DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[Desdichado]

You are very wrong there are times when a DM can say if you do this, you will have to roll up a new character and it is not railroading.

In my game going evil means handing me your character sheet and rolling up a new one because your PC just became an NPC.

No, you are wrong. That is blatant railroading you just described.

 

[Desdichado]

For some reason, I'm quite enjoing this thread, even though it really shades into the playstyle wars type of discussion (edition wars are so 2008. We've moved on.)

First off - the words "Wrong", "Always" and "Never" being flung around need to come to a halt.

EVERYONE needs to understand that there are multiple ways the game can be played. One person's scripting is another person's railroad. One person's sandbox is another person's player pandering. Please remember this is help based on opinion. I agree that the OP had some issues and asked for opinions, but most folks saw a chance to educate, so try to help, not criticize, please.

WRONG! We're not talking about a hypothetical situation with hypothetical groups, we're talking about a specific situation with a specific player. If the player felt railroaded... HE WAS!

While, sure, the GM has a responsibility to himself to run a game that interests him (because lets face it, if the GM isn't having any fun, then likely nobody else really is either), he REALLY has a responsibility to know his players enough not to put them in situations that they find totally unfun and frustrating. THAT, by definition, is a MAJOR GM FAILING.

All this talk about, "oh, that's not wrong, you just need a different group, or different approach, or whatever" is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. It doesn't matter what I think is appropriate. If this guy's player has a problem with the situation, he's got a problem. What does it matter what I think is appropriate? Or you? Or Elf Witch, or Li Shenron, or The Shaman, or anyone else who's chimed in to this thread? DMing isn't about the hypothetical, its about the specific. You can't say, "in theory, this is a great way to DM" if in actuality, it's completely unsuited to your players.

It's possible, of course, that the GM's style and the player's style just are going to clash and realistically they shouldn't be in the same game together. I think it's a bit much to say that we know that that's true so far. I think it rather more likely that this was a GM mistake in putting a situation out there that was extremely frustrating to a player, not taking any cues from the player that this was a mistake, and forcing it to continue anyway, and then giving the player a railroady ultimatum--either go along with my scenario or roll up a new character.

Pretty classic GM mistake, IMO.

All the theory about what other groups, or idealized, or hypothetical, or someone else's group would do, on the other hand--completely irrelevant. And all the advice that isn't geared towards being able to recognize cues from your players and react to them properly is BAD ADVICE, actually. In my opinion. Ideas like, "a lot of players aren't comfortable with talking about rape" or "a lot of players aren't comfortable with arrest scenarios" or whatever are really beside the point. That's speculation about the player, and putting in experiences that have no relevance to the situation at hand.

What's relevant is recognizing that the specific player wasn't biting on the hook that the GM was attempting to fish for him with, and in fact rather strongly objected to it. But the GM failed to pick up on this and charged forward like a bull in a china shop with the hook anyway, railroading the PC into accepting the hook, and then there was a major out of character breakdown between the GM and the player. Rather predictably, IMO.

 

[Umbran]

I figured he would be quite sure he would beat the charges.

Point taken about them having fun, but I have to disagree they were railroaded.

Maybe in the intervening pages, someone else said this, but we should look at the perceptions, here.

You, the GM, figured he'd beat the charges.

He, the player, has no such surety. From what you've said, he sees, "flee, or stand against a charge alone". The character is a former merc - has he got a high charisma, or a lot put into social skills? No? Then he probably *doesn't* think he can beat the charges. Investigation isn't his forte. Talking isn't his forte. He's well outside his zone of competence. Without support, he's not in a position to do these things with any expectation of success.

So, he probably sees his choices as: run (and as you've said, lose the character) or allow capture (and probably lose his case and thus the character).

When all options look like they lead to the same end, that looks like a railroad to the player, even if the GM didn't intend them to be such.

 

[mwnrnc]

I have some questions about this. Was the player in the game from the start or was he added later on? Was it the players idea to make his character a mercenary/brigand or yours?

Why have the local girl seduce the mercenary/brigand? Why not the ranger or the guard. So the only player with a criminal background is seduced by a local girl and discovered by the father. Then you have the Sheriff and 2 guards (1 being a player) come to talk to him about allegations. Then tell the player if he runs he might as well make a new character?

I declare shenanigans.

From what you described you just railroaded that player into a no win situation.

Why have the Sheriff and 2 guards. Why not just have the player character guard talk to him discretely about the allegations and then as a group they could formulate a plan to exonerate the player of the crime. Or at least the ranger might now of a hidy hole in the woods were the player could hide out until everything gets solved.

He was in it from the start, this was our third session in the campaign. His background was entirely his own. She seduced him for a number of reasons - in the battle, he had slain the most goblins, he had the highest Charisma, and he was the character most likely to respond to her advances (which I knew). The guard was a local and had not participated in the battle (he came into the group late, in session 2). The other players were a woman (a Half-Elf thief) and a very religious ranger, who would simply have rebuffed her. The Sheriff talked to him because it's his job to bring in criminals and ones who have shown they are capable in battle are best approached with caution and as many men as possible.

