DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Hussar]

The trick is though, this has zero to do with sandbox or linear. This campaign could be 100% sandbox, and still run into the same issue. The issue here is that the DM has taken a rather ham fisted approach to a scenario and shoots down the player's fairly reasonable response (and no, it's not the other players, at least not in the OP, it's the DM who specifically states that if the PC leaves, he's out of the game) because the player is not playing ball.

This is just a bad DM choice. Has nothing to do with linear or sandbox. The opposite of sandbox is linear, NOT railroad. Railroading is when you remove plausible player choices in order to force the player into a specific, generally predefined, outcome - in this case the PC is arrested.

You can railroad in a sandbox every bit as easily as a linear campaign.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I used to have "rule" if you split group you will die. Basicly it meant quilty party would end to nasty monsters of place alone and end up as something to be found and looted by other players. Worked very well. Of course those games were hack-slash, with some pvp elements (mostly concerning re-possessions of dead/raised party member's property especially since it was always that same guy).

Those were times character creation was really fast, and background consisted of "I am adventurer, greedy, want loot". New characters were often exact copies than last one, only stats re-rolled. Same class, same name, maybe with II to it.

Problem with splitting party concequenses tend to evolve when you move from simple gaming to lands of plot/story. Also splitting party motivations change. We get solo-game loving "mysterious characters sitting in corner" (my cure was leave them sitting in corner usually). The trend was shortlived. I still dispise solo game within group game. It's terrible unpolite. I still insist on secret note exchange or very short discussions. If "solo thing" doesn't take too much attention, I allow it and run game for rest of the group. While off-player either silently watches or goes to other room.

If pc willingly chooses something "boring" to be handwaved and is ok that something interesting happens meanwhile I allow it.

However then there is other motivations than usual "crafting/training/seling loot times". Those are rebellions, when some pc (not always the solo-game loving one) comes into conclusion he really dislikes or finds the plot boring. In this case it might just be an off-day. Or it might be preferance. Later doesn't go away. Player might actually like most stuff about that game except for that "latest plot". That's problem with story-heavy games, there is more opinions that need to be entertained.

When it was just about killing monsters and getting their loot people playing knew what they were going to get and were there for it.

Almost every player hated dm playing their character. Time to do away with some bad habits is before game "no evil characters, no "thisthisthis" in game. Everyone ok with that?" Once you have settled it, that should be as steady judgement than any mathematical rule. You can't change you mind in middle of gaming. And yes if some real issue comes that is better to clear during the game, stop the game and clear it. Social character behavior problems and issues of problematic rulings can both cause grief and can be fixed pretty same way. Unless it's player that have the issues.

 

[pemerton]

I think one of the hardest things to establish is the line between a "plotted" adventure and a railroad adventure.

<snip>

At one end of the continuum we have the Complete Sandbox Game

<snip>

On the other end of the spectrum is the Absolute Railroad Game

<snip>

Is one "better" or "right? No. The only consideration is whether or not everyone at the table is having fun.

I've got nothing against your advocacy of fun. I agree. I don't really agree with your analytical framework, though. It leaves out the sort of game that I like to run, and that I (perhaps being biased as a proponent of it) think can be useful for resolving some of the issues that seem to have come up in the OP's game.

There is an approach to RPGing in which the GM has strong authority over framing the situations (for example, by deciding that an NPC accuses a PC of rape, and by deciding that guards come to arrest that PC). So the game is not a sandbox, because it is the GM rather than the players who has primary control over what it is that the players confront (this can be achieved in any number of ways, from retrospectively motivating NPCs, to determining that whichever door the PCs open, it will be the one with the interesting puzzle behind it).

But the GM does not exercise control over the resolution of the situations. Once framed, situations are resolved in accordance with the action resolution and shared table norms, as driven primarily by the players playing their PCs, but secondarily by the GM pushing back with the NPCs, environment etc.

Depending on the upshot of a situation, new parameters have been established which will determine what is a meaningful, sensible, permissible-within-the-fiction, etc scene for the GM to frame as the next situation for the players to engage via their PCs.

