Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ovinomancer]

You could be right here... I just get a little suspicious when something is presented without any flaws or drawbacks.

Me, too, usually. But it occurs to me that, for those things we've become fans of, it's hard to see the faults, much less present them fairly. At least, that's the leeway I'm extending.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Me, too, usually. But it occurs to me that, for those things we've become fans of, it's hard to see the faults, much less present them fairly. At least, that's the leeway I'm extending.

As someone whose game leans toward GM Driven....if I had to pick one of the two very broad buckets of "GM Driven" or "Player Driven"....there are certainly drawbacks.

It's easy for there to be conflict between what the players want and what the GM has planned, so you can have mixed expectations for the game.

It's possible to overlook, or even not to be aware of, players' goals for their characters and the fiction of the game overall.

I think "railroading" is probably more of a possibility (although I am coming to hate that term due to its vagueness and widely differing application).

All of these ultimately kind of have the same effect....some form of reduction in player agency, whether it is somehow taken away, subverted, or totally missing to begin with. That chance seem, to me, to be the major concern of those posters who seem to be critical of that style (although I admit, I could be way off on that, but that's the gist I get). And to touch on [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s earlier point....I think most of us would agree that player agency in and of itself is a good thing. But I don't know if it must be paramount....that the preservation of player agency must be preserved at all costs. So even though we see it as a good thing, there certainly could be plenty of valid reasons to eschew it from time to time.

I'm sure there are more concerns about GM Driven games...I just threw out a few. Others can add to that. I'm hoping that some of the more Player-Driven-Minded folks will be willing to share their views on the drawbacks of that approach; I have my own ideas, but I'd like to hear what they have to say first.

 

[Lanefan]

Lanefan plays 5E

[MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] Incorrect. I both play and run a much-modified version of 1e; and have reasonably decent knowledge of what makes all the other e's tick (though 4e confounds me sometimes).

which largely dispenses with the, in my opinion, advances made by 4E (and the "indie" RPGs mentioned throughout this thread)

I'll dispute the word "advances" but will for now accept "changes"; as said changes are to - I'd argue most people - going to include a combination of advances, regressions, and sideways movement; and an advance for some will be seen as a regression for others.

which devise an elegant mechanic by which social interactions can work--and work well--based upon PC design, not player skill. Lanefan embraces 5E's reverse, putting the emphasis of social interaction on the player--and then DM judgment in response--not the character and the neutral arbiter of the dice.

But, of course, sometimes a perfectly average Joe wants to play a charismatic sweet talker or brilliant scholar, and games that provide mechanics for social interaction based on PC build, not player skill, facilitate this.

And as soon at those mechanics become part of the game players start relying on them - "skip the talk, Mr. DM; I'll just roll a check to see if I persuade him or not" - rather than their own creativity and imagination as reflected by their character. This to me is a regression big enough to defeat the entire purpose of a role-playing game.

That said, from what I can tell (and to their credit) most DMs get their players to at least try role-playing before resorting to dice.

Lan-"just rolled 18 - did I persuade you?"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I think [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] is on to something with post 858 where he lists the gamer types and how they might work within a player-driven game; I largely agree with the analysis there given.

My only quibble would be that a player-driven game will probably end up at complete odds with the Tactician; in that it'd be an altruistic Tactician indeed who, when designing the scene, didn't now and then (or frequently) toss in a tactical advantage for her PC and-or the rest of the party.

And as for this angle:

As someone whose game leans toward GM Driven....there are certainly drawbacks.

It's easy for there to be conflict between what the players want and what the GM has planned, so you can have mixed expectations for the game.

It's possible to overlook, or even not to be aware of, players' goals for their characters and the fiction of the game overall.

I think "railroading" is probably more of a possibility (although I am coming to hate that term due to its vagueness and widely differing application).

Another sometimes-all-too-real drawback to a primarily-DM-driven game (and I confess to speaking from experience here) comes about if-when the DM flat out hasn't got any - or has run out of - good ideas as to where to drive to. This can quickly become a campaign-ender if the players haven't got anything on the boil either.

Solutions - also learned through experience: always have a storyboard (and update it now and then to reflect what's actually happened in the game), always have something "in reserve" to allow for left turns, and always be ready to hit the curveball.

