Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

Awesome stuff [MENTION=6846794]Gardens & Goblins[/MENTION]!

What to call it? This is harder than it seems because it wasn't like designed alongside in particular game. Prior to this set of approaches being formalized in Apocalypse World there really was no name for it. The response a lot of people gave, including John Harper, designer of Blades in the Dark, when Apocalypse World came out was - Isn't that just how you GM? For the groups that independently discovered these techniques it was just how you like play a roleplaying game. I tend to refer to it as either GM as Master of Ceremonies for what Vincent Baker named it as when he showed people how to do it in Apocalypse World. He did not really invent it, but Whitewolf did not really invent GM as Storyteller either. Sometimes Principled GMing for the set of principles that informs GM decision making and its relation to Principled Freeform which is just people roleplaying with some formalized stuff about how they treat characters, resolve disputes, and reach consensus. Thing is it really is a specific set of principles that show a way to GM - not the way to GM or the set of principles. Some people call it Fiction First Gaming or Play To Find Out, but those things describe just some of the features.

I mean as long as we can communicate this stuff it does not really matter. John Harper just calls it GMing in Blades in the Dark, then shows you the hows and whys. He changes some stuff as well, drawing in a bit more war gaming and scene framing techniques. The formalized techniques being out there for new GMs is what really matters. Actually showing people how to play and not leaving them grasping in the dark is what I care about. This fusion of experienced narrative, character driven play, and playing in the fiction, not for it, that lets the GM be a player too and experience the tension of the narrative experience was a revelation for me. With a bit of discipline, minimal prep, and commitment to following the fiction I could get all the same kicks I do from playing in a good game. I could approach the other players as a creative equal. That's what really matters to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The reason why you feel I'm assuming manipulation of the roll results in the 5e description is because I intended it that way (I said as much in that post). I'm trying to provide a contrast between Storyteller GMing which features Illusionism, classic Refereeing, and Principled "Story Now"/"Play to Find out" GMing. We've already covered the latter two with B/X and DW so I'm using 5e for Storyteller GMing which features Illusionism.

I also caveated that I know 5e doesn't have to be GMed in this fashion (I know for a fact that it doesn't have to be as when I fill in for another GM every 6 weeks or so, I don't run it that way). It just "plays nice with it" due to a number of features of the system (and its general GM mandate).

Thanks for clarifying the DW mechanics a bit for me. I get it a bit better now. Does not sound at all like something I'd be interested in except as a one off or change of pace type of game.

From what I can see, GM judgment absolutely comes into both games, just in different ways. In D&D, the DM sets the DC of a proposed task based on prevailing conditions within the fiction, which can largely determine failure or success on the PC's part. Where as DW seems to have set target numbers for any and all actions, and then the GM uses his judgment to determine the specific outcome.

I can certainly see how the D&D style lends itself more to the Storyteller GM approach as you have described it. I agree with that. However, I don't think that it must be so by any stretch. And I would also say that DW seems just as subject to GM manipulation, it would just come about in a different way.

I'm trying to stay away from the big picture stuff and just focus on the nuts and bolts of the play excerpt (not how we got to that point in the overall game). The actual play conversation and how player action declarations > resolution mechanics > and GMing get us from "here" to "there."

Fair enough. Do you think that I could describe the action you've provided through the lens of 5E mechanics and come up with the same result? I would expect so. In your description of hte player declaration/action resolution dynamic, I don't see any reason that 5E must go about things differently.

But if you want further context for things, here you go:

There is no side trek here. I was forced to make a Hard Move due to a Scout move (one of the Undertake a Perilous Journey roles) that was a 6 or less. I followed the play agenda, the fiction, and my principles and introduced the glacial crevasse hazard where the sled was falling in. The Hard Move I made would fall under the rubric of "use a monster, danger, or location move."

This snowballed in a dramatic way. The Elf PC helped save everyone else, (the sled was pulled out of the hazard), but he ultimately fell into the drink and emptyied out in Earthmaw's basement (after a Defy Danger - Strength move resulted in another 6-).

I used the term side trek just for ease of reference, and because it seems to be somewhat tangential to the main story....meaning that if the PC had succeeded and not forced a hard move on your part, he would not have fallen into the river and been swept away.

I also kind of view it as a side trek (in a loose sense) because of practical concerns of play; for instance, what are the other players doing while this is all happening?

This sort of thing isn't a "side quest". This is just the sort of "play to find out" snowballing of events that generates emergent story in Powered By the Apocalypse games. The PCs were going to Earthmaw (a place that was generated on the play map as a result of a 10+ Spout Lore move by this same Elf PC) to Resupply (a move), to attempt to locate some refugee families from the ruined settlement of World's End Bluff, and to hopefully gain audience with the Ancient Blizzard Dragon Averandox (NPC generated as a result of that same Spout Lore move) about some stuff.

