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



## Walking Paradox (Dec 9, 2010)

I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."

This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.

Is this a cop-out? I personally think that the PCs should be given all the freedom in the world to rund own blind alleys and chase red herrings; indeed, interesting roleplaying situations can pop up when this happens and it can end up leading to more interesting RPG experiences than the GM had originally intended.

On the other hand, are GMs missing out on something by not railroading? Is all this "the PCs must be free!" chatter robbing us of our right to tell a good story?


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."
> 
> This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.
> 
> ...



All this tells me is that, were I to have listened to said podcast, it would be the last podcast from that source I'd bother with.

That said, if play in the system being referred to is based on railroading then fair enough...as long as it stays in that system.  But to take that experience and expand it as a generalization to all RPG systems is - bluntly put - a mistake.

Lan-"when trains collide"-efan


----------



## Incendax (Dec 9, 2010)

My players hate it when I do not railroad them. Any time the game even remotely starts to resemble a sandbox style of game, my players inform me that they felt like they didn't get much accomplished and that the game was directionless. The closest I can get to not railroading them and still keep them happy is to present them with multiple choice plots.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 9, 2010)

Well, the first question is whether the group wants to emphasize a/the story or the complete freedom given to each PC and hence the players. This style question has no wrong answer, but the group should try to reach an agreement.

With the emphasis placed on story, there are still different way to realize this. 

The GM may distill the story down to two, three sentences and give the players lots of free reign, steering the action only by placing subtle clues. She can modify the story according to the players' ideas and actions. Think of the murder mystery with only the victim, the crime scene, and some idea of the murderer and different possible motviations are defined at first. 

The PCs can freely investigate, and the GM modifiy the story and set the free parameters according to the players' ideas. Is this a railroad?

Personally I prefer the string of pearls model. The thread which organizes the pearls, is well defined. The junctions between the pearls are pretty much fixed, maybe even unavoidable. But within each pearl, the PCs can act however the players want. If one takes care to design the pearls large enough, the players will hardly notice being on a railroad.

To generalize, the calssical dungeon adventures like "go, retrieve the Chalice of Malice from the Dungeon of Alice" or "free the fair princess from the clutches of the dragon" can be described as pearls in this sense. The junction to the next pearl is clear and not even concealed in any way, though within the pearl the players are their characters faith' smith.

Railroading is a highly subjective term. When the players complain about it, the GM should discuss this feeling with them and the group should try to find their solution.


----------



## wedgeski (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.



Clues?! In an investigative RPG?! The very idea!

The term "railroading", when brought up in any thread, will over the course of many posts expand its definition from the very reasonable to the very ridiculous. Let's see how far we get in this one.


----------



## The Human Target (Dec 9, 2010)

Railroading is telling a player no to anything you didn't plan for ahead of time or want them to do.

Having a basic plot the PCs are expected to sorta follow is not in my mind railroading.


----------



## Starfox (Dec 9, 2010)

There is a spectrum of almost everything. In this case, from extreme railroading to extreme sandbox. Lets make a hypotetical scale of 0-100, where 0 is zero freedom and 100 is no direction at all and complete freedom. Each player/DM has a part of this spectrum where they are comfortable. Things enough outside the comfort zone on the high end is railroading, things enough out of the comfort zone on the low end is... some other pejorative term.

A word like "railroading" has little absolute meaning. For most of us it simply means "too much plot structure".  And anything "too much" is by definition not good. But as always with pejoratives, some people will identify with them and feel a need to defend them. This guy had probably been in some unstructured games and didn't like it; in opposition to that he defends railroading. This means his comfort zone is a bit higher on the spectrum, maybe he had some bad sandbox experiences. He choose to identify with railroading, a controversial term, as a means to get attention. It seems to have worked too.

Notice that the 0-100 spectrum of values are of course completely arbitrary. For any proposed value of zero, you can always make up some even more "free" and unstructured game. The same goes for the complete railroad, there is no "absolute 100".


----------



## Canor Morum (Dec 9, 2010)

I agree with the above definition, telling the players "no, you can't do that" is railroading. 

The players are the main characters of the story.  They should have free reign to make decisions that change the course of events.  

At the same time, some players need direction.  Branching paths is one way to do it.  Another is to just throw out the hook and hope they bite.  If they don't, you just gotta roll with it. 

I think doing a lot of prep work before a game and planning out the story in advance makes for a boring game.  Creative, collaborative storytelling is where it's at.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."




Source?

Original likely this one: http://www.yog-sothoth.com/content/960-Investigative-Gaming-Seminar-at-Dragonmeet-2010

Not Guest Host. Ken Hite.


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Dec 9, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> I agree with the above definition, telling the players "no, you can't do that" is railroading.




I agree, but how about this:
The game itself is limited in-game. For instance, the players want to have lot of freedom to do things like, but they're unable to find solution in-game to do them. In the end they are attempting to do lots of things, but they fail most of the time.

I remember the last time I was being accused of railroading, and it did hurt me a lot... I was running Dark Sun, and I told my players that they need to make notes during the game. They reacted with silence... Then a NPC gave one of the PC's a password, which was crucial to continue the adventure. However, when the password was needed, he didn't remember and he didn't have it written down. I called for a INT-check, and it failed. They were unable to continue the adventure, and their attemps to otherwise circumvent the situation were unsuccessful. The password was simply necessary. So I abandoned the adventure, and started a new one. However, later on I was accused of railroading because of this... And the game ended too, with lot of hurt feelings.


----------



## Chainsaw (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't like being a rider/actor on the wanna-be novelist's choo-choo/play, but some people do. Just set the expectations before things start so that no one's surprised with the playstyle.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 9, 2010)

This issue is being hashed out in some detail in the "GM by the nose" thread.

There is, in my view, a big difference between a railroad, in which the GM sets plot hooks already knowing how they will resolve, and establishing obstacles - both ingame and metagame - to make sure that the resolution is achieved, and a game in which the GM establishes situations that are engaging for the players (as opposed to making the players "search the gameworld" for the fun) but then leaves the players free to resolve those situations as they want to.

This is the "non-sandbox, non-railroad" approach to RPGing. In the other thread it's been called the "button-pushing" approach, because the players build buttons into their PCs, the GM creates ingame situations that push those buttons, and then those situations are played out and everyone at the table sees what happens.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 9, 2010)

pemerton said:


> There is, in my view, a big difference between a railroad, in which the GM sets plot hooks already knowing how they will resolve, and establishing obstacles - both ingame and metagame - to make sure that the resolution is achieved, and a game in which the GM establishes situations that are engaging for the players (as opposed to making the players "search the gameworld" for the fun) but then leaves the players free to resolve those situations as they want to.




Mostly agreed, with the caveat that it is assumed that in a sandbox that the GM establishes situations that are engaging for the players, includes many solid hooks to those situations (as opposed to making the players "search the gameworld" for the fun), and then leaves the players free to resolve or ignore those situations as they want to, developing them as necessary to respond the PC and NPC actions.

For a good working model of setting up a sandbox, read the GM's section of *Stars Without Number*, which is free in pdf form.

So, except for the disconnect on what a sandbox is, we agree.


RC


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."




To an extent I agree with this person. As has been said already, railroading is really when the players have no option but to follow the plot of the current adventure. However, as a player and GM both I prefer to actually take part in the scenario that GM has bought or written and that tell that story. Likewise as a GM if I'm running a campaign I expect the players (with obvious player leeway to go off on tangents) to follow the story and take part, otherwise we're both wasting our times.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Dec 9, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> I agree with the above definition, telling the players "no, you can't do that" is railroading.
> 
> The players are the main characters of the story.  They should have free reign to make decisions that change the course of events.
> 
> ...



Another way of railroading beyond directly saying "no, you can't do that," is to force things to happen despite the choices of the players and their PCs.  I've been in situations where the PCs have laid out a plan to get the macguffin.  It is a solid plan, but everything they come up with has miraculously been anticipated by the villain and countered.  It was so obvious that the script required the PCs to not get the Macguffin in this particular chapter.  The DM never said the players could not do something, but he prevented anything they did from being effective in order to say on script.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 9, 2010)

For me, railroading is defined by an old 1e Dragonlance module my friend ran. We saw people being carted away as slaves. The module assumes you chase them, try to free them, and (I believe) get captured yourself. Our group saw the slaves and said, "Oh well. Too bad." "You have to go after them!" said the DM. "No," we answered. And the DM had a hissy fit and quit in disgust. _That's_ railroading. And it's different from what's being discussed.

I really like the way GUMSHOE handles clues (I'm pretty sure that this is what Ken Hite was discussing in the initial quote.) The theory in that game is that the GM just gives the characters information when they look for it, and the exciting part is what they then do with that information. To me, this is vastly preferable to the traditional Call of Cthulhu method: ask for spot hiddens to find the vital adventure-defining clue, have everyone fail it, and desperately grope for another reason to ask for spot hiddens so that they can try again.

GUMSHOE (aka Esoterrorists, Trail of Cthulhu, Mutant City Blues, Fear Itself, etc.) is a very different game than D&D. You don't really want a sandbox in GUMSHOE. Like an investigative TV show, there should be a plot and several different ways to reach the resolution of that plot. That's very different than a sandbox game of D&D, where PCs can just go out adventuring with no goal in mind.

Personally speaking, I agree with Ken Hite. I want a game with plot leads that I can follow if I choose. Games where nothing is accomplished except for noodling around drive me as crazy as games where I'm forced to take specific actions. The difference, I think, is that I want the ability to decide for myself what to do with the clues I'm given.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 9, 2010)

For me, there are two conditions which make a plot a railroad:

1. You can't leave the rails and go do something else.
2. You have only one way to get through each of the challenges within the plot without failing.

Both are the same thing. Lack of options.



Raven Crowking said:


> For a good working model of setting up a sandbox, read the GM's section of *Stars Without Number*, which is free in pdf form.



Stars Without Number - Sine Nomine Publishing | DriveThruRPG.com


----------



## Azgulor (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."
> 
> This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.
> 
> ...




While I do think it's a cop-out to an extent, I think the larger issue is that GMs & players forget to step back from their own experience.  What works for one group doesn't work for all.

In my own experience, (waaay back) I started out strictly running modules.  As play progressed through those modules faster than they were being published, I started into creating my own adventures.  Originally, they were very open-ended/sandbox-ish.  However, over time, I gamed with groups that wanted a path laid out before them to follow.  Consequently, my adventures became more story-driven and linear (railroad-ish) at times.  

