Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7076568" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I like Luke Crane's description of the role of the GM (BW revised, p 268), which includes, as elements of the GM's job:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">To challenge and engage the players . . . [and] to meaningfully inject resonant ramifications into play.</p><p></p><p>The next page of the book describes "the sacred and most holy role of the players", including:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">to offer hooks to their GM and the other players in the forms of Beliefs, Instincts and Traits . . . [and] to drive the story forward . . . to push and risk their characters, so they grow and change in unforeseen ways.</p><p></p><p>As a GM, it's not my job to <em>look after</em> the PCs. That's the players' job! If the player wants his PC to turn into a falcon and escape, nothing is stopping him - but a falcon can't carry bodies! If he wants to keep ahold of his bodies, he'll have to go with the watch to the prison. (Which is what happened.)</p><p></p><p>I would regard that sort of thing as primarily something for the players to sort out among themselves. It's certainly not something I would do <em>secretly</em>. If there is a table issue - of one player commiting some sort of faux pas, like hogging spotlight (and surely this is a <em>player</em> thing, not a PC thing - the "spotlight" is a property of the real world, not an in-fiction matter), then I don't see that as something the GM is meant to resolve via secret manipulation of the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>Well, as I posted once or twice upthread, it's a pretty trad fantasy setting - which means, among other things, that timber is far more readily available than worked metal. So I would say that a solid timber dungeon-esque door is more verisimilitudinous than a modern steel-bar-style cell block.</p><p></p><p>To the extent that I follow this - and I'm not sure I do - I don't agree.</p><p></p><p>The PC was fleeing across the city carrying two bodies (one headless), accompanied by another PC carrying two vessels of blood (one also with the head in it). I called for a check - Beliefs were at stake. The player failed the Hauling check: in the fiction, the burden of the bodies slows him down, and the PCs come across the night watch.</p><p></p><p>More checks are made and failed. The watch aren't persuaded to help them; they think they're suspicious. When one of them says "One of these bodies is decapitated", the snake-handler PC replies "It's OK, I've got the head" - picking up a Fate point in the process.</p><p></p><p>An attempt to call on spirits to distract the guards so the PCs can escape also failed. And the players chose not to escalate to violence. Hence they get thrown into prison.</p><p></p><p>Imposing consequences for failure isn't railroading as per the OP - it is not <em>the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative</em>. There was certainly no preconception: half-an-hour before, when the action of the game was still focused on the decapitation and the events in the room of the tower, who knew that running across the streets with bodies was even going to happen?</p><p></p><p>If I understand you correctly ("the genesis was completely different, but the consequence is the same") you are saying that there is no relevant difference between narrating some element into the fiction as part of framing, and narrating it as a consequence of a failed check. I don't think I've ever seen this asserted before.</p><p></p><p>I also don't understand why you describe the prison as "escape proof". The imprisoned characters nearly escaped (but for a failed lockpick check - sometimes the dice run cold) - that is not a marker of an "escape proof" prison.</p><p></p><p>That the prison can't simply be squeezed out of in falcon form makes it a genuine challenge/obstacle - and that's because being in prison is a consequence of a failed check.</p><p></p><p>The character didn't try to fly away. Or to fight. I know why he didn't try to fight - the player wasn't sure he could win against half-a-dozen opponents. My conjecture as to why he didn't try and fly away is that he didn't want to lose the bodies.</p><p></p><p>It wasn't canvassed - as I said, I'm guessing that the player didn't want his PC to lose the bodies.</p><p></p><p>And I don't know why you say "the PC was going to lose the bodies anyway". The wizard/assassin (one of the bodies) was thrown into prison with him, and has regained consciousness, reached an agreement about summoning the brother's dead spirit, and came close to getting the two of them out of prison. What has happened to the other body (ie the decapitated brother) isn't known yet, but there's no reason to think that body is lost.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what you mean by "simply narrating the failure itself". The failure <em>is</em> the failure of intent.</p><p></p><p>From BW revised p 34:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">When the dice are rolled and not enough successes are generated to meet the obstacle, the character has failed at this task. What does this mean? First and most directly, <em>the stated task goal and intent do not come to pass</em>. However, in failure intent is more important than task goal.