DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[billd91]

Funny thing about your examples Nellisir - every time it was the players being proactive, and they did things at the table that the DM couldn't mess with. You don't care if the dragon dies (presumably it's there to be killed anyway), so, again, the consequences follow along nicely with what you want.

I'm not talking about times when the players do what the DM wants anyway. Of course the Dm is going to go along with that. I'm talking about situations like this one, where if the PC runs, he loses the character, full stop, end of story.

So no matter what anybody else posts, you'll twist it so that it's either something the DM doesn't care about or screws the players and that way you don't have to take it into account - consequences = SCREW THE PCs?

 

[Hussar]

So no matter what anybody else posts, you'll twist it so that it's either something the DM doesn't care about or screws the players and that way you don't have to take it into account - consequences = SCREW THE PCs?

I'm not the one twisting things here. I was pointing out a persistent tendency of people to cast their decisions based on some mythical version of "consequences" where those consequences never, ever favor the player.

Does this happen all the time? Nope. It only happens for railroading DM's. If you don't consistently punish your players for choosing things that you don't like, then congratulations, you're not a railroading DM.

OTOH, if you're patting this guy on the back for presenting a "consistent" world, then you might want to take a good hard look at your DMing, because, AFAIC, this is ham fisted DMing and quite possibly downright railroading.

I mean, the DM is perfectly willing to flush a player's character down the toilet to protect his version of how his game world works and apparently doesn't even consider alternative results as valid. "You walk away from my encounter, you lose your character" is not good DMing.

Ever.

 

[Nellisir]

Funny thing about your examples Nellisir - every time it was the players being proactive, and they did things at the table that the DM couldn't mess with. You don't care if the dragon dies (presumably it's there to be killed anyway), so, again, the consequences follow along nicely with what you want.

Actually, the dragon egg was a mystical artifact, and shattering it both defeated the BBEG and removed the second half of the adventure. I didn't intend for that PC to go off by her lonesome, or realize she was going to successfully evade the monsters in the water, or smash the artifact that several party members were interested in.

I'm not sure what you mean by "things...the DM couldn't mess with." I've never run into a "thing" like that.

I'm not talking about times when the players do what the DM wants anyway. Of course the Dm is going to go along with that. I'm talking about situations like this one, where if the PC runs, he loses the character, full stop, end of story.

Insofar as I recall, I've had one PC deliberately walk out on the party, and that was due to mismanagement on my part, and accurate roleplaying on the player's part. (the player was pissed, but he rolled up a new character, and the old one came back eventually). I've never evicted a character.

I've -threatened- lots of characters with giant flaming haycarts of plummeting death, but if you game with me, it doesn't take long to learn that I say a lot of things, and many of them are outright fictions.

 

[Hussar]

Then there is obviously no problem Nellisir. You do not punish your players for stepping off script. Otoh the OP is perfectly willing to effectively kill a PC to keep him on script and several people in this thread are patting him on the back for it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Then there is obviously no problem Nellisir. You do not punish your players for stepping off script. Otoh the OP is perfectly willing to effectively kill a PC to keep him on script and several people in this thread are patting him on the back for it.

The other players are saying "if you leave, not only will we not support you, we'll take it as a sign of guilt." Which seems reasonable enough. The town thinking the same thing? Also reasonable. However, it's the players driving the PC from the party, not the GM.

Sometimes event favor the PCs. Some go against them. In this situation, the OP isn't saying "you'll lose your character if you don't do what I want." The other players are. He's saying "the town will think you're guilty." The party has the option of backing him, leaving with him, clearing his name, or the like, but they aren't. The party is the one saying, "if you leave, you're gone from the party", not the GM.

It's so not what you're claiming. You're saying that the GM is saying "do what I want or you're gone!" Too bad that's not what's happening here. Seriously, if feels like I hear this over and over again, and yet it's really not what's happening. I have to go with bill91 on this; I think you're twisting things. As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

Then there is obviously no problem Nellisir. You do not punish your players for stepping off script. Otoh the OP is perfectly willing to effectively kill a PC to keep him on script and several people in this thread are patting him on the back for it.

Rather than cast it in such stark tones, there are times I think when this is appropriate. If a player says he wants his PC to leave the group and engage in his own adventuring, I think it's entirely fair for a GM to say that such actions are beyond the scope of the campaign as it's being run and that he doesn't have time for a one-on-one game. When it's a player driven situation like that, I don't think it's really a railroad.

By comparison, when it's a case of a PC reacting in a realistic fashion to a DM-driven situation in a way that would take the PC out of the game, then I'm going to look at it as a railroad, possibly a heavy-handed one.

I'm not sure those two cases are really distinct if I were to use your summation above. In both cases, the PC is going "off script" (or rather, I'd say off expectations/prediction) and is being effectively "killed" (rather, removed from PC play). But I think they are quite distinct in handweightedness and in railroadishness.

 

[Umbran]

Otoh the OP is perfectly willing to effectively kill a PC to keep him on script and several people in this thread are patting him on the back for it.

