D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

No I'm not arguing that. It's never occurred to me that someone might argue that an episode of RPGing was not a railroad because the players got to choose their own PC builds.

I'm talking about what happens next, in play, as a result of the players declaring actions for their PCs. And I'm saying that a game in which the totality of what happens next is either a combination of things the GM pre-authored, or the GM's extrapolations from those things, is by my lights a railroad. Because all the elements were pre-determined, or else extrapolated by the GM from their predetermined stuff.

Inevitably? In this thread I've been told by multiple posters - @Oofta, @Micah Sweet, @Lanefan I think - that in their RPGing only the GM can establish setting elements.

I actually said earlier that I learn about PC personal goals in session and make sure they are incorporated into the setting prior to session 1, so the PCs can choose to.pursue those goals if they wish, and the world facilitates that. I can understand if that isn't good enough for you, but it certainly is for me.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with this 100%.

First page of the DM’s section for MotW and other PbtA games is:

• Here is your agenda as DM: this is what you should be aiming for;
• Here are the core DM principles.

This very much clarifies the DM role and what should be “top of mind” as you act as DM.

The 5e DMG doesn’t do this. It COULDN’T do this: when it came out in 2014, it was supposed to be the compromise edition to bring the 2e, 3e, Pathfinder and 4e players back into the fold, and those games simply don’t agree on a core DM agenda or common principles.

Something as simple as “Be a fan of the players” is not consistent with the “DM as neutral referee” playstyle.

This inconsistency of approach continues all through the book, with certain passages supporting fudging die rolls while others come out against it.

So things like "...your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!" along with other advice never appears in the DMG?

 

[Oofta]

Then why do you keep speaking to the way roleplaying games should work as if they should all work the same way?

When and where have I ever said anything like that?

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't know if I agree with that, as long as you are talking about the rule of referee specifically, and the advice is given enough explanation to fully unpack its intentions/point.

i guess it may differ if you interpret it to mean more that the 'neutral GM' acts purely the interface and mouthpiece between the players and the game world, the gameworld does not care one jot about the players wants and desires, what would be most fun or dramatic or lethal in any given circumstance, the world merely is and things happen irregardless of how the players will feel about them because that is how the world would be.

 

[pemerton]

And I guess in the systems you play there's no chance of Aedhros unexpectedly getting shipwrecked on Isle of Dread while sailing to somewhere else, and then having to both a) find a way off and b) survive; as you'd count that to be a railroad?

What happens if, on his way to accomplish his personal goals, his ship wrecks on the Isle of Dread. After dealing with situation, he is rescued and resumes his original intent. Does he cease to be a character during his excursion through X1?

So the main plot of this film is all the bits about his dead spouse etc.; only partway through the film while sailing from one port to another he gets stuck on this dangerous island and has to fight to survive for a while, then he gets back to civilization and carries on with his search for vengeance - and is perhaps a lot richer now due to some loot he scooped off the island while he was there.

I'm looking at Isle of Dread here as being one adventure in what might be a 20-adventure-equivalent campaign (in movie terms, it's a very long film). I mean hell, if I were the GM a story like that could and would spawn any number of side adventures, that I might storyboard into the main tale something like:

--- introductory piece where the spouse dies, maybe or maybe not at the hands of the father-in-law, and the basics are established
--- the PC has to go to his father in law's birthplace (a dangerous city these days) to research some family records there (on-story)
--- the PC gets unlucky and finds himself in a violent situation in town that goes wrong, putting him on the run (off-story distraction)
--- before doing anything else the PC has to clear his name via performing a quest for some high-ranking type; this quest consists of [insert whatever adventure module you like here] (off-story distraction; but as a pleasant side effect the PC should come back much richer, which will help him going forward)
--- the family research shows a disturbing history of dealings with unsavory people and groups, mostly pirates; the PC then returns home (on-story)
--- the PC learns his father in law might recently have been dealing with pirates, and so goes off to talk to said pirates (and maybe even recruit them to his cause?) (on-story)
--- the PC gets shipwrecked on the Isle of Dread en route home and has to fight his way through the inhabitants (off-story distraction)
--- while on the Isle the PC receives a vision to do with Elves (on-story but not obviously so yet)
--- on returning to civilization, when next he enounters him his father in law is singing one of those Elven lays; this brings the vision into perspective and the PC realizes (then or later) that gettng some info from the Elves might be an idea (on-story)
--- journey to-from the Elves, who tell him some deep dark secrets about Daddy-o and some long ago dealings with Elves that went very wrong (on-story)
--- final confrontation with father in law, resulting either in an Elvish curse on him being lifted or his death at the hands of the PC, depending how things shake down.

