Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ovinomancer]

Dude, your posts are awesome. I'm eating this up. Understanding the alignment between different play styles and which games support or stymie them is probably the biggest need to make the overall TTRPG experience better as a whole.

Careful, the model he presents isn't much better than Robin's. Nor can any model really describe the motivations of players at a resolution that's both accurate and usable. However, the old saw about all models being wrong, but some being useful is applicable. Just don't confuse the model for reality.

 

[Campbell]

@Ilbrenteloth

The sort of experience you describe is quite common when first playing and running most indie games, particularly when given convenient release valves like intent, stakes setting, and the ability to add your own complications. First there's the element where you are playing a game that is a lot like the games you have played before so you feel like the skillset you have developed to run and play these games should directly transfer without a hitch, but the skills involved are slightly different. It's like learning how to play a roleplaying game all over again or moving from Call of Duty to Overwatch. Euchre or Spades to Poker is another apt comparison. We don't take tricks in all our card games. Then there's the element where you are giving up the safety and security of perceived sole ownership and control over outcomes. This can be very scary at first. There's also the element where these games require taking social and creative risks we do not usually take when we play mainstream games. Finally the lack of structure can often lead to a sense of anything goes.

All this added together can create a sense of creative insecurity, emotional vulnerability and social freedom. When we feel socially free and emotionally vulnerable we often have a tendency to get silly. Some people really never get past this, but most will over the course of a couple sessions. They often just need to get it out of their systems. This is one of the reasons why I feel like most people who have tried an indie game at a convention and decided it was not for them or decided it was the best thing ever don't really understand the experience of really playing these games. They never really got to the point of vigorous collaboration and being really open to the experience.

I would really stress the importance of really giving things a shot and being principled, sensitive, and disciplined about how you use these techniques. You do not have to be exploring problematic content for these techniques to be potentially dangerous. Just the general lack of a protective shell around your character and world can be somewhat frightening to many players. It's a lot like playing Diplomacy, Liar's Dice, , or Poker for the first time with friends. Although the same could be said for playing D&D in the way it was originally played. It's also definitely not for everyone. Fair play and trust are very important.

Here's another thing that the most adamant indie gamers probably will not tell you. You can ease into it. I would not recommend combining techniques in the same game, especially at first, but you don't have to turn on the entire fire house at once. I would recommend starting with a game that uses a group structure, provides a structure of play, supports at least broad form setting, and has mechanics you can ease into. The vigorous collaboration can come with time. You can usually safely combine elements of war gaming play with indie play, because they tend to rely on similar permission and expectation models even if the specific permissions and expectations are different. I will get to that in a different post.

My personal recommendation for anyone wanting to give indie gaming a shot would be to give Blades in the Dark a shot on some night you would otherwise get together to play a board game. It relies on a group dynamic, has a dynamic if broadly defined setting to fall back on, has a structure that focuses play, mechanics that you can opt into, and a reward structure that will build in conflicts over methods rather than over conflicts. I would start with just the general score and downtime structure and action rolls. You can build in things like progress clocks, devil's bargains, asking questions as suits the group, and things like emotional and psychological harm over time. The vice, heat, and stress mechanics will do a lot of heavy lifting for you. Right now I am playing Blades with a group of mostly mainstream gamers and they are loving it. It's taken them a bit more time to glom onto the principles, but things have never gotten silly or awkward.

 

[TwoSix]

Careful, the model he presents isn't much better than Robin's. Nor can any model really describe the motivations of players at a resolution that's both accurate and usable. However, the old saw about all models being wrong, but some being useful is applicable. Just don't confuse the model for reality.

<shrug> I'm already running and playing in games that work fine for my needs. I don't need the model to have specific utility for me to find it interesting to read about and discuss. Any attempt to taxonomize can provide insight even if it isn't predictive.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro

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 agree there could have been more discussion around combining the fun of the player types... but (and I'm not really clear in what context these player types were originally published) is that the purview of discussing different player types or is that the realm of more general DM'ing/GM'ing advice. I also am not sure that the player types are meant to be exclusive but are moreso a way of categorizing the fun players of the game prefer and creating awareness in both players and GM's about these different types of preferences in the game and to what extent each is preferred by an individual.

I have to say I find these player types more helpful in a practical way than I do much of the indie/forge essays and premises (which are often at to high a level and filled with unhelpful jargon for my players) to quickly read over and grasp. My players were able to easily identify what was most fun for them in games as well as what was secondary, tertiary and what they didn't really care that much about by reading and using the Robin Law's model. As a GM being aware of these preferences in my players allows me to make sure my GM generated content (which may or may not be directly relevant to their characters specific goals and motivations) is both something my players as a group don't actively dislike and it has a multitude of the preferences they do enjoy to be engaging and interesting to them as players.

