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

[Vahnavoi]

@Talakeal: that is exactly the kind of bad formulation that leads to classic bad arguments about railroading. It is overbroad and hence fails to capture what actually makes the practice bad.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think Cheesegear's point is that if your definition of Railroading

Stop right there. I was not offering a definition of railroading. I was disagreeing that "start in a tavern" is railroading at all.

What I was offering was examples of how to start a game, which can vary with both genre and game.
I have been in a number of RPGs where the first thing we, as players, have done is figure out mostly on our own the following: "So, how did we {number of characters} end up in the same place to {do something}? Do we know each other from before, or do we need to introduce each other to each other?"

In Traveller (original) quite a bit of that is helped by how one's background/backstory gets created.
In Golden Sky Stories it was led somewhat by the situation offered by our facilitator
In our latest D&D campaign it was a many messages long (over a few weeks of campaign prep) discussion between the players and the DM where we all finally arrived at "Yeah, we all went to the same school, the headmaster knows that each of us is unusual, and he's got connections such that he more or less got us to travel up river and meet at the dockside of {city} to look into something that interests him..."

The games need a starting point. (Step 0, if you will). In Monopoly, you all start on the "Go" square.

@Talakael - that's an adventure design thing, along the lines of "why did you put this in front of that players if it didn't offer a choice?" There are times that this isn't a bad idea, and there are times that it is a poor idea; in isolation it's not illustrative of much of anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The games needs a starting point. (Step 0, if you will). In Monopoly, you all start on the "Go" square.

Agreed. The initial conditions are different from the actual gameplay--at that point, you start where you start because you all decided that's where you'd start. OOC. The characters have nothing to do with it.

And yes, agreeing to play with a DM constitutes agreement to start somewhere. This might be
a) consciously and openly discussed and decided (in which case everyone has full agency)
b) delegated to a module writer, with the module known in advance (in which case you have exercised your agency to delegate and as part of choosing the module)
c) delegated to the DM who has pitched a campaign to you (in which case you've exercised your agency to play or not play based on the pitch)
d) delegated to the DM who hasn't pitched a campaign, but because you trust the DM (in which case you've exercised your agency in trusting the DM despite knowing you don't know)
e) One of A-D above, but with a lie (e.g. you decided together as in a, but then the DM starts you elsewhere). This one is a breakdown of good behavior. And the appropriate response is (at least) to talk to the DM, although in egregious cases or where that triggers enough red flags, getting up and walking away (an exercise of agency!) is appropriate.

-----

One reason to talk about diminishment of agency or negation of instances of agency is that the players always have some agency. They can stop playing. Sure, that's a nuclear option. But agency count >= 1 in all cases (outside of some bizarre criminal D&D gangs, I guess, where you're shackled and forced to play). And we should separate
a) the natural ebb and flow of agency throughout a campaign. For example, often the consequences of your actions (a necessary part of agency) reduce, alter, or limit your scope-of-choice. And agency does not include the free choice of consequences. And you don't have agency to, say, demand that you can shoot lasers out of your fingers unless you built your character with that option. It's not a denial of agency to stick to the rules you agreed to (you limited your own agency by doing so, which is normal and natural). Leaving, say, content creation up to the DM isn't a denial of agency--it's a delegation of agency. You chose (in part by playing D&D) to do so. And now you can't justly complain that you're being railroaded in that specific thing.

from

b) cases where agency was offered but then subverted or negated by intentional, non-causally-implied choice on someone else's part. If offered a choice between chocolate, vanilla, and peppermint icecream (you have choice, you have logical consequences, you have knowledge, so you have agency) and then no matter what you pick you always get coffee-flavored ice cream, there's a denial of agency. If, however, you were only offered chocolate and vanilla, that's not a deprivation of agency because you can't pick bubblegum flavor. There is no part of agency that says your scope-of-choice[1] is total or infinite.

[1] scope of choice == the number of options to pick from when a choice can be made. This is different from number of times throughout a session/campaign/whatever that you get to make choices or how meaningful each of those choices is in some grander scheme. If you can pick between 3 cards, once, your scope of choice is 3 while your "agency count" is 1.

[kyoryu]

I've pretty much abandoned this thread since it's turned into the usual railroad discussion.

Anyway.

To me, divergent sounds authored.

And emergent isn't, fundamentally, about what order you go through things in. It's about how the scenes come about.

I still maintain there's a strong separation, even if not entirely a binary. Because at the end of the day, prep for an emergent game is very different than for an authored game. For an emergent game, I might plan NPCs, some locations, their agendas, etc. The one thing I do not prep is individual scenes/encounters. However, prepping individual scenes/encounters is a large part of prepping an authored scenario.

(Of course, the initial scene for almost any scenario is likely prepped. Something has to get things started.)

Dungeons could be either. The question is really whether or not the dungeon reacts to things or not - can the players make an alliance with the orc tribe to go and help them against the kobolds? Or can a failed incursion into the kobold lair cause them to run to the orcs for help in exchange for servitude? Things like this can change the game experience as a result of PC actions - if they're happening, it's an emergent game. If the dungeon is really just a set of linked encounters with little interaction between them? Then it's authored (and most published dungeons that I've seen these days are authored).

So really, to me, an emergent game is what happens when the players are given freedom as to how they solve problems at the macro level. The GM cannot prep scenes for this because they don't know what the players are going to do. (a) In a game like that, the results of those decisions are usually immediate and apparent, rather than slightly disconnected (I might call it "side effect agency" - you're having impacts that may be significant in the world, but don't really impact your path). If your problem is "free the duke", maybe the players will plan to assassinate him, or rally nobles against him, or lead the commoners in a frontal assault, or... some illusionists might hide this by turning all of these paths into "sneak into the castle and get to the Duke's room" with various end goals in mind (assassinate the duke, get evidence to use against him for the nobles, or get proof of his wrongdoings to rally the crowd), but that's illusionism so :/

Ideally each scene in an emergent game changes things. Certain paths become open, others become closed. Sometimes this impact is major, sometimes minor. Prepping scenes for an emergent game wastes a lot of time, because you throw a lot away. No two parties will end up in anywhere near the same state.

So, if we look at playing a game as:

1. scene starts
2. we figure out what happens
3. the GM figures out effects on the world
4. we determine what the next scene is
5. go to 1

then in most authored games, the majority of interesting gameplay happens in step 2, and step 4 primarily belongs to the GM. Step 3 is mostly predetermined. For emergent games, step 4 primarily belongs to the players, and is where a good chunk of the interesting gameplay is, because step 3 is not known in advance, in any way. Note that in an emergent game, step 4 isn't "which of the pre-prepared scenes do we want to do next".

