Judgement calls vs "railroading"

Not the weirdest thread drift....

hawkeyefan said:

Now your description was devoid of any game mechanics...so couldn't it be said that just about any game system could be used to achieve this style?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "just about any". I would say "more than just a few".

First, let me state a caveat: [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] upthread, around post 73, distinguished "scene-framing" from "principled GMing" as approaches. I don't feel the force of that distinction as strongly as he does (sometimes stuff that's really salient to person A sails over the head of person B), and so I might run together some ideas that he would think it's interesting/worthwhile to keep distinct.

So, that said, there are mechanics that can be an obstacle to running this sort of style:


I will add, I report this based on experience - these are all things that make it harder to run in this style using Rolemaster than using (say) 4e or Burning Wheel.

4e downplays recovery/resource mechanics of the problematic sort, has little or no divination, and doesn't have much teleportation or rocket tag. BW ticks the second and third boxes also; it does have rather intricate recovery and resource mechanics, but uses various devices to help fold them into the idea of "going where the action is" rather than having them be an obstacle to that.

hawkeyefan said:

given that this is a 5E forum....do you think that 5E is incapable of achieving the kind of play you like? It's conspicuously not in your list. Do you think that absent such narrative mechanics in 5E, that DM Judgment can substitute?

Click to expand...

I think I offered my answer to this above.

There are the inspiration mechanics (although, noting [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s comments about them), you would need to include some device for having the ideals, bonds and flaws change in response to play (the BW "trait vote" process would be one way, but not the only one).

You could incorporate "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and "let it ride" into non-combat resolution; bounded accuracy is a possible issue, as I've noted, because it can make the dice domainte over player choices (in build and resource deployment), but a lot of use of inspiration might trump this problem (advantage swamping the vagaries of the dice).

The XP mechanics seem pretty unhelpful as they stand, but there are a lot of variants that can be shoved in there.

I understand. But I don't know if the byproduct you mention is such a simple thing. In this example, perhaps....the presence of a bowl to catch the blood and therefore fulfill the PC desire seems fairly minor in the grand scheme. So minor I would feel comfortable simply saying yes and proceeding rather than relying on a check.

But I would assume based on the focus you are giving this idea, that it can also come up in circumstances that can have a more profound impact on the game. Would you say that is true?

Campbell said:

I have run several mainstream games, utilizing techniques I have learned from Apocalypse World and its cousins. Vampire - The Requiem 2nd Edition, Demon - The Descent, Edge of the Empire, Godbound, and RuneQuest worked pretty well. Exalted, Shadowrun, and Numenera crashed and burned.

<snip>

I would not utilize this style wholesale for GMing in FATE, Burning Wheel, D&D 4e, or Cortex Plus. Closed scene resolution generally requires a substantially different GMing skill set

<snip>

I would only run Burning Wheel exactly as written. It deserves to be played as designed.

Click to expand...

Any insights on why Numenera et al didn't work?

Because, as I've said, I'm not quite tracking your distinction between "principled GMing" and "scene framing", I'm not sure if the way I run BW counts as "exactly as written". I certainly feel I'm following Luke Crane's advice.

Cortex Plus does raise some different issues, as I've said - it's very tightly based around scenes, and the fact that every action declaration is (i) opposed, and (ii) must generate an effect with mechanical and fictional meaning, makes it its own beast, from the GMing point of view.

hawkeyefan said:

I don't have a problem with the approach....more with the implications you've made along the way in the discussion about other methods being more railroady.

Click to expand...

Well, I see the "railroad" issue as arising at (1) and at (3).

If, at (1), the framing is always reflecting the GM's priorities and not the players', then it is the GM driving the game.

If, at (3), the resolution draws upon the GM's pre-authored conception of the situation ("secret backstory"), then it is the GM driving the game.

There are interactions between (1) and (3), too - if (3) reflects the players' aspirations for their PCs (either because, with success, they realise them; with failure, the GM narrates consequences that speak to those consequences, though in an adverse way), then it tends to feed back into (1), and before you know it the game looks like what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] described.

