Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Quickleaf]

My wish in these kinds of threads is that we could focus on specific moments of play and hone in on analyzing "what is going on under the hood" and the implications therein rather than working broadly from the macro conception (railroad) backwards to those important moments of play (of applied, or not, GM Force). I hate how so often threads devolve into that. We end up functionally analyzing nothing (collectively that is) and thus gain no greater understanding.

I also wish I could locate my GMing principles thread that I did for Dungeon World, 4e, 5e, and B/X. I think they may have been lost to the October 6th scrub from last year (what a pity). I believe [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] were both involved in that thread. They would be helpful here.

Honestly, you have much more experience with a diversity of game systems than I do, so you're in a better position to speak prescriptively about GMing principles across systems. I've dabbled in other games over the years, but mostly I'm a "true blue" D&D guy. Currently I'm learning the FFG Star Wars system and that's the first new game I've picked up since 5th edition D&D – I'm really enjoying how the Star Wars dice create unexpected outcomes requiring using our imaginations.

While I totally agree that game system influences how the game is GMed, based on my limited experience, I think the social factors of the group probably have more impact than game system on how I personally GM. Once I get a pulse on what each player is looking for – whether they consciously realize it or not – everything else (including the game system) is kind of secondary.

Obviously anyone else can do the same if they'd like. I feel that this level of focus is much more helpful than just broad -for-tat on railroading (and for whatever reason folks aren't engaging with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's myriad of play examples...maybe its the format of them, I have no idea why...so maybe how I've formatted things will help).

Speaking personally, there are 2 reasons I find it hard to engage:

(1) When you guys use what I've dubbed Forge-speak (e.g. terms like GM Force or Illusionism) that I need to try and decipher, I find it hard to understand. Often it comes across as overly analytical and ungrounded to me, and wading through multiple paragraphs of that kind of writing just isn't enjoyable to me. Maybe simpler (and terser) language would help?

(2) In the way they're presented they come across as "here's what we did, and it's done", rather than questions or particular insights (at least, that's my judgment based on what I can discern). Maybe presenting a question would be more inviting rather than a play report?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "straight failure".

To use your term, failure leading to status quo. A dead end.

Why is the encouragement false?

Because it gives the players (and characters, I suppose) the illusion of their having a chance of success where there is none. Just say 'no' and get on with it.

What you're describing here is a puzzle: the players have to decipher some clues to get to Verburgge so they can get the key to enter the Ruins of Fortune.

I posted about puzzles upthread, in response to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]. In my view they fall very much into the "handle with care" bag, and I wouldn't base a whole campaign around them; and I certainly wouldn't base a whole campaign around one single puzzle.

Perhaps, though I don't so much see it as a puzzle. Instead, it's a chain of events - much like an AP - such that if you don't do task a before attempting task b then the outcome of task b must be failure. (not a railroad, however, in that choice exists as to whether to do task a at all and if done, whether to go on to task b or find something else to do)

I don't think D&D has ever been exclusively, or even primarily, a puzzle-solving game. Exploring a classic dungeon doesn't require the players to solve any particualr puzzle before they can progress - if there's one door they can't get through, there are plenty of others evident to them they can explore.

Until they run out of doors other than the one they can't get through. It's a classic trope, actually, that you need to do or find one thing before doing another...and as a nice side effect it can be a great way to spin a single adventure out into three or four:
Adv. 1 - go to the Ruins of Fortune, explore and clear out some of it, hit a door you cannot pass and realize you need a specific key
Adv. 2 - go somewhere else where in a ruined library somewhere you find the history and present whereabouts of said key (Verbrugge's Hold)
Adv. 3 - go get the key from Verbrugge the Giant. Enjoy the giant-clobbering.
Adv. 4 - return to Fortune, use the key, get through the door, and carry on.

"Fail forward" means that the consequences of failure aren't simply status quo. There are no dead ends.