Authored games are great! If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of the combat system, an authored game is probably the best way to do it - what you lose in macro agency, you gain in the ability for the GM to really dive in and craft interesting encounters. Authored games also allow the GM to, well, author plot elements, twists and turns and things like that. The majority of games are probably authored, and they're fine! Lots of people prefer that.

Some people don't. Because what they're looking for is the ability to solve problems their own way and really see the impact of their decisions on the world in an immediate way.

(a) Sometimes the GM will still prep scenes in an emergent game, for important set pieces when the players are obviously building to something. However, it's best practice to not do this much, as prep will often subconsciously cause you as a GM to push things a certain way. Also, yes, authored games can allow some emergent scenes, but so long as the primary mode is going through authored content, it's still authored - if there's enough emergent scenes in a game, at some point you'll probably just stop prepping the authored ones because it's a waste of time. Then it's an authored game.

[KorvinStarmast]

(a) Sometimes the GM will still prep scenes in an emergent game, for important set pieces when the players are obviously building to something. However, it's best practice to not do this much, as prep will often subconsciously cause you as a GM to push things a certain way. Also, yes, authored games can allow some emergent scenes, but so long as the primary mode is going through authored content, it's still authored - if there's enough emergent scenes in a game, at some point you'll probably just stop prepping the authored ones because it's a waste of time. Then it's an authored game.

Clear as mud.

Question: would you call Roll for Shoes an emergent game? (But it might not even apply to this conversation since I think it's gm-less structurally)

[Easy e]

Well, I "feel" like the discussion of railroad vs sandbox is useless bickering over style choices.

Authored to me sounds almost (in a very simplified formulation) as planned, while emergent (again in a very simplified formulation) as unplanned. Using this very simplified formulations, it sounds to me like it is just another argument around style preferences and pointless categorization for the sake of fitting games into boxes.

At the end of the day, GMs need to do what it takes to keep their players engaged enough to keep playing. The rest is all highly subjective details.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, if we look at playing a game as:

1. scene starts
2. we figure out what happens
3. the GM figures out effects on the world
4. we determine what the next scene is
5. go to 1

then in most authored games, the majority of interesting gameplay happens in step 2, and step 4 primarily belongs to the GM. Step 3 is mostly predetermined. For emergent games, step 4 primarily belongs to the players, and is where a good chunk of the interesting gameplay is, because step 3 is not known in advance, in any way. Note that in an emergent game, step 4 isn't "which of the pre-prepared scenes do we want to do next".

By those standards, no possible game of D&D is ever emergent. Because among the DM's roles is exactly "Figure out the effects on the world" and "determine what the next scene is". Because those aren't separate things at all in D&D (or in any coherent game)--the answer to #3 determines literally what is next[1]. And isn't in the players' wheelhouse at all. And this isn't a matter of agency at all--you don't have agency in the consequences of your actions. Planning encounters is a necessary part of playing D&D, even if you're using random tables for everything. Because generating and choosing those random tables is an act of planning.

Unless the players have massive, explicit narrative powers (as in literally choosing what happens and how the world reacts to it) or unless there is no GM at all, step #3 is always in the DM's wheelhouse and always mandates the answer to #4 unless you all agree to skip some time. But even then, the initiative after #2 is always in the GM's wheelhouse. And note that even FATE and other games with narrative powers have this back and forth.

You're trying to chip off (what seems to me) to be a tiny tiny fraction of the game space, call it "emergent" and set it as a dichotomy against the rest of everything.

By your standards, I only do authored games. Yet my planning is almost identical to what you call planning for an emergent game. Which says to me there's something major missing in this definition. And makes the definition less than useful to me.

[1] Players may have say at a higher level, but they don't ever choose what scenes come about. Because scene generation in D&D and D&D-likes is a GM-side responsibility. Whether they make it up on the fly or whether they plan for it. Players play characters, the DM plays the world. That's the original social contract. The DM may ask "ok, what's next" at a high level. But the exact scene that plays? That's DM-side and always will be unless you radically restructure the game. At which point you're very much into narrative-game territory.

[kyoryu]

Clear as mud.

Not sure what's unclear about that. Let's take the "pure" examples.

1) authored - every scene is written in advance by the GM. No "interesting" things can happen outside of the authored scenes, interesting being defined as "moves the plot".

2) emergent - no scenes are written in advance by the GM, except for the initial scene.

That seems pretty clear, right?

So, let's take an emergent game. There's still a BBEG, and the players have been trying to track him down. The GM knows that they're probably going to reach him this session. Because of how they've taken the game so far, he pretty much knows where the BBEG is going to be confronted (because of player decisions, not his planning). He spends some time before the session working out what that will look like, to have some cool setpiece things in it. That's the only scene he writes in advance, and he's still willing to throw that away In this case, the experience is still primarily "we're coming up with the plans and executing on them".

Let's take a heavily authored game - and now the players do one thing that the GM decides is reasonable enough that it moves things forward, but back onto the "path". Sure, there's now been one emergent scene, but the experience is still primarily one of going through the pre-written content. The authored content is still primary. The emergent content is there, but it's not really what's driving the game - it's a diversion.

Now, for that authored game, maybe that GM starts becoming more and more comfortable with that, and allowing more of those scenes. At some point, that is such a driving force that he really stops authoring most of the game, except for maybe a few set pieces, and is willing to let those go - at that point the authored content is really just special pieces, but the emergent content is running the show.

I don't think it's a hard binary, but I do think there's a point in either direction at which one or the other becomes dominant, and changes the basic nature of the game.

Question: would you call Roll for Shoes an emergent game? (But it might not even apply to this conversation since I think it's gm-less structurally)

It's a system. Systems are neither emergent nor authored, though they may be written with one or the other in mind. (I'd argue modern D&D is written for authored games, Fate is mostly written for emergent games). That said, it certainly seems like that would do well for emergent games.

[Tanarii]

Well, I "feel" like the discussion of railroad vs sandbox is useless bickering over style choices.

There's also the usual situation of some folks not understanding what player agency actually is, and thus what negating it looks like, and thus mis-using the word "railroad".

On the flip side, "sandbox" faces similar problems, although they tend to be more definitional problems than folks not knowing the definition.

For example, similar to "campaign", can "sandbox" even be applied to a game with single group of players/PCs?

--------

I don't really like the terms "authored" vs "emergent", because they imply "story". But "planned" vs "freeform" sounds pretty good to me.

[kyoryu]

Authored to me sounds almost (in a very simplified formulation) as planned, while emergent (again in a very simplified formulation) as unplanned. Using this very simplified formulations, it sounds to me like it is just another argument around style preferences and pointless categorization for the sake of fitting games into boxes.

