Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Maxperson]

If the PC is at a crunch point - "I need a vessel NOW to catch all that precious blood" - and success is automatic, then where is the drama going to come from?

First, drama shows and movies show that plenty of drama can happen without random chance being involved. I also get that sometimes a great deal of drama can hinge on a single die roll. Most of the time, however, die rolls for things that affect my character just leave me wondering if the die is going to screw me this time or not. There's no true drama.

In RPGing that is not just authored by the GM, the pacing has to come from somewhere else. The dice do that job. A principle of "Say 'yes' or roll the dice" ensures that sometimes, at the crunch moments, the PC will fail.

I can see that. The same applies to my method as well. Usually things are uncertain, so a roll has to happen. It's rolling for every single crunch moment that feels off to me. It defies credulity that every single thing of importance to the PC is uncertain. Especially at times when if it wasn't something of importance, there would be no chance of failure.

A further consequence of rolling the dice is that the player can expend resources to modify the dice roll, and thereby both (i) express the urgency felt by the PC, and (ii) signal his/her own, real life, investment in the outcome.

This also applies to situations in my game. As most situations involve uncertainty, players will often invest resources at moments when important and uncertain events happen.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So let me ask this: in Saelorn's ideal game, how much power (if any) does the DM have in determining what happens in her game world during the run of play (as opposed to before play actually begins)?

Is she within her rights to steer the party towards published module X because it's all she has available and she doesn't have time to dream up something else, without telling the players?

The DM is a world-builder and impartial adjudicator. The DM plays all of the NPCs. In games of D&D that I have run, and would like to play in, the natural course of events which the DM has set in motion before the game starts will result in the end of the world if the PCs don't do something about it. If events don't proceed as expected (which is likely, given the presence of PCs in the world), then the NPCs will adjust their plans and methods accordingly. By the time the Big Bad has been dealt with and the world has been saved, the PCs have been level 20 for at least a few sessions, and the campaign is over.

My ideal game wouldn't involve a published adventure at all, but if it came down to either that or not playing, then steering the game in that direction might be the lesser of two evils. In that situation, I would prefer if the DM actually told the players that it was happening, instead of pretending that everything was still progressing organically. It seems more honest.

 

[Campbell]

Here's the way I look at things: During the course of play players of role playing games (including the GM) are going to make innumerable judgement calls. This moment to moment decision making is the very heart of play. As a GM, you are ultimately responsible for making judgements about the fiction that will have a significant impact on the play that follows. I consider that a given and take that responsibility very seriously. What is most interesting to me is what guides you in those moments - the principles you depend upon that inform your decision making. I do not take it as a given that you will shape events to occur in the manner that you want them to. The impulse will always be there, but I believe manipulating outcomes as a GM does not make for better or more meaningful play. I enjoy role playing games far more when all participants are genuinely surprised by the resulting fiction. I like playing to find out.

There are multiple ways to play to find out, including one way that is far older than the hobby. Examples include:

