Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]

Not wanting players to make director stance creative decisions because you do not want to have to make creative judgements of those decisions is absolutely a valid group preference. Trust is not a binary thing. We can trust someone to make a particular sort of decision, but not another. It is possible that we trust the other players to make decisions about their characters' actions, but not about other areas of the fiction. In my own play I trust players to make decisions about elements of the fiction that are deeply connected to their characters, but do not choose to entrust them with decisions about the adversity they are facing in the moment.

I also believe that trust comes with expectations. I trust players to make decisions for their characters, but I expect that they will do so with integrity to their characters. The other players trust me to play the world with integrity, but they also expect that I will follow the rules, follow the fiction, and play to find out. These expectations are powerful because they allow informed decision making. When we play in a principled way we allow others to make principled decisions as well. Continued play builds trust and can lead us to a point where we make contributions and decisions effortlessly. Constructive criticism can be important because it allows us to communicate how our expectations are being met, not being met, or exceeded. This allows us to meaningfully communicate and collaborate.

I would caution that all we are doing when we make decisions about who is making these calls is moving around who we grant credibility. We are not removing creative judgments about the content of the fiction and the contributions we all make to it. Even if we limit the contributions players make to the actions their characters take they are still making creative decisions subject to the creative judgements of all other players. I believe we make these judgements all the time even if we do not directly voice criticism. There is nothing wrong with this.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In my experience, this may be a reasonable approach to running a simulation, but is not all that likely to reliably produce dramatic story.

Just to pick on one, well-known example: it's fairly important to the story of Star Wars that the imperial-wanted droids end up in the house of the one person who is ready to be heir to the Jedi tradition. In terms of fictional contrivances, that involves (i) the landing on a particular side of the planet; (ii) being picked up by the Jawas (and both droids being captured by the same Jawas, despite going different ways); (iii) those Jawas coming to Luke's farm; (iv) the farm happening to need some new droids; (v) the first droid purchased being broken, so that R2D2 can replace it.

None of that can be understood simply from the perspective of the droids, the farm and the Jawas. From an RPG point of view, you can't get it (reliably) from random encounter tables, random reaction tables, random rolls to get lost, random rolls for equipment malfunction, etc.

In RPGing, the analogue is framing situations, and narrating consequencs, so that they speak to the dramatic concerns of the players as expressed via their PCs. This requires knowing what those dramatic concerns are.

Well, there's a big difference between not asking the player at the table during the session, and not knowing anything at all. The players and I work together on backstories and backgrounds. I give them as much freedom as possible, usually only reigning in things that don't work within the world (particularly around things they don't know) or rules, so for the most part I'm just setting boundaries. Sometimes, if appropriate, I add my own elements, like the character who is an orphan and doesn't know anything about their prior family.

In addition, I listen while we're playing. A great many of the story elements I provide, through the goals and history of the NPCs, events, and such, come from ideas and thoughts the players have during the course of the game. The main difference is that instead of allowing them to write the fiction of others themselves, while the game is progressing, I incorporate it into the fiction of others to show up later in the game. It ties them into the story very well, although most of the time they don't pick up on the fact that many of the ideas come from them. Another reason I use this approach is that it makes it more likely that they'll be able to unravel the various mysteries and schemes since they are exactly the sort of things that they would come up with.

In your Star Wars example, there is basically one thing that has to happen - the droids need to get to Luke. It could be as simple as the pod crashing on their farm. Or it can be as complex as the movie.

None of that requires knowing the motivations or the dramatic concerns of the players. We don't know the motivations of the droids, other than R2 is on a mission. All we know about the jawas is that they collect, repair, and sell droids among other things. Owen's motivation is to keep the farm running and the family fed. Luke's motivation at this point has nothing to do with the rest of his story.

In an RPG context one could see this all as a railroad, and Luke's story in particular. The DM holds out a carrot, "Hey, you don't have to go to the university to be with your friends, you can hang out with this crazy hermit and save the world." He even pushes it with stories of the father he never met.

