Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Manbearcat]

D&D 5E

 

[pemerton]

In the LotR, we know that Tolkien allows things to change. The first time he ran that adventure, the PC(Elendil) was allowed to change his mind and say no he would not throw the ring into Mt. Doom and leave with it. The second time he allowed the party to split rather than forcing them to remain together. He allowed someone other than the ring bearer to carry the ring. He allowed the ring bearer to change his mind. And so on.

I don't get it.

I mean, what if I asserted the following, that completely contradicts what you said:

GM Tolkien railroaded Isildur's player into keeping the ring, because Isildur's player didn't think of it until after the players said "Yes" to the GM's question "So, do you return home from Mordor", and GM Tolkien wouldn't allow a takeback. And then GM Tolkien railroaded Isildur's player by saying, "When the orcs attack you, you put on the ring and turn invisible." And then, when Isildur's player said that he retreated invisibly into the river, the GM said "The ring comes off, and so the orcs can see you and shoot you dead!" and didn't even roll dice for the orc's attacks!, despite the fact that Isildur was a 10th level paladin with 80 hit points.

Etc, etc.​

For any set of fictional events, in LotR or any other story, there are ways they could come about via railroading, and ways they could come about via player choice. That's why from nothing more than a story hour, one can't tell how a RPG session actually unfolded, and who did what.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sandbox 101. Players piss off evil warlord who sends 50 soldiers at them. Players die.

Is this how sandboxes work? Or do you obstruct the players from actually feeling the full effect of the consequences of their actions?

as in sandbox becomes railroad 101?

 

[pemerton]

Scripting events is not the same as railroading. But a DM has to be cautious then that he frames the scene in such a way, that the script is safe from tempering by the players.

I don't think scripted events in a roleplaying session are bad. Sometimes you want your players to react to something that has happened

In my OP I referred to outcomes:

By railroading I mean the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative.

Later on (post 37), I elaborated: "Is an utterly random or unmotivated choice an outcome? I tend to agree with [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] that it's not. It follows that "We go left" or "We go right", in a context where - from the players' perspective - there is nothing at stake in the choice is not an event of action declaration, any more than "My boots are frilly" is an action declaration. It's just colour and performance.

In the post I've just quoted, you (Imaculata) talk more generally about events. Not every event is an outcome.

For instance, in the Cortex Fantasy game I ran on the weekend, and that I've already mentioned a couple of times in this thread, after the group had established the rationale for the four PCs heading off together on a quest, I narrated along the lines of "You travel north, up into the foothills. You can see snow-capped mountains in the distance. As you crest a ridge, you see a valley below you, and on the other side of it a large steading." One of the players asked "Is there smoke or similar signs of life coming from the steading?" and I replied (with no dice rolling) "Yes, there's smoke."

Here are some of the events that occur in what I've just described: travelling north, seeing mountains, cresting a ridge, seeing a steading, smoke coming from the steading, seeing the smoke coming from the steading.

But none of them is an outcome of play. No player declared any action. Nothing was being resolved. It's all just framing - establishing the immediate context of the shared fiction in which the action of the game is going to unfold.

The first actual action of the game, after the initial setting up, was when one of the players declared "I go to the gate of the setting, knock, and call out a greeting." I narrated an outcome without any dice being rolled - a deep voice (correctly presumed by the players to be the voice of a giant) responded gruffly. That is not railroading (as characterised by me in my OP), because it is not a case of me shaping an outcome to fit a preconceived narrative. It is simply "saying 'yes'" to the player - the player wants his PC to open negotiations, and I am letting that happen.

The negotiations themselves then unfolded, and were resolved via a check (or perhaps a series of checks - I don't recall the details now) - the upshot being that the player successfully established that he was invited to enter the steading, and hence the gates were opened.

Relating this to the Marquis example: the question of whether assassination of the Marquis is mere framing or whether that is an outcome is heavily dependent on the context of play, the relationship of the PCs to the Marquis, the attitude of the players to the Marquis and to the PCs' relationship(s) with the Marquis, etc. These are some of the things that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] was getting at upthread.

One can't tell which sort of thing it is simply by describing the events in in-fiction terms. One can't tell which sort of thing it is simply by noting that the GM narrates it (ie it is "scripted") without regard to player action declarations for their PCs. My description of the viking PCs cresting the ridge was "scripted" - not in the literal sense (I made it up on the spot), but in the sense that it was GM narration in "boxed text" mode. But it was not railroading, because it wasn't an outcome.

