Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Different tables will have different preferences; what works for your table (and for Manbearcat) will not necessarily work for all tables and for all levels of experience ... or for all TTRPGs. Using a term that is widely viewed as a pejorative to describe the preferences of other tables does not illuminate conversation- instead, it is likely to diminish it.

Pretty much! We get a bunch of rules which we're given free license to use, modify and flat out ignore. Good stuff! And unsurprisingly, attempting to use language to describe specific facets of play enjoyed at one table will ultimately lead to some disagreement and confusion, as such facets are not universal in their delivery any more than our experience of them.

Though I'm totally up for authoring a D&D Dictionary, enforced with extreme prejudice.

 

[pemerton]

Wait what... so if I as DM want the outcome to be that they get the blood (because this summoning ritual is going to bring a BBEG I really want to use) and I say yes when asked if there's a container... it's not railroading?

How is the summoning ritual going to bring a BBEG that I really wan to use? What process of resolution do you have in mind that will lead to that outcome?

The only one that I can see is adjudication by reference to secret backstory. Which is something that I've already indicated I dislike.

I thought the GM creating an outcome, any outcome, to push in a pre-determined way was a railroad... but so long as I say yes when the players ask or try to do something it's not railroading.... is this correct?

<snip>

Are you then claiming that in saying yes a DM can never be shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative... and if that is what you are saying I don't understand how that could be the case...

Acceding to a request is not a mode of steering.

If the player wants something-or-other to be part of the shared fiction, and the GM agrees (and no one else at the table intervenes), then it becomes part of the shared fiction. That is not the GM shaping outcomes. That is the player introducing an element into the shared fiction.

(For an example of someone else at the table intervening, I refer you to the write-up of the viking session: the berserker charged at the gate-opening giant and threatened to deliver a mighty blow, but the player of the swordthane used a PC ability to take the damage onto his character. In the fiction, the swordthane catches the berserker's axe as it is about to land a blow on the giant; at the table, the player of the swordthane is performing a move in the game that lets him establish the content of the shared fiction, overriding what the player of the berserker otherwise would have made it.)

 

[pemerton]

For RPGs, rules operationalize what players what their PCs to do, not define what they can do.

That doesn't seem a very good characterisation of D&D rules for attacking and dealing damage, for memorising and casting spells, the action economy, the rules for going into a barbaric rage, etc.

In the context of 5e it might be one way of characterising the non-combat, ability check-based resolution system.

 

[hawkeyefan]

From my vantage point, the difference between a failed check and a GM simply deciding if my character is successful absolutely matters to me. I am assuming that check was made in good faith and will have an impact on the ultimate resolution. In some cases having a check may be preferable - in others it may not. Generally, I am not really a fan of perception and knowledge checks. If something is in plain view in the fiction or if my character would know some relevant detail I would prefer to simply be told so. This is part of always saying what honesty demands - an important precept of the sort of role playing I prefer. Only by providing meaningful information to players can decisions truly matter.

I also care very deeply why the GM is making the decisions they are making. It carries a lot of water to me if something is being introduced to offer players meaningful decisions or to prod players down a particular path. In general what I am looking for when I play a roleplaying game is to be offered the chance to make informed decisions, have those decisions actually matter, sometimes experience bleed, and give the game its say.

I don't disagree with any of this. However, I think that DM fiat can be used to offer player's meaningful choices. I feel like much of the discussion revolves around the idea that DM Fiat can only be railroading, which is what I disagree with. One instance of such, even several, doesn't mean that a game must be a railroad.

As you say, sometime she a check is needed, other time she it is not.

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).

I used those terms in order to make sure I understood what you were saying.

Now that it is clear, I understand what you are going for. I have no problem with allowing player authorship in this manner.

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.)

Didnt you say that when the player asked about a vessel with which to catch the spilling blood, that you were not sure what they were up to, and so you asked for a skill check rather than simply deciding by DM Fiat?

I would think from the circumstances that you've described that the PC's intention would have been at least partially clear.

A DM who said no because he wanted things to continue as is, yes that can be seen as railroading. But what about the DM who simply said yes? There is a vessel to catch the blood. That's not railroading, right? The DM is actively allowing this alternate path that the player introduced to continue.

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.)

Well you said the chance of failure was about 1%...so I think dispensing with the dice in such a case makes sense. There is as little drama as possible when the chance to fail is 1%.

So given that, I don't really see your approach as much different than what can be accomplished by DM Fiat. I think the question really comes down to the DM. Whichever approach they use, they can promote choice or limit choice.

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.

I mentioned it because perhaps the result of the roll would help shape the options of failing forward. So if it was close to the DC, perhaps an alternative that would not be that hard to achieve, or if it was far from the DC, then a more difficult option.

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.

Perhaps it is my interpretation, but you seem to view DM Fiat as railroading. Which I disagree with, in general. It can be railroading, but I do not think it must be. I think that it is the same as DM Judgment, just a higher degree.

