Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Nagol]

@Corpsetaker, @Ovinomancer

I think @chaochou's question is fairlyi straightforward - who is bored by a world that is not changing when it is not part of play?

Corpsetaker says "I don't really like games where nothing happens in the world unless it's by the direct actions of the players." But this seems to be quite a different point. For instance, if I was running the KotB, the (secretly evil) priest might approach the PCs, saying "So-and-so suggested that you were interested in advice about the nature of undeath". That is "something happening in the world other than by the direct actions of the PCs" (namely, one NPC spoke to another). But it's not offscreen - it's part of the ingame situation into which the GM is framing the PCs.

Whereas Ovinomancer said "A world that doesn't change unless a player looks at it is boring" - and chaochou's question is, Who is getting bored? On the (apparently reasonable) assumption that the players aren't going to be entertained by something they're not looking at (eg the GM's secret notes about changes in the gameworld) then presumably they're not going to be bored by that either (eg by the fact that the GM doesn't have secret notes about changes in the gameworld).

But they are. What typically happens is the players note something, decide to pursue something else then they notice the first situation again. If it is still unchanged, they are underwhelmed. If the situation has evolved plausibly based on the underlying situation (whether or not the players know of the underlying situation) it has a much better chance to catch their attention and/or derive a response from them.

 

[pemerton]

What typically happens is the players note something, decide to pursue something else then they notice the first situation again. If it is still unchanged, they are underwhelmed.

But that is completely orthogonal to "A world that doesn't change unless a player looks at it"! The change doesn't need to be narrated until the player looks at it again - as in your phrase the players notice the first situation again.

 

[pemerton]

To go to an actual sandbox reference, just because you stopped building your sand castle in this corner to go play with the shovel and funnel in the other corner doesn't mean that the sand castle's going to be exactly as you left it if you come back -- other kids might play with it. If you're told, up front, there are other kids in the sandbox, and you see them playing with things, doesn't restrict your ability to drive your own story in the sandbox, as a player. Especially if the other kids are there for you to play with if you want.

In applying this metaphor to RPGing, who are "the other kids"?

If they're other players in a shared world, then what we have is something like the sort of interpersonal and interparty competitive play that seems to have been part of how Gygax ran the game (as best I understand it). I think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has elements of this too.

But if the "other kids" are purely imaginary beings whose actions and outcomes are being narrated by the GM, then we're clearly (self-evidently, I would say) talking about a GM-driven approach to establishing the content of the shared fiction.

a DM can abuse this and have a story going on that the players can't engage or alter

Unless there is a RPG table where the players are actually forbidden from making action declarations for their PCs, or where the GM never allows the action resolution mechanics to actually run their course, this can never literally be the case. So it's not the basis on which I'm characterising a game as player-driven or GM-driven.

A world in motion doesn't make it GM driven.

But the one that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] describes seems to be. He's not talking about running DW-style fronts.

You once again seem to assume a worst case example for the other side to compare/contrast against. This seems odd, given that the posters you support in this thread are presenting mechanics that do essentially the same thing (Fronts). I can agree that a DM can abuse this and have a story going on that the players can't engage or alter, but that doesn't mean that the concept requires or even implies this outcome. Having movement in the sandbox that isn't entirely dependent on the players doesn't mean that the game is now DM-centric as opposed to player-centric.

I've not used the notions of "DM-centric" or "Player-centric", and I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've talked about who is the driver of the content of the shared fiction.

I also don't know what you have in mind by "worst case". [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has talked about how he runs a game. I assume he's being basically sincere. I'm talking about how I run a game, and what my preferences are in that respect. I'm being sincere.

It seems pretty clear to me that, by my standards and my preferences, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s game is GM-driven: that the key elements of the shared fiction are generated by the GM, based on the GM's conception of the "unfolding" gameworld.

The fact that the players get to choose whether their PC seek out the orcs or the lizardment doesn't really change that.

If you think I'm mistaken about Lanefan's game, by all means explain to me what I've misunderstood.