Sorta. Emergent games can have lots of planning - they just don't plan specific scenes.

I don't think it's pointless, as these are choices that lead to pretty different styles of play at the table. And that's useful to understand.

At the end of the day, GMs need to do what it takes to keep their players engaged enough to keep playing. The rest is all highly subjective details.

Sure. And understanding different styles and structures of play can help with that.

By those standards, no possible game of D&D is ever emergent. Because among the DM's roles is exactly "Figure out the effects on the world" and "determine what the next scene is". Because those aren't separate things at all in D&D (or in any coherent game)

Huh?

So, let's take a concrete example. Start of the game, players are tracking down some Bad Folks. Well, they get in a fight with them and it turns they have nasty weird critters where their tongues should be, and they're superhumanly strong and fast and tough. Ruh roh. They end up running from the fight, as they're overmatched.

Step 3: How does the world change? Well, the bad guys have seen the players, and have at least some understanding of who they are or what they look like. The bad guys know that their hideout is discovered. So, the next steps of the bad guys are pretty clear - move to a new hiding spot, and figure a way to get the heat off of them, either by tracking down the PCs, or finding a way to apply pressure to them, or just getting out of Dodge (the last one wasn't an option Because Reasons).

Step 4: What do the PCs do next? After retreating to their HQ, the PCs decide what they're going to do. They're smart enough to realize the bad guys have probably vacated their hideout, so they could go there and investigate. Since the critters are likely magical, maybe they could see if they can figure out what magic it was. Since the bad guys were operating as bandits, maybe they could start trying to figure out where stuff was getting fenced.

I've run multiple parties through this scenario. All of those options were used. The games completely diverged at that point. None of these were predetermined by me, or even planned.

--the answer to #3 determines literally what is next[1].

The answer to #3 informs the world state. It doesn't necessarily determine the next scene - unless the players are entirely reactive. Which is pretty common in authored games, to be fair.

AND TO BE SUPER CLEAR AUTHORED GAMES ARE FINE.

And isn't in the players' wheelhouse at all. And this isn't a matter of agency at all--you don't have agency in the consequences of your actions.

Correct! That's why step 3 is in the GM's wheelhouse in both examples. (If it's not, editing error and I'll fix it).

Planning encounters is a necessary part of playing D&D, even if you're using random tables for everything. Because generating and choosing those random tables is an act of planning.

Ehhhhh..... sorta.

First off, it's not planning that makes a game authored. Most games involve some level of planning, but the type differs greatly.

I'm also not sure that prepping generic-ish encounters or building blocks really qualifies. Again, those are things that may or may not be used, and certainly where they're used and the results of them being used will have different impacts.

I've even run D&D without pre-planned encounters. What I have done, in those circumstances, was pre-select a number of combatants for use by various factions, and build on the fly from those.

Unless the players have massive, explicit narrative powers (as in literally choosing what happens and how the world reacts to it) or unless there is no GM at all, step #3 is always in the DM's wheelhouse and always mandates the answer to #4

I've given an example of what I mean by this distinction. I'd like to point the conversation at that conceptually, rather than getting into legalese about the words I use, if that works for you?

You're trying to chip off (what seems to me) to be a tiny tiny fraction of the game space, call it "emergent" and set it as a dichotomy against the rest of everything.

So, a couple possibilities, because emergent games are the vast majority of gaming I do.

1) we're miscommunicating
2) your experience is primarily in authored games. If the majority of your play is D&D, this is not unlikely.

By your standards, I only do authored games. Yet my planning is almost identical to what you call planning for an emergent game. Which says to me there's something major missing in this definition. And makes the definition less than useful to me.

In any game you typically figure out NPCs, etc. I think you do plan them slightly differently for emergent games

It would be interesting to compare what prep we might do for different games. My prep tends to be slightly front-loaded (but usually only a few hours at most), as the game mostly "runs itself" after initial setup.

[1] Players may have say at a higher level, but they don't ever choose what scenes come about. Because scene generation in D&D and D&D-likes is a GM-side responsibility. Whether they make it up on the fly or whether they plan for it. Players play characters, the DM plays the world. That's the original social contract. The DM may ask "ok, what's next" at a high level. But the exact scene that plays? That's DM-side and always will be unless you radically restructure the game. At which point you're very much into narrative-game territory.

If you're assuming good faith on the part of the GM, and that they're actually responding to your plans and allowing your choices to have an impact, I think that's sufficient.

Otherwise you're deep into Quantum Ogre and "the GM can veto anything so there's no actual agency" territory. And if the GM is actively manipulating your choices to get you to a predetermined path, yeah, that's where "railroading" gets thrown about, and with good reason.

There's also the usual situation of some folks not understanding what player agency actually is, and thus what negating it looks like, and thus mis-using the word "railroad".

On the flip side, "sandbox" faces similar problems, although they tend to be more definitional problems than folks not knowing the definition.

Sandbox carries a lot of baggage that "nothing can really happen except what the PCs decide" and "there are no goals" etc. These are not necessarily true of "emergent" games. A common game structure for me (on both sides of the screen) is "we're playing a game about <xyz>, here's a problem, go solve it." That's not a "pure" sandbox, but is far closer to a sandbox than it is a linear game - and has that fundamental quality of "we don't know what's going to happen".

I don't really like the terms "authored" vs "emergent", because they imply "story". But "planned" vs "freeform" sounds pretty good to me.

The problem is that "freeform" games can include a lot of planning. In a lot of cases, I do hours of planning for a game - but I just don't plan specific scenes.

I'm not sure why "emergent" implies a story - it just means that the state evolves from the original state as opposed to being explicitly set. I think it captures what I'm going for fairly well - mostly because it talks about the actual positive thing I'm looking for rather than something like "freeform" which really talks about the lack of another property.

I can see that argument for "authored" however. "Curated", maybe?

At any rate, I think you understand what I'm talking about, mostly, and I'm more than open to alternative terms.

[BRC]

I feel like while the term "Emergent" is good, "Authored" is tripping people up, because it implies something far more wide-ranging than I think Kyoru is intending.


For example:


The PC's get into a fight with agents of the Evil Cult. However, one of the Cultist Lieutenants escapes.

The GM says "Alright, because that Cultist escaped, he will have reported back to the Cult Leadership about the PCs, and the Cult is going to try to have them killed".

So the GM then writes (Authors) A scene for the following session where cult assassins storm the Inn where the PC's are staying at night and try to kill them.