Rather, a failed check means that something happens that thwarts the purposes of the PC and forces the player to make some new choice in an adverse situation. Eg the PCs are trying to escape across the city, and they don't. Rather, they get apprehended by the night watch. That's failure. It's not "success with complications". It's not "elements of progress".

But it does force the players to make some new choices, under conditions of adversity.

OK, I see the difference now. To me "forward" is defined by how the failure relates to the characters' goal(s) - do they get closer to their goal, go nowhere, or go backward. To you it relates to advancement of the story; and your example of the night watch capture would in my eyes be a fail-backward.

It occurs to me one big difference between fail-forward/backward and fail-status-quo is that with fail-status-quo the characters have to come up with a plan B with (usually) no new information to go by, where with a fail-forward/backward something changes and one way or another they have (because the DM has provided) new information simply by narrating the changes. Fail-status-quo puts the onus on the players (in character) to generate movement; the other is easier on the players as it hands them the movement (for better or worse) and simply asks what they do with it.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Then I urge you to reread some of my posts.

Of course they can be surprised in that way. But that would be the result of failure; not it's cause.

Why could it not be the cause of failure as well? (see below)

a PC mage had returned with the party to the ruined tower where he once lived studying under his brother's tutelage before they fled when the tower was assaulted by orcs (this was part of the PC's backstory; the brother is the mage who was decapitated in the tower by the assassin, having been possessed by a balrog when the attempt to cast a spell to repel the orcs failed). Another part of the PC's backstory stated that, in the tower, he had left behind The Falcon's Claw, a nickel-silver mace which he was preparing to receive enchantments. Having now returned to the tower after lo those many years, a search was made for the mace. This was framed as a check in the same way as looking for a vessel in the bedroom. The check failed; and so the PC did not find any mace. Instead, he found a collection of cursed arrows in the ruins of what had been his brother's private workroom - this discovery therefore (i) implicating his brother in the manufacture of the arrow that had killed another PC's (the elven ronin's) master; and (ii) implying that his brother was evil before being possessed by a balrog, rather than as a result of it.​

The players were surprised by this discovery. Including the implication that the explanation for the brother's possession was his evil, rather than vice versa.

So nobody other than you knew ahead of time that the brother was evil. Cool!

But - the fact that the brother was secretly evil all along would have influenced his earlier reactions and interactions with the PC mage, would it not; never mind that he could also have been working aganst the party's (or at least his brother's) interests behind the scenes perhaps causing them to fail where they otherwise might have succeeded.

Hidden obstacles to the party's success don't fall under the definition of railroading; nor does hidden support leading to success where otherwise they'd have failed. It's perfectly valid and very realistic that the PCs (and players) don't know everything; and nor should they.

As I've posted multiple times upthread, from a mere description of the fiction it's impossible to tell. Railroading isn't about the content of the fiction, it's about the method of its generation.

Er...how?

If the DM generates that someone has a secret, and that secret influences their interactions with the PCs, is that railroading? By my definition absolutely not.

If the DM generates that something that happens off-screen influences some NPC interactions with the PCs, is that railroading? Again, flat-out no. (example: most everyone in the party's base town has always been friendly and usually cheerful; but this visit there's been lots of dour faces and surly attitudes. PCs have no idea why. They can ask, of course, and soon find out the Baron just doubled everyone's taxes; and this isn't railroading - it's just an off-screen event that has changed how some NPCs interact with...well, everyone.)

Or, flip it around: what if one of the PCs has a secret that none of the other PCs* knows about, that influences how they interact with the party and the game as a whole?

* - or players - character knowledge should (and here must) = player knowledge, particularly when it comes to something like a secret backstory or agenda whether being hidden by another PC or an NPC.

Lan-"there's known unknowns, and there's unknown unknowns, and there's railcars"-efan

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Gardens & Goblins is your position in the quoted post that "system doesn't matter." It looks that way with what you've said and specifically your assertion that "We get a bunch of rules which we're given free license to use, modify and flat out ignore." While that is an orthodox principle in games like White Wolf's supernatural ones in the 90s, AD&D2e, and 5e, that isn't remotely a standard, TTRPG-spanning principle across all games. I know that is a big cultural zeitgeist that came out of that White Wolf/AD&D2e era, but that doesn't rubber stamp it as applying across all games. Most games don't need it, and several actively push against it or overtly direct you not to.

