The Invisible Railroad

[Crazy Jerome]

Now again though, I think the idea is to let your plot evolve with the player's decisions. The decision to go to Sigil needs to become important rather than "You fools, why are you going to Sigil?" Doing this, you can make the players feel as though they are driving the plot while you are subtly drawing them into yours (even if that plot is a bit different than it initially was). For me, this will create a much more compelling game than if I were to simply improvise based on the decisions the players make each session. Some DMs are able to provide great games in that context, but a lot are not. Without some direction, most plots will unravel fairly quickly imho.

This works great for players who are primarily interested in characterization and exploring "the plot" imaginatively. It sucks something awful for players who are primarily interested in making meaningful plot choices that will determine the outcome.

Note, that is not to say that the first type of player will never make a meaningful choice. In their pursuit of characterization, they almost assuredly will. But this choice will be mainly about the nature of the character, not pivotal plot results.

 

[Dannager]

I just don't believe you need pre-plotting to get the good stuff you describe. That's never been my experience.

I'm sure there are some DMs who are capable of extraordinary feats of on-the-fly storyweaving such that they are able to create an immersive story experience that is as nuanced and complex as something that a less talented DM might be required to plan out in advance.

But those DMs are few, and far between. And of those who believe they fall into that category, fewer still actually have those skills, as opposed to simply being able to salvage a mediocre/acceptable story out of a series of disjointed events brought about by the shifting whims of the table's group of players.

I would go so far as to say that a truly excellent story absolutely requires a great deal of forethought.

 

[Dannager]

This works great for players who are primarily interested in characterization and exploring "the plot" imaginatively. It sucks something awful for players who are primarily interested in making meaningful plot choices that will determine the outcome.

In my experience, players who are interested in making meaningful plot choices are perfectly satisfied with story-driven games, because the best story-driven games are flexible enough to bend with these choices and still deliver the story experience the DM is trying to provide.

The players who aren't satisfied with this are not the ones interested in making meaningful plot choices. Rather, their primary interest often lies in "I wonder what will happen if I throw this monkey wrench into the DM's plans!" They want to affect change for the sake of seeing how far that change will fly, rather than to see how it will improve the story. I'm sure there are exceptions to this (and I'm sure that some in this thread will call themselves exceptions to this), but the malicious plot-derailer is an established player trait with a long, long history.

 

[mneme]

I don't think "go with what the players provide, rather than sticking to your plot" has to involve avoiding keeping stuff running (kinda the opposite). Instead, it involves being flexible about what the relationship of the players to your plot is -- or even what your plot is.

Hmm. Lemme give an example, mostly because I'm curious about what people will think of it:

So, in 1995, at the Worldcon in Glasgow, I played in an adventure set in Marcus Rowland's "Professor Challenger" setting (based on the Doyle stories, using his PD Forgotten Futures rules), run by the epinomious author. This was a great no-combat adventure (pretty close to pure storytelling) -- our YA characters investigated Loch Ness, ran into a boy who claime that the Loch Ness monster was his friend, took the leap of believing him and setting out on the Loch in a small boat, and ended up befriending the monster, who became a now more open celebrity.

The thing is, as Marcus explained after the adventure was over, he'd not intended to the make the Monster friendly. In fact, he intended the boy's claims to be a complete fabrication, the Monster an unintelligent beast, and that the adventure would cumulate in a battle against the ancient pleosaur that had been turned in legend into Loch Ness' mascot to prevent it from destroying life and property.

So why'd he change it? Because by (to his surprise), going with the "the monster's my friend" avenue, we'd changed the narrative basis of the story. Unlike typical illusionism (where what the GM's going to do remains the same regardless of the player's actions), in this case, the only way to keep the story feeling like a YA adventure in the face of our optimism was to make the story, not about driving away or killing the Monster, but about discovering it and convincing the world that it was nominatively harmless.

Fundamentally, in this instance, we (unknowingly) derailed Marcus's plot, and rather than sticking to his initial ideas, he went with what we have instead of his original ideas.

 

[mneme]

In my experience, players who are interested in making meaningful plot choices are perfectly satisfied with story-driven games, because the best story-driven games are flexible enough to bend with these choices and still deliver the story experience the DM is trying to provide.

Your experience doesn't match my reality. I don't want "the story experience the DM is trying to provide.". I want to be a full participant in -creating- the story, based on the GM's contribution as well as the narrative contributions of my fellow players.

Think of a plot seed like a good trap or puzzle. Sure, it's fine to have an endpoint in mind, just like it's good to have a solution in mind for a trap or puzzle. But with good players, the endpoint they go for (unless their puzzle solving sensibilities -- or plotting sensibilities) is only rarely going to match the one you have in mind; they'll have different priorities and different ideas -- and that's -fine-.

