Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Ovinomancer]

Not sure I'd go this far, but...

And then comes the next question: does the end (a fun enjoyable immersive consistent game) justify the means (illusionism and sleight-of-hand on the DM's part)? Personally, I say yes it does.

Lanefan

Means always matter. Always.

Now, it could be that the difference in means is slight, and comes down to personal preference, but that doesn't remove their meaning.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There's no illusion - the player can tell!

No. I responded by saying that I'm looking forward to being obliged to speak the prayers. You may not think the difference between permission and obligation matters here. I do - the obligation, and the demands that go with that, are what I am looking forward to.

Why?

Monopoly forces you to count (squares). Chess forces you to remember and anticipate (sequences and combinations of moves). Crosswords for you to spell. Pictionary requires you to draw.

Games require players to do things. What is so bad about requiring people to speak for their characters?

Who is it hidden from?

I posted a whole chunk of rules extracts from the books upthread, in reply to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]. The book says that task as well as intent has to be established. The rules for Duel of Wits state that arguments must be spoken. The rules for Faith say that prayers must be spoken.

How do you know what it says on the tin? Have you ever read the BW rulebooks - or even the free extracts that can be downloaded?

Is anyone who buys a game whose slogan is "Fight for what you believe" and that, in the prologue by Jake Norwood, is said to "demand more-than-usual attention from the player." and promises "player-driven stories of white-knuckled action, heart-rending decisions and triumph against the odds" going to be shocked to read rules saying that, when your character speaks, you have to establish the task by speaking as your character?

Where are the queues of people who bought BW and thought they had been lied to? It's the most honest RPG I've ever encountered.

Man, but this post is a mastercraft of passive-aggressive pettiness. I ask that you stop short quoting me and leave the context and in your next response you cut down to sentence fragments. That's not honest engagement, which is amusing given that last line of yours.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Some posts, threads etc have triggered this question in my mind:

[size=+1]How do GM "judgement calls" relate (if at all) to railroading?[/size]​

In the context of 5e, GM "judgement calls" can also fall into the domain of "rulings not rules."

By railroading I mean the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative. (This is broader than some people use it, I know. If the players get to choose for their PCs, but what they choose won't change the downstream storyline, I am counting that as a railroad.)

My feeling is that the answer is a complex one.

In a FRPG session I ran yesterday, the action was in a bedroom in a mage's tower, where a wizard had been lying unconsciousness on a divan recovering from a terrible wound, but then was rather brutally decapitated by an assassin. One of the players, whose PC ran into the room just as the decapitation took place, asked whether there was a vessel in the room in which the PC could catch the decapitated mage's blood.*

I resolved this by setting a DC for a Perception check - and because, as the player argued with some plausibility, it was likely that a room for convalescing in would have a chamber pot, jug/ewer, etc - I set the DC fairly low. The player succeeded, and the PC was able to grab the vessel and catch the blood as desired.

Setting the DC is a judgement call. Depending whether it is set high or low, the action is likely to unfold one way or another - so setting the DC definitely matters to what is likely to emerge as downstream story.

But I don't see it as railroading. The issue of whether or not the blood might be caught in a vessel had not even occurred to me until the player raised it. And there was no preconception, on my part, of any ultimate destination for the action.

On the other hand, had I decided simply that the room contains no vessel, because I had already decided that I didn't want the storyline to include shenanigans with a blood-filled chamber pot, I think that would count not only as a judgement call, but as one that has a railroading effect.

I'm guessing, though, that there are other posters who would see one or both cases differently from me!


[size=-2]* If you want to know why, the answer is in this thread.[/size]

So after all the discussion, I wanted to get back to the OP, perhaps my perception has changed a bit.

For railroading to occur, I think that there has to be at least three things present:
1) a predetermined plot/story outcome by the DM, or at least a consistent bias to the DMs plot/story/preferences
2) an action/adjudication by the DM that disregards the player's actions in the determination of the results. That is, the players actions and choices don't have a meaningful impact on the plot/story.
3) the players don't want, or have the expectation that the DM won't do, #1 and #2

For example, if the DM is just fudging rolls, or making soft adjudications to avoid killing the PCs, I'm not sure that qualifies as railroading. It's not really directing the action toward a predetermined conclusion, other than saying that the characters won't die, or perhaps just won't die here. That sort of approach can be a flag that perhaps railroading is happening. In other words, it might be a symptom of railroading.

