"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[kitsune9]

Lets whip up a scene:
Joe, a mere 5 feet from the king, announces OOC that he's about to rob him.
Jim, the kinght-in-shining armor type, tells him with a laugh that he'd have to stop him if he tried, since Jim's PC is the lawful good type.
Joe, thinking that Jim is only joking, makes his attempt. To his surprise, Jim isn't kidding, and rolls an attack to stun him/announces his presence to the king/tackles(or grapples) him.
Joe, now thrown in prison to be executed at morning is incensed.

Interesting! I had a similar scene from my players back in the 2e days. The players made up 1st level characters and it's our very first session. One of my players always wants to play evil characters and keeps pushing the envelope with me about it but I always kept saying no because the other players want to play heroic games. So he creates a rogue with the intent to go around stealing from locals, NPCs, etc.

The rogue doesn't even wait until the party gets together and he starts stealing, gets caught in the act, and now his future teammates are assisting the local law to catch him, which they do. Of course, he resists arrest, commits assualt, and a slew of other crimes while being apprehended. The rogue is sentenced to 10 years and I told the player he had to make up a new character. He was annoyed that the other players went after him! Then he complained to me about how I was out to get him for him wanting to play evil too! Luckily, he got out of that "phase" and started playing cohesively (or at least made the effort to be part of the team).

 

[The Shaman]

CleverNickName, here's what my 'sandbox' looks like.

I want the game to feel like the cape-and-sword novels by Dumas, Sabatini, Orzcy, Weyman, and Pérez-Reverte, so one of my early planning steps was to identify some of the shared elements of swashbuckling tales - the adventurers are involved with historical figures and present for historical events, social conflict is as important as martial conflict, coincidences are common, and so on - and figure out ways to incorporate them into the game.

Accordingly I filled up my setting with lots of historical figures as non-player characters and projected a timeline of future events based on the history of the period in which the adventurers may become involved (frex, a soldier called to campaign in Italy or join the siege at La Rochelle) as well as some fictional events connected to historical occurances (frex, intrigues surrounding the marriage of Louis XIII's sister to the Prince of Wales).

Coincidences present a bit of a challenge in a status quo, 'sandboxy' setting - if the adventurers are free to go where they please and do what they will, how do I introduce coincidences without plopping down encounters in front of the adventurers? The answer for me was random encounters. I consider random encounters to represent the 'living' setting; they are also a means of subtly reinforcing the genre, so for my random encounters, I created situations involving different npcs from the game, most of whom are connected to one another in a complex web of relationships.

Frex, the same knight of Malta appears in two different random encounters - a duel upon which the adventurers stumble and a visit to the horse market of Paris - and he is connected to the participants of two others, so should the adventurers meet this particular knight of Malta as a result of a random encounter or some action they've initiated during the course of the game, there exists the possibility of a (literal) 'chance encounter' with the chevalier or his friends somewhere down the line. In this way I'm able to include the genre element of coincidences while preserving the sense of a living setting and a light touch on my part as referee. I've no idea when or even if the chevalier will become involved in the campaign, and if he does, I have no idea if he will end up as a friend or foe of the adventurers - that will depend on them and how they deal with the situations in which he is presented.

I also deliberated about what ruleset I wanted to use. I ultimately opted for Flashing Blades for a number of reasons: a great combat system that captures the feel of [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Direction-Stage-Screen-William/dp/0435086804]William Hobbs' fight choreography[/ame], genre-appropriate player characters, and career rules which give the adventurers the chance to grasp the levers of power and influence over time and change the course of history in actual play.

One of the rules which add to the genre-appropriateness of the adventurers is Advantages and Secrets. Like many of the characters of cape-and-sword tales, the adventurers may choose an ally, or a title, or a secret loyalty, and so on - consider d'Artagnan and M. de Tréville, Berault and Cardinal Richelieu, Alatriste and don Francisco de Quevedo, and so on. Advantages and Secrets can provide an adventurer with a resource to call upon during the course of the game; unlike many referees, however, I don't use these as sources of 'plot hooks' because I have no plots per se on which to snag the adventurers - it's up to the player to decide how to best utilize an Advantage like Contact or a Secret like Secret Loyalty in the course of playing the game.

