Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Lanefan]

But I don't think we're talking in circles! You asked, "How would a game have backstory and a 'plot' if the GM doesn't provide it. I answered.

Yes, the answer includes doing things differently from Gygaxian dungeon crawl style. But we've known that, in the context of this thread, at least since [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] posted outlining three different approaches to player-driven RPGing (Gygaxian; what he called "scene-framing"; and what he called "principle GMing" - I tend to blur those last two together as "modern" or "indie"-style, but that taxonomic issue shouldn't matter to you because it still makes the contrast with Gygaxian sandbox-style clear.)

And as I replied to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] upthread, there is nothing about 5e that stops it being run in a player-driven fashion of an "indie" style, provided that the GM adopts some appropriate a techniques in calling for non-combat checks and setting the DCs for them, and provided that the inspiration mechanic is engaged to a suitable degree.

And provided that the table drifts away from traditional D&D, see below.

But D&D does not "traditionally" have a more DM-driven style, does it? It does assume GM control over backstory, but not GM control over the events of play. In Gygax's PHB and DMG, he assumes that the players will be the ones who choose what part of the dungeon to target, whether to negotiate, fight or flee from encountered creatures, what equipment to take with them, etc.

But he also assumes the DM is the one placing the dungeon in the game world and that the adventurers (via their players) will then duly go and deal with it in whatever manner best suits them. By logical extension, that dungeon is being placed for a reason; probably to do with a story the DM has in mind for either now or later. This isn't any sort of railroading.

I think it's pretty helpful to distinguish backstory from plot. Designing a dungeon, mapping it, placing all the creature and treasure - that's backstory, which will include some game-world history.

But what the players choose to do when they encounter the dungeon - eg does Robilar free the trapped gods; or Erca's Cousin free Fraz-Urb'luu from imprisonment? - is not something the GM is at lbierty to make up. Those events are initiated and driven by the players, and they are what establish the plot of the campaign.

When I say 'plot' I'm referring to whatever storyboarded ideas the DM might have going in, for how the campaign will unfold. When I refer to what actually happens or happened during the run of play I'll usually use 'story', provided I remember to make the distinction.

The narrow answer: if you declare that you are looking for a diamond in the room, and the check is framed and you fail, then you are going to have to deal with the resulting consequence of failure.

Seems simple enough: if I fail I don't have a new diamond. No worries - I didn't have it before, either; so status quo.

Because no PC in this particular game has ever been on the hunt for diamonds

Which tells me only that your players are not my players, or me.

The broader answer is this: the reason for playing a RPG, as I take it, isn't so that one's PC (who is purely imaginary) experiences wealth and pleasure in the fiction (which is all purely imaginary). It's so that you, the player, actually experience, in the real world, the satisfaction of playing a game. If that satisfaction mostly comes from having a really long equipment list full of diamonds

Not quite. (some of) The satisfaction comes from having a really long equipment list of items (or places) I could buy (or build) with all those diamonds.

then probably the sort of game I run is not the best for you. But that's not the only way to get satisfaction out of a RPG.

No, but it's certainly one way.

Lan-"remember, Neutral Greedy is the 10th alignment"-efan

 

[pemerton]

When I say 'plot' I'm referring to whatever storyboarded ideas the DM might have going in, for how the campaign will unfold. When I refer to what actually happens or happened during the run of play I'll usually use 'story', provided I remember to make the distinction.

See my post above - about 179, I think - where I address just this point.

When I think of the plot of a game, I'm not thinking of someone's hopes, aspirations or musing as to what might happen. I'm thinking about what has actually happened. Just as the plot of LotR is not whatever notes etc JRRT made as part of the process of conception and drafting - it's the plot of the book as actually authored and published.

Seems simple enough: if I fail I don't have a new diamond. No worries - I didn't have it before, either; so status quo.

If you look at some of my posts upthread - eg replies to [MENTION=61721]Hawke[/MENTION]yfan in the 160s/170s - you'll see that this is not the case.

(I also gave an example in my reply to you, of the consequence of failing to find the mace. I don't think it's very helpful to speculate about how the application of a particular technique will unfold in play without paying attention to all the features of the technique.)

 

[Lanefan]

My own preferred approach, therefore, is that when these events, being causally driven by ingame forces, are planned by me, they become known to the players also. Eg in my main 4e game the players (and PCs) know the Dusk War is on the horizon; in my Burning Wheel game, the players (and PCs) know that the mage Jabal is engaged to marry the Gynarch of Hardby.

