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="innerdude" data-source="post: 7122901" data-attributes="member: 85870"><p>For the record, @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em>, I lean much more on the side that player-driven play is more satisfactory than GM-story, "scene tourism" play. </p><p></p><p>My real point was that in thinking about the base premise, or conflict presented in the OP, the core of the issue is that "All railroading is a GM judgment call," but "Not all judgment calls are railroading." </p><p></p><p>My other point was that GMs have to make literally <em>thousands</em> of micro-judgment calls in every session of play---to say nothing of the other thousands of judgment calls made during game prep. This is part of the great challenge of being a competent, successful GM. You are forced to inhabit a creative space that requires constant mental input and decision-making, and asks you to do so while creating semantic/logical/conceptual connections between hundreds of "idea threads." </p><p></p><p>The reason I think you've been getting pushback from some responders, @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em>, is that they are not seeing the division, or separation, from what you call "scene framing" and the other kinds of judgment calls a GM is forced to make. And truthfully, even though I'm a proponent of avoiding "secret backstory" and "scene tourism" (having been subjected to it by our GM for over a year now in my current Savage Worlds game), I can easily see how many would simply throw up their hands and say, "Well pretty much EVERYTHING is a GM judgment call, so where the heck do you draw the line? If a GM wants something to happen, or wants to steer the action in the fiction, he or she pretty much can at any time, through any number of small, minute judgment calls."</p><p></p><p>Your real point in all of this is (I think) to show that player-driven play is an antidote, or obvious antithesis to railroading, because when players are allowed to put their PCs' concerns/drives front and center to the action, the GM becomes much more limited in their ability to negate or subvert that intent. </p><p></p><p>You're advocating for a change mindset for the GM, primarily. A GM should no longer assume that their "secret backstory" and expectation that players will engage with it (scene tourism) is enough. Instead, they should be considering how their game addresses the expectations/desires being expressed by the players, and "framing" the action to address those concerns. </p><p></p><p>And it's no surprise to me that there are some (like @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=29398" target="_blank">Lanefan</a></u></strong></em>) who simply disagree, because in their experience, player exploration of a GM's world/creation has provided a (more than) sufficient experience. Trying to frame PC needs/desires forcefully into the action has not been something they've expected their GM to do---nor would they necessarily want them to.</p><p></p><p>One other side note: Though I'm in wholly in favor of player-driven, scene-framed play, we really should stop presenting the notion that the final "say" in determining what is true in the fiction is in the player's hands, or even determined by fortune/mechanics. That's simply a false notion. In all circumstances, ever, if a GM says, "No, that's not so," then it's not so. HARD STOP.</p><p></p><p>Now, in my case I would prefer the GM to be exceptionally open and accommodating, be willing to nigh bend over backwards to ensure the players' desires could be met. But at the end of the day, the GM is the one in control. If the GM says "Sorry, that doesn't work, come up with something else," throws out the rules, ignores dice rolls, or changes the "hidden backstory" . . . it's their prerogative. </p><p></p><p>Admittedly, I think you and I (and likely most players) would probably HATE playing in a game where a GM acted that way, and we would be very up front and transparent about what our expectations for play actually were. </p><p></p><p>But for RPGs to work at all, when there is a disagreement, there has to be a single, final arbiter, because otherwise it leads to instances where something is both true and untrue in the fiction---the version in the player's head, and the version in the GM's head. And this WILL lead to total breakdown in play, because now the player is making action intents/declaration based on information that is categorically incorrect, and the GM will have no basis with which to judge outcomes, because the premise of the declared intent does not match the situation as conceived by the GM.