• Free Kriegsspiel. Kriegsspiel was a very detailed Prussian wargame developed in the 1800s in order to train junior officers. Playtesting revealed that Kriegsspiel war games took entirely too much time to resolve and removed much of the immediacy of decision making required on the battlefield. In order to get around it, a variant named Free Kriegsspiel was introduced. In Free Kriegsspeil, rather than an elaborate rule book to resolve military matters an experienced senior officer would take on the role of Game Master and rely upon their knowledge to resolve maneuvers. Play depended on detailed scenarios and the historical warfare knowledge of the Game Master. Free Kriegsspeil formed the foundations of the war gaming tradition that Dungeons and Dragons grew out of. Rather than taking on the role of military commanders, players would play individual adventurers. The fundamentals of this playstyle are relatively simple: The GM or referee utilizes scenarios that players are free to engage with in any way, and the GM makes judgement calls based on his own knowledge of the fiction, based on what would be most likely. In cases where he is uncertain he utilizes random rolls to disclaim decision making. We simply play the fiction out. The weakness of this method of play is that it leans heavily on scenario design and the expertise of the Game Master. Think of a dungeon is a front on a war against civilization. Games that embrace this method include Stars Without Number, OD&D, Moldvay D&D, Traveller, and RuneQuest. Playing at the World does a very good job of explaining how this play style came about, and how it generally functioned.
• Scene Framing. This method depends on a GM to create shorter, punchy scenarios that are quickly resolved. We call these scenes. The important part here is that scenes are developed based on the results of previous scenes. Within the context of a given scene, the GM functions in a similar matter to a Free Kriegsspeil GM, making judgement calls in accordance with the fiction and determining where the rules apply. Generally, we lean much heavier on the rules to resolve scenes though. The GM is not assumed to be an expert and we expect resolution of scenes to be short and punchy. Examples of games that embrace this style include Burning Wheel, InSpectres, and Marvel Heroic Roleplay.
• Principled Game Mastering.In this style of play we assume that a GM is not a neutral arbiter, but in fact will play a very active role in shaping play. They are not, however, interested in determining outcomes - only in setting up interesting fiction for players to react to. Play is based on moves and counter moves. Players do something - GM responds with fiction that will prompt the players to make decisions. In any given moment the GM is guided by a set of considered principles that serve to reinforce the type of fiction we are all interested in seeing play out. There is considerably less distance in this method of play between the GM and other players. Players play characters with drives, connections, and things they are expected to go after. The GM plays the setting in opposition to those characters with restraints based on his principles. This discipline allows the GM and other players to play hard. While this type of play is seen readily in Apocalypse World and its derivatives, it was first used to play games like Moldvay D&D in a very different, but functional way. Examples of game that embrace this style include Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, and Blades in the Dark.

I enjoy playing in all of these ways, but when running games I am particularly partial to Principled Game Mastering because reliance on Game Mastering Principles gives me the freedom to take a more active hand without having an overwhelming influence. When I run Apocalypse World I feel free to be an active participant while valuing the contributions other players make just as much. Being a fan of the players characters means I can place the players in a tough situation and be genuinely interested in how they will get out of it if they can. I do not feel the need to hold back anymore than what my principles demand out of me. I have also had success using these methods to run RuneQuest and Chronicles of Darkness.

I know [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] generally favors scene framing. It used to be my jam, but not really anymore.

These categories are not necessarily separated by iron walls. One of the great things about being exposed to a wide variety of techniques includes the ability to be guided by different sets of principles in different situations as play demands. What is important to me is understanding that decision making process and understanding its impact on play.

 

[transtemporal]

I don't get what this is referring to. What "digging in" are you referring to? And what is the "metamachinery" that you refer to?

For example, say you decided that you didn't want the PCs to be able to carry the NPCs blood. You say "theres nothing to carry the blood in" notwithstanding reasonable suggestions from the players. Vases, bowls, cups, chamberpots, boots, buckets, chests - the NPC has none of those things, not because those aren't things that could conceivably exist in the guys room but because you decided it would screw up your story. At that point you'd be very clearly saying to the players "I do not want you to carry the NPCs blood anywhere so stop trying" which exposes the players in a very jarring way to railroading.

I don't follow this either.

I'm basically saying who cares, a container isn't exactly a rare item so just roll with it and decide there's a container.

If they start searching for a faberge egg, then sure, have them make a roll.

 

[Lanefan]

The DM is a world-builder and impartial adjudicator. The DM plays all of the NPCs. In games of D&D that I have run, and would like to play in, the natural course of events which the DM has set in motion before the game starts will result in the end of the world if the PCs don't do something about it. If events don't proceed as expected (which is likely, given the presence of PCs in the world), then the NPCs will adjust their plans and methods accordingly. By the time the Big Bad has been dealt with and the world has been saved, the PCs have been level 20 for at least a few sessions, and the campaign is over.

And if I read rightly the NPC villains are only reactive, not proactive, once play begins? And, just one storyline or plot arc - kind of like an adventure path?

And even in your ideal game noted above there's still specific events and NPCs and stuff the party has to (or is certainly expected to) deal with, the only apparent caveat being that they are put in place before play begins rather than after. But the characters still have to go to places a then b then c and do things p then q then r to prevent events y and z from occurring...which on the face of it sounds more railroady than baiting hooks at the right moment.

My ideal game wouldn't involve a published adventure at all, but if it came down to either that or not playing, then steering the game in that direction might be the lesser of two evils. In that situation, I would prefer if the DM actually told the players that it was happening, instead of pretending that everything was still progressing organically. It seems more honest.