Not sure what you mean, by 'matters'. Does the system influence how things can be reolved? Sure. Can the system's representation of certain concept - damage, a skill, combat influence play. Of course! To the extent that we give it - and for a given value of 'matters'.

And we are given free license to modify the system as much as we wish. We're told right there in the PHB - ''Above all else, D&D is yours.'' If something is ours, we can do what we wish with it - and I'm fairly sure Mearls would give us a big thumbs up for doing so.

[sblock] We've played D&D using the WW system for maneuvers, Rolemaster for crits and weapon damage. We've used Monopoly board as a campaign event tracker. Drive-by rules in The Game of Life, cobbling together AD&D's combat system. We'll happily swap out and in, bolt on and tear of chunks of a system to support the play we wish to enjoy.

Of course, there comes a point, much like Ship of Theseus, where you wonder how much you can tinker with something before it is no longer the thing you began with - the first change? The 20th twiddle? If we add WW character creation for stats to D&D, are we playing D&D or WW?

Love it![/sblock]

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, you have much more experience with a diversity of game systems than I do, so you're in a better position to speak prescriptively about GMing principles across systems. I've dabbled in other games over the years, but mostly I'm a "true blue" D&D guy. Currently I'm learning the FFG Star Wars system and that's the first new game I've picked up since 5th edition D&D – I'm really enjoying how the Star Wars dice create unexpected outcomes requiring using our imaginations.

While I totally agree that game system influences how the game is GMed, based on my limited experience, I think the social factors of the group probably have more impact than game system on how I personally GM. Once I get a pulse on what each player is looking for – whether they consciously realize it or not – everything else (including the game system) is kind of secondary.


Speaking personally, there are 2 reasons I find it hard to engage:

(1) When you guys use what I've dubbed Forge-speak (e.g. terms like GM Force or Illusionism) that I need to try and decipher, I find it hard to understand. Often it comes across as overly analytical and ungrounded to me, and wading through multiple paragraphs of that kind of writing just isn't enjoyable to me. Maybe simpler (and terser) language would help?

(2) In the way they're presented they come across as "here's what we did, and it's done", rather than questions or particular insights (at least, that's my judgment based on what I can discern). Maybe presenting a question would be more inviting rather than a play report?

QFT as I can't give xp to [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION]: he's turned them off.

I also have to tiptoe around Forge-speak, and do my best to interpret what's actually being said. (and no, in case anyone asks, I'm not the least bit interested in diving into the Forge)

And, I'm also a "true-blue D&D guy" which might be why I'm really having a hard time getting hold of some of what's being presented here. That said, I think you're bang on when you say the people around the table are going to have more influence on what gets played and how than anything else ever will.

Lanefan

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The players were surprised by this discovery. Including the implication that the explanation for the brother's possession was his evil, rather than vice versa.

When was that truth established, though? Had it always been true that the brother was evil, even when the events of that backstory were taking place, and you were aware of it while the players were not? Or did it only become true in the aftermath of their search?

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

When was that truth established, though? Had it always been true that the brother was evil, even when the events of that backstory were taking place, and you were aware of it while the players were not? Or did it only become true in the aftermath of their search?

Ah. I see we've entered into the realm of quantum roleplaying!

 

[robus]

Yes, but what is set in motion by their arrival was pre-determined by the DM who "Set up the hamlet or village where the action will commence...". Part of that set up is determining the NPC motivations, plots, secrets, etc., virtually all of which will be unknown to the players/PCs before they arrive. Many of those things may never be discovered, yet still have influence on the PCs.

You won't believe how happy it makes me to give you some XP

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes. I posted that in my first reply to you, and have reiterated since.

The issue of "dead end" failure and the issue of "railroading" are independent. As I said in the post you quoted.