By my understanding of what Kyoryu is saying, this would pretty firmly fall under the category of an "Emergent" game. However, since it involves the GM pre-planning a scenario (The assassination attempt), it is technically speaking "Authored", even if it isn't Authored by the proposed Authored/Emergent system.

"Authored" implies "The GM writes stuff down ahead of time". It sounds like Kyoru is talking about something far more limited for the definition of Authored (Planned at the Macro level maybe?)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like while the term "Emergent" is good, "Authored" is tripping people up, because it implies something far more wide-ranging than I think Kyoru is intending.


For example:


The PC's get into a fight with agents of the Evil Cult. However, one of the Cultist Lieutenants escapes.

The GM says "Alright, because that Cultist escaped, he will have reported back to the Cult Leadership about the PCs, and the Cult is going to try to have them killed".

So the GM then writes (Authors) A scene for the following session where cult assassins storm the Inn where the PC's are staying at night and try to kill them.

By my understanding of what Kyoryu is saying, this would pretty firmly fall under the category of an "Emergent" game. However, since it involves the GM pre-planning a scenario (The assassination attempt), it is technically speaking "Authored", even if it isn't Authored by the proposed Authored/Emergent system.

"Authored" implies "The GM writes stuff down ahead of time". It sounds like Kyoru is talking about something far more limited for the definition of Authored (Planned at the Macro level maybe?)

Right. And that's the root of my misunderstanding(?) about the proposed dichotomy.

1. Scene (however it came about): Fight with cultists.
2. Resolution: One escapes, rest killed/captured.
3. How world reacts: escaped guy runs to cult leadership, who try to set up ambush.
4. What scene comes next: Depends entirely on details from #3. Including "how much time elapses until the next on-camera scene" and "how far away is cult leadership" and "how long does the party plan on staying at the inn" and lots of other things. Of this, only a tiny fraction (how long the party stays at the inn) is player-side. The rest is entirely part of #3--how long does it take the cultist to report in and the leadership to plan/prep an ambush. And in many cases, even if the party packs up and moves immediately (so that you can't do a "retaliation assassins burst in" scene immediately next), all that does is put the "retaliation" scene into the queue. And with how elastic time is and with many of the possible world-states that lead there (ie the #3 from all the previous scenes), it's very possible (without stretching credulity) that the retaliation scene is the next non-handwaved thing in queue.

Is this authored? Emergent? Meh. For me, it's somewhere very far from either pole, having properties of both. Some elements are known in advance and are entirely DM side, others are entirely player side. I don't really see a bit inherent wall between the micro/scene layer and the macro/sequencing of scenes layer. They bleed into each other and inform each other very tightly. The micro flows from the macro and vice versa.

Yes, in the extreme cases (running Curse of the Azure Bonds by the book), you approach the poles. But in no case are the players deciding what comes next unless they have literal meta-game/meta-narrative powers. At most they're selecting which sheaf of probabilities are being played out next (making a constrained choice from a set of known[1] states), which was explicitly said to be authored. But certainly doesn't feel like it.

So the dichotomy is, for me, the problem. Take that away and accept that there's lots of room between the two where the majority of every game I've every played (regardless of the system, including no system at all) exists. Somewhere in the mushy middle. Which makes authored vs emergent more of an attribute games (or even scenes) can have in varying amounts, not a fixed set of buckets to categorize things.

[1] They have to be known at the time they're played unless you're procedurally generating everything. And that's just as much planning as is having a fixed narrative. But at the same time, the outcomes are not inherently fixed and the world state at T = N + 1 depends causally on the events at T = N and before. For me, the bad things happen when the world state at T = N + 1 does not depend at all on the events at T = M (M <= N). But there's delay--doing something now may cause something to happen later, with time in between. Those are still causally connected.

[Easy e]

Sure. And understanding different styles and structures of play can help with that.

In theory yes.

However, in practice it leads to naval-gazing instead of actually testing and experimenting in play and with the intended audience. AKA Learning by doing.

We need more GMs GMing, and less talking about GMing.

[Hytheter]

Step 4: What do the PCs do next? After retreating to their HQ, the PCs decide what they're going to do. They're smart enough to realize the bad guys have probably vacated their hideout, so they could go there and investigate. Since the critters are likely magical, maybe they could see if they can figure out what magic it was. Since the bad guys were operating as bandits, maybe they could start trying to figure out where stuff was getting fenced.

I think there's just a disconnect in the way you and Phoenix are mentally framing things. You're saying that by choosing what to do next, the players are performing Step 4 and determining what the next scene is. But by their reckoning (or rather, my guess thereof) the decision to act is part of Step 2, the stuff that happens, with their arrival at the next scene being adjudicated by the GM in accordance with steps 3 and 4.

I can understand both perspectives, but I think the fundamental sticking point is that even if the players are acting towards what they want to happen next, it's still up to the GM to determine what actually happens next. For example, the players might decide they want to investigate the bandit's hideout, and thus set out to travel there - but that doesn't necessarily mean that the next scene will be them arriving at the bandit's hideout. There might be other scenes on the way, obstacles or interlopers that delay the players. The players' choices may determine the scope of possibility for the next scene, but it's the GM who determines what possibilities actually manifest as a result.

[BRC]

Right. And that's the root of my misunderstanding(?) about the proposed dichotomy.

1. Scene (however it came about): Fight with cultists.
2. Resolution: One escapes, rest killed/captured.
3. How world reacts: escaped guy runs to cult leadership, who try to set up ambush.
4. What scene comes next: Depends entirely on details from #3. Including "how much time elapses until the next on-camera scene" and "how far away is cult leadership" and "how long does the party plan on staying at the inn" and lots of other things. Of this, only a tiny fraction (how long the party stays at the inn) is player-side. The rest is entirely part of #3--how long does it take the cultist to report in and the leadership to plan/prep an ambush. And in many cases, even if the party packs up and moves immediately (so that you can't do a "retaliation assassins burst in" scene immediately next), all that does is put the "retaliation" scene into the queue. And with how elastic time is and with many of the possible world-states that lead there (ie the #3 from all the previous scenes), it's very possible (without stretching credulity) that the retaliation scene is the next non-handwaved thing in queue.

Is this authored? Emergent? Meh. For me, it's somewhere very far from either pole, having properties of both. Some elements are known in advance and are entirely DM side, others are entirely player side. I don't really see a bit inherent wall between the micro/scene layer and the macro/sequencing of scenes layer. They bleed into each other and inform each other very tightly. The micro flows from the macro and vice versa.

Yes, in the extreme cases (running Curse of the Azure Bonds by the book), you approach the poles. But in no case are the players deciding what comes next unless they have literal meta-game/meta-narrative powers. At most they're selecting which sheaf of probabilities are being played out next (making a constrained choice from a set of known[1] states), which was explicitly said to be authored. But certainly doesn't feel like it.

