Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION]

You probably won't be surprised that I want to present a hypothetical example of play that puts pressure on the "disconnect" idea. I'm curious what you make of it.

Scenario: The PCs have busted some smugglers (eg Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh). One of the PCs has, as part of her backstory, that her hometown is a "hive of scum and villainy" (including smugglers). The player of this PC tells the the GM, "I look at the smuggled crates - is there any mark to suggest that they came from, or passed through, my hometown?" The GM has to respond - and, for the sake of this example it is stipulated that the GM has nothing prewritten about this (ie about where the smuggled goods came from).

Now we have a moment of action declaration, which forces the GM to author something. There are different ways of doing that - my way is one of them!

Upthread [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and I made some posts about "transparency" - ie being clear to players about how GMing decisions are made. So generally I wouldn't expect the players not to know how something is being authored at that point.

cause[/I] of the change was that I realized it would make for a better story and a more enjoyable game, not the PC's failure.

Well, the player knows that the reason for narrating the PC finding the cursed black arrows is because it will "make for a better story and a more enjoyable game" ie I am narrating that sort of consequence for that sort of reason. If the check was a success, then I wouldn't have the chance to do so - because the ensuing events would be those that the player (and PC) wanted (ie finding the nickel-silver mace where it was left in the tower, many years ago).

More generally, I don't think it can ever be the case that the player knowledge matches the PC knowledge - the players inevitably know that this stuff was authored, by the GM, for some reason or other.

My point here being that the line - if it exists - is a very fine one.

 

[Campbell]

I never really responded to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] about transparency up thread. I will do so now. I think transparency of GM decision making during the moment of play can be somewhat tricky for my interests. I want to ensure that players have enough information in order to make meaningful decisions, but I also want to maintain focus on the fiction. Sometimes full transparency in the moment of play can pull players away from the fiction and make playing their characters with integrity more difficult. I do want player facing mechanics to be transparent though and keep a meta channel open, but mostly for clarifying fiction and maintaining emotional safety.

The key principles I am thinking about here from an MC's perspective are Make your move, but misdirect and Make your move, but do not speak its name. The agenda item I am thinking of is Make the Apocalypse World Seem Real.

I also think that intent based resolution can be somewhat tricky. We want players to have a good handle on the possible consequences for their actions, but the weakness of intent based resolution for my purposes is that sometimes it can be a little too on the nose and interfere with the experience of playing in the fiction. It's possible to constrain intent to the immediate fictional situation, but that requires a strong amount of discipline from the GM and other players. Blades in the Dark has some strong tooling that absolutely allows for a conversation about stakes while keeping it strongly in the fiction. Rather than having direct intent based resolution, Blades frames all actions in terms of position (risk-level) and effect level. The idea is that once a player makes an action declaration, the GM tells them what the position and effect are. The player then can change their action declaration. We get to clarify the fiction before the roll so players have a good idea of the impact of their decisions.

There's also the fact that perception and knowledge checks are extremely problematic for my interests. It is difficult to introduce meaningful complications for failure and often takes the place of actual clarifying the fiction. They also are not usually resulting from actual action declarations. It can be difficult to determine what is actually going on in the fiction. They also tend to get in the way of saying what honesty demands sometimes. I prefer for GMs to simply tell players what they know and see based on fictional positioning.

One of the reasons I have been so adamant about laying out various GMing approaches and the distinctions I see between them is because I feel we often deal with very broad assumptions that fail to cover the diversity of play. If you are coming from a position of ignorance it can be very easy to put traditional games in one box and indie games in another. This goes for the GMing techniques described in their texts as well. They look at Fate, Marvel Heroic, Burning Wheel, and Apocalypse World and assume these games must be all played and run in the same way. These are very different games with very different procedures and GMing principles. I also feel that the war gaming approach embraced by the OSR often is forgotten. I sometimes feel like I do a disservice by using such broad categories. There is a lot of nuance I am leaving on the table here.

 

[Campbell]

I should clarify. When MCing I want players to have a general awareness of my agenda and principles if they desire to. It is just in the moment of play I want their primary focus to be on the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

I also think that intent based resolution can be somewhat tricky. We want players to have a good handle on the possible consequences for their actions, but the weakness of intent based resolution for my purposes is that sometimes it can be a little too on the nose and interfere with the experience of playing in the fiction.