</p><p></p><p>The PCs were trying to cross the city with the bodies and blood, without being obstructed or apprehended. This failed - the PCs were stopped. The PCs tried to persuade the watch that they should help with the bodies - this failed, and the watch's suspicions were increased, not reduced. The shaman tried to summon a spirit of wind and lightning to push the guards away and distract them so the PCs could escape - this failed, and he was himself struck by lightning. The PCs chose not to fight, and allowed themselves to be taken into custody.</p><p></p><p>I'm not the one who sent events in this direction. The players kept failing their rolls. (Some were hard checks, but that can happen when you're trying to carry decapitated and unconscious bodies through a city.) And they didn't want to stake their PCs' lives by fighting the guards. So they get caught and imprisoned.</p><p></p><p>If that's railroading, you <em>seem</em> to be saying that it's railroading whenever the players don't get what they want for their PCs.</p><p></p><p>I don't see the force of your distinction, for two reasons. First, the inability of an unconscious character to act is also something determined by the mechanics. Eg maybe the character has self-healing abilities that can operate when s/he falls unconscious (various Rolemaster and 4e PCs have such abilities).</p><p></p><p>Second, the only way that you know the character is unconscious is because there is a mechanical state (0 hp) that tells you as much. I've never heard anyone suggest that it's railroading simply to apply hit point deductions to a PC hp total because NPCs or monsters are rolling hits and damage against the player's PC.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that <em>any</em> account of railroading has to be looking at something other than consequences. Consequences are simply events in the fiction. Railroading is about the <em>method whereby the fiction is established</em>. When players fail checks, bad things happen to their PCs. Speaking in general terms, it's the GM's job to establish those bad things. In my preferred approach, those bad things themselves speak to the evinced concerns of the player and PC - eg in this case, the PC ends up in prison with the assassin/wizard with whom he hopes to strike some sort of post-decapitation deal (because she is the only person whom he thinks he is going to be able to persuade to summon the dead spirit; he can't do it himself, as he's not a summoner).</p><p></p><p>If the player had succeeded at the social check, such that the PC persuaded the watch that nothing suspicious is going on, and I nevertheless had narrated them as taking the bodies, or locking up the PCs, or in some other way had dishnoured the player's successful check, well that <em>would</em> be railroading (among other things).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7076568, member: 42582"] I like Luke Crane's description of the role of the GM (BW revised, p 268), which includes, as elements of the GM's job: [indent]To challenge and engage the players . . . [and] to meaningfully inject resonant ramifications into play.[/indent] The next page of the book describes "the sacred and most holy role of the players", including: [indent]to offer hooks to their GM and the other players in the forms of Beliefs, Instincts and Traits . . . [and] to drive the story forward . . . to push and risk their characters, so they grow and change in unforeseen ways.[/indent] As a GM, it's not my job to [I]look after[/I] the PCs. That's the players' job! If the player wants his PC to turn into a falcon and escape, nothing is stopping him - but a falcon can't carry bodies! If he wants to keep ahold of his bodies, he'll have to go with the watch to the prison. (Which is what happened.) I would regard that sort of thing as primarily something for the players to sort out among themselves. It's certainly not something I would do [I]secretly[/I]. If there is a table issue - of one player commiting some sort of faux pas, like hogging spotlight (and surely this is a [I]player[/I] thing, not a PC thing - the "spotlight" is a property of the real world, not an in-fiction matter), then I don't see that as something the GM is meant to resolve via secret manipulation of the gameworld. Well, as I posted once or twice upthread, it's a pretty trad fantasy setting - which means, among other things, that timber is far more readily available than worked metal. So I would say that a solid timber dungeon-esque door is more verisimilitudinous than a modern steel-bar-style cell block. To the extent that I follow this - and I'm not sure I do - I don't agree. The PC was fleeing across the city carrying two bodies (one headless), accompanied by another PC carrying two vessels of blood (one also with the head in it). I called for a check - Beliefs were at stake. The player failed the Hauling check: in the fiction, the burden of the bodies slows him down, and the PCs come across the night watch. More checks are made and failed. The watch aren't persuaded to help them; they think they're suspicious. When one of them says "One of these bodies is decapitated", the snake-handler PC replies "It's OK, I've got the head" - picking up a