DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Desdichado]

Forked the thread so we can continue this discussion and let this one get back to the OP's game, if there's anything more to be said about that.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...styles-sword-sorcery-vs-high-fantasy-etc.html

 

[Piratecat]

I've closed the other thread. Let's let that tangent drop and get this one back on track, please.

 

[pemerton]

As they closed within 30ft of him, he decided to flee on his horse. I informed him that they might be able to intercept him before he could mount his horse and ride out of the stable, that the main gate might be closed, and that even if he did make it out, it would mean he may as well roll a new character.

<snip>

In the above encounter, for example, there are multiple ways the player could have handled the confrontation (i.e. bribing the guards, trying to talk them off with charm, try to run and hide) and if he wanted to get more information, he had methods to do that as well (Sense Motive, for example).

I'm another poster who thinks that it is a bit unreasonable to expect the player to think of your clever solutions (like bribery etc) when you are busy shutting down all his clever solutions (such as riding away like the brigand he is).

I polled the party - none of them were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt or try to help him clear his name because they had no connection with him.

This is the second thread I've come across today with players hanging their fellow player out to dry because it would be "out of character" for their PCs to do otherwise. What's going on with all these game-disrupting players?

How is it railroading to tell a player well if you do this then you will be out of the adventure? To me that is letting the player know all the ramifications of his actions.

The definition of railroad is a contentious one, obviously. But for a GM to say "make choice X and your PC is out of the adventure" certainly looks like a possible railroad.

Now if choice X is jumping into the Lava of No Return, and the player knows that the lava is the Lava of No Return, we're probably not talking railroad.

But if choice X is "my brigand PC quickly mounts his horse and outruns the law", then it's hard for me to see how we're not talking railroad. This is the GM exerting pretty extreme plot authority - "There shall be no outlaw brigands making desperate escapes in my game, even though I let a player roll up a brigand and put him in a situation where he risked becoming an outlaw". Looks like a railroad to me.

On the other hand, having an undefeatable dragon fly down to the PCs and start ordering them around is a railroad, and reminding the PC that attacking it is certain death is just highlighting the issue.

Agreed (but can't XP you).

Linear and railroad are not in any real wqy related. Railroading means removing player choice to serve Dm wishes. Linear is simply a lack of choices that is consistant with the ongoing narrative of the game.

Who sets the narrative? If the GM, then we are back to a lack of choices to serve GM wishes (as to what the plot will be). If the players also get to shape the plot, then that (presumably) will be by making choices as and for their PCs, at which point there is no lack of choice and no "linearity" - except the banal linearity that the plot ended up being this rather than that.

 

[Loonook]

I'm another poster who thinks that it is a bit unreasonable to expect the player to think of your clever solutions (like bribery etc) when you are busy shutting down all his clever solutions (such as riding away like the brigand he is).

Now if choice X is jumping into the Lava of No Return, and the player knows that the lava is the Lava of No Return, we're probably not talking railroad.

But if choice X is "my brigand PC quickly mounts his horse and outruns the law", then it's hard for me to see how we're not talking railroad. This is the GM exerting pretty extreme plot authority - "There shall be no outlaw brigands making desperate escapes in my game, even though I let a player roll up a brigand and put him in a situation where he risked becoming an outlaw". Looks like a railroad to me.

Who sets the narrative? If the GM, then we are back to a lack of choices to serve GM wishes (as to what the plot will be). If the players also get to shape the plot, then that (presumably) will be by making choices as and for their PCs, at which point there is no lack of choice and no "linearity" - except the banal linearity that the plot ended up being this rather than that.

Because becoming an outlaw is not something that the other players wish to do? I just don't get why we need to say that it's completely okay for such a disruptive act to occur from a player and count all of the other players and the DM as the disruption. As I said before, the guy is trying to run Runelords not Cops or the First 48.

The GM serves to create the background, the scenery, the supporting cast, the antagonists... And the PCs can decide to just jump off and work in a bakery. The GM has to provide some narrative nudging occasionally unless he really does have a great offering of players. Even with my favorite group? We still had weird moments where the group just needed a little push, or a big push... And we facilitate that.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm another poster who thinks that it is a bit unreasonable to expect the player to think of your clever solutions (like bribery etc) when you are busy shutting down all his clever solutions (such as riding away like the brigand he is).

This is the second thread I've come across today with players hanging their fellow player out to dry because it would be "out of character" for their PCs to do otherwise. What's going on with all these game-disrupting players?

The definition of railroad is a contentious one, obviously. But for a GM to say "make choice X and your PC is out of the adventure" certainly looks like a possible railroad.

Now if choice X is jumping into the Lava of No Return, and the player knows that the lava is the Lava of No Return, we're probably not talking railroad.

But if choice X is "my brigand PC quickly mounts his horse and outruns the law", then it's hard for me to see how we're not talking railroad. This is the GM exerting pretty extreme plot authority - "There shall be no outlaw brigands making desperate escapes in my game, even though I let a player roll up a brigand and put him in a situation where he risked becoming an outlaw". Looks like a railroad to me.

Agreed (but can't XP you).

Who sets the narrative? If the GM, then we are back to a lack of choices to serve GM wishes (as to what the plot will be). If the players also get to shape the plot, then that (presumably) will be by making choices as and for their PCs, at which point there is no lack of choice and no "linearity" - except the banal linearity that the plot ended up being this rather than that.

