed by a person

[georgie_leech]

Extra Credits has a mini-series that explores the design choices that goes into Durlag's Tower, a dungeon in Balur's Gate. Not the nuts and bolts of the game, or the rules of the game, but how putting traps in certain rooms changes the feel, or how different enemies imply different things about the setting, or in how different encounters are designed to be easier for certain strategies or class types.

As a dabbler, I have to agree that designing scenarios within a system is very much a part of game design.

[Max_Killjoy]

As far as I can tell, you are the only one to whom The Extinquisher's comment was at all unclear. I saw no problem at clarifying it to you anyhow. Likewise, I had no problem with your claim that "most people" would find it unclear - eyeroll worthy if true, but not materially important.

This tangent should've ended there. But instead it appears you've developed a sudden need to make obtuse remarks and false analogies. As such, feel free to do the following:

1) Prove that it is indeed most people who find Extinquisher's comment unclear.
2) Prove that actual game designers don't consider scenario design as game design.
3) explain to me either how:
3a) a railroad is not a game scenario
3b) a railroad is not designed by a person

So now we have TWO instances in which someone insisting on their own special usage of a term, and acting as if everyone else is wrong for not using it that way, has spun off a digression in this thread.

You and DU will be very happy together.


E: the lack of clarity isn't because people are "ignorant of the term", it's because using "game design" to refer to some GM sitting down to flesh out a campaign is needlessly hijacking an existing term over a silly point of philosophical wankery. Scenario / campaign design can just as easily be a part of playing the game, as it can of designing a game. See also, worldbuilding, which isn't even restricted to games and has a long history before it became part of gaming -- I'd lay about 50/50 odds that the same sorts who insist that scenario / campaign design falls under the term "game design" also think that worldbuilding does as well.

Going back to the car design metaphor (that I didn't introduce, BTW...), engines are also designed for ships, lawnmowers, generators, etc... but I guess that it shouldn't surprise me that people who think scenario / campaign design falls under the term "game design" also think that engine design falls under the term "car design".

[Max_Killjoy]

Extra Credits has a mini-series that explores the design choices that goes into Durlag's Tower, a dungeon in Balur's Gate. Not the nuts and bolts of the game, or the rules of the game, but how putting traps in certain rooms changes the feel, or how different enemies imply different things about the setting, or in how different encounters are designed to be easier for certain strategies or class types.

As a dabbler, I have to agree that designing scenarios within a system is very much a part of game design.

The two are associated. That doesn't either one an intrinsic part or subset of the other.

One can design a scenario without touching a thing in the guts of a pre-existing system. One can design a system without any scenarios at all. Some games don't have scenarios at all by their very nature.

Yes, the edges are fuzzy, but there are absolutely places where coming up with a scenario / campaign is simply not at all "game design". The person creating custom maps for a video game. The person creating a campaign without a thought to changing any rules.


And before anyone says it again... "there is no game until someone sits down to play" is postmodernist crap.

[georgie_leech]

The two are associated. That doesn't either one an intrinsic part of the other.

One can design a scenario without touching a thing in the guts of a pre-existing system.

One can design a system without any scenarios at all.

Some games don't have scenarios at all.

One can also design a game without dice; does that mean that designing a game to use dice doesn't count as designing a game? So yes, one can design a system without designing a scenario or vice versa, but they're both doing the same thing. The same principles are used, to the same end: getting a fun experience for your players.

So I don't disagree with your statement about systems and scenarios are different, but I do think you're wrong about them both not being elements of game design. Much in the same way that I would look funny at anyone who insisted that because triangles and circles have different properties, they aren't both shapes.

[Scripten]

Yes, the edges are fuzzy, but there are absolutely places where coming up with a scenario / campaign is simply not at all "game design". The person creating custom maps for a video game. The person creating a campaign without a thought to changing any rules.

At least in video games, creating maps is absolutely part of game design. And in all actuality, designing well laid-out dungeons and such for implementing game mechanics is aided in great part by employing game design. On the other hand, it is possible to write scenarios without taking game design into account, but as soon as you interact with the mechanics, are are engaging in game design.

The best proof of this is comparing the adventures/dungeons of author's who have studied game design concepts like flow and those who have not. There is an easily discernible difference.

[Max_Killjoy]

At least in video games, creating maps is absolutely part of game design. And in all actuality, designing well laid-out dungeons and such for implementing game mechanics is aided in great part by employing game design. On the other hand, it is possible to write scenarios without taking game design into account, but as soon as you interact with the mechanics, are are engaging in game design.

The best proof of this is comparing the adventures/dungeons of author's who have studied game design concepts like flow and those who have not. There is an easily discernible difference.

And car engines tend to work better if the engine designer knows something about the car the engine is going into -- that doesn't make all engine design inherently a part of car design.

Someone who plays rec league baseball on the weekends "plays baseball", but that doesn't mean he's justified in getting snooty and disdainful and belittling whenever he confuses someone into wondering if he's a professional by introducing himself as "John Smith, baseball player".

[ImNotTrevor]

As far as I can tell, you are the only one to whom The Extinquisher's comment was at all unclear. I saw no problem at clarifying it to you anyhow. Likewise, I had no problem with your claim that "most people" would find it unclear - eyeroll worthy if true, but not materially important.

This tangent should've ended there. But instead it appears you've developed a sudden need to make obtuse remarks and false analogies. As such, feel free to do the following:

1) Prove that it is indeed most people who find Extinquisher's comment unclear.
2) Prove that actual game designers don't consider scenario design as game design.
3) explain to me either how:
3a) a railroad is not a game scenario
3b) a railroad is not designed by a person

This is tangential to the issue, I'm afraid.

As I said before, the problem inherent in Railroading is only tangentially related to Scenario Design. Railroading is a SOCIAL INTERACTION problem moreso than a game design problem.

It is, as I said before, the equivalent of one kid in the group demanding that everyone else play the game only how HE or SHE wants to play it. (This "bossy" behavior, ironically, stands out most when playing PRETEND, which is half the RPG formula.)

Any form of Scenario Design can become a railroad, so long as a player assumes that Bossy role.

[georgie_leech]

This is tangential to the issue, I'm afraid.

As I said before, the problem inherent in Railroading is only tangentially related to Scenario Design. Railroading is a SOCIAL INTERACTION problem moreso than a game design problem.

It is, as I said before, the equivalent of one kid in the group demanding that everyone else play the game only how HE or SHE wants to play it. (This "bossy" behavior, ironically, stands out most when playing PRETEND, which is half the RPG formula.)

Any form of Scenario Design can become a railroad, so long as a player assumes that Bossy role.

Also this. I'm more than open to discussing what does or doesn't fall under game design, but Railroading is is usually a social problem, either being bossy or failing to get buy-in. There is sometimes some overlap, but that occurs when a GM forces a scenario onto the players rather than any particular flaw of the scenario itself.

[Scripten]

Someone who plays rec league baseball on the weekends "plays baseball", but that doesn't mean he's justified in getting snooty and disdainful and belittling whenever he confuses someone into wondering if he's a professional by introducing himself as "John Smith, baseball player".

I disagree with the gatekeeping just as much as you do. Just important to point out that working with mechanics to create an environment is also part of game design. Part of my degree was in game design theory and I'm fairly passionate about it. But that also doesn't mean that you can't speak on it or anything.

Just my 2c