How's this: in my current campaign I ran what amounted to an adventure path embedded within it. It was 5 adventures long...

[sblock]The first took various somewhat-disparate threads of backstory: the party had involved themselves in a foreign war by acting on behalf of both sides, they then picked one side who sent them into the adventure proper which was the 4e module Marauders of the Dune Sea. During this two of the PCs got captured and stuck into slavery, which provided me the perfect hook to get them into the next (homebrew, this time) adventure which involved busting up an archaeological dig (think Indiana Jones) as that's where the PCs had been taken. So they bust this up, meanwhile learning that a third PC - without anyone else realizing it - had picked up an artifact during Dune Sea for and quietly stowed it away, and she'd been completely dominated by it and acting on its orders for an adventure-and-a-half...never mind this was in fact what the archaelogical dig had been set up to look for, 80 miles away from where it was found.

By now they realize there's more to this, and between one thing and another they conclude they should probably take out the original owner of this artifact; long thought dead but apparently not as dead as he should be. This lets me run another published module. Party take this guy out, meanwhile realizing he's just the head cleric and in fact their real goal should probably be to try and take out what's left of his deity. (the ongoing war ties in to this: one side is fighting to bring the dormant deity back and the other side wants it destroyed). So they learn where this deity might be and go there...wrong place, but it represents a homebrew desert-wilderness adventure I can run. Then they try another place - this one has the deity in it and so I get to run 1e's Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun with some modifications. Deity destroyed, everyone's (mostly) happy.

So, that's three published adventures and two homebrews that I was able to reasonably well tie together into a coherent organic sequence that, once begun, almost ran itself.[/sblock]
Another thing to keep in mind is that not all railroading is done by the DM. Sometimes the players railroad themselves in that on finishing one adventure they have already decided what the next one will be whether it's what the DM had in mind or not. As DM I love it when they do this!

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

Another thing to keep in mind is that not all railroading is done by the DM. Sometimes the players railroad themselves in that on finishing one adventure they have already decided what the next one will be whether it's what the DM had in mind or not. As DM I love it when they do this!

My players also have a habit of doing this. They'll come across something that they just can't leave alone, and place themselves on this quest. This makes it very easy for me as a DM to prepare for the next session (because I know where they want to go), and it makes it easy for me to set up plot developments.

For example, I had a circus come into town, with an epic magic show in a harbor. I knew my players would want to go see it, and this is where I planned an assassination of their closest ally, the Marquis, along with a big battle.

The Marquis was always going to die, because they had no way to know the villains had set up explosives underneath where he was sitting. But the villains were also trying to get away with a valuable chest, which wasn't guaranteed to succeed.

The Marquis had to die, because it moved the plot forward. Sure, the players could attempt to resurrect him. But it would be my call if his spirit would want to return. And I know the players understand that his death makes for a much more exciting story. But is this a railroad? I don't think it is. Not all scripted events in a campaign are a case of railroading. Because none of the players' choices are being obstructed by me. That is what railroading is in my opinion: A form of obstruction.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Regarding events in the world and their relation to the party, I used a technique referred to as Displacement, which we've all experienced to some degree or another.

While the traditional 'adventuring hook' could be considered displacement, I believe it has become associated with a more literal style of motivation - active/direct, if you will. 'Press A to continue with Fun.' Actual displacement is more of a passive/indirect form of motivation, something often quite literally ticking away in the back of the player's mind.

In a nutshell, displacement is any device that provokes action from the player. It can be as simple as movement or as complex as plotting a revolution. The example typically used is the timer in Super Mario. Without it you're free to jump around till your heart's content. Another example would be an criminal who has taking hostages and threatened to kill one every hour, on the hour, until their demands are met.

With this in mind, our campaign world is populated by forces that, left to their own devices, will follow a general course of action. The specifics are not mapped out, simply the intent. Each force is, essentially, an NPC but on a macro scale. An NPF, if you will. For example, Faction A wants to control all lumber production across the sky islands surrounding the native's sacred site. How they do it is not mapped out, but we know what they want to achieve - their intent. Monsterous races also get the same treatment, depending on their character. For example, the cyclops are a peaceful race of hedonists, who wish to simple be left alone. The Sky Whales are curious and look to migrate their herds twice a year.

