Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

One thing I will say about combining approaches is that I feel there is tension between GMing in a way that is fundamentally about playing to find out and traditional storytelling techniques. Once we accept that manipulation of players, the fiction, or the rules are tools that a GM has in their wheelhouse to move towards a "better" story than even when there is no intervention there is always the choice to intervene.

We are not playing to find out anymore. We are playing to find out unless the GM wishes otherwise which feels fundamentally different in play to me. Players no longer earn things. They are given them. Their choices only matter as much as the GM allows them to. It also places what I feel is a tremendous burden on the GM for the quality of the game. The actual game and the players are no longer near as responsible, and the GM carries the game on their back. This tends to move into the social arena as well where the GM is often expected to act like a parent to their players.

As a GM I don't want all that responsibility. I don't want things to be that hard or take that much work.

 

[Lanefan]

One thing I will say about combining approaches is that I feel there is tension between GMing in a way that is fundamentally about playing to find out and traditional storytelling techniques. Once we accept that manipulation of players, the fiction, or the rules are tools that a GM has in their wheelhouse to move towards a "better" story than even when there is no intervention there is always the choice to intervene.

We are not playing to find out anymore. We are playing to find out unless the GM wishes otherwise which feels fundamentally different in play to me. Players no longer earn things. They are given them. Their choices only matter as much as the GM allows them to. It also places what I feel is a tremendous burden on the GM for the quality of the game. The actual game and the players are no longer near as responsible, and the GM carries the game on their back. This tends to move into the social arena as well where the GM is often expected to act like a parent to their players.

As a GM I don't want all that responsibility. I don't want things to be that hard or take that much work.

Interesting, in that I see what you seem to be doing as representing far more work than what I do. Your players also seem to have to do more consistent heavy lifting than I'd usually want to do as a player. Me, when I play I just want to kick back and relax, and when I DM I want my players to be able to do the same. Different desires, I suppose.

And the quality of the DM is almost certainly going to set the quality of the game no matter what system you use.

Lan-"where's my beer?"-efan

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think you can enjoy benefits from different styles. I definitely have storytelling aspects in my campaign...there is an overarching plot, but there are many subplots that I've thrown out into play to see what the players want to do. I don't think that the fact that I do have some pre-determined elements means that's I cannot also play to find out. Things come up in play all the time that surprise me. The players do something unexpected, or some inspiration strikes me as the GM in the right moment, or (more likely) some combination of those two things happens, and the story veers in a new direction.

There are perhaps some games where this is less likely, or even almost impossible; some published adventures are very close to true railroads, and I expect many people learn how to run a game by emulating the published material that they know. I know that's how I first started.

But if we're actually talking about a blend or combination of styles, then play can benefit from both styles. I don't think that having storytelling elements or ongoing plots preclude the players earning anything. Their choices still matter a great deal.

 

[Campbell]

Interesting, in that I see what you seem to be doing as representing far more work than what I do. Your players also seem to have to do more consistent heavy lifting than I'd usually want to do as a player. Me, when I play I just want to kick back and relax, and when I DM I want my players to be able to do the same. Different desires, I suppose.

And the quality of the DM is almost certainly going to set the quality of the game no matter what system you use.

Lan-"where's my beer?"-efan

Once I ran Apocalypse World a couple times most of this stuff became like second nature to me. Most of the time I barely have to think about it. It's pretty easy stuff for me to keep in mind, most of the time. Sometimes I make mistakes, but it is what it is. At the end of the day the agenda, stuff you always say, and the principles are things I want to be doing anyway even if they do not always come naturally. I gain all sorts of other stuff in the process that make GMing far easier and far more rewarding for me. It sometimes feels like cheating to get many of the same kicks I get when I play while running a game and not engaging in much prep.

• I do not have to worry about what's best for the story.
• I get to let the game actually bear part of the responsibility for the experience. I am not responsible for constantly considering if the rules are doing what they should. I simply trust that they are.
• I don't have to worry about keeping the players on any path.
• I get to be emotionally invested in the game.
• I don't get frustrated with the other players anymore. Sometimes things don't turn out how I hoped, but that's part of the point of playing.
• I do almost no prep. For Apocalypse World there is no prep for the first session, about 40 minutes after that, and occasional prep in like 15 minute increments from time to time. I have run Masks and Monsterhearts with 5-10 minutes of prep for a 4 hour session before.
• The GM moves give me ideas that keep things flowing.

