Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Jester David]

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and starting a thread to get other opinions and see how others respond to your opinion. Why do you always accuse others of starting a thread to tell others they are wrong?

Emphasis added.
Always? When have I done it before?

Having an opinion is fine. Starting a thread to get other opinions is fine as well. (Admirable even.) Starting a thread to get other opinions and then shooting them all down when they don't conform to your viewpoint....that raises warning flag.
Message boards are great for getting other people's viewpoints and getting some new ideas. But if someone wants to just espouse their own opinions, a blog is better suited to that. And if they just want to bait someone into an argument...

The OP makes a pretty bold statement, declaring that saying "no" to a player initiated idea is railroading. That's going to rub people the wrong way.

 

[Manbearcat]

One can tell, from a single event of play, whether that event of play was driven by the GM or the players (assuming one has all the relevant information). And given that that is what I'm interested in when it comes to the content of a railroad, that's enough to answer my question.

(There might be other questions - is the occurrence of GM force atypical? or (perhaps more likely) is allowing an episode of play to unfold in a player-driven way atypical? But these are questions that would be relevant, say, to deciding whether to join a group. They don't seem to help me analyse the play that is taking place, or how various approaches and techniques are informing that play.)

I've been out of town the last few days so I'm about behind. I'll try to catch up and post further in the coming two days. However, I just wanted to say one thing right quick.

Examining specific moments of play for overt GM Force or covert GM Force (Illusionism), and the implications on play, is much more compelling to me than trying to reslog through the "what is a railroad" conversation. You can get there by examining the first, but trying to reverse engineer railroad back to Force is a much more fraught conversation.

I think maybe I'll throw up a quick play example and analyze how system enables or disables Force in that moment of play.

 

[Jester David]

Yes. But if there response is to say that, for a campaign to have a story there must be a plot that is created by the GM, then I'm going to explain why I disagree. Because I play in campaigns with stories, and they do not have a plot that was created by me as GM.

I said all campaigns have a plot, not that all of them have a plot created by the DM.

But just because the DM is the one generating the plot doesn't mean it's a railroad. A GM can create a sandbox with a plot. Or a metaplot that just unfolds in the background of the campaign. Or a flexible plot that the players can influence and alter.
Railroad campaigns and sandbox campaigns are two ends of a spectrum.

Previously I said 'What determines if a campaign is a railroad or not is if the players can deviate from the plot or ignore the presented plot's existence." In that statement I was implying "the DM's plot", but I guess I need to say it explicitly:
What determines if a campaign is a railroad or not is if the players can deviate from the Gamemaster's plot or ignore the presented plot's existence.

thinking on the topic at hand:

From your OP:

On the other hand, had I decided simply that the room contains no vessel, because I had already decided that I didn't want the storyline to include shenanigans with a blood-filled chamber pot, I think that would count not only as a judgement call, but as one that has a railroading effect.

Thinking on this, this statement could be condensed to "saying no to a player initiated plan is railroading."
But, by that logic, so would saying yes. Because both are a judgement calls. The DM making a decision.

But where is the line? They asked for a very reasonable thing: container.
But what if it had been unreasonable? A large diamond? A stuffed capybara? A +1 sword? Would it be railroading not to say "no" and roll randomly?

 

[Campbell]

I have gotten a measure of value from this discussion. I find the intersection of player judgement calls in roleplaying games, what motivates them, and the impact those motivations have on the resultant fiction deeply interesting. For one thing, I find the clarity with which some posters have openly advocated for playing along with a GM's prepared story deeply refreshing compared to previous discussions we have had in the past. I also have enjoyed some of the distinctions we have argued about between OSR styles, scene framing, and principled play of the sort I must enjoy running interesting. This sort of deep dive into the thought processes we have while playing roleplaying games is in my opinion crucial stuff. I am personally of the opinion that we should all be aware of our decision making processes during play so we can get to what works for us. I'm not here to convince anyone that they would have more fun if they simply did the things I do. After all there is no way to determine what is fun for anyone who is not me. You cannot design for fun.

While I do prefer Apocalypse World to D&D, I am also soon going to be slated to play in a 5e game that will be run in a mostly Free Kriegsspeil/OSR way. I also play in a very GM's story focused Vampire game - mostly for the company, but also because the blank spaces between adventures has been brilliant. I'm also in an amazing Blades in the Dark game. I have also run RuneQuest, Vampire - The Requiem, Demon - The Descent, and Exalted using lessons I have learned from running Apocalypse World. I play and run a variety of games. Discussing ways to utilize techniques in different games is fun for me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm curious what a game without DM judgment calls would look like.

