DM Issues: Railroading

[the Jester]

All of the following is IMHO:

Let's say we have a game world where at the current moment, the PCs have a number of opportunities, and there's a variety of bad guys the PCs could try to stop. Let's say that each of these bad guys is a nuisance in the game world, but none of them is a Threat. They're not currently massing an army to wipe out all mankind, etc.

At that point, it's pretty much a static world, like an 80's TV show.

If the PCs go do heroic stuff, failure should mean Consequences. if the PCs do bad stuff, there should be Consequences. If both examples, the PCs are the Initiator. They took an action to change the game world, and the Consequences are appropriate to that action. The Consequences should probably have even been predictable. But in no way, were the Consequences of such concern to be a Threat. The PCs weren't reacting.

When the GM announces, "you hear rumors of a new force in the east, gather power, seeking to eliminate all mankind", the GM is the Initiator. At that point, the Consequences will occur unless the PCs jump on the plot wagon.

Thats where Consequences runs the risk of railroading, being a prod to force player down a path.

So, is a GM allowed to Initiate trouble? Much like the 80's TV shows. The A-Team drives along, until they hear about a problem (GM Initiated Threat). If the party doesn't get involved, there will be Consequences.

Nothing you said here is a railroad.

"The world ends because you didn't act" is not a railroad.

"You guys have to go deal with the power in the east" is a railroad.

I think I see where my point is being missed.

I don't think anyone is missing your point. We are disagreeing.

Forget gaming for a minute. Let's talk real life. Because gaming is just attempting to model real life, minus the boring stuff.

No it isn't. I don't see any dragons overhead or a big fat pile of gold in my bedroom.

My thesis is this, at any given moment in your life, while technically you have a multitude of actions you could take, many of those choices are self-negated and effectively non-choices.

You are going to go to work every day, because you have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay. Just quitting for no reason is not something you would do, therefore it is not Choice.... >and a bunch more examples<

Again, you are factually incorrect. I quit a good job a couple of years ago. People commit murder, people let stuff go, people act irrationally or against their own interest all the time.

And what does life have to do with whether or not a game is a railroad? Life is a whole different story. Your proposition sounds like "Your character's background is a mason, so why would he risk his neck and give up a fine career to go fight monsters?"

Therefore, when the GM raises the new Threat, if he has designed it with your PCs in mind, you do not really have a choice to not deal with it.

Any sane person who does not deal with their problems is a freaking idiot. Seriously, that's what people with problems that they don't deal with are.

Hello entire modern world!

And I have to call bullcrap. People ignore their best interests every day. Do you drink soda or smoke? Do you eat fatty foods? Do you exercise for hours every day?

If there's a threat to your character's interests, you don't have to deal with it. You can walk away... unless you're in a railroad. In fact, that's a good test of whether you are in a railroad; not are there consequences if I walk away?, but can I walk away?

Whether I am right or wrong, somebody with this view set is going to feel compelled by the GM to go solve the problem. Because the alternative choices are unappealing. And this is how a GM manipulates players into going his way.

"The alternatives are unappealing" is not a railroad. "There is no alternative" is a railroad.

Because of that, I feel it is disingenuous to insist that "oh the PCs had a choice. They could have let the evil empire rape their gramma." Replace Gramma with something the player/PC cares about, and you have taken away their Choices.

When the GM starts some big new external problem (like the OP's war), the players ability to choose what kind of goals they want to pursue gets narrowed down.

No it doesn't. They simply see that they must deal with the consequences of their actions or inaction.

You're not obligated to go do the research, but I can be cited on this forum and in my blog here on a VERY concise definition of RailRoading. The short of it is, when the DM actively thwarts player actions in order to constrain them to his own pre-chosen outcome.

"Do the research" meaning "read your blog"?

No offense, but why on earth do you think the fact that you wrote a blog about it makes you the authority on what a railroad is? That said, you seem to be arguing for a substantially broader definition of railroading in this thread.

What I am saying is DM Invented Problems can manipulate players and FEEL like a railroad to the players.

Oh, sure.

