Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

This post should be of particular interest to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION].

I want to address the specific pain points, requirements, and player suitability for the way I prefer to run games. Before I can meaningfully do that I feel like I have to lay some groundwork. That means addressing Robin Laws' Player Types and why I believe it is not really a suitable form of player analysis, particularly when games break the common cultural modes of mainstream roleplaying games. I include games like Fate, Numenera, and Night's Black Agents in my conception of mainstream roleplaying game culture. Fate is an extremely well tuned game designed to reinforce the Walled Off Gardens typical of most mainstream games.

Robin Laws' Player Types were born out of observing a particular sort of Culture of Play common in the mainstream of the hobby. I feel it is a mistake to assume those particular behaviors would naturally arise when playing roleplaying games of a different stripe. It is very much like the assumption that Bartle's Player Types analysis which was based on observing the behavior of players in MUDs would apply to other sorts of games. Nick Yee's Motivations of Play in MMORPGs found that even in a games with a culture of play as similar to MUDs as MMOs that the specific behaviors exhibited in MUDs did not reliably exhibit themselves.

Much like Bartle's Player Types Robin Law's Analysis makes some allowances for players who exhibit some of the behaviors of multiple Player Types, but assumes that players have a primary Player Type. In short it assumes that there must be a conflict between Method Actor play and Power Gamer play. It puts our play in a box. This is who we are as players rather than features of a particular design or cultural environment. This can lead to the faulty assumption that there is nothing we can do as designers, players, and GMs to alleviate tensions between different sorts of play. Furthermore there is no meaningful methodology for determining where a player fits.

Probably the most damning and problematic feature of this sort of analysis is that it posits predictive power to a model that has none. By confusing behavior with the motives that lead to that particular behavior within a specific Culture of Play it has the potential to lead to game and scenario design that fails to meaningfully serve the interests of its target audience. If I am engaging in Power Gaming behavior because I want to have power over the fictional world or because I do not want meaningful challenges amping up the difficulty of challenges to suit my character is unlikely to lead to a compelling experience. On the other hand that might be just what I am looking for if the underlying motivation behind my Power Gaming is to create a suite of resources to strategically deploy in order to make impactful decisions and show my mastery over the rules of the game in play and I have a high need for challenging content. Sometimes that Power Gaming might even be a symptom as in the case of a player who has found their efforts to deploy skilled use of fictional positioning are constantly frustrated by a given GM's techniques. This can often be almost impossible to read in long standing groups where we always play in the same way with the same GM.

I think we can do better. I think we can do much better. It starts by actually getting to the core of what motivates player behaviors instead of simply observing that behavior. Enter The Gamer Motivation Model developed by Quantic Foundry Labs. While it covers motivations that are specific to video game design rather than roleplaying games I think the underlying motivations behind why we play games apply more universally. After all, video games owe a lot to D&D. It's only fair they give something back.

The Gamer Motivation Model has the advantage of being based on far more rigorous research. It is an empirical model based on meaningful statistical analysis developed by a team that has academic backgrounds in both computer science and social science with more than 40 peer-reviewed papers. It is also based on a phenomenally large dataset (220,000+ independent data points) that would be almost impossible to attain for an industry as small as tabletop roleplaying games. It also has proven predictive power.

Here's a brief talk on the model.

[video=youtube;YZwiQd-0xqQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZwiQd-0xqQ[/video]

I will be covering the Gamer Motivation Model in more detail in future posts. Below I have linked my profiles for both their Gamer Motivation Profile and Board Gamer Motivation Profile. It is not uniquely suited to roleplaying games, but I think it is better than pretty much anything we have.

My Gaming Style is Action-Oriented, Proficient, Relaxed, Social, and Deeply Immersed
My Board Gaming Style is High Conflict, Strategic, and Immersed

 

[Lanefan]

I don't at all understand how the players winning a skill challenge is meant to be analogous to the PCs losing a battle.

The analogy was between your NPC losing a skill challenge and your PC (one assumes in a different game) losing a battle.

