Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

I understand all that, and I think it's a solid approach.

My only question is why GM desire is so bad? I don't want to assume the same preference of player driven decisions driving the story that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is advocating, but I think you are close to that. So what makes the players' desires so much more paramount to the game? The GM is a player, too, in the sense that it's a game that everyone is taking part in; yes, his role is different than the players' but he should still have a say in the game and how the story takes shape, no?

It's not that GM desire is bad. GM desire is amazing, fruitful, and vital. The principles are as much for my benefit as they are for the players. I absolutely have investment, interest, and aspirations just like any other player. Like any other player I let those things go so we can play to find out. I'll have more later.

 

[Imaro]

It's not that GM desire is bad. GM desire is amazing, fruitful, and vital. The principles are as much for my benefit as they are for the players. I absolutely have investment, interest, and aspirations just like any other player. Like any other player I let those things go so we can play to find out. I'll have more later.

I think maybe I'm a little confused by the letting go of aspirations you have expressed. When you talk about aspirations are these the aspirations that the players have for their characters... have for the game overall... or something else? I ask because I think I want my players to have aspirations, otherwise what is driving their character's actions?

 

[Campbell]

I think maybe I'm a little confused by the letting go of aspirations you have expressed. When you talk about aspirations are these the aspirations that the players have for their characters... have for the game overall... or something else? I ask because I think I want my players to have aspirations, otherwise what is driving their character's actions?

Fundamentally, it's about holding on lightly. We all have hopes and aspirations for the players' characters, the game, and the story but it is not something we should actively manage. It's about having a commitment to really following the fiction with our hearts and our minds and really playing to find out what happens. Players play their characters with integrity. The MC plays the world with integrity and follows the agenda and principles, sometimes favoring some over others. What the Agenda and Principles do is allow everyone sitting around the table to play the game with vigor and a willingness to see what comes, just letting it be what it is, and trust in the game. The MC has a say. The rest of the players have their say. The game has its say. No one controls it.

This passage from Monsterhearts explains it better than I ever will:

Staying Feral

Every moment of the game leads into the next. When you narrate something, others respond. Moves get triggered. Dice get rolled, and those rolls create new situations to react to. The fiction and the mechanics interact with one another to create an emergent story, one that has its own momentum and energy.

The interactions that you have with the other players and with the mechanics create a story that couldn’t have existed in your head alone. It’s something feral.

You might have a strong impulse to domesticate the story. Either as the MC or the player, you might have an awesome plan for exactly what could happen next, and where the story could go. In your head, it’s spectacular. All you’d need to do is dictate what the other players should do, ignore the dice once or twice, and force your idea into existence. In short: to take control of things.

The game loses its magic when any one player attempts to take control of the future of the story. It becomes small enough to fit inside one person’s head. The other players turn into audience members instead of participants.

Nobody’s experience is enriched when one person turns the collective story into their own private story. So avoid this impulse. Let the story’s messy, chaotic momentum guide it forward. In any given moment, focus on reacting to the other players and to the mechanics. Allow others to foil your plans, or improve upon them. Trust that good story will emerge from the wilderness.

 

[Campbell]

I understand all that, and I think it's a solid approach.

My only question is why GM desire is so bad? I don't want to assume the same preference of player driven decisions driving the story that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is advocating, but I think you are close to that. So what makes the players' desires so much more paramount to the game? The GM is a player, too, in the sense that it's a game that everyone is taking part in; yes, his role is different than the players' but he should still have a say in the game and how the story takes shape, no?

I know I already responded to this, but I want to go at it from another angle. There are definitely what I feel are substantive differences of approach between my most preferred approach, and the approach that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has talked about in this thread. I think I am more interested in the lived experience, moments of introspection, and slightly more interested in serial exploration of the fiction than [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. My favorite Powered By The Apocalypse games are Apocalypse World, Saga of the Icelanders, Monsterhearts, Masks, and The Veil. These are all games that focus on personal, emotional content where the PCs are not really assumed to be in lock step and might often come in conflict with one another. I am not as big on Dungeon World or The Sprawl, which are more "go to the action" and group-oriented games. I am not as conflict oriented and probably enjoy more overt conflict between player characters. That comes from a steady diet of World of Darkness play, including some LARP experience. The characters lives can be not boring in ways that do not necessitate constantly raising the stakes. Where I think we absolutely agree is focusing most of the interest of play on the other players' characters and focusing it on the decisions players make.