Luke declines. "Yeah, right, I think I'll stick with trying to get Uncle Owen to let me go to the university."

So the DM insists - "The stormtroopers inexplicably kill his aunt and uncle, who are the type that probably told the stormtroopers that they were happy to have the droids as soon as my nephew gets back with them."

In fact, much (most) of the Star Wars story arc has little to do with any but the most basic character motivations. At least anything of depth. Leia must try to save the rebels and destroy the empire. Because she's the princess, obviously. Obi-Wan is somehow willing to be drawn into all of this, and Luke's motivation is one of revenge, primarily. Han is just in it for the money, then gets stuck with them because they can't escape the tractor beam. Chewie goes with Han, and R2 and 3PO are there because they're Luke's now.

Act 1: Establish the characters and get them together.
Act 2: Get captured by tractor beam while attempting to find the Princess. Free the Princess and escape.
Act 3: Destroy the Death Star.

The biggest character development of the movie was Han returning to save Luke. It was brushed off with comedy, but it was a moment of growth.

I'll also point out that when the original Star Wars was released, Luke was not the Jedi heir, he was just another guy. At that point in the saga literally anybody could be Obi-Wan's padawan. It wasn't until George Lucas wrote The Empire Strikes Back that family connections were made.

The reality is, movies and TV series typically function more like what I'm used to - the DM (director, writer) provides the world, and the characters react to it. The DM (or audience) knows the characters by their actions and what they say, not by what's going on in their head. There are exceptions, of course.

On the other hand, novels typically have a lot of "in-the-character's head" experiences. We often get a much clearer understanding of who they are and what motivates them. None of that is necessary for the rest of the world to respond. The world and the activities in it continue no matter what the protagonist is thinking.

Naturally, in the real world, the world also has no idea what's going on in anybody's head. It's not thinking - hey a hurricane here would make an interesting event for the characters to overcome. And what about a thug botching a hit job and killing an innocent bystander? That would fit with this person's story particularly well. That's just not the way it works.

And yet, there are certain people that make something more of their life. That have a story worth telling. By default, the PCs have a very high likelihood of being those people. And the players can increase their likelihood of that by paying attention to the hooks the DM throws their way. Because they are typically interested in an interesting story too.

A certain type of story, or feel, might be more likely using a certain game or rule system, and a certain approach to running the game. For me, a person who likes things to have a certain internal consistency, and loves to see how the players and their characters will tackle whatever challenge or puzzle that comes their way, a more traditional division between DM and players works well.

For others, giving the players more freedom in developing the world around them, and the stories of others, provides for a different and preferred experience. I've run dozens of games in the past, particularly up through the early '90s. I admit that for many of them they were a diversion, something different for us. But ultimately we all agreed that we liked our regular AD&D game and approach better. The games that gave the players the most freedom to control events and things outside of their character, the less they liked it. I'm not implying at all that they are bad games, or that it's not a valid approach. It just didn't work well for us.

I do agree that a good DM will tie (at least some) of the events and actions of NPCs and such into the story threads. I do that all the time. The more that you utilize the players own ideas and the character motivations, the more involved they will be in the story. But I don't think it's essential (think James Bond), nor do I think you have to break immersion in the middle of the game to get it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sorry to chop up your post like that, but you make a point about SCs, that only the players roll, in essence, and go on to talk about weak spots. In some scenarios, I've found the NPCs just being part of the 'framing' of the challenges a weakness, at times I wanted to have an NPC that opposed or monkeywrenched what the players were doing. In one case I actually ended up creating an NPC with specific abilities that could be triggered to mess with the challenge, exception-based design to the rescue yet again (it was almost as facile a 'solution' as DM Empowerment, that way).
The Skill Challenge framework is easy to adapt to any game with otherwise straightforward/binary skill checks, but it'd be nice if it had more was of incorporating an opposing side (or interfering 3rd parties, I suppose) into the resolution. Yet, in d20, specifically, I personally find the most obvious mechanism, opposed checks, to be problematic, ie 'too swingy.'