Lan-"and go in to any campaign with the expectation that it'll last for the rest of your life - plan long, and it'll go long"-efan

 

[Campbell]

The primary reason why I am so down on a flexible approach comes down to expectations. The value of any social system is setting expectations and granting permissions. When I am playing in a game where GM techniques are bound to change moment to moment I have no way to meaningfully make impactful decisions. I cannot feel the ground underneath my feet. If a game does not optimally fit the experience I am looking for I can either sit this one out or take on the interests of the game and have a measure of fun. When I have tried running games like this in the past the cognitive weight of constantly reading the room and prioritizing one player's desires over another was soul crushing for me.

The pain point for me is this: we get a situation where we all sit around the table and try to play our own individual games instead of playing the same game. We do not address our very real conflicts of interest. Instead we depend on the GM to smooth them over. When things become untenable socially we look to the GM to resolve our social conflict and lack of trust in each other. We put all the responsibility on the GM for our own fun making running a game an onerous task. Because the GM takes on this extra social responsibility this can often shift the dynamics away from one where we are peers, fellow gamers, and creative collaborators.

Upthread [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] bulked a bit when I suggested that any player could air a grievance about the fiction or group direction openly. This sort of thing as a common fixture of my play group. It is expected that we are all going to work together to resolve player level conflicts of interest. It is a necessary component to ensuring that all players remain engaged and motivated. Hacking the game is something that is always on the table as well as making adjustments to our characters and the fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

Upthread [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] bulked a bit when I suggested that any player could air a grievance about the fiction or group direction openly.

Grievances with the fiction are always problematic as you don't know what's coming down the pipe. Maybe this series of adventures that someone finds boring or dull or disturbing is intended to lead to another series that the same person would consider excllent.

Group direction? Not sure what you mean there, unless you're referring to real-world players not getting along (which happens). That sort of discussion happens, just preferably not during the game session; that's what pubs, email, and the other 6 days of the week are for.

Hacking the game is something that is always on the table as well as making adjustments to our characters and the fiction.

Hacking the game - as in, rule changes or ideas and that sort of thing - is also always open for discussion* here; but again not during a game session.

* - with the known proviso that, where possible, no really major changes will usually be made within a campaign that would invalidate earlier parts of that same campaign.

Lanefan

 

[darkbard]

Incorrect. I both play and run a much-modified version of 1e; and have reasonably decent knowledge of what makes all the other e's tick (though 4e confounds me sometimes).

You, good sir, have my apologies for miscategorizing your gameplay. I should have said you have indicated a preference for systems whose design philosophy is DM empowerment and skilled play.

And as soon at those mechanics become part of the game players start relying on them - "skip the talk, Mr. DM; I'll just roll a check to see if I persuade him or not" - rather than their own creativity and imagination as reflected by their character.

I don't think this must be true, but I will concede that this is the viewpoint assumed by many who rejected the significant philosophical changes of 4E (often before really giving the system a fair shake). And when this is true, it can make for a roleplaying poor RPG.

One of the great things about this thread, however, is that it (along with many similar threads by [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION], [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], etc.) demonstrates how the design philosophy of 4E (and "indie" style gaming much more broadly) can provide fertile ground for roleplaying through the mechanics, not by dispensing with them in favor of DM judgment.

 

[Campbell]

I would caution thinking of mainstream games and indie games in a binary sense. Indie games often function in ways that are different from mainstream games and there are certain common trends, but there is a great degree of diversity of experience between games, including the intended GMing and play principles, expectations placed on players, and overall machinery of play. It takes a different set of skills to run and play Burning Wheel that are distinct from running and playing Apocalypse World. There are also some very significant areas of disagreement within the indie community over things like introspection vs. conflict, stake setting, character intent vs. player intent, if intent should even be a thing, character vs. story advocacy, and amongst more emotionally charged designs Nobody Gets Hurt vs. I Will Not Abandon You. You might have seen some of that play out in some of my interactions with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. I do not think there is such a thing as an indie style. There are multiple approaches to roleplaying games. Some of them come from one community. Some from another.

This passage from Playing Passionately covers it in more detail:

Imagine for a moment that you are playing poker. After the round it’s revealed that you have the high hand with two pair when all of a sudden the guy across from you says, “Ah! I’ve got the Ace of Diamonds!” and collects all the cards on the table and places them in front of himself. Just to make it a little weirder he doesn’t even stop you from taking your winnings. You might rightfully ask, “What are you doing?” To which he replies, “I always like to take tricks in my card games.” You might then carefully go over the rules of poker and this individual smiles and nods and says, “Yes, I understand that you won the hand, I just find that trick taking really enhances card games.”