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 @Jester David'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.

I don't see this dichotomy. What is dead end narration? Must DM Fiat decisions always be considered such?

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.

And this is where I feel you're creating a connection between dead end narration and DM Fiat that need not exist. Your assumption is that the DM would say no simply to remove the player getting what he wants rather than saying yes and actively giving the player what he wants. This is why I'm confused.

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?

No, it's not that. Remove the failure from the situation. In the example you gave, I don't see a meaningful difference between the DM using his judgment to determine a DC for a skill check and using his judgment to decide simply yes or no in regard to the vessel.

As I said, I suppose we could say that one approach is more susceptible to railroading than the other, but neither is immune. The DM can force a railroad through fiat or he can do it through more subtle methods.

So in the case of the DM deciding by fiat that there was no vessel, that could be a railroad if no further options are offered. But the DM can offer other alternatives in this method just as he could in the case of a failed check.

This is not to say that I see no difference between DM judgment and the chance of success being determined by the dice. For many such instances, I would go to the dice...the more meaningful the potential impact, the less likely I would lean on DM fiat as the tool to use.

But in the example you gave? I tend to go with the approach that you roll the dice when the result is in doubt. In this case, the doubt isn't strong enough to bother with the dice. But I wouldn't shut down the PCs idea...I'd confirm it and see what happens.

So do am I railroading my players in this instance?

 

[pemerton]

Some people plan. They like it. They like the tighter narrative and cohesive story.

If the players are free to depart from what has been planned, then where does the tightness/cohesion come from?

Conversely, if the players are expected to, or for whatever reason do, go along with the planning, such that the pre-scripted tightnes/cohesiveness is realised in play, then it seems a case of the GM determining the principal events of the campaign.

In your example, the PCs kill Torog. Assuming he had followers, who takes over? Are they better or worse? What do they do next? Is there a violent battle for succession that spills out into the countryside?

Why would any of this matter? Only, as far as I can tell, if it somehow bears upon the PCs (and thereby the players in their engagement with the game). In which case it can be handled either as an element of framing or as a consequence of resolution.

I mentioned an example of framing upthread: the death of Torog allows the tarrasque to reawaken.

As far as a successor is concerned: one of the PCs took on that mantle, when I offered it to him in the context of a difficult fight with Kas.

Does the release of the tarrasque cause panic in the kingdoms? Maybe a wave of suicides and religious conversions that changes the dynamics in the nation? Different churches take power, and the state suddenly becomes a theocracy after an impromptu revolution.

This is either more framing (and mostly colour in the context of that framing), or else is open to the same analysis as the assassination of the Marquis: if the players, via their PCs, are invested in the nation or the church then just changing them like this is a form of offscreen failure.

Which is not to say that it wouldn't be a potentially appropriate consequence of a failed attempt by the PCs to stop the tarrasque.

 

[Imaro]

How is the summoning ritual going to bring a BBEG that I really wan to use? What process of resolution do you have in mind that will lead to that outcome?

The only one that I can see is adjudication by reference to secret backstory. Which is something that I've already indicated I dislike.

Why does it have to be "secret" backstory? The PC's could be fully aware of what the blood is for and the DM could still want to push things towards that particular outcome...

Acceding to a request is not a mode of steering.

You've yet to explain why it isn't. Stating something doesn't make it so.

If the player wants something-or-other to be part of the shared fiction, and the GM agrees (and no one else at the table intervenes), then it becomes part of the shared fiction. That is not the GM shaping outcomes. That is the player introducing an element into the shared fiction.

But this outcome is being allowed automatically because the GM agrees with it (so the GM ultimately is steering it). Otherwise, if the GM didn't agree with it there would be a roll to determine whether it did or did not take place.

(For an example of someone else at the table intervening, I refer you to the write-up of the viking session: the berserker charged at the gate-opening giant and threatened to deliver a mighty blow, but the player of the swordthane used a PC ability to take the damage onto his character. In the fiction, the swordthane catches the berserker's axe as it is about to land a blow on the giant; at the table, the player of the swordthane is performing a move in the game that lets him establish the content of the shared fiction, overriding what the player of the berserker otherwise would have made it.)

I don't think I have a probelm grasping the concept of another player interfering... what I'm having trouble grasping is that if the only time an action auto succeeds is when the GM agrees with it then the GM is in fact shaping outcomes. Other players have the ability to disagree and force a roll but not to agree and create an auto-success, which again points to the GM being able to steer things through his agreement.

 

[pemerton]

Didnt you say that when the player asked about a vessel with which to catch the spilling blood, that you were not sure what they were up to, and so you asked for a skill check rather than simply deciding by DM Fiat?

No.