Burning Wheel takes one particular approach to this. The rules text advises always establishing failure consequences up front. Luke Crane doesn't actually do this when GMing, however, and neither do I.

perception and knowledge checks are extremely problematic for my interests. It is difficult to introduce meaningful complications for failure

I tend to run these as: What are you looking for? Or, What are you hoping to find? That way an intent is established that then gives the basis for narrating failure.

"I look around" is not, in itself, an action declaration - there is task, but no intent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(a) principally guiding GMs in situation framing and adversity/obstacle introduction

Not sure I follow that, do you mean like a published adventure, or that the game has a specific scope or something?

(b) requiring little to no GM intervention/adjudication in the resolution mechanics

Yep, I can see that. With RPGs it's rare not to see some DM judgement applied to resolution, at least some of the time (which rule applies, for instance), but a core resolution system like 5e's, that requires DM adjudication prettymuch every time, conditions players to accept that aspect of the DM role, leading to an atmosphere of DM Empowerment, and thus enabling 'illusionism.'

(c) obstructing the GM from imposing their own will on outcomes (rather than letting the system and the players have their say)

How does a game do that, when the GM might go ahead and change it's rules?

So the only real question becomes...why would you be playing the first system if you want GM Force or Illusionism to be featured in the course of play? And why would you be playing the second system if you do not want it featured?

IMX, groups often play the game they do not because it's theoretically ideally suited for the style they prefer (even assuming they all prefer the same style, each have a strong style preference, or can even articulate any such preference), but because it's the game they can all agree to play - often due to all having some familiarity with it, already.

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]

It's all about the culture of play as a thing that can be and should be designed. So, the war gaming approach posits one culture of play - one where the GM is a referee whose job it is to ensure that play follows the fiction and protects the integrity of the scenario. The referee is expected to step in when the rules do a poor job at adequately reflecting the situation and is assumed to have no other agenda. The referee is also expected to have a respect for the rules and only step in when their expert knowledge supersedes what the rules say. The Storyteller approach posits a culture of play where the rules exist to serve the desires of the GM. The overriding priority is to maintain the integrity of the GM/ST's story. The approach to GMing formalized in Apocalypse World comes from a different culture of play. In this culture of play the GM is not the first among equals, but is instead just another player in the game. They have a different set of responsibilities, but they are a player like any other player. The rules of the game are just as binding on them as they are on other players. How does this work?

You have an agenda. Everything you say and do while you play is in service to this agenda and no other. In Apocalypse World, your agenda is:

• Make the Apocalypse World seem real.
• Make the players' characters' lives not boring.
• Play to find out what happens.

Every moment of play it is your job to be working towards at least one of these and nothing else. This is your responsibility in the same way that the players are responsible for playing their characters with integrity and pushing hard for the things they care about.

Then you have the things you always say. This not what you sometimes say, say if you feel like it, say when you want to, etc. It is what you always say as best as you are able. In Apocalypse World you always say:

• What the principles demand
• What the rules demand
• What your prep demands
• What honesty demands

I think the use of the word demand here is pretty important. These are a set of rules to live by when taking this particular approach. They help to ensure a consistent and rewarding experience for all players, including the GM. Some games within the same family modify this to achieve a different sort of experience of play.

The principles are demanding. They are to help ensure you meet the game's agenda without flinching or second guessing. They also serve to help crystallize decision making and will eventually make running the game like second nature.

The rules are demanding. The game has something to say. There is a reason why we are playing this particular game. We care about what it has to say. We also care that players get the things that they earn through play and actually deal with the consequences of their decisions. The rules enable this. We all agreed to sit down and play this game. Let's do that. We can all decide to change the rules or add rules to make the game our own, but that is an act of game design and an activity to be undertaken as a group.

Your prep is demanding. We don't prep very much, but what we do prep is important. Part of playing the world with integrity and playing to find out what happens is making sure that the challenges we create for players in the form of fronts are something that players can meaningfully engage with as they choose. If we change this stuff on the fly there is some danger that player decision making is being made based on incorrect information. We are also not playing to find out what happens. This is the most tenuous of the demands and the most frequently changed of the demands. Some Powered By The Apocalypse games eschew prep or utilize more flexible prep.