At least, that's how I read it.

Broader question regarding the advisor scenario for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : with all that was going on there - the hour at the table, conflicting agendas all over the place, etc. - what was the rationale for basing the entire outcome on one single all-or-nothing skill challenge, rather than breaking it down into some smaller parts?

Lanefan

 

[Sadras]

You recall isn't quite correct.

The consequence was not mere colour. It was a meaningful consequence.It was a meaningful consequence. It followed from what the player had staked on the action resolution, which had two main "vectors": (1) The player (as his PC) had implanted the Eye of Vecna in his familiar; (2) The player (as his PC) had chosen to thwart Vecna by actively taking the steps to ensure that the soulds of the dead of the Underdark would flow to the Raven Queen rather than to Vecna.

You have not proven that my recollection was incorrect. Your response merely reflects that the PC thwarted Vecna which is not something I disputed. However we do though seem to be in disagreement over the word 'meaningful'.

For you, meaningful consequence is when a deity (Epic Level, probably 25+) only destroys a PC's familiar as his revenge for actively thwarting him, which meaningful consequence can be undone by a 1st level caster with the feat Arcane Familiar, which familiar may be re-summoned after a short rest (5 minutes in 4e).

For me, said consequence is colour and certainly not meaningful.

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]

If it helps I'm not really shooting for Oscar or fine art novel level fiction when I play roleplaying games. I want things to be emotionally charged, but there is still plenty of bloody catharsis and action involved. As Play Passionately put it "I like to be emotionally conflicted while I punch zombies in the face." I'm really looking for the game to play out like a Netflix, HBO, AMC, Showtime, or FX Drama. Street Level Marvel and Vertigo Comics are also inspirations. I also dearly love Swords and Sorcery fiction. Common media touchstones include Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Breaking Bad, Deadwood, Sons of Anarchy, Mad Max: Fury Road, Penny Dreadful, Game of Thrones, Vikings, Hellblazer, Neil Gaiman's Sandman, American Gods, Conan, Elric, Black Company, Taboo, and The Walking Dead. Not super deep stuff, but still like compelling character focused stories. There are games that aim higher, but I generally don't play them that much.

When I talk about mainstream gaming culture I am mostly talking about the Culture of Play that developed and was crystallized during the 1990s. Specifically the modes of play purported by games like AD&D 2e, Vampire - The Masquerade, Call of Cthulhu, Trail of Cthulhu, 7th Sea, Legend of the 5 Rings, Shadowrun, Exalted, Pathfinder, Numenera, Fate, and the like as played according to their texts. I expect that your game, much like AD&D 1e exists somewhere in between that era and the Roleplaying Game as Wargame era. More Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape. Less Greyhawk. Based on my reading of later modules my inner Roleplaying Games as War Games fan would argue that Gygax spent too much time in California and not enough time in Lake Geneva as First Edition waned. Also Dragonlance money.

What I am emphatically not talking about when I speak about mainstream roleplaying games and why I choose not to use the traditional motif are games like Moldvay B/X, Classic Traveller, Classic RuneQuest, Stars Without Number, and Godbound. Lewis Pulsipher of The White Dwarf is probably the most clear voice of this style of game. It's the roleplaying games as games, not stories crew that I view as traditional. To be fair what would become known as the Middle School Culture of Play that I am addressing as Mainstream Games was pretty much always there. Lewis Pulsipher was always pretty critical of what he called the California school and constantly warned against what this thread over on Big Purple calls the Narrative Grasping Reflex, both on the parts of players and GMs. There have been gaming style conflicts as long as roleplaying games have been a thing!