That would be the storyboard, malleable as all hell given I've no idea how the player will approach anything, but still more than enough to give me ideas as to lots of things I can introduce along the way if I need to.

And while I'm sure you'll call this a railroad, I just call it planning ahead.

When I built the PC Aedhros, I had in mind JRRT's "Dark Elves" Eol and Maeglin. I also wanted to build a 4 lifepath PC who would be a Dark Elf (my friend and I had agreed to build 4LP PCs), and the Spouse lifepath seemed a good way to get that build, and it also provided an obvious reason to have become so Spiteful (both Eol and Maeglin are also spiteful for reasons connected to spouses and in-laws, albeit not because of a death as in Aedhros's case). My friend wanted to build a Weather Witch, and so I made sure to build in a connection to the human port, via Aedhros's father in law.

To save anyone having to cross-reference, here once again are some of the salient elements of this character:

Beliefs
*I will avenge the death of my spouse!
*I will never admit I am wrong
*Only because Alicia [the other PC] seems poor and broken can I endure her company

Instincts
*Never use Song of Soothing unless compelled to
*Always repay hurt with hurt
*When my mind is elsewhere, quietly sing the Elven lays

Relationships
*Hateful relationship with my father-in-law, the Elven ambassador at the port (blames him for spouse's death)

Reputations and Affiliations
*+1D rep ill-fated for himself and others
*+1D aff with the Elven Etharchs

Traits
*Born Under the Silver Stars (To those who look upon me with clear eyes, there is an unmistakable halo, like white light through a gossamer veil or stars shining at night)

*Dark and Imposing (I once was fair and beautiful to all who look upon me, tall and slender, rounded by graceful curves)

*Etharchal (My noble heritage is recognisable at a glance)

*Self-deluded​

From this, we can see certain dramatic needs, and certain ways of putting the character under pressure. There is the hatred and desire for vengeance, aimed particularly at the Elven ambassador at the port. There is the spitefulness, the instinct to repay hurt with hurt and the attitude towards Alicia, as well as the refusal to sing the Elven healing song (Song of Soothing) that he knows. He is dark and imposing, whereas once he was fair and beautiful; and he has a reputation as ill-fated. But he also, when his mind wanders, sings the Elven lays to himself; he is self-deluded.

There are many ways this character might develop. In the last session, for instance, his attitude to Alicia changed. More than once she collapsed unconscious from the strain of spell casting (such that only by using the Song of Soothing could Aedhros bring her back to consciousness, which he needed to do so that she could help him in his plans), and she was humiliated in other ways too. But nevertheless, she did help with his plans. His Belief about Alicia is now Only because Alicia is not utterly without capability can I endure her company. That might change further; so might his Instinct not to use Song of Soothing, if he finds that Alicia continues to need his help. Maybe that could even change his views about hurt and vengeance! Or lead to better self-awareness.

But for any of this to happen, the play needs to be about these things. To create opportunities for their expression. Which is the whole orientation of Burning Wheel, and the focus of the system's advice both to GMs and players.

If Aedhros finds himself sailing out at sea it will almost certainly be related in some fashion to Alicia, who is a weather witch and has as one of her Beliefs that I will one day be rich enough to BUY a ship. Shipwreck could be a consequence of a failed check (it's one that I've used GMing in Burning Wheel), but it would be adjudicated and applied using the methods of the system that I have already explained. Suppose, for instance, that Alicia and Aedhros are travelling on a ship with the Ambassador, and Alicia's player fails a Weather Watching check, and hence (in the fiction) Alicia fails to anticipate the impending storm, which is to say (at the table) the GM narrates a shipwreck as a consequence: the three characters being washed up on a strange shore could be a possible way that things develop; it clearly has potential. But I've already described a situation that has almost nothing in common with the module X1.

