Judgement calls vs "railroading"

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I've responded to both these things in multiple posts, begining way upthread when I noted the same apparent category error in a post made by [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].

I will do so again.
And again we'll disagree, as I simply don't see it the same way you do.

Taken at face value the claim that "the gameworld only reacts to the players" makes no sense to me. Adding in the adverb "as determined by the GM" doesn't help, because it's still the case that the gameworld doesn't react to anything. Apparently it's clear to you what is meant, but unfortunately that doesn't help me! (I know that you believe that noone "should need to clarify" these things. All I can do is apologise for my difficulty in making sense of the claim. The metaphor is not working for me.)
If you view the gameworld as a living breathing thing, it reacts in some way or other to every little thing the players do to it; it also in its reactions to what the DM does to it sometimes proacts against the players via their characters, who then have to react.

Whether it's fictional or not is completely irrelevant. If your first premise is to see things through the eyes of your character then it's easy to see how the action-reaction cycle has some extra steps:

Action path: DM --> gameworld --> PC --> Player
Reaction path: Player --> PC --> gameworld --> DM

Metagaming (which as we've learned some here like and some don't) usually skips the middle two steps.

GM-driven: The GM authors the gameworld having regard to consistency with the established fiction, where this includes not only fiction already established in the course of play but also fiction authored secretly by the GM. This requirement of consistency can extend to rendering player action declarations for their PCs failures simply on the basis of fictional positioning that is unknown to the players because part of this GM's secret backstory. And a fortiori there is certainly no obligation on the GM, in authoring the gameworld, to have regard to the concerns/interests of the players.
This last sentence is a bit extreme, and misses the mark by just a bit. Assuming the DM wants her players to come back next week there is certainly some obligation to have regard to their concerns/interests at least on a macro scale (e.g. if everyone wants to play a low-fantasy maritime-based campaign then that's probably what the DM should try to provide), but that obligation doesn't extend nearly as far to their characters. Players tend to stick around longer than characters do, in my experience; while characters come and go.

When I design a game world and backstory I'm doing so long before I know who will be playing in it and even longer before I know what types of characters they're going to run. I have to do it neutrally, without reference to any of that stuff...either that, or once my players signed up and generated their first characters there'd then be a multi-month wait while I designed the gameworld around them. No thanks.

Is this what you and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] mean? As I've said, it's the nearest true thing in the neighbourhood that I can think of. But because it is basically a restatement of stuff that was already established hundreds of posts ago, I feel that it probably is not what you are saying.
Established only in your eyes, not in mine (nor, I suspect, others').

Lan-"in a player-driven system how often do characters die and who gets to decide when?"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't understand your (a).

In my main 4e game, the paladin of the Raven Queen had, as his two preeminent goals, (i) to stop Torog using his Soul Abattoir to trap the souls of those who die in the Underdark and use them as a source of mystical power, and (ii) to destroy Orcus. A third motivation for the character, not so much a goal as an ethos, is the value of ordinary lives, of those whose time has not yet come to die.
Now that's more like it! :)

Up till now all I've heard about the character goals in your game roughly equate to the mage trying to redeem his brother...which is pretty small-scale stuff, you have to admit. :) Hence my point a).

To some extent your (b) seems to take your (a) as a premise. But treating it as an independent thing: In the course of escaping from the Abyss, this PC developed a new motivation, when he (and the rest of the PCs) learned that the Raven Queen's (mortal) mausoleum had (like all lost and/or ruined things) made its way to The Barrens, the 100th layer of the Abyss; an so with his fellows he went off to prevent anyone using her mausoleum to learn her true name and hence gain power over her.

The story of this PC will "naturally reach its end" when either (i) the Raven Queen is toppled, (ii) the Raven Queen becomes supreme ruler of the cosmos, or (iii) the Raven Queen is somehow accommodated within, and reconciled to, a new cosmological settlement. The player of this PC is angling for (ii). The player of the dwarf inclines rather strongly to (i). Two of the other PCs incline towards (iii). The invoker/wizard does not seem to have an overt commitment, but his actions in restoring the Rod of Seven Parts - at the behest, ultimately, of the Raven Queen - seem most likely to facilitate (ii).
Again, this is bigger-scale stuff than your earlier examples. Also, you indicate here than when a character's goals are fulfilled the game doesn't necessarily end; as she can come up with new goals. Earlier you'd said that when the goals are done the game ends. Big difference. :)

EDIT: Since posting this I see that I was ninja-ed by [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]!
I replied to that a few posts upthread with an idea for player storyboards...thoughts?