If you came here expecting a kumbaya celebrating your puissance as a GM, I'm afraid you're not going to get it from me: Your player was right. You were railroading him.

You want the guards to be a credible threat? Then make them a credible threat. Backing them up with a metagame threat doesn't make them credible. It just makes the railroading blatant.

Not much else that can be said about this until you're willing to admit you have a problem.

IMO, railroading has occurred when a perfectly logical course of action has been arbitrarily disallowed by a DM. I never said "you can't do that." I certainly encouraged one course of action over another - by throwing several guards at him, for example, so he'd be less inclined to fight his way out. However, I don't think it is railroading to present a scenario in which a PC can't win in their preferred way. If, say, he was playing a fighter who vowed never to shirk from battle and the party was threatened by a powerful dragon, is it railroading because I gave him a fight he couldn't win by fighting? Is it wrong to tell him that if he DOES try to fight, he will most likely die?

The father was angry, but why did he let the offender get away in the first place? If he was a local hero, the accusations were full of holes, and he had worked with the other PCs to help the town, why would they be obliged not to help him?

Another thing that seems to be going on is that, in your anecdote, you were explicitly on explaining to the players what not to do. The player was told his action would likely fail, and it sounded like you might have spoke for the other players' PCs not being inclined to support him (correct me if I misunderstood you and the players reached this decision themselves).

Well, when he walked in he was angry and threw the player out. It was only after when he confronted his daughter about it that she accused the player of rape. Also, he was an unarmed commoner and the player was the guy who recently killed a bunch of Goblins - he didn't like his odds.

As to the players, I didn't put words in their mouth at all. I asked, "guys, what do you think, are you willing to help him? Do you think he is innocent?" I got a resounding "No!" An error on my part was not giving them enough of a reason to stick together before dividing them like this.

Sometimes it's not just about how you do things, sometimes some things just aren't going to work at a certain juncture in the campaign, and no way of presenting it is going to be a great idea.

Point taken, I agree it probably wasn't the best time.

 

[Desdichado]

Was this the first episode of Rise of the Runelords, by chance? As you've described this more, this scenario is sounding more and more familiar...

 

[mwnrnc]

Also, just a quick update - I spoke with the affected player last night and he said he had a great time, had no hard feelings. Strangely, he said that he would have felt more railroaded if I had not stopped him from getting on his horse and he rode away, only to face children in the road, a zombie attack, or some other method preventing him from getting away. Go figure.

 

[mwnrnc]

Was this the first episode of Rise of the Runelords, by chance? As you've described this more, this scenario is sounding more and more familiar...

The basic structure, yes. I've adapted it to my setting, virtually none of the other NPCs are the same, but the Goblin attack, the would-be seductress, and such are ripped out.

 

[Umbran]

If the player felt railroaded... HE WAS!

I disagree. A railroad is the situation where, no matter what you do, the GM forces the results to be the same. The GM in the OP has said that was not true.

Say I blindfold you, and put you in a room. I remove the blindfold, and you see before you a single door. You cry, "A railroad! I only really have one path!"

But you haven't thought to turn around and see the door behind you, or the ladder leading to a hole in the ceiling. And you haven't even tried to search for secret doors yet. That you perceive only one solution and only one outcome doesn't mean there *is* only one solution or outcome.

So, no - that the player felt he was railroaded does not mean he actually was on a railroad.

At least, not one created by the GM. I suppose if the player narrows down his options of his own accord, he could have railroaded himself.

Which is not to say the GM didn't make some errors, or could not have made the situation better, but the GM isn't guilty of railroading if there were a bunch of avenues the player could have taken that ended in different results.

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree. A railroad is the situation where, no matter what you do, the GM forces the results to be the same.

No, a railroad is the situation where the PC takes what appears to be a reasonable action or reaction to the scenario and is foiled by GM fiat alone.

And there's really no value in over-analyzing a situation to discern whether or not there were other options out there and the PC couldn't discern them. If the PC felt railroaded, then the result is the same and for all intents and purposes, he was.

Conversely, the GM can force the results to be the same without railroading the PCs--if the PCs feel that they are free to make reasonable choices without them being thwarted by fiat. This is kinda like the situation where there are two doors for the PCs to open, a right hand and a left hand door. It doesn't really matter what the DM's notes say; when the PC opens a door, the DM can describe whatever results he wants--even those that actually apply to the opposite door in his notes--and it's not a railroad, because at no point does the PC feel that his choices have been stifled.

 

[billd91]

I disagree. A railroad is the situation where, no matter what you do, the GM forces the results to be the same. The GM in the OP has said that was not true.

That's merely one and the most severe version of railroading - toward a single destination. But there's also railroading that occurs when specific options that should be in front of the PC are made off limits. It may be less severe and considerably more social acceptable, but I think telling him that making a successful run for it means making up a new character is a form of railroading. You may be railroading him into a set of acceptable options instead of one, but it's still railroading.