"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[Nagol]

And, it seems the opposing argument relies on the assumption that what the GM wants to do cannot be more interesting than what the players think of - that the GM's desires don't matter.

The GM is at the table too. Everyone at the table matters. Everyone should get what they want from time to time.

The end result then, is that the group should have some level of compromise, the balance of which should determined by them, not by us back in our armchairs.

Not really,. Those events presented to the group others term as opportunities? They're what the DM wants to do. The players can take one which means everyone wants to do that one or they can pass which means that that opportunity is only wanted by one person at the table.

 

[Celebrim]

If we're talking about the speed with which something exciting happens, then the thief pick-pocketing the king has just mainlined that process. No matter how that action resolution turns out, something exciting is about to happen:

- You're going to get something valuable from the king.
- You're going to get involved in an epic chase through the palace.
- You're going to be arrested and thrown in prison and need to concoct your escape.
- You're going to be captured and sentenced to clear out Norworld and make it habitable for civilized folks.

Or, you are going to die, which is by far the more likely outcome. Trying to steal something from the king, even so much as touching the King's person without his prior consent, isn't merely 'pickpocketing'. It's High Treason, to be punished by drawing and quartering on the morrow, and the body peices being hung in an enchanted gibbet so that no resurrection is possible. This is probably the resolution I'd steer for, because it involves far less pain to the play group as a whole.

But let's suppose that an epic chase does happen. The rest of the party must either choose to side with the pickpocket, which is quite possibly suicidal, or else sit back and watch the rest of the session be monopolized by the thief while they sit on their hands. And this is going to be especially painful if the whole reason that they were here in the first place was to win the trust of the king. That's not going to be very 'exciting'. Of course, technically they can hunt down and kill the pickpocket (I would, or would want to), but the pick pocket's player is likely to see this as 'betrayal' given the personality we are probably dealing with here.

So let's assume that the result is actually capture and not death. Well, unless this king is an actual booby, he's going to take basic precautions that will make his prisons all but escape proof. It might take 20 years to concoct and implement an escape plan from a reasonably well designed prison. In the mean time, what are the rest of the players supposed to do while the campaign has been effectively permenently forked? Is this going to be 'exciting'?

I think the pre-determination that any of this is less interesting or slower paced than "have a chat with the king where he offers you a contract to go clear out Norworld" is to make a rather large presumption that the GM's predetermined plot is the only interesting outcome.

What I see in your reply is the pre-determination that no matter what happens, you are going to treat the player with kid gloves and reward their choices. If I know that nothing can happen to me as result of trying to pick the king's pockets except that I end up with the same predetermined mission to 'clear out Norworld' that I would have ended up with anyway, I think I'd be quite free with my sleight of hand skill. I'm not saying that you can't sometimes make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but sometimes rigging the game such that the PC doesn't get his logical reward violates suspension of disbelief and other necessary factors in gaming to the point that your game is so cheapened as to be not worth playing in. Sometimes when the player sticks his hand in the fire it not only needs to get burned but stay burned because that's the nature of serious stories. Serious stories aren't about zero sum games with no serious consequences.

I tend to play my games straight up with no dice fudging or narrative fudging. I feel that to do anything else risks disempowering and deprotagonizing the PC's. The consequence of that is that for the most part, the PC's don't get treated with kids gloves and earn their failures as fairly as their successes.

However, once in my current campaign I actually cheated. I had a player successfully use the Intimidate skill to bully someone into doing something. I ignored his play and proposition completely, because I knew the player had no idea what he was doing and that if I didn't ignore it would absolute wreck the entire campaign for everyone. You see, the player - stretching his 'first time roleplaying' muscles - decided it would be fun to bully a stranger that he met on the road into giving him his horse. This would have constituted banditry in the eyes of the law, which is punishable under the law by death by exposure. The offended NPC, once the player was out of sight, would use his newly hostile attitude to the player - and by extension his comrades on the road - to go to the local watch, who I happened to know was run by a quite compotent watch commander and report the fact that he'd been robbed by armed bandit's on the Prince's road and swear out a complaint versus the PC party. The stranger, who was in fact a highly respected and wealthy citizen, would have been readily believed and the distinctive appearances of the PC's would have made them unmistakable and unable to hide. As low level characters, they would have stood now chance of resisting arrest. All these facts where part of my preexisting 'sandbox' as it were. They were setting facts, events, and background.

Worse yet, before the arrest could take place, events that the characters hadn't yet learned about would transpire which would have resulted in the murder of the very stranger who they'd bullied. This would have resulted in the watch commander making the quite understandable assumption that the PC's murdered the man, and lacking any other suspects they would have been bundled together in these charges. The result therefore of the one players ill-advised action was almost certainly going to be a messy TPK against overwhelming odds and the pointless death of every character in the party. You better believe that this occuring in my campaign's second session was not something I would have enjoyed, so I simply by fiat treated the event as if it had not happened. I had absolutely no in game reason or justification for doing so. Now, maybe that is 'cheating', but its no bloody less cheating than allowing a player to rob a king in public and it being treated as a minor incident not impacting the dignity of the king or his ability to rule.

