Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Tony Vargas]

::shrug:: This one sounds fine to me, provided that said "single game" is flexible enough to withstand some kitbashing and remain (or become) playable.

/Requires/ some kitbashing to 'become playable,' was part of the premise, yes.

And, yes, single game. One game to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.

Also, it's always possible that the "single game" might not be so bad as to be completely unplayable as written

Nod. It is an ideal, not a practical formula: not playable as written, so every DM must modify it, so every DM perforce runs a game customized to ideally suit his group.

The extreme opposite of the huge marketplace of games each of which is perfect for an extremely narrow audience - one game that's perfect for no one.

Like the old specialist/generalist joke.

, and thus a DM could run it stock if that's what worked for her and her group. 1e was this. 5e is trying to be.

Sort of. If you talk to 12 different long-time D&Ders who say they ran 1e 'stock' ('straight,' by-the-book, whatever), and ask them to describe it in detail, they'll tell you about 13 different systems. Because 1e was such a glorious mess that you couldn't run it that way, not really, not because it might not theoretically work, but because you'd inevitably mis-interpret some of it, or miss bits of it, or toss out large sections without thinking; and, because it was also so close to the Ideal 'bad system that makes good games' that it was very, very often heavily modified (which it encouraged), and groups played with those mods so long that individuals now remember them as the 'real' by-the-book rules.

And, yes, where 1e was trying to be a more complete 0e (which had tried to be a fantasy wargame and been an RPG instead) and became the above more or less by accident, 5e is trying to be that* on purpose.

AFAICT, it's succeeding.







* and, eventually, a bit more, for the sake of B/X, 3.x & 4e fans

 

[Campbell]

After all, it's not much of a debate if everyone's on the same side.

Just using this as a jumping on point because I have something to say.

I do not think it is particularly helpful to think of this discussion in terms of a debate with sides. As I tend to view things it is often counterproductive and leads us down roads where we engage in points and counterpoints, rather than meaningfully chewing over the underlying ideas, really thinking them over, and responding with how we view things.

One of the hardest parts of being involved in these sorts of discussions on the internet is the pervasive culture of debate. In my own posts I try to do a couple of things that I believe help to counter the usual effects of internet debate culture.

• I do not engage in multiquote point by point analysis. I believe this helps me to stay focused on engaging ideas over engaging in debate. It also creates some emotional distance between what I am responding to and the ideas I am putting forward.
• Whenever possible I try to highlight differences of opinion between myself and those I broadly agree with in some ways. Often I find these are the most fruitful avenues to go down. As an example, in this thread I have highlighted how I am not always particularly interested in constant conflict and escalation in the "go to the action" variety. In the future I shall strive to do this more.
• When I engage in lines of inquiry I try to do so with genuine interest. I really want to know what people have to say about things. That is no guarantee that I will necesarily agree with the things they have to say, but I will strive to engage with what they have to say. I do not always succeed in this endeavor.
• When people say things that I find particularly irksome I try to take some time to chew on it until there is some emotional distance. This is a constant struggle for me. My passions runs deep and my temper often gets the best of me.
• I strive to only speak for myself and not for others. This can sometimes be very difficult. There are posters on this board I regard as friends on some level, and I am deeply protective of my friends. We are still not like the same person though and often see things very differently.

I am not saying that you have to stop engaging in debate and move more towards analysis. It's my favored approach to discussion and scholarship of all sorts, but I cannot tell anyone how or what they should think. I can only say the things that I think in a way that I believe will shed light on certain things. I mainly just wanted everyone to know where I am coming from and the sort of approach I will be striving for in the future.

There are many lines of discussion that I feel are worth responding to, but I am unsure that within this thread is necessarily the best place to do so. Later today I will have some additional meta commentary that I believe will help build some understanding of where I specifically am coming from.

 

[pemerton]

What if everyone at the table just wants to tell *a* story (which the DM may or may not have pre-determined to a large extent) but won't know what it is until it's been played through? The underlying reason for play - from the players' side - then becomes untangling the mystery of the story, while allowing for diversions and unrelated adventuring along the way as well.

If the GM hasn't pre-determined the story, then how do you envisage the players (via their PCs) untangling the mystery?

(I have my own answer to this question, that I talked about upthread, but I'm curious what yours is.)

 

[pemerton]

if there are no pre-planned outcomes, the dice would seem to be extremely relevant to determining what the outcomes are.