Lanefan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
However, it must be meaningfully knowable through skilled play of the fiction and mechanisms provided before it impacts resolution. We must say what honesty demands and not manipulate things to our own ends. It is alright for the fact that The Baron is possessed by a demon to mean that punching him in the face is a bad idea. However, a player must have the opportunity to find out that is a bad idea before they declare their character punches him in the face!
Why?

The best (and sometimes only) opportunity to find out something is a bad idea* is when you actually do it!

* - well, badder idea than usual; punching the local ruler in the face usually qualifies as a bad idea to start with...

There's no manipulation of anything to simply not tell a player something her PC has no way of knowing, and letting the consequences fall where they may should said PC blunder into finding it out the hard way. It's simple realism.

On a larger scale, the current discussion in the 5e forum about sandbox play and what happens if a party goes straight into the deep end has some things to say that would also apply to a small-scale example like this.

Lan-"there is nothing wrong with trial-and-error adventuring"-efan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Not the end of the world! But not that appealing to me. It seems almost the opposite of playing to find out.
The players are still playing to find out, only here they've got a bit more foreknowledge of where some things are likely going to go. The DM is never playing to find out (on a macro scale) as in theory she already knows.

Lanefan
 

pemerton

Legend
Up till now all I've heard about the character goals in your game roughly equate to the mage trying to redeem his brother...which is pretty small-scale stuff, you have to admit. :)
Different systems do different sorts of things.

Default 4e (as in, using the story elements as provided in the rulebooks) is epic adventure driven by the cosmology.

BW is much grittier, more "grounded", and about more personal things. That said, I personally wouldn't describe freeing someone from possession by a balrog as small-scale stuff! It's on a par with much of the Earthsea stories.

you indicate here than when a character's goals are fulfilled the game doesn't necessarily end; as she can come up with new goals. Earlier you'd said that when the goals are done the game ends.
The actual quote was "Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end."

That leaves it open to what extent the play of the game generates new outstanding issues.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
...I think the primary distinction between DM and player driven is the reactionary status of the gameworld -- if the world only every reacts to the players, it's player driven. If it exists outside of the players, and acts without player input, then it's DM driven.

Taken at face value the claim that "the gameworld only reacts to the players" makes no sense to me. Adding in the adverb "as determined by the GM" doesn't help, because it's still the case that the gameworld doesn't react to anything. Apparently it's clear to you what is meant, but unfortunately that doesn't help me! (I know that you believe that noone "should need to clarify" these things. All I can do is apologise for my difficulty in making sense of the claim. The metaphor is not working for me.)

I can only comment on my interpretation of [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s original point. I've quoted it again here, pared down to the essential bit.

The distinction that I feel he is making is that in a player driven game, the fiction of the game takes shape only around the PCs based on their decisions. If the PCs are not engaged with a particular element of the fiction, then that particular element ceases to exist for all intents and purposes. The fiction only "reacts" to the PCs. The GM is never giving thought to story elements or parts of the world with which the PCs are not currently engaged.

Where as a GM driven game would have fictional elements that "exist" whether the PCs interact with them or not. Things can grow or change independent of the PCs and their actions, as well as in response to their actions. The GM is updating the game world as things move along.

So let's say that an assassin is going to try and kill the king. In the player driven game, this would only be introduced in response to player choice and as a result of PC action. In a GM driven game, this may be a plot element that the GM intends for the players to engage or not, depending on their choice. If they engage, then the outcome will depend on how the PCs handle the situation and how successful they are. But, if the PCs don't engage with this story element, then the GM determines what happens with the assassin and the king while the PCs are otherwise occupied.



Player-driven: The GM authors the gameworld (i) having regard to consistency with the fiction already established in the course of play, (ii) having regard to the concerns/interests of the players as manifested through their creation and their play of their PCs (this is especially relevant when framing the PCs (and thereby the players) into challenging situations, when narrating consequences of failed checks, and the like), and (iii) bound by the outcomes of action resolution. It is worth noting that (iii) cuts both ways: if the players succeed, the GM is bound by that; if the players fail, the GM is bound by that - no retries is a fairly hard rule, whilr no softballing I would say is generally a softer but still important rule.


I don't see these three elements as being specifically related to a player driven approach. There's no reason that the most railroady of adventure paths cannot meet each of these elements.