In other words, I'd consider railroading more of a big picture problem, than a specific scene or specific task issue.

Another aspect that I think is often not mentioned in discussions of railroading, is #3. If the players are explicitly playing a game in which they expect the DM to keep them on track, it's not a railroad.

Is it possible for the DM to railroad without a predetermined plot/story? I think so. That is, the DM might not have an end-game or even a particular story line. But they might have prepared material and their goal is to keep the PCs within that material. It might be totally improvised, but as the game progresses, the DM consistently forces the outcomes to be favorable to their own preferences.

That leads to another potential gray area. Illusionism. I think railroading isn't just about the choices presented, but that regardless of the choices, the players/characters actions and choices don't have a meaningful impact on the plot/story. Illusionism is a related subject, but refers to a specific choice. Railroading is related to multiple choices over time. I'm more forgiving of illusionism I guess, but why?

Perhaps it's the magnitude of the infraction, and the intent that bothers me more. The times when I have used illusionism is when the players have a goal, but that goal isn't location based. For example, they are hunting for an ancient Netherese tomb. We know the tomb is in the mountains, but it's not specifically placed. The players don't need to know that, though. They just need to know that it takes time, and with skill, interpretation of the clues they have, and a little luck, they'll find it. So the specific direction they take in the mountains isn't really the issue I'm addressing, it's time and creative play and problem solving, combined with skill (either through passive or active checks). If I pre-place it, I've set a direction, but all of the other details aren't described yet. The specific terrain, the local creatures, etc. That's all determined during play. Technically it's illusionism, since no matter which direction they go will get them to the tomb. The amount of time it takes is still variable. They will still engage the rules, and make decisions, and those decisions (measured by "good and creative, or really way off base considering the clues") will have an impact as well. So I guess it's that i've really just set different criteria for "locating" the tomb than picking the right direction. As such, the physical location of the tomb is somewhat dependent on a criteria other than me arbitrarily selecting the location.

Other times have been when I do have an encounter sketched out, and it's just something that will happen. Again, the specific location doesn't matter. It's the who or what that matters. So once again, the criteria for the encounter is something other than location-specific, and the implementation of that encounter (it could be just my placement based on the session, it could be a random percentage, or even an entry on a random encounter table), is something other than they select the right place to walk.

So I guess I see illusionism as a tool that can be used in a negative manner, and can certainly be used for railroading. But sometimes it's used (or perhaps something very similar) to place events, locations, or encounters based on criteria other than arbitrary DM preference. (Which is perhaps more of a narrative approach?). The DM still has some control over the final placement, but it's also determined in part by player/characters actions/decisions and/or engagement of other rules. Wow, it can all be so complicated...but I digress...

Another question - is it possible for the DM to railroad to the players preferences? Point #3 above is specifically to address the situation where a specific story is expected. The original Dragonlance adventures could be construed this way. Or if the players want to play The Fellowship of the Ring or the original Star Wars trilogy. The general plot is known, and while there could be some deviation in the specifics, ultimately there are a few things that have to happen.

And what about published modules, then, particularly APs? Some are presented as linear plots, some as locational, some as linear with multiple roads leading to the same conclusion. They really aren't all that different than the Dragonlance/LotR/Star Wars question. Certain major things have to happen, and certain choices need to be made to remain on the AP.

In my opinion, railroading is a negative thing. That is, it's something the players don't want. So if the players agree that part of the DM's job is to keep things moving in the "right" direction, it cannot be a railroad. The trick for DMs in these situations is to hide the fact that they are providing more direction to the story. Although, especially in the case when a given plot is known by all ahead of time, the players have to actively suspend disbelief for heavy-handed redirection. Although I guess that's really no different than the sort of plot holes and leaps of logic that often occur in stories in other mediums.

--

So no, I don't think your scene even remotely resembles railroading, especially since the alteration of the scene was initiated by the player. I would have run it a bit differently.

In your specific example above, I would not have required a Perception check. If the player's argument is plausible, then I'd just go with the idea that there is a vessel of some sort. A Perception check isn't to determine if something is there, it's to determine if they notice it. So if it's a common item like that, and it's plainly visible in the room (once it's been determined that it's likely there), then there's no need for a roll.