Sometimes the DM needs to stand back and let the player's play their characters without worrying to much about getting what he wants. That's my default stance as a GM. But every once in a while what I want really is better for the group than what one player wants.

 

[Umbran]

I don't see this at all.

The opposing argument is that, if what the GM wants to do is more interesting, the players will want to do it, and therefore will not need to be railroaded into doing it.

Perhaps your players are somewhat more prescient than average. I think we are making a bit of an error with a colloquialism. Judging what'll be interesting beforehand is kind of judging a book by the cover. Everyone is guessing about what will be interesting - there is no surety.

The GM probably has the benefit of knowing some of the outline of what's between the covers, where the players generally don't.

Anyway, the main point is that the GM is there to have some creative fun, too, and we should not forget that. Saying all control should rest in only one set of hands is equally unfair, no matter whose hands they are.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Saying all control should rest in only one set of hands is equally unfair, no matter whose hands they are.

But no one is saying that.

Is saying that all control over my PC's actions should rest in only in my hands in any way, shape, or form unfair?

This is, AFAICT, a straw man.

EDIT: It does not require my players to have any prescience at all to determine that what you were claiming is "the opposing argument" is in fact nothing of the sort. Again, this is, AFAICT, another straw man.


RC

 

[Lanefan]

The GM probably has the benefit of knowing some of the outline of what's between the covers, where the players generally don't.

Also, in most situations the DM has the benefit of at least vaguely knowing what her players' preferences are in terms of style, pacing, etc., and can tailor to that if needed.

Anyway, the main point is that the GM is there to have some creative fun, too, and we should not forget that.

True, though an argument could be made that the DM's creative fun largely occurs out-of-session, during the design phase.

The in-session fun comes from watching what the players do to said design.

Lanefan

 

[the Jester]

I had a player successfully use the Intimidate skill to bully someone into doing something. I ignored his play and proposition completely, because I knew the player had no idea what he was doing and that if I didn't ignore it would absolute wreck the entire campaign for everyone. You see, the player - stretching his 'first time roleplaying' muscles - decided it would be fun to bully a stranger that he met on the road into giving him his horse. This would have constituted banditry in the eyes of the law, which is punishable under the law by death by exposure. The offended NPC, once the player was out of sight, would use his newly hostile attitude to the player - and by extension his comrades on the road - to go to the local watch, who I happened to know was run by a quite compotent watch commander and report the fact that he'd been robbed by armed bandit's on the Prince's road and swear out a complaint versus the PC party. The stranger, who was in fact a highly respected and wealthy citizen, would have been readily believed and the distinctive appearances of the PC's would have made them unmistakable and unable to hide. As low level characters, they would have stood now chance of resisting arrest. All these facts where part of my preexisting 'sandbox' as it were. They were setting facts, events, and background.

Worse yet, before the arrest could take place, events that the characters hadn't yet learned about would transpire which would have resulted in the murder of the very stranger who they'd bullied. This would have resulted in the watch commander making the quite understandable assumption that the PC's murdered the man, and lacking any other suspects they would have been bundled together in these charges. The result therefore of the one players ill-advised action was almost certainly going to be a messy TPK against overwhelming odds and the pointless death of every character in the party.

Honest question: You don't think there was any way the pcs, or at least some of them, might have escaped? Perhaps scattering into the woods, with a couple getting away and able to attempt a later rescue?

There was no chance that the pcs, or at least some of them, might surrender themselves when they realized that fighting their way out or escaping was a hopeless proposition?

There was no chance that the pcs, or at least some of them, could have talked the local watch commander into starting an investigation?

I see a lot of assumptions about the party's actions or attitude in your post. You doubtless know your group, and maybe those assumptions are valid for that group, but I can see tons of ways that the situation you prevented could have led to a memorable series of adventures with the party trying to prove their innocence as (whatever other events rush on by). I think it could have been awesome. But then, that's operating based on my group's style and preferences.

 

[the Jester]

True, though an argument could be made that the DM's creative fun largely occurs out-of-session, during the design phase.

The in-session fun comes from watching what the players do to said design.

Lanefan beat me to it. Sandbox DMs get joy out of watching the interaction between their design work and the pcs, same as other DMs. Instead of thinking, "I can't wait for this dramatic scene to play out in the Temple of Lolth, when the pcs finally chase the high priestess to the main altar just as the summoning ritual finishes!" as a story-oriented DM might, a sandbox DM might think, "I can't wait to see whether the pcs stop the summoning ritual or flee the Drow city entirely!" The joy of creating a secret campaign world element even though no pcs are anywhere near it and may never discover it is in wondering when and if it will be uncovered, and if not, how the secret's repercussions will play out in the background of the campaign.

As a sandbox DM, a lot of my fun comes from watching the pcs make choices. Especially the ones I don't expect, that make me think on my toes.