At least in my case, this preference does not come from a desire to be placed in a subservient role where none of my interests are met. I feel that when Vincent Baker instructs the MC to be a fan of the players' characters in Apocalypse World he is not messing with you. He is not telling you to place their interests before your own! He is telling you to really and meaningfully take an interest in these characters and the decisions players are making. You ask provocative questions because you legitimately want to know more, to feel in your bones who these characters are. You want to know what their struggles are. You want to see how they deal with adversity. You place them in situations where they need to make difficult decisions because seeing how they respond is the whole point! For me it all comes down to really valuing what the other players have to say in a way that is vital to the whole experience of play. I am generous with the truth because I want the whole experience to have meaning.

The game also provides me with plenty of opportunities to showcase my own interests. This is primarily done with fronts. Fronts are these dynamic powerful things. With fronts I get to say what interests me, and then the other players engage them as suits their interests. If they choose not to engage I follow my agenda and principles, and there are meaningful consequences. I get to have my say and the other players get to have their say. It's great!

One of the reasons why I took to this set of techniques is because I am not really interested in carrying the game on my back. I expect the other players to bring it too! I tried doing things The White Wolf way and felt constantly drained, had a bitter attitude towards my fellow players, and grew increasingly frustrated that the game was not living up to my expectations. Before I discovered scene framing through Burning Wheel and applied a variety of its techniques to 4e I constantly blamed myself and my players at the time for what I felt was a sterile, overly expository experience where things like turtling and avoiding conflict were commonplace. My players were mostly fine with things, but I was suffering. Managing my games involved so much work and I was missing out on the experience of discovery, dramatic tension, and playing the game.

I really enjoyed my time running 4e, but I still felt like I was putting in way too much work for the payoff and was not getting the emotional payoff from play I craved. Then [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ran a short play by post game of Dungeon World for me and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. It fell apart mostly because play by post, but everything started to click. Dungeon World led me to Apocalypse World which led me to Monsterhearts and a host of other games. Once I internalized the principles things just kind of fell into place. Things just stopped being so much work for me and the other players!

Things aren't perfect. Sometimes I mess up and don't follow my principles or the framing is off or we don't bring it like they should. There are always going to be uninspired sessions. Still, I'm having more consistently good experiences and working so much less for it. It's not for everybody. We all have our preferences. Diversity in the hobby is a wonderful thing! The great thing is that because the games are so prep light they don't have to take the place of regular sessions. You can have a Powered By The Apocalypse night in lieu of a board gaming night. Also, because everything is laid out so clearly it's a great tool for teaching new GMs.

I also do not always play Powered By The Apocalypse games or even other games run that way, but I find even when playing in other styles it has made me a more thoughtful player and GM. It has taught me to meaningfully value others contributions, play less selfishly, and turtle less. It has also taught me the value of not over planning and being more flexible in my play.

 

[Emerikol]

I feel like this is my "guiding principle". As I read over the posts in this thread I realize that I would probably be considered an "incoherent" GM... But upon further reflection I think I'm ok with that. I don't necessarily want to be tied down to a set of principles or constructs that dictate how my game should be run or played, I'd rather be fluid and adaptable to the situation and the specific people I am gaming with.

I notice that most of the principles being followed by GM's in this thread seem to push what they like or care about in the game but I'm not sure that should always be the case in a social game with a group. I guess if everyone in the group enjoys the same things it works great but in a group like mine I think it would be a straight jacket that I don't believe would necessarily produce a better game for everyone. Of course I will gladly steal techniques, suggestions and ideas from all of the posters in this thread along with anywhere else I happen to find them...and mash, twist and mix them up in whatever way produces a great game for my players so I am greatly enjoying this thread and look forward to more interesting posts from it's participants that I can scavenge for parts of my game. Thanks.

An occasionally bored player is bad but a bored DM is campaign death. I do seek out like minds and I am very upfront with playstyle. There are plenty of players for a good DM of any style. Choosing to be middle of the road is fine too. Everybody needs to have fun.

