Changes in good old roleplaying?

[Atgxtg]

I guess it's the kind of egos (and the level of intelligence) that get attracted to rpg that creates a degree of friction, as well as the ability to express it verbally.

I'm as bad as anyone else, I guess. I remember a one off game in a club I was attending for the first time where the GM used the Genertela book by Avalon Hill as if it was a D&D type module. We got to Wintertop like it was a room in a dungeon, and the description was "There's an army there." Emotive stuff. We approached this army who were apparently stood around in a giant mob like it was a sunday barbeque. Genius disguised as crap, surely?

I confess I had feelings of superiority toward the GM. I guess that makes me a roleplaying snob, too.

As you can imagine, I didn't re-attend. Anyone else have any pitiful roleplaying memories? Probably another thread...

Oh tons of them. To be fair, it usually wasn't the fault of the system, just bad players and GMs. An idiot is an idiot no matter what game he is playing and what dice he is rolling. A fact that can be easily proven by running the same people in different RPGs.

I think the friction is less about egos that differences in goals. Case in point, several people here have been working to some more detailed weapon tables (breaking down fireams by type) spaceship stats, and other vehicles. To those players those things are important enough to to them that such revisions and additions are a goal.

Other could case less. They either aren't concerned about such details or never expect them to come up in a meaningful way in their campaigns. Unless you got heavy weapons, superpowers, good magic, or a pet dragon, modern tank AP's, hit points, and damages are fairly academic. Generally it is "tink-tink-tink" for the PCs vs. "K-bang" for the tank.

In a similar note, the workings of the magic systems probably aren't a major concern for those planning to run a modern day or Sci-Fi campaign.

So it all depends on what sort of goals you have in mind for a campaign.

Most of what we see here is really a difference in goals and expectations, and so different styles of play being employed to reach those goals and expectations.

I once had a D&D player quite an RQ campaign because he had played for weeks and never gained a level or gotten any gold pieces. His skills had gone up a few percentiles, and he had a suit of mail armor, and a few silver, but those were not things that he considered as significant as "leveling up" and getting gold and magic items.

[Trifletraxor]

I once had a D&D player quite an RQ campaign because he had played for weeks and never gained a level or gotten any gold pieces. His skills had gone up a few percentiles, and he had a suit of mail armor, and a few silver, but those were not things that he considered as significant as "leveling up" and getting gold and magic items.

:lol::lol:

SGL.

[cleombrotus]

Yeah, it's funny how the little things make the difference. I got turned onto Runequest through the most trivial things - armour tables and artwork. I also remember my mate (we were 11) who picked up the boxed set and went mental because it was the first time either of us had seen gem dice. We had the D&D character class mentality and of course the blurb on the back of the box said you could even play a unicorn! I wonder what sort of games we would have run if we had bought it there and then?

And of course what Simon said about Giants in Middle Earth is perfectly true. At least with Glorantha there's room for debate and interpretation...

[Atgxtg]

:lol::lol:

SGL.

If you like that, you'll love the one about the group playing RQ2 at a convention that were griping about the lack of healing potions. The group was starting to turn into a lynch mob when one of the two players familar with RQ2 asked if anyone knew the Healing spell. Four of of six had Healing 2, one guy had Healing 6 and the lat one had a spell matrix with Healing 6.

The RQ saavvy guys gave my this "oh you so kind and benevolent GM who have been so mistreated!" look. At least after they stopping repeating "Healing six. HEALING SIX!! In a SPELL MATRIX.

It just so happened that the fist two guys who sat down saw weapon skills and figured that since they didn't know the game they just play the fighters.

But to give them credit, the group didn't complain about the lack of healing positions anymore. Do it yourself healing proved quite popular.

Yeah, it's funny how the little things make the difference.