Conversely, if the GM is going to maintain control over (1) then that puts limits on what can come out of (3) - eg there must be limits on how much the players can do at (3). Hence you see modules with advice like "If the BBEG is killed, a lieutenant takes up the standard". That is a way of making sure that, whatever the players achieve at (3), the GM doesn't have to change the (1).

Classical dungeoneering (what Campbell called "free kriegspiel") is its own interesting thing. It adds an extra phase - phase (0), if like - which is the GM writing a whole lot of backstory (like the Village of Hommlet). But then stage (1) is controlled by the players. In this sort of play, the GM draws upon the phase (0) backstory at (3) (eg if a divination spell is cast, the GM already knows the answer, and gives it) but this doesn't lead to GM authority over the (1).

For this to work, the GM's backstory has to be such that it leaves the players with control over (1) - hence the backstory must be metaplot-free, for instance. (I discussed this with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] upthread.)

Going a bit further with this: if the phase (0) backstory is something like a dungeon, then a lot of the game becomes what I've called puzzle-solving. The players, by choosing what (1) to engage and then keeping track of the outcomes at (3) gradually build up a picture of the dungeon and how to beat it.

If the phase (0) backstory is random content generation, a la Classic Traveller, then the game is not puzzle-solving; it's closer to collective creation of a world. The players, by choosing what (1) to engage, force the use of random tables to generate its details. The (3) is no longer about players driving the game (as per my preferred style); nor the players beating the GM's dungeon (as per classic D&D play); but simply finding out whether or not the PCs can flourish in the world that is unfolding via the random tables. It's ultra-exploratory, and - in practice, at least as I've experienced it - runs the risk of being a bit boring. But it's not a railroad.

Maxperson said:

pemerton just seems to have the obsessive need to redefine or restate things in different words.

Click to expand...

That wacky pemerton . . .

pemerton said:

That wacky pemerton . . .

Click to expand...

I know, right! The point is that this time you weren't trying to re-define something, but were rather just re-wording the normal method of play.

pemerton said:

Classical dungeoneering (what Campbell called "free kriegspiel") is its own interesting thing. It adds an extra phase - phase (0), if like - which is the GM writing a whole lot of backstory (like the Village of Hommlet). But then stage (1) is controlled by the players. In this sort of play, the GM draws upon the phase (0) backstory at (3) (eg if a divination spell is cast, the GM already knows the answer, and gives it) but this doesn't lead to GM authority over the (1).

For this to work, the GM's backstory has to be such that it leaves the players with control over (1) - hence the backstory must be metaplot-free, for instance. (I discussed this with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] upthread.)

Click to expand...

There's no "must" about it - the meta-plot can simply be part of the ongoing backstory referenced in what's being called 'phase 0' here.

Going a bit further with this: if the phase (0) backstory is something like a dungeon, then a lot of the game becomes what I've called puzzle-solving. The players, by choosing what (1) to engage and then keeping track of the outcomes at (3) gradually build up a picture of the dungeon and how to beat it.

Click to expand...

Sounds like D&D to me.

If the phase (0) backstory is random content generation, a la Classic Traveller, then the game is not puzzle-solving; it's closer to collective creation of a world. The players, by choosing what (1) to engage, force the use of random tables to generate its details. The (3) is no longer about players driving the game (as per my preferred style); nor the players beating the GM's dungeon (as per classic D&D play); but simply finding out whether or not the PCs can flourish in the world that is unfolding via the random tables. It's ultra-exploratory, and - in practice, at least as I've experienced it - runs the risk of being a bit boring. But it's not a railroad.

Click to expand...

Also runs the risk of failing to be internally consistent over the long haul unless careful notes are taken as each random permanent element is determined.

I can also see how boredom might set in at some tables, unless the random tables are skewed toward "this location has a dungeon or adventure or something exciting in it" far more than any the-least-bit-realistic world could support.

Lanefan

pemerton said:

there are mechanics that can be an obstacle to running this sort of style:

*Mechanics that drag attention away from the present action of the game (eg some healing/rest mechanics; some resource-management mechanics) can push the game into a continuous narration by the GM, and continuous tracking of somewhat minor ingame causal processes, which get in the way of asking provocative questions or framing scenes that go where the action is.​

Click to expand...

