Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Lanefan]

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.

Sure they do. Pretty much every week, in fact.

How?

Difference of scale.

The first apex - the overarching plots and story arcs, the prefered (but not necessarily always achieved) outcomes, the directional nudging - that happens on the macro level: what adventure comes next (or in my case, even what party gets played next after this adventure's done), how those adventures are introduced/framed/placed, and how it all gets logged after the fact. And even then, if the players decide to do something else that's what will happen; though I'll make sure the meta-plot rears its ugly head again at some point down the road. This is noteworthy as it's what we'll all see when we read back over the game logs later and tie it all together.

The second apex - the impartial rules knowledge and application, the sink-or-swim outcomes, the engaging decision points - that happens on a more micro session-to-session and even within-session level: the actual run of play at the table at any given time or session or adventure. This is noteworthy in that it's what we all see and experience every week.

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.

Ah, but I do; on the macro level. But it's malleable and there's numerous possible storylines, so if one falters I can always ooze over to another...unless the players have their own ideas for what to do, which IME doesn't happen as often as it might.

Also, keep in mind that my campaign is open ended in terms of time (see comments in previous post about number of years) which gives me nigh-endless opportunity to weave the story back in if the game goes off on a diversion for a while.

Lan-"it's easier than you think"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Yikes!

For even the most critical decisions I have to make I might ask myself the last of those questions along with the consistency one and maybe one or two others.

If I'd ever been told I had to think through that whole lot every time I probably would have stopped DMing shortly after I started.

My decision process (including whether the answer was determined ahead of time or on the fly) is invisible to the players (and largely instinctual),

"Instinctual" and "going through that big list o' questions" don't seem to be in synch somehow.

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.

Hear hear!!!

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.

You're on to something here. It's a key difference.

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.

Even if it is in theory supposed to be a pre-authored sequence of events, you still never know what's in fact going to happen until the players sit down and the dice start hitting the table. That's what makes it fun!

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

A storyteller very much wants to bias outcomes towards what they would feel would make the best story.

<snip>

The rules are only there as a tool for them.

<snip>

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 too far off the path, they will either nudge or push you back on it.

<snip>

A storyteller's game involves being obliged to explore the setting and story as an end in itself.

This is, more-or-less, what I described in the OP as "railroading". I'm ultimately not fussed about labels, but that's a well-known one which conveys why I personally am not a big fan (either as player or as GM) of "story-teller" RPGing.

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.

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.

<snip>

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

I agree with this, although I think I incline more towards the scene-framing approach than you do.

I think the actions character take impact the fictional world is especially important. I would add (if it needs to be rendered explicit) in ways that matter, given the theme/subject matter of the game. Choosing what colour hat my PC wears is not, per se, impacting the fictional world, unless perhaps I'm playing The Dying Earth. Choosing how to work through my suite of resources (eg do I fireball this round or next?) is not impacting the fictional world.

Choosing whether to befriend a NPC, or oppose that NPC (or both) - that's impacting the fictional world. Especially if it's the player's own backstory for his/her PC that made the NPC salient in the game.

One issue with scene-framing in relation to the above: what does it mean to convey the fictional world honestly? I think this has a few components: (i) respecting the backstory that has been established through play; (ii) honouring the players' successes and failure, with respect to how intent intersects with fictional positioning intersects with goals/theme/aspirations; (iii) feeding (ii) through the filter of (i) when framing new scenes. Which in turn connects back to the impact of declared actions upon the fiction. The framing of new scenes should respect that. It's not just an ingame causal logic; it's a protagonistic narrative logic.

GM as Storyteller and GM as Referee push toward being mutually exclusive

<snip>

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.

I've been re-reading some old AD&D modules. One of them, Five Shall be One, is virtually incoherent in its attempt to mix "referee" and "storyteller".

It's full of these combats that (on paper, at least) look rather brutal - and in a system, AD&D, where the default consequence for losing in combat is PC death. And it has all this advice and urging to the referee to make these combats hard, to play the ambushing NPCs to the hilt, etc. Yet the whole thing is predicated on the assumption that the PCs will survive these combats - and not just survive them, but triumph in them, defeating the "bad guys". Eg there's no provision, in the scripted events, for the PCs ever surrendering so as to avoid dying.

The module has some interesting ideas, and I remember using a bit of it a few years after it came out in my RM game. Unlike some quest-y type modules of that era, there is a certain thematic logic to the whole thing, and some of the encounters speak to that thematic logic in a reasonable way. But the whole thing, as written, just makes no sense. It's almost as if the author simply didn't notice that you can't just take the "build a tough dungeon room" idea (ie GM as referee) into a scenario based on a sequence of scripted events (ie GM as storyteller) and expect it to work. Given the unforgiving nature of the mechanics, the GM is practically guaranteed to have to fudge something along the way if the module is to be played through - but unlike the Dragonlance modules, the author doesn't actually come out and give advice on how/when to do this.