Yup. I first got into FATE because of the way the rules were used to simulate a chess match. Rather that a win/loose roll or some really complicated system, it did something neat. Basically each piece was listed and the loser lost one, must the way you take damage in combat. Higher margins of victoy marked off more significant pieces. Very simple, but it covered the game in RPG terms better than anything I had ever seen.

[RMS]

All these debates about linear and nonlinear roleplaying are quite good fun though.

This most likely applies to me, so I'll address it a bit.

I know it's all a matter of personal taste, but it seems that the claim to be a nonlinear roleplayer is tantamount to implying that you are more intelligent, more demanding of your roleplaying, more mature, better in bed, etc.

Well, it is more difficult to put together nonlinear games and it also requires players that are self motivated. In fact, the latter is the big sticker. If you have passive players, you have to lead them about to a some extent. (I've had pretty good results converting players, but it's far from universal.) My experience is that the passive ones are usually passive because they've been railroaded and pixel bitched by poor GMs into acting that way: the height (or depth) of linear adventure design.

Personally I gave up on nonlinear roleplaying when I was about fifteen. If I've made the necessary sacrifices required by modern life to give up a day for roleplaying, I'm going to get the right hump with any GM who tries to dress up a total lack of preparation as "nonlinear roleplaying".

??? Preparation and linearity of adventure design are almost completely orthogonal concepts.* It sounds like you're against something, which is fine, but it's not an argument against nonlinear adventures.

* I say "almost" here because nonlinear adventure design lends itself to much more GM prep time than linear designs. In fact, I'd argue that (overly) linear adventure design is frequently due to lazy GMs who don't want to deal with players doing anything unexpected.

Whilst we all know that no players ever do what you expect them to do, and you've got to be prepared to think on your feet as a GM, I think that the art is to make something that is ultimately linear appear otherwise.

If you can pull it off, maybe. My experience has been my players are way too bright, inquisitive, and self determined to pull that off over the long term. (To be fair, after reading some of the posts around here, it's obviously that I really have been blessed with good players overall...some of those stories are downright frightening!)

I find this argument particularly interesting considering RQ was one of the first games to feature a fair number of completely nonlinear adventures. The classic of course is the entire Griffin Mountain pack. If the GM is read up on it (ie. has prepared, which isn't much since all the hard work is done in the book), it's very easy to let a bunch of PCs loose in one of the citadels, the Balazar wilds, or the Elder Wilds, and just play. The random encounter tables, a few thrown in encounters that tickle your fancy, random rumors and NPCs, etc. all lend themselves to lots of interesting adventures with no overarching plot (the hallmark of linear adventures). I typically have done a shotgun affect of various rumors, offers, red herrings, etc. when the PCs arrive, let them pick what interests them and then run from there. By about the 3rd or 4th evening, the players are pushing much of the action by telling me what they plan to do the next session, so I can plan for it and of course there are backplots going on with NPCs that may, or may not, interfere with the PC's plans. I have a hard time seeing why someone would think that's a bad way to game, but please enlighten me because it is interesting.

On the flip side, RQ did have some incredibly linear published adventures too. The famous Cradle adventure is a good example, though I've noted before that it is at least a very good linear adventure...and my players and I have tended to warp it to be farther afield from the detailed linear adventure, as written. For RQIII, the intro adventure in the River of Cradles is linear too, and while fine, isn't nearly as compelling as the Cradle. The one good thing about these adventures that keeps them from being the worst of linear is that they both allow the plot to advance with different repercussions on the PCs actions, but don't stall out waiting for the PCs to do X, and only X (ie. pixel bitching).

[Shaira]

waiting for the PCs to do X, and only X (ie. pixel bitching).

Sorry everyone, I'm gonna sound like a million years old when I ask this question, but I'm fascinated.

What the hell is "pixel bitching"?

Sarah

[frogspawner]

... The one good thing about these adventures that keeps them from being the worst of linear is that they both allow the plot to advance with different repercussions on the PCs actions, but don't stall out waiting for the PCs to do X, and only X (ie. pixel bitching).