I think you are overstating it. The OP had one particular situation - that does not translate into, "I will commonly kill a PC to keep them on script. It is a general practice I consider valid." In the particular situation the PC was trying to leave the realm of prepared adventure, without the rest of the party. They didn't support him, and weren't going with him. His other choice was... what, exactly? To volunteer to run solos for this lone wolf, should he escape? Is that reasonable?

A GM is allowed to set some parameters for his game - if you're playing a sandbox game, for example, that sandbox is allowed to have edges. Any game can have edges, be they geographic (don't leave the prepared map area) or otherwise (don't become Evil, don't do graphic sex, etc.).

There is a difference between, "I kill them to keep them on script," and, "I write them off if they voluntarily leave the campaign."

 

[pemerton]

In the particular situation the PC was trying to leave the realm of prepared adventure, without the rest of the party. They didn't support him, and weren't going with him. His other choice was... what, exactly?

Have the accusing woman confess what she did to one of the other PCs (any of them - the guard, the religious ranger or the woman could be an appropriate recipient of a confession) so that that other PC follows the fleeing PC and brings him back.

Or any of a dozen other things that I could probably come up with if I actually had the world details and the NPC descriptions in front of me.

I think this is what Hussar has in mind when he's criticising the GM for railroading, and I agree with him in that criticism.

I'm not talking about times when the players do what the DM wants anyway. Of course the Dm is going to go along with that. I'm talking about situations like this one, where if the PC runs, he loses the character, full stop, end of story.

IOW, the player makes a choice that the DM doesn't like and the flaming booger of god slams down and kills the character.

<snip>

The automatic consequence is that flight=admission of guilt. No chance that the girl would come clean or anything else. You flee, you're guilty as charged, roll a new PC.

This is precisely what I'm talking about with "consequences" always going against the players. The idea of alternative results was never even broached. It never came up as far as we know.

You're probably generalising a bit more than I would be inclined to, but I certainly have encountered this sort of GMing before, both in online reports of it, and in real life as a player, and observer, and a GM to refugees from it.

And as I indicated above, I agree with you in your diagnosis of the OP's apparent unwillingness to adapt the situation so as to keep his game, with its current roster of PCs, afloat.

 

[Nellisir]

I think one of the hardest things to establish is the line between a "plotted" adventure and a railroad adventure.

OK, this is wordy and overthought and pretty obvious, but I don't want to waste the time I just spent writing it.

At one end of the continuum we have the Complete Sandbox Game, or CSG. In the CSG, the world continues around the PCs regardless of their actions. If the PCs decide to walk out of one dungeon and into the one across the way, the DM puts away his notes and starts creating a new dungeon. Encounters are mostly random. Characters die, leave, and retire without any real effect. Quest adventures are possible, but there is a high likelihood of the PCs failing, and apocalyptic quests are highly unlikely, just because of the realistic improbability of the PCs being in the right place at the right time to make a difference. On the up side, it's all about player choice. On the down side, the choice is rarely meaningful outside of the PCs' immediate surroundings.

On the other end of the spectrum is the Absolute Railroad Game, or ARG. This game is all about the story. PCs can never retreat, never rethink. Characters deemed "significant" or "important" magically take less damage. "Important" NPCS have immunities the PCs are not able to overcome. Prophecy, destiny, and epic quests are very likely to be a component of the narrative because the DM can and does script the characters' survival and adherence to the terms of what is destined.

Most DM's, though, fall in between the two extremes. Players might have the choice to do as they like, but elements of the plot appear irregardless of the players' intentions. In game this could be attributed to divine intervention, or "destiny", but it is in fact the imposition of a cohesive storyline onto the players' actions. Characters are "guided", "directed", or "nudged" through in-game manifestations into choosing certain paths. Dice rolled in public might be absolute, while those rolled in secrecy behind a screen are more "fluid" in their interpretation. This can be seen as an "illusion" of choice (negative), or creating cohesion and meaning to the storyline (positive). Characters lack the absolute freedom of a CSG, but enjoy greater range of choice than with an ARG.

Is one "better" or "right? No. The only consideration is whether or not everyone at the table is having fun. The likelihood of pleasing everyone decreases as a game swings towards one extreme or another, but if you have a casual group that likes clearly defined goals and world-changing adventure, it's OK to swing towards a more linear, aka railroadish, adventure. On the other hand, some groups prefer choice and self-determination, even if means their characters may fail (and die! Repeatedly!) without leaving a mark on the campaign world, and be more inclined to a stronger sandbox experience. It's all about the fun.

 

[JamesonCourage]

OK, this is wordy and overthought and pretty obvious, but I don't want to waste the time I just spent writing it.

Is one "better" or "right? No. The only consideration is whether or not everyone at the table is having fun. The likelihood of pleasing everyone decreases as a game swings towards one extreme or another, but if you have a casual group that likes clearly defined goals and world-changing adventure, it's OK to swing towards a more linear, aka railroadish, adventure. On the other hand, some groups prefer choice and self-determination, even if means their characters may fail (and die! Repeatedly!) without leaving a mark on the campaign world, and be more inclined to a stronger sandbox experience. It's all about the fun.

I can't XP again (I gave you XP on this page already!), but I wanted to at least give minimal feedback. I agree, and well said. As always, play what you like