Here are some discussions of different aspects of playstyle. In my RPG career, I have definitely sat at the table for all of these situations. And as of today, I have some crisp opinions about what I prefer.
Mandatory Apotropaic against the Nerd: There are lots of different sliding scales to measure RPG play, lots of legitimate ways of play, lots of things that I enjoy at different times, etc. etc.
The Blorb to Quantum Continuum
These are different experiences:
Situation 1
The GM has a puzzle to open a secret door.
The players don't know how to open the secret door, but push different buttons and twist different knobs.
Each time they touch something, the GM describes something happening.
The players keep pushing buttons until they understand the mechanism and input the right pushes and twists to open the door.
Situation 2
The GM has a puzzle to open a secret door.
The players don't know how to open the secret door, but push different buttons and twist different knobs.
Each time they touch something, the GM describes something happening.
The players keep pushing buttons until the GM thinks they look bored, then describes the players having a Eureka moment and the door opens.
Situation 3
The GM has a puzzle to open a secret door.
The players don't know how to open the secret door, but push different buttons and twist different knobs.
The players look for a way to bypass the secret door. They roll Perception and get a 20.
The GM thinks "Wow, a 20, that's really high." They then describe a secret panel that wasn't there previously. The panel gives them access to the trap's mechanisms, allowing them to bypass the door.
Here are three other different experiences:
Situation 1
The GM has a monster stat block. The monster has HD3+3.The GM rolls for HP and determines the monster has 7 HP.
The players hit the monster and do 6 damage.
The monster gets to act next round.
Situation 2
The GM has a monster stat block. The monster has HD3+3.The GM rolls for HP and determines the monster has 7 HP.
The players hit the monster and do 6 damage.
The GM decides that it'd look cool if they took it down in one hit, and what does it really matter. The GM describes the monster dying.
Situation 3
The GM has a monster stat block. He does not roll for HP.
The players hit the monster and do 6 damage.
The monster takes as many actions as the GM wants, until the players look appropriately bruised and beaten for a monster of this level, then describes the monster dying.
---
Essentially, these three experiences differ in terms of "blorbiness" the situations have.
Imagine a scale. On one end of the scale reality is fixed (blorby). On the other end of the scale, reality is uncertain as Heisenburg, with secret doors or extra ogres popping into existence as the GM needs them.
In our scenario, it seems that the GM is willing to bend the fictional reality out of concerns of the players' fun. (And nobody is arguing the players shouldn't have fun, so we can sympathize with our GM in these scenarios, even if we disagree with them.)
The Sandbox - Railroad Continuum
Here are two other experiences:
Situation 1
In a dungeon, one player character contracted a magical disease. They lose 1 point of Strength a day until they benefit from the Cure Disease spell.
The GM asks the players what they want to do. They decide to carry their diseased companion back to town.
The journey takes 12 days. The diseased player has 9 Strength. On the 10th day, the character succumbs to the disease and dies. That night, he rises again as a mummy.
The rest of the players flee. The GM makes a note that a mummy now lives in hex 0201, about 2 days outside of town.
Situation 2
In a dungeon, one player character contracted a magical disease. They lose 1 point of Strength a day until they benefit from the Cure Disease spell.
Outside of the dungeon, the GM's favorite NPC -- who they played as a PC for years -- named MacMuffin the Wise is waiting for them. He casts Cure Disease on the poisoned character.
MacMuffin the Wise teleports the party to the Vorpal Plane, so they can use the Holy Sword they just got against MegaSatan.
These two scenarios differ in terms of how much the GM preps "plot." In one situation, the players have a good bit of freedom about where they can go. There's a map, and the GM has no expectations about the direction the players will necessarily go. In the other, the GM has a very clear idea of the events that will happen every session. First, the players get the Holy Sword. Then, they go to Hell. Then, they get defeated in Hell, and wake up in Ultra Hell. Then...
Combinatory Problems
With the caveat noted at the top of the article, there's a degree of success that occurs at certain coordinates of these two playstyles.
BlorbRailroad: Sometimes, a GM has a very crisp idea in mind about how the door can be opened and how hard the monster is. When these expectations break down during play, frustration occurs.
When the players don't know how to open the puzzle door and there's no alternative egress, the players get frustrated.
When the GM creates a cool boss giant that gets one-shot KO'd by the players' broken, janky builds, the GM gets so mad he has to go outside to cool off.