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'm not sure I see it the same way. My impression of mainstream vs. indie is more along the lines of...

Mainstream is about fun as the first priority in whatever form the particular players find fun... while indie games IMO tend to prioritize a specific experience. I would say mainstream games tend to be more open and accepting of different playstyles/types since they can often be run using a multitude of techniques in service of both the DM and players... indie games on the other hand are run in a specific way with specific techniques in service to the experience the game is about. I believe for a group whose desire for fun aligns with the specific experience an indie game is trying to deliver they can be a superior choice... but for those less concerned with the specific experience as opposed to the play generate fun for a group of people diverse in their likes and dislikes... I think often indie games can fall flat.

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

Hmmm... I'm not exactly sure what I should take away from this. I think both mainstream and indie games benefit from trust... but with mainstream games it's a much more important facet for a fun experience. With a mainstream game you have to be willing to communicate what is or isn't fun for you and then trust that those at the table not only respect that but drive the game to enable everyone's fun. The downfall is that it is hard to not only advocate for your fun but to also be willing to step back and allow others to have their fun as well.

Indie games on the other hand don't, IMO, require or rely on trust... they rely on a group that wants the same experience for fun and mechanics that are focused on producing that particular type of fun. There's really no trust involved because the mechanics are supposed to do the heavy lifting and the players and GM should alll be aligned in wanting said experience. But yeah, I think I rambled a little here, hopefully you can parse something of worth out of my thought... lol!

 

[Imaro]

If the players stake a previous success on something, and fail, then they might lose their success.

So only the players can change this?? I'm trying to understand the differences between what I pointed out earlier when I talked about the differences between GM driven and player driven games and this? Why can't the advisor challenge their success on this? Could a different NPC challenge their success on this issue or is it only if it's player initiated?

 

[pemerton]

So only the players can change this?? I'm trying to understand the differences between what I pointed out earlier when I talked about the differences between GM driven and player driven games and this? Why can't the advisor challenge their success on this? Could a different NPC challenge their success on this issue or is it only if it's player initiated?

What system do you have in mind?

In 4e, there is no such thing as "the advisor challenging their success". The GM doesn't run skill challenges against him-/herself. So the question becomes, under what circumstances is it acceptable for the GM to reopen the matter of the players' success?

My view - which combines what I take to be the general tenor of the 4e GMing advice, together with the particular mechanical framework of skill challenges, together with the fact that 4e is - in its overall tone - a pretty "pro-the-heroes" game without much grit or grimness, together with my own RPGing preferences (which are what led me to 4e in the first place) - is that the GM should not be reopening the matter that was settled by the skill challenge unless some other event in play - some sort of setback to the PCs, and thereby the players - puts it into play.

That's the meaning of setback, after all - the interests of the PCs and the players are set back.

Conversely, in the absence of any such setback, the PCs (and their players) get to keep the fruits of their victories.

This is the approach that I believe most D&D GMs, most of the time, take to combat. 4e generalises finality to other, non-combat, situations of conflict (via the skill challenge mechanic).

 

[pemerton]

It was the discussion about whether or not NPCs exist only to frame and oppose PC actions, or if they exist and PCs can pit themselves against them if they choose. I get that you're missing the distinction here, and, to be fair, it's somewhat subtle. In the former, which appears to be how you play, NPCs have no point except to act as foils to PC actions -- they only have enough form and substance to provide suitable obstacles (or perhaps allies) to PC intent. They do nothing except act in reactions to the PCs. An NPC in this model will never have it's own agenda that it pursues absent PC involvement -- any such agenda will only exist in the event that it's needed to oppose PC intent in a challenge. You've indicated as much with statements about keeping NPCs vague so that future changes to them due to player declarations and need to challenge them are coherent.

The latter concept, though, involves NPCs that are created as if they have PC level interests, motivations, and agendas. In this version, the NPCs are acting on the world independent of the PCs, and this may be the source of conflict. This is the proposed version Max is using, the NPC as alt-PC, not merely as foil to PCs.