So the dichotomy is, for me, the problem. Take that away and accept that there's lots of room between the two where the majority of every game I've every played (regardless of the system, including no system at all) exists. Somewhere in the mushy middle. Which makes authored vs emergent more of an attribute games (or even scenes) can have in varying amounts, not a fixed set of buckets to categorize things.

[1] They have to be known at the time they're played unless you're procedurally generating everything. And that's just as much planning as is having a fixed narrative. But at the same time, the outcomes are not inherently fixed and the world state at T = N + 1 depends causally on the events at T = N and before. For me, the bad things happen when the world state at T = N + 1 does not depend at all on the events at T = M (M <= N). But there's delay--doing something now may cause something to happen later, with time in between. Those are still causally connected.

I think the issue is that Kyoru is trying to propose a Dichotomy using two terms that are not mutually exclusive in common definition.


The scenario with the cult assassins is both Emergent and Authored by common definition. By Kyoryu's definition, it is Emergent and not Authored.


I don't have ideal terms here, but I feel like the actual dichotomy here isn't about GMing style, it's about the philsophical relationship between the game and the story. Is the game viewed as a method for Telling a Story, or Writing a Story.

If the game is a method of Telling a Story, than the role of the players is that of Audience. Not necessarily a passive audience (Like in the classic "Shut up and roll dice when I tell you to" Absolute Railroad), but their primary narrative function is to receive and enjoy the story being told.

This approach can exist in a game with lots of player agency at the micro level, because what really matters here isn't "How much control do the characters have" but "What parts of the story does the GM feel is important to be told".

If the GM wants to tell the story of "Go to Pirate Island, Spooky Vampire Castle, Volcano Temple, and Magic Flying City to get the Macguffins and save the world", and has cool stories they want told in those 4 locations, they can tell that big story, and those smaller stories, while still giving the PC's plenty of freedom over what they do in those four locations, so long as "What they do" ends up with "Gets the Relic", and that's the sort of thing that can be covered by player buy-in at the campaign start. But the GM's approach is still that they have this cool story they want to tell their friends, and the Game is their chosen medium for doing so. The bits that they let their friends decide, the bits about HOW the Heroes get through the Volcano Temple, are not integral to the Story the DM wanted to tell. What they want to tell is the story of the Volcano temple, why it was built, the Fire Priests that run it, how they got the Relic, ect. They get to tell that story.


If the game is a method for Writing the Story, then the players are co-authors. This game can still have plenty of pre-planned structure, but what's there is built as scaffolding, rather than script. Easy to be taken down and rebuilt if needed.

[NichG]

I think the abstraction into scenes is causing a misunderstanding here, since for some posters it's implying that all player interaction with the game happens during scenes and never between.

I read Kyoryu's step #4 as potentially including decisions such as 'what do the characters do next at the macro level?'.

So let's say the GM decides that the enemies are intending to retaliate. If the players say 'we return to town and sleep at the inn', then the next 'scene' happens at the inn. If the players say 'we return to town and scry on our enemy' then the next scene would instead be e.g. seeing the planning for the retaliatory strike. If the players say 'let's press our advantage and follow the lieutenant' then the next scene is at the enemy base. If the players say 'I'm done with adventuring here, let's Plane Shift to Elysium for a holiday', ...

In one reading, these decisions are made in #2 before #3 is resolved. In another reading these are macro decisions made in #4 that can depend on the visible parts of what was decided in #3.

[KorvinStarmast]

Using this very simplified formulations, it sounds to me like it is just another argument around style preferences and pointless categorization for the sake of fitting games into boxes.

yes, but I think the OP is trying to find a better set of terms to describe something.

I don't think it's a hard binary

Neither did I, nor do I.

But you pushed back on our responses as regards this is a spectrum, or a continuum, by telling me your experience placed things in boxes, which came off (to me) as the kind of binary / category smashing that I find troubling with those other terms as well.

That said, it certainly seems like that would do well for emergent games.

OK, we are not discussing things at system level, but are looking into how a given game plays out. Thanks for making that scope (at least your intended scope) clearer to me.

But "planned" vs "freeform" sounds pretty good to me.

*prepares for the next bun fight over terms*

In theory yes. However, in practice it leads to naval-gazing instead of actually testing and experimenting in play and with the intended audience. AKA Learning by doing. We need more GMs GMing, and less talking about GMing.

Amen, Deacon!

[Tanarii]

The problem is that "freeform" games can include a lot of planning. In a lot of cases, I do hours of planning for a game - but I just don't plan specific scenes.

Not by what I mean by freeform, I'm using it to mean "winging it". But an open world certainly can. It actually takes more planning than "linear", not less. Unless you freeform creation of content in response to player actions on an as-needed basis. IMO freeform is a whole thing of its own. As is procedurally generated.

I'm not sure why "emergent" implies a story - it just means that the state evolves from the original state as opposed to being explicitly set. I think it captures what I'm going for fairly well - mostly because it talks about the actual positive thing I'm looking for rather than something like "freeform" which really talks about the lack of another property.

I can see that argument for "authored" however. "Curated", maybe?

Probably because it's side by side with "authored", and me being used to see "emergent storytelling" in discussions about RPGs and storytelling.

At any rate, I think you understand what I'm talking about, mostly, and I'm more than open to alternative terms.

I think I missed a piece about emergent, given my jumping to free form.

[OldTrees1]

I've pretty much abandoned this thread since it's turned into the usual railroad discussion.

Anyway.

To me, divergent sounds authored.

And emergent isn't, fundamentally, about what order you go through things in. It's about how the scenes come about.

I still maintain there's a strong separation, even if not entirely a binary. Because at the end of the day, prep for an emergent game is very different than for an authored game. For an emergent game, I might plan NPCs, some locations, their agendas, etc. The one thing I do not prep is individual scenes/encounters. However, prepping individual scenes/encounters is a large part of prepping an authored scenario.

What about planning an event?

Consider an Elder Evil of Ice and Snow emerging.
Emergent: Some NPCs have an agenda to unleash the Elder Evil. Plan their agenda.
Authored: The PCs will witness the Elder Evil emerging. Plan the encounter.
In between?: The Elder Evil will emerge but where will the PCs be? Plan for how the event works so you are ready to adjudicate what happens wherever the PCs are. When you discover the PCs will be tending a bar many miles away, then you will know it will be some persistent weather challenges as a backdrop to the karaoke night instead of a fight in the freezing cold.

I think my in between example is "a bit" skewed towards Emergent, but the GM did author the emergence of the Elder Evil instead of it too being emergent.