 

[Janx]

Honest question: You don't think there was any way the pcs, or at least some of them, might have escaped? Perhaps scattering into the woods, with a couple getting away and able to attempt a later rescue?

There was no chance that the pcs, or at least some of them, might surrender themselves when they realized that fighting their way out or escaping was a hopeless proposition?

There was no chance that the pcs, or at least some of them, could have talked the local watch commander into starting an investigation?

I see a lot of assumptions about the party's actions or attitude in your post. You doubtless know your group, and maybe those assumptions are valid for that group, but I can see tons of ways that the situation you prevented could have led to a memorable series of adventures with the party trying to prove their innocence as (whatever other events rush on by). I think it could have been awesome. But then, that's operating based on my group's style and preferences.

I see you covered some counters to celebrims points.

Here's a few more:

just because you wrote it down, doesn't mean your stuck with it. If the PCs rob a stranger on the road, you CAN change who that stranger is. It's not the same guy who's going to be murdered. Chain of consequences broken.

You can mention to the player proposing to rob this guy, that doing so could get him marked as a horse thief and cause him all sorts of trouble on whatever his current goal is. You're not saying no. You're just advising a probable outcome to a player, in case he didn't think of that.

In the scenario with the king (gods, back to that again), the other PCs don't get involved, and the thief is detected, he's probably going to run. let him. he just ran off camera, with guards in pursuit. Now return to the party and don't get back to the thief for the rest of the adventure.

I'm all for shuffling game content if it means keeping the adventure going in the direction the players wanted and fits with what material I have.

I'm not for players going lone wolf and doing disruptive stuff that just doesn't make sense. Best thing to do is not railroad, but to simply let them move off camera and out of the session. When they learn that they don't get extra rewards and camera time for being impulsively disruptivee, they'll have more camera time.

Top that off with, MAKE SURE YOUR PCS HAVE TIME TO PURSUE THEIR GOALS. Somebody had a great blog about playing an evil PC in a non-evil party. Kind of like Dexter. Give him scenes where he can do his thing without getting in trouble. If you're thief's not chaotic-stupid, he's robbing the king at this obvious important meeting because he's bored or because he NEVER gets to rob anybody.

 

[Janx]

There's a reason why I said "all week". I check in and make sure that's still their plan.

In another campaign the players have set up a discussion board where they continue discussing their plans between sessions. They actually take the initiative in forwarding me their "priority list" of the next 2 or 3 leads they intend to pursue.

In the West Marches campaign the players were required to tell the DM what they wanted to do in a session before they scheduled the session.

If you do have players who can't make or stick to a plan, then that technique won't be particularly effective. But there are other ways to keep you prep flexible and light.

Plus, at the beginning of the session, do a recap and conclude with, "at the end of the session, you all decided to do XYX"

Basically, remind them of the situation AND their decision. That would clue in the players as to what material you wrote, help them remember, and increase the chances they'll go for your one and only plot hook...

 

[Beginning of the End]

I don't play with people like that any more, so, it doesn't come up in my groups. (But, thanks for the cheap shot calling my players disfunctional.)

(...)

Just why it's wrong for me

So, to sum up:

(1) It's wrong for you because it doesn't work for people you no longer play with.

(2) Describing them as "dysfunctional" was a cheap shot, but they were dysfunctional enough that you no longer play with "people like that".

Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

But, please, don't mischaracterize what I was saying as some sort of condemnation of playstyle.

Nobody did that. Get down off your cross.

And, it seems the opposing argument relies on the assumption that what the GM wants to do cannot be more interesting than what the players think of - that the GM's desires don't matter.

I'm not really following your logic here. As the GM I have a huge impact on what goes into the game world. Not only is the entire game world permeated with stuff I want to do, but I have a nearly constant input into the events of the campaign.

Take the Dragon Church example I posted: I controlled the False Pope, Abanar, Gemmell, and the knights. I was able to take action through all of those characters. Even if we discount all the other ways that a GM can fill the campaign world with stuff they enjoy, I'm a little hazy on why -- given the fact that I'm controlling a vast cast of dozens of characters in any given session -- my enjoyment must be contingent on also taking away the players' ability to control their PCs?

Your position seems to be "if the GM isn't taking away control of the PCs, he has no input into the campaign at all". I'm not clear on how you managed to reach such a conclusion.

Or, you are going to die, which is by far the more likely outcome.

There are two possibilities:

(1) The group is okay with PC death and TPK. In which case, this isn't a problem.

(2) The group isn't okay with PC death and TPK. In which case, why would I take a situation which can be adjudicated in so many different ways and choose the one thing the group isn't going to be okay with?

It's a false dilemma.

If I know that nothing can happen to me as result of trying to pick the king's pockets except that I end up with the same predetermined mission to 'clear out Norworld' that I would have ended up with anyway, I think I'd be quite free with my sleight of hand skill.

You appear to be very confused. I offered four different possible outcomes. Only one of them featured an alternative path to the Norworld mission.

You are replying as if I was advocating a railroad, when I was actually saying exactly the opposite. I recommend reading more carefully in the future before hitting the "Reply" button.