When it comes to games like Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World restricting player agency in ways that both Traditional Games as in War Games or Lake Geneva School and Mainstream Games as in Middle School or California School games do not that was my entire point! They are designed to grant players additional agency in some areas like granting them access to the sort of intuitions and social advantages we meaningfully experience in meatspace and being able to depend on the rules and meaningful skilled use of fictional positioning. They are also designed to limit player agency in ways we experience in meatspace where we can be meaningfully convinced of things we would otherwise choose not to be convinced of, to feel the weight of our emotions, psychological limitations, social obligations, and cultural conditioning. The design goal was not to maximize player agency. It was to resolve conflicts between our various motives as gamers to meaningfully enable emotionally conflicted play where we meaningfully play to find out what happens without having designs on the outcome! I was taking [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] to task for what I regarded as a poor argument even if we generally like the same sort of play!

Quick Note: They do so using wildly different techniques. Burning Wheel, Cortex+, Dogs in the Vineyard and D&D 4e utilize a set of principles, resolution mechanics, and reward structures that rely on binding conflicts, player intent, and intense action. Those games can sometimes result in Story Advocacy. Fiction First games like Blades in the Dark, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, and Masks rely more on specific representational resolution mechanics and reward structures that preserve player autonomy, snowballing consequences, and war gaming style skilled play of fictional positioning to get to a similar place. Obviously the second set of techniques feels more organic to me. it relates to another one of my occasional snipes at [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and another long standing Indie Beef - Walking vs. Running Towards Conflict. I like a bit more introspection and strategy in my games.

Here's another Play Passionately passage.

Fictional conflict is often the centerpiece of game design and as such the texts advocate “getting to the conflicts.” I believe that historically texts have over emphasized this central point from bad play experiences characterized by players spending whole sessions describing their characters shopping or having their characters sitting around chatting about their fictional lives. These kinds of play experiences were sometimes lauded as “incredible” because “we never had to roll the dice.” The central play skill was *avoiding* conflicts so as not to resort to “roll-playing.” These texts were written to show that dramatic confrontations that turned on die roll could be as emotionally engaging as any “pure” role-playing experience.

Unfortunately this idea of “driving to conflict” has been taken to a problematic extreme. What I’ve observed is groups struggling to introduce conflict into a scene if it appears that scene is about to end without one. The central play skill has shifted to *making* conflicts. This leads to all kinds of weird pseudo-conflicts over things like whether or not someone realizes something, or notices something or even feels one way or another or worse whether it’s ninjas or pirates that attack. They feel forced and contrived… and that’s because they are.

It comes down to the fact that play can be about “driving to conflict” without every single scene having a conflict in it. Indeed, for conflict to occur characters must have things over which they conflict. The difference between the kind of role-playing that early indie-texts were afraid of and good solid story building role-playing is that the scenes without conflicts point towards what conflicts will arise later. These non-conflict scenes establish key beliefs, priorities, loyalties, and passions which later elements of the narrative will threaten. With out scenes that first establish and then later update and develop these character elements “conflict” is essentially a meaningless term.

When you let go of the “must have conflict NOW” urge then play progresses much more smoothly and much more naturally. Establishing scenes becomes more about feeding curiosity, “I’d like to see how X and Y interact” or follow up action, “Given what’s just happened I’d like my character to do X.” The play skill involved becomes about *identifying* conflicts when they occur.

Sit back. Relax. Play Passionately.

When it comes to resolving the apparent contradiction between vigorous collaborative agreement and the possibility for competitive play and sometimes even open conflict here's what I have to say: I view it like a friendly poker game. We are all there fundamentally for the same reasons. Connections and relationships between Player Characters need not be warm and fuzzy. They might even be overtly hostile. In the moment we might be working at cross purposes, but we all want to find out what happens more than we want to win. It's not cut throat. We are motivated more by the challenge and strategy involved than a need to win. There is a strong fair play and good sportsmanship element. Even in games like Masks and Blades in the Dark where group play is assumed there will often be a measure of competition and conflict driven in part by the rules of the game.

Look at this mechanic from Masks as an example:

PC team members can also spend Team to act selfishly.

When you act selfishly, say how your actions ignore or insult your teammates, remove one Team from the pool, and shift one Label up and one Label down, your choice. You can use this option after rolling to alter the Label you’re rolling with.