 

[Dannager]

Your experience doesn't match my reality. I don't want "the story experience the DM is trying to provide.". I want to be a full participant in -creating- the story, based on the GM's contribution as well as the narrative contributions of my fellow players.

You are a full participant. You just have a different sphere of control than your DM does. You, as a player, have control over all things your character is capable of. The DM has control over everything else - every NPC, every environmental concern, every bit of history, and every behind-the-scenes plot.

It's fine to want to have an impact on the story. You certainly should, as one of its heroes. But to feel entitled to a share of narrative power that is the equal of the DM's is, I believe, simply not a tenable argument. Perhaps, when combined, all of the game's players might possess a narrative power that rivals the DM's.

When I play a game, I want to have an impact on the story. But I most definitely do not want to prevent the DM from making us part of the experience he has prepared.

Think of a plot seed like a good trap or puzzle. Sure, it's fine to have an endpoint in mind, just like it's good to have a solution in mind for a trap or puzzle. But with good players, the endpoint they go for (unless their puzzle solving sensibilities -- or plotting sensibilities) is only rarely going to match the one you have in mind; they'll have different priorities and different ideas -- and that's -fine-.

Then we're taking about the same thing - a story being a series of events that unfolds, and the plot being a set of points along the way that you expect the PCs to reach. What happens in between those points is where the players get to have their impact, and how those points unfold is up to them as well.

Not that this is my ideal, but I would much rather play in a linear sort of game where I'm "along for the ride", narratively speaking, than a game where I'm free to go wherever I want and do whatever I want but where the DM has to constantly scramble to try and make the content that follows from those decisions unique and compelling.

 

[LostSoul]

Yay railroading discussions. These always go smoothly.

I agree with S'mon and CJ. The worst RPG-stories I've played through have been when the DM had a pre-planned story in mind. The best were when the DM created an interesting situation for us to hook our PCs into and let the chips fall as they may.

I don't think it takes much DM skill to get a good story out of planning a situation then letting the players make real choices about how to deal with the situation.

I think it takes a lot DM skill to get a good story when the DM pre-plots the story.

Option 3) come up with a way to tie the planar adventures into the events going on in Evil Baronville.

Perkins is advocating Option 3.

Perkins is advocating removing player choice, but hiding the fact that you're doing so. That warforged that they killed? It doesn't really matter, since he'll just introduce another character that has the exact same role in the game - but he's crafty and doesn't let the players realize that:

Enough time has passed since the warforged incident that I can introduce this new NPC without my players feeling force-fed, and although the heroes have yet to question her, I feel confident that my patience will be rewarded. And if they kill her, okay—at least they'll have a corpse upon which to cast a Speak with Dead ritual!​

Another quote:

I've found that when players feel as though they can make real choices that affect the outcome of an encounter or an adventure, they are less likely to maliciously ruin my campaign. Patience is the key—if you remain calm and don't show panic or fear, your players will think that you're prepared for any contingency. Also, they'll realize in no time that you're not trying to lead them by the nose. As they fumble about and chase other distractions, you'll see opportunities to steer them back on track, or, conversely, you'll discover that the direction they've decided to go is more interesting than the one you had planned.​

I think the key line is "players feel as though they can make real choices" (emphasis mine) which suggests to me that the goal isn't to have players make real choices but instead to have them feel as though they were. If they were making real choices, there wouldn't be much concern over how they felt!

I don't know why he thinks he's not trying to "lead them by the nose"; that's what it sounds like he's doing to me, though I guess he leaves open the chance that they might do something more interesting than what he's planned.

 

[mneme]

You are a full participant. You just have a different sphere of control than your DM does. You, as a player, have control over all things your character is capable of. The DM has control over everything else - every NPC, every environmental concern, every bit of history, and every behind-the-scenes plot.

This itself is very trad, but yes, typical for D&D. There are plenty of great roleplaying games that don't use this structure, but it would certainly be very variant D&D if you deviated from it (that said, it's pretty common to mark off areas where the players are responsible for initial creation even in very trad games; their home areas, for instance, along with related NPCs). Also, it's worth noting that D&D4 does give the players some important narrative control (action points, arguabley some power use, rerolls) that goes outside their own characters.

Then we're taking about the same thing - a story being a series of events that unfolds, and the plot being a set of points along the way that you expect the PCs to reach. What happens in between those points is where the players get to have their impact, and how those points unfold is up to them as well.

I'm not sure we are, actually. In general, a GM should not expect to reach the expected, planned for endpoint to the campaign. Sure, they should plan one, since if the players are lumps, it's good to have something to shoot for. But expect the actual goalpost to be somewhere else.

 

[mneme]

@LostSoul: It's not clear to me how railroady he is being in practice, is the thing. I mean, Sure, the players killed a quest-giver, and he plans to introduce another one -- but that's what you do; multiple roads can lead to the same place, and lets face it, the events in question are still going on.