GMs in Dungeon World don't prepare metaplot. They make a map with blanks and prepare 1 or 2, what is called Fronts. These are a collection of threats, and ill omens that are there to provide obstacles and dangers to the PCs. They fill their lives with danger and interpose themselves between the PCs and their goals. You make the very low resolution map (again...lots of blanks to be filled out during play) and the Fronts after character creation.

Hopefully that clarifies a bit. Again, I'm just trying to focus here on specific stuff; the play excerpt, the GMing styles, and how "here" to "there" emerges as a result of the play conversation and the varying procedures I outlined. If that doesn't change your analysis/response, then I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow or the next day. If it does, I'll respond to your next post.

It does clarify things a bit, I think.

I think that, in my personal games, campaigns tend to have some kind of central theme to them, or central goal or task. very often this is at least loosely determined prior to the start of the campaign. Not always, but in general. So for example, a campaign may be something like "this is the story of the frontier town of Bastion and its peoples' struggles in a harsh environment" or "this is the story of a group of people, all wronged in some way by the Duke of Westmont, seeking revenge" or something similar. Some can be very specific, others can be very loos. For instance, my current campaign started out as test of 5E by running through Lost Mines of Phandelver. Once we played that pre-published module, and everyone seemed happy with 5E and their character choices, we continued play and the campaign started taking on a much larger scope as they now interacted with a much larger world.

To me that is a GM driven approach....but I don't think that it prevents the players from also driving play. They're free to proceed however they'd like in many ways. I do have enemies in mind, and specific story ideas that I expect to come up...but no preconceived outcomes. How everything plays out very much depends on the players and the choices they make.

In that way, I think it's different than the Fronts system from DW that you've described, but not all that different as it may first seem, I think. DW has a map representing a physical location, with a couple of detailed Fronts and then a bunch of blanks. My campaign could be similarly described....except that the "map" wouldn't be a physical location so much as story options.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Awesome stuff @Gardens & Goblins!

What to call it? This is harder than it seems because it wasn't like designed alongside in particular game. Prior to this set of approaches being formalized in Apocalypse World there really was no name for it. The response a lot of people gave, including John Harper, designer of Blades in the Dark, when Apocalypse World came out was - Isn't that just how you GM? For the groups that independently discovered these techniques it was just how you like play a roleplaying game.

Honestly, it's a bit like the question doing the rounds in academic circles, 'What is a game?'. There's a lot of lengthy debate on the matter. But really, will knowing help us make a better game? Personally I doubt it but hey.

But really, I do get the value in stepping back and attempted to analyse something, to better understand and develop the medium. And part of that is developing an agreed upon terminology so folks can have more agile conversations without having to continuously explain/express what they mean. Responvise Campaign Arbitration/Arbitrator or something then, perhaps? Master of Ceremonies will get me weirder looks among certain peers than I already get!

On one hand it is simulationist, in that it attempts to present a collection of elements under the banner of 'The Campaign' which involves the DM running and maintaining a system while players engage with it - locations are set before hand, narrative elements placed for possible discovery, actions are taken and the events during play are played 'true', with no DM in-game tweaking (soft/hard plays).

On the other hand, that nature of the campaign can change from one session to the next, in response to how players have engaged with system previously. Narrative elements maybe be introduced or removed, Non player characters and forces developed, areas of interest expanded upon & written up as the player's make their approach and so on. Of course, done poorly and the players will feel disconnected from one session to the next as the campaign world morphs beyond recognition. Done well though and play unfolds in response to play, reacting to their choices, their successes and their failures. Often the 'story' is what is told at the end of the session, by the players to each other, based on what just happened - which I personally greatly enjoy listening to when I DM.

The closest comparison I can think of is those screen writers that write for TV series, where they take feedback from each episode or series of episodes and tweak accordingly.

Reactive Episodic DMing. Macro DMing? Campaign DMing?

Eh..

Bob.

I vote we call it 'Bob'.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],

What is important to me in both my war gaming and Apocalypse World style play is that players choose not just whether to engage an opportunity, but also their level of commitment and means by which they pursue it. I want to be able to use that information for whatever ends I have in mind and whatever decisions I make need to be consequential. The fiction is what it is. We follow wherever it leads. If our group sends in allies to handle the problem while we pursue other ends I want the GM to really chew on it and approach it from the standpoint of a curious explorer of the fiction. If we want to exploit the goblin uprising to unseat local leadership the GM should follow our lead and the fiction where it lies. If we want to pursue an alliance with the goblins same thing. If some us support the town and others decide to work with the goblins we'll have a group discussion about it, settle on an approach that works, and then same thing. If we want to attempt to route the goblins towards another of our enemies in hopes they destroy each other same thing. We also reserve the right to pack up our things and abandon or change trajectory at anytime.