You must've dozed off before the end...

[Shaira]

You must've dozed off before the end...

For some reason I thought there'd be more to it than just "X not Y"... must be my dirty mind...

[cleombrotus]

Linear/Nonlinear is an illusion. The only difference between players running amok in a citadel, running amok in a cave complex and running amok in the Elder Wilds is one of scale.

I typically have done a shotgun affect of various rumors, offers, red herrings, etc. when the PCs arrive, let them pick what interests them and then run from there. By about the 3rd or 4th evening, the players are pushing much of the action by telling me what they plan to do the next session, so I can plan for it and of course there are backplots going on with NPCs that may, or may not, interfere with the PC's plans.

I would point out at this point that we clearly run our games in exactly the same way, at least as far as this goes. I will just never claim to myself or others that this is 'nonlinear'.

I am certainly not against this 'nonlinear' gaming, but to use the term 'nonlinear' as a thinly veiled justification of one's self-perceived rpg superiority is delusion. Perhaps not quite as pretentious as "I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer", but getting there...

This most likely applies to me, so I'll address it a bit.

I should also point out that this is not aimed at you in particular, although you did kind of imply that I was a lazy GM with a bunch of drones for players, but then if we can't say these things on forums, then where can we say them?:thumb:

I don't know what pixel bitching is, either...

[Atgxtg]

Linear/Nonlinear is an illusion. The only difference between players running amok in a citadel, running amok in a cave complex and running amok in the Elder Wilds is one of scale.

Nope. A linear adventure has a prepolotted storyline that is followed. Players don't "run amok" they are dragged from scene to scene and have no real impact on the outcome of the adventure other that success/failure. If the adventure is about the PCs fighting and killing a vampire that is one thing. If the adventure is set up so that one player WILL lose his girlfied, another his mother, and that the adventure will end with the PCs facing the snarling vampire at four minutes before sunrise, in the ruins of a castle, with a pack of wolves at their heels-that's linear. There is no "running amok" it is all predestined.

The worst gaming experiences I ever had with with a GM who had a story to tell and was not about to alter it for anything an trivial as the actions of the players. Nothing illusionary about that.

I would point out at this point that we clearly run our games in exactly the same way, at least as far as this goes. I will just never claim to myself or others that this is 'nonlinear'.

I would point out that unless you have actually seen the guy run, you don't have enough to go on to know if you run the same. I doubt you run exactly the same in any case. Based on your views and statments I'd bet that you don't run the same.

I am certainly not against this 'nonlinear' gaming, but to use the term 'nonlinear' as a thinly veiled justification of one's self-perceived rpg superiority is delusion. Perhaps not quite as pretentious as "I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer", but getting there...

No. If the players can have no impact on the course of the adventure there is is inferior. The whole point of an RPG is that the players get to role-play and make decisions and take actions that affect the course of the adventure. If the players can't do more than run around a maze like mice looking for the piece of cheese, it is inferior.

If I want someone to tell me a story I will read a book, listen to a CD, toss in a movies or watch TV. I'm not going to sit there with a character sheet and wait to see what decision the GM will allow me to take. And I have been in groups where we were not allowed to do things because it wasn't part of the adventure.

I should also point out that this is not aimed at you in particular, although you did kind of imply that I was a lazy GM with a bunch of drones for players, but then if we can't say these things on forums, then where can we say them?:thumb:

Which would imply that groups that are comprised of active thinking players and a GM involved in a creative interactive RPG experience would be superior to leading a bunch of drones around by the nose. Wouldn't it? I've seen both and I know I'd rather not game with the lemmings.

I don't know what pixel bitching is, either...

My guess is that it is being bothered by something being 1 pixel off from where you want it to be. I think the reference was in relation to the grid on a battle map and a PC standing in the wrong square.The point being that a GM wants to have a lot more control over the players actions that he should.