Don't follow that one...

There are the inspiration mechanics

Click to expand...

Yeah, but try not to hold 'em against 5e.

You could incorporate "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and "let it ride" into non-combat resolution; bounded accuracy is a possible issue, as I've noted, because it can make the dice domainte over player choices

Click to expand...

But dice are only rolled if the DM calls for them, so it can be minimized as much as desired.

Because, as I've said, I'm not quite tracking your distinction between "principled GMing" and "scene framing"

Click to expand...

I'm not loving the use of ethical-connotation-bearing worlds like 'principled' as if to contrast with 'unprincipled.'

then it is the GM driving the game.

Click to expand...

To actually tap the 'railroad' metaphor for a moment, the engineer driving the train decides how fast it goes, but it (hopefully) stays on the rails. The operative part of the railroad metaphor has always seemed to me the rails, not that someone's in control, but that the train is only going to the next station (or stopping, or crashing).
So, maybe the GM is driving the game in more of an automobile or team of oxen or herd of cats, sense...?

Tony Vargas said:

So, maybe the GM is driving the game in more of an automobile or team of oxen or herd of cats, sense...?

Click to expand...

Yeah, herding cats sounds about right...

Lan-"14th-level catherd"-efan

Lanefan said:

Yeah, herding cats sounds about right...

Lan-"14th-level catherd"-efan

Click to expand...

It's a classic for a reason.

When I speak about taking a principled approach to GMing I mean it in the same sense as principled engineering or principled design, not in the moral sense.

Oxford English Dictionary said:

principled

1. (of a person or their behaviour) acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong.
2. (of a system or method) based on a given set of rules.

Click to expand...

I am utilizing the second definition here. I take a disciplined approach to GMing that relies on a set of formalized principles and procedures that I adhere to. GMing can be principled without the specific set of principles I'm utilizing, but I don't know how else to describe it in a way that cuts across games. Maybe I should just call it MCing. Here is what Apocalypse World has to say on this approach:

Apocalypse World said:

Play to Find out: there’s a certain discipline you need in order to MC Apocalypse World. You have to commit yourself to the game’s fiction’s own internal logic and causality, driven by the players’ characters. You have to open yourself to caring what happens, but when it comes time to say what happens, you have to set what you hope for aside.

The reward for MCing, for this kind of GMing, comes with the discipline. When you find something you genuinely care about—a question about what will happen that you genuinely want to find out—letting the game’s fiction decide it is uniquely satisfying.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

I think, with the bowl issue, the difference pemerton (and others?) is trying to illustrate is the difference in how the DM approaches it. So, first the player states something like, "I look for a bowl or container to catch the blood in." Then we split. [P]emerton's preference is that this is now a potential new element to the fiction -- he doesn't know if there's a bowl, but he'd like to find out. The player is asked for a check, and the success or failure of that check establishes if a bowl or container exists or does not. In this case, the existence of the bowl is an element the player is trying to establish, and the check is to see if this is the case.

On the other side, the side pemerton is calling railroading, it starts the same way with the player declaration, but instead of the check seeing if a bowl exists, the DM decides whether or not a bowl exists and how easy it is to locate the bowl. For you, the existence of the bowl is determined as 'does' and the likelihood of finding it is '100%' so you just say, 'sure, there's a bowl on the nightstand with some random coinage and a bubblegum wrapper in it.' But another DM using this method might determine there is no bowl. Another might think there is a bowl, but it's under the bed and not easily noticed, so the check is to see if you find it in time. But all of these start with the DM determining the answer to the question 'is there a bowl?' and move forward. What I gather from pemerton is that this act is the railroad (again, I strongly disagree with this use of the term) because it's a function of the DM forcing the fiction instead of allowing it to be a collaborative event. With pemerton, it's more important to acknowledge the player's contribution to the story, and the DM's job isn't to say yes or no or determine the answer, but to provide a challenge in the form of a die roll that will determine the success of the player's authoring of new fiction (in this case, a bowl; not all fiction is exciting).

