I'm unsure of that. For example, if the premise of the game was a low-combat high-intrigue game set at the Royal Court and the world-shattering event was a set of tensions that could result in a great world-sprawling war that would overwhelm the nation quickly then the gardener, dancer, and astronomer would possibly be fitting characters and the potential devastation would be natural to the milieu.
DM Issues: Railroading
- Thread starter Isiolith
- Start date
I'm unsure of that. For example, if the premise of the game was a low-combat high-intrigue game set at the Royal Court and the world-shattering event was a set of tensions that could result in a great world-sprawling war that would overwhelm the nation quickly then the gardener, dancer, and astronomer would possibly be fitting characters and the potential devastation would be natural to the milieu.
Let's go back to what Starfox wrote:
Suppose the GM has a two-year plot to end the world in the works. But the introduction to the game doesn't mention this, it encourages the players to make characters deeply rooted in the detailed game world. Well, they do - making a gardener, a dancer, and a stargazer. These three become friends and seek out problems based around gardening, social dancing (and the intrigues thereof) and finding high mountains with clear views of the stars. The GM introduces hints about the end of the world, which the players decline to handle as being out-of-character to them.
What you've described is how to avoid the problem. I was trying to describe the problem.
Right, but if I were preparing to run a game as I described, I'd build a default timeline that runs out 2-3 years that I can map PC actions and the consequences thereof against. It is entirely possible that in such a setting that sometime in year 2 the great war will break out in the absence of PC action. Every action and every consequence will be judged as to its effect on the timeline.
The players have had advertised that this is a high-intrigue game and know the starting situation. The changes over time are telegraphed in different ways and opportunities emerge for the PCs to get involved. The PCs deliberately refuse to engage because it's out of character for them.
It's perfectly their right to do so and everyone is having fun attending the equivalent of The Burning Man when news of the war strikes.
Now the PCs can react to their (in)actions and the consequences thereof. The event is entirely within the original premise and is partially derived from the consequences of the PC choices over the preceding two years.
When you first put up "tensions" and "intrigue", I had it in mind that perhaps this was an idea for a game in which the characters muddling is integral to potential disaster. But in a "default timeline that runs out 2-3 years", the players don't own the event. You've scripted something (and put great effort into it), thrust a role in that story upon the characters, and - should the players dare to refuse that role - will resort to punishing their characters.
I find in intrigue games that the relationships and attitudes of the players act as the 'landscape' of the game. It allows me some foreknowledge of what might be if the PCs do not get involved in any form of consequential action that I can use and adjust to track relationships, knowledge and events. The timeline is a framework to act as a control for the intrigue and the in-game relation of events -- it starts at a page or two and grows with player choices and consequences.
The only 'script' is what would happen if the PCs weren't there or the PCs chose not to involve themselves. The PCs are not thrust into a role. They are thrust into a pivotal situation that they can affect as they wish. They are masters of their fate within the context of the situation.
Why should the event be considered a punishment? It is no more a punishment than hitting the ground is a punishment for falling off a stool used as a ladder. Certainly, it is not a deisred result and the actors wish it hadn't happened, but it is not a punishment.
Are you kidding? I was going to take you on for treating the players like the cast of your production, but now they're being demoted to scenery?! I wrote the rest of the reply before seeing this on the proof-read. Clearly we have wildly different notions of how to run an RPG, and can probably talk past each other until the end of time.
[sblock=remainder of reply]
You cannot have it both ways. Either, the characters are thrust into a pivotal situation, or, they are not thrust into a role. It's possible to pitch the pivotal role to the players - if they agree to play but then reject the role, it's probably best to just have a talk out-of-character, starting with, "Hey guys, would you rather be playing a different kind of game?" (In fact, this is pretty much what happens in the default assumption. The players are invited to make up adventurers, but sometimes they don't...)
The reason it's punishment in this case is that (sticking to the analogy) you're the one in control of physics. Moreover, it's very clear from the language you used to describe the scenario: "opportunities emerge for the PCs to get involved. The PCs deliberately refuse to engage because it's out of character for them".