Ironically enough, doing something "one pixel off" and "pixel bitching" was quote common with the lemmings PC games.

[Rurik]

Clearly there is a need to turn to cold hard sceince to solve this debate, as numbers do not lie.

If we simply give mathematical values to linear and non linear and compare them we will have a clear cut winner.

First, we simply use the time honored method off assigning a numerical value to each letter so that A=1, B=2, C=3, and so on.

Using that sound methodology we can see that Linear has a value of 59, while Non Linear has a value 102. So clearly Non Linear is superior.

However, if we hyphenate Non-Linear that changes the formula a bit, since the hyphen is really a minus sign. So non-linear works out to (43-59) or -16, clearly inferior to Linear.

So there you have it, simple, clear, and decisive. Thank you science.

[rust]

Ah, well ... Linear = 5+9 = 14, Non-Linear = 1+0+2 = 3, so according to the

most basic mathematics ...

[cleombrotus]

I stand chastised...just stirring the pot a little bit>:->

[RMS]

Sorry everyone, I'm gonna sound like a million years old when I ask this question, but I'm fascinated.

What the hell is "pixel bitching"?

Sarah

I suspect we're pretty close to the same age here, so don't go pulling the age card on me! "Pixel bitching" is when there's only one way, and frequently an obscure way, to move the plot forward. For example, if you have to find the note hidden inside the bible in the desk drawer, and deciphor it for the players to find what they're supposed to do next. The word comes from the computer games were you have to click on just the right pixel (or group of pixels) to make something happen so you can advance the plot.

You must've dozed off before the end...

You'll have to explain this one to me as I'm not getting it. (I'm still pretty darn sick, so my brain is in 1st gear so forgive me if it's something obvious.)

[Atgxtg]

Clearly there is a need to turn to cold hard sceince to solve this debate, as numbers do not lie.

If we simply give mathematical values to linear and non linear and compare them we will have a clear cut winner.

First, we simply use the time honored method off assigning a numerical value to each letter so that A=1, B=2, C=3, and so on.

Using that sound methodology we can see that Linear has a value of 59, while Non Linear has a value 102. So clearly Non Linear is superior.

However, if we hyphenate Non-Linear that changes the formula a bit, since the hyphen is really a minus sign. So non-linear works out to (43-59) or -16, clearly inferior to Linear.

So there you have it, simple, clear, and decisive. Thank you science.

Ah, you forgot about the part where you use j equations and multiple the results by the square root of negative 1.

[Atgxtg]

"Pixel bitching" is when there's only one way, and frequently an obscure way, to move the plot forward. For example, if you have to find the note hidden inside the bible in the desk drawer, and deciphor it for the players to find what they're supposed to do next. The word comes from the computer games were you have to click on just the right pixel (or group of pixels) to make something happen so you can advance the plot.

You mean like you have to click on the right eyes of the stuffed mongoose that is on the mantelpiece to open the secret panel in the wall that leads down to the inderground dock where the rowboat is that you can take to go over to the island?

[RMS]

Linear/Nonlinear is an illusion. The only difference between players running amok in a citadel, running amok in a cave complex and running amok in the Elder Wilds is one of scale.

It's not an illusion. There is a difference in linear and nonlinear, but you are correct that players doing their thing in any of those locales doesn't make it linear vs. nonlinear. How the GM/players put the game together and how it flows is whether it's linear or not. I'm the one who argued above that a simple dungeon can be very nonlinear, and it's all a matter of approach to the setting. (I should note that plenty disagreed with me, which is fine, but they're still wrong of course! >:-> )

Just to be clear here:

Pure linear adventure: plot point A -> plot point B -> plot point C -> etc.

As you break farther from that it becomes less linear. At the point which there are no plot points, but instead everything is a setting* is when I consider it to be nonlinear.

*Note that setting = NPCs, background, history, etc. but none of them are there strictly to drive a predetermined plot for the GM.