The "storyboard" @Lanefan has sketched has nothing to do with Aedhros (or Alicia) as characters. It involves a pointless quest (go to city to get records), a fetch quest (clearing name), some pirate sub-plot, a desert island detour, more pointless info-gathering with Elves, a quest to some Elves, and then a pre-planned framing of a "final confrontation". It is a storyboard which is almost never about Aedhros and is about whatever the GM wants it to be about (family secrets, riches, pirates, etc). It shows no grasp at all of how Burning Wheel is played; and the idea that you would interrupt the sort of play I am describing via an excursion through X1 - a module which is about hexcrawling through a pulp-style tropical island, on the basis of a discovered "treasure map" - is frankly just bizarre. (Burning Wheel could probably handle it in some form, though some of its machinery might spin a bit idle; but I wouldn't be brining this character to that table. If I wanted to play that game, I would build a completely different PC with a completely different suite of attributes and build elements.)

There seems to be an implicit premise in the questions posed by @Lanefan and @Micah Sweet that there is some sort of virtue in a player being indifferent to the situation the GM frames them into, and a concomitant taking of exception to the notion that play should in some fairly robust sense be about the character that the player has established (via build and play). Of course we all have our preferences, and are under no obligation to revise or even examine them: but I don't think it can be that mysterious that someone - eg me! - would regard as railroading an approach to RPGing that very obviously requires the player to subordinate their conception of what the game is to be about to the GM's conception of the same. That's the essence of a railroad.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know if I agree with that, as long as you are talking about the role of referee specifically, and the advice is given enough explanation to fully unpack its intentions/point.

I would also say I'm never a truly neutral referee. Nor does it tell or imply that in the 5E DMG that DMs should run their game that way. I am pretty neutral in my rules adjudication but I always try to make a fun and enjoyable game. On the other hand, for some groups a killer DM style with plenty of traps, PCs getting killed off left and right is the way they enjoy the game. Other groups have an approach of the "rule of cool" and many styles between.

There is no one true way even if we all have preferences.

 

[Xamnam]

i guess it may differ if you interpret it to mean more that the 'neutral GM' acts purely the interface and mouthpiece between the players and the game world, the gameworld does not care one jot about the players wants and desires, what would be most fun or dramatic or lethal in any given circumstance, the world merely is and things happen irregardless of how the players will feel about them because that is how the world would be.

Yeah, I was honing in on the word referee specifically, as in the one who arbitrates rules and mechanics. As talked about way back way upthread, being a fan of the characters, in the full context of what DW lays out, does not in any way suggest bending the rules for them.

Now, if you want a neutral, say, world generator, that I can see more contradiction in.

 

[FrozenNorth]

My point didn't include perfect rules at all. My point is that there isn't a rule that can be made that will mitigate a bad DM, no matter what his behavior. He's just going to ignore or change that rule and find players to play in his altered game.

Yes, it does. You have a weird, Manichean perception of a “bad DM”, sitting in the dark, twirling his mustache about how he’s going to screw over the players. Of course, no rule is going to stop that guy, but he’s also a comparative rarity.

Good rules will however assist with the considerably more numerous:

• newbie DMs who think that DMing is about telling the cool story they have in their heads rather than what the characters want;
• stressed DMs that are worried that allowing players to do something cool not covered by the rules “this one time” will create a precedent that will be exploited “against them”;
• time-crunched DMs who spent too much prep time on world-building to the detriment of the stuff the party interacted with; and, of course,
• non-DMs who see a book’s worth of impenetrable and poorly-organized cruft and decide that there is no way that they will try DMing.

 

[cdwander]

This is a problem as old as the game: How does a DM get the players to stop just outright slaying all NPCs, but more specifically the "good guys". Assuming that the PCs are at least sort of good, or at least want open access to good/neutral civilization.


