Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7732976" data-attributes="member: 42582">No. I personally don't like GM pre-authored backstory which is used as a basis to stipulate that player action declarations for their PCs fail without consulting the action resolution mechanics.A consequence of this dislike is (i) that GM pre-authored backstory needs to be fairly sparse, as otherwise it won't be possible to reconcile it with the outcomes of action declaration (for further on this, see  [MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION]'s very interesting post about the ghost and the map, and my reply just a bit upthread of this post); and (ii) that richer initial backstory is best established in conjunction with the players, so that everyone is on the same page and hence understands what the parameters are for action declarations.No. The particular approach to GMing I've been focusing on over the last few pages of this thread is the following:(1) The GM is allowed to use his/her pre-written, secret-from-the-players notes to declare that a player's declared action for his/her PC fails; and, (2) The GM is also allowed to change or depart from his/her pre-written notes if s/he thinks that will improve the game.The combination of (1) and (2) prevents the game being like classic Gygax/Moldvay/Pulsipher D&D, because (2) means that the game is not a puzzle/maze for the players to unravel. It also prevents it being player-driven in the "indie" sense of "go where the action is", because (1) prioritises the GM's prior conception of the shared fiction.It is this combination - which I believe is orthodox in 2nd ed AD&D and White Wolf Storyteller RPGing, but became widespread before 2nd ed AD&D and WW (I would say in the early-to-mid 80s) and still retains, I think, a high degree of popularity among RPGers - that I am focusing on when I ask how is it not a railroad? And the reason I ask that is because it seems that all outcomes depend, ultimately, on what the GM wants to happen in the shared fiction.I'm not saying that the GM's preferences don't matter. Of course they do. For instance, my players know that if they build PCs with good abilities against undead and demons that is likely to pay off, as I have a known penchant for using lots of both in my fantasy gaming.I'm talking about a very specific thing: that the outcome of action declarations depends ultimately on the GM's preferences, because - in virtue of the combination of (1) and (2) above - s/he is able to determine whether or not any particular action declaration fails, because at odds with the secret fictional positioning established by the GM's secret backstory, which s/he is permitted to write and rewrite as play unfolds.Are you referring to an actual element of the module - in which case I don't recall it, sorry - or a hypothetical?In my game, the players knew about the Iron Ring (in general terms) from the PCs' first encounter with them - the Kord worshippers, being enemies of Bane, knew of this sinister Bane-ite organisation. And interrogation of a captured leader of the assailants at the end of that encounter revealed further information.The only other "mappish" thing I can think of is the location of the ruined city in the middle of the gatefold map. I can't remember how the players learned that in my game - I know at one point they were pursuing a hobgoblin chief and entourage (who were on foot) on horseback, taking their enemies down using "Parthian shots". But I've just checked my campaign notes, and that was before they headed to the ruined city. The only notes I have about how they found the city was that it was a skill challenge that they succeeded in.What I've said above mostly answers this; but an additional point to make is that railroading is all about action declaration and outcomes. If the players don't even know or care about the map, then whenever and whereever the GM tells them they find a map is just some framing, either establishing a new situation or laying some groundwork for such down the track.But if the players are actually hoping to have their PCs find the hidden fortress, then I would regard it as railroading for the GM to dictate that such attempts cannot succeed until the PCs have gone through whatever steps the GM has written into his/her notes as necessary to find the fortress (eg no one can find the fortress without the map; and the map can only be recovered from such-and-such a place using such-and-such a method).This is very divorced from any actual play techniques of any RPG I'm familiar with - eg it doesn't seem to involve action declaration by the players in respect of some significant element of the fiction that is at stake in the current situation.Again, this seems divorced from actual play techniques that I'm familiar with. Eg it's people who don't know how to run skill challenges, because they don't have a proper sense of how to integrate fictional positioning with action resolution in a closed-scene resolution framework, who characterise skill challenges as "exercises in dice rolling".<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309950-Actual-play-my-first-quot-social-only-quot-session" target="_blank">Here</a> <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?312367-Actual-play-another-combat-free-session-with-intra-party-dyanmics" target="_blank">are</a> <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?319889-Doppelganger-mayhem-(with-a-long-lead-up)" target="_blank">three</a> links to acounts of actual skill challenge resolution that illustrate how they work - both how fictional positioning affects the framing of checks and how consequences of failure establish parameters (including new, undesired fictional positioning) for what might come next.Eg in the first one, you can see that the player of the dwarf fighter has to declare actions on his weak skill/state (Intimidate, for instance) because the fictional positioning doesn't permit him to attain his goals through action or violence (which is what he is better at).In the second one, you can see how the sudden arrival of a PC permits the situation to be framed in a way that really puts the pressure on the players (ie how can they falsely promise to spare a captive in exchange for information, in the name of the party paladin, with the paladin being present?).In the third one, involving the manipulation of magical energy, you can see how fictional positioning opens up possible action declarations: because the PC wizard is wielding the Sceptre of Law, he can use it to quell and contain chaotic energies, using a marker of civilisation - an ancient Nerathi stair beside a waterfall - as an "anchor". Mechanically, this makes a Religion check possible to change the orientation of the magical vortex, which otherwise might not to possible.You seem to be arguing that the players will only declare boring actions, and nothing interesting will happen in the game, unless the GM railroads them. That's not my personal experience.Just to give two examples of the independence of "interesting stuff" from any particular predetermined pathway: in the case of the interrogiation of the NPC, if the fiction had been different (ie the paladin PC didn't arrive on the scene) but the skill challenge failed, I would have had to find some other narration to explain the failure. I don't know what that would have been. It might have been less interesting; or perhaps it might have been more interesting! The main thing is that the game would have been different, with the dynamics beteen the PCs, the Baron and the priestess of Torog unfolding in a different fashion.And in the "vortex of chaos energy" skill challenge, maybe the player - who is rather creative - would have found some other way to frame a Religion check even if his PC wasn't wielding the Sceptre of Law. In which case the game, again, would have had a different fiction which was interesting and creative in some different respect, and perhaps would have headed in a different direction.My personal experience is that players of RPGs are keen to declare interesting actions for the PCs they're invested in, and will respond to vivid framing of scenes with equally vivid and engaged action declarations.</blockquote>

Verification