I do agree that the emergent game plays very different from an authored game. I think it is a gradual change but a gradual change over a long continuum will result in a large difference.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It might make more sense (but only to me?) if we think of these as mindsets the people involved can be in rather than anything about the game directly. Although they are expressed in the game, its scenes, etc, what they really express are differences in how people approach playing. And, in my experience, are prone to wax and wane in importance as campaigns progress.

It's fundamentally, it seems, more about who has the initiative in pushing things along. Not forward, because that defines that there is such a direction. But who is responsible right now for ensuring there is a next scene at all, let alone what it contains. Or who is responsible for deciding "what the campaign is about" (Super-Macro scale). Or "what is the next action taken by character X" (super-micro scale).

The Authored mindset is (very roughly) "the DM is primarily, if not exclusively, responsible for that. Players are responsible for different things." This is the "there is a story being recounted" (to some degree) mindset.

The Emergent mindset is (very roughly) "The players are primarily, if not exclusively, responsible for that. The DM mostly just acts as the responsible party for the NPCs/world + game engine. If at all."

I've found that some times, the players take the bit and run with the narrative. Other times, I'll have a "great idea" and throw in a contribution or take command of a sequence of scenes. In other groups, they want me to handle most of it and occasionally throw in an idea/push a scene. And it's not constant over time even within a campaign. Some pieces are "on rails" because that's what they want; other pieces are all over the place because that's what they want.

[NichG]

It might make more sense (but only to me?) if we think of these as mindsets the people involved can be in rather than anything about the game directly. Although they are expressed in the game, its scenes, etc, what they really express are differences in how people approach playing. And, in my experience, are prone to wax and wane in importance as campaigns progress.

It's fundamentally, it seems, more about who has the initiative in pushing things along. Not forward, because that defines that there is such a direction. But who is responsible right now for ensuring there is a next scene at all, let alone what it contains. Or who is responsible for deciding "what the campaign is about" (Super-Macro scale). Or "what is the next action taken by character X" (super-micro scale).

The Authored mindset is (very roughly) "the DM is primarily, if not exclusively, responsible for that. Players are responsible for different things." This is the "there is a story being recounted" (to some degree) mindset.

The Emergent mindset is (very roughly) "The players are primarily, if not exclusively, responsible for that. The DM mostly just acts as the responsible party for the NPCs/world + game engine. If at all."

I've found that some times, the players take the bit and run with the narrative. Other times, I'll have a "great idea" and throw in a contribution or take command of a sequence of scenes. In other groups, they want me to handle most of it and occasionally throw in an idea/push a scene. And it's not constant over time even within a campaign. Some pieces are "on rails" because that's what they want; other pieces are all over the place because that's what they want.

I think talking about mindsets makes sense, but I guess I'd disagree that these are the particular mindsets exactly...

I'm thinking back to how Microscope describes that it should go. There is a lot of text basically exhorting players to 'when it's your turn to detail something, just decide - don't talk about it ahead of time or negotiate it with the other players or discuss what would be better, pick something then and there and say it'. That strikes me as kind of core to the emergent mindset, where rather than the group focusing on predicting or planning what might happen or what's likely to happen in the future before deciding what to present or what actions to take in the present, the group focuses on 'here's the scenario, lets try to be as unbiased as possible ahead of time about what might happen and react to events as they occur'

So I could see an authorial mindset applying to players (in fact, it might be a pet peeve of mine!) when they come to a campaign with a character planned out over 20 levels and have pre-determined all of the RP reasons for those choices and so on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think talking about mindsets makes sense, but I guess I'd disagree that these are the particular mindsets exactly...

I'm thinking back to how Microscope describes that it should go. There is a lot of text basically exhorting players to 'when it's your turn to detail something, just decide - don't talk about it ahead of time or negotiate it with the other players or discuss what would be better, pick something then and there and say it'. That strikes me as kind of core to the emergent mindset, where rather than the group focusing on predicting or planning what might happen or what's likely to happen in the future before deciding what to present or what actions to take in the present, the group focuses on 'here's the scenario, lets try to be as unbiased as possible ahead of time about what might happen and react to events as they occur'

So I could see an authorial mindset applying to players (in fact, it might be a pet peeve of mine!) when they come to a campaign with a character planned out over 20 levels and have pre-determined all of the RP reasons for those choices and so on.

I was trying to keep it to the "GM contra player" idea of "who generates content".

But yeah, I probably don't have the best phrasing. It's more about "who's holding the progress-the-narrative ball right now". Sometimes that's the players. Sometimes that's the DM. And the ball might be in different hands at different meta-scopes (Macro vs micro, etc). And people may like the ball to be basically entirely in the DM's court at the Super-Macro level but completely in their court at the Super-Micro, with some variation in between.

Edit: I agree with the frustration at having pre-written, set-in-stone "builds" (either mechanically or personality/backstory or both). For me, figuring out what's going to happen is most of the fun. Even as a DM. I tend to sit in the Emergent mindset at many levels, although I'll grab the reins if they're let fall. Oddly, looking backward at a campaign or a character, things look really pre-determined. It looks like I had a plan all along and was just leading people through it. Despite usually hitting Saturday afternoon and not really having a clue how things will unfold. Playing online means I need to make maps ahead of time which does impose some constraints, but my "mind vision" and actual gameplay are...quite different. Because things come out of my mouth and I'm like "ok, let's run with that".

Spoiler: rambling thoughts

Show

Different game systems have different "natural" set-points. "Traditional" games (aka D&D & D&D-likes) tend to put the ball more heavily into the DM's court at the macro-plus scopes but leave the micro/super-micro largely up to the players (with variation on all sides). Microscope doesn't even have that distinction at all--everyone is simultaneously the DM and the player. Games with more narrative tools or wiwth a different attitude (PbtA generally?) puts more of the ball in the players' hands at more of the levels. But these are just defaults--you can play D&D with a very "Emergent" mindset on all parties, although it takes a bit more work in some ways (and less in others). I'm not sure if you can GM a PbtA game in a very "Authored" mindset--I've heard that there is a really strong stance against that.

But the key is that players and DM alike must have a meeting of the minds as to what mindset they're in. Because if both sides are fighting over the ball, bad things happen. Consider the four "pure" corner cases:
* DM is Emergent, Players are Emergent. Great. No issues.
* DM is Emergent, Players are Authored. Bad things. Featureless white room (in the pathological case). The DM is expecting the players to make decisions and seek things out, but they're expecting the DM to lead them to adventure. Frustration ensues. Neither side wants the ball.
* DM is Authored, Players are Authored. Great. The players know they've signed up for the amusement park ride and settle in with popcorn. In one sense, this is the "TTRPG as JRPG" style.
* DM is Authored, Players are Emergent. Bad things. Both sides want the ball. And so battles commence, with the DM trying to force the players back onto "the path" (even if he only decided what that was a few minutes ago[1]) and the players straining to escape the "rails".

