Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Imaro]

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...



...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.

Okay maybe I'm not being clear enough... isn't just establishing the fact that the giants are willing to negotiate an application of DM force? Why did these giants even deign to speak with these humans? It seems the roll was to determine whether they were allowed to enter the settlement (or am I misunderstanding??).

I guess I'm trying to figure out why is a DM deciding... Yes the giants will speak with you as opposed to ignore you... attack you...etc before you can negotiate with them not a use of DM force to direct the outcome towards a predetermined point (they are allowed to negotiate with the giants)? In default D&D 5e I believe this is handled with DM force with the DM setting the disposition of the giants towards the characters... but in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s style of play it seems this should be resolved without using DM force... but it's not.

In other words why is deciding there is or is not a container in a room considered railroading but deciding the giants are disposed to talk is not? I'm missing the distinction here and am trying to understand it.

 

[pemerton]

Let's say as an example that this oncoming Dusk War had been a background atmosphere-setting thing all along in the campaign (maybe it's because all the local soldiery has been called to the front lines that brave adventurers are needed back here closer to town, thus explaining the existence of your party at all), but that your intent going in was that it would in theory never become too relevant to anything because a flash flood was going to end it as soon as it started. But during play the players via their characters have brought the oncoming Dusk War to the fore, made it important to themselves, and based some major decisions around it; all regardless whether or not it was important to you as DM and-or whether you had any interest at all in running a war-front adventure or campaign.

Now you're screwed.

By your definitions you'll be railroading if you have the flood happen anyway even though it's what you'd planned all along.
By at least one other definition upthread (I forget who's) you'll be railroading if you deviate from your original plan, dispense with the flood, and let the war continue.
And by my definition you've in fact been railroaded by your players.

Suppose you invite all your friend around to play a dungeon crawl. But then, just before they turn up, you discover that what you've prepared is actually a hex-based Classic Traveller sub-sector. The I guess you're screwed!

Well, maybe; but the number of times anyone ever accidentally prepared a sub-sector when they were meaning to write up a dungeon level is probably pretty low.

Given my preferences for GMing, world-building etc, why would I inadvertantly do the thing I don't want to do. (Qv my comment upthread that certain sorts of prep aren't very useful for a "say 'yes' or roll the dice", "let it ride", "fail forward" approach to RPGing.)

Furthermore, suppose it happens that (i) I do conceive of this strange flash-flood idea, and then (ii) I abandon it for the reasons I suggest. Why am I screwed because [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] (I think it was) wouldn't approve? He's not at my table, so why would I care that he characterises what I'm doing as railroading?

So a DM's not allowed to have a game-affecting hidden backstory without being accused of railroading???

The notion of "accusation" seems out of place - it's not a courtroom, and no one who isn't at my table is answerable to me. (And vice versa.)

But yes, I regard that as railroading. That's why I don't do it. I know that others' take a different view. That's why I noted, in the OP, that others would take a different view.

You've agreed upthread that something happening off-screen isn't railroading - I think - such as the Marquis being assassinated in his bed the night before.

My point is that there's no difference if it happens on-screen in a manner that precludes the PCs from doing anything about it

I've consistently agreed with [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] about the Marquis example. Whether or not it is railroading depends on whether the death of the Marquis is an outcome - ie an event of significance relative to the commitments, goals, etc of the players and their PCs - or is part of the framing of a situation. If it's an outcome, then it's railroading whether or not it happen onscreen - and the corollary of this is a motto I've often posted before, nameluy, "No failure offscreen". If it's framing, then it's framing whether the PCs witness it or whether they hear of it (eg in my Dark Sun campaign the PCs heard of the death of the Sorcerer-King of Tyr as the opening moment of the campaign - that's an example of framing).

what happens if (or when) the players/characters happen to steer you toward running something you simply don't want to run?

Then you talk about it and reach a resolution of some sort. That's a social problem. It's not an adjudication problem; and I don't really see the appeal of trying to solve the problem of inconsistent preference by covertly negating certain player choices and amplifying others.