(Note that this is one of the areas where pemerton's approach and mine differ - if I've understood correctly, the adventurers in pemerton's games begin with a broader range of connections to the setting and the characters therein on which they build, whereas I prefer that the adventurers begin with only a strand of a connection then develop more in actual play. After many posts back and forth, I've come to the conclusion that we are chasing similar experiences in the games we run, but pemerton directs his efforts from behind the screen at the inner life of the adventurers while I prefer to manage their external circumstances. Two different approaches with similar goals - and isn't it great that our little hobby makes both of them possible?)

So, like you, CleverNickName, books and movies do influence how I approach my game, but they do it in terms of genre-emulation rather than story structure. I prefer to put as much of the focus as possible on actual play, and to make the adventurers real protagonists in that they drive the game by their choices; my job is to have the setting react accordingly. In my experience this produces rising-and-falling action as the adventurers lay their plans and attempt to execute them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I disagree.

It is possible to have a single, central conflict within a role-playing game. In fact, I prefer it that way. Less work for everyone, fewer distractions, easier to follow, etc.

For me, cohesion doesn't become less important with entertwining conflicts, it becomes more. And harder to accomplish.

And I can't really get "enough" from a mere framework provided by the setting and an open discussion. I can get started with that, but before long, I'm bogging the game down by asking too many questions. Then everybody yells at me a lot.

I think you are partially disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said, "It's true that it is difficult to get a single, central conflict without a single author. " Note the "without". If you want a single, central conflict--it is much easier to get it if you have single author. I was saying that to contrast with all the other stuff you had listed, and versus your implication that the only way to get those with any ease was via a single author. Since I can easily get all the rest of it with multiple authors, and prefer mulitple twining conflicts, the difficulty of producing a cohesive, single conflict is not one that bothers me.

Also, I suspect that we are not quite on the same page with what twining conflicts means. I suspect you are still thinking about twining conflicts from the same author. If you want the conflicts to twine in a scripted manner, ultimately to a scripted story, then yeah ... you need that single author even more. OTOH, if you want the conflicts to arise out of a agreed-upon setting and characters with well-defined motivations, placed into situations likely to lead to some kind of conflict, then ... multiple authors are apt to lead to more surprises, mysteries, etc. I'll grant there is an art to building such situations collaboratively, but it ain't rocket science.

 

[Remathilis]

So the thief is nevers supposed to be a thief?

That's silly.Actually, it would be the pocket-pick of a lifetime for an enterprising thief - giving in to the temptation to cut the king's purse in his audience chamber in front of his guards strikes me as outstanding roleplaying.

Oh, the thief can be a thief all he wants. Steal from merchants and barkeeps. Rob noblemen blind in the dead of night. Sneak back in to the kings castle after dark and walk off with as much damn loot as your bags can carry. The trick is to know when and where to find your mark. This guy fails mark finding 101. Stealing from the guy offering you and your allies patronage shows that you are dumb, crazy, or doing it "for the lulz". None of which is appreciated at my table by the other players thankyouverymuch.

 

[The Shaman]

I think it's more a question of the thief is expected to not be a particularly dumb and brazen thief, not that he's never expected to steal.

Brazen, definitely, but there's the absolute heaven in it.

Dumb? I disagree. Dangerous, perhaps even foolhardy, but not dumb.

Sure, it would be the pocket pick of a lifetime. But let's face it, it's going to require a bit of planning to pull off a caper like that . . .

Contriving a reason to brush past the king? Offer him a wine goblet, stumble during a dance, offer to hold his cloak - I mean, as long as the thief isn't wearing his Thieves' Guild t-shirt and is reasonably competent, getting a couple of fingers in the king's doublet doesn't require prohibitively-extensive planning.

. . . and it has tremendous risks.

And the chance to cover oneself in glory.

This is what adventurers do - or should do, in my humble opinion.

The problem is not when Joe says OOC that he wants to rob the King, whom is a mere 5 foot-step away. The problem is when he feels that it's his right to obliterate the game by doing so.

An adventurer - a thief - gets arrested or killed for trying to steal something and it can "obliterate the game?" Seriously?