I would point out at this point that we clearly run our games in exactly the same way, at least as far as this goes. I will just never claim to myself or others that this is 'nonlinear'.

If you run like I do, then you are running a nonlinear game, whether you claim it or not is completely beside the point. I doubt you are running the same from you claims, but I really don't know. Of course, the whole linear vs. nonlinear deal is a sliding scale and not two discrete quantities. Most people fall somewhere along the scale and not at the extremes. In my experience, I fall pretty far towards one extreme (nonlinear) but there are times I break away from that and then move back to it.

I am certainly not against this 'nonlinear' gaming, but to use the term 'nonlinear' as a thinly veiled justification of one's self-perceived rpg superiority is delusion. Perhaps not quite as pretentious as "I'm a roleplayer, not a rollplayer", but getting there...

Well, I certainly believe that nonlinear gaming is much more difficult to pull off successfully, and I enjoy that particular challenge quite a lot, so I suppose on some level I believe it's superior to writing up linear plots. However, I don't think I've ever told anyone they were having badwrongfun for playing that way...

I should also point out that this is not aimed at you in particular, although you did kind of imply that I was a lazy GM with a bunch of drones for players, but then if we can't say these things on forums, then where can we say them?:thumb:

Actually, I haven't insulted you or your players at all here. My comments were there due to some other long time posters who've noted the differences in their players and what I've experienced. I've played for ~30 years now and essentially have played with 5 groups in that entire time. I have a campaign that just shut down that run for 7+ years, and now I'm getting to play (my 2nd RQ character ever!) with the same group. I realize I've been spoiled after discussions here and that some of the things I've mentioned wouldn't work with many groups. It's just a concession that something that worked in my case may not be for everyone, and I accept that.

[frogspawner]

You'll have to explain this one to me as I'm not getting it.

OK, you got me. I thought Shaira had picked up on your first reference to "pixel bitching" and hadn't read to the explanation at the end. It was a pretty long post, and I was glad because I thought I'd made it to the end without dozing off, as us Million-Year-Olds often do. Anyway, I.... zzzzz

[RMS]

OK, you got me. I thought Shaira had picked up on your first reference to "pixel bitching" and hadn't read to the explanation at the end. It was a pretty long post, and I was glad because I thought I'd made it to the end without dozing off, as us Million-Year-Olds often do. Anyway, I.... zzzzz

No problem. The way I've been feeling, I had to stop and take a short nap in the middle of writing the post myself!

I do have a tendancy to let my posts get longwinded. Is that another sign of old age: "Sit down and listen to my wisdom, you whipper snappers..."

[Shaira]

You mean like you have to click on the right eyes of the stuffed mongoose that is on the mantelpiece to open the secret panel in the wall that leads down to the inderground dock where the rowboat is that you can take to go over to the island?

Ah! The good old days! Sort of like the end of module D3... Those were the days, eh... *waxes lyrical*

"YOU HAVE BEEN KILLED BY A GRUE"

"MARY IS NOT AMUSED"

Picking up keyboard and smashing it through monitor in ZX Spectrum frustration = Priceless.

For everything else there's Mastercard.

Pixel Bitching. Got it. Now I need to work it into a conversation at the first opportunity...

[Atgxtg]

Rogue: The computer game that got me and my little dog, too.

[Gnarsh]

I actually think that some of the disagreement in this thread is misplaced. While certainly many of the earlier canned scenarios out there in the gaming world were linear in nature, that's almost a necessity for a sellable adventure. IMO, the only way you have a truly non-linear game is if the players can do anything they want. Which, as noted, takes a lot more prep time by the GM, and has the secondary problem that the scenario really isn't a scenario. You can't actually have a storyline and a plot if you have a completely non-linear setting.

