Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ilbranteloth]

I've highlighted two bits of this quote.

The first seems to go right to the core of the thread. It posits the GM as creating the story.

The second seems to go to the discussion with [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] about immersion, and my post not far upthread. Because human beings are related to people around them, and embedded in the world around them, sometimes "being the character" also requires establishing elements of the shared fiction.

I probably didn't word that very well, but here's what I said:

"Certainly, as a DM, improvisation is always part of the game. But by having a thorough understanding of the NPCs and their goals, the events that are occurring in the region, the lay of the land, and things like that. Even the typical behavior of monsters, etc., means that I can also focus on the creation of the story during the game, reacting to the characters and their actions."

And my clarification is that I can focus on my part of the story. It also means that I can focus on the player's creation of the story during the game. The bulk of the story is written by the players through the actions of their PCs.

I provide, as I stated there, the NPCs and their goals, the events, lay of the land, behavior of monsters, etc., and react as them, or within those parts of the fiction. I don't get to write the stories of the characters. That's what the players do. And in general, we share the fiction of their history, but that's handled in our games outside of the game session itself.

The only real exception I can think of is something from character history, like running into an NPC they "know" but has never been in play before, and we might have to address the relationship they have with the NPC and potential shared history. Most of the time that's glossed over, "Hey, Mornagan, long time, no see...and you spend a few moments reminiscing about old times...so what brings you to Loudwater?" I might give them a fair amount of leeway on the development of those types of relationships, but it's still usually built on a back-and-forth, and usually outside of the session if we're going deeper. Basically I know the goals and rough personality of the NPC and based on whether we decide there is any history of note, we develop some back history.

The PCs are essentially the pointy stick of the world, and they are looking to me to let them know what happens when they poke something.

Just like us, in our world, they are the characters and only the characters. They don't decide what happens when they poke something, they only make the decision to poke it or not and how they react to what happens. So I think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is onto something when he considers it reactive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] Incorrect. I both play and run a much-modified version of 1e;

So, 1e, then ...I ran a much-modified (a 2-3 inch thick d-ring binder of crazy variants) version of 1e for years, and 2e similarly-modded. I have a hard time believing anyone ever ran 1e 'RAW.' But, y'know, 1e was a very DM-empowering edition, as is 5e.

and have reasonably decent knowledge of what makes all the other e's tick (though 4e confounds me sometimes)...
I'll dispute the word "advances"

Well, it does confound you, and you are still running a game from the 80s...
but, yeah, 'advanced' it's a misnomer: I doubt there was much in a 'modern' WotC ed of D&D that hadn't been done by some not-D&D RPG by oh, the mid '90s at the latest.

'Less classic,' perhaps?

to include a combination of advances, regressions, and sideways movement; and an advance for some will be seen as a regression for others.

...? An advance can hardly seem like a regression. By definition the latter is calling back something from the past. An advance can seem bad or in the wrong direction based on subjective opinion, sure, and a regression can seem like a terribly good idea when people are burning you in effigy for moving away from tradition...

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.

Nod. The 3.x Diplomancer was notorious, that way. But, really, if an RPG is going to let you play a range of characters, not just clones of yourself dropped in some genre setting (not that 20th century reader-identification characters dropped into fantasy worlds wasn't a staple of genre for a long time), it's going to have to have resolution mechanics based on the character, not just the player.

I would caution thinking of mainstream games and indie games in a binary sense.

Above I posited a continuum, so I guess I agree.
But, indie does kinda come off as the intellectual revolutionary minority struggling against the dogmatic/oppressive establishment, ironic as that is in such a small pond. And both sides can be more than a little elitist - both sides of a hobby that tends towards elitism, I might add (one way to look at the continued unpopularity of your obsession is as an exclusive elite rather than an excluded fringe).

 

[pemerton]

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.

I agree with you about the inaptness of "flexible vs focused". Good for what I'm used to doing with it isn't a sign of flexibiility in a system.

I think a similar point applies to the idea of "player buy in". There is nothing distinctive about, say, Burning Wheel or 4e compared to AD&D 2nd ed such that the former two require "buy in" in a way that the latter doesn't.

 

[pemerton]

You know one thing I haven't seen addressed in this thread is how different player types do or don't work with narrative power.