I do expect a lot from the other players. I'm expected to bring it, so should they. However, I try as much as possible to make engagement a choice. Players participate as much as they want to and are rewarded for what they bring to the table, both socially and through the game. I am a big believer in individual experience. Our games can get emotionally charged, but we utilize emotional safety techniques to make sure no one's boundaries are pushed too far.

The social footprint is also far less onerous to me. The power dynamics at the table put everyone on a more even footing, which tends to lead to a more open and communicative environment. I run my games in seasons, usually about 8-15 sessions, but a season can be cancelled at any time if we're not feeling it anymore. We get together and play whenever everyone agrees to. Once a season has run its course, I'm usually primed to run a different game for awhile or play in someone else's game. We might return to favorite games later for another season, but it's like not required. I don't really do weekly time commitments for years. I kind of approach gaming in the same way I do board games.

I do think we need to be careful in how we approach the quality of the GM bit. First, because I view every form running the game as a skill that can be developed over time with practice. Second, because they are different skill sets. Running an enjoyable B/X game as outlined requires a very different set of skills than running an enjoyable Apocalypse World game as outlined. The same person can be skilled at one and not the other. Finally, I think we should be cognizant and value the very real contributions of the other players in the game who are just as vital to its success.

 

[Campbell]

I think you can enjoy benefits from different styles. I definitely have storytelling aspects in my campaign...there is an overarching plot, but there are many subplots that I've thrown out into play to see what the players want to do. I don't think that the fact that I do have some pre-determined elements means that's I cannot also play to find out. Things come up in play all the time that surprise me. The players do something unexpected, or some inspiration strikes me as the GM in the right moment, or (more likely) some combination of those two things happens, and the story veers in a new direction.

There are perhaps some games where this is less likely, or even almost impossible; some published adventures are very close to true railroads, and I expect many people learn how to run a game by emulating the published material that they know. I know that's how I first started.

But if we're actually talking about a blend or combination of styles, then play can benefit from both styles. I don't think that having storytelling elements or ongoing plots preclude the players earning anything. Their choices still matter a great deal.

What I was trying to argue in a very simplistic manner is that when you blend in techniques from different approaches to running a game what you end up with is not all benefits of the approaches, but with an approach all its own that has its own strengths and weaknesses. I think most games use a blending of at least a couple of the broad approaches I outlined in some way, but that does not mean they are more flexible than the pure forms of the approaches, just different in orientation, and will result in different experiences. This is something you should consider very carefully and hone over time through playtesting and iteration. It is the very essence of game design.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Manbearcat(a) principally guiding GMs in situation framing and adversity/obstacle introduction

Not sure I follow that, do you mean like a published adventure, or that the game has a specific scope or something?

Negative, neither like a public adventure nor like writing an adventure.

Quick example for principally guiding GMs in situation framing and obstacle/adversary introductions:

Dogs in the Vineyard is a game about the duty, heart, will, relationships, faith, and sin (*) of gun-toting paladins as they mete out justice and uphold righteousness in a frontier land shot through with vice, wickedness, and possibly supernatural corruption. Consequently, when you make your towns (filled with obstacles and adversaries) and introduce conflict-charged situations, they need to threaten, challenge, provoke, and expose all of (*) above.

Originally Posted by Manbearcat
(c) obstructing the GM from imposing their own will on outcomes (rather than letting the system and the players have their say)

How does a game do that, when the GM might go ahead and change it's rules?

There are several ways. A quick 3 off the top of my head are:

1) Outright tell all the participants up front that "playing by the rules" is expected, a virtue. Tell them it is a feature and show them how, merely by playing things straight, the good stuff will inevitably emerge.

2) Make the resolution mechanics and play procedures simple, intuitive, consistent, and transparent. And make them work, all the time, to produce the sort of play you've communicated the game is about.

3) Either have the players roll all the dice, or expect the dice to be rolled out in the open (or make it impossible not to do so because of the nature of play procedures).

 

[Manbearcat]

That said, by your definitions above I guess I'm about half and half referee and storyteller.