IMO, that's not automatically good or bad. Even adventures that appear non-linear often are. Griffon Moutain is an example. Sure, you could wander around aimlessly and randomly encounter stuff, but that gets old for most players pretty quick. They tend to want stories. So, there are plot threads that they can pick up, each of which leads them in a pretty linear way through a set of encounters to a resolution. While the setting as a whole may be non-linear, if you think about it, whether the environment is a mountain in which the party can go up that trail or down that one, or a dungeon in which they have a choice of left or right, there isn't that much difference. It still fits the qualifications of a "bunch of filler" on the way to achieving some scenario goal.

I think the far more important part is storytelling and making the environment "real". This is where many early canned stuff failed back in the day. Linear or not, it didn't feel that "real" if the whole thing was just a map with room numbers and descriptions for each one. Whether the party had a wide variety of choices and directions and plotlines they could follow didn't matter much if they didn't believe in the world they were playing in. And many many early campaigns suffered from this. I remember running into a lot of players who simply didn't have the concept that their characters did stuff when they weren't adventuring and that towns and taverns might exist for purposes other then buying stuff and meeting up with their fellow adventurers. Oh. And there could actually be stuff that happened on the way to the dungeon! :eek:

One of the best scenarios I ever ran was one of the most linear I've ever run (actually, I'd argue it was by far the most linear). It was a single session adventure and every single player who played that night to this day declares it to be the best scenario they'd ever played in. Basically, it was a Dreamlands adventure (in our RQ world). One of the characters had died in the dreamlands on a previous adventure. In our game, we use sanity (but obviously characters in a fantasy setting with broos and other monsters are much less susceptible to losing sanity). As a result of dying there, she was losing one sanity per year. Which would not have been a huge problem except she was an elf.

The player came to me asking for some solution to this problem. So, I came up with one. Basically, I wrote a scenario in which the local elves did a ritual in which they killed the player, but used magic to send her spirit to the dreamlands instead of directly to Hell. They coordinated this with the elves in the dreamlands so they were ritually chanting to draw her soul there so they could heal her soul (resurrecting here in the dreamlands and then again in the waking world the next morning). The problem was that Hell was still pulling on her soul (sounded like sweet singing), and a group of ghouls would meet up with her and attempt to bring her down into the underworld and too hell. The other player characters were sent to the dreamlands via dreamdrug and given instructions to help the character get to the elves. It would be a contest as to where she ended up going.

Of course, I didn't tell the player any of this. I wrote up a set of notes that would be handed one at a time to the player as his player "remembered" what was happening. At the start of the scenario, I had that player leave the room and gave the rest of the players instructions that no matter what they were to take her to the singing she heard and *not* the chanting. They didn't know that they were actually playing the ghouls and not themselves. Yes. I'm just that evil >:->

Of course, I had the ghouls find her first so everything seemed normal. As the characters traveled toward the singing, they were periodically attacked by "ghouls" (the actual characters). I had to swap the rolls made by the players and fake the damage they were taking a bit, but none of them caught on. Of course, the players attempted dreaming skills to make basic weapons to use, which oddly seemed to make the fights to fend off the ghouls harder and not easier (hah!). As they travelled, they were shunned by everyone they saw, even being run off by the guards of a city they approached (much to their confusion).

As this went on, I kept handing the player notes, slowly unraveling the information about how his player had come to be there. Bits about a ritual, her friends being there, pain, fear, etc... Very flowery stuff really.

Ultimately, the final encounter occurred right as the party had led the character to a large clearing in a forest, where they opened up a large door in the ground, revealing a spiral staircase that went down, down, down... At this point, I think the player got a bit nervous since this didn't seem very much like where he thought he should be going, but he'd totally bought that the other players were with him and knew what was going on, where his character did not. The "ghouls" chose to attempt a final attack at that moment as well. It did cause her to balk a bit, at which point one of the other players had her character grab her by the arm and attempt to pull her into the opening.