You would assume, I hope, that the person you were talking to was insane. So, why, I ask, do we as role-players not blink an eye when a fellow role-player says something like, “When I GM I usually have the players submit a detailed character write up for approval. I generally like at least two pages.” without any context as to what is being played? Role-playing games are the only games I can think of where players carry around with them huge systemic behaviors from game to game. The GM who *always* has his players submit detailed character write ups for approval is going to have a hard time with “In A Wicked Age…” in a shocking way and will probably be confused on a profoundly disappointing level with something more subtle like “Sorcerer.”

These encultured systems have their roots in the very dawn of the hobby where play was a highly individualized amalgam of rule-books, magazine articles and house rules. It probably reached the height of formalization with games like Vampire where rules to “do stuff” were provided but to what end, what emphasis and under what structure were *intentionally* left “up to the individual group.” Play groups *had* to develop individualized systemic techniques to make functional play happen at all. These personally developed techniques then got carried around from game to game as a matter of course often unacknowledged. Sometimes players would go so far as to claim these techniques were how the game was “supposed” to be played despite the total lack of (unified) textual backing.

Now some of you might be thinking, “Isn’t this just System Matters all over again?” or maybe the idea of purposeful design? Yes, yes it is. Then why bring it up? Because the community has forgotten. I see people carrying around Kickers, Bangs, Relationship Maps, Scene Framing and Stakes just likes Detailed Character Backgrounds, The Party, Faction Maps and Rule Zero got carried around. “Say Yes, or roll the dice” has become encultured as a particularly poisonous mantra. This has lead to the idea of “Forge-style” or “Story Game style” games. People aren’t playing the game at hand; they’re playing some weird amalgamation of every game they have ever played.

However just like it was toxic to bring all your Vampire techniques into Sorcerer it’s equally as toxic to bring all that “Story Game” stuff as some kind of unified play-style into other games. How many people know that The Producer always frames scenes in Primetime Adventures? Don’t believe me? Look it up. How many people know that there’s a perfectly functional and more basic way to play Sorcerer without a Relationship Map? Read Chapter 4 carefully. Look at how people’s ideas of Stakes has lead to mass confusion on how to play “In A Wicked Age…” and yet the text is rather clear on what to procedurally do.

To address this I offer two pieces of advice. To designers, I say consider what systemic (social and mechanical) techniques are required and/or work in your game and say that in the text explicitly. Don’t hand wave it away as, “It’s a story game. People know how to play those.” To players, I say read the text. Do what the text says. Don’t drag encultured rules into play. Stop taking tricks in your “card games.”

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]

I think there are good social mechanics and there are bad social mechanics. For my interests any mechanism in a roleplaying game should spark interest in the fiction and require players to engage not just the mechanism, but also their underlying fictional positioning. This applies just as much to violent confrontations as it does to talking stuff out. Good social mechanics actually draw us and make us care about what is going on in the fiction.A good example is the Social Influence subsystem in Exalted 3e where in order to get someone to do something I have to find out what they value (Intimacies) and provoke them to act in accordance with their values. In order to defend against my successful influence they have to defend by spending Willpower and pointing to something else they value just as much. These mechanics also apply to player characters by the way. This keeps our interest on the fiction and requires players to actually engage it, making arguments and applying leverage that cuts to the core of their target's interests.

Here's a really bad social mechanic for my interests: Roll Diplomacy. If you roll really high they like you and will do whatever you want them to. I hate Diplomancers!

Good
Fiction -> Mechanisms -> Fiction
Fiction -> Fiction

Bad
Mechanisms -> Mechanisms
Mechanisms -> Fiction

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If I took this approach, I would feel like I was GMing blind. I wouldn't know what the player was hoping his/her PC would achieve. I wouldn't know what was at stake. I wouldln't know how to apply pressure.

I'm not saying I don't know anything about their character. We discuss stuff like that out of game time, plus I learn tons during the course of the game based on what they say/do within the game world.

I'm saying that during the game I'm not going to ask something like, "how does that related to x, and how does it make you feel?" from DM to player/character. That's too much like a breaking the 4th-wall sort of moment for me.