Honesty is demanding. Players depend on having information that they can really use about the fiction to make meaningful decisions that make an impact. We also want to make sure that we are not playing games with the other players to get them to do the things we want them to do. It is important that they get choose their level of engagement with the things they put out there. We play the whole world and they get one character. We should be mindful of that and ensure they get to have their say. I consider this the most important of the demands. Everything else flows from honesty about the fiction, about the rules, about what the game is all about. We can only get to a place where we are all playing a game together to really see what happens through honesty.

When all of this comes together we end up with a game and a story that is bigger than any one person. Something that we cannot control and would not want to control. It does not belong to any of us. It belongs to all of us in a real and genuine way. We have a culture of play that values every participant and does not demand too much from anyone.

As a GM I follow this approach for many reasons. The social footprint is less demanding of me. I get to play to find out and get many of the same kicks from playing in a good game while running the game. The mental overhead is far less once you have internalized the principles. Finally, it helps get us all to a place where we can step out of our comfort zone and get to where the real magic happens far more readily than any other way to run the game I have discovered.

 

[Lanefan]

To avoid misunderstandings later, are you trying to say or suggest that this...

So, the war gaming approach posits one culture of play - one where the GM is a referee whose job it is to ensure that play follows the fiction and protects the integrity of the scenario. The referee is expected to step in when the rules do a poor job at adequately reflecting the situation and is assumed to have no other agenda. The referee is also expected to have a respect for the rules and only step in when their expert knowledge supersedes what the rules say.

...and this...

The Storyteller approach posits a culture of play where the rules exist to serve the desires of the GM. The overriding priority is to maintain the integrity of the GM/ST's story.

...are the same?

It kinds reads as though you are, and putting both in contrast to this...

The approach to GMing formalized in Apocalypse World comes from a different culture of play. In this culture of play the GM is not the first among equals, but is instead just another player in the game. They have a different set of responsibilities, but they are a player like any other player. The rules of the game are just as binding on them as they are on other players.

{EDIT: I had something to say here but it vanished, and now I don't remember it. Bah.}

You have an agenda. Everything you say and do while you play is in service to this agenda and no other. In Apocalypse World, your agenda is:

• Make the Apocalypse World seem real.
• Make the players' characters' lives not boring.
• Play to find out what happens.

Every moment of play it is your job to be working towards at least one of these and nothing else. This is your responsibility in the same way that the players are responsible for playing their characters with integrity and pushing hard for the things they care about.

Making the world seem real: absolutely true for any system!

Making the PC's lives not boring should be as much up to the players as the DM, again in any system.

Then you have the things you always say. This not what you sometimes say, say if you feel like it, say when you want to, etc. It is what you always say as best as you are able. In Apocalypse World you always say:

• What the principles demand
• What the rules demand
• What your prep demands
• What honesty demands

I think the use of the word demand here is pretty important. These are a set of rules to live by when taking this particular approach. They help to ensure a consistent and rewarding experience for all players, including the GM.

Do the same strictures apply to the players? If not, this leans well toward my earlier notion of the DM becoming more and more like a robot.

When all of this comes together we end up with a game and a story that is bigger than any one person. Something that we cannot control and would not want to control. It does not belong to any of us. It belongs to all of us in a real and genuine way. We have a culture of play that values every participant and does not demand too much from anyone.

As a GM I follow this approach for many reasons. The social footprint is less demanding of me. I get to play to find out and get many of the same kicks from playing in a good game while running the game. The mental overhead is far less once you have internalized the principles. Finally, it helps get us all to a place where we can step out of our comfort zone and get to where the real magic happens far more readily than any other way to run the game I have discovered.

Which implies a game mostly played not for relaxation and fun but for challenge and (sometimes) discomfort; which is what I thought real life was for. The game's where you go to kick back and relax.