However, I might have considered some sort of Dexterity check to get the bowl under the body quickly enough. But that's really more a question of how much blood they were trying to catch and how quickly they would exsanguinate. But ultimately I don't see much point in even that, realistically they would have time to get a fair amount, and there aren't significant consequences for failure, so I probably wouldn't have required a check for that either.

Setting the DC, the scene itself - what you put in the room, what you don't, how you actually describe the scene, etc. can all shape the fiction itself. That is, regardless of play style, the DM will have some impact on the fiction just in the process of being a DM. How much influence they have, or how much the players want the DM to have is a question of play style.

 

[innerdude]

For railroading to occur, I think that there has to be at least three things present:
1) a predetermined plot/story outcome by the DM, or at least a consistent bias to the DMs plot/story/preferences
2) an action/adjudication by the DM that disregards the player's actions in the determination of the results. That is, the players actions and choices don't have a meaningful impact on the plot/story.
3) the players don't want, or have the expectation that the DM won't do, #1 and #2

I think that's a very fair, concise definition.

I was thinking through your example about "finding the thing in the tomb in the mountains," how the placement of the tomb isn't necessarily the relevant portion of actual play---it's the player's actions, their approach, how they're utilizing resources, etc.

They just need to know that it takes time, and with skill, interpretation of the clues they have, and a little luck, they'll find it. So the specific direction they take in the mountains isn't really the issue I'm addressing, it's time and creative play and problem solving, combined with skill (either through passive or active checks). If I pre-place it, I've set a direction, but all of the other details aren't described yet. The specific terrain, the local creatures, etc. That's all determined during play. Technically it's illusionism, since no matter which direction they go will get them to the tomb. The amount of time it takes is still variable. They will still engage the rules, and make decisions, and those decisions (measured by "good and creative, or really way off base considering the clues") will have an impact as well. So I guess it's that i've really just set different criteria for "locating" the tomb than picking the right direction. As such, the physical location of the tomb is somewhat dependent on a criteria other than me arbitrarily selecting the location.

See, this I totally relate to . . . And in my mind, it isn't "illusionism" if the players have already agreed as a group that the tomb is central to their PC's needs/agenda. If they've already made that decision, then I ABSOLUTELY want to ensure that they make it to the tomb, at least so long as that objective remains part of what the PCs are pursuing. If something along the way derails the PCs' needs or desire to actually GO to the tomb, and I then FORCE THEM to go to the tomb anyway . . . that's when the railroading starts.

The other thing is, in the sense of "scene framing," the real goal is to present relevant obstacles to the players/PCs that they will enjoy overcoming. I've discovered I have to be willing to re-frame scenes as the PCs' intent/objectives change. In some ways it's better to simply identify what the PCs' objectives are, and then identify a list of obstacles that could potentially be framed into scenes that will appropriately challenge those objectives/needs. And this list of obstacles need not be specific to a place or individual NPC(s). It's more about identifying generally, "What would stop the PCs from achieving their objective of X?"

For example, suppose the PCs objective is to reveal the treachery of a councilor to a king. Potential obstacles might include:

• The councilor completely hiding his tracks by destroying any information related to his treachery and eliminating "those in the know" -- thus, the PCs' goal is find enough relevant clues/information/witnesses before the councilor succeeds in insulating himself.
• Active intervention by a faction allied with the councilor--a faction that either openly supports, or at least isn't opposed to the councilor having his way.
• Lack of trust on the king's part that the party is acting in good faith--due to reasons established explicitly in the PCs' backstories.
• The political/cultural climate around the king's court is openly hostile to the PCs due to certain, explicit factors that are relevant to the PCs' backstories and stated objective(s).

Once I've established the obstacles in general terms, I can then start framing in the actual relevant bits (locations, NPCs, potential encounters) based on the PCs' existing experiences and their declared action declarations, while maintaining appropriate consistency with prior events / established fiction. And as the PCs' needs/objectives evolve, you have to be willing to metaphorically "reshuffle the deck" and change the nature of the obstacle to the PCs' goals. And while there's a definite "fail forward" component to this kind of play as well, eventually the "future stakes" become the actual stakes, and the final outcome of success or failure is determined.

