Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

[OldTrees1]

Okay.

Based on the narrative, their character, party dynamics and what the player wants to get out of the game; A player uses their agency in a specific way.

The DM knew that that player - or entire party - would use said agency in that specific way, and is already prepared for that eventuality (i.e; I knew you would do that, lol). Or maybe starts authoring new content based on how the player used their agency, so that when next session happens, they're still on the author's tracks...Just not the same tracks they were on last session. 7 days is a pretty long time. You can come up with something between sessions.

The player - or party - used their agency...
In the exact way that the DM knew they would, and is already prepared.

I don't know how else to explain it except as a train line map: You're going to get on a train, the DM just don't know which train you're going to pick. But he has the trains, ready to go, you just have to get on one. And you can take that analogy all the way down to the encounter-level; There are four major train-lines out of this encounter (FRST). I have the trains ready to go. If you want to fight, let's go down that line. If you want to stealth around them, let's do that one. Whatever you pick, I'm ready. How 'bout you? There are maybe one or two minor train lines out of the encounter, but they aren't really marked on the train line map, and are more of a 'secret menu' item that you can get on if you're clever...Maybe.
Then of course there's just acting irrationally. We'll try and avoid that, yes?

The train line metaphor at the story level sounds like an Authored game structure. It is similar CYOA book. Each station was created by the GM and the trains lead to other stations created by the GM.

In your example the author of the CYOA book saw the player was going to want an option that was not offered. They spent 7 days to write another 20 pages for the CYOA book. The majority of this game is still the Authored game structure. However that one choice followed the Emergent game structure.


Contrast this with another GM. This GM is running a park where the players can walk in any direction (in contrast to the Train metaphor). This follows the Emergent game structure. The players can go where they want and blaze their own trail rather than follow an existing trainline. The session was drawing to a close and the players discuss their next direction. They don't reach a decision but the GM gets a good idea of the top contenders. Between sessions the GM prepares notes based on that current choice being discussed at the end of the session. They have a bespoke encounter designed for each direction the party had talked about and notes on what happens for specific outcomes of the encounters. The party finishes making their decision and encounter the Authored encounter the GM had prepared. After the encounter the GM continues to adjudicate what happens based on the party's continued choices of direction.

This is an example of an Emergent game that had a moment with an Authored encounter before returning to Emergent game structure.


I have a feeling you are talking about the former and not the latter, but I included both just in case.

Yes but probably not in the way you think. Describing it as a continuum is probably the worst answer you could give, because that's basically the only answer I don't want. But knowing that that is the answer, probably means that I should've left the thread a long, long time ago, and labels are a hindrance, not a help.

I am sorry, but for something as long as a campaign, a GM can make many different hybrids between these two styles.

We're going back to the OP. Try and follow my logic:

...You can see where there's overlap, can't you? There's a fuzzy middle ground where the players can do what they want, but the GM already knows what they're going to do, based on whatever information the GM has about their players and characters.

What about this situation that I - and I'm certain a lot of other people, too - do? Where does this very normal situation fit into this dichotomy?

I don't see the overlap between the concepts the OP tried to communicate. However it seems your question is orthogonal to the thread's topic.

What you describe can happen in both styles depending on exactly what you mean. The GM successfully guessing which choice the players will make merely depends on the players having choices and the GM guessing successfully.

• Authored games can have choices. Multiple choice questions the GM asks the players just have fewer options than freeform questions the players ask themselves.
• GMs of Emergent games can guess successfully. It is just harder to guess the answer to a freeform question the players ask themselves than guess a the answer to a multiple choice question the GM asks the players.

PS: NichG's reply was a good way to explain it in a slightly different way.