Now that we're married with a full time job & kids, my adult group can't meet as often as we'd like.  Long story arcs don't work b/c they take too long to finish -- we've returned to more sandbox-style games & a much looser story arc tying them together (and I'm taking big cues from Paizo's Kingmaker).

For my kids' campaigns (yes, we're now up to 2), it's a combination of modules & home-made adventures bridging between the modules.  So I've come full circle.

Ultimately, as a GM, while I love working on a strong plot, the more defined it is, the more I try to anticipate what the PCs will do in each encounter.  Once I start doing that, I can virtually guarantee that at some point, things are going to go off the rails when they do something unexpected and I'm winging it.

Linear/railroad adventures have their place, but they're a tool.  They're not the One True Way.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."
> 
> This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.




Putting clues in scenes is not railroading. It's only railroading if you shove the PCs' faces in the clues and force them to follow up. Whoever said this has never played with a railroading GM; when you've seen what _real_ railroading looks like, the difference is like night and day.

Now, I'm not familiar with the RPG in question and haven't listened to the podcast. Maybe shoving the PCs' faces in the clues and forcing them to follow up is exactly what the game tells the GM to do. In that case, yes, it's institutionalizing railroading and that's a bad thing. However, if all it's doing is telling the GM to make damn sure every scene contains some solid clues--for an investigative RPG, that's just good sense.



Jon_Dahl said:


> However, when the password was needed, he didn't remember and he didn't have it written down. I called for a INT-check, and it failed. They were unable to continue the adventure, and their attemps to otherwise circumvent the situation were unsuccessful. The password was simply necessary.




Whether this was railroading depends on whether the players made a good effort to come up with a way to circumvent the need for a password and how you reacted. If they made some lame, halfhearted gesture like "Uh, I ask to be let in and make a Diplomacy check. Does he let me in now?"--then you were justified in saying, "Sorry, it's not that easy." And if they came up with a good plan but botched their skill checks, well, so it goes*. On the other hand, if they came up with a creative, workable solution (a clever bluff, say, or arranging a distraction so the rogue could slip past) and you smacked it down without giving it a fair shake, that's railroading.

As a DM accustomed to the old-school, autocratic approach to running a game, I'm usually on the "DM is Da Boss, if you don't like it run your own game" side of these arguments. But the statement "the password was simply necessary" raises some red flags for me. The only things that should be "simply necessary" in an adventure are the elements at the core of the story.

If the adventure is about saving a princess from a dragon, then keeping the princess alive** is "simply necessary." If she dies, there is no way to bring the adventure to a successful conclusion, and that's fine--there should be a risk of failure. However, if you start thinking that (for example) slaying the dragon is "simply necessary," that's a problem. The players should be allowed to come up with clever solutions that bypass the dragon, and if this results in changes to the plot you had in mind, you just gotta roll with it.

[size=-2]*Having said that, it's still a weakness in the adventure if it can be stymied by something as simple as a forgotten password and a couple of botched skill checks. This is where I'd take a few moments to think up a way to get the action going again, bringing the fight to the PCs as it were. The punishment for failure should be additional threats or obstacles, never boredom.

**Assuming no access to resurrection magic.[/size]


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 9, 2010)

There is railroading and there is railroading.

There are some players/groups who want plot-hooks and storylines to give them a sense of narrative flow. To them, they like the fact Frodo HAS to take the ring to Mordor and that is his quest of that Luks HAS to defeat Vader to become a Jedi. It gives the campaign a focus and tells a story akin to narrative fiction.

Some react violently to this very notion and wish to have the freedom (as real life offers) to handle several different events at the same time; they want to carve a kingdom out of the wilderness, explore the 4th level of the Dungeon of Terror, slay Ashheart the Dragon, while stopping the Slaver Ring working out of Portview all at the "relative" same time. There is not destiny, not overarching plot, except what I create as my epic deeds to be sung in my Keep as I lounge under Ashheart's mounted head on my wall. 

Moreso than sandbox and railroad, I think the terms "open event" vs. "narrative flow". Open event implies events happen as you experience them and continue to happen depending on your action/inaction, thus the player creates his own "story" based on his deeds and actions. Narrative flow implies an overarching narrative that can encompass sidetracks (Luke rescuing Han from Jabba) but ultimately boils down to a single event (confronting Vader). 

The other difference: open event implies players are in charge of the narrative (with the DMs job to be scene-setter and chief poop-stirrer) vs. narrative flow putting the narrative on the DM, with the players as main actors in the plot.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> On the other hand, are GMs missing out on something by not railroading? Is all this "the PCs must be free!" chatter robbing us of our right to tell a good story?




"Railroading" (I use quotes due to the variable and fuzzy definition) is a tool.  It is neither good nor bad in and of itself.  How it is used is what matters.

If you want to exclude a hammer from your toolbox, you are missing out on a hammer.  If you are a desktop computer repairman, you probably won't miss that hammer.  But, if you do find you want to drive a nail, you'll have to either get a hammer, or do a lot more work using other tools to mimic the action of a hammer.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 9, 2010)

Ah, yes.  Railroading.

This topic comes up every now and then at my game table, and it's usually brought up by The New Guy who hasn't gamed very much with the rest of us.  The topic is usually introduced in a snide tone of voice, as part of a complaint about his character not being allowed to do something.

"Whadda ya mean I can't pick the king's pocket?!  Oh-sorry-then, I didn't realize that this was a _railroad_ game, my bad. (sulk)"

Like most everyone else, I run a plot-driven game.  I start a campaign by writing the story first, and then all of the adventures are just steps in a progression.  My campaigns work sort of like a season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer: there is a main goal that needs to be accomplished (stopping Willow, for example), and every episode of that season is a step toward accomplishing that goal.

So imagine how crappy the show would become, how quickly it would be cancelled, and how incredibly pissed the fans would be, if ten minutes into the season premiere Buffy shoots Willow in the face with a shotgun.  "There, I saved the world," Buffy says with a shrug.  "Next."

This is a rather extreme example, I know.  The point is that the players don't necessarily know the whole story yet, and that there is usually more than one way to solve a problem.  The Scoobies don't yet know that Willow is going to be crucial to the survival of the whole world in the final season...all they see is a problem, and they want to solve it as quickly and easily as possible.  (And a shotgun is a fast and easy solution to most problems.  )  Without a solid plot, without character relationships, without certain assumptions of what's right and wrong, it would be a perfectly valid course of action.  Unfortunately, it is one that would make the whole game _suck._

I really don't know what to say about the Dragonlance example that PirateCat mentioned.  Clearly, it's a poorly-written module.  And the DM throwing a hissy-fit was unfortunate.  If the story was dependent upon the party getting captured by slavers, the story should have started there...a whole plot can't depend on a single decision, because inevitably players will make a different decision than what your story needs.  (Instead of "you have to follow them," the DM should have dismissed it, let the players have their fun in town, and then started out the next day with:  "You wake up with a splitting headache.  You are on a wooden floor in shackles, and a gentle rocking motion suggests you are below decks aboard a ship.  You don't quite recall how you got here; you vaguely remember having a bowl of stew at the Boar's Tooth Inn, and getting really sleepy..."  Or somesuch.)

I guess my attitude toward the railroad boilerplate is to trust your fellow gamers, and talk about problems the moment they come up.  If you feel like your players are trying to hijack your game, or if you feel like your DM is turning your character into a prop (or a piece of scenery) stop and talk about it OOC.  Disclose parts of the plot if you must, just so that everyone knows where the game is ultimately heading and how awesome it is going to be.

"Um, listen," Joss Whedon says to Sara Michelle Gellar, "Buffy can shoot Willow in the face with the shotgun, but you will all regret it if she does."  He turns to face Alyson Hannigan, Nicholas Brendon, and Anthony Stewart Head.    "Your characters don't know this yet, but Willow is going to be needed in a couple of years.  The point of the story isn't just to stop Willow, but to also _save_ Willow.  Okay?  Does anyone have any questions?"


----------



## invokethehojo (Dec 9, 2010)

My feeling on railroading has evolved over the years.  I think it comes down to the DM and his level of work.

If I write a detailed plot for an adventure, using up a lot of my spare time, then I think I have a right to "railroad" the PC's in a way that keeps them from wasting the effort I put in, since all they have to do is show up and have fun.  However, I have found that, over the years, when I write a basic outline with a few good NPC's, the players will often do a lot of the writing for me, and we all end up having more fun.  So my personal preference now is to allow players to do what they want (as long as their motivations make sense) most of the time, and I use railroad sessions rarely, only when a core part of the story needs to take place.  This has turned to work out very well.

So I think DM's do have the right to railroad, but players have the right to want to free form, so a little compromise is needed.  I feel that players definately have a duty to "help" the DM, that they should do what they want but generally go along with the feel of what the DM is going for.  The DM also needs to allow the players to do thier own thing, but should expect the hours he puts in away from the table to pay off, otherwise it won't be long before he loses heart, and his DMing starts to suck.


----------



## Canor Morum (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> "Whadda ya mean I can't pick the king's pocket?!  Oh-sorry-then, I didn't realize that this was a _railroad_ game, my bad. (sulk)"




Instead of telling them "no, you can't pick the king's pocket"; I would tell them, "sure you can _try_ to pick the king's pocket."  I would then set a very high difficulty.  If they fail the roll, the king's guards arrest the individual and it's up to his friends to bail him out somehow.  If he succeeds, he gets a small reward.  Maybe when he tries to sell the item, someone recognizes it as belonging to the king.

The point is, this sets up role-playing and story opportunities that wouldn't exist by just saying "no".  It also makes the character feel like their decisions matter.  Maybe next time he will think twice about stealing from the king.

Not allowing someone to do something because it doesn't follow your script seems to be the agreed upon definition of railroading.  So in this instance, the player is right.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 9, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> For me, railroading is defined by an old 1e Dragonlance module my friend ran. We saw people being carted away as slaves. The module assumes you chase them, try to free them, and (I believe) get captured yourself. Our group saw the slaves and said, "Oh well. Too bad." "You have to go after them!" said the DM. "No," we answered. And the DM had a hissy fit and quit in disgust. _That's_ railroading. And it's different from what's being discussed.




Agreed. _This_ is railroading. It has nothing to do with the extent to which you lay out the plot in advance and everything to do with how you respond to player actions. The rails may stretch off to the horizon, or the DM may be laying them down two feet in front of the players' wheels. What matters is whether you can go off them.