That proved to be the perfect moment. I said something like "<so and so> is really pulling on your arm and her claws are digging into you and really hurting...". You could have heard a pindrop. Followed by "WHAT!!!". Then I handed the player the final note and swapped the miniatures around and resumed the combat with the players finally playing their own characters. Ultimately, they succeeded in defeating the ghouls, and saving the character.

My point is that this was an absolutely linear adventure. Virtually every single aspect was scripted. The absolute only variable in terms of when things happened was that the player could have chosen to go a different direction. But since the only information that player had was what the other players told him, and the instructions I'd given them were pretty clear he had no reason to doubt what was going on until the moment I wanted him to. Certainly, the amount of weapons they could obtain (and therefore ease of the final fight) depended on their choices and dierolling, and it's possible they could have allowed the "ghouls" to defeat them ahead of schedule (unlikely though), but everything else was as scripted and linear as it could be. In this case, not only were the players lead around by the nose, they weren't even actually playing their characters! You can't get more linear then that.

Yet, it's overwhelmingly considered the best scenario by all the players in my group. So linearity has nothing to do with quality of a game. Storytelling and "feel" of a game does. If the players believe the environment and feel a part of it (even in an unreal setting like the dreamlands), they'll enjoy the game. If it's clearly just a hack'n'slash fest they'll get bored very very quickly.

[RMS]

Which, as noted, takes a lot more prep time by the GM, and has the secondary problem that the scenario really isn't a scenario. You can't actually have a storyline and a plot if you have a completely non-linear setting.

What you can have are setting type scenarios rather than prescripted stories. As noted before (and below) RQ had some good scenarios that fit this mode. I recall Rolemaster having some pretty good scenarios. (Unfortunately, the system was absolutely horrid, so I ditched the adventures...but wish now I'd kept them.)

IMO, that's not automatically good or bad. Even adventures that appear non-linear often are. Griffon Moutain is an example. Sure, you could wander around aimlessly and randomly encounter stuff, but that gets old for most players pretty quick. They tend to want stories. So, there are plot threads that they can pick up, each of which leads them in a pretty linear way through a set of encounters to a resolution. While the setting as a whole may be non-linear, if you think about it, whether the environment is a mountain in which the party can go up that trail or down that one, or a dungeon in which they have a choice of left or right, there isn't that much difference. It still fits the qualifications of a "bunch of filler" on the way to achieving some scenario goal.

The difference isn't the lack of stories. Nonlinear should result in stories too, it's just that they come about organically through gameplay rather than being prescripted by the GM in advance of the session/campaign. Linear vs. nonlinear isn't about a lack of story, but about whether it comes about dynamically or is forced by a preconceive concept. To what extent there is a plot, or defined campaign areas, are the players allowed to go off on a tangent and how is it handled. Does the GM try to coax the players back to the preplanned adventure or allow things to develop naturally. One approach fits the linear description, the other doesn't. As I've said before, linear vs. nonlinear is much more about approach than anything else.

The player came to me asking for some solution to this problem. So, I came up with one...

Now you're taking my POV since you're specifically putting things together per the player's request rather than forcing the players down your preplanned (ie. overall linear) path. Sure, the single session may have been linear, but that's at the micro level. I've put together plenty of scenarios similarly at the request of players: any heroquest type adventure will have a prescripted solution by definition. Many of those have gone great too, for the same reasons: they achieved specific important goals for the PC/players.

[Atgxtg]

A lot of this is also a matter of degree. Any sort of storyline is going to have certain pre-established elements. While it is possible for a completely chaotic adventure to coalesce into a stroyline, it is unlikely without some deliberate effort.

But there is a bit difference between having an orveral stroy arc and planning every "scene" down to exact detail.

I hate being led around by the nose. I have no problem with being pushed a little, or better yet. motivated to charge in on my own volition.

[RMS]

I hate being led around by the nose. I have no problem with being pushed a little, or better yet. motivated to charge in on my own volition.

Or best, that you as a player come to me, as GM, and tell me, "I see my character as charing into..." and then I work to facilitate that.