Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Lanefan]

Ah. I see we've entered into the realm of quantum roleplaying!

So...we're talking about Schroedinger's brother here?

 

[pemerton]

Here's just one excerpt, from p 87 of Gygax's DMG, under the heading "Setting things in motion":

Set up the hamlet or village where the action will commence with the player characters entering and interacting with the local population. . . . When they arrive, you will be ready to take on the persona of the settlement as a whole, as well as that of each individual therein. . . . The players will quickly learn who is who and what is going on - perhaps at the loss of a few coins. Having handled this, their characters will be equipped as well as circumstances will allow and will be ready for their bold journey into the dangerous place where treasure abounds and monsters lurk.​

To me, this makes it pretty clear that what sets things into motion is the arrival of the PCs. The players drive the action (though in this case by interacting with the elements of the GM's sandbox, rather than by the GM framing them into situations that engage their PCs beliefs/goals/aspirations etc).

Yes, but what is set in motion by their arrival was pre-determined by the DM who "Set up the hamlet or village where the action will commence...". Part of that set up is determining the NPC motivations, plots, secrets, etc., virtually all of which will be unknown to the players/PCs before they arrive. Many of those things may never be discovered, yet still have influence on the PCs.

It seems to me that the what which is set in motion is something like the Village of Hommlet (not to be confused with the Hamlet of Viloge, I guess) described by Gygax in T1.

If you have a read of T1, you will see that the village has a "persona" as well as individuals with their personae; but it is not going to move on its own. Without the PCs it is a largely static situation - there are spies for Verbobonc, spies for the Temple of Elemental Evil, prospective henchmen and hirelings, etc - but there is nothing written in the situation about how it will change in the absence of the PCs.

This is quite different from a situation in which NPCs have their own character arcs (as [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] said and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] seemed to agree with). And it's quite different from a situation in which the world is in motion on its own, and will change fundamentally in the absence of actions by the PCs. Unsurprisingly, though, it's fairly similar to the Keep in B2.

In literary/film terms, the logic of T1 seems to be similar to that of many Vance stories, some westerns, some Arthurian-type stories of wandering knights - the situation is static but contains within it the seeds of its own evolution (or destruction), but is waiting for some outsiders who will enter into the situation and upset things.

And that's why I don't think these examples, or Gygax's advice in his DMG on how to create them, are consistent with the claim that traditional D&D is fundamentally GM-driven. To reiterate: these Gygaxian starting settings will not enter into motion on their own. They have no inherent or self-moving "plots". I've never use Hommlet, but the same properties of B2 mean that I've been able to use it more than once as a backdrop for the sort of game I GM, simply by adding in a few embellishments that link some of the pivotal characters (eg the priest of chaos, the castellan, etc) into the concerns of the PCs and their established trajectory of play.

Whereas Speaker in Dreams (to pick another example of a published module about an urban setting) is quite different. It does have its own internal dynamic; it is in motion independently of the PCs. And that's why I've never used Speaker in Dreams as such, but have only taken bits and pieces out of it (eg the cultists) to repurpose for my game.

EDITED to include reply to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]:

This is one option

<snip>

The other primary (and I think more traditional) option is the DM drives the action by making it clear there's an adventure out there that needs doing.

We agree that there are different approaches here.

But on the issue of "tradition": I think that Gygax is a pretty authoritative articulator of theD&D tradition! And the sort of set-up he talks about is found not only in published modules like T1 and B2 but also fits with accounts of dungon and world design that I'm familiar with in the magazines from aroudn the same time (late 70s/early 80s).

That's not to deny that the GM-driven adventure also exists from an early stage in the hobby. But I don't think that it has any sort of exclusive claim on "tradition". And I would say it's not until the mid-to-late 80s that it becomes near-universal.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

If you have a read of T1, you will see that the village has a "persona" as well as individuals with their personae; but it is not going to move on its own. Without the PCs it is a largely static situation - there are spies for Verbobonc, spies for the Temple of Elemental Evil, prospective henchmen and hirelings, etc - but there is nothing written in the situation about how it will change in the absence of the PCs.

That's one way to do it and a quality of the system you've described.

The great thing about D&D and pen & paper RPGs in general is they really make great case for rapid prototyping in game design. We can quickly and readily develop and test a system to explore and express different sources of fun.

In our last fantasy campaign, we assigned a table of events for each key force within the campaign and used it to simulate events/changes periodically. (Otherwise the events/change were decided on by the DM running the world at the time, based on their understanding of the 'character' of the force - much like playing an NPC - again periodically.)

Personally, we used Birthright's domain-turns as our time frame, with four major event/changes being checked a year but we've tried it on a day by day/week/month basis when running campaigns focusing on a more central local.

 

[Maxperson]

You won't believe how happy it makes me to give you some XP

LOL I'm not certain how to take that!

 

[Lanefan]

It seems to me that the what which is set in motion is something like the Village of Hommlet (not to be confused with the Hamlet of Viloge, I guess) described by Gygax in T1.