Setting the DC, the scene itself - what you put in the room, what you don't, how you actually describe the scene, etc. can all shape the fiction itself. That is, regardless of play style, the DM will have some impact on the fiction just in the process of being a DM. How much influence they have, or how much the players want the DM to have is a question of play style.

This, exactly. And it largely goes back to intent --- "Am I as GM trying to actively serve my own intent, or am I serving the intent of the players'/PCs' goals?" Sometimes, you can do both at once. Sometimes, you go with the players' intent. I've just found that very, very rarely does a game feel "fun" to me when the GM solely serves their own intent. And interestingly, in many cases the GM may feel that they're not trying to "push an agenda," but are rather simply trying to "stop the players from becoming too powerful / getting their way"---without realizing that this is, in fact, still an agenda. My current GM seems to suffer from this. It's like he's afraid that if he lets us succeed "too much" in our PCs' intent, it will somehow lessen the experience.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not unbalanced, in the sense that no one is forced to play a Faithful character.

That'd, at minimum, mean it's not unfair, I suppose. The 'balance' issue (which is just one of several with player-as-resolution-system mechanics) would be if you played such a character and the requirement (and/or the GM's evaluation of how you lived up to it) particularly favored or disfavored your.

You could just avoid playing characters with player-talent requirements you don't neatly fill (in your GM's estimation), but...

But I don't agree that it precludes playing a character very different from oneself - depending, I guess, on the dimensions of difference.

Different from yourself in terms of the talent being tested for resolution.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Means always matter. Always.

Now, it could be that the difference in means is slight, and comes down to personal preference, but that doesn't remove their meaning.

Not being one who likes absolutes...

I think means matter only when the participants care about the means. At least when we're talking about a game.

In other words if the players don't object to DM tools or techniques such a illusionism, sleight of hand, fudging, etc., then the means don't matter.

To put it a different way, Lan- "I don't care how my DM does it, as long as he does it" - efan tells his DM: This is the result I want (a fun enjoyable immersive consistent game), and of all of the tools and techniques available to you, I don't have any objections.

In which case the specific tool or technique is irrelevant, as long as the result (a fun enjoyable immersive consistent game) occurs.

A different example: A player tells me they are going to search the passage for traps. I ask them how. They tell me that they are going to cast fog cloud, then a gust cantrip to blow flour over the dampened hallway and see what it sticks to.

"Yes, as the fog clears, you notice a fine trip wire covered in flour about 1/2 from the floor."

Does the fact I didn't make a skill check matter? That is, did the means matter?

It might be fair to say that means always matter to you. Although I suspect if we tested that theory we'd find it's not 100% consistent either. At least that's what I keep finding when I challenge my own positions.

Having said that, I wonder: what is your opinion is of the "finding the tomb in the mountains" example I just posted (#1573)?

1) If the goal is to find the tomb in the mountains, if placement is finalized during the game, is that illusionism?

2) Is it illusionism if the placement is via engagement of the rules (such as random determination)? If different than #1, why?

3) Is it different if we're referring to the player's goal or DM's goal?

4) Is it different if there is no goal to find a/the tomb? That is, if they are just wandering and the DM has a tomb to place and just selects a location in game? If so, why?

I'm not sure I have definitive answers myself just yet...

 

[Lanefan]

The average PBtA move is made at right around (but ever so slightly better than) 2d6+1, so a a little bit less than 27.78 %. You get modest vertical growth in power in the course of play, so that will decrease modestly with time. It also decreases modestly due to horizontal power growth giving players more options to make moves that don't leverage PC weakness.

Ah - wasn't aware of the +1. Thanks!

 

[Lanefan]

I've had the best luck with players remaining in character for the highest percentage of time when the percentage of players at the table buy into it. And it's not always because more players "police" the table. A lot of it has to do with the percentage of time the table as a whole remains in that mode.

Oddly enough, it also seems to be more likely when the players at the table aren't close friends. If the group is coming together primarily to play the game without as many shared outside interests, it tends to stay focused on the game itself.