Lan-"magic doesn't happen when you work at it - it happens when you don't work at it and often when you least expect it"-efan

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION],

I absolutely meant to provide a three way contrast between GM as referee, GM as storyteller, and GM as Master of Ceremonies. I thought that most people would have a better grasp on the distinction between GM as referee and GM as storyteller, and wanted to focus on GM as MC. Here's what I see as the meaningful distinctions between GM as referee and GM as storyteller:

• A referee is careful to never purposefully bias their rulings towards particular outcomes. When they step in to make a ruling they do so only to maintain the integrity of the fiction. They also are careful to be as transparent as possible about their rulings to ensure that players can make meaningful decisions. They also have a deep respect for the rules of the game, and only step in when their expert knowledge applies.
• A storyteller very much wants to bias outcomes towards what they would feel would make the best story. It is the integrity of the fiction that matters to them, but the integrity of their story. Meaningful decision making is not a priority for them. Sometimes the point is to make players feel powerless. The rules are only there as a tool for them.
• A referee uses dungeons, modules or scenarios, never adventures. The difference is that the game content never assumes what actions players will or should take. Who they ally with, who their enemies are, what they decide to do in any moment of play is entirely on them. In a war game there is no figuring out what you should do. Only decision and consequence. Lateral decision making is the order of the day.
• While a storyteller might use adventures with branching paths there is absolutely a path or set of paths players are assumed to follow. In play this feels very much like playing an adventure game. The players' job is to hunt for the story and provide color to the proceedings. If you get to far off the path, they will either nudge or push you back on it.
• In a war game you engage with the world for your character's own purposes. You get to decide what those are.
• A storyteller's game involves being obliged to explore the setting and story as an end in itself. It's the GM's creativity on display after all.
• A wargame is absolutely played to find out what happens. This is anathema to the storyteller.

Obviously, I am making broad statements here. A person's particular approach might to differ. My points of reference here are Moldvay B/X and Vampire: The Masquerade, both played according to the text. If you don't have access to Vampire, AD&D 2e makes a reasonable substitute.

 

[Lanefan]

A referee uses dungeons, modules or scenarios, never adventures.

side note

Interesting use of terminology. I use "adventure", "module" and "dungeon" interchangeably to mean much the same thing as each other, while a "scenario" is something much smaller such as a particular set-piece battle or a single negotiation.

/side note

That said, by your definitions above I guess I'm about half and half referee and storyteller. And that said,

A wargame is absolutely played to find out what happens. This is anathema to the storyteller.

In my case, not at all. While I-as-DM might have a preconceived story in mind the run of play is what determines how (or even if) it gets told, and how (or even if) it ends.

Lanefan

 

[Campbell]

The distinction I make is that adventures put designs on the players, whereas the other forms of GM preparation commonly used in older forms of D&D do not.

One thing I will add is that for the purpose of describing the approaches in as distinct a manner as I can I tend to use the purest form of any given approach as my reference point. There is definitely room for combining approaches. Here are my frames of reference:

• Scene Framing - Burning Wheel
• Storytelling - Vampire
• Refereeing - Moldvay B/X
• Master of Ceremonies - Apocalypse World

There are definitely ways to combine these approaches in different ways to achieve different results. Some examples from published games:

• Monsterhearts and Masks utilize a combination of scene framing and MCing approaches. More active framing of scenes and a more flexible attitude toward prep are features of play. They are still less interested in intent than more pure scene framing approaches.
• Later Gygax work absolutely features a strong drift towards storytelling. The Drow and Giant series absolutely have a set story path.
• Blades in the Dark takes a more relaxed approach to MCing. The mechanisms are tools for all players to utilize together, as needed. It also has features inspired by war gaming and scene framing that creates a pretty unique experience. Blades utilizes city as dungeon and cutting to the action over overt planning, addresses intent in a unique way that keeps things focused on the fiction, and has a set of systems that make both heists and downtime consequential.
• Typical Fate play sits somewhere between storytelling and scene framing. In Fate play we do not play to find. We play to confirm. The primary difference between most forms of Fate and Storytelling is that the players are in on it.

I just happen to have a particular allergy to Storytelling as a feature of the games I run and play. I will say that while I think you can combine features of the broad approaches to realize different sorts of play I don't believe you gain the benefits of both. You design a different sort of experience that is uniquely its own. I dearly love Blades in the Dark, but it does not like replace Apocalypse World as the way to GM. There are many ways to GM. This is mine, sometimes.