You can have literally no plan at all, no adventure plot whatsoever, and still railroad horribly. All it takes is the willingness to arbitrarily negate any action by the PCs other than what you want them to do right then.


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."
> 
> This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.
> 
> ...




I think there are caveats with each DMing style that, as DMs, we have to work to overcome them. If we run a sandbox, even though it's up to the players to decide where to go, what to do, and what goals to accomplish, if the DM is completely hands off, then players can get stuck in that they may unsure of where to go or what to do or they spend a lot of time running around the town and doing a lot of nothing. That's the risk of this type of style.

For the railroading (I honestly can't think of a better term), the risk is that the DM will lead the PC's from Location A to Location B to Location C then to conclusion. The worst offense is that the DM is rigid and unflexible in allow the PC's to wander around at Location A or try to go to Location C. The adventure comes across to the players as ham-fisted so that their suspense of disbelief is shattered.

However, there is a lot of good between both styles. A sandbox campaigns give the players total control. If the DM has done his prep work beforehand, then the players will explore here, encounter something, explore there, find an adventure in the wings, and explore here and find something else. In a good railroad campaign, the players will feel that they have total control of the decisions they get to make, but in reality the DM provides that illusion of choice in order to get the adventure moving.

For me, my current campaign is a railroad. I have a specific story to tell, but I do work fairly hard to allow the PC's to go "off-map" on occasion, but I will get the PC's back on the tracks and get the story going. However, next campaign will be a short campaign, so I'm going to create a Sandbox campaign to try my hand in it and see how that works.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 9, 2010)

It appears to me that the podcaster may be so unfortunate as to never have run a campaign with proactive and engaged players. If my campaigning experience was filled with players who just waited around to be told what to do then I might come to a similar conclusion.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 9, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> The point is, this sets up role-playing and story opportunities that wouldn't exist by just saying "no".  It also makes the character feel like their decisions matter.  Maybe next time he will think twice about stealing from the king.
> 
> Not allowing someone to do something because it doesn't follow your script seems to be the agreed upon definition of railroading.  So in this instance, the player is right.



True, and there is nothing wrong with this course of action.  Unfortunately, it will take away 2 or 3 hours of our already-scarce gaming time, just to chase a dead-end.  While the player learns his lesson, everyone else at the table is rolling their eyes, twiddling their fingers, stacking their dice, and muttering things like "can we just get back to the story?"

It is important to protect a character's sense of freedom...nobody likes to be told what they can and cannot do, especially in a role-playing game.  But the DM also has to keep _everyone else's_ fun in mind.  By allowing the rogue character to pick the king's pocket (and sabotaging him to fail, no less), the game becomes All About The Rogue for a couple of hours.  And that's fun for the rogue's player, but not much fun for anyone else.

But I didn't just drop the ban-hammer and say "NO."  I stopped the game and said something like "Look, you guys really need to keep the king on your side.  You never know when you might need a favor, hint hint."  The New Guy didn't care for that, accused me of railroading, and sulked for the rest of the session.  Everyone else had a fairly good time, though.  (shrug)


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> But I didn't just drop the ban-hammer and say "NO."  I stopped the game and said something like "Look, you guys really need to keep the king on your side.  You never know when you might need a favor, hint hint."  The New Guy didn't care for that, accused me of railroading, and sulked for the rest of the session.  Everyone else had a fairly good time, though.  (shrug)




Ah, okay. In that case, it's not railroading, just a player being a whiny little [deleted] in response to a restrained, mature, and reasonable effort by the DM to keep the game from going into the weeds. I shall now resume my customary "The DM is Da Boss" stance.


----------



## Canor Morum (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> True, and there is nothing wrong with this course of action.  Unfortunately, it will take away 2 or 3 hours of our already-scarce gaming time, just to chase a dead-end.  While the player "learns his lesson," everyone else at the table is rolling their eyes, twiddling their fingers, stacking their dice, and muttering things like "can we just get back to the story?"




It shouldn't take 2 to 3 hours to resolve that situation.  You simply tell them the guards have arrested their friend.  They can get him out using diplomacy, paying a sum of gold, breaking him out, etc.  The rogue could also attempt to escape on his own if the players feel like leaving him in there.  Any of these options could be done quickly with a skill challenge.

The rogue learns a lesson, gets his moment in the spotlight, and creates an ongoing dialogue between the PCs.  "All right, rogue, don't steal anything this time, were not bailing you out again."  "Remember that time you tried to steal from the king?"


----------



## Janx (Dec 9, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> It shouldn't take 2 to 3 hours to resolve that situation.  You simply tell them the guards have arrested their friend.




Except the rogue player may claim you just railroaded him by not playing out his capture.


You're better off not rewarding the forker in the first place.  leave him hanging the moment he starts heading away from the party.


I'm all for the DM moving things around, adding clues to keep the game moving forward.  Forward being defined as the pursuit of the players goal with fair or reasonable obstacles and setbacks.

Railroading to me is when the DM not only assumes a certain path through the adventure, he thwarts any other attempt to choose differently, arbitrarily, rather than as an outcome of gameplay or reasonableness.

I don't think I like the idea of a wide-open sandbox.  I don't want to have to write that much material.  I also want the retelling of the game's event to make a decent story.

So, I plan my game with presenting the players with an opportunity or threat to their interests that I'm certain they'll pursue.  If its a little weak, or iffy, I'll do mulitiple.  I avoid "The king asks you to..." type plots.  I generally make mine based directly on what the players want to do, or threats to what the PC cares about.

From there, as a DM, I assume the PCs will be successful, barring critical failure.  Meaning I expect they'll confront the big challenge.  But I don't know how they'll get there (though I can guess).  So I'll document the kinds of things that are in the way of getting the end goal.

At that point, I suppose the game becomes a partial sandbox.  Once the players opt to pursue the goal, I relay them information that lets them determine their tactical options, and they start trying stuff.

If they go the wrong direction to their chosen goal (presumably a misunderstanding of the facts), I'll either reveal it or re-arrange things to recycle content and still keep things interesting.  Presumably, going the wrong way would have some setback effect, but once overcome, they'd be able to continue with their goal.

It is possible that through luck or mistake, the party could fail.  Just because I assume they'll succeed, that only means i've figured out stuff that was between them and the goal.  It doesn't literally mean they get a free pass.  So in each encounter, I'm winging what happens next, and shifting my content for the repercussions if there are any.

What I think the OP's podcast point was, that in an extremely dull game with no compelling hooks, the party sits around the bar causing trouble.  And thats it.  By my definition of Railroad, Railroading isn't the solution.

The solution to a boring game is to present opportunities and threats the PCs/Players are interested in pursuing.  And ideally, there should be more opportunities, than threats.  Because threats make the player feel he has no choice (I have to stop the goblin raid or they'll wipe out my mining operation).

Once the players choose a goal (wipe out the goblins in the local dungeon, so we can expand our mining operations to there), the GM may still have to take a pro-active hand at getting the players to the end.  

I think the key to that is recognizing what the players goal is, and presenting clues and information so they know which ways are viable, and which are dead-ends.  Dead-ends being unintential wrong-turns to meeting the goal, not unconventional solutions to meeting the goal.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> "Um, listen," Joss Whedon says to Sara Michelle Gellar, "Buffy can shoot Willow in the face with the shotgun, but you will all regret it if she does."



"Okay, that sounds interesting." *_click-CLACK!_* **BOOM*!*

What you're describing is the antithesis of what I look for in a roleplaying game.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 9, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> The rogue learns a lesson, gets his moment in the spotlight, and creates an ongoing dialogue between the PCs.



But this isn't exactly cool, either.  Players hate it when the DM "railroads" them into something they don't want to participate in.  And in the same vein, everybody hates it when a player starts "showboating," and makes the game all about himself and his character.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 9, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> I agree with the above definition, telling the players "no, you can't do that" is railroading.



Within particular contexts I agree.  



> The players are the main characters of the story. They should have free reign to make decisions that change the course of events.



Yes, and no.  If the story can go anywhere, they it can also go nowhere.



> At the same time, some players need direction. Branching paths is one way to do it. Another is to just throw out the hook and hope they bite. If they don't, you just gotta roll with it.



Preparation is key, but no good fisherman just "throws out a hook".  They bait that hook, they fish at the right time of day, in the "special spot", with a lot of beer.



> I think doing a lot of prep work before a game and planning out the story in advance makes for a boring game. Creative, collaborative storytelling is where it's at.



A lot of prep-work is good if you're covering all your bases.  A lot of prep work is bad if it's incredibly linear.

I'm in a couple games, one is total sandbox, the DM will literally let you do anything that is not outright breaking the rules.  The other is much more linear(being EN's WotBS), and while the DM ensures we have options, we're all well aware that there is a central storyline to follow.

I can't stand "do what you want" sandboxes.  They're boring and annoying because it's incredibly difficult to get players to cooperate if each of them can go off and do their own thing and not have any incentive to communicate what they find with others.  A little direction, even in sandbox, such as "scouts have discovered ruins to the east and west, do you want to explore them?" is enough direction for me.


----------



## Janx (Dec 9, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> "Okay, that sounds interesting." *_click-CLACK!_* **BOOM*!*
> 
> What you're describing is the antithesis of what I look for in a roleplaying game.




what part?

The part where Sara wants to act out of character and have Buffy who loathes guns use one to shoot her best friend for no apparent reason?

Or the part where Joss tells Sara that she shouldn't do it.

I vote for the former.  I don't want to play in a game where the players do random, pointless and disruptive things.

Solve that, and the latter would have no need to happen.


There seems to be a type of player who's end goal seems to be disrupting gameplay, rational behavior or party goals.  Its kind of like if one of the actors on the set of a movie decided to not only ignore the script, but to do everything in their power to tank the filming.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Dec 9, 2010)

Sometimes I'm not interested in the Orc attack, I just want to get back to farming. Sure the Orcs may take over the lands and then I get thrown into slavery to them but thats part of the fun. I made a decision not to take care of the Orc threat when they were small and easy. Whats important is that all the players are at lease mostly on the same page that we are more interested in our daily lives than handling the Orcs. As long as we all buy into that it makes for a great game.

I just dont want the King to threaten my farmer with taking my lands if I dont go attack the Orcs in the cave or other force the PC situations. Consequences are different than being forced down a path.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 9, 2010)

Janx said:


> what part?



Creating a story and a progression of adventures to tell it. Coercing the players (as with the high DC for the pickpocket-the-king attempt) or engaging in a meta-discussion to keep the "story" in order.