Most contested rolls in my campaign are against passive skills. For example a grapple attempt is mostly going to be against the creature's passive score unless they will use their reaction to contest it actively (we handle reactions a bit differently).

The circumstances also play a big part, depending on what the players describe their characters doing, combined with the possible counters that the target has. Since it's based (at least in part) on passive skills with modifiers, it's much less swingy.

In general, if I feel I have to start designing encounters to oppose specific approaches and tactics by the PCs, then there's probably something amiss in the rules. There should be more than one counter to a given tactic.

I've also been considering (quite strongly) about going to a 2d10 replacement for the d20. I like the bell curve better, and it would allow two levels of advantage/disadvantage as well (one extra die, two extra dice). The main question is whether my players are too attached to their d20s...

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]

I want to thank you for your continued participation and thoughtful analysis.

 

[pemerton]

I actually did not want to evaluate the player's use of the Plot Point

Auditing a player on this level is no fun at all for me. I can organically ascertain the response of NPC's given I know their (NPCs) motivations/limitations and I can determine the success of a plan carried out by a character/party through die mechanic BUT to tell a player your 'narration sucks' is just a line I'd rather not cross.

With respect to this, I agree with [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]; including that, in a creative endeavour like RPGing, there's no avoiding some sort of judgements of others' creative efforts, even if it's only keeping one's groan at the GM's latest contrivance an inward one, or a rolled eye to another player that the GM doesn't see.

I remember some within the group did not want to resolve the situation via combat, it would have got messy, politically within the city, as it would have predictably resulted in negative repercussions for the party within the main storyline.

This raised another question in my mind: what if the player had just declared, speaking as his PC, "I attack the boss!" Would the rest of the table have vetoed that too?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]

I want to thank you for your continued participation and thoughtful analysis.

Thanks! I try.

These discussions have both really expanded and refocused my own games. I also realized today that my responses show in another way why I prefer the way I play - many of my responses are rewritten multiple times (often 4 or 5) with completely different answers. Clearly I do better when I have a chance to think things through a bit more than off the cuff.

The same thing applies when DMing - I can improvise certain things well, but I do much, much better if I have a lot to draw on first, which is all of the background and history I already have in the campaign. Obviously that has a big impact on what styles and approaches are comfortable.

But I also think it's important to be as good as I can as a DM. So playing to my strengths certainly makes sense, especially since our games are 3-4 hours once/week now, rather than the old 6-8+ hours multiple times a week. You've got to make it count.

 

[Campbell]

Sure, all three of those points are how people have been playing D&D for decades - if you couldn't find ways to cope with that you left the hobby or moved on to more obscure niche RPGs, and different chambers with different echos, like the Forge (thus Actor Stance, rather than just playing your character).

So there's this divide in attitude and perception that renders various aspects of RPGs, even when darn near universal, all-consuming to one side and/or utterly repugnant to the other, and a preference here or style there gets blown up into an irreconcilable/inconceivable gulf.

I think directly correlating just playing your character to actor stance involves a pretty narrow conception of what playing your character means and the various ways to approach roleplaying games.

I can play my character by making decisions for my character based on pursuing the objectives of the game whether stated or not. This is the way D&D was mostly originally played. This is pawn stance play.

I can play my character by making decisions for my character based on on my conception of my character's knowledge, motivation, drives, intuitions, and goals. This is actor stance play.

I can play my character by making decisions for my character based on my desires for where the narrative should go and what I believe would be best "for the story". This is author stance play.

I can play my character while describing their inner thoughts, things that go unsaid, describing their actions in visual terms, describing dialog in broad strokes, and describing their intent. I can also talk about their connections to the fiction, say how they view the situation, and provide gaps for other players to play off of. This is director stance play.

No matter the stance you are still playing your character and making decisions for them.

I think talking in terms of stance can be a fruitful to tease out player motivations and play techniques. However, there are significant issues with the stance model that I believe can lead us to draw the wrong conclusions about Actual Play. Time to put my beefs out on open display.