But it doesn't matter how it feels. What matters is this: Do I have a choice? Not Do I have a choice with no bad repercussions? or Do I have a decent choice? or even Do I have a choice that doesn't totally screw me? The question is, Do I have a choice?

Perception trumps reality, when it comes to humans. So if the players feel railroaded, they'll be whining about it.

Fair enough.

But irrelevant to what actually constitutes a railroad.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You're not obligated to go do the research, but I can be cited on this forum and in my blog here on a VERY concise definition of RailRoading. The short of it is, when the DM actively thwarts player actions in order to constrain them to his own pre-chosen outcome.

If I declared DM Invented Problems or Consequences as Railroading, that was a misphrasing by myself.

What I am saying is DM Invented Problems can manipulate players and FEEL like a railroad to the players.

Perception trumps reality, when it comes to humans. So if the players feel railroaded, they'll be whining about it.

I think if we're talking about the definition of a railroad, then it's best to stick to what the definition is, for clarity's sake, even if the perception is different.

Now, I understand what you mean, and it's valid. Your players probably shouldn't feel railroaded, even if you're not railroading them. It's usually a lot less fun for many players. It's how you get threads like this one.

However, I do believe it's best to make your point on the last paragraph, rather than on broadening the definition of railroading to include "it feels like a railroad." But, that's only because I see the extra precision as helpful, especially in a text-based medium.

At any rate, I do see your point. I think where we have different mileage has been demonstrated above a few times. You believe that nobody would quit a job if they have responsibilities. Well, I can tell you that I have quit every job I've worked at, and usually with no notice, and on the spur of the moment. Once, I quit a job at Gallo Wineries, visited my father in Los Angeles for a couple months while staying in a hotel, then came back and lived in my car, willingly, for three years.

I don't think it's going to be a common action, but I can understand you implying that things like this "just won't happen" unless you're stupid. But, I can assure you that I'm quite intelligent (and I also don't feel like you were trying to be insulting, so no worries ), and that I knew exactly what I was doing. I put a water bed in the back of my '95 Chevy Corsica, and I had a blast for 3 years.

I think what you have to do in a sandbox is approach every character, individually, and think, "what motivates this character specifically? Does he value his life as much as his family? Would he be willing to risk everything when he could probably easily spend his days at home, peacefully raising a dozen kids?" PCs in particular fit this above mold, most of the time. They are willing to risk it all for a life filled with risk (and often not motivated by any particularly good intentions).

Is this as logical as settling down and living the rich life with a beautiful wife and a dozen kids? Probably not to most people. Is it reasonable to this character? Yes, it is.

And that's the way I think the NPCs in a sandbox must be approached. You must look at what is reasonable from their perspective, even if it isn't logical. Then, you must play out those characters, based on their reasoning. If that causes a war to happen that none of the PCs want to get involved in, than I see how that might cause some issues where players might feel railroaded, if they aren't used to this.

My players have been playing in a sandbox world for some time, and they have accepted a dynamic and changing world setting based on individual NPC motivations. When something happens that they don't feel interested in, they either deal with it, ask someone else to deal with it (usually an appeal to legal authority), or they flee from where it will affect them. I've had players talk of moving from one continent to another to get away from a particular problem on that continent. They have that choice. I won't stop them. Nor did I make that problem prominent to hurt the players. In fact, the players knew that this problem (a particular small private army) was well-intentioned, and had the approval of other governments on the continent.

Was it railroading when that private army acted against one of the PCs, even when he didn't want to deal with it? No more, to me, than getting hassled by guards because you're an orc in human lands. It's a setting issue.

If players don't want to deal with particular setting issues, I understand that, and I think they have the right to speak up. I think it's probably a good thing for people to be upfront about their expectations of play. I think players should speak up if they feel railroaded. I think compromise should be reached, where possible, while maintaining the internal logic of the setting.

But, these are all just my opinions. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

A sandbox is not consequence-free; but there is typically a wider range of possible consequences than in a railroad. A railroad's consequences are usually written or planned out in advance; a sandbox' vary depending on the nature of the pcs' engagement with the adventure.

<snip>

A sandbox approach instead acknowledges that "there are bad guys". That's the basic situation; but there is no foregone conclusion.