Because you can act selfishly after you roll, this can boost a miss up to a hit, or a partial hit up to a full hit, by changing the Label you rolled with. All you have to do is spend the Team from the pool and describe your character doing something that ignores or insults your teammates.

Generally, your teammates can determine whether they feel ignored or insulted by the selfish action, but the GM can push on it if it seems appropriate.

Acting selfishly may save you when you can’t be helped by anybody else, but it has a cost you can’t avoid.

We want overwhelming unity of player interests with sustained in game conflict of interest just like when we play Poker. In this conception the GM is a player too for when group play is like a thing!

I know the common conception is that collaboration and cooperation are actively opposed to competition, but Quantic Foundry Lab's findings show otherwise. Relevant passages quoted below.

If the appeal of Community and Competition exists on opposing ends of the same spectrum, we would find a strong negative correlation between these two factors. Instead, we found a strong positive correlation in the data overall (r = .45). Gamers who care about either Community or Competition are likely to also care about the other factor.

We dug deeper to make sure it wasn’t men or women that skewed this correlation, and the correlation strength was nearly identical when we split the data by gender: r = .45 for men, and r = .43 for women.

The correlation strength was also largely identical when we split the data by age segments: 13-25 year olds (r = .44), ages 26-35 (r = .43), and ages 36+ (r = .41).

Instead of being polar opposites, Competition and Community essentially both load on a single Social factor. Gamers who enjoy social interaction tend to like all kinds of social interaction, whether it’s chatting, or emoting high fives, or being on a team, or playing against another team. It’s all social to them.

The real Social spectrum goes like this: On one end of the spectrum are gamers who don’t care about social interaction, even when they’re playing MMOs. They strongly prefer independence and keeping to themselves. On the other end of the spectrum are gamers who crave the excitement of social interaction. And once a gamer cares about social interaction, they are likely to be interested in both Community and Competition.

This reality has always been staring us in the eyes.

If Competition were the opposite of Community, team sports wouldn’t make sense, and wouldn’t be such a dominant cultural phenomenon. There simply wouldn’t be enough people to fill all the positions needed in high school, college, and professional sports teams.

We’d have to believe that all these team sports players are somehow aberrant people and that their interests fall outside of the norm. Or we’d have to assume that all the people who play on sports teams are highly individualistic people who are just there for the competition but never found a solo sporting event to their liking.

Or that, somehow, this obvious alignment between Community and Competition in real world team sports suddenly stopped being true when people play digital games.

I know. I know. There goes [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] with his data science and overanalysis!

 

[Campbell]

You have not proven that my recollection was incorrect. Your response merely reflects that the PC thwarted Vecna which is not something I disputed. However we do though seem to be in disagreement over the word 'meaningful'.

For you, meaningful consequence is when a deity (Epic Level, probably 25+) only destroys a PC's familiar as his revenge for actively thwarting him, which meaningful consequence can be undone by a 1st level caster with the feat Arcane Familiar, which familiar may be re-summoned after a short rest (5 minutes in 4e).

For me, said consequence is colour and certainly not meaningful.

I tend to agree that this was softballing. Not that we don't all softball from time to time.

 

[Lwaxy]

Just wow...looking at this thread I thought "50 shades... err pages of grey."

From the original post, it has spread out like a break in a strained glass. But just taking the original post it is not railroading at all as long as players have any option and can basically attempt what they want. Even if you'd not have given them something to catch the blood in, anyone might just empty out a flask or potion to get some of it etc. I remember someone once upended his whole (magical) backpack to catch a whole lot of dragon blood.

 

[Campbell]

Just wow...looking at this thread I thought "50 shades... err pages of grey."

From the original post, it has spread out like a break in a strained glass. But just taking the original post it is not railroading at all as long as players have any option and can basically attempt what they want. Even if you'd not have given them something to catch the blood in, anyone might just empty out a flask or potion to get some of it etc. I remember someone once upended his whole (magical) backpack to catch a whole lot of dragon blood.