That's the gist that I pick up from manbearcat, pemertion, and Campbell. While it looks superficially like the standard presentation of play (present, declare, narrate), it differs fundamentally in how the narration is authored. In the case of the bowl, pemerton's method is that the player has authored the bowl, so he's just narrating what the player established. With the other (railroady, as permerton says) method, the DM determines the fiction and only narrates the outcome of things he (the DM) is uncertain about.

I'm not sure I'm explaining that last part very well. I see it as a fundamentally different approach to the game, though, and one that fits with the presentation of other games and how they operationalize creation of the story. And, again, it's a fine playstyle, a fine theory of game, one I have no issues with (although I occasionally fail to recognize it), but I don't think the DM authoring style is a railroad, per se, it just approaches the creation of fiction differently. You can use the DM as primary author method just fine and maintain player agency in the world. It's just the domain of player agency that shifts. Railroading is the removal of player agency -- nothing they choose matters, they go the same place no matter what.

Click to expand...

I think that is an accurate summary of things, as I understand them.

My point is such that the DM judgment required to determine the DC for the perception check to notice the bowl is probably the equivalent of the amount of DM judgment to simply say yes. So I really don't see one as being more player driven and one being more railroad.

I do see a possible issue with a DM who simply said no and did not offer any alternative way to achieve what the player wanted. But I suppose this would be the equivalent of the DM setting the DC incredibly high if calling for a perception check.

I suppose I just don't think that the chance of the die is always the best way to achieve drama or excitement or risk.

Campbell said:

You could get there fairly easy, although B/X or BECMI would be better fits. You would have to develop your exact Agenda and Principles to fit what the game uniquely offers and the exact sort of narrative you are after. Inspiration in its current state would have to go - it cuts against our interests in the same way that Fate Aspects do. It reinforces playing to who our characters are right now instead of making who they are a question answered through play. I would also scrap the current experience system and replace it with something more strongly tied to the sort of play I'm going for. A better rewards system is not strictly necessary for this sort of play, but the current reward structure is also counterproductive to our interests. I would probably also alter rest cycles in the same way I did when I ran 4e. Not insignificant hacks, but ones that don't really touch core systems that much. You can stop at just the principles, but there are some counter productive procedures I would not be able to help myself with.

Honestly if I were going to run 5e it would most likely be in a West Marches style. Create a map with blanks in it, have a larger group of players create characters, and have them coordinate what they want to do. Then prep exactly that material using guidance from B/X. Either that or run Sine Nomine's Red Tide sandbox setting or utilize some Red Box Vancouver modules - not adventures, actual modules.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. I play with an altered Inspiration mechanic, and I allow for the Bonds and Flaws and other traits to change or for new ones to be added or old ones to fade as play progresses. We're really loose with all that stuff, which I find to be more manageable than having hard and fast mechanics for everything. Same thing with experience...we ditched the traditional XP system a few editions ago.

pemerton said:

So, that said, there are mechanics that can be an obstacle to running this sort of style:

*Mechanics that drag attention away from the present action of the game (eg some healing/rest mechanics; some resource-management mechanics) can push the game into a continuous narration by the GM, and continuous tracking of somewhat minor ingame causal processes, which get in the way of asking provocative questions or framing scenes that go where the action is.

*Mechanics that emphasise the importance of GM-authored backstory (eg many traditional divination mechanics; some perception mechanics) can get in the way of playing to find out.

*Mechanics that allow the players to significantly reframe the ingame situation (eg teleportation; some forms of "rocket tag" combat) can tend to produce play where players avoid the "hard questions" rather than actualy engage the ingame situation via their PCs.​

Click to expand...

Do you have examples of each of these? You've given me "what", but not "how"...

pemerton said:

There are the inspiration mechanics (although, noting @Campbell's comments about them), you would need to include some device for having the ideals, bonds and flaws change in response to play (the BW "trait vote" process would be one way, but not the only one).

Click to expand...