 

[Nagol]

But that is completely orthogonal to "A world that doesn't change unless a player looks at it"! The change doesn't need to be narrated until the player looks at it again - as in your phrase the players notice the first situation again.

Not if the change is brought to their attention. Change in circumstance is one of the things players need to be told about since the default assumption pretty much has to be "everything is the same as last narration". So if the PCs move to/stay in an environment where the change should be noticeable, the DM is obligated to bring the change to their attention. Which means the DM is obligated to track those situations when out of sight of the players OR to introduce changes specifically as he feels the players would appreciate. Although both can be sandboxing, the first strategy tends to produce more long-term consistency and appreciation in my experience.

 

[Campbell]

I keep seeing posts that assume a GM or other players will be actively working against the interests of the game they are all playing. I do not think any game or set of techniques can protect against that. If we are not really interested in the game we are playing the game cannot save us. A game can only provide unity of interest between the players if we all fundamentally buy into its premise. There is no easy way out of this. All we can do when there is conflict of player interests is to hash it out, work through possible compromises, and decide if this is the game we want to be playing with this exact set of people. In order to get any sort of functional play we need to be able to talk about this stuff. A game can help us by making it obvious when there is a conflict of player interests and can encourage certain behaviors, but that is all I feel it can reliably do.

This does not just apply to roleplaying games. It applies to any game really. If I am playing chess to win against someone who is teasing out possible strategies to use in other games there is a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed. If we are playing in a social poker game and a player is playing cut throat there is a conflict of player interests that should be addressed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't say that anything is bad GMing, nor did I say that anything is a "failed sandbox".

No, I did. You said it's not a sandbox at all because it didn't fit your very narrow definition. I added the idea of a 'failed sandbox' as one that attempts to be a sandbox, but fails because it doesn't meet your definition entirely.

To which I'd like to say that Free Kreigspiel is a model of a sandbox. It's not THE model of a sandbox.

I did say, and I reiterate in this post: a game in which the action is driven by GM behind-the-scenes manipulation of the fiction is not a player-driven one of the sort that I prefer. I think, in fact, that it self-evidenty is GM-driven.

Whether this is good or bad GMing depends, as [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] said, upon what a particular table is looking for in their RPGing. How it compares to "Fronts" in the PbtA sense I'll let [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] or [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] respond to - though my sense, resulting from play moreso than reading, is that there is a big difference between (i) a game in which the causation behind events is murky to the players, and a major goal of play is trying to unravel the GM's "metaplot" (I'm thinking of 2nd ed AD&D play experiences) and (ii) a game in which the rationale for what is happening in the shared fiction is clear (ie the GM is bringing pressure to bear upon the players via interposing obstacles to the PCs' pursuit of their goals) and the major goal as a player is not to work out what is going on but rather to choose which value to realise in circumstances where some sacrifices will have to be made, or costs borne (I'm thinking of DW play experiences).

As to the claim about things being boring: I've run the Keep part of KotB multiple times: it's not boring. There are NPCs with interesting motivations (a cultist priest; a rivalry between two authority figures in the keep) and these provide a source of dynamism. The apparent implication that static until it reacts to the PCs as played by their players must entail static per se seems to me to be another indication of thiniking of the game primarily in terms of how the GM might drive it, rather than how the players might do so.

(There is also an interesting contrast here with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s post upthread about illusionism: Lanefan seemed to express the view that actual, real world stuff that the GM does but the plaeyrs don't know about isn't a thing of any signficance; and in your post, you seem to suggest that imaginary stuff that happens in the GM's conception of the fiction but is not part of the play at the table nevertheless is significant to the players.)

Yes, if the player had different Beliefs for his PC, then the range of sensible failure narrations would be different. I'm not sure what is meant to follow from that.

As I said in the post you quoted, "If a GM frames a player into a situation that manifestly fails to speak to a PC's Beliefs, the the player can tell." So where do you think the illusion is? What you describe is just naked disregard of the game's governing principles.