I mean, I'm all for shared authorship of some form, even in systems that aren't designed around that type of game, but every game requires judgment from the DM. And yes, such judgment will at times determine player success or failure.

 

[pemerton]

I said all campaigns have a plot, not that all of them have a plot created by the DM.

But just because the DM is the one generating the plot doesn't mean it's a railroad. A GM can create a sandbox with a plot.

How so? What does it mean for a sandbox to have a GM-authored plot - which is to say, following the definition that Google provided me, GM authored main events . . . devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence?

In a sandbox, more or less by definition, the GM does not author the main events, nor contrive them into an interrelated sequence. To the extent that such a thing occurs at all - and it may not - it is done by the players.

a flexible plot that the players can influence and alter.

A brown duck is a type of duck; but a fake duck is not - it's some sort of non-duck.

Similarly, on the face of it a "flexible plot" is not a plot at all. Unless the "flexibility" is confined to minor variations and colour (which is the case eg in at least some APs), in which case it remains GM authored and the flexibiity is merely superficial.

Railroad campaigns and sandbox campaigns are two ends of a spectrum.

But there are other approaches that are neither railroads nor sandboxes - [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] described some upthread, and I responded with reference to actual play experience. There are approaches to play - eg Campbell's "Principle GMing" which are neither railroads nor sandboxes.

From your OP:
<sip>

this statement could be condensed to "saying no to a player initiated plan is railroading."
But, by that logic, so would saying yes. Because both are a judgement calls. The DM making a decision.

Correct. That is why, as I posted somewhere upthread, I GM according to "say 'yes' or roll the dice". If nothing is at stake, say 'yes'. But if something - what, in the OP, I called an outcome - is at stake, then a check is framed and the dice are rolled.

what if it had been unreasonable? A large diamond? A stuffed capybara? A +1 sword? Would it be railroading not to say "no" and roll randomly?

If the request has nothing to do with anything at stake then saying "no" is no big deal. Also, some of those may contradict established backstory. But not the large diamond - so that would call for framing a check and a roll.

Something similar actually happened in the same session - the PC mage, whose brother was the decapitated one, has been looking for his brother's spell book or scroll of the Lightning Storm spell (think Meteor Swarm but lighting). The player asked, "Can I see any scrolls or books on his person?" I set the DC high, because it would have to be something that the mage whose tower it was hadn't found and taken, yet that the PC mage could notice in the midst of a struggle. The roll succeeded, and the mage was able to notice that a piece of paper had been fused to the inside of the decapitated mage's robe by an earlier magical misadventure (that occurred two or three sessions ago).

 

[pemerton]

every game requires judgment from the DM.

Plausible (assuming the game has a GM).

such judgment will at times determine player success or failure.

Why?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Plausible (assuming the game has a GM).

Fair enough. Given the topic, I figured that was a safe assumption...but of course there are some games that don't have a GM of any sort.

Why?

How can they not?

 

[billd91]

How so? What does it mean for a sandbox to have a GM-authored plot - which is to say, following the definition that Google provided me, GM authored main events . . . devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence?

In a sandbox, more or less by definition, the GM does not author the main events, nor contrive them into an interrelated sequence. To the extent that such a thing occurs at all - and it may not - it is done by the players.

Even a sandbox campaign may have various sequences of events planned by the GM that PCs may or may not interact with or that may affect them. Is there some reason those aren't plots? They just may not be the only plot or main plot.

A brown duck is a type of duck; but a fake duck is not - it's some sort of non-duck.

Similarly, on the face of it a "flexible plot" is not a plot at all. Unless the "flexibility" is confined to minor variations and colour (which is the case eg in at least some APs), in which case it remains GM authored and the flexibiity is merely superficial.

Not really, particularly since the whole point AP-style campaigns is to resolve the conflicts that the plot of the AP sets up. Exactly how these are resolved can vary and change how some elements of the plot unfold, potentially significantly changing them.

 

[Jester David]

How so? What does it mean for a sandbox to have a GM-authored plot - which is to say, following the definition that Google provided me, GM authored main events . . . devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence?

Yes, that is the definition of a plot. And if you asked your players to write down the plot of your games from the start of the campaign to the present, there'd be a series of interrelated sequences making up the main events of the game.
In this instance, "the writer" is the entire table and not a singular individual.
While you as the DM might not be authoring the plot, there still is a plot.