So it's much more interesting to look at whether the players' actions affected the story materially. Is the "the Emporor of Foo is kidnapped" plot in abeyance, waiting for the players to find the opening quest marker? In that case, yes, he's running an illusionist scam and not really giving the players real choices. OTOH, is it continuing to run, with the players decision (as it were) to slaughter the quest-giver resulting in encountering a different plot the next time it comes up? In that case, things are a little different.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In my experience, players who are interested in making meaningful plot choices are perfectly satisfied with story-driven games, because the best story-driven games are flexible enough to bend with these choices and still deliver the story experience the DM is trying to provide.

The players who aren't satisfied with this are not the ones interested in making meaningful plot choices. Rather, their primary interest often lies in "I wonder what will happen if I throw this monkey wrench into the DM's plans!" They want to affect change for the sake of seeing how far that change will fly, rather than to see how it will improve the story. I'm sure there are exceptions to this (and I'm sure that some in this thread will call themselves exceptions to this), but the malicious plot-derailer is an established player trait with a long, long history.

Yes he is. One of the reasons (one of the more charitable ones out of a lot of not so nice ones) is that not infrequently, malicious plot-derailer got early and repeatedly stuck in a game that didn't have the kind of experience I'm talking about, and that's all he wanted. So seeing through the illusion, he started poking holes in it.

I'm sure it doesn't make the DM feel any better, with a pit bull jaws wrapped around his forearm, to know that the pit bull only got that way because someone was beating it with a stick earlier. And it doesn't change that it would be better for all concerned if the pit bull stopped. It does change the perspective a bit to learn that the guy getting bit was one of the guys with the earlier stick.

But beyond that, I say that with that opening statement, your definition of "meaningful plot choices" is too narrow to match the expectations of most of the players in my experience, and too limited on what constitutes narrative.

Look, let's take it from the hindsight perspective. Let's say that we had a game earlier this year where Brave Sir Robin was in a climatic situation, and confronted with a nasty choice. He could hold off the orcs at the gate, given his friends time to escape, but probably die himself. Or he could run with his friends, run a very real but smaller risk that they will all die--and this goes against the nature of the character he has been portraying.

That is a bit of the rough narrative, after the fact. Merely from that, we don't know how the game was run. This whole thing might have been a blatant railroad. Heck, Robin's player might have asked for it be contrived this way, just so that he could react to it. Or it might have simply been a situation that came up organically, through Robin's and the other players' choices. Or their bad luck, misunderstandings, etc. Or any number of things. But simply from the narrative, we don't know.

Now, make some assumptions about what the players wanted.

A. The players were primarily interested in doing characterization while being involved in a story. Robin's player had background or other hints that emphasizes that he wants to wrestle with doing what is honorable and risky in character, versus what is expedient as a player. He wants to be put into situations very much like the one above. The DM plots out a Moria-style dungeon, overwhelming odds, and narrow places to be held. Or if he knows the players are fine with this, he might even do a climatic encounter near the end of this dungeon, and manipulate things so that Robin gets to make his choice.

Robin makes his choice. Either way, we are going to have some survivors at least, to continue the story that is being told.

This is a meaningful choice for Robin. It is not a meaningful choice in the outcome of the narrative. It is a meaningful choice in the characterization of Robin by that player. A very meaningful one--and one he has explicitly planned on making. In fact, it is so explicit that the DM, if he has any sense, has probably included in his plot ways for that choice to ripple a bit. (He has expected that Robin may die at a key moment, or alternately may be consumed by doubt having fled such a challenge.) But Robin's player, when he makes his choice, as far as the plot is concerned, is picking between the door on the left and the door on the right, with no clue what is behind either door.

B. The players were primarily interested in making meaningful choices that change the results of the story. As it happens, Robin's player in this version still wants to do some of the same kinds of characterization, but this is secondary to changing the trajectory of the story itself. The DM may or may not provide that same dungeon. It doesn't matter. Wherever Robin goes, there are monsters and NPCs that are going to push him, so that he will be granted opportunities to make those kind of choices.

So Robin gets put into situations like this on a regular basis. If he keeps going all heroic, chances are he eventually dies. His dying may save the rest of the party. Or it may doom them, should he pick a moment poorly.

The characterization has happened all along. The characterization was not a meaningful choice. Run now and doubt, you'll get another chance tomorrow to stand and fight, perchance to die or narrowly escape. In the story, the choices have all been meaningful.

Finally, note that while I have leaned on the possibility of death to make this (I hope) clear, such distinctions are not limited to dying or not. It is not terribly difficult to make monsters with goals and motivations such that the PCs want to oppose them (or at least investigate that possibility) without directly fighting them. Therefore, it is not difficult to build a web of monsters that, over time, will spark some real conflict.