Leaving to one point that who the bad guys are may often be up to the players rather than the GM, I think what you describe here under the label "sandbox" sets out a clear contrast with railroading play.

But I don't think it gets to the essence of a sandbox, because what you offer is an equally good description of thematically-driven play where the GM present the players with situations, the players engage those situations via their PCs, the consequences of that engagement are determined (keeping in mind the relevant thematic drivers) which produces new situations, etc, etc.

When I think of sandbox, I think of something like the West Marches campaign or The Vault of Larin Karr. The bad guys are disunited, localised and largely static. The setting as a whole is also static. There are no impending plots to take over or destroy the world. There is no great pressure on the PCs to choose one adventure location over another. This lack of pressure increases player freedom.

I think this is right - provided we recognise that the player freedom here is freedom to explore the gameworld. And that, to me, is the essence of a sandbox - it is a player-driven though GM-mediated exploration game.

Whereas the sort of theme-driven game I mentioned above, while also about player freedom, is not about exploratory freedom - it's about players' freedom to express their thematic points by making choices for their PCs. But those choices won't generally be exploration-type choices - they'll be thematic-type choices.

Find the Disks of Mishakal or the invading dragon armies will simply come in larger and larger waves until you die may be totally justifiable from an in game perspective, but, it's totally a railroad.

I agree with this too. As a GM, you can't avoid railroading just by punting it all to the setting and saying "it's the setting's fault"! As Doug points out, different setting configuration support different sorts of player freedom - or, perhaps none at all, which is my problem with Dragonlance - the players have neither exploratory freedom (Draconian armies will cut them off), nor thematic freedom (the answers to the thematic issues are already prepackaged into the scenario) nor even tactical freedom (because the adventure encourages fudging to produce predetermined outcomes to action resolution).

My own game doesn't support exploratory freedom, because I deliberately foist situations upon the players which they have (in the sense of "have" that Janx is talking about upthread) to engage with them - but how they engage, and therefore what consequences they push towards, is under the control of the players.

A story from somewhere (I think maybe the Burning Wheel rulebook?): a player created a PC who carried around the body of his dead wife, and whose goal in life was to have her restored to life. In the second (or thereabouts) session of the campaign the GM introduced a healer NPC, who duly proceeded to raise her from the dead. The GM thereby killed the game for that player, by removing the very point of play. Whether or not you want to describe that as a railroad, it certainly shows that setting elements are not neutral in their effects on the players' engagement with and participation in the game.

what do I do as DM to "not railroad"?

<snip>

Do I, as DM, figure out a way to get them the items eventually regardless of their actions

The answer to this question depends, in my view, on what sort of freedom your players want to exercise in your game. If they want freedom to explore the gameworld, or to try and win treasures, then probably no. If they want freedom to pursue certain thematic concerns, and their PCs can't do that without the items, then probably yes - but the way you get the items to them should set up the thematic material in a way appropriate to your players' own concerns.

 

[Hussar]

If I substituted "consequences" for "punished" in the above paragraph it reads exactly the same with the exact same intent - yet are you actually saying there should be no consequences for making a decision? And further that consequences = railroading; because that seems the logical step - and yet I believe that is flat out wrong. The thing about the above paragraph is the choice is designed and presented poorly and in a very one sided way, but it's not railroading unless the PCs actually can't make it (that btw is why the Dragonlance adventures actually are railroads - if the PCs do not make the presented choice the adventure stops dead, there is literally nowhere else to go unless the DM completely adlibs).

Not all (or even many) decision points in an adventure (or even campaign) should be do x or face dire consequences - but they do and should come up. That's not railroading, it's making the players think about their actions and face consequences (good and bad) for the decisions they make.

I think the term railroading is getting vastly overused these days - and too often being applied in a "I don't like x = railroading" manner. Railroading is the elimination of player choice. presenting bad choices, disproportionate choices/rewards for certain actions may be heavy handed and may be "bad DMing" but it's not railroading unless no choice exists.

Honestly, I just think your splitting hairs. As Janx has pointed out, once the credible threat to the PC's is on the table, they are most likely going to deal with it.

