Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Tony Vargas]

I think some of the disagreement related to "consistency" is related to the concept of Dissociated Mechanics.

Well, it is a very inconsistently defined and applied concept, born of the edition war, and making no sense in or out of that highly charged context.

The comparison isn't perfectly apt, but I think it's close

It's not about a mechanic, for instance...

When Pemerton decides, as a consequence of a player failure, that the brother was Evil all-along, it's effectively creating a dissociated mechanic for the player on-the-spot (instead of in the game's rules, where the label is usually applied).

I see the point. If the player knows that the revelation his character has just been hit with was just made up in the moment, then there's a disconnect between what the character knows/perceives and what the player does. That is the kind of nonsensical concern that h4ters were whingeing about with dissociated mechanics. The very nature of a TTRPG makes it manifestly impossible for the knowledge/perception of the player (sitting at a table with fellow nerds) and the character (standing over a decapitated body with an assassin) to ever be in alignment.

I think it's that OOC/IC inconsistency, analogous to a dissociated mechanic, that's causing some posters, like me, who react badly to dissociated mechanics, to feel that Pemerton's approach itself will necessarily lead to an inconsistant game world.

Of course, if Pemerton had kept the timing of that decision to himself, there'd be no problem.

I came to this conclusion trying to reconcile my visceral agreement with the posters claiming that Pemerton's style would create inconsistencies with my intellectual awareness that I've run interally-consistant games while making on-the-fly changes nearly as big as Pemerton. So I know from experience that it can be done consistantly, but it still felt like it shouldn't be possible.

Heh. That does sound hard to reconcile. The key, IMHO, is player knowledge. Keep little things like when so-and-so 'became' evil behind the screen, and you head off any problems. Of course, that earns the 'illusionism' seal of disapproval.
But it works.

For reference, my style is a hybrid of Saelorn and Pemerton's approaches.

Now that also sounds 'impossible!'

Like Saelorn, I approach playing D&D as analogous to a (casual) modeling exercise, with the current state of the model (the game world), the rules (part of the modeling engine), the GM's judgment/discretion (the other part), and player decisions (external input) used to determine how the model evolves. Unlike Saelorn, however, I don't view the model as sacrosanct; I will liberally tinker with it on-the-fly as a tool to achieve my ultimate goal of maximizing player enjoyment.

Yep. 'Illusionism.' Keep up the good work!

 

[Xetheral]

Of course, if Pemerton had kept the timing of that decision to himself, there'd be no problem.

If I understand correctly, Pemerton keeping the timing of that decision from his players would negate the entire point of having it be a consequence of the player's failure.

Yep. 'Illusionism.' Keep up the good work!

I think the term applies to my style in the common usage of the word--my style does involve constructing an illusion at the table. But in-context I usually find that the term is considered analogous to "presenting the illusion of choice" or the "the illusion that choices matter", and that's in many ways the opposite of what I'm doing. Most of my behind-the-scenes changes are made to increase player agency, not stymie it.

 

[pemerton]

Had you identified finding the mace as a Belief earlier, much grief could have been skipped on this issue. I generally find this to be the case with longstanding arguments with you - that some key piece of information was omitted that resolves the issue nicely. Accomplishing a Belief is a fraught situation, so the failure assigned is on par. This was really the bit that you needed to provide to clear this up.

Well, I'm glad I told you what you needed to know.

Because most posters on this board don't play games with formal "belief" mechanics, instead I thought it was enough - more helpful, even - to explain the context of the player writing the mace into his PC's backstory and then leading the party back to the ruined tower in part in the hope of finding it.

Also, there was no "longstanding argument" except in the sense that, instead of asking for more elaboration of why the stakes were so high, you posted an assertion that I had misjudged the stakes and arbitrarily hosed the player. I find it curious how often posters on these boards tend to assume that those they are conversing with are incompetent or stupid.

 

[Manbearcat]

I dunno man.

You make it sound more like a doctoral dissertation than a game.

We all have our little obsessive crosses to bear

I've got two modes; the super silly, endlessly charming and lovable (all true) guy that does Katana-Wielding Thri-Kreen MSPaints...and the guy that goes balls-to-the-wall in long-winded analysis, obsessing over stuff that he cares about. I've got no problems with folks disliking that second dude, but he isn't going anywhere!

 

[Tony Vargas]

If I understand correctly, Pemerton keeping the timing of that decision from his players would negate the entire point of having it be a consequence of the player's failure.

Negating 'player agency' and engaging in illusionism &c, yes.

All part of painting one style as better/worse than another rather than merely different. Hm... in that sense your analogy was a good one, now that I think of it.