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.

Absolutely. I like Luke Crane's description of classic D&D as a cross between Telephone and Pictionary. It's a style of GMing that I suck at, partly because I'm a bit too sloppy, and moreso I think because I find that emotional distance too hard to maintain: I want to rib the players (or mock them if its warranted), urge them on, be the conscience on their shoulder, remind them of what's at stake.

(It's an approach I learned at a Con 20-something years ago, from a really evocative free-form Cthulhu GM - that was actually one of the few CoC scenarios I've played which wasn't a railroad, because although the progress through the Dreamlands setting was pre-ordained, the actual focus of the game was the transformative effect on our characters, and this was something that we were allowed to play out among ourselves, with the GM playing the role I just described.)

 

[Lanefan]

I've been re-reading some old AD&D modules. One of them, Five Shall be One, is virtually incoherent in its attempt to mix "referee" and "storyteller".

It's full of these combats that (on paper, at least) look rather brutal - and in a system, AD&D, where the default consequence for losing in combat is PC death. And it has all this advice and urging to the referee to make these combats hard, to play the ambushing NPCs to the hilt, etc. Yet the whole thing is predicated on the assumption that the PCs will survive these combats - and not just survive them, but triumph in them, defeating the "bad guys". Eg there's no provision, in the scripted events, for the PCs ever surrendering so as to avoid dying.

The module has some interesting ideas, and I remember using a bit of it a few years after it came out in my RM game. Unlike some quest-y type modules of that era, there is a certain thematic logic to the whole thing, and some of the encounters speak to that thematic logic in a reasonable way. But the whole thing, as written, just makes no sense. It's almost as if the author simply didn't notice that you can't just take the "build a tough dungeon room" idea (ie GM as referee) into a scenario based on a sequence of scripted events (ie GM as storyteller) and expect it to work. Given the unforgiving nature of the mechanics, the GM is practically guaranteed to have to fudge something along the way if the module is to be played through - but unlike the Dragonlance modules, the author doesn't actually come out and give advice on how/when to do this.

Unless the module is assuming (but not coming right out and saying) that the players will just churn in new characters to replace those lost?

Lan-"doesn't cover a surrender, though - DM's on her own for that one"-efan

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Unless the module is assuming (but not coming right out and saying) that the players will just churn in new characters to replace those lost?

Dark Sun flashbacks..

 

[pemerton]

Unless the module is assuming (but not coming right out and saying) that the players will just churn in new characters to replace those lost?

I don't think that saves it from incoherence. I mean, what's the point of that? It doesn't seem to support the "competition" element, if a loser just gets to bring in a new playing piece; and it doesn't seem to support the "story" element, if the quest is not undertaken by a single dedicated party but rather an ever-changing roster of conveniently-present adventurers.

 

[billd91]

I think the actions character take impact the fictional world is especially important. I would add (if it needs to be rendered explicit) in ways that matter, given the theme/subject matter of the game. Choosing what colour hat my PC wears is not, per se, impacting the fictional world, unless perhaps I'm playing The Dying Earth. Choosing how to work through my suite of resources (eg do I fireball this round or next?) is not impacting the fictional world.

Choosing whether to befriend a NPC, or oppose that NPC (or both) - that's impacting the fictional world. Especially if it's the player's own backstory for his/her PC that made the NPC salient in the game.

Doesn't that depend on who or what is being targeted with the fireball (or the alternative resource should the fireball not be chosen)? Isn't that as important and have as much impact on the fictional world as whether or not the PCs choose to befriend or oppose an NPC? I suppose, ultimately, it may not matter whether the PC is using a fireball or a lightning bolt (assuming there are no collateral casualties), but it isn't clear from your statement that's the level of choice you're getting at. But, in general, the act of choosing an offensive resource rather than a peaceful one like some form of charm is certain to have a similar impact on the fictional world to making the choice between friendship and enmity.

 

[Xetheral]

Yikes!

For even the most critical decisions I have to make I might ask myself the last of those questions along with the consistency one and maybe one or two others.

If I'd ever been told I had to think through that whole lot every time I probably would have stopped DMing shortly after I started.

I think I made it sound more methodical than I intended. Usually (if I'm on the ball) I'm already aware of spotlight time, game pacing, surplus/deficit of plot threads, session timing, etc. The active decision is filtering the question "What would be more fun?" through that pre-existing framework of current priorities. Hence the reason I described it as instinctual.

In practice, at any given moment only two or three of the factors are likely to be dominant. So, at least for big decisions (I tend to forget the small ones) I can usually later deconstruct which of the factors I listed predominated in a given decision.

"Instinctual" and "going through that big list o' questions" don't seem to be in synch somehow.

A lot of the factors I listed are just a question of being aware of what's going on at the table, how my players are reacting, and what their emotional state is.

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.