<snip>

Robin Laws lists out the following player types...

The Power Gamer
The Butt-Kicker
The Tactician
The Specialist
The Method Actor
The Storyteller
The Casual Gamer

<snip>

Now honestly I just don't see how your play style can work for say The Power Gamer... who actively looks "to finding quirks and breakpoints he can exploit to get large benefits at comparatively low costs."

<snip>

I also see issues, though admittedly to a lesser extent, with The Tactician... who wants "problems" to "beat" through his own acumen and strategical thinking. This seems at odds with allowing him to control or create things through the narrative

I am not a huge fan of Robin Laws' player type analysis

<snip>

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.

I agree that there are severe limitations to this sort of player categorisation.

But the group I play with would - by ENworld standards, judging from threads - be classified as Power Gamers, Optimisers and Tacticians. They like building PCs for effectiveness, and playing for the same.

(Btw, the quoted description of "power gamers" doesn't seem generally applicable, because it seems to be relevant only to games with "breakpoints" - I prefer to avoid such games.)

There is no general tension (that I've encountered, at least) between playing for effectivness and a game in which the action and focus of the game are led by the players rather than the GM.

As far as "beating a problem" being "at odds with allowing [a player] to control or create things through the narrative", I don't see why. Beating a problem by goading an advisor into outing him-/herself doesn't seem different, in this respect, from beating a problem by (say) blowing it up. Likewise for beating a problem by succeeding at a Circles check and thereby meeting a friendly NPC.

why are we placing an intrinsic and positive value on giving players authorial/narrative control?

I'm not sure who you are intending to denote by "we".

In the OP I place value on a game not being a railroad, which is to say I placed value on the game - that is to say, the focus of play, and the outcomes in the shared fiction - being driven by the players rather than the GM. My reason for doing that is because I prefer it.

 

[pemerton]

Not having been at your (Sadras's) table for this event, it's hard to comment, but as you present it it looks like a pretty tightly GM-run game (eg the hurting of the PCs' allies in the organisation is similar to the assassination of the marquis that was being discussed upthread - this seems to have been narrated by the GM as a "failure off-screen" consequence for the players having their PCs deny the boss's request). Was the player being juvenile? Deliberately disruptive? Didn't have any other ideas? Couldn't conceive of anything else being feasible in the fiction?

I don't see this sort of example as any sort of "case against" player input into the shared fiction.

We have a poster @Sadras who tried giving his players some authorial and narrative control and it flopped. but instead of us examining why this happened he is summarily dismissed by @Tony Vargas and @pemerton.

Apparently "summary dismissal" has some meaning in American English that is different from its meaning in Australian English.

In the usage I'm familiar with, replying to someone and trying to tease out possible reasons something undesirable might have happened in a game - on a very thing evidence base - isn't a dismissal, let alone a summary one.

 

[pemerton]

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.

But this is exactly what I'm saying would leave me feeling blind. If I don't know what the PC's motivation is, or how the player sees that relating to other concerns and declared convictions of the PC, then I don't know what is really happening in the fiction and how best to handle it as GM.

As an approach to GMing I learned this from the very good referee of a free-form Cthulhu/Dreamlands game that I played in once at a convention.

 

[pemerton]

I've no idea what my social AC is or what I need to roll to socially hit or damage my buddy.

This is an odd comment, because I don't know what my combat AC is either, or what I need to roll to physically hit or damage my buddy. These are just mechanical constructs. (And in the case of damage in D&D, don't even correlate to anything distinctive in the fiction - eg if an ogre with 20 hp takes 3 hp damage, we don't know anything in particular that has happened in the fiction except that somehow the ogre's chances of prevailing have been slightly set back.)

That said, the episode of play I described - being a 4e skill challenge - doesn't use "social AC" or "social damage". It is more fiction-focused than that, and is resolved by the players accruing the requisite number of successes prior to suffering 3 failures.

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

This seems to be about framing, and what is a permissible action declaration. (And [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] made the same point upthread.)

Once the check has been framed and resolved, however, I don't see any reason why it is not binding on the GM just as much as on the players. Combat as a domain of fictional endeavour does not generate any distinctive demand of finality in resolution. (Eg early D&D had morale and loyalty checks, which were as binding as combat. The idea that social/emotional responses cannot be governed by binding mechanics unless, in the fiction, those mechanics correlate to the use of magic, is a more recent prejudice.)