I think the term applies to my style in the common usage of the word--my style does involve constructing an illusion at the table.

Rather like a good magician's trick, or a vivid description can, yes. That's the way I see it.

But in-context I usually find that the term is considered analogous to "presenting the illusion of choice" or the "the illusion that choices matter", and that's in many ways the opposite of what I'm doing. Most of my behind-the-scenes changes are made to increase player agency, not stymie it.

Nod. Just like 'railroading' has a pejorative connotation that one can usually come up with an example to illustrate, but can also be applied to perfectly legitimate DMing techniques.

Informal RPG jargon is full of such landmines.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

I suppose I'm always a bit surprised when folks try to advocate player agency in such a broad sense as the players literally determining every step of the campaign.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by steps of the campaign?

As I experience it, an event in a campaign - a moment of action, an encounter, a scene/situation - has threemain elements: the framing (in a classic module, this is where the GM reads out the boxed text)[ the action declarations by the players for their PCs; the resolution of those actions.

At each step, new fiction comes into the shared fiction: (1) the GM introduces the fiction that constitutes the framing; (2) the players introduce the fiction that constitutes their PCs efforts to get what they want; (3) if the players' checks succeed, not only the PCs' efforts but their aspirations become part of the fiction; if the players' checks fail, then the GM introduces new fiction that gives effect to that failure. And of course the (3) of scene A feeds into the (1) of scene B.

Part of what I think makes a game player-driven is that when the GM is doing stuff at (1) and (3), s/he is following the lead of the players - so the framing a situation that speaks to concerns that the players have signalled (formally eg via beliefs, flaws etc, or informally) throug build and play; and, in narrating consequences, doing so in a way that puts those same concerns under pressure (eg as with the discovery of the cursed arrows).

I don't know if you would describe that as the players literally determining every step of the campaign; I wouldn't, because the GM is determining some things. But I would still describe it as player-driven, because the GM is following the players leads in doing the bits that s/he does.

I've never had a situation where the players and I didn't try to work together to make sure that their characters were invested in the world. The players deciding to go radically "off script" isn't a concern for me because they've contributed to and enjoy the "script". There's plenty of flexibility for them to pursue their goals however they like, but enough of a framework where I can at least partially see how they may do so.

The first sentence is true for me. But I'm not sure what the "script" is. It sounds like the steps (3) above are known in advance, but mahybe that's not what you mean.

 

[Manbearcat]

Not sure how far I'll get witht his right now, but here goes...It wasn't an established part of the fiction as nobody had yet interacted with it, but was it on the DM's map? Or was the complex even pre-mapped at all? (if not, you're so far away from anything I can relate to you might as well be speaking Russian of Swahili or some other language I don't know a word of).

My terminology might be more Fail Sideways in this case, but this all seems like normal run-of-play stuff where someone hit what amounts to a chute trap and has to find their way back to the party via some dangers. But, a bit more info (or clarification) needed:

1. Was the trap (for such it is) already on the DM's map or did it suddenly spring into existence at the moment you needed to come up with a failure result? If pre-present, see next question. If spur-of-the-moment, the you're into "GM Force" territory...probably not in a bad way, but it's there.

2. If the trap was a pre-planned thing, then (to cover what some others might be thinking) was there some warning given of it so the party knew to be careful? If not, you're into "gotcha" territory, which I personally have no issue with but others - for whatever reason - do.

Going to chunk all of this together.

1) The move that triggered the encounter with the snow-bridge-covered crevasse hazard was the group move "Undertake a Perilous Journey:"

When you travel through hostile territory, choose one member of the party to act as trailblazer, one to scout ahead, and one to be quartermaster. Each character with a job to do rolls+Wis. ✴On a 10+:

- the quartermaster reduces the number of rations required by one
- the trailblazer reduces the amount of time it takes to reach your destination (the GM will say by how much)
- the scout will spot any trouble quick enough to let you get the drop on it

This is just a conflict resolution move for when the group is striking out through dangerous lands toward a known destination. If they're just exploring parts unknown or ranging toward an unfamiliar destination, UaPJ would not be triggered. Maybe consider the move as a different, mundane analogue to 1e Teleport. If things go awry, they go awry in a truly interesting and dynamic way that leads to unforeseen events which can snowball, thus fundamentally changing the trajectory of play. That is what happened here.