</p><p></p><p>Side Note B, i.e., "Things That Aren't GM Judgment Calls": I was more thinking in terms of any individual, discrete action/fortune check that has a prescribed effect in the rules. A "Spot" check in 3e states that once a GM makes a judgment call for a DC, any PC who meets or exceeds the DC is able to "spot" whatever needed "spotting"; a player whose attack roll meets or exceeds the armor class of an enemy is then specifically allowed to make a following damage roll to reduce the enemy's hit points; a player whose initiative roll is higher than an enemy's is specifically proscribed to act before the enemy, etc. etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 7122901, member: 85870"] For the record, @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I], I lean much more on the side that player-driven play is more satisfactory than GM-story, "scene tourism" play. My real point was that in thinking about the base premise, or conflict presented in the OP, the core of the issue is that "All railroading is a GM judgment call," but "Not all judgment calls are railroading." My other point was that GMs have to make literally [I]thousands[/I] of micro-judgment calls in every session of play---to say nothing of the other thousands of judgment calls made during game prep. This is part of the great challenge of being a competent, successful GM. You are forced to inhabit a creative space that requires constant mental input and decision-making, and asks you to do so while creating semantic/logical/conceptual connections between hundreds of "idea threads." The reason I think you've been getting pushback from some responders, @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I], is that they are not seeing the division, or separation, from what you call "scene framing" and the other kinds of judgment calls a GM is forced to make. And truthfully, even though I'm a proponent of avoiding "secret backstory" and "scene tourism" (having been subjected to it by our GM for over a year now in my current Savage Worlds game), I can easily see how many would simply throw up their hands and say, "Well pretty much EVERYTHING is a GM judgment call, so where the heck do you draw the line? If a GM wants something to happen, or wants to steer the action in the fiction, he or she pretty much can at any time, through any number of small, minute judgment calls." Your real point in all of this is (I think) to show that player-driven play is an antidote, or obvious antithesis to railroading, because when players are allowed to put their PCs' concerns/drives front and center to the action, the GM becomes much more limited in their ability to negate or subvert that intent. You're advocating for a change mindset for the GM, primarily. A GM should no longer assume that their "secret backstory" and expectation that players will engage with it (scene tourism) is enough. Instead, they should be considering how their game addresses the expectations/desires being expressed by the players, and "framing" the action to address those concerns. And it's no surprise to me that there are some (like @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=29398"]Lanefan[/URL][/U][/B][/I]) who simply disagree, because in their experience, player exploration of a GM's world/creation has provided a (more than) sufficient experience. Trying to frame PC needs/desires forcefully into the action has not been something they've expected their GM to do---nor would they necessarily want them to. One other side note: Though I'm in wholly in favor of player-driven, scene-framed play, we really should stop presenting the notion that the final "say" in determining what is true in the fiction is in the player's hands, or even determined by fortune/mechanics. That's simply a false notion. In all circumstances, ever, if a GM says, "No, that's not so," then it's not so. HARD STOP. Now, in my case I would prefer the GM to be exceptionally open and accommodating, be willing to nigh bend over backwards to ensure the players' desires could be met. But at the end of the day, the GM is the one in control. If the GM says "Sorry, that doesn't work, come up with something else," throws out the rules, ignores dice rolls, or changes the "hidden backstory" . . . it's their prerogative. Admittedly, I think you and I (and likely most players) would probably HATE playing in a game where a GM acted that way, and we would be very up front and transparent about what our expectations for play actually were. But for RPGs to work at all, when there is a disagreement, there has to be a single, final arbiter, because otherwise it leads to instances where something is both true and untrue in the fiction---the version in the player's head, and the version in the GM's head. And this WILL lead to total breakdown in play, because now the player is making action intents/declaration based on information that is categorically incorrect, and the GM will have no basis with which to judge outcomes, because the premise of the declared intent does not match the situation as conceived by the GM. Side Note B, i.e., "Things That Aren't GM Judgment Calls": I was more thinking in terms of any individual, discrete action/fortune check that has a prescribed effect in the rules. A "Spot" check in 3e states that once a GM makes a judgment call for a DC, any PC who meets or exceeds the DC is able to "spot" whatever needed "spotting"; a player whose attack roll meets or exceeds the armor class of an enemy is then specifically allowed to make a following damage roll to reduce the enemy's hit points; a player whose initiative roll is higher than an enemy's is specifically proscribed to act before the enemy, etc. etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top