 

[Imaro]

An occasionally bored player is bad but a bored DM is campaign death. I do seek out like minds and I am very upfront with playstyle. There are plenty of players for a good DM of any style. Choosing to be middle of the road is fine too. Everybody needs to have fun.

I dont view it as "middle of the road"... I view it as enjoying the flexibility in techniques and results of catering to a diverse group.

 

[pemerton]

In 3e it took no more than 24 hrs (depending on how/when the characters resources refreshed, a cleric might be a certain time of day, if that had just recently passed...), but recovering hps might be trivial - from wands and such

Yes. As I think I posted, D&D's solution to the pacing/dramat issues that result from "realistic" resources management is magic. (Rather than, say, abstract mechanics.)

This is interesting. I think we may have run into a possible area of contention in our approaches. I consider active experience of the fallout of decisions really important to giving player decisions weight. I do not think it is enough to say what the consequences are, we need to show through play what they are and really follow the fiction.

<snip>

The experience of being hurt or running out of arrows can provide room for all sorts of compelling fiction and meaningful decision making. Part of the challenge of running any version of D&D to using my favored approach is that it actually turns things like being hurt, death, and the experience of being without crucial resources into purely logistical problems

<snip>

I think there are better ways to deal with these experiences in a way that increases dramatic tension, provides meaningful choices, and is less sensitive to dealing with minutiae.

I mostly agree with this.

BW, for instance, creates a "training economy" and a "living expenses" economy alongside its "healing economy", which means that healing has a mechanical heft beyond the mere passage of time. And the sorts of storylines it favours are less "save the world in a week" than D&D can sometimes tend towards (lower magic helps with that), which facilitates integrating recovery with pacing/drama on the GM side.

MHRP/Cortex has a different approach to resources - if a power has the "Gear" limitation, the GM can spend a GM-side resource to deprive the PC of his/her stuff, thereby shutting down the power. I haven't experimented with this much, but it's obviously quite different from D&D.

Back on topic:
[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], I still think I'm not successfully conveying the following: from my point of view, as far as railroading is concerned, there is no difference between "saying 'yes'" to the presence of a vessel, and calling for a check. My reason for calling for a check is not railroad-related. It is drama/pacing related.

As to why that's the crunch - because the player has given it that status. That's the approach to the situation that has been chosen, and so that's the one we focus on.

Outside of play I am more than happy to break down my decision making process in depth with any player.

I'll do this in play also, if it seems likely to push the players or reinforce there sense of the pressures of the situation.

I think the logic of my GMing is pretty transparent to my players, and I don't feel any need to keep anything under wraps.

 

[pemerton]

On the issue of GM contribution: as a GM, I get to introduce most of the detailed story elements. Jabal of the Cabal became an NPC in my BW game because the PC mage tried to reach out to him (mechanically, via a Circles check) - but I'm the one who got to decide that he lives in a tower, that he has a (now former) manservant called Athog, that he has a rag-and-bone familar, and that he is engaged to marry the Gynarch of Hardby.

The same player made Joachim the balrog-possessed mage a key figure in the game. I'm the one who decided that Joachim's father is St Bernard the Holy, one of the most revered abbots of the land (who, 50+ years ago, left the Furyondyian court for a posting in Greyhawk about the time Joachim was born).

What is key for me is that the elements that I introduce into the shared fiction are by way of framing and joining some of the dots that emerge from resolution. They aren't particularly the engine of the campaign.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It rarely ever did in a practical sense. In 5e, it takes two days (a long rest, the balance of 24 hrs so you can take a second, and those 6 or 8 hrs, so not even quite two) to fully recover (all hps, all slots, all other long-rest-recharge resources, and all HD). In 4e it took one long rest (unless the disease track was involved, I suppose). In 3e it took no more than 24 hrs (depending on how/when the characters resources refreshed, a cleric might be a certain time of day, if that had just recently passed...), but recovering hps might be trivial - from wands and such - or might add another 24 to that cycle if the healers tapped themselves out getting everyone back up and need to refresh their spells again, and they were time-of-day recharge rather than rest-and-prepare. AD&D, it took a certain number of hours (at least 4) to rest before re-memorizing spells, and time to memorize each based on level (so a low level character could be refreshed in less than a 5e long rest, but a high level one could literally take all day). Again, if you exhausted your healer getting everyone up, you'd need another cycle.
Sure, in theory you could forego the wands and the infinitely-renewable resource of daily spells and sit around healing 'naturally' for days, or weeks, up to six of them in 1e, IIRC. But that assumed an untenable party composition.