More generally, are you really trying to argue that a game can't be designed or played in a way that makes a difference to the amenability of illusionism on the part of the GM? What about dice-rolling procedures? - Gygax's DMG takes for granted that the GM will roll dice secretly from the players; the MHRP rulebook states "There are no secrets in the Bullpen!" and hence all dice are rolled in front of everyone.

Or what about DW player-side moves, which state expressly what the player is entitled to on a success, and what the GM is entitlded to do on a failure?

Or contrast the following cases: in BW, a player declares that his/her sorcerer casts a spell, the difficutly is set, the casting is resolved. Certain failure results can lead to the spell fizzling. In AD&D, on the other hand, a spell can fizzle if cast into an anti-magic zone, which the GM is allowed to keep secret until the player declares the casting, and even then the GM is not obliged to explain why the spell fizzled - the player is expected to work it out.

These are all differences of procedure that create different sorts of scope for various GM approaches.

On "framing", I had a lengthy post not too far upthread (here).

On consequences, as I replied to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], if the narrated consequences don't speak to the Beliefs of the PCs (which are authored by their players) that will be evident. The plaeyrs will no that the GM is not running the game as advertised. There's no illusion.

But a map isn't a flowchart, is it? Even a recipe isn't a flowchart, in the sense that you might change the sequence of steps (eg often I don't turn the oven on at the start like the recipe says, because it doesn't take that long to heat up and I want to conserve power).

Whereas an "event-based" flowchart isn't a map. It's a temporal sequence of events - a "plot", if you like.

Appendix B of LotR is something like a story; an atlas isn't.

The question was 'show me how the GM can drive the game'. I provided an example on how exactly the GM can drive the game according to their desires. You respond that 'if the GM doesn't engage the beliefs, it's obvious' but all of my examples do engage the beliefs. The belief that you'll return to your ruined tower and find the mace you were looking on is engaged on a failure if I say 'no, and a demon appears'. It's also engaged on a partial success if I say 'yes, you find it, but a demon appears." My agenda here is to drive the game toward engagement with the theme and plot I want, which is demons. But framing situations so that they're amenable to failure circumstances that drive towards my point, I can easily engage player beliefs and still drive the game. I just choose failure events or choices biased to my underlying agenda. You seem to refuse to acknowledge this is possible, mostly, I think, because it doesn't occur to you to do so. That's a positive thing, but you're mistaking your playstyle as something that's emergent from the ruleset when this isn't necessarily correct. It's encouraged, yes, but not required.

I think a major point of contention here is the false binary that keeps getting kicked around by everyone that games are either DM driven or Player driven. It's always both, it's just a matter of degree. There is no magic formulation that sets the precise ratio for any game. A game can have some DM direction and vastly more player direction, or vice versa, but the presence of DM direction doesn't mean the game is now DM driven. If that's the case, your game is DM driven, and you've demonstated this by adding fiction that you chose in the event of failed checks by your players. Since this is clearly counterindicated (it's clear you value player desires over your own as DM), then the premise fails. Similarly, having events that occur off camera that then impact the players, or having events that pivot on 'secret' information doesn't make a game DM driven, it just tilts a little more in that direction. These components, by and of themselves, do not rise to the level of automatic definition. They can, for sure, if used extensively and with other DM force options, but it's not sufficient.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION], [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

I think [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s question is fairlyi straightforward - who is bored by a world that is not changing when it is not part of play?

Corpsetaker says "I don't really like games where nothing happens in the world unless it's by the direct actions of the players." But this seems to be quite a different point. For instance, if I was running the KotB, the (secretly evil) priest might approach the PCs, saying "So-and-so suggested that you were interested in advice about the nature of undeath". That is "something happening in the world other than by the direct actions of the PCs" (namely, one NPC spoke to another). But it's not offscreen - it's part of the ingame situation into which the GM is framing the PCs.