• It can often lead to conversations where we talk around issues of player motivations and play techniques instead of directly addressing them in a real way.
• It assumes that we are in a particular stance at any moment and that the stances are mutually exclusive. Actual motivations and human behavior are far more complex than all that. We actually make decisions based on a multitude of considerations that we actively prioritize. We also often justify our decisions after the fact.
• It can serve to limit our discussions of player motivations to the 3 primary stances: actor, author, pawn. It ignores social considerations, aesthetic considerations, and many other factors. Additionally distinctions are not normally made within the particular primary stance. Am I pursuing the objectives of the game because I am motivated by challenge, achievement, status, power to affect the game world, or completion? Is it a combination of these things?
• Director stance depicts a set of techniques, not player motives. These techniques are overly broad. Some instances may be acceptable where others may not. It basically describes any instance where you are not using first person description.

 

[pemerton]

In your Star Wars example, there is basically one thing that has to happen - the droids need to get to Luke. It could be as simple as the pod crashing on their farm. Or it can be as complex as the movie.

None of that requires knowing the motivations or the dramatic concerns of the players. We don't know the motivations of the droids, other than R2 is on a mission. All we know about the jawas is that they collect, repair, and sell droids among other things. Owen's motivation is to keep the farm running and the family fed. Luke's motivation at this point has nothing to do with the rest of his story.

<snip>

In an RPG context one could see this all as a railroad, and Luke's story in particular.

<snip>

when the original Star Wars was released, Luke was not the Jedi heir, he was just another guy. At that point in the saga literally anybody could be Obi-Wan's padawan.

<snip>

The reality is, movies and TV series typically function more like what I'm used to - the DM (director, writer) provides the world, and the characters react to it.

The more that you utilize the players own ideas and the character motivations, the more involved they will be in the story. But I don't think it's essential <snippage> to break immersion in the middle of the game to get it.

There is a lot going on here. I don't know that I'll respond sensibly to all of it, but will try to convey some of the thoughts I had.

(1) Not necessary to break immersion: I don't think that's a significant object of dispute. But, as per the disussion upthread between [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION], [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and me, what breaks immesion vs what preseves immersion can be rather variable. As I said in a few posts, I find that depending up on the GM as sole mediator of the gameworld, so that players never (as their PCs) have their own perceptions/intuitions/understandings to rely upon, quite immersion breaking. (Unless the PC is literally meant to be an alien in the fictional world.)

(2) Anyone could have been Obi-Wan's apprentice: Luke's name is Skywalker; his father was a great pilot and a great Jedi who left him a lightsabre as an heirloom; his father was killed by Darth Vader. These are the things that make Luke the appropriate heir to the Jedi tradition, and cast him in dramatic opposition to Vader and the Empire. (In a very different way from Leia, whose opposition is political, not personal/spiritual in the same way, at least before the Death Star is used to blow up Alderaan.)

(3) Star Wars as a railroad: as with the discussion, way upthread, of LotR, we can't tell simply from a recount of the fiction whether or not an episode of RPGing was a railroad. But whether or not it is a railroad, my point is that you are not going to get a story in which the droids carrying a message for Obi Wan Kenobi end up, by coincidence as it were, in the hands of the prospective heir to Obi Wan, simply via random determination of encounters, droid malfunctions etc.

There are multiple alternatives to random determination: railroading is one; what I have been referring to as player-driven RPGing is another.

But consider using (say) the Stormtrooper massacre at the farm as a framing device. I think it would be harsh for a GM to just do that willy-nilly! It makes sense, rather, as the consequence of a failure. (Say, a failed Navigation roll to travel from Obi-Wan's house back to the farm, having realised the threat posed by the Empire's hunt for the droids.) But to know that that would be an appropriate consequence for failure, one needs to understand what is at stake for the player in declaring that action for his/her PC. This is what I'm saying I couldn't judge without knowing what is motivating the action declaration, which was the trigger for this particular discussion.

(4) The writer provides the world and the characters react to it: the writer of a fiction is a person in the real world; the characters exist only in imagination. So the two can never interact.