The only outcome in the neighbourhood - ie that the PCs are viking-types on a quest to find out what is happening with the northern lights, the spirit world, and the Dragon's Curse - had already been established in the initial discussion around setup, where the players voted for vikings over Japan and came up with the reasons their PCs have to go on a mission.

I regard distinguishing between what is mere framing, and what is an outcome, as a very important domain of GM judgement. If you get it wrong, in either direction, then play will suffer.

For instance, suppose that - following the initial set up of the Cortex viking game - I ask the players, "So, what do you do?" rather than frame them into their trek to the north where they crest a ridge and see a steading, what is going to happen? The players will be confused - what was the point of all that set-up if we're not now going to cut to the action? I send mixed signals - I suggest that there is potentially something else of significance in the neighbourhood of their PCs that has no connection to the stuff we just spent 10 or 15 minutes working through. Why would I want to do that?

Conversely, if I treat not only the trek and the cresting of the valley as framing, but go further and tell them "So you enter the steading, and the action opens with you discussing matters at a feast with the giant chieftain", then there is the danger that I have mistaken an outcome for framing. For instance, one of the PCs in the game is a sneaky type who can influence animals and change into a wolf. By framing that PC into open negotiations with the giant, and prevent the player from expressing those aspects of his PC in the way that he actually did - namely, by sneaking into the Steading, finding a giant ox in the barn, and then trying to trade that ox for a favour from the giants (relying on the fact that giants are notoriously stupid and so won't recognise their own ox).

That's not to say that the boundary between what is framing and what is outcome is always clear-cut. There may be a zone of reasonable choices by the GM, and those judgement calls - in conjunction with the players' own concerns, motivations etc which are both elicited and responded to by the GM's framing - will influence what events unfold in the game.

 

[Imaro]

The first actual action of the game, after the initial setting up, was when one of the players declared "I go to the gate of the setting, knock, and call out a greeting." I narrated an outcome without any dice being rolled - a deep voice (correctly presumed by the players to be the voice of a giant) responded gruffly. That is not railroading (as characterised by me in my OP), because it is not a case of me shaping an outcome to fit a preconceived narrative. It is simply "saying 'yes'" to the player - the player wants his PC to open negotiations, and I am letting that happen.

How did you determine that the giants were or were not open to negotiations? That seems like a pretty big stake and something that would be uncertain but it feels like (and I could be wrong here), that you did in fact create an outcome around what you wanted to happen in the narrative. If that isn't the case what differentiates this from the vessel example earlier? Where saying yes or no to the player would be considered a railroad??

 

[pemerton]

For example, a player might set off on a course that will guarantee their death ('I want to stick my head in the rotating rusting mechanical portal') and the DM could then set the DC, choose appropriate language and communicate a cost to nudge the player away from such a choice, without directly vetoing the action. (''You can certainly try though you'll need luck and lightning fast reflexes to dodge the razor sharp, blood encrusted mechanism if you wish to keep your head. Let's call it a very high Dex save.'' )

In this example the DM could simply let the player poke their head into the portal and die. Instead, they give the player the choice - make a check and risk death. It's a non-choice really, for all but the most foolhardy players, but through framing the choice, providing the select details and setting the DC, the player is nudging the player away from having their characters take a course of action, for their own sake, without simply saying no/telling the player that such a choice is stupid/foolhardy.

I find this example strange.

The GM has, somehow or other (eg by way of dungeon design; by way of rolling on a random table; etc), framed the PCs into a situation in which there is a "rotating, rusting mechanical portal". However, the GM hasn't told the players that entering into the portal will be fatal. One of the players now declares that his/her PC sticks his/her head into it - presumably by way of investigation. But the GM is expected to somehow be hesitant in responding to that action declaration?

If the GM didn't want PCs to die investigating the portal, then it seems a mistake to have set up the situation in the first place.

Fairly recently, I ran an AD&D session, and (as a result of the random dungeon generation table I was using) had to place a "trick" in an otherwise empty room. So I described a magical glowing portal in the ceiling. The players decided that their PCs would ignore it. I don't recall, now, what idea I had in mind for it if they did play around with it - but I certainly wouldn't have had them die. Equally certainly, I wouldn't have (i) decided that it is a death trap, and then (ii) tried to discourage the PCs from investigating it in a fashion that risked their death.

