Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Lanefan]

Here's my slight contention with your example: In Burning Wheel all our interests are focused on contesting the veracity of player character beliefs at all times and following the fiction where it leads. When the GM presents the consequences for a failed roll they should do so with an eye towards player character beliefs in order to set up future conflicts. When you include consequences that have nothing to do with player character beliefs it my sincerely held belief that you are GMing the game in bad faith. The player would be justified in raising the issue.

If this is in fact how BW is supposed to be run it's small wonder I won't go near it: it bakes in the attitude that the PCs are special snowflakes and that everything in the game world revolves around them and them alone.

The PCs in any world are but a very few of a much larger dynamic population, some of whom are and always will be bigger fish than the PCs are...just like we here in this discussion are but a very few of a much larger ENWorld community, some of whom are much bigger fish than we are.

Lan-"the best thing about special snowflakes is that they melt just the same as all the other snowflakes when spring comes"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

b) The resolution mechanics and play procedures are all transparent and/or player-facing. Take the following scenario:

* I deploy a "Use a Location Move" and introduce an avalanche into the fiction as a part of a complication. Now the players have imminent peril that they have to deal with.

Question: in the run of play does your GM narration of this sound like this:

"I'm deploying a Use a Location Move here - you hear a rumble above as a sudden avalanche sweeps down the mountain toward you!"

or this:

"As you approach the cavern you hear a rumble above as a sudden avalanche sweeps down the mountain toward you!"

In other words, do the players know the actual "moves" you're using or do they just hear the results?

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

Which, in all fairness, neither of you fully know.

Agreed. I'm trying to be as fair and honest as I can in response to what you're posting.

 

[pemerton]

the DM needs to know what those changes are so as to be able to easily and smoothly respond when and if a PC does look at it again.

I don't agree with need here.

I posted an example upthread - the Underdark one. I didn't work out those changes in advance, or by managing stuff "behind the screen". When the players returned to the Underdark, I narrated the changes that seemed to make sense given (i) what had already been established about the duergar, drow, etc, and (ii) what had happened in the game in the meantime.

 

[Lanefan]

Being free to write yourself out of the game isn't a way of being free to drive the game in your preferred direction. It's a clear limit on that!

So what's the alternative? If a player wants to try to set her PC up as the local magistrate does that imply the whole party is by default expected to join in, whether they want to or not and whether or not there's more pressing things seeking their swordly attention? I sure hope not.

Lan-"you can do what you like, Ms. Magistrate-to-be; the rest of us are going out to raid that Orc village we found last trip - see ya when we get back!"-efan

 

[Campbell]

Question: in the run of play does your GM narration of this sound like this:

"I'm deploying a Use a Location Move here - you hear a rumble above as a sudden avalanche sweeps down the mountain toward you!"

or this:

"As you approach the cavern you hear a rumble above as a sudden avalanche sweeps down the mountain toward you!"

In other words, do the players know the actual "moves" you're using or do they just hear the results?

Lanefan

It's like the second. We want player interest to be focused on what's happening right now in the fiction, not the vagaries of GM technique. That's the space they play in. Our principles here are:

Make your move, but misdirect
Make your move, but never speak its name

The post I made upthread, covering the technique behind the use of soft and hard moves, goes into more detail.

 

[pemerton]

The DM can't put them there as potential adventures; the players can't put them there as potential adventures (true if the DM is <rightfully> given purview over the content of the game world), and my problem is I can't think of anyone else who can.

The GM can put them there in response to a signal sent by the players. As in my example of the player whose PC's goal is to seek vengeance upon the lizardfolk for destroying his family's farm; and who finds - via the fiction that the GM narrates (eg word from the militia HQ and mercenaries' guild) - that the PC must choose between defending the farms against the orcs or leading a raid on the lizardmen with the other defenders of the tower.

what if any mechanic did you use to determine if, when, how, and by what the party was interrupted or threatened during their 18-month quasi-rest in a ruined tower?

I mean come on, it's a ruined tower - if nothing else there had to be at least one or two adventuring parties wander through during that time, looking for the loots and some heads to bust!