Sure, there might be the outliers where they ignore it, but, the vast majority of the time, they're going to jump right on board.

Disproportionate choices will result in a single response far more often than not. I'm not seeing a huge difference here.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

When the GM announces, "you hear rumors of a new force in the east, gather power, seeking to eliminate all mankind", the GM is the Initiator. At that point, the Consequences will occur unless the PCs jump on the plot wagon.

Thats where Consequences runs the risk of railroading, being a prod to force player down a path.

So, is a GM allowed to Initiate trouble? Much like the 80's TV shows. The A-Team drives along, until they hear about a problem (GM Initiated Threat). If the party doesn't get involved, there will be Consequences.

Honestly, I agree with Janx here. Once the DM has initiated a threat, and that threat will negatively impact the PC's if they don't deal with it, I'm finding it pretty weak to say, "Well, it's not really railroading because you could just suck up the negative consequences".

Now, the point upthread that if the DM declares a threat must be dealt with in a specific way is a railroad - that I totally agree with. That's most certainly a railroad. I think everyone agrees there.

But, if the dragon armies are advancing, the players cannot ignore it. They have no choice but to deal with it in some manner. Sure, they could fight, join the army, try to sneak through, whatever, but, what they don't have is the option to not deal with it.

Isn't the negation of options railroading by definition?

If the players initiate something, that's not a railroad, by definition, but, if the DM initiates a threat that the PC's cannot avoid dealing with in some manner, isn't that a railroad?

Now, as far as the carrotstick approach goes, well, that's why it's not a railroad. After all, the PC's can choose to ignore the offer. Ignoring the offer carries no negative consequences, other than they don't get the reward. OTOH, the PC's cannot ignore the DM generated threat because that will directly, negatively, impact the characters.

 

[Mort]

Honestly, I just think your splitting hairs. As Janx has pointed out, once the credible threat to the PC's is on the table, they are most likely going to deal with it.

Sure, there might be the outliers where they ignore it, but, the vast majority of the time, they're going to jump right on boar.

The fact that if they don't actually have to "deal with it" (there's a choice) then it's not railroading is not splitting hairs, it's an important distinction. Railroading is a narrow concept and artificially broadening the definition just leads to confusion and overuse.

Disproportionate choices will result in a single response far more often than not. I'm not seeing a huge difference here.

The "huge difference" is that the ability to make a choice other than disproportionate/obvious one is important. Just because a choice seems obvious does not mean it is the correct/most fun one for the group - maybe they want a change of pace - say walking away from (or heck joining) the big bad consequences be damned. If they can make that choice it's not a railroad.


Going back the OP. If the characters can look at Elminster/their patron and say "we don't like this contract give us some more choices" and their patron does - it's not a railroad. If the characters can look at their patron and say that with the patron saying "OK then you're on your own, get your own contracts!" It's still not a railroad (assuming the PCs efforts don't all lead to the same contract). If the characters say "no thanks" and their patron acts as if they just said "sure" and/or the DM otherwise forces the issue - then it's a railroad. If that's the case the players need to decide how to approach the DM and explain that the current choiceless scenario is unsatisfying/not fun - and what can be done about it.

 

[Mort]

Honestly, I agree with Janx here. Once the DM has initiated a threat, and that threat will negatively impact the PC's if they don't deal with it, I'm finding it pretty weak to say, "Well, it's not really railroading because you could just suck up the negative consequences".

So anything the DM initiates that will negatively impact the PCs is a railroad? really? I'm not even sure what to say to that.

DM: the dragon is attacking the town your staying in! what do you do?

Player: Oh my god! A dragon? How can you do that, my character might die - I'm being railroaded into action - can't I just sit here and drink my ale?

Or let's pull that back.

DM: the dragon breathes on the wagon - you can save the gold (enough to set you up for life) or the peasant - which is it?

Doing either has negative consequences for the player (staying poor vs. passively letting someone die) it's mean but it's not railroading.

But, if the dragon armies are advancing, the players cannot ignore it. They have no choice but to deal with it in some manner. Sure, they could fight, join the army, try to sneak through, whatever, but, what they don't have is the option to not deal with it.