I don't know if you need a device for that. My game does that....we just let the unfolding game and our desires shape that stuff. Works well.

pemerton said:

You could incorporate "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and "let it ride" into non-combat resolution; bounded accuracy is a possible issue, as I've noted, because it can make the dice domainte over player choices (in build and resource deployment), but a lot of use of inspiration might trump this problem (advantage swamping the vagaries of the dice).

Click to expand...

Say yes or roll the die is pretty fundamental. I actually simply say yes quite a bit. But there are times where I will say no.

I don't know if bounded accuracy is a big concern on this....especially since the DM is still free to influence the outcome by determining DC and so on.

pemerton said:

The XP mechanics seem pretty unhelpful as they stand, but there are a lot of variants that can be shoved in there.

Click to expand...

I don't know how the XP system is an obstacle....but I agree it's crap, and we ditched it long ago.

Okay, so this next bit looks like a quote of mine that you accidentally inserted into your post; maybe you can answer now:
I understand. But I don't know if the byproduct you mention is such a simple thing. In this example, perhaps....the presence of a bowl to catch the blood and therefore fulfill the PC desire seems fairly minor in the grand scheme. So minor I would feel comfortable simply saying yes and proceeding rather than relying on a check.

But I would assume based on the focus you are giving this idea, that it can also come up in circumstances that can have a more profound impact on the game. Would you say that is true?

pemerton said:

Well, I see the "railroad" issue as arising at (1) and at (3).

If, at (1), the framing is always reflecting the GM's priorities and not the players', then it is the GM driving the game.

If, at (3), the resolution draws upon the GM's pre-authored conception of the situation ("secret backstory"), then it is the GM driving the game.

Click to expand...

But why are you assuming that it's always reflecting the GM's priorities and pre-authored conception? Who is advocating for that?

pemerton said:

There are interactions between (1) and (3), too - if (3) reflects the players' aspirations for their PCs (either because, with success, they realise them; with failure, the GM narrates consequences that speak to those consequences, though in an adverse way), then it tends to feed back into (1), and before you know it the game looks like what @Campbell described.

Conversely, if the GM is going to maintain control over (1) then that puts limits on what can come out of (3) - eg there must be limits on how much the players can do at (3). Hence you see modules with advice like "If the BBEG is killed, a lieutenant takes up the standard". That is a way of making sure that, whatever the players achieve at (3), the GM doesn't have to change the (1).

Click to expand...

This I agree with....at least with published adventures. But I also think that's more likely in pre-published adventures....they can only allow for so much lateral movement on the part of the PCs and how the story shapes up.

pemerton said:

Classical dungeoneering (what Campbell called "free kriegspiel") is its own interesting thing. It adds an extra phase - phase (0), if like - which is the GM writing a whole lot of backstory (like the Village of Hommlet). But then stage (1) is controlled by the players. In this sort of play, the GM draws upon the phase (0) backstory at (3) (eg if a divination spell is cast, the GM already knows the answer, and gives it) but this doesn't lead to GM authority over the (1).

For this to work, the GM's backstory has to be such that it leaves the players with control over (1) - hence the backstory must be metaplot-free, for instance. (I discussed this with @Lanefan upthread.)

Going a bit further with this: if the phase (0) backstory is something like a dungeon, then a lot of the game becomes what I've called puzzle-solving. The players, by choosing what (1) to engage and then keeping track of the outcomes at (3) gradually build up a picture of the dungeon and how to beat it.

If the phase (0) backstory is random content generation, a la Classic Traveller, then the game is not puzzle-solving; it's closer to collective creation of a world. The players, by choosing what (1) to engage, force the use of random tables to generate its details. The (3) is no longer about players driving the game (as per my preferred style); nor the players beating the GM's dungeon (as per classic D&D play); but simply finding out whether or not the PCs can flourish in the world that is unfolding via the random tables. It's ultra-exploratory, and - in practice, at least as I've experienced it - runs the risk of being a bit boring. But it's not a railroad.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know about that. I don't see an either/or as far as GM Driven and Player Driven. I use both...if not in equal measure, then close to it. It can fluctuate at times in favor of one over the other.