Conflating player and character is unhelpful. The characters do not engage because the activity is unnatural to them - it's not a deliberate activity on their part. The players do not engage because they're not interested in your plot, or because your hooks fail to motivate them. Or perhaps they're just contrary. In any case, the players' deliberate refusal to engage with your story is the reason you've sent the characters tumbling to the ground and inflicted bruises upon them.[/sblock]
The PCs are not landscape; the relationships to others are the landscape. Rather than traveling to the dungeon of Doom and releasing a demon, they accept the advances of a potential lover and trigger a new rivalry.
I don't want it both ways. I never claimed the PCs had a role. They exist in a pivotal situation. Their role, if any, is decided by the players. The consequences of the world depend on the roles they choose and the actions they take within them. The world continues to exist and evolve in their absence if they decide to not have a role.
I am not conflating player and PC. In the hypothetical example, the players were pitched a high-intrigue royal court campaign. The PCs refused to engage the opportunities to affect the fate as per the OP. As to why the players thought such engagement out-of-character, it is unstated. I could build a deeper hyothetical set of examples as to opportunities and reasons for refusal, but frankly they're immaterial to the discussion.
Last edited:
the Jester
Legend
I keep seeing this notion that consequences are punishment, and I think that is a large part of the disconnect here. In fact, I think consequences happen based on pc action or inaction is a characteristic of old skool gaming (at least, the old skool I play by).
The whole "don't kill pcs/destroy equipment/use their background against them/enforce social consequences when they attack people in town" approach is a very different approach. In my version of old skool gaming, the players know that they don't always win and may have seen tpks to prove the point. They certainly know better than to expect plot immunity.
One thing about 'world ending' menaces: most of them really don't, even if they win. What happens if the evil empire sweeps across civilization? Well, the world may turn ugly, but it doesn't end. What happens when the archdevil Belial is released on earth? Well, the world may turn ugly, but it doesn't end. What happens if the giant comet hits the world? Well, the world may turn ugly, but it doesn't end. Sure, any of these could result in the destruction of the pcs and everyone they know. So what? The next party tries to beat the darkness back, Midnight style!
Here's another thing about these things: In a sandbox, the pcs may well not be the only people responding to the situation. Just because the pcs flee the evil empire's advance doesn't mean that the dwarf heroes of Grimhold do, too- and maybe they can hold the evil back.
The pcs aren't the center of the world in a sandbox. They aren't assured of success. They may not even be the guys that handle the problem.
This continuing assertion that "consequences" are "punishment" misses the point of consequences entirely. They aren't arbitrary, they are the logical result of what has gone before, possibly including the pcs' actions, possibly including their inaction. But I'll put this forward again- if the pcs insist on attacking and robbing store owners in town, is it "punishment" when the other store owners stop opening the doors for them?
I mean, they can't sell loot, buy new weapons (with which to rob more stores!), cash in those gems- is this punishment, or a consequence? If you call it punishment, how do you handle the problem in game, without metagaming it, without saying "Hey, stop that, you guys" to the players? Or do you just blow it off and assume the merchants are too stupid to protect themselves? (After all, wouldn't hiring competent guards be "punishment" too?)
I take it you wouldn't want to play in a game set in Belgium, July 1914 or Poland, August 1939, then?
Sometimes Consequences are the Punishment.
Consequences can be used as the cattle prod for a rail road.
Let's say we have a game world where at the current moment, the PCs have a number of opportunities, and there's a variety of bad guys the PCs could try to stop. Let's say that each of these bad guys is a nuisance in the game world, but none of them is a Threat. They're not currently massing an army to wipe out all mankind, etc.
At that point, it's pretty much a static world, like an 80's TV show.
If the PCs go do heroic stuff, failure should mean Consequences. if the PCs do bad stuff, there should be Consequences. If both examples, the PCs are the Initiator. They took an action to change the game world, and the Consequences are appropriate to that action. The Consequences should probably have even been predictable. But in no way, were the Consequences of such concern to be a Threat. The PCs weren't reacting.
When the GM announces, "you hear rumors of a new force in the east, gather power, seeking to eliminate all mankind", the GM is the Initiator. At that point, the Consequences will occur unless the PCs jump on the plot wagon.
Thats where Consequences runs the risk of railroading, being a prod to force player down a path.
So, is a GM allowed to Initiate trouble? Much like the 80's TV shows. The A-Team drives along, until they hear about a problem (GM Initiated Threat). If the party doesn't get involved, there will be Consequences.