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.

The only RPG I'm aware of which might have social mechanics that resemble this is 3E.

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.

<snip>

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 agree with the first bit. Of the systems I'm GMing at present, the one with the most abstract social resolution mechanics is Cortex/MHRP, but I have found that in play it produces quite strong ficitonal positioning, with a lot of colour in both action and outcome. I'm thinking of things like the trickster PC trying to buy off a giant chieftain with the ox stolen from the giant's own barn; or Bobby Drake swooping up one of the B.A.D. girls on his ice slide, and carrying her off into the moonlight; or Wolverine causing Nightcrawler to break down in tears by executing a captured NPC right in front of him. There's no ambiguity as to what is taking place in the fiction.

Also with the second, though would add: I don't really see 3E-style Diplomacy as an action resolution mechanic at all (eg because it doesn't really require an action declaration). I see it as a species of scene-reframing: the player doesn't like the scene the GM has framed, with a hostile NPC/creature - and so, by rolling the dice, s/he reframes it into one where the NPC/creature is not hostile.

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.

I wouldn't say it's common at my table, but the example I posted upthread - where a player called me on my followup from a skill challenge because he thought my framing wasn't respecting the established fiction of the players'/PCs' success - might count as an example.

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.

My personal preference is to avoid stuff that a player finds boring or dull. (That's not to say that I always succeed. But this relates to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s post quoted just above - if I realise the game is boring or dull for someone, I will act on that.)

 

[Campbell]

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.

I want to clarify something really quick. This is emphatically not what I look for in a game. It directly cuts against my interests most of the time. I am all for disciplined and targeted use of director stance to introduce compelling fiction to play through, enhance interest in the fiction, and to clarify the situation. We speak about things that go unsaid, speak to intuitions, and drives. I believe this is an area best left to GM judgement.

I am also interested in rules that reflect areas of the fiction that often go unrepresented in most mainstream games.Things that speak to our characters inner lives, social pressures, tension, stress, drives, emotions - the type of stuff that I feel is not often adequately enough considered in most play.

I am fundamentally and deeply uninterested in distributing narrative control in play. I do not like it when games like Fate, Cortex+ or Night's Black Agents directly model narrative structures. I want the overall focus to be directly on the fiction. When Fate tells me I have to pay to use my fictional positioning it puts a sour taste in my mouth. When it tells me to set DCs based on dramatic need rather than the fiction things get worse. Mechanics like compels and GM Intrusion in Numenera are not something I am fond of at all. I am no more interested in player scripting than I am of GM scripting.

All that being said, I can find a measure of fun playing these sorts of games. It just does not feel very natural to me. It's not optimal. I have to work at it in a way that I just don't when playing Apocalypse World, Stars Without Number, B/X or Dogs in the Vineyard. Because of its purposeful design I can adopt my own interests to the interests of the game in a way that is less difficult than playing Vampire or any game where our shared interests might flex and weave moment to moment. I don't have to struggle in vain so much. I can enjoy it for what it is even if I would much rather be playing something else. I am also glad its out there for people who really enjoy that sort of thing. Diversity of experience should be celebrated.

Edit: Fixed significant typo. I meant that I find it less difficult to play in a way contrary to my general preferences when a game is clear about the things it is about.

 

[Lanefan]

...? An advance can hardly seem like a regression. By definition the latter is calling back something from the past. An advance can seem bad or in the wrong direction based on subjective opinion, sure, and a regression can seem like a terribly good idea when people are burning you in effigy for moving away from tradition...

I was trying to say that some changes may be viewed by some as advances (as in, improvements) while other people may view those same changes as opposite-of-advancements (as in, they make the game worse) while still others may view them either as neutral or as just change-for-the-sake-of-change. Bad choice of words, I suppose.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

In the OP I place value on a game not being a railroad

I think many of us here would agree in general with this sentiment...

which is to say I placed value on the game - that is to say, the focus of play, and the outcomes in the shared fiction - being driven by the players rather than the GM.

...while not at all agreeing with this one, as the two things are nowhere near the same - as has been shown all sorts of times during the 900 or so posts between the one you're referring to and this one.

Lanefan