You referred to "sheparding and enhancing the narrative that emerges to the tastes and preferences of the players". That does imply something pre-planned, or known in advance. Hence my question about the roll of the dice: if there is something that will suite the tastes/preferences of the players; and if rolling the dice isn't going to yield it; then why roll the dice?

I think you've got something in mind in relation to this bit of the discussion that's eluding me.

how can a game be designed by a third party to take into account the specific tastes and preferences of the players at your table? As I see it, one of the key advantages of having a DM is the ability to tailor the game to the table.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "the game".

If you mean particular story elements eg noble paladins, sneaky hobbits, etc - well, yes, the participants at the table add this stuff in. (Different games approach this in different ways: Burning Wheel, which has a small publishing footprint, includes elaborate rules for player and PC generation of this content; 4e D&D, which has a big publishing footprint, publishes volumes and volumes of list entries - monsters, classes, items, etc - which the participants pick and choose from.)

But a 3rd party absolutely can design a game which, when played according to the published rules, will deliver experiences as promised. If the promise is "engaging story", then what is needed are mechanics that reliably transmit the story/thematic concerns of the participants into the moments of action resolution, and then back out again.

1st ed AD&D is not really such a game, without a fair bit of stretching and departure from default assumptions (Oriental Adventures is an example of such sort of stretching). This is because, approached in the default way, concerns of story/theme don't factor into either framing (which in AD&D is a mixture of random tables and GM pre-authorship of the dungeon) or resolution (which is a mixture of impartial adjudication of fictional positioning, and random rolls).

But there are plenty of games that do do this - ie that do incorporate story/theme into framing and resolution, and then deliver it back out as part of the consequences of resolution.

This sort of game doesn't require massaging or nudging to produce what the particpants have asked for (in virtue of what they feed into it).

I use a persistant campaign world, so, at a minimum, the events of previous campaigns are established lore. (New players, of course, will not know this lore.) On top of that, I usually come up with elements of the starting setting for a new campaign, including geography, culture, NPCs the party might come into contact with (both specifically-placed and generic), events likely to occur in the near future, plots the PCs may be interested in, etc. Based on this thread, it is my understanding that you consider all of that to be "secret backstory". I will use that backstory to inform action resolution: if , e.g., a player asks a local to find out what inns are in town, I will answer with the details I already have (possibly filtered through the opinions of the NPC sharing the information).

A PC asking a local about inns sounds more like etablishing colour, or maybe part of framing, rather than an action declaration.

Unless the player wants his/her PC to be at the inn for a certain reason (eg "I'm looking for an inn that the smugglers hang out in - I ask subtle questions of locals, approach my contacts in the thieves' guld, etc"). That's the point at which "secret backstory" as a factor in resolution becomes significant.

 

[Lanefan]

If the GM hasn't pre-determined the story, then how do you envisage the players (via their PCs) untangling the mystery?

I'm allowing for the DM to make some of it up as she goes along (though still ahead of time) to take into account:

a) things that arise during play that she hadn't foreseen or thought of but that fit in well, and-or
b) new ideas or twists she might come up with after the campaign begins and later integrate, and-or
c) pre-visioned story bits that just don't work out in play, or are intentionally or otherwise ignored by the PCs and thus dropped

Using my own current campaign as an example: it's been running for 9 years now and needless to say (well, I certanly hope it's needless to say!) I've had some new ideas for the storyboard during those 9 years, some of which I've incorporated. Also, the players have come up with ideas of their own that have fit in well* and also been incorporated.

* - some while ago (2010?) one of my players wasn't too pleased with a particular adventure; the look on his face when I told him that he was in fact responsible for its existence due to him saying about half a year earlier what a neat idea such an adventure would be was priceless!

I'm up to about version 11 of the master storyboard; which slowly morphs over time as adventures get completed, things happen in the game world (not least of which is the rising average character level, which makes some of the lower-level adventure ideas redundant), and things happen in the real world (e.g. lots of changes when I dropped down from running two parties a week to one). That said, I've still no real idea of how much of that storyboard will actually make it to play.

What the storyboard is useful for is long-term planning, including trying to guess about how long the campaign has left in it (in other words, when do I need to start worrying about designing the next one). For shorter-term planning it helps me know what adventures I need to dream up as opposed to what I can squeeze out of some canned module, and-or what sort of things I need to keep my eye out for when reading over a canned module. An example of this: since day 1 (i.e. before March 2008) there's been an adventure on the storyboard regarding dealing with a lich named Saith, but it wasn't until just a year or two ago when I got a copy of Dark Tower that I realized this module would be perfect for that storyboarded adventure. They're in it now.