Lanefan

In your world, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], are there no other adventuring parties out there? I don't mean ones that actually get played, I mean off-screen ones that might take on an adventure the played party ignores with consequences of such adventuring (if relevant) made apparent later to the PCs; and-or ones that might literally or figuratively compete with the PCs for the same resources e.g. two parties are after the same McGuffin at the same time. (in your example, what if the dark naga had several charmed operatives all out seeking blood, each unknown to the others, with all the reward going to whoever got back with some first?)

I think I posted about this upthread. The mechanic that determines this is narration of consequences for failure; and also potentially as an element of framing.

For instance, when the players failed an orienteering check to navigate out of the Bright Desert to the ruined tower (which is in the Abor-Alz), I narrated, as a consequence of their failure, that when they arrived at the first pool at the hill's edge (where a stream collects in the rocks, before running down into the desert sands) they found it had been fouled. Investigation revealed it had been fouled by an elf. This directly addressed the Belief of the elf PC (who was leading the party out of the desert) that he would Always keep the Elven ways.

The PCs chased this spiteful elf, and there were various other events involving him, mostly as an element of framing (eg when the PCs arrived at the tower, someone had recently filled the well with rubble - the elf, of course!; and after the PCs failed to find the mace in the ruined tower, the player of the mage PC said "Of course, the mace is going to be in the hands of that elf" - which it was).

It's deliberate on the part of the GM, to maintain the pressure on the players (via their PCs) and hence force them to make hard choices in order to try have their PCs achieve their goals.

If this is in fact how BW is supposed to be run it's small wonder I won't go near it: it bakes in the attitude that the PCs are special snowflakes and that everything in the game world revolves around them and them alone.

The PCs in any world are but a very few of a much larger dynamic population, some of whom are and always will be bigger fish than the PCs are

I wouldn't agree with this - I would say that, again, it involves a category error. The game bakes in the attitude that the players are important - they are here, with the GM, to play a game - and the shared fiction that is the focus of that gaming revolves around the doings of their PCs.

That does not preclude their being "bigger fish" - examples that have already come up in this thread include the balrog-possessed brother, the dark naga, the tower-owning leader of the sorcerous cabal, the Gynarch of Hardby, and (I think he's been mentioned) the abbot Bernard the Holy who is in Hardby to officiate at the Gynarch's wedding to the cabal leader. There are other "bigger fish", too, whom I haven't mentioned yet (eg the Evlish sea captain Eltan, who tried to return the Princess to her mother the Queen of Celene after rescuing her and her friends in the Woolly Bay; and Wassal, the leader of the Bright Desert tribesman who took some of the PCs captive before sending them out into the desert so as to be rid of their curse).

But those bigger fish figure in the events of the campaign as part of a context centred on the doings and the aspirations of the PCs; much like in most other forms of serial fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

They're questions about actual experiences at a table of RPGers; about actual processes for introducing content into the shared fiction, and the results of those processes. When we look at those things, as articulated by various posters in this thread, we can see that the differences are not limited to set-up.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has told me several things about his game: (i) there are periods where the PCs (and thereby the players) are at a "loose end", ie have no inherent motivations that keep the game moving;

Happens now and then, almost always when there's no overarching backstory for them to be or get involved with.

(ii) that one important way (maybe the principal way?) of reactivating the game in those periods is for the players (via their PCs visiting the militia HQ or whatever) to learn, from the GM, what story elements and events are available for them to engage with (eg orcs raiding the farmsteads);

What else would they logically do?

(iii) that those plot elements are authored by the GM, who is - among other things - doing behind-the-scenes management of backstory, to ensure a "living, breathing" world;

DM has control over game-world content, right? If yes, then of course the various adventuring possibilities (whether actual plot elements or just random head-bashing) are going to come from the DM.

(iv) that in various circumstances where the players establish and pursue goals for their PCs that don't fit with those GM-authored story elements, the PC has to leave the party and become a NPC;

Not quite. If the players establish and pursue goals for the PCs as a party then that's what I DM. But if an individual character sets up a goal that doesn't for whatever reason involve the rest of the party, I'm going to DM what remains of the main party and we'll sort out the individual some other time. Also, a retired PC remains a PC as long as its player is still in the game.

(v) that the players might succeed at a check, yet find the result overall inimical to what they wanted (eg they succeed in helping the baron, but it turns out the baron is evil).