 

[pemerton]

Okay maybe I'm not being clear enough... isn't just establishing the fact that the giants are willing to negotiate an application of DM force? Why did these giants even deign to speak with these humans? It seems the roll was to determine whether they were allowed to enter the settlement (or am I misunderstanding??).

I guess I'm trying to figure out why is a DM deciding... Yes the giants will speak with you as opposed to ignore you... attack you...etc before you can negotiate with them not a use of DM force to direct the outcome towards a predetermined point (they are allowed to negotiate with the giants)?

It wasn't predetermined. The player knocks on the gate and calls out to the inhabitants. I have a giant reply to the effect of "What do you want?" or maybe "Go away!" - I don't remember exactly, but if you think Miracle Max in The Princess Bride you're in the right ballpark.

This is not using GM force to generate a predetermined outcome. It is "saying 'yes'" to the player's initial action declaration of opening a conversation about entering the steading. One could even say that it's playing along with the player's framing of the situation as one of social conflict (at least initially - there was some subsequent violence, as per the actual play report).

As I already posted, it's not railroading when you go along with a player's action declarations for his/her PC!

 

[Imaro]

It wasn't predetermined. The player knocks on the gate and calls out to the inhabitants. I have a giant reply to the effect of "What do you want?" or maybe "Go away!" - I don't remember exactly, but if you think Miracle Max in The Princess Bride you're in the right ballpark.

This is not using GM force to generate a predetermined outcome. It is "saying 'yes'" to the player's initial action declaration of opening a conversation about entering the steading. One could even say that it's playing along with the player's framing of the situation as one of social conflict (at least initially - there was some subsequent violence, as per the actual play report).

As I already posted, it's not railroading when you go along with a player's action declarations for his/her PC!

So if the player had declared "I find a container and pour the blood in it..." you could/would have said yes and it wouldn't be a railroad? And on the other hand if the player had asked you "Will one of the giants parley with us?" you would have rolled to see if they would?

So is it around whether the player declares or asks? I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction in these situations... so how do you decide when to declare yes and when to roll?

 

[pemerton]

But to go back to your example - of the rotating rusty portal of death - if you include that in the situation, but then the GM gives all sorts of hints and nudges to the player that investigating it is likely to be fatal - well, what was the point of including it in the first place?

Why wouldn't they?

I don't understand. Who are you referring to as they? And what is it that you're conjecturing "they" would do?

If the party wander into a The Dungeon of High Level Monsters and Stuff, then they're going to encounter high level monsters and stuff.

<snip>

If the DM begins to remove such elements, starts tailoring events to adjust the difficulty/challenge to the player's level or actions then they've move from presenting the world and its elements 'as is' and have begun presenting the world and events, 'as best suits the party'.

I don't see what any of this has to do with my post that you quoted.

Now, thankfully none of our DMs label our dungeons 'The Dungeon of High Level Monsters and Stuff'. Nor do we have a habit of calling out what can and can't kill a party member within a local, or the circumstances that might contribute to a death. Simply present, describe and add a touch of creative flourish. The players then state their intent and how they wish to achieve it. After this has been done, here is where the DM may nudge a player by elaborating on some detail or point while setting a challenge rating, if required.

And just to be clear I'm talking about, 'all sorts of nudging'. The vast majority of the time, a simple, clear nudge is enough. Akin to a program prompting you with, 'Are you sure you wish to close this application without saving?'

My question remains - if the GM is going to include that sort of stuff, what is the point of then nudging the PCs away from investigating it in a way that will result in them suffering harm? If the GM doesn't want to see the PCs harmed by such stuff, then s/he can just not include it in the shared fiction.

To put it more bluntly - if the point of the situation is to challenge the players, and face them with the threat of death from High Level Monsters and Stuff, then why is the GM also giving the players advice on how to avoid or circumvent those challenges? I'm not seeing the point - to me it seems just like what Gygax described, as undermining the major precepts of the game.