That's a factor. And when the players are all otherwise friends (which is the case in my crew), another factor is how often they see each other outside the game. For my own game I in theory have a rather big advantage in that 4/5 of us usually go to brunch on Sunday morning and do our gabbling there. Theory, however, remains just theory; we still take forever to get off the ground each Sunday night and it's not the 5th person's fault - he's the quiet one.

However, as a "non-actor" type myself, I consider the distinction of "as" and "for" to be irrelevant. "I will talk to the guard to get a sense as to whether he can be bribed - to see if he's got a family, debts, is he greedy, is he more concerned about keeping his job, or making quick coin, etc." to be functionally and fundamentally the same immersion as him striking up a conversation in character, with me responding in character as the guard.

Yes, there can be subtleties at play if you're good at creating dialogue, but a descriptive approach can also be faster. Particularly if the situation involves multiple NPCs at a given time (which brings its own oddities when there is but a single DM producing dialogue for the NPCs).

Yeah, that's where being a bit of a ham can come in handy.

The point, though, is the less they talk about anything other than what their character is saying/doing, the less immersive the experience is.

Er...I think your first "less" in there wants to be "more", otherwise this statement goes against what we're both kind of agreeing on.

Lan-"still trying to find a way to get experience points for chewing scenery"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

See, this I totally relate to . . . And in my mind, it isn't "illusionism" if the players have already agreed as a group that the tomb is central to their PC's needs/agenda. If they've already made that decision, then I ABSOLUTELY want to ensure that they make it to the tomb, at least so long as that objective remains part of what the PCs are pursuing. If something along the way derails the PCs' needs or desire to actually GO to the tomb, and I then FORCE THEM to go to the tomb anyway . . . that's when the railroading starts.

This is all fine.

However, what if the players-as-characters somehow don't realize* the tomb is central to their needs and goals until and unless they get there?

* - could be from faulty (or complete lack of) information gathering ahead of time - they see the tomb only as a side trek; or from the tomb holding long-lost information that once found will put the party's goals in a new light (e.g. clear evidence in the tomb shows the pharoahs were all demonic so maybe our stated goal of restoring their line isn't such a good idea after all), or whatever....

The other thing is, in the sense of "scene framing," the real goal is to present relevant obstacles to the players/PCs that they will enjoy overcoming.

Relevant obstacles, yes; but I'm not sold on the built-in assumption those obstacles will necessarily be overcome. Not every story has to have a happy ending.

This, exactly. And it largely goes back to intent --- "Am I as GM trying to actively serve my own intent, or am I serving the intent of the players'/PCs' goals?" Sometimes, you can do both at once.

This, I suppose, is the ideal state.

I've just found that very, very rarely does a game feel "fun" to me when the GM solely serves their own intent. And interestingly, in many cases the GM may feel that they're not trying to "push an agenda," but are rather simply trying to "stop the players from becoming too powerful / getting their way"---without realizing that this is, in fact, still an agenda. My current GM seems to suffer from this. It's like he's afraid that if he lets us succeed "too much" in our PCs' intent, it will somehow lessen the experience.

Maybe your current DM is simply keeping an eye on the long term health and sustainability of the campaign. Succeeding too much might not lessen the experience but it likely will shorten it.

Lan-"of course, you can always ply the DM with enough beer that he forgets his agenda, and then proceed as you will"-efan

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That's a factor. And when the players are all otherwise friends (which is the case in my crew), another factor is how often they see each other outside the game. For my own game I in theory have a rather big advantage in that 4/5 of us usually go to brunch on Sunday morning and do our gabbling there. Theory, however, remains just theory; we still take forever to get off the ground each Sunday night and it's not the 5th person's fault - he's the quiet one.

Er...I think your first "less" in there wants to be "more", otherwise this statement goes against what we're both kind of agreeing on.

Lan-"still trying to find a way to get experience points for chewing scenery"-efan

Oops, I changed the sentence in midstream it appears.

Yes, how often you see each other probably helps. Although, that makes me wonder why I haven't done the same thing at the gaming table that we do with model railroad ops sessions. Have everybody come a half-hour or hour early (maybe for pizza) to get the non-gaming stuff out of the way.

Actually, in my case it was because most of the group was from work, and we didn't get out until 8:00 or 9:00 at night. So we wanted to "hit the ground running." But I think that if we just acknowledge that we don't do that, and officially get the other stuff out of the way, we'd be better off.