Can the GM cheat?

[pemerton]

In a one-off step on up game, you can run a short, challenging adventure (with shallow PC build tools and no PC backstory to go on) where folks just show up with Bobfighter001 etc and just tackle the challenges. There you can have fully legitimized player choice and action resolution that has meaning, affects micro-outcomes and perturbs the macro-outcome wildly (such that all roads don't lead to Rome). I'm not sure I'd call that a railroad.

I agree that's not a railroad. It also relies on fairly hard scene-framing - the players aren't really free to have their PCs just wander off and do stuff, as there will be no game unless they plunge headlong into White Plume Mountain (or whatever). What's distinctive about that sort of game, I think, compared to what at least some of us on this thread seem to have had in mind is that plot and story aren't really meaningful issues at all, from the point of view of the players of that game. It's all about the crunch!

So in the sort of game you described, fudging the dice would probably be the number one sin on the GM's side of thing.

I had an epiphany (I hope).


Players or Characters!

Players modify my campaign world all the time. Things change based on input, "geographies" get modified etc, they choose the plot ahead of time. So its a very player driven game.

Characters can only affect stuff within the framework. They deal with the plot. (and their actions have consequence and benefit)

I'm definitely focused on players. If the characters are free, but everything they can deal with is established solely by the GM, I see that as pretty railroady.

Conversely, if the GM is scene framing fairly hard, but the content of the scenes reflects suggestions/requests/general vibe generated by the whole table, I don't count that as railroading even if the PCs have little or no choice (eg they wake up in a prison cell and have to try and bust their way out).

4e removes a lot of PC capability that earlier versions of D&D had that undermine GM scene-framing authority (eg teleport as the classic one). But for me that is a change that is neutral on the "railroad-ometer", because from knowing only what the PCs can or can't do I haven't learned much about what influence, if any, the players are exercising.

Once they have given their inputs, I dont railroad them along a story, but the framework of who, what, why, etc stays the same.

I change my background framework as I go along to respond to player signals. So the players can influence the background and the focus of play other than via the agency of their PCs.

But once a bit of fiction has been established ingame, then it's fixed.

One issue I'm interested in is mechanics that permit the players, via their PCs, to impose finality other than via combat. This is a big part of a game like Burning Wheel (with its Duels of Wits) or Marvel Heroic RP (with its mental and emotional stress tracks, and its rules for complications), but not really a big part of traditional D&D. I run skill challenges as establishing finality - once the challenge is resolved, if the PCs won then the players have imposed their will on the fiction and I, as GM, am bound by that. So, for instance, if the skill challenge resulted in an NPC giving their word, then I have to stick to that. I can't just change my mind and have the NPC go back on its word because I think that would be fun.

On at least one occasion, too, my players have appealed to this principle of finality to help interpret a particular scene - the PCs got in a fight with an enemy in public, after they had goaded him into attacking them (via a successful skill challenge). When the issue came up of how the onlookers responded, one of the players reminded me that part of what the players had achieved via their successful skill challenge was to make it clear that the NPC was the bad guy. This had become part of the established fiction, so I wasn't then able to disregard it and narrate onlooker NPCs who thought the PCs were the bad guys.

 

[timASW]

I agree that's not a railroad. It also relies on fairly hard scene-framing - the players aren't really free to have their PCs just wander off and do stuff, as there will be no game unless they plunge headlong into White Plume Mountain (or whatever). What's distinctive about that sort of game, I think, compared to what at least some of us on this thread seem to have had in mind is that plot and story aren't really meaningful issues at all, from the point of view of the players of that game. It's all about the crunch!

So in the sort of game you described, fudging the dice would probably be the number one sin on the GM's side of thing.

I'm definitely focused on players. If the characters are free, but everything they can deal with is established solely by the GM, I see that as pretty railroady.

Conversely, if the GM is scene framing fairly hard, but the content of the scenes reflects suggestions/requests/general vibe generated by the whole table, I don't count that as railroading even if the PCs have little or no choice (eg they wake up in a prison cell and have to try and bust their way out).

4e removes a lot of PC capability that earlier versions of D&D had that undermine GM scene-framing authority (eg teleport as the classic one). But for me that is a change that is neutral on the "railroad-ometer", because from knowing only what the PCs can or can't do I haven't learned much about what influence, if any, the players are exercising.

I change my background framework as I go along to respond to player signals. So the players can influence the background and the focus of play other than via the agency of their PCs.

But once a bit of fiction has been established ingame, then it's fixed.

One issue I'm interested in is mechanics that permit the players, via their PCs, to impose finality other than via combat. This is a big part of a game like Burning Wheel (with its Duels of Wits) or Marvel Heroic RP (with its mental and emotional stress tracks, and its rules for complications), but not really a big part of traditional D&D. I run skill challenges as establishing finality - once the challenge is resolved, if the PCs won then the players have imposed their will on the fiction and I, as GM, am bound by that. So, for instance, if the skill challenge resulted in an NPC giving their word, then I have to stick to that. I can't just change my mind and have the NPC go back on its word because I think that would be fun.