The scout role was outright failed by their goblin henchmen who were assigned to it (RIP poor Exel and Xanob ). This triggered a hard move by me. That move would have been:

Use a monster, danger, or location move

If the scout role would have been a 7-9, I would have just made a soft move. If I decided to go with the same sort of deal, the move would have been:

Reveal an unwelcome truth

In the conversation of play, I probably would have said something like:

"The endless expanse of white has stretched out before you for the last days' travel. The blizzard, though still ominous and looming, flanks you in an eerie, dead stall to the east. To date, the goblin brothers have guided you away from the lairs of nesting Wyverns, Perytons, and navigated around the dangerous terrain of this glacial wasteland.

On the final leg of the journey, the land perpetually rises and falls, fraught with boulders and sharp rocks signalling the approach of your destination. The elevating earth ascends angrily toward the White Dragon's domain and the entrance to the Coldlands beyond. In the distance, you can see the great open cavern, cut naturally into the bottom of the mountainside's face. Earthmaw.

A silly spectacle, the small goblin driver stands up and points, beginning to celebrate. A reminder of the killjoy nature of this dangerous land that is clearly out to kill you, the moment he does so a terrible sound begins beneath you. When the sound of cracking ice begins and snow collapses in an accelerating, jagged line in front of the awkwardly rigged sleds, terror turns his celebrations into a shriek. The lead wolf's forelegs are lost to sight as the beast faceplants then backs abruptly as the cracking, gravelly yawn of a glacial crevasse threatens to swallow you whole...

What do you do?"

Instead, a 6- means the back of the sled falls straight into the crevasse, hanging mid-air with the PCs/hirelings desperately clinging to it, with just the team of sled wolfs losing the battle to keep everything from being swallowed. Everyone but the Elven Arcane Duelist made it out (the situation snowballed for him, but he did manage to save a dog and one of the goblin brothers...I think Exel, before the crevasse and the frozen river claimed him).

2) Very much unlike B/X or a 5e or 1e hexcrawl, here is one of DW's most important GMing principles:

Draw maps, leave blanks

Dungeon World exists mostly in the imaginations of the people playing it; maps help everyone stay on the same page. You won’t always be drawing them yourself, but any time there’s a new location described make sure it gets added to a map.

When you draw a map don’t try to make it complete. Leave room for the unknown. As you play you’ll get more ideas and the players will give you inspiration to work with. Let the maps expand and change.

The only thing that was on the map at this point was:

a) Giliad's Rest at the base of these mountains.
b) The blocked pass that leads to the highlands.
c) A secret tunnel that leads through dangerous caverns, but empties out in the lowlands - added to the map by successful PC move.
d) World's End Bluff and the settlement of World's End (where the PCs were coming from before their journey).
e) The Glacial Wastes (basically the rest of the highlands.
f) Averandox's Glacier (the Ancient Blizzard Dragon's lair) - added to map by successful PC move.
g) Earthmaw (the Hobgoblin kingdom) - added to map by successful PC move.
h) The Coldlands (the true highlands of this mountainous realm high above the tree line).

---

So lets put that together then. The PCs are Undertaking a Perilous Journey across a hostile, glacial expanse. The possible dangers they could face due to Trailblazer failure are stuff like:

* Weather Takes a Turn
* Lost

Quartermaster is stuff like:

* Water is discovered to be tainted or poisonous
* 1d4 rations are lost due to spoilage or over-consumption
* Someone gets food poisoning and becomes shaky orsick
* Nearby Danger is attracted by food

Scout is stuff like:

* Exposure
* Ambush
* Hazard (here we go!)

The players' agency when it comes to an UaPJ move is (a) to trigger it at all, (b) the decision of where they are striking out to, (c) who is taking what role (which feeds into PC build), (d) any strategic moves they can/do make beforehand to ensure that the dangers I can deploy would be further constrained (this could be the deployment of Adventuring Gear such as a map to ensure they can't get lost or some sort of scent that repels a certain predator...or a divination ability that yields portents of the future).

It isn't like hexcrawling or B/X dungeon crawling where you're mapping out a locale and spending exploration turns (listening, searching, 10 ft poling, stealthing, arcane eye-ing, etc) to avoid sequential dangers or make sequential discoveries on a granular map.

DW definitely has more granular interaction (social, exploration, combat) than the transitional journey mechanics, but that is how they function.

So I hope it is clear what the players' agency is in this situation (all of (a) through (d) directly above), what the system's say is (the UaPJ mechanics), and what the GM's role is (follow the game's principles and rules, and on a 6-, follow the fiction and fill their lives with a danger of immediate and severe consequence; such as an immediate hazard event on the failed Scout roll).

---

So then, I hope that makes a little more clear procedurally how things work themselves out.

That is a lot of "stuff." Let's start with/focus on this and then we can move on.