Whereas Ovinomancer said "A world that doesn't change unless a player looks at it is boring" - and chaochou's question is, Who is getting bored? On the (apparently reasonable) assumption that the players aren't going to be entertained by something they're not looking at (eg the GM's secret notes about changes in the gameworld) then presumably they're not going to be bored by that either (eg by the fact that the GM doesn't have secret notes about changes in the gameworld).

Sure, but you have to guess that's their point. I'd rather not guess. I do not think that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is really interested in who I think may be bored, but rather in contesting the point. We can skip the question and answer then, and just get to the contesting argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In applying this metaphor to RPGing, who are "the other kids"?

If they're other players in a shared world, then what we have is something like the sort of interpersonal and interparty competitive play that seems to have been part of how Gygax ran the game (as best I understand it). I think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has elements of this too.

But if the "other kids" are purely imaginary beings whose actions and outcomes are being narrated by the GM, then we're clearly (self-evidently, I would say) talking about a GM-driven approach to establishing the content of the shared fiction.

If the DM doesn't get to play in the sandbox, too, what's the point? Having the DM adjudicate how the world moves absent player involvement doesn't flip a switch from 'Player driven' to 'DM driven.' Otherwise you're now calling games that involve things like Fronts DM driven. Given you've XP'd those responses that have described this mechanic, I don't think you're doing this.

Instead, what I'm getting is that you think what's being discussed is the DM fiating whatever they want without regard to player goals. That's not it, that's just another example of taking the worst case and using it as the general one.

Unless there is a RPG table where the players are actually forbidden from making action declarations for their PCs, or where the GM never allows the action resolution mechanics to actually run their course, this can never literally be the case. So it's not the basis on which I'm characterising a game as player-driven or GM-driven.

You just postulated a cult that destroyed the world because the players didn't engage it, didn't you? I thought that was the example being used. I called it a bad example, because it's an example of poor DM skills, to have a campagin ending event occur entirely offscreen.

But the one that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] describes seems to be. He's not talking about running DW-style fronts.

Sure, but he may be doing something extremely similar. I am, and I hadn't heard of Fronts until this thread. But I sure have things that use something very similar to the clocks, with players being able to manipulate by interacting with the organization. The idea of Fronts was immediately familiar to me, because I was already doing that in my games. A bit less structured, maybe, but clear to my players.

I've not used the notions of "DM-centric" or "Player-centric", and I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've talked about who is the driver of the content of the shared fiction.

Yes, I coined those terms for the same thing because I didn't like the implied binary of 'only DM' or 'only Player' from DM driven to Player driven. The '-centric' tems do the same work but imply who the primary, but not only, driver of content may be. In a DM-centric game, for example, the primary producer of fiction is the DM. But the players can also introduce fiction, if to a lesser amount. I think it's fair to say my D&D games are DM-centric.

I also don't know what you have in mind by "worst case". [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has talked about how he runs a game. I assume he's being basically sincere. I'm talking about how I run a game, and what my preferences are in that respect. I'm being sincere.

I'm not implying any specialize definition with that. I mean it literally. You tend to present examples that feature highly negative traits or results, ie, worst case. You then argue using this very negative example as the stand in for how a particular method works. I'm pointing out that such worst cases aren't the norm, and using them is detrimental to discussion.

It seems pretty clear to me that, by my standards and my preferences, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s game is GM-driven: that the key elements of the shared fiction are generated by the GM, based on the GM's conception of the "unfolding" gameworld.

The fact that the players get to choose whether their PC seek out the orcs or the lizardment doesn't really change that.

If you think I'm mistaken about Lanefan's game, by all means explain to me what I've misunderstood.

Yes, I think you're focusing on one part and ignoring the rest. The initial conditions presented have been DM authored, but the ensuing fiction is driven by the players -- which part do they engage? How? What do they do then? All of this is up to the players. This is different from your game, where part of the setup is deciding player beliefs and the themes of the game, which is cooperative between all parties (ie, players can certainly decide their own beliefs, but the DM has to sign off on them as something they want to run or no game). The only difference, as presented, is the setup. Lanefan takes on the overhead and prep to set the world up, and lets the players loose to find out what happens. You share the load up front, and then proceed in the same manner. How the game actually runs could be very similar.