This is not a problem in my Hard Fun Old School Unfair Unbalance style games. So here is what happened over the weekend:

Another DM could not make it to his game, so he asked me to cover for him. He gave me his notes, but we had no time to chat. So it's an urban set game, I'm not sure it it's published or homebrew as I only had his notes. Last game the PCs did a task for an NPC, and the game ended at a big party. This game picks up at the party. The players have fun for a bit and then the plot kicks off: the NPC is found murdered...and the PCs get blamed for it. The PCs surrender and get taken to jail. They get informed that they will spend the night in jail as the judge won't be in until morning. The players panic a bit here and try to escape...but fail. As per the plot, later that night a shadowy figure shows up and offers to free the PCs if they do a job for him. The PCs agree to this magically bound quest. While the PCs could have made a quiet escape....they don't. The guards get alerted and alarms are sounded.

And as the city guards attempt to recapture the escaping prisoner PCs, the PCs just go full blown murderhobo on all the city guards. So this is the good city where a lot of the rest of the game is set, going by the notes. And the PCs getting arrested for falsely killing the NPC, that they could have been found innocent for, does not even matter now. The PCs have now just become the worst mass murderers in city history killing many guards and such.

The players never give any of this role playing any thought. They are LOCKED into the idea that ANY combat encounter MUST be a murderhobo slaughter fest to the death. A guard hits them with a net, they must use thier most deadly weapons, spells and abilities to do a ton of damage and slaughter the guard.

After the slaughter fest, the PCs flee the city and go to hide in some caves. And this ends the adventure for the night. Of course, next game brings up the problem: what will the city do about the most vile and evil mass murderers in all of history. Sure you could just ignore it. But most DMs like to have a bit more 'reality based games' where consequences matter.

I sent the game notes to the games DM, and he was a bit shocked the players did the murderfest. There is a chance, he said, he might need me to cover the game next week. So that puts it back to me of what might happen. My reaction would be the super harsh way...killing the characters. And maybe reseting the game with some time travel or something like that.

But this leaves the issue of talking to the players. I'm not really a fan of talking. They think they did nothing wrong by slaughtering so many NPCs, but then still "get" that they had to flee the city as they are now mass murderers. I know from many past "talks" that nothing much will come from such a talk. I'm sure the players will say "anything in the game that gets in my characters way will be slaughtered!!!!!!", as that is exactly what they did.

But....here I am. Asking for maybe another view point? Is there anything new to say on this topic? I guess someone might say that a game must have a session zero where the DM very slowly and carefully tells the players the way good, evil, slaughter and common sense work in the game. Though in this case it's not "my" game. Still the players "get" that it was wrong to slaughter all the guards......but that did NOTHING to stop them.

So, anyone?

First you are right talking to them about this will not change what they did. Now dealing with it maybe harder for you then for them because essentially this is an evil party, and so their goals and aims are as evil players and the NPC's that are their enemies are going to be Paladins and Clerics, good ones the ones that will assist them are evil, thus spells granted to Clerics that do good will no longer be granted. This leaves prepping for the next adventure in which good people will know how bad they are as the tale of their deeds travels, and their reputation will be despised, and thus everything becomes more expensive and rewards for adventures such as pay becomes less and less, because they are desperate now and have to take what they can get. Finally, you can simply flip the script and have the evil people seek them out to obtain the goals that the evil character was hoping to accomplish possibly the same person that set them up, not known to them.
I think in time they will understand the consequences of their overzealous play. This doesn't have to be a throw away campaign, just use your experience to transform this adventure into tale of when a party goes bad.

 

[Aldarc]

Something as simple as “Be a fan of the players” is not consistent with the “DM as neutral referee” playstyle.

Interesting thing, I read this in the Moldvay B/X book which also talks about the DM as referee:

As DM, much satisfaction comes from watching players overcome a difficult situation. But they should do it on their own!

This sounds like being a fan of the players in a game that conflates player skill with player character skill. This advice could fit perfectly in with Dungeon World!

But wait, there's more!

He or she is a guide and a referee, the person who keeps the action flowing and creates an exciting adventure.

The DM is the person who does what now? Keep the action flowing?

Your moves keep the fiction consistent and the game’s action moving forward.

Now one difference here between B/X and Dungeon World is that would not say that it's the DM's job to create an exciting adventure. Instead, it says that the DM should fill the player characters' lives with adventure.