I tend to agree. There should have really been several splinter threads.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

When one side flatly states that they can't perceive the other sides position, doesn't that mean it is time to stop trying to reach a meaningful resolution?

Well, I'm not trying to reach a resolution, nor am I trying to convince [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (or anybody else, for that matter) that my position is "right."

1) I'd like to understand better how he would run a scene like that, and how the shared authoring duties work for him and others. Doesn't mean I'll switch to that approach entirely, but I can always learn something.

2) It might benefit somebody else who's more inclined to move toward a shared authoring approach.

3) I often learn what I don't want to do in discussions like these, as much as I learn what I do. Both are helpful in refining and evolving my own skills, which in turn I hope helps me run a better game.

4) Sometimes my (and perhaps others) thickheadedness can suddenly change after an "aha!" moment when I finally "get" it.

5) Sometimes I (and others) like to tear apart the situation or scene to show that the same result can be had by different rule systems or DM/table approaches, and that once we recognize that, we can start discussing the components more meaningfully - like it's possible for the same Star Wars scene to play out with two seemingly opposing play styles, and that the road taken is sometimes the driving factor, rather than the destination.

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

I forgot about one of the things that drives me absolutely crazy about Robin Laws' Player Type Model. Given such a deeply social game why does so much of its analysis minimize the impact of socialization? The only Player Type description that meaningfully discusses their relationship to the other players is The Casual Gamer. They are all descriptions of lonely fun that we do at tables filled with other people! Why is that? I have found my new pet peeve with it! It's all I have my fun! You have your fun! We take turns! Where's the fun we get to have together?

I think we might just have fallen upon the biggest cultural difference between the indie roleplaying culture and mainstream roleplaying culture! There's this big emphasis in the mainstream culture of everybody getting the highly specific things they want, not judging one another in anyway, sole ownership and protecting our own interests rather than letting the game and the other players shape our experiences. Within the indie culture there is a huge focus on the value of openness to experience, seeing what happens, vigorous collaboration and friendly competition, consent, and welcoming the uninvited.

I feel like this blog post from John Harper highlights some of the cultural differences.

This is an old post. I didn't publish it way back when, because the situation was still very charged, and I didn't want to make it all about that one specific interaction. But, we've moved on now and I think there are some general points here worth sharing and discussing. So here it is.

A few interactions in one of the weekly games I'm in has highlighted some issues of trust in roleplaying so I figured I'd say a few words on the subject.

"As the GM, I describe the failure."
"Right. But you can't just say anything, right? It has to suit the character and not violate the player's vision, and it has to make sense with what has come before and..."
"Uh, that's not what the rule says. It says the GM describes the failure. Here's the actual text: 'Every so often, you’re going to lose control of your character for a moment. When you attempt to do something and fail your test, the GM gets to take over and describe something that went wrong. He can tell everyone about something you did that was misguided or even bad. Or, he can describe an unforeseen effect that your actions caused. He gets to stick it to you for a moment.'"
"Well, sure, that's what the book says, but you still have to make sure it's okay with the player and doesn't mess up their idea of the character..."

And that's when I realized that the player -- on some deep level -- just didn't trust me, as GM, to "do it right" when it came time to take control of their character on a failure. And not just their own character, but any PC.

And it turns out that the trust issue encompasses not just PC agency, but "the story" as well. Here's another exchange between two players:

"Yeah, I could have my character really go down this dark path..."
"But that's not great for the story, though. It's one dimensional to have a character that just spirals down like that."
"Yeah, well, that's where I see this going."
"I know, but it makes a weaker story that way. One-dimensional characters are boring..."

Again, the trust just isn't there. The PC going down this dark path is "doing the story wrong" (as if that was possible) or at the very least, making the story somehow worse. The objecting player has certain standards that must be honored, or his enjoyment of the game will suffer -- which is perfectly normal, of course -- but he doesn't trust the rest of us not to mess it all up for him.