My point about this is more that the 5 minute work day has been lessened. You no longer need to have magical healing for it to not take many days to recover a large amount of HP. With Hit Dice and a short rest, you can press on for longer. And then you regain all lost HP on a long rest.

So while you can still regain lost HP through magic as always, now you can also regain HP in significant quantities without magic, and quickly.

DM judgement can override any mechanic, I think, is what you're getting at? Obviously, 5e has plenty of mechanics, not all of which absolutely require judgment every time (though the basic resolution system certainly does).

I think this was in regard to how my players and I determine the Flaws, Bonds, and other character traits as they develop over the campaign. We have them change or we add new ones or take away the originals...it all depends. How I do this is always a judgment call, we don't rely on a mechanical rule of some sort. The only example I can think of is the Insanity mechanic; when exposed to certain horrifying conditions, creatures, or effects, you roll on a table and ten you gain a new trait. My method for doing that is far less structured.

But I do think that you've touched on what I'd say is my main point in this thread...that I think DM Judgment can be as effective as any other method, and can still be impartial and support player driven play. Yes, you may have to impose the judgment over some of the existing mechanical rules but so be it.

You certainly want to acquire every possible +1 bonus under bounded accuracy, as every +1 in precious, because it's unlikely you've already overwhelmed the d20. In 3.x, your ranks & synergy & magic-item & other bonuses could make another +1 meaningless on a skill you've heavily specialized in, for instance, and another +1 to hit for a fighter might mean nothing more than another +1 to throw into Power Attack (if his other bonuses exceed his BAB, it might not even mean that!). So that's a contrast. But pemerton is right in as much as it does mean the player has less 'agency' - and the dice, in essence, more (though 'dice agency' isn't a term I'm aware of).

Okay, that's a fair assessment. Mitigated by the DM as you go on to suggest....but I can see the reasoning. PCs can certainly not be built so mechanically effective as to ensure success.

With power comes responsibility. The GM has more control over the game than the players, he needs to exercise restraint. That's part of what's behind 'railroading' being so negative - it could be symptomatic of a DM abusing his role.

Sure...a tyrranical DM is not what i had in mind. We've probably all got stories about that kind of experience.

What I mean is that, in my opinion, the DM's opinions and desires should matter as much as the players. I don't think that having a story or direction in mind is a terrible thing. I think it's one thing to have a direction in mind and keep that direction as an option, and another thing entirely to force that durection as the only option.

Yes. As I think I posted, D&D's solution to the pacing/dramat issues that result from "realistic" resources management is magic. (Rather than, say, abstract mechanics.)

@hawkeyefan, I still think I'm not successfully conveying the following: from my point of view, as far as railroading is concerned, there is no difference between "saying 'yes'" to the presence of a vessel, and calling for a check. My reason for calling for a check is not railroad-related. It is drama/pacing related.

Sure, I got that. I agree. I was just adding my own view about the saying yes part.

As to why that's the crunch - because the player has given it that status. That's the approach to the situation that has been chosen, and so that's the one we focus on.

Understood. I can understand the method even if I don't think I would always use it myself.

 

[pemerton]

Adding another thought on "the crunch" - it's somewhat related to "no retries", though more at the level of framing than the nuts-and-bolts of mechanical retries:

Once the player has decided the PC is going to look for a vessel to catch the blood, that's where the focus of that bit of action has settled. If that works, then the PC's got some blood; if not, then getting the blood just became that much harder.

As a general rule (or course every rule can have exceptions), I don't think it's good for pacing to have a look for a vessel, and if that fails then try for the mattress, and if that fails than carry off the body to drain it later, etc. That might be comic in the right context, but I don't think it's that dramatic.

Maybe my intuition about this (which will then inform the way I GM it, and narrate the failures if they occur) is related to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s distinction between scene-framing and other sorts of approaches - I'm inclined to want the scene to have some sort of focus or "crunch" and it resolves one way or the other. Not too much putzing around with "OK, this didn't work, so let's try this other thing."

That's probably also one reason why I use puzzles (riddles and the like) pretty infrequently.