Isn't the negation of options railroading by definition?"

Can they joing the dragon armies? Can they move continents? Do they have multiple options ind dealing with the invading armies (rally the nobles, rally the peasants, confront the threat directly, sneak behind enemy lines etc.) If the players have choices and options, if the end result is not set - it's not railroading.

If the players initiate something, that's not a railroad, by definition, but, if the DM initiates a threat that the PC's cannot avoid dealing with in some manner, isn't that a railroad?

How they deal with the threat is a choice, or if the PCs have the option of ignoring the threat -that is a choice. If the PCs have meaningful options and meaningful choices - it's not a railroad. If the DM has set up a world shattering event, as long as the PCs have meaningful options it's not a railroad. If the players are just simply not enthused with the "world shattering event" and dislike the whole concept - well they need to talk to the DM.

Now, as far as the carrotstick approach goes, well, that's why it's not a railroad. After all, the PC's can choose to ignore the offer. Ignoring the offer carries no negative consequences, other than they don't get the reward. OTOH, the PC's cannot ignore the DM generated threat because that will directly, negatively, impact the characters.

Are we back to negative impact/consequence = railroading? Sometimes the player making a choice that negatively impacts their character is the most fun/rewarding choice for the player! Not all choices should be reward or bigger reward, sometimes character growth is initiated by choices that the player knows are suboptimal but feels it's the choice the character would make.

 

[pemerton]

What works best for myself is a middle-ground between railroading and sandboxing.

<snip>

When I introduced my campaign idea to the players, they basically agreed they were interested in battling the psionic villains and accepted that they would have to play characters that were lawful members of a border patrol - at least initially.

So, they started on a railroad with a fixed destination

I don't really see the railroad here. You were upfront with your players. You had their buy in. And the decisions that they made had a significant effect not just on the colour but the outcome of the resolution to the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

Because gaming is just attempting to model real life, minus the boring stuff.

That's fairly controversial. It's not how I think of an RPG at all, for example, any more than I think of any other fictional work or authoring process as primarily an attempt to model real life.

In my view, a PC who doesn't take a realistic response to a problem isn't engaging the game world realistically.

Again, it's a big assumption to think that realism is an important goal for players in playing their PCs. For some, perhaps. But certainly not for all.

Whether I am right or wrong, somebody with this view set is going to feel compelled by the GM to go solve the problem. Because the alternative choices are unappealing. And this is how a GM manipulates players into going his way.

Because of that, I feel it is disingenuous to insist that "oh the PCs had a choice. They could have let the evil empire rape their gramma." Replace Gramma with something the player/PC cares about, and you have taken away their Choices.

When the GM starts some big new external problem (like the OP's war), the players ability to choose what kind of goals they want to pursue gets narrowed down.

Now this I agree with, because it is entirely independent of whether the aim of RPGing is to model reality in some fashion. If the players feel that the only meaningful option for them to have their PCs take is the one the GM is laying out for them, then the GM is constraining their choices - whatever the relevant dimensions of "meaningfulness" for those players. This way railroading lies.

If I have 2 major problems, and only the PCs as heroes, they will fail one of those problems. if I have an NPC party step up for the other problem, the the players learn that neither problem was special and about the PCs, and they can let the NPCs handle it all.

Another good post. For some players, a necessary condition for the "meaningfulness" of play is that their PCs are the heroes who make a difference in the world. For those sorts of players, the scenario you describe suddenly deflates the meaningfulness of the campaign, however much freedom they had to decide which of the two major problems they would confront.

As long as the PC can ignore the threat and do something else (consequences or no) it's not railroading. As long as the players have a meaningful choice, again, it's not railroading.

OK, but what if they don't - because the threat forecloses any other option that might be meaningful for the player in question?

Which raises the question - who gets to decide what counts as meaningful? I assume that, given we're talking about "meaningful for the player", it is the player's conception of meaningfulness that is paramount here.

But it doesn't matter how it feels. What matters is this: Do I have a choice? Not Do I have a choice with no bad repercussions? or Do I have a decent choice? or even Do I have a choice that doesn't totally screw me? The question is, Do I have a choice?