On at least one occasion, too, my players have appealed to this principle of finality to help interpret a particular scene - the PCs got in a fight with an enemy in public, after they had goaded him into attacking them (via a successful skill challenge). When the issue came up of how the onlookers responded, one of the players reminded me that part of what the players had achieved via their successful skill challenge was to make it clear that the NPC was the bad guy. This had become part of the established fiction, so I wasn't then able to disregard it and narrate onlooker NPCs who thought the PCs were the bad guys.

This post has actually yielded great insight into your method.

Its totally opposite of mine, but I can definitely see that it has its benefits.

My method is to try to focus the entire campaign through the characters perspective, and have the players input be through the characters words, actions and choices.

Out of character I probably only ask for meta game feedback every 4 or 5 sessions from the group. For the rest of it I prefer that energy to be focused on in-game actions and RP

 

[Manbearcat]

So in the sort of game you described, fudging the dice would probably be the number one sin on the GM's side of thing.

To be sure. Its a, maybe, 1c "sin" in my sort of game though as although my table is heavily story now, it is not remotely exclusively so. Step on up is a deep undercurrent of our creative agenda (such that for all intents and purposes, 1a is as important as 1c) of our long term 4e game.

I agree that's not a railroad. It also relies on fairly hard scene-framing - the players aren't really free to have their PCs just wander off and do stuff, as there will be no game unless they plunge headlong into White Plume Mountain (or whatever). What's distinctive about that sort of game, I think, compared to what at least some of us on this thread seem to have had in mind is that plot and story aren't really meaningful issues at all, from the point of view of the players of that game. It's all about the crunch!

Certainly. Not lets move just a wee bit down the continuum from totally shallow, disposable PCs and step on up in WPM (or whatever). Lets say there is a modicum of pre-game coordination; the PCs agree to be from a particular region, each standing for one particular institution of the region which implicitly infuses them with a strong sense of detached (from a formal collective) nationalism. Nothing strongly fleshed out. Just a wee bit of player buy-in constituted as a gentleman's agreement amongst the players and the GM. That's it.

GM presents some cliche, tried-and-true ominous threat to that informal collective (extra-planar invasion, insidious threat from within, OMGDRAGON, what have you) which works off of a reasonable inference borne of that shallow buy-in above (and perhaps shallow PC build tools to support it). The inference being "the players have reason to act and thusly will engage with the offer in some capacity" much like I would think you would have an expectation of your players to "fight goblins when presented with a goblinoid threat."

Railroad?

I say no. Not if All Roads Don't Lead to Rome; the mechanical resolution is authentic, the decision-points dynamic, and the player choices legitimately influential in shaping outcomes toward, away from, orthogonal to any inexorable, pet metaplot or setting device.

 

[Jhaelen]

You find a group of 5 or 6 people who all sit down at the same table each week and all really love to be rail roaded and get them on camera saying so and I'll apologize.

Considering how this thread is progressing that would be futile. I suppose part of the problem is indeed that you are somehow set to believe that the term 'railroad' can only ever be used to describe a bad thing. To quote Mallus:

They're prewritten campaign arcs --ie, stories-- that take PCs from 1st to 18th level. That's railroading. The overall direction of the story is predetermined. If that's not included under the definition of 'railroading', you need a bigger definition!

Mallus' definition of railroad apparently matches mine.
To me 'Railroading' doesn't mean to deny the players any kind of choice. That's would be an extreme outlier. Perhaps I should have adopted the term 'framing'. I didn't since I'm not sure about the definition of 'framing'.

E.g. our DM once ran an adventure where we traveled on a large river boat along with a bunch of npcs. Then during the first night of the journey one of the passengers was murdered and our pcs were asked to help with the investigation. It was pretty obvious to everyone involved what we were expected to do, so we played along. I'd say we were railroaded into continuing the journey and trying to convict the murderer, but maybe you'd call it differently.
The adventure was very well executed but also very 'scripted'. Our choices were basically limited to those involving this investigation. It was also a lot of fun. It was one example where I didn't mind being rail-roaded because I know it would be all but impossible to run such a scenario if everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted.

In our D&D 4e Dark Sun campaign we are in the lucky situation to have two DMs. One of them favours sandboxing and the other prefers railroading. I think we definitely get the best of both worlds: Some of the time we are free to do whatever we want but we still get to engage in elaborate, partially scripted roleplaying encounters that would be all but impossible to pull off by improvising. Imho, there's a time for both.

And that's probably all I have to say on this topic (which is btw. not exactly what this thread was originally about).

 

[pemerton]

Railroad?