I don't understnd what you mean. Failing the check means that the PC (and hence the player) does not get what s/he wanted.

The consequence of failure is established by the GM - as I posted, it might be expressly stated in framing the check; it might be implicit in the situation; it might have to be worked out by the GM after the roll is made. Narrating a failed consequence is an exercise in framing, in drawing out implicit strands and elements in the game that might be pushing against the PC and brining them to the fore, at the centre of the action.

This is why I find [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s suggestion that a computer could do it, or [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s suggestion that it crushes GM creativity, rather odd. Those are completely at odds with my experience. It can sometimes be quite a challenging thing, to hit upon the right failure consequence for a given check.

One example I may have already mentioned in this thread is the following: Jobe the mage and Tru-leigh the naga-serving spirit summoner, knowing that Halika the assassin would try and kill the unconscious mage that night, fed her a sleeping potion before seting out through the sewers and catacombs to find their way into the tower (so that they could take the mage from the tower for their own purposes). But they failed their check to make their way quickly through the catacombs; and so, as time passes, they find themselves under a grille and Halika's voice calls through, taunting them: the consequnce of failure is that they have spent so long wandering through the undercity that the sleeping potion has worn off, and Halika now has a head start on her way to the tower (in the fiction it's already been established - in a previous session - that she's spent a week casing the place, so there's no question that she can make her way there without getting lost).

That is failure - as per my recent reply to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it's not "success with complication". The PCs don't get to the tower unopposed by Halika. Instead, she has the head start (in mechanical terms, a bonus die).

The failure isn't just conjured out of thin air. It has none of the non sequitur quality of "rocks fall". It draws on the established fiction of the game, but also puts a new twist on it that is adverse to the PCs, and thereby the players (in this case, the sleeping potion, instead of being an instrument of success for the two PCs, becomes a symbol of the division between the two of them and Halika).

It's probably worth noting how this example connects to the ideas of "no failure offscreen" and "no determination of consequences by reference to the GM's secret backstory": the relationship between the PC's travel time and the duration of the sleeping potion effect isn't worked out by comparing GM's charts and maps. Rather, it's narrated as a result of the players' failed check.

The game is not lacking in backstory and interconnection between events. But they are established via play, not via pre-authorship.

As I said in reply to [MENTION=89537]Jacob Marley[/MENTION], what is key is that even low DCs are set when the action pivots upon simple but crucial deeds. Some of these will fail (due to bad luck; due to poor bonuses; etc). Framing the check even when failure is unlikely is part of establishing an overall tone and feel.

Fair enough. I don't think calling for the skill check is bad by any means; I actually think it's good to allow player authorship in such ways. However, I don't think it was necessary in order to avoid railroading.

I also think that failing forward could be just as likely to become a railroad. So while I don't disagree with what you've said...I think it's all a matter of judgment...I think I was more disagreeing with the implications you were making about playstyles other than the one you were describing. Which perhaps you did not intend, but which others have also picked up on.

 

[Lanefan]

My wish in these kinds of threads is that we could focus on specific moments of play and hone in on analyzing "what is going on under the hood" and the implications therein rather than working broadly from the macro conception (railroad) backwards to those important moments of play (of applied, or not, GM Force). I hate how so often threads devolve into that. We end up functionally analyzing nothing (collectively that is) and thus gain no greater understanding.

Problem is, if we can't agree on the macro definitions analyzing the specific moments becomes kinda pointless.

d) My AD&D1e (with heavy use of WSG) and 5e games have a lot of overlap and both share a lot with my 3.x games (except for LFQW is so bloody out of control in the latter). Granular hex-crawl and wilderness-exploration-heavy.