And this one is something I won't change: success on a small scale does not automatically mean success on a large scale.

A further thing has not, I think, been expressly stated, but is strongly implied by what Lanefan has posted: namely, (vi) that in narrating the consequences of failure, the GM's focus is on the internal logic of the gameworld (which will include backstory that is secret to the players), not on the goals, aspirations etc of the PCs (and thereby of the players).

Question: you often make a big deal out of "narrating the consequences of failure", as if it's any different than any other narration I do. And again it's dependent on scale. If they fail (or succeed) at something minor e.g. opening a locked door the narration will reflect that. If they fail (or succeed) at something on a larger scale e.g. they kill the Emperor of a neighbouring realm the narration will reflect that. However, the thing to keep in mind is that success is not always success (see the evil Baron example) and failure is not always failure (Baron example only this time they failed to get him on the throne).

There are other aspects of Lanefan's game that have come out in this (and other) threads, like the multiple competing parties, and the player-vs-player elements, that don't seem to be GM-driven. If [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] were to elaborate on how those sorts of things interact with (i) to (vi) above, I would read those posts with interest.

The interaction you speak of is minimal at best. Usually (but not always) if there's to be party infighting it grinds the actual adventuring to a halt (sometimes giving BBEGs a bit longer to pursue their dastardly plans); and the multiple parties aren't necessarily competing, though the actions of one can certainly influence the surroundings of another.

Given that Lanefan's game runs with 9-year campaigns for (I believe) multiple interacting parties, I'm guessing that those players enjoy it. I think that Lanefan enjoys it too - he posts with candour, with enthusiasm, and with witty signature sign-offs.

Thanks for that.

Lan-"if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't do it"-efan

 

[pemerton]

If a player wants to try to set her PC up as the local magistrate does that imply the whole party is by default expected to join in, whether they want to or not and whether or not there's more pressing things seeking their swordly attention?

Well, in the sort of game I run it's my job to frame the PCs into situations where the various aspirations of the PCs intersect.

This is why the consequence of a failed check to find the mace in the ruined tower is the discovery of cursed arrows apparently made by the brother before he was possessed: this relates (A) to the goals of the mage to (i) find his mace (he didn't) and (ii) redeem his brother (maybe he's irredeemable); (b) to the goal of the wizard/assassin to get revenge on her former master, who - it has turned out - was the brother while balrog-possessed (if the brother was evil all along, then the mage PC might have to help her take down his brother rather than try and redeem him); (C) to the intention of the elven ronin to always keep the elven ways (how can he be true to the elven ways if he doesn't pursue justice against the one who crafted the arrow that slew his master?).

That single consequence interweaves the threads of three PCs.

The only time I ever had a PC seeking a magistracy was 20-odd years ago in a RM game. RM doesn't have formal mechanics for signalling PC aspriations; that's done informally.

The game (at that point of its development) was about politics, both literal and among the magi. One of the PCs was working for Vecna (in this campaign an immortal Suel wizard whom the PCs woke from a long sleep, not a lich or a god). Vecna saw the Great Kingdom as a potential successor to the Suel Imperium; as part of that he was cooperating in the conquest of Rel Astra, which was the hometown of two of the PCs (both magi). The Vecna-serving PC secured the cooperation of the other PC by ensuring that, in return for helping with the conquest, he would be given a magistracy (and also a house: he had lost his house, as well as all his social dignity and hence prospects of becoming a magistrate through normal means, after he couldn't pay his rent because he had spent all his money on magic-enhancing drugs).

This was another case of me managing the backstory and framing in such a way as to interweave the aspirations of the various PCs via framing and narration of consequences.

 

[Lanefan]

The GM deciding that the options on offer are orcs, lizardmen, mercenaries or the dak tower, though - so that pursuing other goals is tantamount to retiring the character

Sigh...third time at least I've had to point this out:

Different goals as a party are fine and will be DMed*. Different goals as an individual PC that the rest of the party don't won't or can't follow get you retired.

* - unless it involves things like game-world economic structures, buy-low-sell-high, compound interest, and corporate greed; in which case someone else can DM it because I won't.

Lan- greed, for lack of a better word, is still greed"-efan