Given that player conceptions of meaningfulness are paramount here, I think it matters very much how it feels. You don't deliver a good play experience by assuring your players that they had choices that you think they should have cared about. The players actually have to care about them. The choices must be meaningful for them.

Because what is meaningful is different from player to player and group to group - some regard exploration as the GM's gameworld as the most important thing, for example, while others don't - there is no general answer to what is the best way to set up a gameworld, and to develop it in response to the players' choices about their PCs' actions.

So anything the DM initiates that will negatively impact the PCs is a railroad? really? I'm not even sure what to say to that.

<snip>

DM: the dragon breathes on the wagon - you can save the gold (enough to set you up for life) or the peasant - which is it?

Doing either has negative consequences for the player (staying poor vs. passively letting someone die) it's mean but it's not railroading.

But that's because, in the scenario you're presenting, the player has two meaningful options. It's not negative consequences in general that are under scrutiny here. It's a certain sort of negative consequence that forecloses other meaningful choices.

 

[pemerton]

There is another thing to be considered here, and that is campaign premise.

<snip>

Suppose the GM has a two-year plot to end the world in the works. But the introduction to the game doesn't mention this, it encourages the players to make characters deeply rooted in the detailed game world. Well, they do - making a gardener, a dancer, and a stargazer.

<snip>

After two years, all hell breaks loose, and the players are justifiably angry at the DM for arbitarily destroying what they built. And they are right - the game did not live up to its premise.

What I am trying to say is that in a sandbox, the GM must be prepared to take on responsibility for his own plots.

This is a great post. And I fully agree. A GM has no basis for using "But the gameworld made me do it!" as an excuse for a bad play experience. That's not an excuse, it's a confession of bad GMing, because it is the GM who is authoring the gameworld.

I disagree. The players now get to play how their deeply rooted characters deal with hell breaking loose on the world thay care for. If the DM sets up a situation (I hate to call it a plot since that suggests a defined set of actions and known end state which my sandbox does not have) and the PCs ignore or decline to engage then that situation evolves over time to its natural end.

If they create gardeners, dancers & stargazers (and the threat isn't a Plant Demon Star Dancer) who refuse to engage, then well that's their choice.

The question is - did the players have a good play experience, or not? If they didn't, it's not to the point that they refused to have their PCs engage the GM's storyline. It's not as if they tricked the GM into giving them a bad time - from their point of view, they've been playing the game by playing their PCs, and now the GM ends the game on them.

I think this is Starfox's point: that this isn't an ingame issue, but a metagame issue. Vespucci makes the same point here:

By putting into the game world, from the outset, that a potentially world-destroying event is in the post, the ref is engaged in telling his story, not running the game.

Implicit in this is that "running the game" means noticing what the players are interested in, and having their PCs do and not do, and shaping the gameworld and the ingame situations in response to that.

Now some players are happy to play their PCs in whatever gameworld and situations the GM serves up. Those players, even if playing the GDS trio, presumably wouldn't have a bad play experience in the situation that Starfox describes. But in my view, a GM who proceeds down a given path without regard to what sort of play experience the players are looking for is a bad GM. As Vespucci says, s/he is no longer running an RPG.

I keep seeing this notion that consequences are punishment, and I think that is a large part of the disconnect here. In fact, I think consequences happen based on pc action or inaction is a characteristic of old skool gaming (at least, the old skool I play by).

But it's not very distinctive of old skool gaming.

Consequences happening based on PC action or inaction is central to the play of HeroQuest or Burning Wheel, for example - but they are hardly old skool games.

As I see it, the issue isn't whether or not the consequences are bad for the PCs. It's about the way the consequences are attuned to the interests and expectations of the players. Presumably Starfox's GDS trio are happy to have their PCs suffer the consequences of spending too much time dancing and therefore not noticing a crucial astronomical event. Or of being outdanced by the faeries they found at the bottom of the garden while harvesting mistletoe by moonlight. It's consequences that are sprung on them that arise not out of anything they are interested in, or have engaged with via their PCs, but rather out of a plot that only the GM cares about, that Starfox and Vespucci are talking about.