If a game is that fragile, I'm not inclined to think that the thieving character is the real problem.

Theives aren't supposed to be theives when it has the potential of destroying the good health of the game. Getting your own character thrown in jail to be executed at dawn is one thing, robbing the King runs the additional risk of getting your whole party thrown in jail to be executed. Aside from as mentioned above, can cause serious complications to the good feelings of the group IRL.

So can telling a player that her character must forever toe a line set by the referee or the rest of the adventurers.

If the players as a group understand that there are reasonable in-game consequences for their characters' actions, then I would not consider this to be disruptive to the 'good order' of the game - and again, if the "good health" of a game can be destroyed by the risky-but-reasonable in-character actions of one of the adventurers, I think there are other issues with that game.

Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it sounds to me like both of you consider picking the king's pocket to be the functional equivalent of the adventurers-as-marauders who kill every npc they meet or players who create anti-social, self-consciously disruptive loner characters. I think that's a false equivalency.

 

[Sunseeker]

This is what adventurers do - or should do, in my humble opinion.
An adventurer - a thief - gets arrested or killed for trying to steal something and it can "obliterate the game?" Seriously?

Yes, because they begin to moan about why the party didn't help him. Why the DM didn't make it easier for him, how this shouldn't happen to him. Or they get pissy over why the party(who is now a man short) refuses to rescue him from the nigh-impenetrable fortress of the King's dungeon.

When a player thinks it's their right to do things that will have consequences for the entire game, not just themselves, that's the problem.

If a game is that fragile, I'm not inclined to think that the thieving character is the real problem.So can telling a player that her character must forever toe a line set by the referee or the rest of the adventurers.

Spoken like a true responsibility dodgder. It's always the party's fault, the DM's fault, no, it's never YOUR fault for doing something so incredibly stupid that you knew you wouldn't get backed up on.

If the players as a group understand that there are reasonable in-game consequences for their characters' actions, then I would not consider this to be disruptive to the 'good order' of the game - and again, if the "good health" of a game can be destroyed by the risky-but-reasonable in-character actions of one of the adventurers, I think there are other issues with that game.

That's exactly my point. People who pull such maneuvers clearly don't understand that there are consequences for their actions. They expect that because they are they rogue that entitles them to practice completly lawless behaviour and not get punished for it.

Robbing the King is not "risky but reasonable". It's stupid. The best of crime lords don't try that except on the rarest of occassions and they do so with incredible preparation. They don't just randomly decide to pick-pocket the King as he's walking down the street with a full legion of guards around him.

Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it sounds to me like both of you consider picking the king's pocket to be the functional equivalent of the adventurers-as-marauders who kill every npc they meet or players who create anti-social, self-consciously disruptive loner characters. I think that's a false equivalency.

I do, particularly when the King has nothing against your party, or especially when the King is offering patronage to the players. A mild reaction from a King over this sort of thing is immediate execution. Players who seek these sorts of situations out, they shoot the guy talking to your character because he leans in to speak softly. They rob the King because he happens to be within arms-reach. This is game-destructive behaviour that disregards the game, the players, and the related good nature of things in favor of a "do what I want, everyone else be damned" attitude.

It's one I don't take lightly, as the point of the game is GROUP play, cohesion and working together to achieve amazing new heights. Not individualistic game-destroying self-righteousness. If you have no intention of working with the other players, then why are you here?

 

[Umbran]

If the players as a group understand that there are reasonable in-game consequences for their characters' actions, then I would not consider this to be disruptive to the 'good order' of the game - and again, if the "good health" of a game can be destroyed by the risky-but-reasonable in-character actions of one of the adventurers, I think there are other issues with that game.

Well, hold on a second.

There's "reasonable" as in, "it is reasonable physically - pockets can be picked". Then there's reasonable as in, "this is a reasonable plan that a sane person would consider a good idea". It is reasonable in the first sense, and not so much in the second sense.

Now, great adventures are often built on unreasonable plans, but you generally ought to have the agreement of others at the table before you impose the results upon them. It is all well and good to say that folks understand consequences - but a player need to know that his actions have consequences for the other players, as well as their characters. This is a cooperative game, and keeping that in mind is the kind of metagaming that isn't so bad.

