Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[BryonD]

I'd honestly like to get ... opinions on how narrative control and authorship (and their play styles in general) relate to the various player types.

...


Honestly at first glance the play style [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] seem to be espousing (one of shared narrative, playing to see what happens and non-causality linked consequences) seems to be designed for very specific player types... IMO that's what [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] earlier example points out. It's for the most part a play style designed for The Storytellers and that doesn't clash with The Specialist... the others it seems, at least IMO, aren't as well suited to this play style. Though honestly I'd be interested in other posters takes on this.

Some time back Pemerton and I had multiple conversations on the specific topic of "role playing" vs. "authorship" and the merits and drawbacks of players being completely limited to things they could do if they truly were in the shoes of their character vs players sharing some of the function of a DM. I doubt you would be surprised to hear that we rather strongly disagreed in our preference. (and this was, of course, further complicated by contributions from others (not P) refusing to accept the distinction between "preference" and objectively better gaming)

I believe you are exactly right in your assessment of where the division falls.

 

[Imaro]

Some time back Pemerton and I had multiple conversations on the specific topic of "role playing" vs. "authorship" and the merits and drawbacks of players being completely limited to things they could do if they truly were in the shoes of their character vs players sharing some of the function of a DM. I doubt you would be surprised to hear that we rather strongly disagreed in our preference. (and this was, of course, further complicated by contributions from others (not P) refusing to accept the distinction between "preference" and objectively better gaming)

I believe you are exactly right in your assessment of where the division falls.

Yeah I have definitely been getting an... expose the unwashed masses/poor deprived roleplayers (which seems to be any D&D player who doesn't prefer 4e) to these superior techniques... vibe by some posters. Instead of an open exchange between the differing styles that's actually about trading and exploring the merits and pitfalls of both approaches. It's why I've mostly been lurking during this discussion.

 

[tomBitonti]

Re: The gamers types listed by [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I'm thinking there is more room to accommodate the specialist and the tactician if defining the scene is separated from resolving the scene. Also, the degree to which a scene can be modified, possibly by using scarce resources, can add a strategic element which is a positive to players of these two roles.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Imaro]

Re: The gamers types listed by @Imaro, I'm thinking there is more room to accommodate the specialist and the tactician if defining the scene is separated from resolving the scene. Also, the degree to which a scene can be modified, possibly by using scarce resources, can add a strategic element which is a positive to players of these two roles.

Thx!
TomB

I think I agree with you in general... but now we are getting into the necessity of building a dedicated rules structure (to create a scarce resource, determine how one gains it, and regulate how and when it can be used) for narrative control, which at that point I think we have to ask... will this actively enhance (as opposed to not contradict or not get in the way) the play experience for these players to a great enough extent that adding and having to learn these extra rules is desirable?

We also have to consider that there is a subset of players, for whatever reason (don't find it fun, like exploration of an objective setting, are casual, etc.) who just don't want to author the narrative. Once you start to add rules that push this playstyle as oppose to allowing it off the cuff, you are making it harder for your game to accommodate and appeal to said players.

EDIT: In other words why are we placing an intrinsic and positive value on giving players authorial/narrative control? That's, IMO, part of the problem with this conversation. Many in this thread are assuming that this type of play style is inherently something that we should strive to incorporate or move our games towards (though I've not seen the reverse)... but why is that? Why are we assuming it's inherent positive quality or effect on our games? When honestly I've yet to see anything in this thread that convinces me it's objectively a better way.

 

[tomBitonti]

I think I agree with you in general... but now we are getting into the necessity of building a dedicated rules structure (to create a scarce resource, determine how one gains it, and regulate how and when it can be used) for narrative control, which at that point I think we have to ask... will this actively enhance (as opposed to not contradict or not get in the way) the play experience for these players to a great enough extent that adding and having to learn these extra rules is desirable?

EDIT: In other words why are we placing an intrinsic and positive value on giving players authorial/narrative control? That's, IMO, part of the problem with this conversation. Many in this thread are assuming that this type of play style is inherently something that we should strive to incorporate or move our games towards (though I've not seen the reverse)... but why is that? Why are we assuming it's inherent positive quality or effect on our games? When honestly I've yet to see anything in this thread that convinces me it's objectively a better way.