Given what I've read from you throughout your many (often very detailed) posts here and elsewhere, and what I've kind of gleaned as being your DMing style, I'd be very interested in seeing how you'd run 1e or a near variant. My guesses are:
1. It would be a good, fun game
2. It would be vastly different from mine (which I'd like to think is also good, and fun) even though we're using the same basic system. For one thing, I suspect you're much more mechanics-first than I am. (see below)

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] , given what you've written in this thread (and the reply above), I don't think you have a good handle on:

* the sum-total of GM overhead (prep, improv/adjudication, conflict-framing, and creativity requirements) in a game like Dungeon World versus a game like B/X (or 5e).

* the nuance of GM overhead (prep, improv/adjudication, conflict-framing, and creativity requirements) in a game like Dungeon World versus a game like B/X (or 5e).

Upthread I wrote out the fictional output from a play excerpt from Dungeon World. I followed that up with revealing the mechanization of that excerpt in Dungeon World. I have now just transliterated that over to reveal how that might be mechanized in B/X. Later I'll do 5e (which should be trivially done), when I have the spare time.

Do you think you could look those over and comment or ask questions to clarify. I would hope (if I've done my job...perhaps I haven't done it well enough though) the sum-total and nuance of GM overhead between DW and B/X would be much more clear to you.

Done.

Lots of questions and observations.

First, to nip in the bud any distracting talk of the crevasse in the DW example or the chute trap in the B/X example (which put the Elf alone in that situation) possibly being a form of railroading why not for the sake of this discussion say the Elf was singlehanding all along: a solo adventure where he'd reached that place during the normal course of exploration.

To the DW example I can say little as I don't know the system. I see what mechanics you're using to achieve what results but what's unclear is whether any of those mechanical resolutions could have been replaced with simple DM fiat and narration. It seems little to no advance GM prep went into the scene as you say right off it was all off the cuff - but was it a pre-mapped part of the dungeon to in theory be explored later or did it not exist at all until the Elf fell in?

And, one question: the Elf knew the Aboleth had 6 h.p. before shooting at it. Is it standard practice in DW that an opponent's hit points are known information to the players/characters? (also, if yes do the opponents get the same benefit in knowing the hit points of the PCs?)

With the B/X example I'm on more familiar ground. I get the sense you've added a bit more to the DM prep side on this one in pointing out he's got three pre-done adventures in the can ready to go - why would the same not be true in the DW example?

Beyond that, the DM in this scenario is relying on hard-coded mechanics far more than I ever would and thus making his own job a lot harder...with one exception: I'd think the wall-straddling move by the Elf needs some sort of check (roll under Dex?) to pull off quietly and-or gracefully. But the rest of it I'd have flow more organically, not worrying about Exploration Turns or any of that and probably deciding by DM judgement* that the Goblin coming onto the scene would take one look and run for its life. * - unless the Elf immediately did something unexpected like surrender, or itself flee.

As for running the caught Goblin through, isn't there a roll to hit involved in both systems? The other Goblins' reactions might be quite different if the Elf somehow manages to miss. (it's unclear what sort of level this Elf is)

I'd probably play the Parlay sequence much as you did only more organically, without the dice rolls and with a bit of attention to the Elf's Charisma (some Elves ooze Charisma out of every pore).

One other thing I'd be doing in both systems that you don't mention in either is quietly either rolling or fiat-ing what the Aboleth is up to and where it has gone. Maybe it scares another Goblin somewhere else and distant screams are heard. Maybe it moves in behind the Elf (intentionally or otherwise), such that if the Elf tries to leave the way he came in he'll run onto it. Or maybe it just goes to sleep somewhere and digests its lunch.

Now, back to the main topic: is any of this railroading? In either system I don't think so...it all looks like normal run of play to me; or at least I have to assume it is for DW.

Would it be railroading were it simple DM fiat/judgement that the Goblin shows up and flees for dramatic or story effect rather than the result of a random roll? Again I don't think so: particularly in B/X the player wouldn't - or shouldn't - know the difference anyway: all he knows is that a Goblin has just showed up. He doesn't know the mechanics (or lack thereof) behind that Goblin's arrival...all he can do (both in and out of character) is react to what's presented in whatever way makes sense to the character.

Lan-"Goblin: the other red meat"-efan