I think you can enjoy benefits from different styles.

<snip>

I don't think that having storytelling elements or ongoing plots preclude the players earning anything. Their choices still matter a great deal.

Here is the rub though. The reason why GM as Storyteller and GM as Referee push toward being mutually exclusive is very simple.

One's apex priority is about fidelity to GM-preferred outcomes and/or the exhibition of setting/prepared material. To that end, the (typically covert) manipulation of play (action-blocking, not honoring/upturning fictional results earned, resolution mechanic subordinating, resolution mechanic result fudging) toward those preferred outcomes and/or toward the exhibition of that setting/prepared material is wholly legitimate.

The other's apex priority is about constructing scenarios that present tactically and strategically engaging decision-points, knowing the rules and impartially applying them as you fairly run the challenges within those scenarios, and ultimately letting the players sink or swim by virtue of their (un)skilled play. The concept of "preferred outcomes" and the massaging/manipulating of play toward those outcomes is anathema.


They don't play nice with each other. At all.

So you can be a Storyteller GM with a veneer of Referee, but you can't truly claim the virtues of both simultaneously.

Now, if you don't have preferred outcomes/metaplot/setting or prepared material that you massage/manipulate play toward (typically by way of the techniques in my parenthetical above), then you're not a Storyteller GM.

 

[Xetheral]

[MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION]

You probably won't be surprised that I want to present a hypothetical example of play that puts pressure on the "disconnect" idea. I'm curious what you make of it.

Scenario: The PCs have busted some smugglers (eg Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh). One of the PCs has, as part of her backstory, that her hometown is a "hive of scum and villainy" (including smugglers). The player of this PC tells the the GM, "I look at the smuggled crates - is there any mark to suggest that they came from, or passed through, my hometown?" The GM has to respond - and, for the sake of this example it is stipulated that the GM has nothing prewritten about this (ie about where the smuggled goods came from).

Now we have a moment of action declaration, which forces the GM to author something. There are different ways of doing that - my way is one of them!

Are you asking how I would approach answering the player's question? If so, I can't answer specifically, but I can list some of the factors I'd include when making my decision:

• Is the player asking the question getting sufficient spotlight time?
• Is the player asking the question getting too much spotlight time?
• Will answering "yes" speed up or slow down play at the table, and is the current pace faster or slower than the mood of the players warrants?
• Is the player asking the question currently invested in the direction the players are taking the game?
• Will answering "yes" decrease or increase that investment?
• What answer would be consistent with details the players have learned so far?
• Are both answers eqally plausible?
• Does either answer let me relate back to previous details?
• Does the situation (and either possible answer) provide an opportunity to roll an underused skill?
• Is there a way to make the answer more interesting than either yes or no?
• How close are we to the end of the session?
• Will my answer increase or decrease the number of extant plot threads?
• Which answer will be more fun?

My decision process (including whether the answer was determined ahead of time or on the fly) is invisible to the players (and largely instinctual), but if players ask questions later I'm happy to explain my decision making process, often preceeded by making certain they're sure they want to know the answers.

Well, the player knows that the reason for narrating the PC finding the cursed black arrows is because it will "make for a better story and a more enjoyable game" ie I am narrating that sort of consequence for that sort of reason.

Even trusting that you were doing your best to pick fun failure consequences, knowing that those consequences were caused by my failure would be enough to be problematic for me. It would make me feel like I was playing a game rather than immersed in a fictional world, as I prefer. I want the OOC consequences of my choice to match the IC consequences of my PC's action. I don't mind if you make up the fiction as you go along (although ideally whether or not something is on-the-fly is invisible), but I certainly don't want you to do so to frustrate my intent in addition to the failed action itself. (This is, of course, only my personal playstyle preference.)

More generally, I don't think it can ever be the case that the player knowledge matches the PC knowledge - the players inevitably know that this stuff was authored, by the GM, for some reason or other.

I agree that it's inevitable that player knowledge won't match PC knowledge, but the difference between the two can be minimized, and some of what difference remains can be concealed or hidden. (Also, I'm primarily concerned with in-the-moment knowledge that affects decision making. I certainly don't care that the players know in the abstract that they're playing a game and that the GM is creating content.)