Oh ok. I had assumed "playing to find out" was a defined term, but since it seemed pretty clear what it meant in context, it doesn't really make a difference either way.

While in a way I would agree that I'm playing to "find out what happens", it isn't the primary focus of my games. If they go in an unexpected direction, great. If the players happen be somewhat predictable, that's ok too.

I would not agree, however, that I'm playing to "find out who these characters are as revealed through the decisions they make". While characters can and do evolve in my games (usually dependent on campaign length and how much the player in question enjoys such evolution), usually "who [the characters] are" is determined by the players at character creation, typically with an increase in detail as the game goes on. Some important context: usually my games only cover a year or two of in-game time, although they can last longer than that OOC. So there isn't a ton of time for characters' identities to evolve at a realistic pace. (Caveat: occasionally a character ends up playing differently than the player expected, but that isn't the norm at my table. Also, new players often start with only a brief outline, so their first characters' identities tend to develop in play.)

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that saves it from incoherence. I mean, what's the point of that? It doesn't seem to support the "competition" element, if a loser just gets to bring in a new playing piece; and it doesn't seem to support the "story" element, if the quest is not undertaken by a single dedicated party but rather an ever-changing roster of conveniently-present adventurers.

Maybe that's where I fall down in my "story-teller" side: while I assume the party that starts the series will be the party that finishes I also assume that few if any of the original characters in it will still be around.

Comes back to my old sports-team analogy:
- some of the players on the field may change from season to season but the team carries on regardless.
- some of the characters in the field may change from adventure to adventure but the party carries on regardless.

Caveat: occasionally a character ends up playing differently than the player expected

Yeah, been there done that.

Lanefan

 

[Campbell]

I am going to say a couple of things that I expect to be contentious. The first will address fun's role in game design and GM decision making. The second will address playing to win and seeing games as games. I do not wish to universalize my preferences or argue that everyone should do things in the way I do them. I just believe my points will provide some fertile ground for further discussion.

I do not believe you can meaningfully design a game to be fun. To the extent that a GM's responsibilities intersect with game design I do not believe a GM can meaningfully make determinations about what is fun in the moment. What I think game designers and GMs can do is design a particular experience they believe is interesting, rewarding, and their audience may enjoy overall. People enjoy and find all sorts of different things rewarding and enjoyable. I enjoy political discussions, chess, watching football, F/X dramas, and reading swords and sorcery and weird fiction novels. I find watching introspective dramas that address real world problems, software engineering, playing sports, and all sorts of analysis rewarding.

When it comes down to game design I think all we can do is use our insight into the human animal, what we know about our audience, and accumulated experience and knowledge that comes from playing, designing, and running a game that we believe will provide players with a compelling experience that is rewarding sometimes, enjoyable sometimes, and frustrating in good ways at other times. That good frustration is very important because it is necessary to make things really rewarding. There is a very intricate relationship between that good sort of frustration and enjoyment that brings about a rewarding experience that has a measure of meaning to the player.

I used to do a lot of raiding in World of Warcraft. It was a very rewarding experience for me, but I did not always enjoy it. Getting those kills, making meaningful progress, and all sorts of social stuff was enjoyable. Failing to make progress, missing interrupts, having to change strategies, dealing with screwups all could be frustrating experiences. The thing is they were vital to the entire endeavor. It was rewarding to learn a new boss, find a strategy that worked, and eventually execute until we get the kill. There were also bad sorts of frustration, but in the moment it all felt bad. Part of what made our skilled execution so rewarding was all the frustrating moments that happened in the interim.

As a GM I do not meaningfully feel capable of determining in the moment what the difference between good frustration and bad frustration is. I have a general idea about the things the players I play with value because I ask them, but in the moment I don't really have a clue. I can't read their minds. Sometimes I will ask them if they really want to play something out in detail or ask them about how they want the fiction to go. That's where sometimes disclaim decision making comes from. I just do not believe I can have a handle on that without asking them. I also do not want to rob them of meaningful success won through blood, sweat, and tears. That's why I value honesty, the rules, and following the fiction so much. I also have an interest in seeing them actually earn things because its exciting for me. It's just as rewarding for me as it is for them.

Here's where I get really contentious. I believe that roleplaying games are games where we create compelling fiction to be experienced in the moment, but they are still games. You don't win or lose at Dungeons or Dragons, but there is still winning and losing involved. You can win at a social exchange, a combat, a dungeon, or a scenario. You can win by realizing as a player what your character hoped for and what you as a player hoped for. Those small wins mean very little if there is no chance at losing, no real chance at winning, or if the GM manipulates things to their own ends. I think we very much should see role playing games as games that involve luck and skill.

We are telling stories, but we are also playing games. What makes this hobby so great is we can do both at the same time. I also believe the stories are often better if we do not put designs on them, but instead experience them as they come in the same way we experience stories when we watch a good TV show or movie.