Clearly this works for *CleverNickName*'s group, and more power to them for it - I would politely excuse myself the moment it became clear that the players' in-character choices were not driving the game, for I want nothing to do whatsoever with that gaming style.







Janx said:


> The part where Sara wants to act out of character and have Buffy who loathes guns use one to shoot her best friend for no apparent reason?
> 
> Or the part where Joss tells Sara that she shouldn't do it.
> 
> I vote for the former.  I don't want to play in a game where the players do random, pointless and disruptive things.



My knowledge of _Buffy_ lies somewhere between jack and  - I saw the original movie once (_mmmmmmm_ . . . Kristy Swanson), but that's it - but "stopping Willow" sounds neither random nor pointless; it sounds like Willow is a threat, so stopping her makes sense. Calling a halt to the game to tell me that, "No, no, this npc needs to live for the epic finale!" means I'm clearly playing in the wrong game.







Janx said:


> There seems to be a type of player who's end goal seems to be disrupting gameplay, rational behavior or party goals.  Its kind of like if one of the actors on the set of a movie decided to not only ignore the script, but to do everything in their power to tank the filming.



And these players need to be firmly reminded that being disruptive is unacceptable, and kicked to the curb if they can't get it.

But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## invokethehojo (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> True, and there is nothing wrong with this course of action.  Unfortunately, it will take away 2 or 3 hours of our already-scarce gaming time, just to chase a dead-end.  While the player learns his lesson, everyone else at the table is rolling their eyes, twiddling their fingers, stacking their dice, and muttering things like "can we just get back to the story?"
> 
> It is important to protect a character's sense of freedom...nobody likes to be told what they can and cannot do, especially in a role-playing game.  But the DM also has to keep _everyone else's_ fun in mind.  By allowing the rogue character to pick the king's pocket (and sabotaging him to fail, no less), the game becomes All About The Rogue for a couple of hours.  And that's fun for the rogue's player, but not much fun for anyone else.
> 
> But I didn't just drop the ban-hammer and say "NO."  I stopped the game and said something like "Look, you guys really need to keep the king on your side.  You never know when you might need a favor, hint hint."  The New Guy didn't care for that, accused me of railroading, and sulked for the rest of the session.  Everyone else had a fairly good time, though.  (shrug)




I agree with this wholeheartedly.  RPG's are a social activity, and when someone is about to screw up everyone's fun then that person is being selfish.  If you were all deciding which movie to watch everyone wouldn't go along with a movie only one guy wanted to see, and the same should go with decisions during play.

Besides, while the player might think it is cool to pick the kings pocket, you have to imagine his player as a real person.  Who the hell would want to pick the king's pocket!?!  Unless you knew there was a priceless gem in there and thought you could get away with it, no actual person would do that unless they were drunk or crazy.  So just remind the player that while he could just shoot a guy with a cool car and take it just like in grand theft auto, he wouldn't do that (unless he had a really good reason at least).


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 9, 2010)

invokethehojo said:


> Besides, while the player might think it is cool to pick the kings pocket, you have to imagine his player as a real person.  Who the hell would want to pick the king's pocket!?!  Unless you knew there was a priceless gem in there and thought you could get away with it, no actual person would do that unless they were drunk or crazy.  So just remind the player that while he could just shoot a guy with a cool car and take it just like in grand theft auto, he wouldn't do that (unless he had a really good reason at least).




Hmm... I would approach it a bit differently. It's bad form to tell a player what his/her character would or would not do, under almost any circumstances. Instead, I would point out that the chances of success are low, the chances of escape if you fail are even lower, and the penalty for being caught is execution.

If the player went ahead and did it anyhow, I would fast-forward through the whole thing. Roll a Thievery check to see if you succeed--no? Okay, one of the guards spots you and steps forward to grab you while other guards block the exits. What do you do? You're running? Exits are blocked, you can try a bull rush with your 12 Strength if you like. You're pulling out your dagger and trying to stab one of the guards on the exits? Really, a weapon in the king's presence? The guards attack without mercy. Hang on a second. (consult Monster Manual, get suitable stats for the guards, triple their damage and reduce their hit points to 1/3 normal in order to speed things up) (brief and brutal combat ensues) Looks like you're dead. Make a new PC while the rest of the party apologizes to His Majesty and tries to smooth things over.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 9, 2010)

Jon_Dahl said:


> I agree, but how about this:
> The game itself is limited in-game. For instance, the players want to have lot of freedom to do things like, but they're unable to find solution in-game to do them. In the end they are attempting to do lots of things, but they fail most of the time.
> 
> I remember the last time I was being accused of railroading, and it did hurt me a lot... I was running Dark Sun, and I told my players that they need to make notes during the game. They reacted with silence... Then a NPC gave one of the PC's a password, which was crucial to continue the adventure. However, when the password was needed, he didn't remember and he didn't have it written down. I called for a INT-check, and it failed. They were unable to continue the adventure, and their attemps to otherwise circumvent the situation were unsuccessful. The password was simply necessary.





Thornir Alekeg said:


> Another way of railroading beyond directly saying "no, you can't do that," is to force things to happen despite the choices of the players and their PCs.  I've been in situations where the PCs have laid out a plan to get the macguffin.  It is a solid plan, but everything they come up with has miraculously been anticipated by the villain and countered.  It was so obvious that the script required the PCs to not get the Macguffin in this particular chapter.  The DM never said the players could not do something, but he prevented anything they did from being effective in order to say on script.



I would tnd to regard both of these as examples of railroading.

It doesn't become a non-railroad just because the inability of the players to shape the game results from ingame states of affairs rather than a metagame state of affairs. If the GM has set up the gameworld in such a way that the players can't change the situation in some way that they want to, this is (from the players' point of view) no less constraining than if the GM simply says "No, you can't do that".



Janx said:


> I don't want to play in a game where the players do random, pointless and disruptive things.



Nor do I. But this is different from requiring the players to have their PCs follow a preplanned plot written by the GM.



ExploderWizard said:


> It appears to me that the podcaster may be so unfortunate as to never have run a campaign with proactive and engaged players.



I think this is a pretty condescending attitude to take towards Ken Hite.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 9, 2010)

Janx said:


> I don't want to play in a game where the players do random, pointless and disruptive things.



Sometimes the "random, pointless and disruptive things" *are* the game, and as long as people are having fun, so what?


> There seems to be a type of player who's end goal seems to be disrupting gameplay, rational behavior or party goals.  Its kind of like if one of the actors on the set of a movie decided to not only ignore the script, but to do everything in their power to tank the filming.



That'd be me.

The minute I start feeling like I'm supposed to follow a script narrower than broad story-lines, I start looking for ways to do something - anything - else.  And while it may "tank the filming" of that one particular episode, who knows what other interesting things might end up getting filmed instead?

From the DM's side, one of the first things I learned was that I had to be able to hit the curveball; to roll with it when the party (or individual characters) pulled a sudden left turn, and find a way to fit what they did into the campaign.  And if this means abandoning a pre-planned story arc, well ::shrug:: so be it; if it's that good I can always find a way to resurrect it later.

Lan-"the Buffy-shotgun approach works for me"-efan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 9, 2010)

_Railroadings's just another word for nothing left to choose,
Playing don't mean nothing honey if choice ain't free, now now.
And railroading seems easy, Lord, when the GM is new,
But now there's no railroad that's good enough for me,
Good enough for me 'cause my players are free._


----------



## invokethehojo (Dec 9, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Hmm... I would approach it a bit differently. It's bad form to tell a player what his/her character would or would not do, under almost any circumstances. Instead, I would point out that the chances of success are low, the chances of escape if you fail are even lower, and the penalty for being caught is execution.
> 
> If the player went ahead and did it anyhow, I would fast-forward through the whole thing. Roll a Thievery check to see if you succeed--no? Okay, one of the guards spots you and steps forward to grab you while other guards block the exits. What do you do? You're running? Exits are blocked, you can try a bull rush if you like. You're pulling out your dagger and trying to stab one of the guards on the exits? Really, a weapon in the king's presence? The guards attack without mercy. Hang on a second. (consult Monster Manual, get suitable stats for the guards, triple their damage and reduce their hit points to 1/3 normal in order to speed things up) (brief and brutal combat ensues) Looks like you're dead. Make a new PC while the rest of the party apologizes to His Majesty and tries to smooth things over.




I'm not saying your wrong, but handling it that way seems like it would only get more complicated.  For instance: what about the rest of the party?  If their friend ends up in jail they might want to break him out, especially if he has a valuable item the party needs.  Or what are they going to do if the gaurds slaughter their friend?  The rogue can easily decide it's not in his character's best interest to pick the kings pocket, but putting the other players in a position where their characters are supposed to let a friend die without intervening... unless this is a very draconian party I'm guessing they couldn't do that without compromising their characters personalities, so that's a difficult situation for everyone.

I know telling a player what his character would or would not do seems like bad form, but it seems like the best way to get things accomplished.  I don't mind when players give me advice on how my world should operate, so I don't see why it shouldn't go both ways.  As a DM I will help players from time to time by telling them that while they may not think of something, their character has spent his whole life in that world, so he might have some ideas.  As long as the DM is impartial about it, or at least working towards the better of the whole group, I don't see it as being bothersome.  But that is my opinion.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"'




As always with discussions about story-driven vs. sandbox gaming, it's all about playstyle.

That said, I find the comments you posted from the podcast to be pretty insulting. I've had plenty of sandbox games where lots gets accomplished.

To me, 'railroading' is a pejorative term for "a game in which _the players' choices are restricted._"

Like Lanefan, I'm fine with a system that is explicitly railroady. I'm fine with other folks playing story-driven games, but I much prefer running and playing in sandboxes. And usually stuff gets done, even if the 'stuff' is only a bunch of roleplaying sometimes.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 9, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I would politely excuse myself the moment it became clear that the players' in-character choices were not driving the game, for I want nothing to do whatsoever with that gaming style.



Woah, hey there, buddy.  I never said the players' choices weren't driving the game.  I was just recounting one of the (very rare) occasions that I got accused of railroading.  I had a new player who got frustrated with me because I wouldn't let him change the adventure from my carefully-adapted "CM1: Test of the Warlords" to his improvised "LOL: Look At My Awesome Rogue."