Consequences can be used as the cattle prod for a rail road.

<snip>

If the PCs go do heroic stuff, failure should mean Consequences. if the PCs do bad stuff, there should be Consequences. If both examples, the PCs are the Initiator.

<snip>

When the GM announces, "you hear rumors of a new force in the east, gather power, seeking to eliminate all mankind", the GM is the Initiator. At that point, the Consequences will occur unless the PCs jump on the plot wagon.

Thats where Consequences runs the risk of railroading, being a prod to force player down a path.

So, is a GM allowed to Initiate trouble?

The answer to this question, for any typical RPG, has to be Yes. It's practically a job description for the GM. What's at stake in Starfox's example is that the GM has initiated trouble that the players aren't interested in, and haven't had their PCs engage with - and then, on the basis of that trouble that was a dead letter as far as actual play is concerned is bringing the campaign that the players have been enjoying to an end. When the players complain about this, the GM is not going to get very far just by saying "Hey, it's my job as GM to initiate trouble - it's not my fault you guys ignored it!" This won't change the fact that the players ended up having a bad play experience and, presumably, will spread the word about their bad GM. I see this as the pointy end of Vespucci's distinction between the GM running a game, and the GM telling a story regardless of the players.

The PCs are not thrust into a role. They are thrust into a pivotal situation that they can affect as they wish. They are masters of their fate within the context of the situation.

This may be true as far as it goes, but doesn't really address Starfox's point. Because the question then becomes, How is that situation decided upon? If the GM decides on the situation regardless of the players deciding to play the GDS trio - and would have used exactly the same situation if the players had build a Sorcerer Supreme, a Goliath Brawler and a Valkyrie - then is the GM still running a game? Or just authoring his/her own story? The answer to this seems to me to depend crucially on the preferences and expectations of the players. But there is no default presumption that what this GM is doing is the proper way to run an RPG.

Conflating player and character is unhelpful. The characters do not engage because the activity is unnatural to them - it's not a deliberate activity on their part. The players do not engage because they're not interested in your plot, or because your hooks fail to motivate them. Or perhaps they're just contrary. In any case, the players' deliberate refusal to engage with your story is the reason you've sent the characters tumbling to the ground and inflicted bruises upon them.

Another great post! Key to Starfox's hypothetical scenario is that the GM has persisted with his/her own conception of the gameworld regardless of the fact that for whatever reason, the players are unmoved by the bits the GM is very excited by. If the players end up being upset by this, when the GM brings to an end the game that the players have been enjoying, the GM should hardly be surprised!

I take it you wouldn't want to play in a game set in Belgium, July 1914 or Poland, August 1939, then?

Well, if I get into such a game I know what I've got into, don't I? - even if my naive PC is surprised by the outbreak of war. The question is whether a player is obliged to enjoy the GM springing a war scenario - or whatever else - on the players regardless of the players' preferences for play as revealed through the PCs they have built and been playing. I think that the general answer to this question is No, and that a GM who proceeds in this way is therefore doing so at his/her own risk. S/he had better be pretty confident that exploration of the GM's world, which may proceed in a way completely orthogonal to how the players have been engaging it up to now, is the players' main interest in playing the game.

if I were preparing to run a game as I described, I'd build a default timeline that runs out 2-3 years that I can map PC actions and the consequences thereof against. It is entirely possible that in such a setting that sometime in year 2 the great war will break out in the absence of PC action. Every action and every consequence will be judged as to its effect on the timeline.

Whereas I would never run a game like that - I constantly rework the backstory to my campaign world in light of the unfolding interests of the players revealed in the course of play, in order to better support situations that build on those interests and allow the players to keep driving the game forward in the way they want to.

As Starfox says, a GM must be prepared to take responsibility for his/her own world design decisions. If you know that your players want to explore a world in which you already have a default timeline worked out, and in which your choices for what will be significant in the setting (like the end-of-the-world plot) are settled prior to play, then go for it - take responsibility! But a lot of players don't want to play that way, don't want to explore the GM's world but rather want to play their PCs in the setting as they conceive of it (and as their conception of it evolves over the course of play) - and there is nothing defective about their preferences in this respect.