Probably not, but I still want to know a bit more about actual play. For instance, if the PCs' nationalism never becomes important except as a more-or-less freestanding motivation for engaging the GM's threat, that is going to register a bit on my "railroad-ometer".
[MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] and I talked about (what I think is) a related matter a while ago: adventures in which the goal is to rescue the princess, or the chalice, or the slaves, or whatever, but the adventure itself doesn't engage with or express this goal in its details - so the dungeon, challenges etc could all just be ported from one adventure to the next. (This is, as I understand it, the true meaning of a "MacGuffin".)

I don't know that I want to say such an adventure is a railroad, but it's a something that doesn't enthuse me very much. I prefer player choices to inform not just their PCs' motivations, but the actual content and texture of the fiction that unfolds during play.

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton Good stuff there and I agree across the board.

If the nationalism is just a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more (a bit of color contrived solely to legitimize the GM threat), rather than something that thematically guides play, then "in play" there will be "something akin to a railroad" going on...even if there is player buy-in (they will just have to have agreed to the railroading...which certainly happens as there are many testimonials to the affect of enjoying such play). That would transmute the "shallow" nature of the buy-in (with respect to its actual effect as thematic guide in play) into "irrelevance" and move it backwards on the continuum. Further, like you, that is

something that doesn't enthuse me very much. I prefer player choices to inform not just their PCs' motivations, but the actual content and texture of the fiction that unfolds during play.

If authentic mechanical resolution is then subverted, player choice illegitemized, key decision-points to upend the metaplot away from Rome circumvented...then I think we're formally at a railroad again.

 

[SkidAce]

You guys are taking it to another whole level of intellectual discourse. Neat.

 

[Elysia]

It depends on expectations, and what kind of game you want to play. If you're playing with a number crunching, numbers and hit points are everything sort of crowd, or you're playing in a tournament or competition of some sort, then yes, you could probably cheat. That being said, it's an rpg, ughhh... you know... a role playing game. The main idea really out to be providing a fun experience for all of your fellow role players; setting a scene, character development, excitement, fantasy. The dice are there to provide structure, and see that there's some 'fairness,' not create a penal colony.

Perhaps you and your group need to figure out how you like to play, and then just make it clear to newcomer's that you play that way. not to be mean, but you're probably better off without them, if you played their way, the game would get bogged down with rules and numbers, and that's really not the fun part anyway.

 

[Shingen]

It seems like this is the kind of thing that can be headed off by discussing it up front, as people tend to have very different expectations.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's what I meant - if he prepares
(a) ahead - what will happen after the current adventure and
(b) laterally - something to use if the players deviate from expected actions
Then the players will have freedom of choice, without the game becoming boring due to poor GMing.
It doesn't take a lot of extra prep, just enough that he doesn't get the deer-in-headlights look whenever they go off-script.

I likely do. I generally prepare for most things the PCs can accomplish within the boundaries of the adventure I'm running.

If they decide to entirely ignore the boundaries of my adventure and do something else...well, it's likely I have nothing planned.

My players and I have a social contract to stay within the bounds of the adventure. Our social contract basically consists of this:

1. You will play a character who will not kill or hurt the other characters on purpose. No PvP, it causes bad feelings and we don't want it. Write at least a luke warm loyalty to the rest of the group into your character background. Even if it's as simple as "My character trusts these people and doesn't really know why."

2. When the majority of the group decides on something, your character may argue for a while but he/she will either eventually relent....OR you will roll up a character who will go with the decision of the majority. The DM doesn't want to run 2 adventures: One for you and one for everyone else. Everyone else doesn't want to wait for you to complete your solo adventure either.

3. You will not attempt to derail the adventure. If it is apparent the adventure is about exploring the Caverns of Madness(or whatever), you will not attempt to run as far away from the Caverns as you can and never return. The DM spent time and effort to write up the adventure(or worse spent real money to purchase it). By showing up at the table, you are agreeing to play the adventure. If you find the concept of the game so boring that you don't want to play, that's fine but then leave the group entirely. Don't stay in the game complaining about how boring it is or how you don't want to explore Caverns. Feel free to bring it up to the DM and maybe he'll scrap the adventure and write something else....provided the other players feel the way you do.

A couple of times in the past when people have broken the social contract it has caused bad feelings for a number of people. For instance, I(many years ago) made up a character who was the most mercenary character in existence. He tool Chaotic Neutral to a whole new level of "I care about no one but myself. Tell me how this benefits me and I'll do it, otherwise screw off." The DM wrote this whole storyline about how the entire royal family except the princess was killed an an assault by an evil and cruel nation and conquered. We happened to be in her chamber when the assault happened and managed to get her to freedom. Then she started asking us to raise an army and get her kingdom back. My character refused based on the fact that there was nothing in it for him. The DM got super angry about it because his adventure required us to help her. The DM nearly kicked me out of the game until I agreed to switch to a character who was good aligned and wanted to help because it was the right thing to do.

At first I was kind of annoyed that I wasn't allowed to roleplay the character I wanted to play. As time went on, I realized that everyone but me was having fun just playing the adventure the DM had planned and it was for the best that I just retired that character.