I think examples of elements specifically tied to a player driven approach would be more along the lines of (i)players determine the events of play, or something like that.

GM-driven: The GM authors the gameworld having regard to consistency with the established fiction, where this includes not only fiction already established in the course of play but also fiction authored secretly by the GM. This requirement of consistency can extend to rendering player action declarations for their PCs failures simply on the basis of fictional positioning that is unknown to the players because part of this GM's secret backstory. And a fortiori there is certainly no obligation on the GM, in authoring the gameworld, to have regard to the concerns/interests of the players.

I think this is mostly right, to a point. The GM may have authored some details to be secret, but many may not need to be. Roland is the king of the realm, for instance. And the players may also contribute to authorship of the gameworld; it need not be the GM doing it all on his own. Where I think you begin to go wrong is in stating that the GM can determine outright PC failure based solely on unknown elements created as part of the GM's secret history. I do think this is a possibility, but I don't expect that many would cite that as a positive element of the approach.

And I think the last bit about not needing to have regard for the players' concerns and interests...I don't really see that as being the case in most games, regardless of the approach used. In my experoence, there's at the very least a discussion at the start of a game about what it will be about, what system, what setting, and so forth. And I know for my game, such discussions are ongoing throughout, and I get that vibe from many othwr folks here on the board.

My take away from many of your comments throughout the thread, especially whenever you try to deacribe a more GM driven style, is that you see the GM as someone who if left to his own devoces will run amok. And so you prefer for there to be specific structured rules in place for the GM to follow.

Because I absolutely cannot see why your description of a Player Driven game above cannot also apply to a GM Driven game, and vice versa. To me they read more like a deacription of a Good GM and a Bad GM.
 

darkbard

Legend
The unknown task is in fact known by the DM ahead of time - it's part of The Grand Plot - and the hope* is that the PCs will either a) somehow stumble onto it, realize its relevance, and do it; or b) do it without ever knowing what they've done until later when the relevance becomes more clear.

* - and if they miss it completely, no problem; it'll reappear somewhere else later. :)

I think you're being serious here, but this almost reads like a parody wherein one mocks DM-driven play. I know that may sound harsh, but I genuinely don't mean it to be so; I simply wish to emphasize how far apart are the perspectives and desiderata of the two poles of this debate!

In the sort of game you're describing, the DM never gets to play to find out what happens, except in the limited sense of finding out how the PCs navigate from point A to point Z, where Z was already scripted at the same time as A. (And, yes, I realize there may be various paths from A to Z, but that's not the same thing as playing to find out what will happen. The DM already knows that: Z will happen!

I used to enjoy this kind of game, but I found it had become unsatisfying in ways I only recently have been able to crystallize: it leads to railroading of one sort or another (perhaps, in its less pernicious versions Illusionism, at best) and it minimizes the impulses of the player who loves to craft involved backstories and/or complex psychological personae for her PCs that she desires be relevant to what actually impacts play.


The Druid's goal is great - that's the sort of thing one can build a good long multi-faceted campaign around! Excellent stuff!

The Fighter's goal doesn't give much to work with - it can easily be solved in one adventure, if that. Then what do you do?

Of course, I have deliberately chosen examples from the extreme ranges of personal and sweeping character motivations here, and so the Fighter has other, more ambitious, goals, and the Druid is far more concerned with the immediate question of how to get inside the King's Gardens right now than saving the planet. And this doesn't present the third PC and her goals at all!

The rhetorical purpose of presenting these examples, though, was to show how the player signals interests/desires/etc. for the PC and how such concerns shape the scenes the DM will frame.

If the Fighter finds her missing partner? Well, surely other goals will emerge from actual play to capture the player's interests (through the PC) and drive the game forward.

As the DM, I have some possible ideas for the matter: perhaps the NPC partner is being blackmailed into service as an assassin by the city Templars, who have her young sibling in custody; or perhaps the NPC partner is a secret member of the insurrectionists who overthrew the previous king and is serving as a spy amidst the city Templars.

But the whole point is: I, as DM, don't know how this will play out. Perhaps neither of these possibilities will arise during play, and a third, perhaps more interesting option will emerge via actions the PCs take.