Likewise, an NPF comprises of NPCs, each with their own intents. For example, Freddy 'Woodking' Englewood wants to ensure he's the Master of Projects and is willing to sabotage his own NPF's efforts, if it will help him realise his intent.

All of this is mapped out before hand in a relationship chart and where applicable, geographically.

So, in a way, the world is full of 'adventuring hooks'. However, and this brings us back to displacement - the 'hooks' of the campaign are not reliant on the adventuring party in order to function. Rather, they continue to develop, achieve and change with or without the adventuring party. Conceivably, a player could have their character sit back and simply observe the events unfold around them. What actually happens is, the players travel around, socialising and exploring until they find something that interests them and then take action. For example, the group recently encountered a source of a certain poison and decided to try and set up a supply line, allowing them to sell the poison through proxies at a settlement. They've also attempted to overthrow a criminal organization, save a town from an NPF attempting to conquer it and explored a fair number of ancient sites in the hope of finding treasure.

To my mind, this setup does not feature railroading in the generally understood sense/use of the word - and to be clear, I have no problems with railroading to an extent and have enjoyed many a campaign that makes good use of it. The DM, in this setup, is still making use of hooks to entice the players - each NPF/NPC/site/local/etc is designed to be as fascinating as possible.

The 'trick' is, to let the events continue without them, otherwise we have found that players become reliant on the DM 'feeding them the fun'. If the players choose to sit on their bums and do nothing, so be it. The world continues around them. Once it becomes clear to the players that the world will continue with or without them then they tend to believe (quite rightly so) that they could be 'missing out' - and that sense is the displacement, driving them to take action.

And then, off they go, to annoy some minor official/start a conflict/get taken to court for the murder of a pixie.

 

[Imaculata]

With this in mind, our campaign world is populated by forces that, left to their own devices, will follow a general course of action. The specifics are not mapped out, simply the intent. Each force is, essentially, an NPC but on a macro scale. An NPF, if you will.

This is how I run my campaign as well. I have various factions, each with their own agenda, and I have ongoing events, that develop as time passes. The players are able to influence all these forces, but if they don't, it has consequences.

I provide my players with hooks, which they are free to ignore or respond to, and then that affects the story. For example, my players discovered the moving underwater fortress of some of my villains, and decided to return to it later. Will the fortress still be in the same place if they wait a week to do other things? Probably not. And in the mean time my villains could be hard at work with their new evil plans.

Of course these 'forces' behave in a way that not only feels logical in regards to their agenda, but also makes for an exciting story. In other words, plot convenience: The players happen to be witness to a new plot development, and now have another choice to respond.

 

[Maxperson]

The Marquis had to die, because it moved the plot forward. Sure, the players could attempt to resurrect him. But it would be my call if his spirit would want to return. And I know the players understand that his death makes for a much more exciting story. But is this a railroad? I don't think it is. Not all scripted events in a campaign are a case of railroading. Because none of the players' choices are being obstructed by me. That is what railroading is in my opinion: A form of obstruction.

If it's unavoidable, it's a railroad. They're trucking along on rails with none of their choices able to take them off of that track. You are obstructing choices by the way. Each and every choice that would allow them to save the Marquis is obstructed, as are all choices that could bring him back.

For my game, I'd allow the possibility of saving him if they could come up with an idea that would work. The plot would still move forward with an attempt on his life. It would just move forward a bit differently. Instead of trying to solve a murder, the PCs would be trying to solve an attempted murder. Perhaps with the resources of the Marquis if he and the PCs could get along. The group making the attempt might or might not plan another go at it. Maybe they go get more powerful help.

It isn't that the Marquis had to die to move the plot forward. It's that he had to die so that the plot could move forward the way YOU wanted it to go. That's sticking the PCs on rails.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

A lot of entitled players here. A DM is not there to be an impartial arbiter of a story they just tip over and allow the players to roam about at will. As players you are inhabiting their world and they provide most of the content. Yes, players make lots of choices that add to the story and their narrative is crux of the whole thing. But the DM has the right to prod the story to where they want it to go if they feel like it. Some do that better than others, of course. In LotR Frodo can't just hear about the One Ring from Gandalf and go, "Sounds dangerous. Find someone else." What fun is that?