To bring this analysis to bear on your play example, in your version the advisor only has merit as a foil to the PCs. He was framed as a challenge, and then the challenge was enacted, but the advisor is entirely bound to the results of the challenge. He only has an agenda in so much as it exists as a challenge to the players. In this model, it's right and proper that the advisor cannot engage in mitigation, because the advisor was only a toll to challenge PC intent, and when the PCs succeeded in implementing their intent through the challenge, the advisor was defeated. The advisor cannot initiate a new challenge that alters this success, only the players can enact a new challenge that might alter this success. The advisor only ever reacts to the players.

In the other method, the advisor still has independant agendas, so the player success at the challenge is now a setback, but the advisor can now plan steps to overcome the setback and act upon them, even without the players engaging in a new contest that stakes their previous victory.

l don't agree with this. At the risk of repetition, I think it is presenting a difference in GMing technique as if it were a difference in the fiction.

The advisor in my main 4e game had his own plan and (within the fiction) his own agency. Eg at one point the PCs discovered the cavern where, many years before, the advisor had almost succeeded in seizing the tapestry before being driven off by gelatinous cubes. The even found a piece of fabric torn from the hem of his robe. (Which then formed the subject matter of the final taunt during the skill challenge.)

When you say the advisor still has independent agendas, if that is taken literally then it is as true in my game as in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s. The advisor has agendas indpendent of the PCs. It's just that they are all in tatters. But I don't think you mean it literally. What I think you mean is that the GM has a power, independent of the outcome of action resolution, to narrate the advisor achieving certain things adverse to the interests of the PCs (and thus of the players).

And I'm sure that's true of [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s game. My point is that it is not a difference about the fiction. It's not a difference about the point of the advisor. It's a difference about the power of participants to establish truths in the shared fiction.

EDIT: I reread the quote and was struck by The advisor cannot initiate a new challenge that alters this success, only the players can enact a new challenge that might alter this success. The advisor only ever reacts to the players.

The advisor doesn't react to the players. The advisor does variouos things. Some of those (eg dealing with the PCs at the dinner) are reacting to the PCs. Some of those (eg forming a goblin army to help him recover the tapestry) aren't reactions to the PCs - they take place before he or the PCs have ever crossed paths or even heard of one another.

The advisor can also initiate whatever he wants. He can try this, or that. But the players' victory at the table ensures that, whatever the advisor might be trying as far as his relationship with the baron is concerned, I as GM am obliged to narrate it as failing. This is similar to how, in AD&D, a player can narrate his PC attempting to pick the lock. But if it failed once, and the PC hasn't gained a level, then the GM is obliged to narrate the attempt as failing.

The shorthand that you favour - which, upthread, I characterised as expressing a category error - seems to me to run together stuff in the fiction (eg the advisor tries to win back the baron's trust) with stuff at the table (it is open, at the table, to establish as true in the fiction that the advisor has won back the baron's trust). But as soon as the game has some sort of "no retries" or "let it ride" or similar rule for finality, any such running together is just going to mislead.

For instance, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] keeps saying that the advisor is "retarded" because he can't try to mitigate. Which is a product of the same sort of running together. The advisor can try whatever he wants; it's just that the fiction isn't going to change in a direction where the advisor has achieved what he wants.

 

[Imaro]

What system do you have in mind?

We are speaking to statements and posts made by you so I'm assumign we are discussing the system in your example... 4e

In 4e, there is no such thing as "the advisor challenging their success". The GM doesn't run skill challenges against him-/herself. So the question becomes, under what circumstances is it acceptable for the GM to reopen the matter of the players' success?

Don't NPC's in 4e have skills? Attributes? Powers? Spells? Etc.? Couldn't any or all of these be leveraged to reopen the matter of the players' success? I mean a SC is only one possible way of resolving something in 4e there aree numerous others you seem to be ignoring or glossing over.

My view - which combines what I take to be the general tenor of the 4e GMing advice, together with the particular mechanical framework of skill challenges, together with the fact that 4e is - in its overall tone - a pretty "pro-the-heroes" game without much grit or grimness, together with my own RPGing preferences (which are what led me to 4e in the first place) - is that the GM should not be reopening the matter that was settled by the skill challenge unless some other event in play - some sort of setback to the PCs, and thereby the players - puts it into play.

That's the meaning of setback, after all - the interests of the PCs and the players are set back.

Conversely, in the absence of any such setback, the PCs (and their players) get to keep the fruits of their victories.