That's not railroading.  If I'm guilty of anything, it's hogging the remote.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 9, 2010)

invokethehojo said:


> I'm not saying your wrong, but handling it that way seems like it would only get more complicated.  For instance: what about the rest of the party?  If their friend ends up in jail they might want to break him out, especially if he has a valuable item the party needs.  Or what are they going to do if the gaurds slaughter their friend?  The rogue can easily decide it's not in his character's best interest to pick the kings pocket, but putting the other players in a position where their characters are supposed to let a friend die without intervening... unless this is a very draconian party I'm guessing they couldn't do that without compromising their characters personalities, so that's a difficult situation for everyone.




Well, to some extent it would depend on the rest of the party. But if they want to bust the rogue out of jail, I can work with that; at least then the whole party is involved. I don't mind the story going to some odd and unexpected places, I just don't want three-fourths of the players sitting around twiddling their thumbs. I'll improvise a jailbreak adventure for this session, and after it ends, I'll overhaul my plans for future adventures to bring them in line with the party's new situation.

If the guards were aiming to outright kill the guy, I'd be fairly generous if the other PCs intervened to save him somehow. Since the player was new to the group, I'm assuming the character was new as well, so there wasn't necessarily a strong bond of in-character friendship there.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> But this isn't exactly cool, either.  Players hate it when the DM "railroads" them into something they don't want to participate in.  And in the same vein, everybody hates it when a player starts "showboating," and makes the game all about himself and his character.




Speaking for myself, as long as the dm keeps the showboat's time to a minimum, I would much rather deal with a showboat than  ride a railroad.



CleverNickName said:


> Woah, hey there, buddy.  I never said the players' choices weren't driving the game.  I was just recounting one of the (very rare) occasions that I got accused of railroading.  I had a new player who got frustrated with me because I wouldn't let him change the adventure from my carefully-adapted "CM1: Test of the Warlords" to his improvised "LOL: Look At My Awesome Rogue."
> 
> That's not railroading.  If I'm guilty of anything, it's hogging the remote.




Well, no offense, but from your description, it sounds very much like railroading to me: you are restricting player choice. 

In fact, I'd amend your statement to say that the players' choices were driving the game- as long as they fell within the acceptable limits of the story that you had already determined to tell. 

Now, while there is nothing wrong with this, I firmly stand on the other side of the divide here- Lanefan's comments about trying to throw the train off the tracks as soon as he feels a hint that he's on the rails at all rings very true for me, both from experiences dming and from my experience as a player. Again, it's all about playstyle. 

A key to making a sandbox work with players that aren't super proactive is to offer lots of hooks everywhere. Explicit, juicy hooks offering monsters, treasure, exploration or what have you.

A key to making a story-driven game work with players that prefer their freedom is to allow the illusion of choice- let them make up their own mind about what to do and just feed them to the same storyline regardless.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> Woah, hey there, buddy.  I never said the players' choices weren't driving the game.  I was just recounting one of the (very rare) occasions that I got accused of railroading.  I had a new player who got frustrated with me because I wouldn't let him change the adventure from my carefully-adapted "CM1: Test of the Warlords" to his improvised "LOL: Look At My Awesome Rogue."
> 
> That's not railroading.  If I'm guilty of anything, it's hogging the remote.



The problem for me is, what happens if I'm not interested in walking through your "carefully-adapted" module? What if I'm more interested in pulling off a heist of the crown jewels, and I convince the other players? Do you stop the action to tell us we're off your reservation?

To me, this . . . 







CleverNickName said:


> Like most everyone else, I run a plot-driven game.  I start a campaign by writing the story first, and then all of the adventures are just steps in a progression.  My campaigns work sort of like a season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer: there is a main goal that needs to be accomplished (stopping Willow, for example), and every episode of that season is a step toward accomplishing that goal.



. . . is exactly what I don't enjoy in roleplaying games. Multiple ways for me to follow _your_ story do not constitute "player choice" in my book, particularly if I can look forward to a meta discussion along the lines of, "No, you can't pickpocket the king because you need him on your side in Episode 3!"

*CleverNickName*, I've no doubt at all that your style works fine for you and your group, because you clearly share the same expectations for what you all want from a roleplaying game. My expectations are quite different, and they don't mesh cleanly with yours, which would make me a poor player candidate for someone running a game in the same way you do.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 9, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."




Any approach can be bad if done wrong.  

The opposite of the railroad is what I call the rowboat or rowboat setting.  A rowboat setting is when the players have the appearance of complete freedom but can't actually do anything.  The actual rowboat setting would be literally:

"Ok, you are in a row boat in the middle of the ocean.  There is no land in sight anywhere and you have no idea where you are.  What do you want to do?"

However, any sparcely described setting with few obvious features, limited player mobility and empowerment, and no discernable purpose or direction qualifies.  Virtually every setting I've ever encountered by someone who prides themselves on their ability to 'wing it' qualifies.  

In essence, both a rowboat setting and a railroad reach the same end from opposite directions.  In neither case does the player have any real choices.  In the literal rowboat setting, players can do 'anything', but 'anything' here consists of solely rowing in a randomly chosen direction through a vast and featureless ocean with only the faintest hope of finding land and with an even fainter hope of finding anything interesting when you get there.  And whatever happens, the DM will take no responsibility for the outcome and instead blame the players for their 'poor choices' even though the players had literally nothing to base their choices on.  

However, just because the two extremes arrive at a bad place if followed to long or unwisely, doesn't mean that either plots or sandboxes are bad or even incompatible in moderation.

Whether or not you think 'railroads' or 'rowboats' are inherently bad probably depends mostly on your personal experience.  If you were abused by a bad DM that put you on rails, you probably hate railroads.  If you were abused by a bad DM that left you to flounder pointlessly in a rowboat, then you probably hate rowboats and think the term 'railroad' is used by bad DMs to justify hellish rowboats.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Dec 9, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Whether or not you think 'railroads' or 'rowboats' are inherently bad probably depends mostly on your personal experience.  If you were abused by a bad DM that put you on rails, you probably hate railroads.  If you were abused by a bad DM that left you to flounder pointlessly in a rowboat, then you probably hate rowboats and think the term 'railroad' is used by bad DMs to justify hellish rowboats.




Or if you had a great DM who espoused a certain style you probably view that style more favorably. For example, in my nearly twenty years of playing, I have never played under a bad railroading DM. My only experiences with bad railroading DMs comes from horror stories I hear on these boards. I have, however, played under two great sandboxing DMs. My DMing style and my opinions on sandboxes in general is very much influenced by them.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 9, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The problem for me is, what happens if I'm not interested in walking through your "carefully-adapted" module? What if I'm more interested in pulling off a heist of the crown jewels, and I convince the other players? Do you stop the action to tell us we're off your reservation?
> 
> To me, this . . . . . . is exactly what I don't enjoy in roleplaying games. Multiple ways for me to follow _your_ story do not constitute "player choice" in my book, particularly if I can look forward to a meta discussion along the lines of, "No, you can't pickpocket the king because you need him on your side in Episode 3!"



Hmm, I think you might be right.

If you aren't interested in playing (or even merely 'walking through') the module, then you are certainly sitting at the wrong game table.  I assume that everyone who shows up is interested in playing the adventure I present.  (shrug)  If one of my players wants to play something else, I'd hope he would speak up before it starts instead of trying to hijack the story from me and everyone else who wanted to play CM1.  That's not cool.

I don't like open-ended games where the DM creates a map and says "So, what do you guys want to do today?"  I need a plot, I need NPCs, I need a story.  I get bored quickly unless I can care about the people and events going on around me.  (I am ADHD, after all.)

I think we both can agree that successfully roleplaying games are a balancing act.  Just like making beer.

Ultimately it is the brewmaster's (the DM's) job to make sure that the beer is delicious (that the game is fun).  And to do that, he needs a good blend of quality malted wheat and barley (a strong plot and structure), and he needs both bittering and aromatic hops (input and participation from the players.)  Now, some people like IPAs, beer that's easy on the grain and heavy on the hops (sandbox games).  Other people like Stouts and Hefeweizens, beers that are malty and rich but not very bitter (railroads.)

But at the end of the day, we all agree: beer is awesome.

*EDIT:* Eh, forget the beer reference.  Go read Celebrim's 'Railroads & Rowboats' post instead.  Two posts up.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 9, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The opposite of the railroad is what I call the rowboat or rowboat setting.  A rowboat setting is when the players have the appearance of complete freedom but can't actually do anything...




That is an excellent descriptive term.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> Hmm, I think you might be right.
> 
> If you aren't interested in playing (or even merely 'walking through') the module, then you are certainly sitting at the wrong game table.  I assume that everyone who shows up is interested in playing the adventure I present.  (shrug)  If one of my players wants to play something else, I'd hope he would speak up before it starts instead of trying to hijack the story from me and everyone else who wanted to play CM1.  That's not cool.
> 
> ...





My sandboxes have all sorts of plots, NPCs, and many, many, many stories unfolding.  It's the players' choice which ones to engage.

And I hate beer.  Too much water in it.


----------



## nedjer (Dec 9, 2010)

Dumb post game conversation:

the train - stuck on the rails
the rowboat - start bailing
the trawler - who let George Clooney get on the boat
the golf cart - by the numbers but choose your own clubs
the skateboard - freestyling
the Harley - freewheeling
the war elephant - big set pieces
the trojan horse - beware Dark Elves bearing gifts


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 9, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> "Ok, you are in a row boat in the middle of the ocean.  There is no land in sight anywhere and you have no idea where you are.  What do you want to do?"
> 
> However, any sparcely described setting with few obvious features, limited player mobility and empowerment, and no discernable purpose or direction qualifies.  Virtually every setting I've ever encountered by someone who prides themselves on their ability to 'wing it' qualifies.




Like the Rowboat analogy. Can't tell you how many DM's that wanted to run games "fast and loose" and make up their adventures as they go delivered a Rowboat game. 

Hey that's a new term we can coin--a rowboat game!


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> Hmm, I think you might be right.



Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

I think that means you've told me, "You might be right," more times than my wife has, though.







CleverNickName said:


> If you aren't interested in playing (or even merely 'walking through') the module, then you are certainly sitting at the wrong game table.  I assume that everyone who shows up is interested in playing the adventure I present.  (shrug)  If one of my players wants to play something else, I'd hope he would speak up before it starts instead of trying to hijack the story from me and everyone else who wanted to play CM1.  That's not cool.



Absolutely - matching expectations at the table is essential.

I enjoy modules as one-shot games - I had a lot of fun playing in _Good King Despot_ last year and _Necropolis_ this year at SoCal MiniCon with some local Dragonsfooters . . . Dragonsfeeties . . . uh, gamers from Dragonsfoot. But for a campaign, I prefer a lot more freedom to pursue in-character goals than being led through the adventure-path-of-the-moment.