 

[Campbell]

Let's talk about the style of GMing that Apocalypse World formalized, but didn't like invent from whole cloth. It basically arises from what happens when you are playing a role playing game in a typical dungeon crawling fashion, but your players are not really interested in any of your dungeons. Now the town and its surrounding environs are loosely detailed because the dungeons are the point right? Your players though, they would rather spend time in town and they have plans. They want to get their protagonist on. You could totally insist they get over themselves and go to a dungeon, but that is not the game they want to be playing. So what do you do? Your B/X text only tells you how to run dungeons. It's not really helpful for this. So you improvise. Over time you learn how to run a town game, and come up with some new principles and procedures for playing the town game. This is where Apocalypse World comes from.

In principle it's fairly easy. You forget about that dungeon or adventure or whatever your plans for the game were. You absolutely have something your players care about - the town and their position in it. Why not leverage that to play the game? Simply follow the player characters around and introduce threats and opportunities that could upend the status quo. If they won't go to the dungeon, you bring the dungeon to them. Also, establish relationships between PCs and NPCs. What if this PC has a different relationship to this NPC than this other PC? That's solid gold. Now you are basically there to find out what sort of exciting lives these exciting protagonists lead. You can introduce complications, let them deal with threats to the status quo in whatever way they want, and like see who they really are. Now you don't have to try so hard. They have their guys, you have your guys. They play their guys, you play your guys.

That's Apocalypse World in a nutshell. There's more to it, of course. Isn't there always? Over time we develop techniques for the best ways to prep (Fronts), ways to make PCs lives not boring, learn to treat our guys like stolen cars, and so much more. All in the name of making room for compelling decisions and interesting fiction. We make a real game out of it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by steps of the campaign?

However it is broken down. Chapters, adventures, sessions...the ongoing events that one after another form the campaign.

As I experience it, an event in a campaign - a moment of action, an encounter, a scene/situation - has threemain elements: the framing (in a classic module, this is where the GM reads out the boxed text)[ the action declarations by the players for their PCs; the resolution of those actions.

Sure, I would agree with that as a general summary of how things go. I'm sure we could come up with exception, but as a basic structure, I think that's a good description.

At each step, new fiction comes into the shared fiction: (1) the GM introduces the fiction that constitutes the framing; (2) the players introduce the fiction that constitutes their PCs efforts to get what they want; (3) if the players' checks succeed, not only the PCs' efforts but their aspirations become part of the fiction; if the players' checks fail, then the GM introduces new fiction that gives effect to that failure. And of course the (3) of scene A feeds into the (1) of scene B.

So I'm guessing that at this point, you're describing how you handle it rather than as some basic structure? Because I see a lot that I would not describe as fundamental. Not that I think any of what you describe as being wrong...just that we've moved away from some fundamental structure that most games would recognize and into the realm of preference.

For me, Step 1 is, at the start of the game and time of character creation, where the players can likely have the most input on the fictional world. This is where they can share with the DM any villains they have in mind, family members of their PCs, organizations, items, locations...and so on. As the DM I then do my best to weave as much of that into the world as possible, meshing it with whatever story ideas I have.

So then step 2 seems pretty straightforward. Step 3 I don't think is typical at all. Again, there's nothing wrong with it...it's just not something I would do as the standard. I certainly do allow things to take shape on the fly and in response to the player's success or failure, but I don't use that as the way of establishing the world.

Part of what I think makes a game player-driven is that when the GM is doing stuff at (1) and (3), s/he is following the lead of the players - so the framing a situation that speaks to concerns that the players have signalled (formally eg via beliefs, flaws etc, or informally) throug build and play; and, in narrating consequences, doing so in a way that puts those same concerns under pressure (eg as with the discovery of the cursed arrows).

Sure that is one way for the game to be player driven.

I don't know if you would describe that as the players literally determining every step of the campaign; I wouldn't, because the GM is determining some things. But I would still describe it as player-driven, because the GM is following the players leads in doing the bits that s/he does.

Well no, my example was not meant as a literal description that was always true.

I think my game is player driven...even though as DM I am determining most of the course of play, because how I determine that is in reaction to the players choices.

The first sentence is true for me. But I'm not sure what the "script" is. It sounds like the steps (3) above are known in advance, but mahybe that's not what you mean.

I used "script" in quotes because as DM I do have a story that I am telling. I do have a general idea how it will develop over time. There is not a hard and fast script....things can and do change based on the players. But things don't change so much that I find the campaign goes from something like Lord of the Rings to something like The Bridges of Madison County.

This is why I think the term railroad is overused. Yes, I as the DM have a story that is unfolding over the course of the campaign. Yes, I can tell you some of the future events. Despite this, it's very far from a railroad.