As a result, we often end up debating the merits of player decisions, story points, NPC behaviors, and rules applications whenever any of them begin to diverge from the standards and preferences of this player. He's worried that we're going to weaken the story, make a critical error, do something that doesn't "make sense," or otherwise disrupt the fictional space inside his head. On some level, He just doesn't trust us to get it right.

When the trust is there, there's no need for lots of front-loaded debate and discussion before establishing the action. A fellow player does something that seems odd or the story takes a bizarre turn or a rule is applied in an unexpected way and it's okay. If you trust everyone sitting around the table, you can take a wait-and-see approach. Maybe it seems a little odd or unexpected now, but you trust that it will all work out. You give the benefit of the doubt.

When the trust is there, everyone is free to play hard, be bold, and put their stamp on the game. Their vision might be different from your vision, and that's okay. Playing with trust means coming to the table excited to hear what the other players are going to say -- whatever it may be. That's why we play these games with particular people, right? That's why we stay in groups with creative, interesting, engaging players and leave the groups that don't click for us.

Sure, sometimes you need to be firm and hold your ground. Sometimes you fight for your specific vision of the game. But when it comes from a place of trust, you're fighting with your respected peers. You're advocating for your ideas, not shooting theirs down. When it's not based in trust, you're trying to shepherd the other players -- steer them, guide them, show them the right way. You're fighting to protect yourself from their "bad ideas."

I'll say that again: You're fighting to protect yourself from the so-called bad ideas of your fellow players. If you're in this place, it's time to reassess. Do you really want to be playing with these people? Maybe play with people you trust more. Do you really want to trust this group, but find it hard to? Maybe press on and try to release the iron grip of control.

Also, consider this question: What did these people do to lose your trust? Often, the answer is "nothing." The lack of trust may be coming from past experiences or other issues. Try to give your fellow players the benefit of the doubt. Relax, and fly casual. The thing that seems so wrong or strange to you right now may turn out to be really cool if you allow your fellow players to take risks and be spontaneous.

 

[pemerton]

The "failure" on Luke's part was to purchase the wrong (right) droids and follow the one that ran away. Those were the actions that led to the massacre at the farm.

<snip>

If I'm the DM of that game, the stormtroopers are hunting down the droids, and killing all they encounter to avoid witnesses

<snip>

1) Uncle Owen (NPC) has dragged Luke along to get a droid that can help on the farm. Mission: Find droid.

2) DM describes scene at the jawa crawler. There's a bit of role-playing in selecting a droid. It smokes, the Luke PC picks out another one that the DM (as 3PO) points out as another suitable droid.

3) Return to home/bed/morning where the DM describes (via the NPCs) that R2 has disappeared. Luke's motivation? Find him. Could be others, but that's the only one that matters. Off he goes. (Naturally, because the adventure won't continue if he doesn't).

4) The DM describes the terrain, following the tracks, scenes with Obi-Wan, etc. until we get to Luke realizing that the stormtroopers would be heading to his home when they find the jawa crawler.

So I guess what I really don't understand is how that would play out differently if the players were writing more of what's going on in the world.

<snip>

So the player would have detailed the family and the farm. The killing of the family is an event. In my campaigns it would have been an event dictated by the course of action in the story created by the players - that is, Luke purchased the wrong (right) droids, which then put him, and his family, in the path of the Empire that is looking for the droids and killing all witnesses.

As the DM, that course of action is put into play from the goals of the Empire, the mission of the stormtroopers, and the fact that the trail of the droids leads to Luke. How Luke feels about it is irrelevant in regards to the Empire and the actions they take.

<snip>

The next question is, "what do you do?" and not, "how does that make you feel?" The players handle the emotional and psychological reactions, along with their actions. Usually all three of those are fairly evident at the table).

I am not talking about how the death of Luke's family makes him feel. I'm talking about the "dramatic needs" (to use a semi-technical term) of Luke as a character. His motivation.