By "we" do you here mean the players, the DM, a subset of both, or everyone?

If where the fiction seems to be leading is uncomfortable or uninteresting to them we can talk that stuff out. Using their position to lead us down only the road or roads they want the game to go is not kosher to me.

Again, "them" in the first sentence and "their" in the second - who are "they"?

Any player is welcome to start the same sort of conversation.

That sounds like trouble: if one player finds a fiction boring but another is really into it, who wins?

============================

Beyond that, I'm beginning to think the analytics here are getting far enough down the rabbit hole to have left Mystara and emerge in Hollow World. It's also beginning to sound more and more like some of you get way more intense within your games than anything I've ever been involved in - hell, at the root if it all I'm just looking for a laugh and a good time when I sit down to play or DM one of these games. I keep stats, logs and records, sure; and use them sometimes to analyze what the trends are in what classes/races/etc. people are playing at any given time, what our advancement rate is, etc., etc. But none of us here ever get anywhere near this elaborate in analysing how we play/DM - and I think if we did ever do this it could end up sucking a lot of the fun out of it (similar to my earlier comment regarding analytics and fancystats sucking the fun out of hockey).

So while I'll keep on with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] about style of play I think I'll step back from the [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] - [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] deep analytics at this point...though I will keep reading.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again, "them" in the first sentence and "their" in the second - who are "they"?

They:



Them:

 

[hawkeyefan]

They:

View attachment 83013

We've got one that can see.....

 

[Lanefan]

Whether I would describe your scenario as GM-driven would depend on the details. (Not the in-fiction details. The play-at-the-table details.)

If looking around to see if there's any adventuring that needs doing is about gaining rumours or otherwise collecting information that will help with (say) raids on dungeons or similar outposts, that makes the game seem like a fairly classic sandbox. Which would potentially feed into the sort of "refereed" game that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] have posted about.

OK.

In that case the player is declaring an action in looking for the inn, and is going to signal the intent to the GM: I head to an inn looking for rumours. Once the player has some info, s/he will tackle the dungeon(s) s/he thinks most amenable to being tackled.

But if looking around to see if there's any adventuring that needs doing is about looking for a GM-authored patron offering a GM-authored hook, connecting the PC into some GM-authored trajectory of backstory, then to me that does look like a GM-driven game.

With a DM who halfway knows what she's doing, from the player side what's the functional difference? Player can't tell whether what's learned is a rumour or a hook. Consider this hypothetical exchange:

Situation: party finds itself at a loose end with no immediate mission or adventure on their plate. They send their "face" character (say, a Rogue or Bard type) out into the town to gather information and find out what needs doing. This town is a place they've been to before and they have contacts here; they've also met occasional raiding orc bands in the past off to the east aways.

Player: "I ask around various places - mercenaries' guild, local militia HQ, my old contacts from the Thieves' guild - and find out what's on for adventuring this season."

DM: <rolls some dice, consults some notes> "OK. You get some hits. First off, the mercenaries for sure have something on the boil but they won't say what it is - very secretive.

"The militia have a few things: there's been orc raids - again! - on some of the farms to the east maybe 20-30 miles out [Player: "Sigh - I thought we already dealt with that!"]; there's been some problems in the lakes to the south <a few days travel away> - travellers and caravans being attacked, that sort of thing, from survivor reports they think it's by lizardmen; and we've heard rumours (but nothing confirmed) of something really big being sighted in the air over that old tower near Dumont.

"Your old guild buddies confirm the orc and lizardman raids but throw in some concerns they have about these things somehow maybe being related to each other. They've also heard about some strange activity going on over Dumont way; and they've also got wind that Baron Larchwood <previously-known-of ruler of a nearby city-state similar to this one> has been putting spies about here in town and they'd like to know what he's up to this time.

"After a day's good digging, that's what you get."

Player: "Cool. So there's orcs and-or lizardmen, or spies, or Dumont tower. Got it. Busy place! I'll report back to the party." <the party then eventually either take on one or more of these adventures or move on to a different town>

Now, knowing nothing more about anything (as in theory a player wouldn't know anything more about the workings of the DM's mind), can you tell whether the DM dreamed those adventure ideas up on the spot or whether she had them pre-planned. If you can't tell, then why is anyone worried about anything? The player(s) has(have) gobs of information to work with (and can always seek out more), the game has loads of directions it can go from here, and everything's just rockin' on.