My point here being that the line - if it exists - is a very fine one.

Fine or not, the difference between knowing in the abstract that the GM is authoring content and feeling in the moment that the GM is authoring content is critically important to what I value in a roleplaying game.

I absolutely meant to provide a three way contrast between GM as referee, GM as storyteller, and GM as Master of Ceremonies. I thought that most people would have a better grasp on the distinction between GM as referee and GM as storyteller, and wanted to focus on GM as MC. Here's what I see as the meaningful distinctions between GM as referee and GM as storyteller:

• A referee is careful to never purposefully bias their rulings towards particular outcomes. When they step in to make a ruling they do so only to maintain the integrity of the fiction. They also are careful to be as transparent as possible about their rulings to ensure that players can make meaningful decisions. They also have a deep respect for the rules of the game, and only step in when their expert knowledge applies.
• A storyteller very much wants to bias outcomes towards what they would feel would make the best story. It is the integrity of the fiction that matters to them, but the integrity of their story. Meaningful decision making is not a priority for them. Sometimes the point is to make players feel powerless. The rules are only there as a tool for them.
• A referee uses dungeons, modules or scenarios, never adventures. The difference is that the game content never assumes what actions players will or should take. Who they ally with, who their enemies are, what they decide to do in any moment of play is entirely on them. In a war game there is no figuring out what you should do. Only decision and consequence. Lateral decision making is the order of the day.
• While a storyteller might use adventures with branching paths there is absolutely a path or set of paths players are assumed to follow. In play this feels very much like playing an adventure game. The players' job is to hunt for the story and provide color to the proceedings. If you get to far off the path, they will either nudge or push you back on it.
• In a war game you engage with the world for your character's own purposes. You get to decide what those are.
• A storyteller's game involves being obliged to explore the setting and story as an end in itself. It's the GM's creativity on display after all.
• A wargame is absolutely played to find out what happens. This is anathema to the storyteller.

Obviously, I am making broad statements here. A person's particular approach might to differ. My points of reference here are Moldvay B/X and Vampire: The Masquerade, both played according to the text. If you don't have access to Vampire, AD&D 2e makes a reasonable substitute.

We're certainly coming from different backgrounds in regards to roleplaying games. Even knowing you're using broad strokes, I've not encountered any of the styles you describe. (Of course, I've also not played most of the games you've been referencing.) All the games of Vampire the Masquerade I've played in (and run), for example, have been almost entirely sandbox games, with dozens of threads to choose from and plenty of opportunity to create your own. Indeed, I've seen more VtM games suffer from decision paralysis stemming from being too open ended, rather than being too Storyteller-directed.

We are not playing to find out anymore. We are playing to find out unless the GM wishes otherwise which feels fundamentally different in play to me. Players no longer earn things. They are given them. Their choices only matter as much as the GM allows them to. It also places what I feel is a tremendous burden on the GM for the quality of the game. The actual game and the players are no longer near as responsible, and the GM carries the game on their back. This tends to move into the social arena as well where the GM is often expected to act like a parent to their players.

As a GM I don't want all that responsibility. I don't want things to be that hard or take that much work.

From my standpoint, the hard work of DMing is one of the things that makes it so amazingly rewarding. Seeing the excitement and delight on your friends' faces at the end of a session is all the more satisfying knowing that it was your own doing. My style of GMing tends not to be very heavy on pre-game prep, but it's (frequently) mentally, creatively, and emotionally exhausting in play, and I like that. It's challenging and engrossing, and there's always room for improvement.

For reference, while I'm frequently surprised and delighted by the direction a game takes, "playing to find out" is not one my priorities. (I was unfamiliar with the concept until this thread.) I still consider my games player-driven because the decisions of the players determine the shape of the game and I don't force them to adhere to a pre-authored sequence of events.

 

[Lanefan]

Once I ran Apocalypse World a couple times most of this stuff became like second nature to me. Most of the time I barely have to think about it. It's pretty easy stuff for me to keep in mind, most of the time. Sometimes I make mistakes, but it is what it is. At the end of the day the agenda, stuff you always say, and the principles are things I want to be doing anyway even if they do not always come naturally. I gain all sorts of other stuff in the process that make GMing far easier and far more rewarding for me. It sometimes feels like cheating to get many of the same kicks I get when I play while running a game and not engaging in much prep.