I've quoted your presentation of Star Wars as an episode of RPG play. Some key decisions taken by the GM include:

(1) The Luke has to accompany his uncle to buy some droids;

(2) That the first mech-droid purchased blows up;

(3) That the two droids that ultimately are purchased are on the run from the Empire with secret rebel/Jedi-relevant information;

(4) That the mech-droid runs away;

(5) That Obi-Wan rescues Luke from the Sand People;

(6) That the Storm Troopers track down the droids to the Jawas, and kill Luke's family.​

I've skipped some stuff (eg that the droids get picked up by the Jawas) but that might be a further item to go on the list, dependng on the details of how the imagined game unfolds.

From the point of view of the OP, asking about judgement calls vs railroading, I am moved to ask: on what basis does the GM make decisions (1) to (6)?

Here are some options:

(a) Random rolls (eg Obi-Wan is a Hermit entry on a random encounter table);

(b) Sheer fiat (eg the GM is running an "event-based" module a la Dead Gods and (1) through (6) is the prescribed sequence of events);

(c) Taking cues from Luke's player (eg Luke's player has an entry on his PC sheet that says something like "I will oppose the Empire and aid the rebellion";

(d) Adjudicating action resolution (eg Obi-Wan turns up as the result of a successful Circles-type check; the family being killed is narrated as the consequence of a failed Navigation check; etc)​

Those options don't exhaust the field, and of course some of them can be mixed and matched (eg my normal practice is to use (c) and (d) in conjunction). My view is that different sorts of procedures used to establish in game events like (1) to (6) produce very different RPG experiences. The fact that the fiction itself might be identical doesn't change that.

Some of these methods (eg (a) and (b)) can be used without having any knowledge of a PC's motivation. But others (eg (c) and (d), which happen to be quite important to me) cannot. Hence my comment, upthread, about "GMing blind".

it's possible for the same Star Wars scene to play out with two seemingly opposing play styles

Absolutely. That's why I've been saying that, merely from a recount of the fiction, one can't tell anything about how the RPGing took place.

This is why, whe I do session write-ups, I (as best I can) write up actual play reports, not "story hours". I don't want to talk about fiction - as [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] said, the fiction of my RPGs is nothing very special, especially for non-participants. I want to talk about RPGing!

There's no known character motivation in many published adventures. They often give several hooks to help the DM pull the characters in. Sometimes there are specific ones, but then you have to ensure somebody fits that mold. Otherwise the motivations are usually the same - kill the evil monsters, get treasure, save who/whatever.

In many campaigns, they never get past the kill monsters, get treasure (and gain levels and abilities), as the basic motivation.

It's over 30 years since I've run a campaign where "kill monsters, get treasure, gain level" was the basic motivation. (Though I did recently run a AD&D session that went more-or-less like that.)

When I use material from a module (eg Night's Dark Terror, as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned upthread) one of the first things I do is identify a way of hooking the module elements I want to use onto established PC motivations. From my point of view, that's a basic part of GMing.

I'd like to understand better how he would run a scene like that, and how the shared authoring duties work for him and others.

My own view is that what I think you mean by "shared authoring" can often be overrated, or at least exaggerated, as an element of player-driven RPGing.

In the OP there is "shared authoring" in one sense: the player declares a Perception check, and its success results in it being true, of the fiction, that it contains a vessel in the room. But the player didn't author that by any sort of fiat: it was a part of the process of action declaration and action resolution.

4e has less of that sort of mechanic than BW; MHRP/Cortex has more of it. Rolemaster, which I GMed near-exclusively for nearly 20 years, has none of it.

At least as I approach GMing, the key to a player-driven game is not that the players get to directly author the fiction in the moment of play. Rather, what is key is (i) that the GM frames scenes having regard to the evinced concerns/interests of the players, and the dramatic needs of their PCs (these might come out in part by the players' authoring of PC backstory, which is not the same as authoring fiction in the moment of play), and (ii) that the GM, in narrating consequences of action resolution, allows player success to stand, and connects failures back to those concerns/interests/dramatic needs.

So the players are not driving in virtue of authorship (in any literal sense). Rather, they are the ones who establish the focus, the stakes, and - via their successes - at least some of the consequences.