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

[pemerton]

Just addding to what Nagol said:

There certainly is increased linearality. If I know a PC is afraid of snakes, and I include snakes, I've decided we will definitely be addressing that theme.

No - the player decided we'd be addressing that them when s/he introduced a PC afraid of snakes.

That is obviously a non-random situation that has nothing to do with an imaginary world and everthing with my preference for a particular story element.

Non-random? Yes. My preference? No, it's the player's preference.

The disadvantage is that it is distinctly biased, which means playing to GM and player preferences and away from the unknown.

I don't see how playing to the preferences of those at the table is a disadvantage. It's the whole point of the way that I like to play an RPG.

The fact that I create space for the unkown ("Will the PC flee?..." etc etc) does not negate the fact that I have the PC on a linear path toward an encounter of my preference

I didn't put the PC on that path - the player did.

a range of possible outcomes that is substantially more predictable than an encounter with less tailored content.

Well, that really is up for grabs, in my view. In my experience the outcomes are less predictable when the situations put at stake conflicting values/concerns/themes with which the players are strongly engaged. The elements that make up those outcomes are predictable, of course - the PCs, the snakes, the Orcus cultists etc. But the way it resolves is up for grabs. Again, I refer to the Paul Czege quote posted upthread for elaboration of this point.

 

[Celebrim]

No - the player decided we'd be addressing that them when s/he introduced a PC afraid of snakes.

Not necessarily. That is only true for certain expectations about the game world, namely, that we are playing a narrative game where the DM will throw bangs at the players to heighten tension. For most players, on selecting a phobia of snakes, there is definately not the realization or belief that in doing so they are committing to addressing a theme at all. So we really can't say from the fact that there is a phobia on the character sheet what the player's preference was when they selected it.

The player deciding to play a character that is afraid of snakes may have reasoned any of the following:

1) I would like to have benefit X. Taking a phobia of snakes would let my character have benefit X and doesn't sound too crippling, because in my past experience snakes aren't a very common opponent and so the disadvantage might come up only a few times over the entire course of the campaign. If I know that this going to be a campaign against a snake cult, I'd chose something else.
2) A phobia of snakes makes my otherwise well-rounded character seem less like a perfect Mary Jane, and makes my character more interesting and believable even if it doesn't play an actual important role in the story. My expectation is that it in fact will serve only as a sort of local color and not interfere with or be important to the main story arc (much like for example Indiana Jones fear of snakes).
3) I will take a phobia of snakes because I think it might be fun to play out every so often when I find a snake and it will help make my character memorable, but my expectation is that the DM will not use his knowledge of my phobia of snakes against me but instead only place snakes at such times that he would place snakes even if I didn't have a phobia.
4) I'm taking a phobia of snakes in the expectation that my players fear of them will be an important part of the upcoming narrative. Indeed my expectation is that my fear of snakes will play a critical role in not just my character development, but the development of the narrative as well.

In the case of players #1-#3, if you place snakes in responce to the fact that they have taken a phobia of them, they will yell "Railroad" and IMO they will have every right to do so unless you made it clear to them ahead of time that the sort of game you would be running was not the one that they were imagining. (Player #1 is imagining a 'Gamist' game. Player #2 is imagining probably something like a High Drama adventure path. Player #3 is probably imagining some sort of exploratory sandbox.)

I don't see how playing to the preferences of those at the table is a disadvantage. It's the whole point of the way that I like to play an RPG.

Are you sure we are talking about player preference and not your preference?

 

[steenan]

I cannot give an XP to pemerton at the moment, but I wholeheartedly agree with his line of reasoning here. I approach RPG in very similar way and play with people who do the same.

I like putting my players in intense situations, strongly resonating with their PCs, and then letting them address the situations as they prefer. I want them to make dramatic choices and for that, we need a conflict. Making them choose is my job; deciding which choice is right is theirs.

I see no sense in putting things in game that are not to be addressed. If I describe an NPC of a piece of the setting, I'm expecting my players to interact with it. I won't force them to, but I definitely won't stop them. The same works the other way. When my players put something in their characters' backgrounds, they expect me to address it.

I will challenge PC's honor, push him, make him choose between keeping his word and gaining something he wants. I will make him face his fear and either defeat it or succumb. I will introduce an NPC for the cold hearted mercenary to care for. I will ask questions for the players to answer. Only when faced with choice, they can show who they characters really are and how they change.

 

[The Shaman]

Are you sure we are talking about player preference and not your preference?

As far as what the character puts on the character sheet, then it's reasonable to say that it is player preference.

As far as the idea of character-sheet-as-wish-list, it's pretty clearly the preference of both the player and pemerton, or the player wouldn't be there.

(Excluding the possibility that pemerton exerts some sort of Svengali-like power over gamers, of course. But just as a precaution, don't look pemerton in the eyes.)

I see no sense in putting things in game that are not to be addressed. If I describe an NPC of a piece of the setting, I'm expecting my players to interact with it. I won't force them to, but I definitely won't stop them.

I don't put anything in the games I run that is not to be addressed.

I also don't make the decision on exactly when or how a lot of it will be addressed, though, so I create a lot of material that may or may not come into play on any given night. It's there, waiting for the players to seek it out or stochasticity to bring it to them.

When my players put something in their characters' backgrounds, they expect me to address it.