But what happens when there's something significant going on - or about to go on - that the characters (and thus by extension the players) cannot and do not know anything about? For example; yes they might know the Dusk War is on the horizon but what if you-as-DM have predetermined that the main infantry legions of the invading army are going to be wiped out by a divinely-sent flash flood three miles into their march, rendering the whole war mostly moot?

But some bit of backstory known only to the GM is not salient in the same way, in my view. if the audience (ie the players) don't even know of it, I don't see how it counts as plot.

Highly relevant if it impacts the PCs in any major way and-or over the long term. For example: their mentor, for whom they've been working almost since the start of their adventuring careers, isn't and has never been what he seems...in some ways. He's sent you on these adventures for legitimate and noble reasons; he's in fact working in the best interests of the empire you yourselves also defend, but were it ever to become public knowledge (and here 'public' includes the PCs) that he's in fact a vampire who has killed thousands in the past he'd be executed pretty much on the spot. This is absolutely plot now and story later even if the PCs never learn a thing about it during the campaign.

The breadcrumbs, "flexible plots" etc are also not plots. They're not sequences of fictional events. The GM planning, or preparing, to make a certain event part of the shared fiction under certain circumstances, does not actually make it part of the shared fiction. And if it's not part of the shared fiction, then it's certainly not part of the plot of the game.

Again, you're using 'plot' where I would use 'story', to differentiate. Breadcrumbs never followed up on are merely breadcrumbs, even though they may have tried to point to the DM's intended plot, and are eventually forgotten. But once followed up on those breadcrumbs retroactively become part of the game's story. Either way, the breadcrumbs themselves are in the story somewhere, even if buried deep.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

See my post above - about 179, I think - where I address just this point.

When I think of the plot of a game, I'm not thinking of someone's hopes, aspirations or musing as to what might happen.

I am; as otherwise we don't have a term for it.

We do, however, have a term for what actually happens in the game to be read about later: story.

I'm thinking about what has actually happened. Just as the plot of LotR is not whatever notes etc JRRT made as part of the process of conception and drafting - it's the plot of the book as actually authored and published.

To my way of thinking the plot is what he had before he started - his storyboard, if you will. The story is what came of it later, that we read in the books.

Yes this might be a variance on the standard English uses for these words; but for these purposes we need a differentiation and this is the first one that comes to mind.

Lan-"gunpowder, treason and story"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

And as I replied to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] upthread, there is nothing about 5e that stops it being run in a player-driven fashion of an "indie" style, provided that the GM adopts some appropriate a techniques in calling for non-combat checks and setting the DCs for them, and provided that the inspiration mechanic is engaged to a suitable degree.

The DM can basically re-jigger the game to make it more player driven, but, y'know, the DM is driving said re-jiggering. As presented, 5e puts the DM firmly in the driver's seat, even Inspiration which is awarded by the DM, based on his jusdgement of how the PCs are acting in accord with their Bonds et al. He can play chauffeur and take the players where they want to go, but he's driving.

But D&D does not "traditionally" have a more DM-driven style, does it?

Sure it does. The olden game was a melange of oddball rules and vague advice, and how the DM made sense of it and applied it drove the campaign.

It does assume GM control over backstory, but not GM control over the events of play.

If you place a certain item in a place the characters can find it, or never place that item, that's going to not just shape the events of play around finding the item, it's going to shape the character who gets the item, just for one instance. In 1e as in 5e, the DM is ultimately responsible for the game, if he wants to railroad the PCs, he can. If he wants to give them the impression their choices are driving the 'story' that emerges, he can.

 

[pemerton]

The DM can basically re-jigger the game to make it more player driven, but, y'know, the DM is driving said re-jiggering.

<snip>

The olden game was a melange of oddball rules and vague advice, and how the DM made sense of it and applied it drove the campaign.

This seems like saying that if the GM suggests playing Apocalypse World, and the group goes along with the suggestion, then the game is really GM-driven because the GM suggested the system.

Or to put it another way: if the GM's "rejiggering" is to use the inspiration mechanics, to make all rolls in the open, to frame checks on a "say 'yes" or role the dice" basis, to allow the players to establish goals for their PCs that then drive the action, etc, then it is no longer a GM-driven game.

Or to put it yet another way: the GM's use of techniques that make a game player driven doesn't cease to make the game player-driven because it's the GM who's using them.

If he wants to give them the impression their choices are driving the 'story' that emerges, he can.

In 5e, at least, the GM can not only give the impression: s/he can make the impression correct.

In 1st ed AD&D it's harder, as far as "story" is concerned. I think a player-driven AD&D game is going to be fairly light on story, and much more about the hijinks of particular encounters, dungeon rooms etc.

 

[pemerton]

Highly relevant if it impacts the PCs in any major way and-or over the long term.

