Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[pemerton]

I don't give a flying eff about your preferred style, your campaign, or if you like my style.

I care about you describing my style with derogatory terms.

Are you the same Jester David as this poster?

Optimizing is just a euphemism treadmill for minmaxing. Which, in turn, is derived from being power gaming and/ or munchkin.

Not a fan of optimizing. It's detrimental to the table. It's setting out to "win" D&D through the mechanics.

<snip>

It's disruptive.

Just curious.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then I think you've misunderstood the situation (as is evident by your comparison of it to "a shopping trip".

You seem to be conflating "stakes" with "risk of physical danger". Searching the ruins for a lost mace is low risk in that sense. But it is not low stakes. The PC has chosen to return (for the first time in 14 years) to the site where he last saw his brother; the tower they had to abandon when it was assaulted by orcs; the place where, in trying to fight off those orcs, the brother tried to summon a mighty storm of magical lightning and instead opened up a conduit to hell and was possessed by a balrog.

Having returned, the PC hopes to find the item he was working on, seeking to enchant, when the orcs attacked.

That is not a low stakes situation. It's a high stakes one. The player chose to put all this to the test; and failed.

No, it's not. Success would have been getting a mace, and not even a magical one. That's not high stakes because the reward fir success is small. The cost of failure wasn't negotiated beforehand, you arbitrarily decided to fundamentally alter the players back story, thereby invalidating one of thier goals. This is wildly out of proportion, which is why I compared it to a shopping trip vs world devestation. It's the same level of hidden high risks with low rewards.

And, I never said there had to be physical danger. Please don't add words.

Also, I'm confused by something else, here. The result of the search was that the player found some black, cursed arrows in his brother's lab. Who established this meant the brother had always been evil, you or the player?

 

[pemerton]

No, it's not. Success would have been getting a mace, and not even a magical one. That's not high stakes because the reward fir success is small. The cost of failure wasn't negotiated beforehand, you arbitrarily decided to fundamentally alter the players back story, thereby invalidating one of thier goals.

I've told you what was at stake. I've told you what it was that the player was putting on the line. I'm not sure how you think that you - who were not present - know better than me - who was present - what was at stake.

I'm also not sure why you continue to frame the stakes in terms of material reward. I've already explained that that was not the essence of the situation.

I also don't understand your use of the word "arbitrarily". This wasn't arbitrary. It was reasoned, and conformed with an "intent and task" approach to adjudication of failure: the PC's task succeeded, in so far as he found items that the brothers left behind in the ruins when they fled; but his intent failed, in so far as what he found was not what he had hoped to find.

It's the same level of hidden high risks with low rewards.

On what basis do you assert that the risk was hidden? I've told you what was at stake. The player knew that this was what was at stake. His PC had brought the group back to the ruined tower, the first time the PC had returned there since fleeing the attacking orcs 14 years ago. This was a big deal at the table.

The result of the search was that the player found some black, cursed arrows in his brother's lab. Who established this meant the brother had always been evil, you or the player?

From memory, the player attempted - and failed - an aura reading check to confirm his confident belief that the arrows were not made by his brother.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've told you what was at stake. I've told you what it was that the player was putting on the line. I'm not sure how you think that you - who were not present - know better than me - who was present - what was at stake.

I'm also not sure why you continue to frame the stakes in terms of material reward. I've already explained that that was not the essence of the situation.

Because that's what you've indicated the results of a success would be -- the finding of a non-magical mace. What, praytell, would be the big reward that accompanied the finding of a mace?

Look, I see that the framing was of something big -- the return should have something interesting involved to justify the framing. But the check was to find a mace. A nonmagical mace. That's not high stakes, that's pretty darn low stakes. You didn't offer anything on the success side to warrant the high cost failure. If you want a high cost failure on one side, you should balance it with a big reward on the other -- not a mace.

I also don't understand your use of the word "arbitrarily". This wasn't arbitrary. It was reasoned, and conformed with an "intent and task" approach to adjudication of failure: the PC's task succeeded, in so far as he found items that the brothers left behind in the ruins when they fled; but his intent failed, in so far as what he found was not what he had hoped to find.

The arbitrary bit was that you could have decided to put anything else there -- a monster lurking, a clue to some other puzzle, anything, but instead choice, arbitrarily, to provide evidence that completely reframed the player's backstory (you authored part of the player's story for him) and that invalidated one of the player's main goals in play. That's looking pretty arbitrary from here. Did you skip telling us the part where the player asked for such a possible outcome? Had I been the player, I would have been upset that the looking for a mace had that result, especially if it was spur of the moment.

On what basis do you assert that the risk was hidden? I've told you what was at stake. The player knew that this was what was at stake. His PC had brought the group back to the ruined tower, the first time the PC had returned there since fleeing the attacking orcs 14 years ago. This was a big deal at the table.