And this disagreement can happen at many different scopes.

[Cheesegear]

Some pieces are "on rails" because that's what they want; other pieces are all over the place because that's what they want.

DM On rails: You start in a town,
DM Emergent: What are you looking for, what do you want? Why are you here?

Player 1 Emergent: I want to go to the tavern, that's where all the cool kids hang out.

DM on rails: Too easy. Here's the tavern I have prepared, the owner, the waitress, and several NPCs in the room. You thought you were going to surprise me by trying to go to a tavern!? Please. Taverns are a trope. Of course I already have one, and it's all filled out...

Player 2 Emergent: I'm sick of carrying all this **** around. I want to find someone who will sell me a donkey. I'll head to the tavern after I do some horse-trading.

DM Emergent: ...At level 1? Do you have the- Oh right, rich Background, you have a lot of cash. Uhh...Yes. Old Man Jenkins has been through the market earlier this morning trying to offload his mule. He's at this...Umm...Farm. About a mile outside of town.
*DM starts hastily writing down Old Man Jenkins, his wife, three dead sons, his crops took the blight so now he's trying to sell his donkey...*

Player 3 Rails: I'm looking for secrets about my spooky backstory that I told you about. Remember? Otherwise I head to the tavern.

DM on Rails: ...No. If you want special secrets about your spooky backstory you're going to need to be really specific about who you're asking. You wont be able to ask Joe Idiot on the street about where to find special secrets about your spooky backstory. Try again by talking to a real NPC.

Player 4 on Rails: I want to find a Druid, 'cause I have a thing where I want to multi-class later.

DM Emergent: Umm...Sure. No. There's no Druid here. The people in the Town get all their medicines from the wise woman in the next town over. She...Uhh...Travels here every other week. So you can't talk to her now. But she'll be here, soon. In...Uhh...*rolls 1d6*...That many days.
*Starts writing stuff for a Druid*

Player 4 Emergent: ...In that case I'd like to sit in the market square, and play my pipes, until something interesting happens.

DM Emergent: ...But...But you're the PC. You're supposed to look for something interesting, not just wait for it to happen.

Player 4 Emergent: ...Nah, I'm good.

DM back on the rails: Okay, so in the tavern...

[Satinavian]

Now, for that authored game, maybe that GM starts becoming more and more comfortable with that, and allowing more of those scenes. At some point, that is such a driving force that he really stops authoring most of the game, except for maybe a few set pieces, and is willing to let those go - at that point the authored content is really just special pieces, but the emergent content is running the show.

I don't think it's a hard binary, but I do think there's a point in either direction at which one or the other becomes dominant, and changes the basic nature of the game.

I still disgree with your turning point instead of continuum, but that is not really that important.

But now you speak of a new interesting development. A perceived tendency for GMs.


I would say, yes, most GMs starting with heavily authored games tend to drift further to emerging ones. Simply because the stuff they can easily and confidently handle on the spot increases with experience and system mastery. They still might have ideas about scenes based on inspiration, but less and less of that needs actually prior work for the details and rule implications as those come naturally. It would be a waste of time to prepare that. Time better spent on background, worldbuilding etc.
I have actually seen GMs acknowledge that and (without promting) telling players there yould be more railroading when they were running a system they were less familiar with because they need to prepare more and can't come up e.g. with fitting NPC stats on the spot.

But i also have seen a reverse trend for GMs in emergent games. Where once people prepared a full sandbox of stuff to engage with, it became less with time. There is "Ah, I don't flesh that out, the players won't go for this anyway as i know them" and "Oh, i don't need to prepare bog standard village nr. 3, i will wing it if they go there" and in the end less and less of the map has real substance behind and what is left, is what the GM felt like it cool and interesting which often involves specific imagined scenes or even boils down to specific paths events the GM thinks his players would most likely take when presented with the situation.

Of course not everyone changes along those lines.

In theory yes.

However, in practice it leads to naval-gazing instead of actually testing and experimenting in play and with the intended audience. AKA Learning by doing.

We need more GMs GMing, and less talking about GMing.

IME the amount of navel gazing and exchange with other DMs does not lower the time of actually running games for groups at all. If anything, talking about the game with others between sessions might help with writer block issues and keeping the interest up.

As for making more GMs, i always suggest people to go for rotating GMs more often. That way the people lacking it get more experience confidence running games and it helps to keep everyone on the same footing instead of putting GMs on some pedestral. It also helps against GM-burnout to have longer breaks.

[Hytheter]

IME the amount of navel gazing and exchange with other DMs does not lower the time of actually running games for groups at all. If anything, talking about the game with others between sessions might help with writer block issues and keeping the interest up.

Yeah, personally, I don't hang around here instead of playing or GMing, but because those activities are not available to me and this is the next best thing.

As for making more GMs, i always suggest people to go for rotating GMs more often. That way the people lacking it get more experience confidence running games and it helps to keep everyone on the same footing instead of putting GMs on some pedestral. It also helps against GM-burnout to have longer breaks.

This rings true. I play on a server that is essentially a large-scale rotating GM group in a consistent world and I enjoy it a lot, and it's certainly nice being able to GM when I want to instead of being locked into the role (though I do still GM more than I play, time zones are a bitch). I imagine that having a smaller tight-knit group but still rotating the GM would be a blast with the right people.

[Satinavian]

Player 2 Emergent: I'm sick of carrying all this **** around. I want to find someone who will sell me a donkey. I'll head to the tavern after I do some horse-trading.

DM Emergent: ...At level 1? Do you have the- Oh right, rich Background, you have a lot of cash. Uhh...Yes. Old Man Jenkins has been through the market earlier this morning trying to offload his mule. He's at this...Umm...Farm. About a mile outside of town.
*DM starts hastily writing down Old Man Jenkins, his wife, three dead sons, his crops took the blight so now he's trying to sell his donkey...*

Why would you need a fully fleshed out NPC with backstory and family to buy a donkey ? Is it even remotely likely PC2 cares about Jenkins ?

If that would happen at my table, as a GM i would consider :
Do they use donkeys in this region/culture ?
Is the settlement big enough to reasonably get them at any time ?

So the answers would be more like
a) Ok, a donkey costs (looks up pricetable).
b) No donkey for sale atm in this hamlet. People point you to the townmarket 8 hours away.
c) Donkeys are rare here and cost double. If you remember the setting supplement, the common beasts of burden around are thorogens which you could buy for X.