So there is a difference even though you claimed there wasn't one earlier when I stated what I believed was one of the main differences in DM driven vs. Player driven games. The advisor in your Player driven game doesn't have the same type of protagonism he would in a DM driven game. And yes I know the meaning of setback the question trying to be sussed out is why are you claiming there's no difference when clearly in one playstyle the advisor could instigate said setback while in yours it's kind of nebulous (outside of the player's characters) who else could in the fiction. You didn't answer... could another NPC instigate this setback? Could the advisor hire or cajole other powerful NPC's to disparage and set up the PC's in the eyes of the baron?

This is the approach that I believe most D&D GMs, most of the time, take to combat. 4e generalises finality to other, non-combat, situations of conflict (via the skill challenge mechanic).

I'd be interested in where in the 4e rulebooks it talks about finality and the skill challenge as well as who can initiate setbacks to said finality if you have a source.

As for combat... I don't think that's true. In combat enemies get knocked out, healed, brought back from the dead, turned into undead, banished to other planes, charmed into temporary allies and so on. So no even D&D combat does not have this inherent finality that can't be changed through mechanics that can be leveraged by both DM and players... there are numerous ways a DM or player can choose to make said combat finality, well not final.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You would call the second method DM driven. I've used DM centric, largely because I believe the -driven categories are too binary. But, regardless of terminology, I think the primary distinction between DM and player driven is the reactionary status of the gameworld -- if the world only every reacts to the players, it's player driven. If it exists outside of the players, and acts without player input, then it's DM driven. I'm okay with this, with the clear caveat that nothing is fully one or the other -- it's a spectrum. My games are both -- the macro is DM driven, in that there's a plot ongoing that will continue without player involvement, and on the micro in that I break my arcs down into sandboxes that largely react to the players.

I think that this distinction about the game world reacting to the players or to the GM is spot on. Well said.

 

[Ovinomancer]

l don't agree with this. At the risk of repetition, I think it is presenting a difference in GMing technique as if it were a difference in the fiction.

The advisor in my main 4e game had his own plan and (within the fiction) his own agency. Eg at one point the PCs discovered the cavern where, many years before, the advisor had almost succeeded in seizing the tapestry before being driven off by gelatinous cubes. The even found a piece of fabric torn from the hem of his robe. (Which then formed the subject matter of the final taunt during the skill challenge.)

When you say the advisor still has independent agendas, if that is taken literally then it is as true in my game as in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s. The advisor has agendas indpendent of the PCs. It's just that they are all in tatters. But I don't think you mean it literally. What I think you mean is that the GM has a power, independent of the outcome of action resolution, to narrate the advisor achieving certain things adverse to the interests of the PCs (and thus of the players).

And I'm sure that's true of [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s game. My point is that it is not a difference about the fiction. It's not a difference about the point of the advisor. It's a difference about the power of participants to establish truths in the shared fiction.

EDIT: I reread the quote and was struck by The advisor cannot initiate a new challenge that alters this success, only the players can enact a new challenge that might alter this success. The advisor only ever reacts to the players.

The advisor doesn't react to the players. The advisor does variouos things. Some of those (eg dealing with the PCs at the dinner) are reacting to the PCs. Some of those (eg forming a goblin army to help him recover the tapestry) aren't reactions to the PCs - they take place before he or the PCs have ever crossed paths or even heard of one another.

The advisor can also initiate whatever he wants. He can try this, or that. But the players' victory at the table ensures that, whatever the advisor might be trying as far as his relationship with the baron is concerned, I as GM am obliged to narrate it as failing. This is similar to how, in AD&D, a player can narrate his PC attempting to pick the lock. But if it failed once, and the PC hasn't gained a level, then the GM is obliged to narrate the attempt as failing.

The shorthand that you favour - which, upthread, I characterised as expressing a category error - seems to me to run together stuff in the fiction (eg the advisor tries to win back the baron's trust) with stuff at the table (it is open, at the table, to establish as true in the fiction that the advisor has won back the baron's trust). But as soon as the game has some sort of "no retries" or "let it ride" or similar rule for finality, any such running together is just going to mislead.

For instance, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] keeps saying that the advisor is "retarded" because he can't try to mitigate. Which is a product of the same sort of running together. The advisor can try whatever he wants; it's just that the fiction isn't going to change in a direction where the advisor has achieved what he wants.

Okay, I'll admit that you've stumped me. You've previously said that you do not do secret backstory, but here you present an example of the advisor engaged in unknown (to the players) actions for unknown (to the players) reasons. They have to figure this out? What is this if not secret backstory? I was trying to engage your example using the concept I had formed of your playstyle prior to this, but I appear to have misunderstood something important along the way. I had assumed that there was no secret backstory to the Advisor storyline.