You know, as I type this I'm having a thought or two (alert the media, it's a rare occurrence!). Would it be the end of the world for the player to not only come up with a goal but to give a high-level storyboard at least ten adventures long* on how that goal might be achieved in the game? That's the player-drive side and with luck it'll force goals more like your Druid's and less like your Fighter's. Then, once the DM gets all these storyboards she takes them and merges them together (without telling the players exactly how she's doing so) into something of a master storyboard for the campaign, while perhaps throwing in a few ideas of her own. That's the DM-drive side. Then she runs the game in whatever manner she likes on the day-to-day scale, and it's up to her whether she informs players which adventures tie to whose goals or whatever.

* - an example of what I mean for the Druid in your game: (I suppose you could call these chapters instead of adventures, but whatever)

GOAL: Encounter Ghost of the Past intuitions and then to somehow use these intuitions to discover a way to bring some kind of healing to the planet.
STORYBOARD:
Adventure 1 - introductory, learn about the other party members, the setting, etc., including history that says the world was once a green place. Dungeon crawl with extras?
Adventure 2 - encounter GotP intuitions at some point, maybe learn what they are (this can be mostly someone else's adventure, my bits can be a sidebar)
Adventure 3 - learn of an item that relates to these intuitions, also start discovery process as to what they mean (another dungeon crawl followed by research)
Adventure 4 - find the Green Crystal: this clarifies the GotP intuitions, tells me I still need more (the intuitions by themselves aren't enough instruction) - typical item-recovery mission
Adventure 5 - locate then recover (then decipher) the Prophecies of Athasia, in effect the rather cryptic divinely-placed instructions on what to do and what is needed - and it's not in a safe place!
Adventure 6 - the Grand Oasis - nobody knows why it's where it is or why it's always green; in fact it's all that remains of what was once a divinely-blessed forest, a piece of which is needed. The adventure is the journey there and back and encounters in the settlements surrounding it, very dangerous.
Adventure 7 - plants need water - maritime adventure where we sail to find the fountain of youth (base the events on Pirates of Caribbean 4?) and recover some of its waters
Adventure 8 - to find the last surviving Ent on the planet, a small part of whom is necessary both to green the planet and contunie his race (dangerous forest adventure)
Adventure 9 - off-plane travel to gain direct divine blessing on parts gathered; danger is the astral journey there and back
Adventure 10 - grand finale - heal the planet and make it green once more. Many people oppose this, so a big sprawling adventure maybe in several parts? Civil war? Battlesystem-type stuff?

You see what I'm after here. Each player gives in something like this for their character, and the DM then synthesizes them into something vaguely resembling a campaign combining adventure ideas where she can. For example, if someone else also needs a written work maybe the adventure to find that can be combined with the Prophecies of Athasia adventure (or maybe the Prophecies can do for both?).

And the "final" storyboard built by the DM will never be final at all - characters come and go, goals and ideals change, and of course nothing ever survives contact with the dice.

Thoughts?

Lanefan

The problem with the approach you outline is here is now no one is playing to find out what happens. The DM and players all have the script and are just riding along on the rails.
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer
I think this is mostly right, to a point. The GM may have authored some details to be secret, but many may not need to be. Roland is the king of the realm, for instance. And the players may also contribute to authorship of the gameworld; it need not be the GM doing it all on his own. Where I think you begin to go wrong is in stating that the GM can determine outright PC failure based solely on unknown elements created as part of the GM's secret history. I do think this is a possibility, but I don't expect that many would cite that as a positive element of the approach.

An issue here seems to be when the GM establishes a story outline (the kingdom is overrun by Orcs), and the players initially set a goal which cannot be achieved within that outline.

Say:

Orcs attack a village. The PCs drive them off, and set a goal to keep the village safe.

Either, the players gather intelligence that a much larger group of orcs is approaching. Or they don't.

If the intelligence is gathered, the players see that they are outmatched, and gather up as many villagers as they can and flee.

Or, the players try to sneak into the orc encampment and prevent the attack, even though it is described as well beyond their abilities.

If the intelligence is not gathered, the players are rudely interrupted by the much larger force of orcs, and must gather what few supplies and villagers they can, or make a hopeless stand against the orcs.

Here, the structure dictates three most likely outcomes:

1) The players are defeated by the orcs. For story continuation, the GM has it that the players being captured.

2) The players flee with advance warning.

3) The players flee with little warning.

There are other unusual outcomes, say, the players choose to join the orcs.

Key is that the structure imposes limits on what the PCs can do. The GM has designed in that the players almost certainly cannot defeat the orcs. They must either flee or be captured.

Does this story structure "railroad" the PCs?