Why is it when one player does something that disrupts the game like taking off and fleeing instead of trying to work out the issue of being arrested, or cursing out the king, stealing from shopkeepers or numerous other things then the players who had no say in this and don't want anything to do with hanging that person out to dry?

As much as I am huge role player I still recognize this is a game and one that you play with other people and sometimes you need to take that into consideration when making character decisions.

So if you for example you know that your DM does not want to DM for a bunch of evil characters and you knew that going into the game and you still choose to do evil things then that is not railroading.

Just to clarify in my games one act does not make necessarily make you evil so it would rarely be one thing boom your character is now an NPC. It would usually be a series of acts with plenty of notification from me that you are heading into becoming an NPC.

There are certain things I don't want at my table and the reason I don't allow evil PCs is because I am not interested in running a campaign that is nothing but a bunch of evil characters grasping for loot and more power. I want to run heroic campaigns. Another reason is I have rarely seen an evil character in party with non evil heroic characters work out. Usually there is betrayal and eventually someone PCs dies. Which can lead to anger and resentment at the table.

That is not railroading any more than a DM saying they don't allow certain races or classes in their games.

I have already said that the DM was heavy handed in the way he handled this. He should have allowed the brigand to run and then let nature takes its course which would have been the player sitting out most of the rest of the adventure until he figured out that the rest of the party was not coming.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm another poster who thinks that it is a bit unreasonable to expect the player to think of your clever solutions (like bribery etc) when you are busy shutting down all his clever solutions (such as riding away like the brigand he is).

Gotta go with the other replies in this one. The players want to do something. He wants to do something else, which includes abandoning the party and their ties to the town they're invested in.

This is the second thread I've come across today with players hanging their fellow player out to dry because it would be "out of character" for their PCs to do otherwise. What's going on with all these game-disrupting players?

Yes, their reasoning is it's "out of character" to help him if he's an outlaw and runs from authority. His reasoning for leaving the party is it'd be "out of character" not to.

How is he not being the game-disrupting player, in your mind? I ask honestly, because he seems to be lined up squarely against the party, and the "game-disrupting players" seem to be working harmoniously with one another. As always, play what you like

 

[Janx]

I've only skimmed this thread...so naturally I have an opinion...

the premise being discussed is that the GM setup a PC to be accused of a crime and the PC wants to run.

As a GM I'm wary of that whole setup. The GM has initiated a threat to a PC for no apparent reason (it does not appear to be a natural consequence of PC shenanigans).

At that point, PCs are likely to run or get hostile. It should be an expected response, and depending on the kind of game you are running, undesirable (because it turns the PC into a bad guy and disrupts the party's current desires).

if it's undesirable and under the GM's discretion to instigate, don't do it.

On the topic of "that would be out of character" to justify poor teamwork or bad behavior, I think [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] have solid points. Players should always frame their character decisions to fit within working with their fellow players. That means NOT choosing an extreme interpretation of the character that runs counter to cooperating with the party. It means begrudgingly accepting to go the North Pole even though your PC swore he'd never set foot in Santa's Workshop again, rather than sticking to his guns and walking South away from the rest of the party.

 

[Mallus]

How is he not being the game-disrupting player, in your mind? I ask honestly, because he seems to be lined up squarely against the party, and the "game-disrupting players" seem to be working harmoniously with one another. As always, play what you like

Because his PC is innocent of the crime he's accused of?

Because the other players know this?

Because even though the other players know this, they all decide to proceed as if the accused PC is guilty? Even though, at that point, there's been no corroborating evidence either way.

The accused PC is falsely accused of crime, and then finds the rest of the group siding with the NPCs. I'm not sure how anything he does at this point could be considered "disruptive", once the deck's been stacked against his favor like that.

This set-up could have worked --though I'm not a big fan of the false accusation being of rape-- if it was clear from of the start the PC was innocent. Or if the DM made it clear when the rest of the party was deciding to side with the townsfolk. Or even a few of players stepped up (with a little constructive metagaming) and sided with the falsely-accused PC.

One falsely-accused PC against an accuser, the law, and the rest of his party isn't going to end will.

If it were the entire party trying to prove the PC innocence -- perhaps with the added challenge of not destroying his accuser's life (the smart thing to do would be to make the accuser at least partially sympathetic. The only thing worse than a scenario w/a false accusation of rape is one where the false accuser did for no good reason, or merely for the lulz).

Wait... strike that... if the accused PC was being played as a complete Lothario --ie if it were the player's own agency/chosen characterization that got him into the mess-- then perhaps it might have worked.

But as it stands, the scenario was a series of compounding mistakes.

 

[S'mon]

if it's undesirable and under the GM's discretion to instigate, don't do it.

Exactly!

Don't push someone out the door, lock it, then blame them for not fighting hard enough to stay inside!

It seems to me there was a mix of poor DMing and possibly poor design on the Adventure Path. The first AP adventure should be working hard at pulling PCs together, not pushing them apart.

 

[Mallus]

To the OP, tl;dr version:

It's a little late to be worrying about party cohesion after you've falsely accused a PC of rape and then watched as the group sided against him.