Blorb principles create friction in a railroad because the fixedness of the fictional reality doesn't allow for the practicalities of sequential narrative scenes. The players cannot guess what the GM is thinking, and the GM cannot elegantly force the players to follow their story.
BlorbSandbox: In this quadrant, the GM has a crisp idea in mind about how the door can be opened. And if the players don't figure it out? They can leave. They can go back to town. They can look at the quest board to earn some extra coin. Then they can hire a team of dwarf hirelings to come with them back to the door and take the damn thing off of its hinges.
This quadrant can feel frustrating. When you limp victorious out of the dungeon but die to a swarm of low-level rats because you're at 1 HP, you did not have the Lord of the Rings experience you were hoping for.
This quadrant can be exciting. Hard-won victories where the players actually win through moxie and luck, not just as a foregone conclusion, are fun. When you abandon the riddle door and have an "aha" moment about how to get past it 3 months later, you feel like a genius. When you only have one arrow and you actually kill the dragon with a super lucky critical hit, the whole table explodes in cheers.
(This is my favorite quadrant.)
QuantumSandbox: In this quadrant, the GM has a setting, a map, and some handy procedures. They also are committed to principles like improvisation or shared setting creation. They ask the players questions and use the answers. Nobody had previously imagined that the elves lived on the moon and rode meteors down to earth, but when the elf player mentioned this, everybody said "Wow cool."
This quadrant allows for near infinite generative ability from the players and GM alike. Nobody knows exactly what's going to happen, and that's exciting.
This quadrant can also remove a feeling of mystery or discovery. If the answer to "Who killed Farmer Ben" is "Whoever the players make the most convincing argument against," then there's just a story that sort of feels like a murder mystery. Nobody really feels like Poirot.
QuantumRailroad: In this quadrant, the GM has a pre-prepared story, some scripted fight scenes, some pretty painted minis, and the players are along for the ride.
When the players buy into it, this can be fun. The GM artfully makes the fight sequences feel tough but fair from behind the mystery of the GM screen. Nobody knows whether they really rolled high enough on Perception to see the secret door, but the secret door is found. And down this hallway? An ogre! Wow! That ogre mini is very well painted, you did a great job on that Steve.
This can also be a frustrating experience. Every fight is just a quicktime event. The fun of making a character is all in the pre-planned 1-20 "build" process, not the actual "discovery of a character through roleplaying." And down this hallway? An ogre. No matter what.
This can also be a frustrating experience. Every fight is just a quicktime event. The fun of making a character is all in the pre-planned 1-20 "build" process, not the actual "discovery of a character through roleplaying." And down this hallway? An ogre. No matter what.
Saw this linked on reddit, read the whole thing in impressed agreement, and then realized it was written by you! Great stuff.
ReplyDeleteI used to DM from basically the center of this chart, and it was deeply unsatisfying. Now I lean Blorby Sandbox, but still do some quantum readjustment when I have a better idea mid-session and think I can get away with it.
Linked on Reddit? SACRE BLEU.
DeleteGlad the post was helpful at least!
what does blorb refer to? I get quantum...
DeleteBlorb refers to this blog here https://idiomdrottning.org/blorb-principles
DeleteArrived from twitter... you landed in my feed somehow.
ReplyDeleteThis should be redone as an alignment chart. Railroad is so lawful neutral, though I'm inclined to call it evil.
Someone should do up a nice in-depth quiz for GMs, that would let us all self-assess our place on this chart. I love your analysis.
ReplyDeleteI know I started off as a young GM doing lots of railroad (I wanted to be a screenwriter), but I've graduated to a lot more Blorby/Sandbox, with my story elements laid in there for parties to follow if they want.
This is a nice breakdown of some of the ways we tend to struggle between play styles. These fractures and frustrations between Classic and Trad or more recently OSR and Contemporary Trad feel rather ancient and consistent. Something first fought on the editorial pages of Strategic Review and Alarums & Excursions.
ReplyDeleteI think you do a great job of breaking down how the breakdown in communication between fans of both sandbox and adventure path style design works, and I suspect this would be a very useful post for people coming into older style design from 5E or PF, but as always, I'm not sure we need the rather confusing label of "Blorb" for this though? Not only is it a 2020's term for a set of ideas that dates to the 1970's and has been restated many times previously, but it's one that doesn't provide sources - which is pretty standard for RPG discourse, which has no memory, but I suspect it helps to place this dispute within the longer context for RPG design.