If you have a read of T1, you will see that the village has a "persona" as well as individuals with their personae; but it is not going to move on its own. Without the PCs it is a largely static situation - there are spies for Verbobonc, spies for the Temple of Elemental Evil, prospective henchmen and hirelings, etc - but there is nothing written in the situation about how it will change in the absence of the PCs.

Which to me is a mistake of omission.

All the set-up would better be presented as a snapshot of how things are when the PCs first arrive (or the game starts, whichever). There should then be at least passing mention of how things will likely develop over the next few days/weeks/months if left uninterrupted; or failing that some sort of advice to the DM as to how to move the village forward.

This is quite different from a situation in which NPCs have their own character arcs (as [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] said and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] seemed to agree with). And it's quite different from a situation in which the world is in motion on its own, and will change fundamentally in the absence of actions by the PCs. Unsurprisingly, though, it's fairly similar to the Keep in B2.

The difference being that in B2 the Keep is somewhat secondary to the Caves of Chaos nearby, while in Hommlet the village itself is a large part of the adventure.

And that's why I don't think these examples, or Gygax's advice in his DMG on how to create them, are consistent with the claim that traditional D&D is fundamentally GM-driven. To reiterate: these Gygaxian starting settings will not enter into motion on their own. They have no inherent or self-moving "plots". I've never use Hommlet, but the same properties of B2 mean that I've been able to use it more than once as a backdrop for the sort of game I GM, simply by adding in a few embellishments that link some of the pivotal characters (eg the priest of chaos, the castellan, etc) into the concerns of the PCs and their established trajectory of play.

In the Keep a self-moving plot isn't all that necessary, though you could put one (or more) in if desired, as the Keep on the whole is more scenery than scene. In Hommlet I'd say it's nearly essential: that place is a centre-stage powderkeg, and might easily set itself off if the PCs don't do so first. However, in either one you can easily put in a self-moving plot that the PCs might brush against now but could in theory become much more relevant later: in other words, a breadcrumb.

That said, both B1 and T1 are pretty early examples of module-writing. If you look at a later example - B10 - that thing has or could have (and I would say should have) self-moving plots and stories all over the place. In fact maybe that's why I find it difficult to run: by the time the PCs interact with a given element it might bear little or no resemblance to what's written as it's developed so much by the time the PCs get there, and so I'm constantly having to adjust for this.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I have no idea whatsoever how or why a table would frame itself into being anywhere near a tarrasque, but on a smaller scale a table might put itself into an adventure...a cave, say, that has had a bad reputation among the locals for years which has got at least some of the PCs curious as to why...so they explore the cave. One of the players comes up with the idea of the cave being the lair of a dragon some time ago, but as far as anyone knows it hasn't been seen for well over a century.

This is not too different from how I started my Cortex Fantasy game - the players provide the framing/context for their PCs.

So they explore the cave(s), building encounters as they go...and eventually get to the end. At first glance it seems empty. Then someone frames a ghostly dragon appearing out of the darkness, and away we go.

But I don't think this will work very well. The move from general context to detailed challenge is a pretty crucial one.

Upthread I mentioned the "Czege principle", and it seems to be fully enlivened in your example: no player is going to turn the corner and get a shock, for instance, that here is the naga they've heard whispers of. No player is going to fail a check and discover, with a shock, a ring bearing their family's crest in the naga's treasure pile. Etc.

In a game based around party play, and in which it is expected that single situations will engage, shock, instigate action, across mulitple players at the table, I think there is good reason to have someone who is independent of those concerns - a GM - to manage all this content introduction.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Which to me is a mistake of omission.

To be fair, we're talking about a system document that was authored 30+ years ago. And it does a fine job in providing a style of play that has resulted in fun for many!

As long as we recognise the character of fun provided and the limits of said system all is well. Then those that wish are free to test and develop to produce systems that better support the fun they wish to enjoy at their table.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

"Railroading" is when the DM makes on-the-fly changes to the game world to steer the PC's in a particular direction contrary to where they want to go.

Having a plot prepared in advance is not railroading, letting the PCs automatically fail when they attempt something impossible is not railroading, and having NPCs with plans of their own is not railroading.

If the DM rules that the PC's can't find a container to collect the wizards blood because he doesn't want to deal with a bloody plot detour, then that is railroading. It's not railroading if the DM rules that the PCs can't find a container because he decideds that it makes sense that there isn't any container to find, no matter how much the PCs want a container.

 

[Lanefan]

This is not too different from how I started my Cortex Fantasy game - the players provide the framing/context for their PCs.

But I don't think this will work very well. The move from general context to detailed challenge is a pretty crucial one.

Assuming the dragon's a challenge, in the usual sense. Maybe it has manifested in order to ask the PCs to carry out some task that will let it rest in peace...

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=6854936]Sorcerers Apprentice[/MENTION] If you had xp turned on you'd have just got one for post 278. You don't, so all I can do instead is commend you here.

EDIT: now your xp are on; so given.