Thx!
TomB
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
An issue here seems to be when the GM establishes a story outline (the kingdom is overrun by Orcs), and the players initially set a goal which cannot be achieved within that outline.

Say:

Orcs attack a village. The PCs drive them off, and set a goal to keep the village safe.

Either, the players gather intelligence that a much larger group of orcs is approaching. Or they don't.

If the intelligence is gathered, the players see that they are outmatched, and gather up as many villagers as they can and flee.

Or, the players try to sneak into the orc encampment and prevent the attack, even though it is described as well beyond their abilities.

If the intelligence is not gathered, the players are rudely interrupted by the much larger force of orcs, and must gather what few supplies and villagers they can, or make a hopeless stand against the orcs.

Here, the structure dictates three most likely outcomes:

1) The players are defeated by the orcs. For story continuation, the GM has it that the players being captured.

2) The players flee with advance warning.

3) The players flee with little warning.

There are other unusual outcomes, say, the players choose to join the orcs.

Key is that the structure imposes limits on what the PCs can do. The GM has designed in that the players almost certainly cannot defeat the orcs. They must either flee or be captured.

Does this story structure "railroad" the PCs?

Thx!
TomB

I don't think the structure forces a railroad, no. There are still multiple possible outcomes.

I think the only element that may be considered to force a railroad would be "The GM has designed that the players almost certainly cannot defeat the orcs." That seems to be the one item where the DM has decided PC success or failure by fiat. But even that I don't think really forces a railroad....because the fact that the task is unwinnable by normal methods is made clear to the PCs, or at least they are given ample opportunity to learn that's the case.

I think @pemerton would insist that such a decision that the fight be unwinnable only be determined by some kind of failure on the PCs part, and that if it is simply decided by DM Judgment, then it's the GM "railroading" the PCs. Perhaps that assumption is wrong, and if so @pemerton can correct my guess work here.

But I wouldn't categorize that as a railroad because there are still several options for the PCs to take, some of which may depend on how they approach the situation. We know the horde may not be defeated outright, but that does not mean that the PCs can't come up with a way to affect the direction of the fiction.

In addition to the outcomes you listed, what about the below:

- the PCs infiltrate the horde in some way, and target the leadership, removing the element of command from the force, which then collapses on itself with infighting
- the PCs infiltrate the horde in some way, and use misdirection and other subterfuge to issue false orders, delaying the attack long enough for the town to fully evacuate
- the PCs delay the horde per the above, while also seeking aid from allies established earlier in the game, allowing reinforcements enough time to arrive, creating a more even battle

I mean, in discussion only, it's easy to limit the outcomes to a handful of options. But most games would likely have more options based on what's happened so far in the campaign.

So ultimately, I don't think that the GM structuring the game in this way need be a railroad. Even if the GM decides that the horde cannot be defeated outright, I don't think that's a significant reduction in player agency to constitute a railroad, as long as multiple approaches to the problem and multiple possible outcomes exist.
 
Last edited:

An issue here seems to be when the GM establishes a story outline (the kingdom is overrun by Orcs), and the players initially set a goal which cannot be achieved within that outline.

Say:

Orcs attack a village. The PCs drive them off, and set a goal to keep the village safe.

Either, the players gather intelligence that a much larger group of orcs is approaching. Or they don't.

If the intelligence is gathered, the players see that they are outmatched, and gather up as many villagers as they can and flee.

Or, the players try to sneak into the orc encampment and prevent the attack, even though it is described as well beyond their abilities.

If the intelligence is not gathered, the players are rudely interrupted by the much larger force of orcs, and must gather what few supplies and villagers they can, or make a hopeless stand against the orcs.

Here, the structure dictates three most likely outcomes:

1) The players are defeated by the orcs. For story continuation, the GM has it that the players being captured.

2) The players flee with advance warning.

3) The players flee with little warning.

There are other unusual outcomes, say, the players choose to join the orcs.

Key is that the structure imposes limits on what the PCs can do. The GM has designed in that the players almost certainly cannot defeat the orcs. They must either flee or be captured.

Does this story structure "railroad" the PCs?

Thx!
TomB

For this to well and truly be a railroad, the players would have to...

4) Find a clever and unexpected way to defeat the orcs that the DM didn't think of...

...and then the DM would have to overrule, counteract, or otherwise negate the clever thing that the players did to force one of the DM's preferred / foreseen outcomes.
 

Remove ads

Top