This sort of play is not a sandbox, but not because it heads down the spectrum towards railroading. It's because it allocates clear roles and responsibilities to the players and the GM, and (most importantly) lets the players make the choices they want to make to resolve the scenes that the GM confronts them with. "Plot" emerges out of the actual play of those scenes. It resembles a sandbox in some ways, therefore - there is no predetermined BBEG, for example, because how the PCs will respond to and deal with any given NPC isn't dictated in advance. And there is therefore, and similarly, no predetermined endgame (and so it is the opposite of an adventure path in this respect).

This sort of game will fizzle if the GM is unable to keep coming up with situations that the players find interesting. It will likewise fizzle if the players are afraid to engage those situations via their PCs, and hang back rather than give the game everything they've got. For these reasons, some mechanical systems will suit this sort of game better than others (eg ones which engender trust and tend to make the stakes clear), and likewise some approaches to PC and world building will suit it better than others (eg it helps if PC builds produce clear flags from the players as to what they are interested in doing with their PCs). I can say with a very high degree of confidence, if I wanted to run a game involving false accusations of rape against a PC, and wanted to minimise the likelihood of the game going off the rails, I would run it in this fashion.

 

[Dordledum]

first off, kudos for the OP for starting up this thread. It's been an interesting read on a boring afternoon at the office (took me over an hour).

My 2 cts on the issue:

The GM provides the setting, the story and the NPCs, and any in character decision by a player goes. You never know what a player is going to do. RPG is improvisation, its what makes the game so much fun and one of the major differences between pen-and-paper and computer RPGs.

It's fair to point out that his chances for succes are low if he decides to run, but you shouldn't stop him from doing so. No reason to scrap his character. Go with his escape attempt, and if he doesn't roll expecially well, the esscape attempt fails and he's captured anyway. If he succeeds, there are plenty of ways to get the party back together (in the same session even).

I gathered that the party wasn't together to start with, and as others pointed out, that might have been part of the problem as a whole. No reason to bail out someone you have no connection to.

On a few side note, I tend to support the everything goes rule in my games. IMHO no reason to avoid any topic as GM either, rape, childmurderers, jailsentences and whatnot as discussed above. They can all be part of a credible setting. How the setting, society and the (N)PCs deal with it can add for the msot itneresting of roleplaying experiences. Common sense rules all, but freedom of choice should be encouraged.

And bonus xp for creative solutions.

 

[Hussar]

Thinking about this thread, I remembered a similar situation in one of my own games some years ago. This is how I handled it.

Setup: The party (3e D&D) was about 6th level. They had just completed a quest for a local patron who, after handsomely rewarding them, held a banquet in their honor. I figured it was a great way to introduce some new NPC's, do a bit of exposition, a bit of world presentation, lots of RP opportunities. Because of purely in game reasons, the banquet was being held underground.

About 5 minutes into things, one of the players suddenly declares that his PC is very claustrophobic and leaves the banquet. I honestly thought he was kidding, laughed it off and didn't say very much. Roleplay, roleplay, roleplay, I turn back to this player and ask him what he's doing.

Player: I left. I told you I left.
Me: Erm? Really? I thought you were kidding. Are you sure you want to do that?
Player: Yes, my character is very claustrophobic.

Now, this had never come up before in the game, despite the group having just completed at least one and possibly more, dungeon crawls.

Me: Umm, you realize that standing up in the middle of a banquet being held in your honor in front of the lady's entire court and marching out the door is pretty rude and it might have some pretty serious repercussions, don't you?
Player: I don't care. My character left.
Me: Hrm... Ok.

Now, I could have beaten the PC with all sorts of pain sticks here. But, I realized that the player in a not so subtle way, was telling me that he had absolutely no interest in what I was doing, but, he wasn't going to disturb the rest of the group, so, he intentionally benched himself. Fair enough. I went back to the rest of the group, roleplayed things through and they picked up his character on the way home.

Were there repercussions afterward? Not really. I absolutely refuse to try to force anyone to roleplay. He obviously was not interested in the scenario I presented. Why should I brow beat him for his preferences? So, from that point on, whenever those style of situations came up, I made sure that his PC had something to do - kibitz with guards, get into trouble somewhere, something - and I never bothered trying to include him in those scenarios. If he wanted to join in, he was more than welcome, but, I also made it pretty clear that it was his choice. He respected that and I respected his choice.