CleverNickName said:


> I don't like open-ended games where the DM creates a map and says "So, what do you guys want to do today?"



Whereas I think Pinky and the Brain are the ultimate roleplayers, because the answer to that question is always, "The same thing we do every night - try to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!"

That's how a proactive player thinks, in my humble opinion.







CleverNickName said:


> I need a plot, I need NPCs, I need a story. I get bored quickly unless I can care about the people and events going on around me.



My characters care very much about the people and events going on around them - they develop friendships and rivals, make allies and enemies. help others and receive help in turn, set goals and meet or change them as the game unfolds.

The plot is created by the adventurers, but it's an emergent plot that is really only seen after the action moves on. It's a story told in retrospect, of events that happened in actual play, not by the machinations of the referee.

The games I enjoy most, from either side of the screen, are driven by the players and the adventurers, not the referee or the setting.







CleverNickName said:


> I think we both can agree that successfully roleplaying games are a balancing act.  Just like making beer.
> 
> Ultimately it is the brewmaster's (the DM's) job to make sure that the beer is delicious (that the game is fun).



Is it? Why isn't it up to the players?







CleverNickName said:


> And to do that, he needs a good blend of quality malted wheat and barley (a strong plot and structure), and he needs both bittering and aromatic hops (input and participation from the players.)



For me, what a good roleplaying game needs is a richly textured setting of interesting people and places and sense of life and vibrancy, characters with goals or ambition, and proactive players who don't wait around for an adventure to fall out of the sky on their heads.







CleverNickName said:


> Now, some people like IPAs, beer that's easy on the grain and heavy on the hops (sandbox games).  Other people like Stouts and Hefeweizens, beers that are malty and rich but not very bitter (railroads.)



I'm a Guinness man, myself.







CleverNickName said:


> But at the end of the day, we all agree: beer is awesome.



Yes, on that we agree.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 9, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> I don't like open-ended games where the DM creates a map and says "So, what do you guys want to do today?"  I need a plot, I need NPCs, I need a story.



I agree with this.


the Jester said:


> A key to making a story-driven game work with players that prefer their freedom is to allow the illusion of choice- let them make up their own mind about what to do and just feed them to the same storyline regardless.



But I don't agree with this. It's one way, but not the only way, and not a way that I'm interested in playing or GMing.

Sandbox and railroad are not opposite ends on a spectrum. There are other possibilities.

I prefer a game in which the players design PCs laden with thematic and story potential just waiting to be triggered. The GM then sets up situations which pull those triggers. And then the game unfolds in accordance with the players' responses (via their PCs) to those triggers.

This is a story driven game which has a plot and NPCs, but the story is initiated by both players (via PC design) and GM (via situation design), and resolved by the players. There is no need for the _illusion _of freedom, because players can exercise _actual _freedom.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 10, 2010)

I think that when railroading or sandbox (or "rowboating", nice one!) gets discussed with some heat, there is nearly always something else involved, often unspoken. For example, I think illusionism has been mentioned only once in this topic thus far.  I can tolerate a great deal of pre-plotted material in the right circumstance, despite my preference for sandbox, but I can't stand illusionism.  

Illusionism drives me nuts, and I avoid it like the plague when I'm the DM.  Problem is, it is not uncommon for a DM to think that the way to run a railroad is to use illusionism like mad.  I see it invoked in gaming advice, many times I'm convinced unconsciously.

OTOH, confronted with the need to do a certain amount of railroading, I'll quite happily go to OOC discussion to resolve the issue:  "Hey, you want to get on this train and do X, Y, and Z?"  Or you want to try something else to do something similar and let me adapt on the fly?  Or you want to do something totally different and let me wing it?  Because normally I'd have more options, but this was a rough week, and I was tired when prepping."

I can hear the deep immersionists screaming, "That isn't roleplaying to me!"  Well, maybe not to you.  I just call it taking a shortcut to the fun, the fun being defined as something I'm willing to run and the players excited to try. If a decision point happens to fall mid-adventure, then it is no less valid for its location.  If you'd rather handle that situation with illusionism, and the group likes it, more power to you.  Just don't do it with the idea that illusionism is the only effective way to handle the issue.

I think you get similar disconnects over such things as splitting the party, level of dissent tolerated between player characters, scope of the playable world, etc.  Depending on the groups' preferences on a whole host of issues, and how conscious they are of those preferences, they may show a preference for a certain amount of scripted versus sandbox, but I think it is more a symptom of those other preferences than a simple preference in its own right.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> "Ok, you are in a row boat in the middle of the ocean.  There is no land in sight anywhere and you have no idea where you are.  What do you want to do?"



"First, we need to take an inventory of supplies - what are our resources, particularly expendables, particularly water. How much do we have, and how long can we expect it to last?

"We also need to get a handle on where we are, so we need to observe the sun to determine cardinal directions and maybe a bit about our latitude, based on how high the arc of the sun is. Once night falls, we need to figure out if there's a polestar or a similar object which can be used as an absolute marker for latitude. Do we have a bit of wood and string to make a _kamal_? Is anyone trained in navigation?

"Someone will need to watch the water and the sky for wildlife - do we see any birds, and if we do, which way are they travelling? Does the water have a greenish hue suggesting the presence of phytoplankton, or is it open ocean blue? Which way is the swell moving relative to the sun? Are there clouds? What do they look like, and which way are they moving? Do we have a rope we can use to sound the depth and maybe see how far down the light goes?

"We need to think about gathering food and especially water. We'll also need to rig a shelter of some kind - lack of food can kill you in weeks, lack of water in days, exposure in hours.

"So . . . how 'bout it, ref?"


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 10, 2010)

Canor Morum said:


> It shouldn't take 2 to 3 hours to resolve that situation.  You simply tell them the guards have arrested their friend.  They can get him out using diplomacy, paying a sum of gold, breaking him out, etc.  The rogue could also attempt to escape on his own if the players feel like leaving him in there.  Any of these options could be done quickly with a skill challenge.
> 
> The rogue learns a lesson, gets his moment in the spotlight, and creates an ongoing dialogue between the PCs.  "All right, rogue, don't steal anything this time, were not bailing you out again."  "Remember that time you tried to steal from the king?"




You have a group which is brutally effective.

My group would insist on playing out a combat, with all the speed and grace 3e/4e combat offers. 
They would spend a concocting a plan to rescue him, either through a prolonged diplomatic trial or simply breaking into the prison. Meanwhile, the rogue would do everything in his power to break out. 
They would ultimately succeed OR give up. If they succeed they spend the remainder of the time discussing the rogue's fate. An honest mistake? A finger-wagging and move on. A serious habitual offender? They'll leave him on the side of the road. More than likely, the player is rolling up a new PC, with all the fun THAT entails...
The king is offended, the module ruined, and the game is adjourned until the DM can retool his game for next session.

In almost any case: Session ruined.

In what way is that better than telling the player "no" and moving onto the adventure at hand?


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> In almost any case: Session ruined.



For whom?

If the players enjoy the fight, or the diplomacy, or the escape attempts, then why do you think it's better to tell them 'no' and move on?


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 10, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Is it? Why isn't it up to the players?



Because the DMG says it's up to the DM.    But even if that weren't the case, I think I would still prefer a single person (either the DM or the author of a published module) in charge of the story, because not everyone knows how to write a good one.

(I know that "good" is a highly subjective term.  But hear me out.)

According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers.  It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas.  There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting.  The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.

I know that we aren't writing the next Great American Novel at my game table.  And a lot of people prefer a less-cohesive storyline that flows from one scene to the next without any sort of pattern (whatever happens in this episode has nothing to do with what happened last week, nor will it affect what happens next week.)  It just doesn't work for us.



The Shaman said:


> I'm a Guinness man, myself.



And strangely enough, I prefer hefes.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 10, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> They would spend a concocting a plan to rescue him, either through a prolonged diplomatic trial or simply breaking into the prison. Meanwhile, the rogue would do everything in his power to break out.
> They would ultimately succeed OR give up. If they succeed they spend the remainder of the time discussing the rogue's fate. An honest mistake? A finger-wagging and move on. A serious habitual offender? They'll leave him on the side of the road. More than likely, the player is rolling up a new PC, with all the fun THAT entails...




My current group, when we first started playing, was like this.  After a couple of years of trying all kinds of things to get it to change (talking about it, begging, showing by example, system changes ... you name it, if you can imagine it, I probably tried it), I finally hit on something that worked:

I got a fairly big, wooden, 3-minute egg timer.  I would watch when someone started repeating what had already been said.  As soon as that happened, I flipped the timer, in full view of everyone.  If the sand ran out before they acted, I made sure that, "something bad would happen" that would demand a reaction.

I explained exactly how this would work, before the session started, and reminded them every session until it was ingrained.  They can talk for an hour if they want.  As long as it's rolling along and people are having fun, it is all good.  Just no boring, rehashing of the same tired stuff.  (They get bored before I do.  So it is not as if I'm pushing them on my account.  I just watch for repeats in the arguments and signs of boredom from the players.)

Having since talked to other people who tried this, I'm fairly convinced that the key is having an egg-timer big enough where they can see the grains flowing.  I'd tried various digitial versions earlier with no effect whatsoever.  The other necessary part is being vague about the consequences, but following through.  I actually start pretty minor, and rachet up consequences throughout the session, but ambiguity works wonders on this group.  You don't want, "ninjas attack," to derail the session, after all.

The really funny thing is that they all know exactly what I'm doing and why.  It's never been the slightest bit hidden.  But it got for awhile where I didn't even need the egg-timer.  When things started dragging, I'd merely glance over at the case where I usually kept it, and *someone* would subconsicously notice this, take charge, and within 60 seconds have everything back on track.  We haven't actually had the sand run out this decade.  They just needed a push to get into something that was more fun for everyone.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 10, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers. It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas. There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting. The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.




You can easily get surprises, mystery, intrigue, along with a cohesive background and setting, and compelling heroes and villains.  You can also have multiple, interesting, twining conflicts rise out of it.  And that is with everyone contributing.

It's true that it is difficult to get a single, central conflict without a single author.  But that is one of the big differences between a written story and a roleplaying game.  (That is, feature, not a bug.)  With twining conflicts, cohesion is less important, and you can get enough from the framework provided by the setting and discussion/agreement before the game starts.  