I want to encounter a lot more in the game that what is on my character sheet. I want to face situations for which my character sheet would give no clue.

And my character sheet is just who 'my guy' is at the moment; it's not who he'll be in a few weeks, or a few months, or (the gaming gawds willing) a few years. My stats and abilities and my sketchy little background won't tell you everything I want from roleplaying game, and what I want will change over time. If you're relying on my character sheet, you're not doing enough to make an interesting game.

 

[pawsplay]

No - the player decided we'd be addressing that them when s/he introduced a PC afraid of snakes.

I said "definitely." As in, it will happen, in this context. The player, by making the character, made an invitation to address that theme, but we are talking about the appearance of snakes in a particular scene, something the player generally has zero, no, not any control over.

 

[pemerton]

Not necessarily. That is only true for certain expectations about the game world, namely, that we are playing a narrative game where the DM will throw bangs at the players to heighten tension.

<snip>

Are you sure we are talking about player preference and not your preference?

You seem to be implying that I may be mistaken about the gaming preferences of a group of players I've been GMing for years (in some cases, over 10 years). I guess it's possible that they just put up with it and are polite about it, but my best guess is that we're more-or-less on the same page as to what makes for a fun game.

Alternatively, there is The Shaman's hypothesis - I have Svengali-like powers!

 

[pemerton]

I want to encounter a lot more in the game that what is on my character sheet. I want to face situations for which my character sheet would give no clue.

And my character sheet is just who 'my guy' is at the moment; it's not who he'll be in a few weeks, or a few months, or (the gaming gawds willing) a few years. My stats and abilities and my sketchy little background won't tell you everything I want from roleplaying game, and what I want will change over time. If you're relying on my character sheet, you're not doing enough to make an interesting game.

I like this.

Of course it raises the question - what's a character sheet?

In a game like Rolemaster, with very rich and dynamic character building mechanics, the character sheet can become almost a total picture of the PC (I once GMed a player whose PC was obsessed by Orcish legends, developed ranks in Orc Lay & Legend skill, and used Orcish Tarot cards for his Divination skill - it wasn't hard to guess what he wanted more of in the game!).

In 4e D&D the character sheet is a bit less rich on the mechanical side. In the posts upthread I've tried to refer to the conjunction of PC background and previous play. I think building on previous play is very important for running an engaging game. I think we agree on that also, given your posts on how you build encounters and NPCs into the game. Of course the building here can be guided by narrative logic, ingame causal logic, or the "coincidence" logic of the random encounter tables you've described (which I also like, I should add).

 

[The Shaman]

Alternatively, there is The Shaman's hypothesis - I have Svengali-like powers!

Just so you know, I've taken to reading your posts with a pair of mirrors.

Just sayin'.

Of course it raises the question - what's a character sheet?

I think my read is that it is a resource inventory rather than a wish list: "This is what my character can utilize in the course of play."

I think building on previous play is very important for running an engaging game. I think we agree on that also, given your posts on how you build encounters and NPCs into the game.

Yup, most definitely.

Of course the building here can be guided by narrative logic, ingame causal logic, or the "coincidence" logic of the random encounter tables you've described (which I also like, I should add).

I tend toward the later two, and thank you.

 

[Celebrim]

You seem to be implying that I may be mistaken about the gaming preferences of a group of players I've been GMing for years (in some cases, over 10 years).

Not at all. I did not suggest or imply anything of the sort.

I suggested that you had excellent congruence between your desires and those of your players, and I implied that those desires had probably shaped each other.

What I was suggesting that the experience of gaming a group of players for over 10 years in no way prepares you for the range of player expectations that exist. What I was suggesting is that you were infering from you particular experiences gaming a particular group general assertions about roleplaying as a whole that while they may hold true for your particular group, don't in fact hold true for all of roleplaying.

I certainly agree that for your players when they introduce a character with a fear of snakes, they probably expect you to have them face snakes. It doesn't however follow that this is true of players generally. In fact, I'd say that of the dozen or so groups I've played with, that your particular set of techniques is likely (though not certainly) fairly rare. Some games of course specifically encourage it, but even those games are I think fairly rare in the ecology of RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

Celebrim, it's probably not very useful to go back and try and re-parse the whole discussion to work out the degree of implied generality in various posts.

What I was trying to assert, however, is that there is a style of play which is not a paradigmatic sandbox, because it is responsive rather than exploratory - hence the snakes example, introduced by The Shaman and taken on board by me - but which is not linear/railroady/predetermined. My comments about player preferences were in response to Pawsplay suggesting this in fact a linear play because the GM's preferences are determining the course of play - my reply was that (i) the preferences in question are player preferences (ie the preferences of my particular players) and (ii) the GM only sets up the situations, but the players resolve them (via their PCs and the action resolution rules).

I don't know how many people prefer this way of playing. Not so many ENworlders is my impression, but I don't have any reason to think high volume ENworld posters are terribly representative of RPGers in general.

On the one hand, I suspect that (quasi-)No Myth with a reasonably high degree of player input might be more common with a lot of more casual gamers than with ENworlders if only because it tends to be light on prep and makes the rewards of play very obvious very quickly. On the other hand, not many published mainstream or traditional RPG texts support this type of play, so maybe it (or approximations to it) aren't very common. Like I said, ultimately I'm not in a position to know.