And to be clear - I don't think that that sort of nudging is railroading. It's not the GM forcing anything. It just seems a bit insipid to me. (And this is brought out by the comparison to a computer program: Microsoft Word doesn't pretend to be challenging you to a contest of whether or not you can create and save your document. It claims to be helping you do those things.)

 

[pemerton]

In other words why is deciding there is or is not a container in a room considered railroading but deciding the giants are disposed to talk is not? I'm missing the distinction here and am trying to understand it.

I never said that deciding there is a container in the room would be railroading. I said that deciding that there is no container in the room would be railroading:

had I decided simply that the room contains no vessel, because I had already decided that I didn't want the storyline to include shenanigans with a blood-filled chamber pot, I think that would count not only as a judgement call, but as one that has a railroading effect.

Similarly, when one of the players in the viking game wants his PC to seek an invitation into the steading, simply deciding the giants won't talk - so the only way to get information from the steading would be (say) to sneak in, or beat them all up and interrogate them - would be railroading.

For the third time in three replies, it's not railroading to "say 'yes'" to a player's action delcaration for his/her PC.

 

[billd91]

Another comment on "theatre" or "cooperative storytelling": these aren't games. They don't use dice. They don't involve players making "moves".

The games I run are games. More precisely, they're RPGs. They have rules that establish the "moves" the participants are allowed to make. It is the resolution of those moves that generates the events of play, and especially the significant outcomes that (taken as a whole) constitute the "plot" of the game.

Personally, I think that's a bit of mistaken emphasis - that the rules establish the moves the participants are allowed to make. For RPGs, rules operationalize what players what their PCs to do, not define what they can do.

 

[Imaro]

I never said that deciding there is a container in the room would be railroading. I said that deciding that there is no container in the room would be railroading:

Wait what... so if I as DM want the outcome to be that they get the blood (because this summoning ritual is going to bring a BBEG I really want to use) and I say yes when asked if there's a container... it's not railroading? But if I want the outcome to be they don't get the blood and so say no, it is??

Now I really am confused. I thought the GM creating an outcome, any outcome, to push in a pre-determined way was a railroad... but so long as I say yes when the players ask or try to do something it's not railroading.... is this correct?

Similarly, when one of the players in the viking game wants his PC to seek an invitation into the steading, simply deciding the giants won't talk - so the only way to get information from the steading would be (say) to sneak in, or beat them all up and interrogate them - would be railroading.

This doesn't make sense, you as the DM/GM can still be steering action towards a pre-determined outcome even when saying yes. So if saying yes is not railroading your original definition doesn't seem to hold up so how exactly are you defining a railroad?

For the third time in three replies, it's not railroading to "say 'yes'" to a player's action delcaration for his/her PC.

It's pretty clear now but that wasn't what I was taking away from your responses at first, especially given your definition of a railroad...

By railroading I mean the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative. (This is broader than some people use it, I know. If the players get to choose for their PCs, but what they choose won't change the downstream storyline, I am counting that as a railroad.)

Are you then claiming that in saying yes a DM can never be shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative... and if that is what you are saying I don't understand how that could be the case...

 

[Jester David]

I said:

If failure doesn't have many consequences between the immediate and visible, the players can easily narrate those.

The reply was:

How do you know this? Have you tried to run an indie-style RPG in which the players negate their own consequences of failure? And did it work?

How does having a player narrate their own failure mean they get to negate it?

If you don't trust your players not to narrate a consequence without being favourable to themselves then that's a problem with your group.

The FFG Star Wars system has a neat non-binary success mechanic, where you can both succeed and fail at the same time. It lends itself very well to the players having to describe their actions and narrate their potential failures.

Sure. The question is when and how are these established?

The PCs in my main 4e game killed Torog. What consequences did this have? Some of these were established by way of framing - eg the emergence of the tarrasque into the world, now that Torog is not there to constrain the imprisoned primordials and other elemental beings. Others are candidates to be narrated as consequences for failure, although - to date - that hasn't come up.