Notice here I've woven in some secrets (the mercenaries won't say what they've got going on) and some plot questions (is there a connection between the orcs and lizardmen or not) and hinted at some previously-hidden backstory (the Thieves guild tossed off a remark about what's the Baron up to "this time", implying this has happened before).

Also notice that while I point out the DM rolls dice and consults notes I make no reference as to whether these actions are for real or for show.

My question here is not whether this is player-driven or DM-driven, but whether it even matters in the slightest?

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

With a DM who halfway knows what she's doing, from the player side what's the functional difference? Player can't tell whether what's learned is a rumour or a hook.

This is something like saying: with a halfway competent card shark, who can tell whether s/he's dealing off the top or the bottom? But to some extent the meaning of the experience depends upon the way in which it is generated.

I think this is part of what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is trying to get at in repeatedly emphasising the significance of motives, expectations, etc. What counts as good faith vs (at the extreme, say) cheating depends heavily on these facts about the participants.

My question here is not whether this is player-driven or DM-driven, but whether it even matters in the slightest?

Well, matters to whom? Presumably not you. But that sort of thing matters to me in respect of the games that I'm part of. And some posters seemed to care when I expressed a preference in the OP.

party finds itself at a loose end with no immediate mission or adventure on their plate.

Just in passing - there is already quite a bit of assumption built into this. For instance, it already presents the PCs as "A-Team"-types who "go on missions" and then take time off between them. I have not GMed a game that has that sort of underlying structure since around 1986.

They send their "face" character (say, a Rogue or Bard type) out into the town to gather information and find out what needs doing. This town is a place they've been to before and they have contacts here; they've also met occasional raiding orc bands in the past off to the east aways.

Player: "I ask around various places - mercenaries' guild, local militia HQ, my old contacts from the Thieves' guild - and find out what's on for adventuring this season."

DM: <rolls some dice, consults some notes> "OK. You get some hits. First off, the mercenaries for sure have something on the boil but they won't say what it is - very secretive.

"The militia have a few things: there's been orc raids - again! - on some of the farms to the east maybe 20-30 miles out [Player: "Sigh - I thought we already dealt with that!"]; there's been some problems in the lakes to the south <a few days travel away> - travellers and caravans being attacked, that sort of thing, from survivor reports they think it's by lizardmen; and we've heard rumours (but nothing confirmed) of something really big being sighted in the air over that old tower near Dumont.

"Your old guild buddies confirm the orc and lizardman raids but throw in some concerns they have about these things somehow maybe being related to each other. They've also heard about some strange activity going on over Dumont way; and they've also got wind that Baron Larchwood <previously-known-of ruler of a nearby city-state similar to this one> has been putting spies about here in town and they'd like to know what he's up to this time.

"After a day's good digging, that's what you get."

Player: "Cool. So there's orcs and-or lizardmen, or spies, or Dumont tower. Got it. Busy place! I'll report back to the party." <the party then eventually either take on one or more of these adventures or move on to a different town>

Now, knowing nothing more about anything (as in theory a player wouldn't know anything more about the workings of the DM's mind), can you tell whether the DM dreamed those adventure ideas up on the spot or whether she had them pre-planned. If you can't tell, then why is anyone worried about anything?

Well, I personally wouldn't be worried because I wouldn't be playing the game.

But if we're asking whether the game just described is player- or GM-driven, I find it very hard to conceive of that as anything but a GM-driven game. It doesn't seem to have the somewhat static, reactive nature of a classic sandbox - which nature is part of what enables the players to drive the play of such a campaign, by choosing which elements of the sandbox to engage.

The player(s) has(have) gobs of information to work with (and can always seek out more), the game has loads of directions it can go from here, and everything's just rockin' on.

The game seems vulnerable to a player deciding that his/her PC is no longer going to be a soldier of fortune, but instead wants to (say) become a local magistrate. It's not even clear what happens if a player wants his/her PC to become leader of the mercenaries' guild, or of the militia, or become advisor and confidant to Baron Larchwood.

 

[Maxperson]

We've got one that can see.....

I really liked that movie.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I personally wouldn't be worried because I wouldn't be playing the game.

But if we're asking whether the game just described is player- or GM-driven, I find it very hard to conceive of that as anything but a GM-driven game. It doesn't seem to have the somewhat static, reactive nature of a classic sandbox - which nature is part of what enables the players to drive the play of such a campaign, by choosing which elements of the sandbox to engage.

So the players being able to choose any of the things the DM brought up is not the players being able to choose which elements of the sandbox to engage? There is also the option for players to just decide to have their PCs become barbarian kings and head north to the barbarian lands. The PCs asked because nothing was on their plate, putting that example into the DM's hands. It doesn't mean that they are constrained to only the DM's ideas.