Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7060233" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I wouldn't say "just about any". I would say "more than just a few".</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So, that said, there are mechanics that can be an obstacle to running this sort of style:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">*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 <em>asking provocative questions</em> or framing scenes that <em>go where the action is</em>.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*Mechanics that emphasise the importance of GM-authored backstory (eg many traditional divination mechanics; some perception mechanics) can get in the way of <em>playing to find out</em>.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">*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 <em>avoid</em> the "hard questions" rather than actualy engage the ingame situation via their PCs.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I think I offered my answer to this above.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>The XP mechanics seem pretty unhelpful as they stand, but there are a lot of variants that can be shoved in there.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Any insights on why Numenera et al didn't work?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Well, I see the "railroad" issue as arising at (1) and at (3).</p><p></p><p>If, at (1), the framing is always reflecting the GM's priorities and not the players', then it is the GM driving the game.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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 <em>players</em>. 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).</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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 <em>puzzle-solving</em>. 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7060233, member: 42582"] 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: [indent]*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 [I]asking provocative questions[/I] or framing scenes that [I]go where the action is[/I]. *Mechanics that emphasise the importance of GM-authored backstory (eg many traditional divination mechanics; some perception mechanics) can get in the way of [i]playing to find out[/I]. *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 [I]avoid[/I] the "hard questions" rather than actualy engage the ingame situation via their PCs.[/indent] 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. 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? 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. 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 [I]players[/I]. 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 [I]puzzle-solving[/I]. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top