And there's still things about the basic setting they don't know, though various more or less obscure hints have been laid down over time.

So yes, the story is more or less pre-determined; but the farther out it is from play the more malleable some elements of it remain. Some elements and mysteries, however, have been baked in all along and aren't going anywhere.

What I've no idea at all about is what happens if we ever run off the end of the storyboard. Fortunately as far as I can tell I've still got a few years at least to think about this. It's always possible that by then I'll have had my fill of this world/campaign and-or will have had some bright idea for another; it's also quite possible I just keep dreaming up adventures for the current one, or even that we start a different storyline in the same world.

Lan-"it's also possible that at some point the PCs manage to break the world (and end the campaign) instead of save it; I don't think the players realize how close they've come now and then over the years"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

A PC asking a local about inns sounds more like etablishing colour, or maybe part of framing, rather than an action declaration.

Terminology again...a PC doing anything at all - even something as banal as asking where an inn might be found - is an action declaration as far as I'd ever use the term: it's something that the DM has to respond to.

It could in this case be an extremely innocuous or almost irrelevant action declaration, but that's not the point; and for all we know maybe the PC wants to know where the inn is so she can burn it down.

Lan-"smoke on the water"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Terminology again...a PC doing anything at all - even something as banal as asking where an inn might be found - is an action declaration as far as I'd ever use the term: it's something that the DM has to respond to.

It could in this case be an extremely innocuous or almost irrelevant action declaration, but that's not the point; and for all we know maybe the PC wants to know where the inn is so she can burn it down.

But this is what I'm getting at when I'm saying that [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] aren't always making it clear to me what they are describing, when they ask "Would pemerton characterise such-and-such as railroading? Or what sort of label would I put on the approach?"

When the action is described only in in-fiction terms (a PC looks for an inn), who can tell. To judge what sort of dynamic and approach is going on at the table, we need to be told about the action in real-world terms: what does the player want for his/her PC, and why? And where did that come from?

For instance, if the PC is asking about an inn because a NPC, conceived of entirely by the GM, dropped a hint or clue about an inn, then we have a GM-driven game. The player seems to be searching for the next bit of plot.

If the PC is asking about an inn because the game assumes that the PCs need somewhere to eat, sleep, etc, then it's just colour - it's establishing the necessary fiction around the PC's living conditions, and maybe involves deducting a few gp from an equipment list. But nothing is actually happening in the game.

 

[Lanefan]

But this is what I'm getting at when I'm saying that [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] aren't always making it clear to me what they are describing, when they ask "Would pemerton characterise such-and-such as railroading? Or what sort of label would I put on the approach?"

When the action is described only in in-fiction terms (a PC looks for an inn), who can tell. To judge what sort of dynamic and approach is going on at the table, we need to be told about the action in real-world terms: what does the player want for his/her PC, and why? And where did that come from?

Why, at that point, does it matter? She's asking about an inn. DM gives an answer. Doesn't seem worthy of any further analysis, really.

For instance, if the PC is asking about an inn because a NPC, conceived of entirely by the GM, dropped a hint or clue about an inn, then we have a GM-driven game. The player seems to be searching for the next bit of plot.

Do we? Taking it one step further, the DM's baited the hook but does the PC (or meta, the player) feel compelled that she must take the bait in order to keep the game going, or can she in fact choose to ignore it (but in this case has intentionally chosen not to)? The latter doesn't sound very DM-driven to me.

If the PC is asking about an inn because the game assumes that the PCs need somewhere to eat, sleep, etc, then it's just colour - it's establishing the necessary fiction around the PC's living conditions, and maybe involves deducting a few gp from an equipment list. But nothing is actually happening in the game.

Depends on one's definition of "nothing", I suppose. To some, this sort of thing is very much an important part of the game particularly at low to very low levels when both the players and their characters are trying to establish immersion and-or a toehold in the game world.

And what if she's asking about an inn for a completely different reason than the DM might have ever envisioned e.g. to burn it down, rob it, buy it, whatever?