I've added numbers to your list below to make it easier to reply to different bits.

1 - I do not have to worry about what's best for the story.
2 - I get to let the game actually bear part of the responsibility for the experience. I am not responsible for constantly considering if the rules are doing what they should. I simply trust that they are.
3 - I don't have to worry about keeping the players on any path.
4 - I get to be emotionally invested in the game.
5 - I don't get frustrated with the other players anymore. Sometimes things don't turn out how I hoped, but that's part of the point of playing.
6 - I do almost no prep. For Apocalypse World there is no prep for the first session, about 40 minutes after that, and occasional prep in like 15 minute increments from time to time. I have run Masks and Monsterhearts with 5-10 minutes of prep for a 4 hour session before.
7 - The GM moves give me ideas that keep things flowing.

From my end, running a 1e-based game with a somewhat predetermined backstory and also-pre-determined-but-untimately-malleable plot arc, I can agree with you on points 2 5 and 6 for different reasons. For 2, I trust the rules because my system is so kitbashed it's halfway to being my own system anyway, so I'd better trust it. Fully agree on 5. For 6, I do very little prep on a session-to-session basis; most of the prep was done before the campaign even started and now quite a bit of it kinda runs itself.

For points 1 and 3, for me it's more a matter of keeping an eye on what the run of play is potentially doing to the story, what the downstream effects might be (if any), and whether they've given me any ideas I hadn't thought of, to work in later. This speaks to point 7; it's not so much the "GM moves" that keep ideas flowing but a combination of player moves, external input, and new ideas that crop up over time.

4 is a bad idea. If I as DM start getting emotionally involved in the game I'm running that's a clear sign I'm about to start railroading it. Best I stay a little detached.

The social footprint is also far less onerous to me. The power dynamics at the table put everyone on a more even footing, which tends to lead to a more open and communicative environment. I run my games in seasons, usually about 8-15 sessions, but a season can be cancelled at any time if we're not feeling it anymore. We get together and play whenever everyone agrees to. Once a season has run its course, I'm usually primed to run a different game for awhile or play in someone else's game. We might return to favorite games later for another season, but it's like not required. I don't really do weekly time commitments for years. I kind of approach gaming in the same way I do board games.

8 to 15 sessions? That's it? Hell, when I come up with a campaign I'm looking for it to last 8 to 15 years!

Which probably also explains our differing approach to things like backstory and pre-planned plot. For a campaign that's only intended to last 8-15 sessions it probably doesn't matter so much if it starts to wobble a bit as it'll soon be over anyway: you really can in effect make it up as you collectively go along. In my case I have to worry about things that happened in year 2 possibly affecting things happening in year 9; which in fact is exactly what happened in last night's session: the party revisited a dungeon site that was first played in 2009 by - except for one NPC who is along this time as a guide - an entirely different group of characters but still in the same campaign.

I do think we need to be careful in how we approach the quality of the GM bit. First, because I view every form running the game as a skill that can be developed over time with practice. Second, because they are different skill sets. Running an enjoyable B/X game as outlined requires a very different set of skills than running an enjoyable Apocalypse World game as outlined. The same person can be skilled at one and not the other. Finally, I think we should be cognizant and value the very real contributions of the other players in the game who are just as vital to its success.

I disagree a bit here: a bad DM is a bad DM no matter what system she's running; and a good DM is a good DM ditto. Most DMs are best when running a system they both know and like, but that's only common sense; and they're unlikely to try (or to last long at) running a system they don't like.

Lan-"not sure I'll get 15 years out of this current campaign but as of this month I've got 9 and things look good for at least another 2 or 3"-efan

 

[Campbell]

I am not using coded language. Play to find out literally means we're playing to find out what happens and who these characters are as revealed through the decisions they make. The GM conveys the fictional world honestly. Players make decisions for their characters that spur action. The actions characters take impact the fictional world. If the rules come up we follow them, making allowances for where they do a poor job of handling the fiction. This all happens without the GM manipulating the fiction, players, or the game to privilege his or her desired outcomes. This is like the very essence of a role playing game to me.