As I posted upthread, I regard this sort of GM's secret backstory, used as tool for adjudicating action declarations, railroading.

And similar to the discussion with [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] upthread about the assassination of the marquis, I would think of certain sorts of "off-screen" interference with key NPCs etc as equally railroading, in the sense of forcing outcomes (ie event that are significant to the players and their PCs) regardless of player action declarations.

But what happens when there's something significant going on - or about to go on - that the characters (and thus by extension the players) cannot and do not know anything about? For example; yes they might know the Dusk War is on the horizon but what if you-as-DM have predetermined that the main infantry legions of the invading army are going to be wiped out by a divinely-sent flash flood three miles into their march, rendering the whole war mostly moot?

But as GM I wouldn't. If the Dusk War is a major focus of the campaign, and if the PCs are dedicated to preventing it, then there is no divine flash flood waiting to happen independent of the actions of the PCs. That would make all their actions meaningless - it would be a negation of their choices and the significance of those choices, to re-use a phrase introduced above in discussion with [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION].

 

[pemerton]

So the player's roll actually does determine if the receptacle exists, not if the PC sees the receptacle. Or rather, not simply if the PC sees it...the roll determines both the presence and the viewing of it.

I don't think using the words "exist" and "presence" in that way is very helpful. It encourages category mistakes.

Whether or not the vessel exists, and is present in the room, depends on the actions of beings in the shared fiction (eg did a house servant take a chamber pot into the room? did someone bring a jug of water into the room? etc).

Stepping out of the ingame perspective into the real world, of course no vessel exists - nor does any of the rest of the fiction - it is all made up and imaginary. And the content of the shared fiction can be determined in all sorts of ways. One way is via player checks - in particular, if the player succeeds on a check that establishes that his PC can see a vessel in the bedroom then that state of affairs becomes part of the shared fiction. Which means that the presence of a vessel in the bedroom also becomes a part of the shared fiction.

An analogue in classic D&D - which [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] might remember from past discussions - is the paladin's power to call for a warhorse. The player's activation of that power makes it true, in the shared fiction, (i) that the paladin has some sort of dream/vision of the location of the warhorse, and therefore (ii) that said warhorse is present in said location. But the existence of the warhorse is not a result of the paladin calling for it - the warhorse was foaled, grew up, etc, long before the paladin called for it.

Note in both cases that the player action declaration is only one way of introducing the given element into the shared fiction. For instance, as I explained upthread, a failed check to notice the vessel might also introduce the vessel as a part of the shared fiction - but broken rather than ready-to-hand for blood collection. In the case of the paladin's warhorse, the GM may have mentioned some foaling horses at some earlier time in the campaign, and now use the occasion of the paladin calling for a warhorse to reintroduce one of those foals into the game.

So setting this DC with about a 1% chance of failure is more meaningful than simply saying "yup, it's there"? I mean, clearly the player is up to something by asking....so Justin saying yes would seem to save some time and no the really impact the drama.

When you say the player is up to something . . . you seem to imply that the GM may not know what.

In the approach that my table uses, the GM always knows what it is that "the player is up to". Action declaration is both intent and task. Knowing both is key to framing the check, to understanding how it fits into the unfolding action, and - if the check fails - to narrating failure. (Eg it is only because the GM knows that the player wants the vessel to collect blood that it would be appropriate to narrate, on a failure, that the familiar is eating the blood.)

As to why to set a DC even if it's low? Multiple reasons: it's part of the ritual of play; it highlights the significance, to the unfolding events, of this particular moment of action - Tru-leigh wants a vessel to collect the blood for his master, but can he see one that he might use? And it opens up the possibility of failure and hence the dramatic pacing of rise and fall, even for something easy. If the PCs only even fail on hard things, that changes the tone of the drama. It makes the feel of the game less gritty. And this particular game aims for a gritty feel. (This is a difference from, say, 4e.)

In your failed check/fail forward example, I don't see how it's the check that really does all that much. In this example, you've said the the result of the roll is pretty much a given. And I don't think that you mentioned anything about the degrees of failure or success based on how far the roll was from the DC...so all the alternatives (the broken chamber pot, etc.) are all still the product of DM judgment.

I don't quite follow.

The result of the roll is either success - in which case the PC gets what the player wanted for him (namely, he can see a vessel in which he can try and collect the blood) - or failure - in which case some sort of failure has to be narrated. I gave a couple of examples of what those might be.

I'm not sure how degrees of success/failure factor into this - of the systems I run regularly, the only one that routinely cares about degrees of success/failure is Marvel Heroic RP. But yes, adjudicating the consequences of failure is a GM judgement call. I didn't think that was in doubt. But I'm not sure what further conclusion you're drawing from that.