Additional text omitted. I'm pretty sure that I haven't advocated one style over another, although it should be clear that I'm not a fan of "railroading", which I would accept as "clumsily forcing an outcome".

I do think that allowing a player to take part in defining a scene needs to be handed carefully, either due to disinterest, or because a player may be untrustworthy and will wreck the scene.

For the example of sending a signal at the bar:

Player intrusion: Helped one of the barmaids with a thug problem, so can obtain a little assistance.
GM intrusion: A fight is breaking out as the PC arrives.

I definitely think that what works for one group will often not work for others. I don't think there is a single best approach. (But, there are bad approaches.)

Thx!
TomB

 

[hawkeyefan]

EDIT: In other words why are we placing an intrinsic and positive value on giving players authorial/narrative control? That's, IMO, part of the problem with this conversation. Many in this thread are assuming that this type of play style is inherently something that we should strive to incorporate or move our games towards (though I've not seen the reverse)... but why is that? Why are we assuming it's inherent positive quality or effect on our games? When honestly I've yet to see anything in this thread that convinces me it's objectively a better way.

I think that an importance on player agency....of the players' decisions mattering to the game....is being stressed. But I also think it's also kind of the reverse....where the GM's agency, or at least required action on the part of the GM, is reduced.

I do think you've kind of touched on the crux.....some folks value that agency above most other factors. I don't know if anyone would make a case for that being an objective fact rather than just a preference, though.

 

[BryonD]

I think that an importance on player agency....of the players' decisions mattering to the game....is being stressed. But I also think it's also kind of the reverse....where the GM's agency, or at least required action on the part of the GM, is reduced.

I do think you've kind of touched on the crux.....some folks value that agency above most other factors. I don't know if anyone would make a case for that being an objective fact rather than just a preference, though.

how could that possibly be even contemplated as objective fact? It is abundantly clear that to some large number of people the value of that agency is less than the cost of it. Which isn't to claim that the opposite is any less purely preference.

It is objective fact that there are groups which strongly prefer each and groups which are much more moderate.
In theory it could also be shown as objective fact that one approach creates more players and sales.
But there is nothing objective about "more fun" for either.

Ultimately though, it isn't honest debate to frame the conversation around one side as virtuous and the other as backwards.
To me, quotes from 4E designers regarding things like making monks cool game pieces rather than focused on modeling a monk are completely destroying the attraction of the game. But I can readily see why someone else may feel the opposite.

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

I am not a huge fan of Robin Laws' player type analysis. The intent of knowing who you are playing with and knowing what they want out of the game is mostly benign. However, in my experience, it fails to adequately capture the diversity of play experiences. I find that what motivates a player in any given moment is often a moving target. Our overall tendencies will also change over time. Furthermore it presumes conflict between things that do not have to conflict in any way. The right set of techniques and mechanics can do a lot to alleviate these conflicts. Additionally, it fails to capture the nuances within any single category. As an example, one "Method Actor" might be mostly concerned with details of characterization and color where another is more concerned with making character defining or revealing decisions and experiencing the same emotions as their character. What I find most problematic about the analysis is the idea that when we sit down to play a roleplaying game is that a given player will always be looking for the same sort of fun, rather than meaningfully taking on the interests of the game.

Out of curiosity I took this quiz to determine my player type. Here are the results:

• Method Actor - 96%
• Tactician - 75%
• Storyteller - 71%
• Power Gamer - 71%
• Butt Kicker - 46%
• Specialist - 42%
• Casual Gamer: 25%

When it comes to playing roleplaying games I pretty much like all of it. I am most concerned with advocating for my character vigorously and experiencing things as they do in a meaningful way. In the pursuit of those character goals I want to utilize my competitive desires and skill as a gamer. That means applying skilled fictional positioning and application of system mastery alongside a healthy dose of teamwork. I also want a compelling story to result, but I do not want to sacrifice character advocacy or skilled play in the name of getting there. I do not want to be gifted or told a story. I want to earn it and experience it through my character advocacy, skilled play, and creative contributions. I want to grab story by the throat and play in the moment. A good deal of my frustrations with playing and running mainstream games in the past was dealing with conflicts between my various desires, having to sacrifice one in the name of another. I am pretty much done with that.