There is no need for me as GM to work out a whole lot of secret stuff in my notebook that records all the consequences of Torog's downfall that I then use to (eg) make secret adjustments to the consequences of player action declarations. And there is certainly no need for me to write down that stuff so I can have the satisfaction of admiring this gameworld that exists only in my head and my notebook and is not part of the actual play of the game at the table!

Your tone is exceedingly concedending. If you have no interest in actually learning how other people play and engaging in a conversation about play styles, why are you even posting?

Assuming you are open minding and I'm just reading too much into your comment of "so I can have the satisfaction of admiring this gameworld that exists only in my head and my notebook" unforseen consequences can have an impact at the table.

In your example, the PCs kill Torog. Assuming he had followers, who takes over? Are they better or worse? What do they do next? Is there a violent battle for succession that spills out into the countryside?
Does the release of the tarrasque cause panic in the kingdoms? Maybe a wave of suicides and religious conversions that changes the dynamics in the nation? Different churches take power, and the state suddenly becomes a theocracy after an impromptu revolution.
Using an example from my game, the players agreed to regularly supply sorcerer-creating dragon blood to a rich merchant. They now get money. The unforeseen consequences might be that the merchant decides to stage a coup and tries to recruit the PCs to his side.

I don't know what you mean by "the same campaign".

The same type of game. The same GMing technique.

What's the point of the planning? Why plan in the way you describe? What's it for?

How come everytime I engage in one of your posts I feel like I'm trying to explain an elephant to a blind man?

Some people plan. They like it. They like the tighter narrative and cohesive story. Many players like it as well, being more passive and uninterested in personal goals or just liking the stories the DM is able to weave.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I don't understand. Who are you referring to as they? And what is it that you're conjecturing "they" would do?

I don't see what any of this has to do with my post that you quoted.

My question remains - if the GM is going to include that sort of stuff, what is the point of then nudging the PCs away from investigating it in a way that will result in them suffering harm? If the GM doesn't want to see the PCs harmed by such stuff, then s/he can just not include it in the shared fiction.

To put it more bluntly - if the point of the situation is to challenge the players, and face them with the threat of death from High Level Monsters and Stuff, then why is the GM also giving the players advice on how to avoid or circumvent those challenges? I'm not seeing the point - to me it seems just like what Gygax described, as undermining the major precepts of the game.

And to be clear - I don't think that that sort of nudging is railroading. It's not the GM forcing anything. It just seems a bit insipid to me. (And this is brought out by the comparison to a computer program: Microsoft Word doesn't pretend to be challenging you to a contest of whether or not you can create and save your document. It claims to be helping you do those things.)

Well, I wouldn't call it 'shared fiction' for starters. More like, 'Shared exploration of a simulation'. We're not looking to engage with the DM's idea of a story. The stories come from the telling of the events that occurred - after play - when folks recount the various things that happened and why. Which I think is the clear difference in our table styles.

The things are there because.. they are there. They are not the only things. And if the players want other things, they can explore elsewhere. It's really that simply. Nudges help deter some actions, typically if the gravity of the consequences have not been communicated, which could be due to the DM simply not anticipating a player might an action a player might wish to take or because not every element requires flagging as clearly as others at all times. Our DMs wouldn't say, 'Are you suuuuure you want to go to the site of High Level Monsters and Stuff?' but they would hint to a player where an action, outside of their knowledge, might result in death or something similar. 'The thing is 30' tall. I did mention it was chowing down on three armoured knights, right? These guys look considerably tougher than you.' That, for me, is a nudge I'm fine with. I can choose to have my character about turn or crack on.

We have great fun doing it - maybe Gygax wouldn't. Though to be fair, it's not his game - its our game. The challenge for us is - where do we go, what do we find, how do we deal with it. Sometimes that means taking a turn into places where death is almost inevitable. But those places, and the choice and chance to engage with such places, must be possible, else we're not truly exploring the world as we wish.