It's also true that with multiple inputs, each player can't be totally surprised, all the time.  Sometimes, they are the ones contributing, and thus that particular mystery ... isn't.  But on balance, I'd rather have 9 surprises and 1 contribution from me, than 10 surprises from one person.  After a little gaming, I find it hard for that one person to much surprise me anymore, especially when no one can effectively throw a monkey wrench into his plans.  Whereas, with everyone contributing, I may not be surprised about Mr. X being the villain, but I may very well be surprised at how Mr. Y, who I did not anticipate, interacts with him.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 10, 2010)

As Celebrim's "rowboat" analogy indicates, there are many ways to fail at DMing. Too much direction ("railroading") is one. Not enough direction ("rowboating") is another. And more importantly, neither is the solution to the other.

You do not cure a man of hypothermia by setting him on fire.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 10, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:


> It's true that it is difficult to get a single, central conflict without a single author.  But that is one of the big differences between a written story and a roleplaying game.  (That is, feature, not a bug.)  With twining conflicts, cohesion is less important, and you can get enough from the framework provided by the setting and discussion/agreement before the game starts.



I disagree.

It is possible to have a single, central conflict within a role-playing game.  In fact, I prefer it that way.  Less work for everyone, fewer distractions, easier to follow, etc.

For me, cohesion doesn't become less important with entertwining conflicts, it becomes more.  And harder to accomplish.

And I can't really get "enough" from a mere framework provided by the setting and an open discussion.  I can get started with that, but before long, I'm bogging the game down by asking too many questions.  Then everybody yells at me a lot.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Dec 10, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers.  It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas.  There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting.  The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.




My experiences with Mythic -- in particular: Mythic Game Master Emulator -- have shown me that it is quite easy to have all the elements necessary to create a good story, without the need of one person to guide said story. This system allowed us to create a very cohesive narrative, while allowing for a great deal of individual player latitude.

I think, though, that it requires a certain type of player to really make a system like this shine. 

Oh, and I prefer Newcastle.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> Because the DMG says it's up to the DM.    But even if that weren't the case, I think I would still prefer a single person (either the DM or the author of a published module) *in charge of the story, because not everyone knows how to write a good one*.
> 
> (I know that "good" is a highly subjective term.  But hear me out.)
> 
> According to my Creative Writing classes, *a good work of fiction* needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers.  It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas.  *There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains,* and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting. * The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.*




All very true in a story... or at least somewhat true (there are certainly great novels that violate all these rules). 

In a roleplaying game, though, this is *not* what I personally look for. Again, it's a matter of playstyle, and that's okay; but I think the needs of a good rpg are very different from the needs of a good story. 

As someone else on ENWorld once posted, "The story is what we tell after the game when talking about what happened." [/misquote]


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I think that when railroading or sandbox (or "rowboating", nice one!) gets discussed with some heat, there is nearly always something else involved, often unspoken.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Great post (but still can't posrep you at this time).

I'd add - when you go out of character to resolve the issue in the way you describe, I don't think of it as railroading anymore. It's working with the players to set up the next situation, recognising that this is subject not only to limitations that arise ingame (eg the situation is unlikely to involve a giant robot attack, if it's a fantasy game) but also limitations that arise from real life (eg the GM can't impromptu GM a massed dragon attack, either, and hasn't got one prepped).


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers.  It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas.  There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting.



What I like most about roleplaying games are the ways in which they are _not_ like stories. The contributions of multiple imaginations and the influence of the dice top my list.

So what's important to you is about as far removed from what I want out of playing a game as it gets.

Different strokes make a horse race, or something like that.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers.  It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas.  There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting.  The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.





CleverNickName said:


> It is possible to have a single, central conflict within a role-playing game.  In fact, I prefer it that way.  Less work for everyone, fewer distractions, easier to follow, etc.



I don't fully get this.

Perhaps the single most dramatic - in the sense of surprising, and also in the sense of exhibiting characters and the conflict between them, and also in the sense of thematically powerful - moment that has occurred in a game I have GMed was when one of the PCs had been captured by an enemy cult, and was about to be sacrificed by the cultists, and the other principal PC decided to embrace the cultists and go along with the sacrifice, thereby transforming himself from a politically obscure although personally powerful magician into one of the most powerful political players in a reemerging empire to whom the cultists belonged.

A similar sort of event occurred in another campaign when the warrior priest and esoteric monk PCs discovered that their fox-spirit ranger/rogue companion was in fact an escapee from heavenly-imposed exile. They discovered this when the constables of the heavens turned up to try to capture the fox and take him back to heaven to face justice. The clerical PCs chose to help their friend by fighting against the constables of heaven. This was the first of many escalating conflicts with heaven that culminated in the PCs allying with an exiled god to bring a dead god back to life and thereby resolve a cosmic conflict that an ancient pact between the heavens and the hells had attempted but failed to quell.

In my experience, these are the sorts of stories that can be produced by character- and situation-focused play when the players are given the freedom to respond as they want to.

As stories, they have all the flaws that are typical of the roleplaying genre - hackneyed tropes, poor dialogue (where it occurs at all), meandering plot development, numerous irrelevant sidetracks, and inevitable unresolved storylines (sometimes caused by nothing more than poor memories from session to session).

But they do have cohesive backgrounds and settings, heroes, villains, and meaningful conflicts that come to a resolution. And they have two virtues that are special properties, I think, of RPG-generated stories. First, no one in the audience for the story - player or GM - knows how the story will unfold until the game is actually played. Second, the overlap between PC choices and player choices gives these stories a particular emotional/thematic force. Thus, when the PC betrays his (former) comrade and joins in the sacrifice, not only is the _PC_ expressing a view about the priority of power over loyalty, but the _player_, by choosing to have his PC act in this way, is (like any authoer) expressing the view that it is worthwhile to portray this view in a fiction, but also, by having the view expressed by the protagonist who is his unqiue vehicle in the game, is at least flirting with endorsing it. In my view, the thematic tensions and resolutions to which this can give rise are quite different from that of an actor playing a pre-scripted part. (And not thereby superior, but I think clearly different.) 

Neither of these virtues would be possible if the game simply consisted in me, as GM, telling the players who the enemy of the PCs was to be, and then steering the players (whether by overt or illusionist techniques) to a predetermined resolution of that "conflict" - and I put "conflict" in inverted commas deliberately, because when the players don't themselves choose who their PCs' enemies will be, and don't themselves get to choose what sorts of choices are worth making for their PCs, their may be a fictional conflict in the gameworld, but the sort of real world tensions and resolutions that actual player choices can give rise to will (it seems to me) not be achieved.

EDITED TO ADD: There can be many enjoyable things about RPGing besides creating a story. A lot of players, in particular, like to explore an imaginary world, and sandboxing obviously is one good way to do this. My point is that, _if you want a story_, then giving players the freedom to make real choices that make a difference to the establishment and resolution of conflict in the game (and not only ingame conflict but the actual thematic tensions that play gives rise to in the real world) is a good way to go about it.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> "First, we need to take an inventory
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "So . . . how 'bout it, ref?"



On this one, I have to agree with Celebrim.



The Shaman said:


> So what's important to you is about as far removed from what I want out of playing a game as it gets.
> 
> Different strokes make a horse race, or something like that.



Very true!


----------



## Janx (Dec 10, 2010)

the Jester said:


> posted, "The story is what we tell after the game when talking about what happened." [/misquote]





I would hope, that the DM, rather than scripting a story, has enough story elements to get the players interested and that the story is the outcome of their activity.

Thus, I don't want to play through the DM's re-enactment of Dragonlance.

Nor do I want to go from one random meangingless encounter to the next.

A good GM should be able to turn those seemingly random encounters and surprising character decisions INTO a dramatic story that clearly supports the character choices, rather than is at risk of being at odds with them.

Basically, make what I do awesome.

Now I supposed players owe DMs some seriousness in their actions, as befits the setting and theme.  Thus if the party says "we're heroic heroes, and we do heroic stuff" then the dork who thinks he can pickpocket the king is running counter to that.

Sure, they might have a good time rescuing the rogue, but that one player may have just cratered the campaign.

I'm all for players having freedom, but juist because you can technically try to do stupid things, doesn't mean it makes for quality gaming.  I guess I got that out of my system when I started gaming.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 10, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> For whom?
> 
> If the players enjoy the fight, or the diplomacy, or the escape attempts, then why do you think it's better to tell them 'no' and move on?




For the guy who wanted to play the module the DM bought.
For the guy who wanted to fight orcs, giants, or dragons, not the king's guards.
For the guy who is tired of the rogue getting them kicked out of every civilized nation on Faerun.
For the guy whose paladin would NEVER approve of the groups decision to rescue him and sits the session out checking his facebook on his laptop.
For the guy who wanted to see what dastardly plot the villains had hatched.

In short, some people don't mind recalling the time Lefty got arrested for picking the King's pockets, but most of the others would rather fight evil, get treasure, raid dragon lairs, or do dozen other things than spring Lefty from the King's Dungeon.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 10, 2010)

Jacob Marley said:


> Or if you had a great DM who espoused a certain style you probably view that style more favorably. For example, in my nearly twenty years of playing, I have never played under a bad railroading DM. *My only experiences with bad railroading DMs comes from horror stories I hear on these boards.* I have, however, played under two great sandboxing DMs. My DMing style and my opinions on sandboxes in general is very much influenced by them.




Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society, I call this story...

*throws birch bark powder on the campfire to heighen the flames and produce eerie white smoke*

*Satyr Rape. *

Some players at a con' get pregenerated female characters. All players are male. They complain a little and then blow it off. _Fine_, no big deal. People two tables over are playing origami characters. Females can't be that bad. _Strange_ though - no cleric and they're all pretty low on Wisdom. _Whatever_.

The mission requires going from point A to point B. They head out. On the way, the DM says they encounter satyrs dancing in the forest. The satyrs invite them to dance. Some PCs do. Those that refuse are subjected to the Satyr's charm effect (one from each satyr, make multiple saves). There's some complaining, but all the satyrs are asking for is a dance, so what's the big deal?

Once you're charmed though... Then the sex (_rape_) begins, on the charmed characters. DM says the PCs who are charmed can't resist this, because it's not an attack, they're not really hurt, it feels good, etc. Pretty much every stupid line used by rapists to justify their actions. The DM tells the other PCs they can't object because the raped PCs seem to be enjoying it and asking for more.