I get that preferences are different and we should not begrudge people their preferences. Throughout the course of this thread I have been attempting to distill down the unique values of a particular approach that I personally find rewarding and enjoyable. It's not the only approach that I find rewarding. It's not the only approach that I think people should find rewarding. I would encourage them to try it sometime, maybe in lieu of a board gaming night. I think we can enjoy many different things. I also think we should be careful not to condemn passion and thoughtful criticism. I get that I can be overzealous at times and be overly harsh in my criticism. I am trying to approach this thread thoughtfully.

If you feel I am trying to put your play in a box, please tell me. I do not want to do that. I hate when people try to put my play in a box. That's why the flexible vs. focused thing vexes me so. I have experienced a great deal of very real diversity of play and played games with people of widely different backgrounds and interests within the umbrella of using these techniques. I also feel it fails to consider the unspoken assumptions and expectations that go along with most forms of adventure gaming. Things like long campaigns, the group as a gestalt character, finding the story, character as ideal, and a culture focused on outcomes rather than playing to find out. I am not saying that's like a bad way to play. I do find it to be just as specific an experience. It's just that the 1990s created this highly specific culture of play that we tend to take for granted.

 

[Imaro]

I do think you've kind of touched on the crux.....some folks value that agency above most other factors. I don't know if anyone would make a case for that being an objective fact rather than just a preference, though.

I'm not claiming it's an objective fact, only that in this thread it seems to be presented by a few posters as objectively positive as opposed to something with positive and negative facets.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(which seems to be any D&D player who doesn't prefer 4e)

The experience the OP related to begin with wasn't in D&D - 'Burning Wheel' or something. If you're sensing a vibe it's probably indie v D&D - and it may well be coming from both sides of the conversation.

A few things. First, sometimes personality trumps skill challenges and player desires. Scrooge isn't going to loan a PC 10,000 gold pieces, so a social challenge to see if he "parries" the request fails from the get go. It should be disallowed.

It would be like throwing a dart at an enemy behind a stone wall, it's simply not going to work w/o line of effect.

... but now we are getting into the necessity of building a dedicated rules structure (to create a scarce resource, determine how one gains it, and regulate how and when it can be used) for narrative control, which at that point I think we have to ask... will this actively enhance the play experience for these players to a great enough extent that adding and having to learn these extra rules is desirable?

There needn't be any such a necessity: if the game already has resource-driven rules, for instance, they can simply be adapted.

We also have to consider that there is a subset of players, for whatever reason who just don't want to author the narrative.

They could decline to accumulate said resources - or to use them that way if they're an existing system being adapted to that purpose.

Many in this thread are assuming that this type of play style is inherently something that we should strive to incorporate or move our games towards... but why is that? Why are we assuming it's inherent positive quality or effect on our games? When honestly I've yet to see anything in this thread that convinces me it's objectively a better way.

'Better' is clearly subjective, but it's not like using one technique precludes others, so you don't need to decide which is better and use it exclusively. Not that I see that being acknowledged, either.

I am not a huge fan of Robin Laws' player type analysis. The intent of knowing who you are playing with and knowing what they want out of the game is mostly benign. However, in my experience, it fails to adequately capture the diversity of play experiences. I find that what motivates a player in any given moment is often a moving target. Our overall tendencies will also change over time. Furthermore it presumes conflict between things that do not have to conflict in any way.

Very true. And the same thing happens with games, styles, and techniques. The classifications aren't inherently invalid, but if treated as absolutes or as antithetical, become problematic.

The right set of techniques and mechanics can do a lot to alleviate these conflicts.

Since a given player's 'type' can actually shift emphasis with the situation or morph over time, a flexible enough system to smoothly accommodate multiple 'types' or styles or agendas or whatever set of boxes is under discussion, can be a plus even if there's not a conflict at the table, initially, or even if there is (say the table's 'type' shifts in step, or it's a single-player game, for instance).