The player knew he was risking one of their goals and a major change to their backstory when they went looking for a mace? Okay. I suppose if you told them you'd negate one of their goals if they failed the check to look for a mace and they went with it, I don't have a problem with that. However, you haven't said this up front, yet, that you established the stakes before the check was made.

From memory, the player attempted - and failed - an aura reading check to confirm his confident belief that the arrows were not made by his brother.

It's very, very difficult to argue a point based on your presentation when you don't present the whole story.

But, again, on this failure, did you author that the brother was evil or did the player? Finding cursed arrows, even knowing they were made by the brother, would not prove guilt to me. There are a ton of other explanation that fit, especially in a game where facts are ephemeral until a failed search for a mace occurs and then they pop out and influence past events.

 

[S'mon]

I think the closest I've come to railroading a party could be in the adventure itself. I can only have one adventure in the can at a time. Once it's prepared, they either play it or we don't play at all.

This is something I definitely try to avoid while GMing. Not always successfully, but I think I can accommodate proactive players. The big problem is when players say "We don't do that" but then instead of being proactive they just sit back and say "What else happens?" Logically there aren't an infinite number of hooks ready to drop into their laps, especially at higher level.

 

[Emerikol]

That is the first style that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] called out in post 73 upthread, using "Free Kriegsspiel" as a label but pointing beyond it's literal meaning to the sort of game you describe. I associate this style especially with B/X, Classic Traveller, and Gygaxian AD&D.

I assume you think it is up to the players, rather than the GM, to decide who the PCs will try and ally with, and who they will oppose?

I would also guess that you tend to think of "story" as something comes out after the game has been played, as a retrospective reflection on the events of play.

You read my style correctly (I think). And contrary to what others may have interpreted from my post, I was just giving the style I prefer. I've decided it's really just a preference. Roleplaying conceptually has fragmented into a variety of styles and that is not a terrible thing. In fact it is a sign of health in the hobby. And I agree that some games favor one style more than others but I also think that in many cases different styles can be used. For example, I would think that Dungeon World played as intended by its designers is not my style.

 

[Emerikol]

That is the first style that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] called out in post 73 upthread, using "Free Kriegsspiel" as a label but pointing beyond it's literal meaning to the sort of game you describe. I associate this style especially with B/X, Classic Traveller, and Gygaxian AD&D.

I assume you think it is up to the players, rather than the GM, to decide who the PCs will try and ally with, and who they will oppose?

I would also guess that you tend to think of "story" as something comes out after the game has been played, as a retrospective reflection on the events of play.

I do try as the designer of the world to populate it with a lot of diverse NPC's with a large variety of agendas and objectives. So it is easy for the PC's to pick and choose who they ally with. Often the story evolves out of the conflict between said agenda's and who the PC's choose to side with or oppose.

 

[pdzoch]

This is something I definitely try to avoid while GMing. Not always successfully, but I think I can accommodate proactive players. The big problem is when players say "We don't do that" but then instead of being proactive they just sit back and say "What else happens?" Logically there aren't an infinite number of hooks ready to drop into their laps, especially at higher level.

I use a technique that appears to be "reverse branching" to create a variety of different hooks that provide different motivations (and sometimes goals and rewards) to embark on the adventure. Sometimes the hook choice will cause start point to vary a little, but it is ultimately the same adventure. Some of the prepared material might not be used, but that is always the case (just as not all the treasure is found by the party when they adventure). I often refer to the branching design of the adventure as creating choices for the character, while the variety of hooks leading to the same adventure as creating the illusion of choice. It is still a choice, but they are still going on the adventure I created.

 

[S'mon]

I use a technique that appears to be "reverse branching" to create a variety of different hooks that provide different motivations (and sometimes goals and rewards) to embark on the adventure. Sometimes the hook choice will cause start point to vary a little, but it is ultimately the same adventure. Some of the prepared material might not be used, but that is always the case (just as not all the treasure is found by the party when they adventure). I often refer to the branching design of the adventure as creating choices for the character, while the variety of hooks leading to the same adventure as creating the illusion of choice. It is still a choice, but they are still going on the adventure I created.

I do that too, but I think it's important to be able to wing it when players go off script. A few simple tools like some maps and state blocks can go a long way when players are proactive. Content generation tables can help too - I especially like flavour generating tables.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I do that too, but I think it's important to be able to wing it when players go off script. A few simple tools like some maps and state blocks can go a long way when players are proactive. Content generation tables can help too - I especially like flavour generating tables.

I think flexibility is huge. It's why I don't really describe my playstyle or DM style in one way. I think it's best to vary up the approach and use whatever tools fit the job or that will create the most dynamic encounter or adventure.

This is why any time someone puts forth a very specific description of how they run games, it seems odd to me. Not that there's anything wrong with it...I just don't think there is only one way that's best in all circumstances.