Gygax addresses as similar issue on page 9 of his DMG:

The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a game by interfering with an orderly expedition. . . . [T]he group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need. . . . But lo!, everytime you throw the "monster die" a wandering nasty is indicated, and the party's strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game.​

Using slightly more technical terminology, Gygax is advising the GM to carefully manage the introduction of content into the shared fiction. Don't put stuff in that won't conduce to a fun game. And he also says that it would be contrary to the major precepts of the game to first put stuff in, but then manipulate outcomes so that it doesn't cause problems.

I think this is good advice, and applicable in playstyles that are otherwise quite different from the sort of classic dungeoneering that Gygax had in mind.

Sandbox 101. Players piss off evil warlord who sends 50 soldiers at them. Players die.

Is this how sandboxes work? Or do you obstruct the players from actually feeling the full effect of the consequences of their actions?

as in sandbox becomes railroad 101?

Well, the classic sandbox was a dungeon, which has levels that segregate monsters by degree of power; and wandering monster tables that do a similar thing for random encounters.

Also, in the classic dungeon there is generally no assumption that creatures encountered are automatically hostile. There are reaction tables, and racial or alignment-based conflict penalises reactions but (with some exceptions for specific creatures) doesn't dictate it.

So the general idea is that, in a dungeon, the players will feel the full consequences of their actions, but these will be (more-or-less) level appropriate. And if the 2nd level PCs venture to the 4th dungeon level in pursuit of richer treasures, well then the players have taken onto themselves the risk of stirring up more than they can handle.

Once it becomes common to play the game in less contrived settings than those classic dungeons - with populated lands, rulers with armies at their command, etc - then the idea of splitting the setting, and hence the consequences, into level-appropriate chunks becomes trickier. It can be done - eg [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] did this in his 4e-based sandbox game. And because there were no dungeon levels to send the signals, he just told his players what level different areas were, so they could choose how much risk they wanted to take with their PCs.

But some of the difficulties of combining sandbox precepts with a level-based game set in a non-contrived world help explain why, from the early-to-mid 80s, the mainstream of D&D play shifted from Gygax amd Moldvay-style dungeon/sandbox to more GM-driven Dragonlance "high adventure" style. 2nd ed A&D then cemented this shift, making the Dragonlance-style GM-driven game the clear default.

It's also not a coincidence that other late-70s games that are aimed (at least in part) at sandbox play - like RQ and Traveller - aren't level based, and so don't feel the need to send signals about what is or is not a viable opponent quite so clearly as D&D requires. And those games also have other devices - eg world law levels in Traveller; social connections that are part of PC building and development in RQ - that mitigate against the PCs just wandering the land upsetting enemies who can then destroy them without fear of retribution. (Which is not to deny that those systems have their own issues, the main one being lethality of combat in games that - via both rules for PC building and rules for action resolution - seem to envisage combat being a major part of the game.)

 

[pemerton]

How did you determine that the giants were or were not open to negotiations?

As I said, the player declared actions and was successful. In mechanical terms, he established a d6 Invitation to Enter asset, which he was subsequently able to leverage in his rolls to impose a Persuaded to Help complication on the giant chieftain.

 

[pemerton]

while I would never say that ultimate success or failure should be determined by the DM, I do not think that every instance of DM judgment affecting PC success is some sort of transgression.

Nor do I. Obviously setting a DC affects player success, but I do it all the time, and in my OP distinguished that sort of judgement call from railroading.

I thought the roll was to see if the chamber pot/bed pan was there.

To go back to the example from your OP, the way I would handle that situation would be to determine if I thought a suitable receptacle was present based on the factors involved. I'm not sure I like the idea of a player skill check determining such....you described this as a way to preserve drama because the PC can succeed or fail. However, I don't know if that's really the case. Is his check to determine if he notices the item or is it used to determine if the item is actually present? The way I've read your comments is then latter; the PC's check determines if the chamber pot is present.

So if the check isn't successful, then the chamber pot isn't there. How has the PC failed? The player has failed a check sure, but how has ther character failed? Perhaps I've misunderstood your premise.

The check is to find out whether or not the PC, looking for a vessel in the room, is able to notice one.