Lan-"and remember the third rule of DMing: no adventuring party is capable of entering any city, town, village or hamlet without at some point making a complete mess of it"-efan

 

[Manbearcat]

@Lanefan , @hawkeyefan, @Xetheral , I've broken down the Dungeon World play excerpt in both its original mechanical state of Dungeon World and transliterated it how it would work out procedurally in B/X . Its original incarnation of Dungeon World would be "Story Now/Play to Find Out". B/X would obviously be "Gamist/Refereeing."

I'm now going to start the process of transliterating it to 5e using a Storyteller agenda and Illusionism techniques so we can compare and contrast. Going to do this piecemeal so we can focus like a laser beam. For ease of reference, here are a few initial parts of the conversation of play for that excerpt. I'll get to the 5e procedures (using a Storyteller agenda, which is my takeaway from the 5e texts) after.

* Disclaimer - I am not saying here that 5e imposes either a Storyteller agenda or Illusionism techniques. But it certainly plays very nice with both (explicitly and implicitly).

Alright, here we go.

ELF

After I've regeared, I'll pocket the coins and place the choker around my neck, feeling the welcomed heat in my breast. I'll then make sure all of my supplies are in order, light the torch, and warily head up the path that leads out of this chamber, a silent prayer on my lips that it might lead to somewhere hospitable.

GM

The path moves upward and switches back a few times at a fairly steep grade. Soon you hear the sounds of spoken language echoing off the tunnel halls. Goblin tongue. Something about "King Ornrak not letting anyone leave...going to starve them all...tired of eating cave-shrooms...soon they're going to be sifting through their own dung or eating their dead...the starved dead...humans with their goats haven't been here for weeks." Someone answers with a "shut up and get rid of the garbage."

The sound of a portcullis raising. A "Hurrrrrk..." and then a weird liquid sounding shuffling from further in. The first goblin calls back to the second "you say something?" A muffled sound and then wet, squishing sounds.

You round a final bend and as your torch-light plays off the stone walls of the narrow path, it exposes the edge of the raised portcullis you heard prior. Fresh blood emerges from somewhere beyond your line of sight...around that final bend...oozing down toward you with the steep descent of the path (ascent for you).

All is still save your dancing torchlight and the advance of the blood toward your feet.

ELF

I don't want to step in that blood and leave tracks everywhere, possibly incriminating myself as well. The goblins surely have light sources in the chambers ahead of me. Assuming the tunnel is just a few feet wide here, maybe 3-4 feet like a normal hallway, I'm going to do a Spider Man thing and leap up and wedge myself with my legs, spread eagle. I'll sheathe my sword, put my torch in my mouth and use my hands to carefully move forward while wedged. When I get around the bend and can see the raised portcullis and into the room I'm going to take the torch from my mouth and throw it into the room, hoping to attract the attention of whatever is in there. With my legs wedged and my hands freed, I'm going to rip my bow from my back and string an arrow, training it on my line of sight into the center of the room and my torch.

What happens and what do I see?

GM

1) A dimly lit room with a worked stone floor, a few torches in recesses in the walls, and refuse-filled barrels.

2) The grisly remains of the two goblins you heard talking. They appear to have been engulfed violently with random appendages severed in the consumption. The legs of the goblin who raised the portcullis are the source of the blood that was seeping down the path.

3) Puddles of transparent, pinkish goo near where both of the remains lie.

For a moment, all is still and quiet as you survey from your wedged perch between the walls. Then, suddenly a grotesque creatures darts into view; a pile of amorphous pink flesh with an impossibly large mouth, 3 eyes aligned vertically above the mouth and tentacles strewn about the mess of a "face". Something of a "tail" trails the bulbous mass.

Its clearly an "advanced" version of what you've seen before. A rancid smell accompanies the nastiness it secretes. It skirts the torch you threw, a weird, sliding, squishing locomotion aided by the whip of the tail and the tentacles.

ELF

I don't waste any time. My strung arrow flies free.

1) I'm going to say that the PC is a level 7 Elven Eldritch Knight (that is pretty close to the equivalent of a level 3 or 4 Dungeon World Elven Arcane Duelist). He won't have Prestidigitation (he didn't in DW) so he would have to be concerned about getting the blood on his boots (the incrimination aspect, the stealth penalty, and the obvious tracks).

2) So, as GM, I've rendered the Earthmaw Basement dungeon in the typical way that happens in D&D. I've mapped it, stocked it with denizens and stuff, and I have some tables for Random Encounters. Lets say I've initially decided that I'm going to roll Random Encounters once every 30 minutes and if some noticeable event occurs (such as loud combat or structural failure of the complex). The player decides to go with exploring at the Normal Pace of 30 sq/minute. My map tells me that its going to probably end up with maybe one or two Random Encounter check in the course of playing through the Earthmaw Basement dungeon.