The writing of a fiction includes the writing of the actions of persons who are elements within that fiction. The question about RPGing is who gets to write which bits, according to what sorts of procedures. Eg does the GM frame Luke (as a PC) into a confrontation with the Empire because the GM wants to run an Empire-oriented game, or the table as a whole does, or the player has written something about opposition into the Empire into the PC's backstory, etc.

The same sorts of considerations apply to the farm massacre. Who wrote in these family members of Luke the PC? Is the killing off of the farm providing the player/PC with something that s/he wanted (freedom from farming) though at a high cost (death of family members)? Or is it undesired through-and-through?

These are all questions about authorship, not about in-fiction events.

 

[pemerton]

I think directly correlating just playing your character to actor stance involves a pretty narrow conception of what playing your character means and the various ways to approach roleplaying games.

Agreed.

Actual motivations and human behavior are far more complex than all that. We actually make decisions based on a multitude of considerations that we actively prioritize. We also often justify our decisions after the fact.

I've often made the point, over many years and many thread, that "stance" is a logical notion, not a psychological one. There is no particular correlation between the stance in which an episode of play (by a player of his/her PC) occurs, and the pschological state, motivations, experiences etc of that player.

My poster child for this is the play of a relgious character, which - to be played in character - requires specifying things about the constraints of morality, the dictates of the gods, etc, all of which are - from the technical point of view - director stance.

 

[pemerton]

Unless the advisor was rendered retarded(unconscious), he was capable(still had hit points) of attempting mitigation.

The advisor can perform whatever actions he wants. But - as a question of framing or adjudication - they won't have any effect.

The inability of those actions to affect the attitude of the Baron (towards both advisor and PCs) has been established by the players' victory in the skill challenge. That's what follows from winning the challenge. It establishes finality.

I'm unclear on something:
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] seems to suggest that this particular challenge succeeding and revealing the advisor's secrets is but step one in what could then become an ongoing series of challenges as the advisor tries to mitigate his losses and save his own bacon.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] however seems to suggest that this particular challenge succeeding means the advisor's bacon is already cooked and he can do nothing further to bail himself out.

My question for pemerton is what's wrong with Maxperson's approach here?

To me, that's llike the following scenario:

* The group is playing classic dungeon-crawling D&D.

* The players come up with a plan to defeat the trolls in room 71 and steal their treasure. Their plan is based on good intelligence about the vulnerability of trolls to fire. Their knowledge of the treasure is the result of casting Contact Other Planes and the various rolls coming up successfully.

* The PCs implement said plan, and defeat the trolls. They take the gold pieces out of the dungeon.

* For a lark (or perhaps vindictively?), the GM decides, retrospectively, that the gold was really an extended-duration Fool's Gold effect, and overnight all the PCs hard-won gp turn into iron. Which robs them of both treasure and XP.​

What's wrong with that? It's the GM cheating the players out of their victory by abusing his/her supposed authority over the content of the shared fiction.

Likewise in my case.

Why doesn't the advisor in effect get to mount his own skill challenge to see how well - if at all - he can limit the damage after being outed?

There's no such thing. All the advisor's efforts are wrapped up in the skill challenge that was resolved. The players won, and that settles those elements of the fiction.

On a broader scale, why pin the entire resolution of what seems like a very interesting scenario on the outcome of just one all-or-nothing challenge

Why have finality to anything? Why not let every combat go on for ever? Have every monster spring back to life because the gods will it so?

Or to look at it another way: you're asking, why pin the entire resolution on X? Well, it has to be pinned on something? So why not X? I mean, that's how the game works.

The episode took over an hour of play at the table. It was fun; it was done. The matter was resolved. The players won. They defeated their nemesis socially; in the next session, they went on to defeat him in combat. In subsequent sessions they defeated his army.

There's nothing wrong with the players winning. I can come up with plenty of new material to challenge them, without rewriting the outcomes of action resolution to rob them of their victories.

Likewise if the players lose, they lose. No retries. The game moves on. We don't need to keep replaying the same scene.