Now, I get that you prefer the cooperative theme development afforded by BW, and that's great, but don't mistake who sets the background for DM/Player driven in actual play.

 

[Corpsetaker]

99% of the time I use the same world in my games. If one groups actions reflect on that world in certain areas, then another group coming through may see the impact of those actions.

My world keeps on spinning and changing whether the PC's are in it or not.

 

[Campbell]

No, I did. You said it's not a sandbox at all because it didn't fit your very narrow definition. I added the idea of a 'failed sandbox' as one that attempts to be a sandbox, but fails because it doesn't meet your definition entirely.

To which I'd like to say that Free Kreigspiel is a model of a sandbox. It's not THE model of a sandbox.




The question was 'show me how the GM can drive the game'. I provided an example on how exactly the GM can drive the game according to their desires. You respond that 'if the GM doesn't engage the beliefs, it's obvious' but all of my examples do engage the beliefs. The belief that you'll return to your ruined tower and find the mace you were looking on is engaged on a failure if I say 'no, and a demon appears'. It's also engaged on a partial success if I say 'yes, you find it, but a demon appears." My agenda here is to drive the game toward engagement with the theme and plot I want, which is demons. But framing situations so that they're amenable to failure circumstances that drive towards my point, I can easily engage player beliefs and still drive the game. I just choose failure events or choices biased to my underlying agenda. You seem to refuse to acknowledge this is possible, mostly, I think, because it doesn't occur to you to do so. That's a positive thing, but you're mistaking your playstyle as something that's emergent from the ruleset when this isn't necessarily correct. It's encouraged, yes, but not required.

I think a major point of contention here is the false binary that keeps getting kicked around by everyone that games are either DM driven or Player driven. It's always both, it's just a matter of degree. There is no magic formulation that sets the precise ratio for any game. A game can have some DM direction and vastly more player direction, or vice versa, but the presence of DM direction doesn't mean the game is now DM driven. If that's the case, your game is DM driven, and you've demonstrated this by adding fiction that you chose in the event of failed checks by your players. Since this is clearly contraindicated (it's clear you value player desires over your own as DM), then the premise fails. Similarly, having events that occur off camera that then impact the players, or having events that pivot on 'secret' information doesn't make a game DM driven, it just tilts a little more in that direction. These components, by and of themselves, do not rise to the level of automatic definition. They can, for sure, if used extensively and with other DM force options, but it's not sufficient.

Here's my slight contention with your example: In Burning Wheel all our interests are focused on contesting the veracity of player character beliefs at all times and following the fiction where it leads. When the GM presents the consequences for a failed roll they should do so with an eye towards player character beliefs in order to set up future conflicts. When you include consequences that have nothing to do with player character beliefs it my sincerely held belief that you are GMing the game in bad faith. The player would be justified in raising the issue. If you can relate the consequence back to a player character belief and it follows from the established fiction, and is susceptible to impact from player decisions then awesome! Balance is restored to the force. Obviously, the GM has a say in the content of the fiction, and their contributions should be valued for what they bring to the game. I do not think they really should be valued anymore than any other player, particularly when they generally get far more opportunities to contribute, but that's like my personal cross to bear.

I do think a little too much attention is being paid to power dynamics here. At least that is not what I am ultimately interested in. What I really want is unity of player interests while maintaining a level of conflict of interest in game to propel things forward. If we are all ultimately interested in the same things and actively working towards those interests then there should be no meaningful source of contention. My own interests tend towards games where no one in particular is driving the game. Everyone gets to say stuff and contribute, but no one really gets to control stuff. We all act in the interests of the game, and get to experience it together. My interests in a lack of a preplanned narrative are just as much for the sake of the GM's experience of play as it is for the other players' experience.