Player 4 Emergent: ...In that case I'd like to sit in the market square, and play my pipes, until something interesting happens.

DM Emergent: ...But...But you're the PC. You're supposed to look for something interesting, not just wait for it to happen.

Player 4 Emergent: ...Nah, I'm good.

That is indeed a problem i have had with static sandboxes in the past. If you get a bunch of reactive PCs or the PCs reach a pretty comfortable situation they don't want to change, the game can grind to a halt.

This is why, when i prepare for an emergent game, it won't be static. I will always have answers to "What happens when the PCs do nothing". That does not have to be a catastrophy or a lose situation all the time. Important is, that the situation changes and the PCs might do something different in response to it.

Also this does not have to be instantly. You could very well do timeskips when everything remains calm and samey for a longer period.

[kyoryu]

It might make more sense (but only to me?) if we think of these as mindsets the people involved can be in rather than anything about the game directly. Although they are expressed in the game, its scenes, etc, what they really express are differences in how people approach playing. And, in my experience, are prone to wax and wane in importance as campaigns progress.

It's fundamentally, it seems, more about who has the initiative in pushing things along. Not forward, because that defines that there is such a direction. But who is responsible right now for ensuring there is a next scene at all, let alone what it contains. Or who is responsible for deciding "what the campaign is about" (Super-Macro scale). Or "what is the next action taken by character X" (super-micro scale).

The Authored mindset is (very roughly) "the DM is primarily, if not exclusively, responsible for that. Players are responsible for different things." This is the "there is a story being recounted" (to some degree) mindset.

The Emergent mindset is (very roughly) "The players are primarily, if not exclusively, responsible for that. The DM mostly just acts as the responsible party for the NPCs/world + game engine. If at all."

I've found that some times, the players take the bit and run with the narrative. Other times, I'll have a "great idea" and throw in a contribution or take command of a sequence of scenes. In other groups, they want me to handle most of it and occasionally throw in an idea/push a scene. And it's not constant over time even within a campaign. Some pieces are "on rails" because that's what they want; other pieces are all over the place because that's what they want.

This is pretty close, yes.

The GM can still have a lot of responsibility, though. As I said, in games I run, I do a reasonable amount of prep, and it's in no way a "static sandbox" where nothing happens unless the players initiate it. "Here's a problem, you decide what to do about it" is a common way of running emergent games (where usually it's best to get buy-in to the problem at a player-level rather than a character level).

That is indeed a problem i have had with static sandboxes in the past. If you get a bunch of reactive PCs or the PCs reach a pretty comfortable situation they don't want to change, the game can grind to a halt.

This is why, when i prepare for an emergent game, it won't be static. I will always have answers to "What happens when the PCs do nothing". That does not have to be a catastrophy or a lose situation all the time. Important is, that the situation changes and the PCs might do something different in response to it.

Also this does not have to be instantly. You could very well do timeskips when everything remains calm and samey for a longer period.

This is why I don't like "static sandboxes" in most cases, and why I think that though there are people that do like them, they're moderately niche. This "well, players just stare at their navels" seems to be a bit of a common strawman, with the next bit being "therefore, we must have linear games!"

I guess another way of looking at it is (at least at the macro level) to look at who provides the problems and solutions:

Authored subtypes:
Linear game: GM provides the problem and the solution
GM-as-facilitator: players provide the problem, GM provides the solution

Emergent subtypes:
"Story sandbox": GM provides the problem, players provide the solution
"Static sandbox": players provide the problem and the solution

[Cheesegear]

Why would you need a fully fleshed out NPC with backstory and family to buy a donkey?

*Points to the thread*

Is it even remotely likely PC2 cares about Jenkins?

That depends on the DM's characterisation of Old Man Jenkins. Hell, his three dead sons could make an appearance later. Published WotC modules have backstories for everyone, including shopkeepers. Literally every NPC the players ever meet is an opportunity for roleplaying. If the players engage, keep bringing them back. If they don't...Get rid of that NPC and never show them again. It's not rocket science.

So the answers would be more like
a) Ok, a donkey costs (looks up pricetable).
b) No donkey for sale atm in this hamlet. People point you to the townmarket 8 hours away.
c) Donkeys are rare here and cost double. If you remember the setting supplement, the common beasts of burden around are thorogens which you could buy for X.

The tone of this thread suggests that A and C are non-options if you're a 'good DM'.

[OldTrees1]

The tone of this thread suggests that A and C are non-options if you're a 'good DM'.

I do not see that tone, are you sure?

In an emergent sandbox if the players choose to have their characters go find a donkey to buy, then I would respond with A, B or C depending on what makes sense for the locations the PCs happen to be at. If there are donkeys for sale at this hamlet, then A is an obvious response to the PC's choice. If there are donkeys for sale in this hamlet, but they are exotic beasts if burden in this area, then C makes a lot of sense as a response to the PC's choice. If there are no donkeys for sale in this hamlet but would be available in larger settlements, then B makes a lot of sense as a response to the PC's choice. If the PCs probe further into the seller, then I would elaborate further (this was the option you defaulted to).

In an authored linear game, the GM decided the PCs would go buy a donkey and the initial situation is one of A(they buy it here), B(they go to XYZ and buy it there), or C(they buy it here but it costs more).

[truemane]

(I didn't real the whole thread)

What about 'emergent' vs 'pre-emergent' (or even 'premergent' - which has the additional benefit of being fun to say)?

I think it would be more helpful to define individual elements or features of a game as Emergent or Pre-emergent rather than trying to use those terms to describe an entire gaming style, or philosophy, or campaign (a descriptor of trait rather than state). The wider that net gets, the more the conversation gets tripped up on corner cases and/or feels like a moral or value judgement.

But to me, the enterprise-level dichotomy here isn't Railroading vs Agency. I think that's one result of the thing, not the thing itself. The map, not the land, as it were.

The core dichotomy is: What are the rules for? Are they meant to simulate or emulate?

Are the rules there to reasonably, validly, realistically (or, more precisely, with verisimilitude) simulate a stable, objective universe which the players move through and act on? Or, are they meant to emulate a specific kind of experience, even if that experience isn't realistic?

(and I'm including the DM in the term 'rules')

If we're doing a module is about solving a murder, for example. If we're simulating, then if the rules say the players missed a clue, they missed it. And maybe they don't solve the murder. If we're emulating, then the rules need to ensure the players find the right clues, regardless of what happens.

It seems to me that, when we fight about railroading or agency, what we're really fighting about is what are the rules actually for? That's where the real emotions and value judgements live.