Nowhere have I posted anything critical of GM judgement calls in general. In the OP I gave an example of a judgement call - setting a DC - that I don't see as railroading. In subsequent posts in this thread I've given further examples.

I just don't see the required connection between the dead end point and DM judgment.

I don't understand this. You asked, "Does a failed check really open so many alternative paths that a DM saying "there is no chamber pot" does not?" and "Do you feel that from the player's point of view there is a significant difference between a failed check compared to the DM simply saying no?"

I explained why I prefer "fail forward" to "dead end" failure (eg "Just as you notice the jar on the table, it is knocked over and smashes" to "No, there's no vessel"). "Fail forward" relies on GM judgement (to narrate some consequence of failure that pushes the action onward) in a way that "dead end" narration does not (hence my incredulity at [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]'s suggestion that I could get the play experience I've talked about in this thread by playing without a GM). So the only "required connection" is that "dead end" narration doesn't require GM judgement, whereas "fail forward" does.

As far as the GM substituting a judgement to "say no" for a check, there is no particular connection between that and "dead end" failure - as I posted upthread, GM might by way of fiat describe the jar being smashed, or the familiar licking up the blood, without calling for a check and hence without allowing the possibility of the player getting what he wants for his PC. But, as I said in the OP, I would regard such an exercise of judgement as railroading - it is the GM shaping the outcomes (ie the highly salient and significant events within the shared fiction) in order to fit some preconception of what should happen. So it's not something that I would do.

This is where I question your choice to label it as a railroad. So far, I am not seeing a meaningful difference.

To be clear - are you saying you don't see any difference between a GM narrating failure by fiat, and a GM setting a DC and then the player checking and failing?

 

[Lanefan]

As I posted upthread, I regard this sort of GM's secret backstory, used as tool for adjudicating action declarations, railroading.

So a DM's not allowed to have a game-affecting hidden backstory without being accused of railroading???

You've gone over the top on that one, old chap. Sorry.

And similar to the discussion with [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] upthread about the assassination of the marquis, I would think of certain sorts of "off-screen" interference with key NPCs etc as equally railroading, in the sense of forcing outcomes (ie event that are significant to the players and their PCs) regardless of player action declarations.

You've agreed upthread that something happening off-screen isn't railroading - I think - such as the Marquis being assassinated in his bed the night before.

My point is that there's no difference if it happens on-screen in a manner that precludes the PCs from doing anything about it - the Marquis still dies, whether it's last night in his private hotel room or this afternoon in an arena where the PCs happen to be able to see it from across the field.

But as GM I wouldn't. If the Dusk War is a major focus of the campaign, and if the PCs are dedicated to preventing it, then there is no divine flash flood waiting to happen independent of the actions of the PCs. That would make all their actions meaningless - it would be a negation of their choices and the significance of those choices, to re-use a phrase introduced above in discussion with [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION].

Now here things get interesting.

Let's say as an example that this oncoming Dusk War had been a background atmosphere-setting thing all along in the campaign (maybe it's because all the local soldiery has been called to the front lines that brave adventurers are needed back here closer to town, thus explaining the existence of your party at all), but that your intent going in was that it would in theory never become too relevant to anything because a flash flood was going to end it as soon as it started. But during play the players via their characters have brought the oncoming Dusk War to the fore, made it important to themselves, and based some major decisions around it; all regardless whether or not it was important to you as DM and-or whether you had any interest at all in running a war-front adventure or campaign*.

Now you're screwed.

By your definitions you'll be railroading if you have the flood happen anyway even though it's what you'd planned all along.
By at least one other definition upthread (I forget who's) you'll be railroading if you deviate from your original plan, dispense with the flood, and let the war continue.
And by my definition you've in fact been railroaded by your players.

Me, I have the flood happen anyway. The war was nothing more than a red herring that the party latched on to; meanwhile who knows what else they've been ignoring in the meantime.

* - this is important too - what happens if (or when) the players/characters happen to steer you toward running something you simply don't want to run?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

To be clear - are you saying you don't see any difference between a GM narrating failure by fiat, and a GM setting a DC and then the player checking and failing?

Depends.

If the DC is set at 94 then nope, no difference at all other than the small amount of extra time taken to ask for the check and roll the die.

If the DC is set at something reasonable, then while there's a added difference in that success is in theory possible there's no difference in the end result: it's still a fail. What's important, perhaps, is whether it's by fiat or by die roll the end-result narration really should be the same: in the case of a very quick search as in the cup-for-blood example it might go "You look around and find nothing obvious." regardless how that result was arrived at.

Lanefan