3) Alright so the player wants to do this Spider Man move. They're looking to (a) avoid the blood, (b) maybe get Advantage on the subsequent Stealth roll against the Advanced Aboleth Spawn.

What do I want? Broadly, I want things to go pear-shaped to at least generate some excitement and maybe to hopefully further complicate the future parley with the Hobgoblin King!

So, because of this, despite the Elf having a 20 Dex and being trained in Acrobatics (and this being an archetypal shtick), I'm going to not "say yes" to this action declaration. I'm going to say there is an uncertain outcome. Further, I'm going to make the DC a bit more difficult than I otherwise would (lets say DC 15 - Moderate - when maybe it should just be 12 - Slightly more than Easy)! But the player doesn't know the DC as I keep that to myself.

4) I give the news to the player and the player rolls their Dex (Acrobatics) check + 8. He gets a 7! Right on the DC that I...artificially inflated...I mean set!

However...my response?

"Oh man, so close! Just missed! Alright...you get out of the way of the flow of blood and shimmy up the wall! However...as you pull your exchange your sword for your bow and draw back an arrow, one of your feet almost slides free. In your recovery, the arrow shaft rattles against your bow, making a bit of racket...

...though you cannot see it yet, something makes a slippery...shifting sound in the chamber before you"

This bit of Illusionism does 2 things. It (a) sets up the PC to have Disadvantage on Dex - Stealth and (b) allows me to to roll Wisdom - Perception (giving further ability for Illusionism) rather than using Passive Perception (because it is now a contest with the Aboleth aware of a possible prey item/foe and actively scanning).

---

Let us stop there. What do you think so far? If you would, contrast against the initial Dungeon World procedures/play resolution and the B/X transliteration.

 

[pemerton]

When the action is described only in in-fiction terms (a PC looks for an inn), who can tell. To judge what sort of dynamic and approach is going on at the table, we need to be told about the action in real-world terms: what does the player want for his/her PC, and why? And where did that come from?

Why, at that point, does it matter? She's asking about an inn. DM gives an answer. Doesn't seem worthy of any further analysis, really.

Well, it matters if you're trying to answer questions like is this railroading? or does this game involve a high level of player agency?

Those are questions about the way that the content of the shared fiction is being created. So you can't answer them without having information about how the content of the shared fiction is being created. And you can't get that information simply from a description of in-fiction events.

Taking it one step further, the DM's baited the hook but does the PC (or meta, the player) feel compelled that she must take the bait in order to keep the game going, or can she in fact choose to ignore it (but in this case has intentionally chosen not to)? The latter doesn't sound very DM-driven to me.

Well, if I heard a game described in that way I would form the working hypothesis that it is completely GM-driven: that play is driven by the GM "baiting hooks" and the players following them.

I can envisage circumstances in which tht working hypothesis might be refuted; the fact that the GM baited two hooks wouldn't be one of them, though.

If the PC is asking about an inn because the game assumes that the PCs need somewhere to eat, sleep, etc, then it's just colour - it's establishing the necessary fiction around the PC's living conditions, and maybe involves deducting a few gp from an equipment list. But nothing is actually happening in the game.

Depends on one's definition of "nothing", I suppose. To some, this sort of thing is very much an important part of the game particularly at low to very low levels when both the players and their characters are trying to establish immersion and-or a toehold in the game world.

<snip>

no adventuring party is capable of entering any city, town, village or hamlet without at some point making a complete mess of it

Why do the PCs need to establish "immersion" in the world? They're of it, aren't they?

This notion, especially in conjunction with the last quoted passage, suggests an idea of the PCs as "id", as outsiders who have nothing but the most basic drives. And the GM's job is to somehow discipline or channel that. It's a conception of RPGing that seems very widespread (eg DM of the Rings and Darths and Droids both lampoon it). I tend to see it as one consequence and manifestion of GM-driven RPGing.

There are all sorts of ways for the players to establish immersion and a toe-hold within the world than looking for an inn.

And what if she's asking about an inn for a completely different reason than the DM might have ever envisioned e.g. to burn it down, rob it, buy it, whatever?

Why wouldn't the player just tell the GM this? That seems like the most effective way to get the fiction to move in the direction one wants it to.