And everyone was happy.

To each his own. This is how I handle this sort of thing.

 

[Janx]

Player: I left. I told you I left.
Me: Erm? Really? I thought you were kidding. Are you sure you want to do that?
Player: Yes, my character is very claustrophobic.

Now, this had never come up before in the game, despite the group having just completed at least one and possibly more, dungeon crawls.

Me: Umm, you realize that standing up in the middle of a banquet being held in your honor in front of the lady's entire court and marching out the door is pretty rude and it might have some pretty serious repercussions, don't you?
Player: I don't care. My character left.
Me: Hrm... Ok.

Your handling of it sounds fine.

It does reinforce that players are illogical. He had a contradictory reason for leaving (claustrophobic adventurer in a big open banquet hall after plumbing the depths of a dungeon). He didn't care for social encounters, so instead of sitting quietly as a player/PC in the banquet hall and not participating, he instead has his PC leave the banquet in his honor which could cause further social ripples. So he can sit out of the scene OUTSIDE of the banquet hall.

Hussar had a choice. His player expressed a game preference. he could either make a big deal about how the player expressed it as Consequences. or he could gloss over it and provider more palatable future content for that player.

 

[Hussar]

Janx - you nailed in one. Gotta spread xp around... yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Janx]

Janx - you nailed in one. Gotta spread xp around... yadda yadda yadda.

Thanks.

What I'm curious about (and that I never seem to get a direct response) is for everybody else in this thread, if the situation gets to this crossroad point, despite how you normally run the game, how would you handle it from that crossroad.

Meaning, talking about how you'd have given the players better info than my DM so he'd know he was high up is out of the picture. The GM under-informing has already happened, the player says he jumps. What would you do?

Hussar's example: the PC is at the banquet in his honor and says he just leaves. What would you do?

My intepretation of what Hussar did was that he did not make a big deal out of the matter. he could royally hose the PC for walking out like that. Thats not likely the kind of game the player wanted to play in. He just didn't want to do the social thing. Its a matter of deciding whether a Consequence is needed or not, not just the scale of that Consequence.

For the Brigand's Dilemma, while I would have avoided creating a capture scene in the first place (it's one thing to need to arrest a PC as a Consequence of PC crime, another to make up a new problem and initiate an arrest), fact is, the damage is done.

Here though, I see that I'm about to lose a player/PC for the session. I have a rule about not rewarding a Forker, so the guy who's about the flee is about to run off camera for most of the session at least. At that's part of the answer right there. He's not out of the campaign, yet, he's just going to get much less face time as he moves farther from the party.

But it's also about in-game stance. The kind of woman who is going to seduce a newcomer to town is not bashful or shy and has likely given up her virtue before. She may have just as much reason to get back at her dad for outing her fling and go to the police. This will reduce the seriousness of the situation (the cops may need to talk to him, NOT arrest him as a felon).

The fleeing PC is going to get a couple more encounters. One to escape, one to evade as he exits, and one more to run into a PC or NPC that may shelter/help him (and thus give him a chance to stay in the area and session).

Now, what would y'all do, from the starting point of the decision point, not from before.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION], I've already mentioned three possibilities:

*have the brigand PC meet the ranger PC in the woods outside town;

*have the accuser confess to the ranger or the guard PC, who then goes to track down the brigand PC;

*have the brigand PC see more goblins in the woods, getting ready to attack the town or otherwise do something that the PC will respond to.

Which option I would use - or whether some other possibility might be better - would depend on the details/context. (For example, we haven't been told why the brigand PC helped fight the goblins earlier in the campaign - knowing that reason would affect how the goblin option might be used to keep the PC in the game.)

 

[pemerton]

I absolutely refuse to try to force anyone to roleplay.

<snip>

To each his own. This is how I handle this sort of thing.

Nice story. And I agree that to each his/her own.

I have to confess that I do force my players to roleplay. Not in the "first person talking sense" - due to changes in group composition, plus changes in the play environment (eg the presence of kids who need wrangling), the amount of first person roleplay in my game has probably declined rather than grown over the years. But I do force my players to engage with the fictional position of their PCs within the gameworld (social, political, mythical) and to create and endure/benefit from the consequences of that.