From the OP:

In a FRPG session I ran yesterday, the action was in a bedroom in a mage's tower, where a wizard had been lying unconsciousness on a divan recovering from a terrible wound, but then was rather brutally decapitated by an assassin. One of the players, whose PC ran into the room just as the decapitation took place, asked whether there was a vessel in the room in which the PC could catch the decapitated mage's blood.

I resolved this by setting a DC for a Perception check - and because, as the player argued with some plausibility, it was likely that a room for convalescing in would have a chamber pot, jug/ewer, etc - I set the DC fairly low. The player succeeded, and the PC was able to grab the vessel and catch the blood as desired.

It is precisely because I knew what was at stake that a DC was set. If nothing was at stake (ie if it was some bit of colour or auxiliary action that didn't bear upon some central concern of the PC and (thereby) the player) then I would simply "say 'yes'" so that the action could move on.

But what about the DM who simply said yes? There is a vessel to catch the blood. That's not railroading, right?

No, it's not. But it's not "say 'yes' or roll the dice", either.

I stated some of the reasons for not just "saying 'yes'" when something is actually at stake in my earlier reply upthread. It's primarily to do with pacing, tone, and the experience of the tension/drama/stakes of the game.

you seem to view DM Fiat as railroading

No. I view GM narration of failure by way of fiat as railroading. As per this re-quote of the OP:

had I decided simply that the room contains no vessel, because I had already decided that I didn't want the storyline to include shenanigans with a blood-filled chamber pot, I think that would count not only as a judgement call, but as one that has a railroading effect.

In some more recent posts I've been elaborating on this idea and its consequences - eg "no failure by GM fiat" entails "no failure offscreen".
Which is relevant to thinking about the dynamics of a situation like the assassination of the Marquis; or the fall of the nation when threatened by the tarrasque. If those eventualities would count as "failure" - ie things that are at odds with the commitments/concerns/goals/etc of the players as expressed and realised via their PCs - then bringing them about simply as part of the backstory would, on my account of the matter, be railroading.

What is dead end narration? Must DM Fiat decisions always be considered such?

By "dead end" narration I meant something like "No, there's no vessel".

"Dead end" narration of failure is independent of the issue of railroading, in that it could be the result of GM fiat (ie what I have described as railroading) or the response to a failed check by a player. I prefer "fail forward"/"no whiffing" (I use inverted commas mostly because neither is an especially satisfactory term to actually describe the technique; and in addition "fail forward" has become widely identified with "success with a compication", which can often be quite a different thing).

The benefit of "fail forward" is that, by narrating the failure so as to frame the PC into a new conflict (eg there's a jar, but it's broken; the familiar is eating up all the blood), the momentum of the action is maintained - because the failure of the action declaration is used as the foundation for further framing. (Whereas "Sorry, there's no vessel" doesn't provide any new framing for the player to respond to.)

 

[pemerton]

Why does it have to be "secret" backstory? The PC's could be fully aware of what the blood is for and the DM could still want to push things towards that particular outcome...

If the players want to summon the BBEG (? by what measure, then, is this guy to be summoned big, bad and evil? - but let's let that seeming incoherence pass) then the GM doesn't need to push towards that, does s/he? All s/he has to do is let things unfold!

More generally, if everyone at the table wants the same thing in the fiction - eg everyone thinks that the next exciting thing to happen is the PCs all being there with the blood summoning the BBEG - then it's not railroading to cut to that, or to move to it quickly through a framing narration and/or "saying 'yes'" to player action declarations, and in effect treating them as part of the framing.

You're the first person I've come across who thinks that it is railroading a player to allow them to have the fiction include the content that they want!

 

[Imaro]

If the players want to summon the BBEG (? by what measure, then, is this guy to be summoned big, bad and evil? - but let's let that seeming incoherence pass) then the GM doesn't need to push towards that, does s/he? All s/he has to do is let things unfold!

It's not incoherent for pplayers to want the summon the BBEG, it's a well known fanatsy trope to think one can subvert or control the power of a BBEG.

The GM isn't just letting things unfold, he is actively allowing specific actions (those he agrees with and one would assume wants to succeed) to auto-succeed.

More generally, if everyone at the table wants the same thing in the fiction - eg everyone thinks that the next exciting thing to happen is the PCs all being there with the blood summoning the BBEG - then it's not railroading to cut to that, or to move to it quickly through a framing narration and/or "saying 'yes'" to player action declarations, and in effect treating them as part of the framing.

Why isn't it? No one said players couldn't agree with being railroaded... but if it is specifically the outcome that the DM wants and he can subtly or not so subtly push towards that by making actions the players take towards that outcome auto-succeed... it is by your earlier definition a form of railroading and I would also say on the border of illusionism.

You're the first person I've come across who thinks that it is railroading a player to allow them to have the fiction include the content that they want!

I've not made that claim... I'm more claiming your definition of railroading is incoherent if the DM can say yes to the actions he wants to take place and they auto-succeed...