"Sure, this is cool fun for me, personally, but are the other players going to enjoy the consequences of my trashing their relationship with the King?"

 

[Dausuul]

I've got a game that I'm in ATM where we have a "loose cannon", and he is exactly one of those types who gets incensed when your character clearly doesn't trust his character, and takes it as a personal attack as though YOU don't trust HIM.

Ugh. I hate that. I can put up with the instigator type pretty well as long as they're okay with facing the music. If you play a loose cannon, expect to be cut loose.

Unfortunately, the most aggressive instigators are usually also the ones who will get terribly offended OOC when other PCs say, "Dude, you brought this on yourself. I want no part of it; you're on your own." (Or, for the more egregious offenses: "Okay, that's it. I'm taking you down before you get us all killed.")

 

[the Jester]

I think it's more a question of the thief is expected to not be a particularly dumb and brazen thief, not that he's never expected to steal...

Sure, it would be the pocket pick of a lifetime. But let's face it, it's going to require a bit of planning to pull off a caper like that and it has tremendous risks. Doing it on a spur of the moment as opposed to doing it with a plan limits itself to outstanding role-playing for a particularly reckless or dumb sort of character.

Exept that he's a 15th level character, one of the most skilled (if not THE most skilled) pickpockets in the land.

Honestly, knowing this, my expectation is that the thief will probably succeed with none the wiser, so who cares?

If not, he may just have to live with the consequences.

Lets whip up a scene:
Joe, a mere 5 feet from the king, announces OOC that he's about to rob him.
Jim, the kinght-in-shining armor type, tells him with a laugh that he'd have to stop him if he tried, since Jim's PC is the lawful good type.
Joe, thinking that Jim is only joking, makes his attempt. To his surprise, Jim isn't kidding, and rolls an attack to stun him/announces his presence to the king/tackles(or grapples) him.
Joe, now thrown in prison to be executed at morning is incensed.

The real problem isn't with how anyone is acting per se, it's that Joe is an idiot who thinks he is the only one entitled to do any roleplaying.

As a fellow player or the dm, I'd have no sympathy at all for him. He might be able to bargain his way out of trouble, he might end up missing a hand, he might end up in jail for a long time or dead (time to make a new character!) but to me, it's the same principle as when a pc keeps committing arson until he gets caught. He chose his death. (And yes, there was an arsonist pc in my campaign who ended up hanging.)

If Joe expects the rest of the party to go along with his roleplaying, he damn well better expect to go along with theirs, especially when he is warned in so many words. Blowing it off and then throwing a fit if the other players do exactly what they warned him they would do- well, that's not the kind of guy I'd have at my table in the first place, personally. My players know how to roll with the punches- they have to, because I am totally cool with maiming or killing pcs to the point of a tpk, especially when they bring it on themselves. For instance, by starting a fight in the king's throne room.

It's the same issue that some players present- they insist on playing the kind of character that the rest of the party would leave behind if he wasn't a pc.

The solution I prefer is for the party to leave him behind and have the player make another pc. Because the group wouldn't travel with that type of character, and the fact that there's a player instead of the dm behind the mask shouldn't matter a dingo's kidneys. If you don't want to have the throne room scenario play out in your party, don't travel with a light-fingered thief prone to pick the pockets of important people.

As a side note, if you've ever read the Guardians of the Flame series, there's a very early scene where [sblock]the thief [the main characters are from our world but basically get sucked into a D&D game] tries to steal from the wrong guy and severe consequences immediately ensue.[/sblock] It's very educational as to what the tone of the series will be like, and I love that scene- it's a shocking early slap in the face to the party's sensibilities.

Again, all this is a matter of preferred playstyle and not badwrongfun; I'm just discussing my preferences.

 

[Sunseeker]

The real problem isn't with how anyone is acting per se, it's that Joe is an idiot who thinks he is the only one entitled to do any roleplaying.

Well, more than he defines how role-playing will happen.

...snip...

Again, all this is a matter of preferred playstyle and not badwrongfun; I'm just discussing my preferences.

Which is why I try to have a pre-game, character-building night. So everyone can understand what roles everyone else wants to fill, and they can all work together better.