If the check fails, then (as a GM) I have to narrate failure. Obviously if the check is failed, then the character has failed to spot a vessel in the room. But as a general rule there has to be some other consequence that drives the action onward (as the BW website put is, "the consequences for failure lead to the next conflict. There are no dead-ends"). This is the basic premise of so-called "fail forward" or "no whiffing" adjudication.

Sometimes I indicate in advance what these consequence of failure will be; sometimes I leave it implicit in the situation; sometimes I just make something up. The night watch apprehending the PCs after the failed check to lug the bodies through town is an example of the second (ie it is implicit in the situation that if you tire and slow down lugging bodies through a town at night, you might encounter someone, including the watch); but in the case of looking for the vessel, it would really have had to be in category three - I would have made something up. (Handling communication of consequences of failure, and expectations around that, is another important domain of GM judgement calls.)

I don't know what I would have done at the time - I can't remember if I had anything in mind, and it's a bit hard to put myself back into that situation and recapture the feel. But possibilities I can think of now would include (1) "Yep, there's a jug on the table - but as Jabal [the mage whose tower it is] backs away from Halika [the assassin, who having killed the unconscious mage was now trying to escape by cutting down Jabal], he knocks the table and the jar falls to the ground and breaks", or (2) "You can't see any vessel, but in a disgusting display you can see Jabal's familiar, a bony raven-like creature, licking up the blood as it flows under the divan."

(1) would create a new context for decision - eg maybe the PC can summon a spirit that can put the jar back together again. (2) would increase the pressure on the PC to save the blood - not only is there no vessel, but the blood is getting eaten!

Either way, the player has to make a new decision about how (if at all) the PC is going to make sure that the naga gets the blood.

 

[Imaro]

As I said, the player declared actions and was successful. In mechanical terms, he established a d6 Invitation to Enter asset, which he was subsequently able to leverage in his rolls to impose a Persuaded to Help complication on the giant chieftain.

Okay I'm unfamiliar with Cortex Fantasy (so I might need some basic explanation of the mechanics), but in the post I quoted you stated you narrated this part (the PC's arriving and being allowed to enter the giant's village) without any dice rolls...right? So how was the d6 Invitation to Enter asset established if there were no dice rolls?

Also I note this asset is at d6 so I assume it is both ranked and rolled for something (by the name I'm assuming it measures the likelihood of being allowed to enter but I could be wrong)... but again there were no rolls to determine whether the PC's were allowed to enter or not so is this a case where you DM fiat'd that they could enter based on that asset being possessed by one of the PC's? And again if so what is the difference between that and deciding "yes" to the vessel situation?

 

[Manbearcat]

Okay I'm unfamiliar with Cortex Fantasy (so I might need some basic explanation of the mechanics), but in the post I quoted you stated you narrated this part (the PC's arriving and being allowed to enter the giant's village) without any dice rolls...right? So how was the d6 Invitation to Enter asset established if there were no dice rolls?

Also I note this asset is at d6 so I assume it is both ranked and rolled for something (by the name I'm assuming it measures the likelihood of being allowed to enter but I could be wrong)... but again there were no rolls to determine whether the PC's were allowed to enter or not so is this a case where you DM fiat'd that they could enter based on that asset being possessed by one of the PC's? And again if so what is the difference between that and deciding "yes" to the vessel situation?

This could be done via a Transition Scene with the expenditure of a Plot Point to use a Specialty (like Contacts, Diplomacy, or Mystic...maybe the PC makes up that he bears a mystical-brand-as-omen which heralds his coming to this place) to create the asset for subsequent use. However, in this case...

Cresting a ridge and looking down into the valley below, they can see - at the base of the rise on the opposite side - a large steading. Very large indeed, as they approach it, with 15' walls, doors 10' high and 8' wide, etc. And with a terrible smell. (Scene distinctions: Large Steading, Reeks of Smoke and Worse.) After some discussion of whether or not giants are friends or foes, the swordthan decides to knock at the gates and seek permission to enter. Some dice rolls later and he has a d6 Invitation to Enter asset, and a giant (I used the Guide's Ogre datafile) opens the gate and invites him in.

...it looks like it was created as an action during the Social Conflict to get in. It looks like it was probably part of the dice pool that stressed out the opposition and won the Social Scene for the PCs.