In a sandbox, more or less by definition, the GM does not author the main events, nor contrive them into an interrelated sequence. To the extent that such a thing occurs at all - and it may not - it is done by the players.

Ummmm... no. That's not what the term means.

Turning to Google myself:
A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.

A sandbox game is also known as an open-world or free-roaming game.
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/3952/sandbox-gaming

Nothing in that denotes an absence of a plot. Just not a linear plot. But, when the campaign was done, the players will be able to describe and summarise the plot of the sandbox.

Player agency is a vital part of sandboxes. There's choice. Opposed to railroads where there is none:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=railroading


What you seem to be describing is a player-driven campaign. Which is something entirely different. It's unrelated.
Sandbox and railroad occupy an X-Y axis on a chart. The amount of player agency in the story would be a Z axis. In theory, you could have a player-driven sandbox, but you could also have a player-driven railroad where one or all players have a campaign planned in their head and the DM is just working towards their goal. If in your game 3/4 of the table were mostly passive and one player made all the decisions and drove all the action that would very much be a player-driven railroad.

A brown duck is a type of duck; but a fake duck is not - it's some sort of non-duck.

Similarly, on the face of it a "flexible plot" is not a plot at all. Unless the "flexibility" is confined to minor variations and colour (which is the case eg in at least some APs), in which case it remains GM authored and the flexibiity is merely superficial.

No.
Just no. You're missing the point. Completely.

The DM can present the plot. The villain, the situation, the overarching story. What the campaign is about. Say, finding the Rod of Seven Parts. Or destroying the One Ming in the fires of Mount Dread. Really, every single event occurring in the world that is happening without direct input from the players.
A railroad would be if the players have no real choice but to follow the DM's plan. The can't reject the quest or find an alternate path. There's no choices, and a best only the illusion of choice (no matter if they turn left or right they have the same encounter).
However, the plot can be flexible. Going left or right leads to very different results. The players might surprise the DM by doing very different things than expected and having cunning plans. They're still going to the same destination (from A to B) but they're taking a very different route than planned. It's not a railroad so much as a flowchart with a set Start and Stop, but a infinite number of branching paths.

A railroad is playing the original Dragonlance modules as written. They're railroady as eff, with even the resolution of some of the villain fights being predetermined.
A flexible plot maintains the War of the Lance and might even start the same, but diverges when the players have other plans. The players say "eff Tarsis. Lets just head north to New Sea and get a boat there". It becomes flexible when the DM decides to run with it, changing the adventure. The overall plot might still be the same (get to the Whitestone Council, find the Dragonlances, get the metallic dragons into the fight, beat Takhisis, win the war) but the events occurring aren't happening as planned. Some of the major beats can still occur, and the DM can still lead the players to some of the major set-pieces, but the players have much more agency to make decisions.

That's an extreme example as it's using prepublished modules and requires more rewriting. In a homebrew situation the same can occur, where the DM has the basic plot outlined in their head and the expected beats, but the players go in the opposite direction while still planning on fulfilling the overall goal presented.
Saying "no" doesn't mean the game is a railroad. It's not taking away a player's choice, it's just limiting their options. Similarly, saying "yes" adds options.

But there are other approaches that are neither railroads nor sandboxes - [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] described some upthread, and I responded with reference to actual play experience. There are approaches to play - eg Campbell's "Principle GMing" which are neither railroads nor sandboxes.

Again, there are not just railroads and sandboxes. Things aren't either-or. There's not neat little categories that games solely fit. Games have a range. Something can be mostly a sandbox. Or be 75% sandbox. Or start on the rails and become a sandbox. Or each session could be tightly scripted by the DM but the players make choices at the end of each session that determines the direction the next session.

Correct. That is why, as I posted somewhere upthread, I GM according to "say 'yes' or roll the dice". If nothing is at stake, say 'yes'. But if something - what, in the OP, I called an outcome - is at stake, then a check is framed and the dice are rolled.

Then why do you need a DM?

Seriously.

The players can determine the odds of success just as well as you. The table can agree on the probability and roll. If you're not making any decisions and just randomly determining events in the game, you're redundant. Your players can replace you with random encounter tables and agreed upon probability.
Dump your DM screen, roll up a player character, and move to their side of the table.

Heck, the DMG even has you covered. Read page 269. It's discussed as an option. And you can probably look at many other DM-less games for inspiration.