Fate point in the process. An attempt to call on spirits to distract the guards so the PCs can escape also failed. And the players chose not to escalate to violence. Hence they get thrown into prison. Imposing consequences for failure isn't railroading as per the OP - it is not [I]the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative[/I]. There was certainly no preconception: half-an-hour before, when the action of the game was still focused on the decapitation and the events in the room of the tower, who knew that running across the streets with bodies was even going to happen? If I understand you correctly ("the genesis was completely different, but the consequence is the same") you are saying that there is no relevant difference between narrating some element into the fiction as part of framing, and narrating it as a consequence of a failed check. I don't think I've ever seen this asserted before. I also don't understand why you describe the prison as "escape proof". The imprisoned characters nearly escaped (but for a failed lockpick check - sometimes the dice run cold) - that is not a marker of an "escape proof" prison. That the prison can't simply be squeezed out of in falcon form makes it a genuine challenge/obstacle - and that's because being in prison is a consequence of a failed check. The character didn't try to fly away. Or to fight. I know why he didn't try to fight - the player wasn't sure he could win against half-a-dozen opponents. My conjecture as to why he didn't try and fly away is that he didn't want to lose the bodies. It wasn't canvassed - as I said, I'm guessing that the player didn't want his PC to lose the bodies. And I don't know why you say "the PC was going to lose the bodies anyway". The wizard/assassin (one of the bodies) was thrown into prison with him, and has regained consciousness, reached an agreement about summoning the brother's dead spirit, and came close to getting the two of them out of prison. What has happened to the other body (ie the decapitated brother) isn't known yet, but there's no reason to think that body is lost. I'm not sure what you mean by "simply narrating the failure itself". The failure [I]is[/I] the failure of intent. From BW revised p 34: [indent]When the dice are rolled and not enough successes are generated to meet the obstacle, the character has failed at this task. What does this mean? First and most directly, [I]the stated task goal and intent do not come to pass[/I]. However, in failure intent is more important than task goal.[/indent] The PCs were trying to cross the city with the bodies and blood, without being obstructed or apprehended. This failed - the PCs were stopped. The PCs tried to persuade the watch that they should help with the bodies - this failed, and the watch's suspicions were increased, not reduced. The shaman tried to summon a spirit of wind and lightning to push the guards away and distract them so the PCs could escape - this failed, and he was himself struck by lightning. The PCs chose not to fight, and allowed themselves to be taken into custody. I'm not the one who sent events in this direction. The players kept failing their rolls. (Some were hard checks, but that can happen when you're trying to carry decapitated and unconscious bodies through a city.) And they didn't want to stake their PCs' lives by fighting the guards. So they get caught and imprisoned. If that's railroading, you [I]seem[/I] to be saying that it's railroading whenever the players don't get what they want for their PCs. I don't see the force of your distinction, for two reasons. First, the inability of an unconscious character to act is also something determined by the mechanics. Eg maybe the character has self-healing abilities that can operate when s/he falls unconscious (various Rolemaster and 4e PCs have such abilities). Second, the only way that you know the character is unconscious is because there is a mechanical state (0 hp) that tells you as much. I've never heard anyone suggest that it's railroading simply to apply hit point deductions to a PC hp total because NPCs or monsters are rolling hits and damage against the player's PC. It seems to me that [I]any[/I] account of railroading has to be looking at something other than consequences. Consequences are simply events in the fiction. Railroading is about the [I]method whereby the fiction is established[/I]. When players fail checks, bad things happen to their PCs. Speaking in general terms, it's the GM's job to establish those bad things. In my preferred approach, those bad things themselves speak to the evinced concerns of the player and PC - eg in this case, the PC ends up in prison with the assassin/wizard with whom he hopes to strike some sort of post-decapitation deal (because she is the only person whom he thinks he is going to be able to persuade to summon the dead spirit; he can't do it himself, as he's not a summoner). If the player had succeeded at the social check, such that the PC persuaded the watch that nothing suspicious is going on, and I nevertheless had narrated them as taking the bodies, or locking up the PCs, or in some other way had dishnoured the player's successful check, well that [I]would[/I] be railroading (among other things). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top