Once the other PCs start objecting a lot, the DM has the satyrs charm them too. Since they already had about half the party, it was short work. Then the _even more_ graphic descriptions roll out, the satyrs change positions, methods, partners, etc. Several players are nearly *boiling *over in rage at the DM.

Finally one of the PCs who *isn't *so angry says, "_Fine_, when is this going to be over? It's been almost _three _hours and this is only a _four _hour game slot. Can we just fast forward to when they're done and we can get out of here?"

At which point the DM says, "Oh, _no_, I don't have anything about point B worked out. The encounter with the satyrs was the only thing I was planning on running."

That sent a couple players over the edge. They leaped up, began yelling, threw game books, dice, and drinks onto the DM, and the game room understandably fell silent as everyone looked over. One of the irate players screamed out the line "Why don't you just slap a VAGINA to my forehead and F*** my brains out? Huh? You want some, b****?!!" and further tried to provoke the DM to a fight. The DM declined _(and sort of crawled under the table_) and so the players left.

For two of the players, this was their _first_ game ever. One was the brother of the yelling player mentioned above and the other was a friend of his. They'd gone with him to the convention to find out what gaming was all about. 

They *never* played again, as I'm _sure_ you can understand.



Remathilis said:


> For the guy who wanted to play the module the DM bought.
> For the guy who wanted to fight orcs, giants, or dragons, not the king's guards.
> For the guy who is tired of the rogue getting them kicked out of every civilized nation on Faerun.
> For the guy whose paladin would NEVER approve of the groups decision to rescue him and sits the session out checking his facebook on his laptop.
> ...




This is why I think parties should make decisions together instead of ONE person doing some random but highly influential act. If they ALL want to rob the king though, they should be allowed to _try_. Although it might be better to kill the orcs, dragons, villains, etc straight off and take the Lord's reward-thus allowing the DM to run his scenario, and _then _rob the king AFTER they have gained his trust-allowing the players to pursue their own goal. It's a give/take thing.


----------



## Leatherhead (Dec 10, 2010)

"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for video-gamey scenarios where there are a limited number of ways that the characters can influence the world around them.

Yeah, I went there.  I have a tendency to give my players enough rope to hang themselves with, and I have a reputation as a "Killer DM" for doing so.

Not too long ago I gave my players a sandbox to play in. A Mutants and Masterminds setting where they were playing the bad guys. First thing they do: Rob a bank. They set up elaborate plots, complete with surveillance, a fall guy, multiple escape routs, a huge decoy, and a hideout. Then the plan went to crap when a hero showed up, and they played it by the seat of their pants in order to escape with the loot. All without any prodding by me, other than simply reacting to what they were doing. They said it was the most fun they had playing in years.

The key is they have to want to play. The lack of which is what ruins games more than anything.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 10, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> My group would insist on playing out a combat, with all the speed and grace 3e/4e combat offers.
> They would spend a concocting a plan to rescue him, either through a prolonged diplomatic trial or simply breaking into the prison. Meanwhile, the rogue would do everything in his power to break out.
> They would ultimately succeed OR give up. If they succeed they spend the remainder of the time discussing the rogue's fate. An honest mistake? A finger-wagging and move on. A serious habitual offender? They'll leave him on the side of the road. More than likely, the player is rolling up a new PC, with all the fun THAT entails...



Up to here this is all pretty much standard operating procedure


> The king is offended



Makes sense. 







> the module ruined



Why? In most cases, it's not like the adventure is going to get up and walk away...it'll still be there a week later once the PCs get Lefty out of jail; never mind that a remote adventure location might also make an excellent place to hide until the hue and cry dies down. 


> and the game is adjourned until the DM can retool his game for next session.



Why?  All this tells me is that this particular DM can't hit the curveball; and that's not the players' fault.  Sure the DM has prepared an adventure, but there's nothing saying the PCs are ever gonna get to it.

Lan-"which is why I try to keep prepped adventures generic enough that I can re-use them later if they get ignored the first time"-efan


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> For the guy who wanted to play the module the DM bought.
> For the guy who wanted to fight orcs, giants, or dragons, not the king's guards.
> For the guy who is tired of the rogue getting them kicked out of every civilized nation on Faerun.
> For the guy whose paladin would NEVER approve of the groups decision to rescue him and sits the session out checking his facebook on his laptop.
> For the guy who wanted to see what dastardly plot the villains had hatched.



Which is why I stipulated, "If the players *enjoy* . . . ."







Remathilis said:


> In short, some people don't mind recalling the time Lefty got arrested for picking the King's pockets, but most of the others would rather fight evil, get treasure, raid dragon lairs, or do dozen other things than spring Lefty from the King's Dungeon.



And if Lefty's player is chafing at the fact that Lefty _*the Thief*_ never gets to steal stuff because all the adventurers ever do is fight orcs or giants or dragons, and now the freaking *KING* is standing, in all his bejeweled glory, a mere five-foot step away?

'Sticking to the module,' or '. . . the dungeon master's story,' as the case may be, can make running Lefty a tiresome chore.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:


> Illusionism drives me nuts, and I avoid it like the plague when I'm the DM.





Jacob Marley said:


> . . . Mythic Game Master Emulator . . .





the Jester said:


> . . . [T]he needs of a good rpg are very different from the needs of a good story.



"You have given out too much Experience Points [_sic_] in the past 24 hours . . ."


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2010)

the Jester said:


> ... but I think the needs of a good rpg are very different from the needs of a good story.




Okay, so the needs are different.  "The needs are different" does not itself imply "there shouldn't be someone in charge of how it goes".

If you want to have a good, long term story out of your campaign, you need some focus and cohesion of direction, themes, and elements.  You can get such from a committee, but you can also get blood from stones, if you try hard enough


----------



## billd91 (Dec 10, 2010)

Sorrowdusk said:


> This is why I think parties should make decisions together instead of ONE person doing some random but highly influential act. If they ALL want to rob the king though, they should be allowed to _try_. Although it might be better to kill the orcs, dragons, villains, etc straight off and take the Lord's reward-thus allowing the DM to run his scenario, and _then _rob the king AFTER they have gained his trust-allowing the players to pursue their own goal. It's a give/take thing.




To a certain degree, yes. You really don't want a single loose cannon ruining everyone's fun at the table in such a blantant way. But I prefer to leave that sort of policing up to the players themselves. Excessive trouble-causing PCs tend to be left behind as corpses (or as petrified rock with metal spikes hammered into their foreheads in a particular case) in the groups I play with.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 10, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> Because the DMG says it's up to the DM.    But even if that weren't the case, I think I would still prefer a single person (either the DM or the author of a published module) in charge of the story, because not everyone knows how to write a good one.
> 
> According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers.  It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas.  There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting.  The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.
> 
> I know that we aren't writing the next Great American Novel at my game table.  And a lot of people prefer a less-cohesive storyline that flows from one scene to the next without any sort of pattern (whatever happens in this episode has nothing to do with what happened last week, nor will it affect what happens next week.)  It just doesn't work for us.




I think the problem with this conception, for me, is that the players aren't the only "readers" of this story. The DM also gets the reader experience as the players interact with the framework of the story in ways that surprise or are novel to the DM.
I agree that the DM's job is to manage the game and present enough good content to give the players what they need to make it a good time. But they also bear responsibility for making it a good game as well, just individually less than the DM's share.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 10, 2010)

I don't know why this thread is in my head so much this week.  The truth of the matter is, it really doesn't matter if people think that I "railroad" my stories; I rarely get any complaints.  But The Shaman and a couple of others have raised some pretty interesting points about different styles of gaming, and I am always looking for ways to hone my craft.

So I pulled one of my all-time favorite adventure modules off my shelf, and re-read it from cover to cover.  Along the way, I made little comments on the story: the plot, the pacing, the amount of flexibility, and so forth.  Knowing that I can't really speak for anyone else, I focused on my own gaming preferences...I asked myself, "Do I *really* like railroads?"

Here's what I discovered.

[SBLOCK="Plot Assessment of Module X-1: The Isle of Dread."]
Page numbers in parenthesis.

*(5) The Hook:* In a previous, unstated quest, the party finds a cache of blank scroll papers, and decides to take them and sell them to the magic-users (who use such paper for their scrolls and spellbooks.)  On the journey home, the party is caught in a sudden rainstorm, and the scrolls are all drenched.  The party spreads the papers out to dry by the fire, and the heat brings out secret writing on the pages.  Turns out, the "blank" scrolls are pages from a ship's log.  The players are handed an incomplete map of an island, and a page from the ship's log that mentions a city full of treasure somewhere on the island, and a great black pearl.

Railroading: Total.  The players have no input in this whole introduction.  The DM tells them a story about how they found scrolls, got wet, dried them out, and discovered the writing, and then hands them the map.  While it is possible to roleplay this introduction as a separate adventure, the module makes no attempt to do so.

*(6) Preparing to set sail:* The module states bluntly that "the characters begin the adventure in Specularum, which is in the Grand Duchy of Karameikos."  It also says that the party must acquire a ship or passage to the Isle of Dread, and offers four different methods by which they could do so.

Railroading: Very little.  The module makes a few suggestions about how the party can acquire a ship, but it doesn't force a particular method or even state a perference among the options.  It does assume that the party will reach the island by sea (rather than by air, or by teleportation, etc.) but that is forgiveable given the level of the party the module was designed for.

*(6) Sailing to the Island:*  The harrowing, days-long voyage to the island is covered in four paragraphs.  Essentially, the module says "here is a map, use the random encounter tables in the core rules, and make sure that the party doesn't get beaten up too badly...they still need to reach the island."

Railroading: Some.  The whole Sea of Dread can be treated as one big sandbox arena of sea monsters and water hazards, but the blanket statement of "but the party still reaches the island anyway" keeps it from becoming stagnant.

*(8) The Village of Tanaroa* The party arrives at this small village.  They have no choice but to land here, because the entire island is conveniently equipped with rocky shores unsuitable for landing...except for this one tiny little portion.  The village is friendly, and the natives will trade with the party and help outfit them for the journey.  It is assumed that the party can get information here about the island's history, the ancestors who built the great wall, and the inland city full of treasure...but the module doesn't dictate this information.  Instead, the module gives some background on a handful of NPCs in the Appendix, and it is left to the DM to decide who knows what, and how much of that knowledge they are willing to give to the party.

Railroading: A little.  The party can hang out in the village for as long as they like, apparently, but eventually they are going to have to go beyond the wall and start heading inland in search of the City of the Gods.  The DM is expected to drop hints and leak information until the party decides to do so...otherwise, nothing interesting ever happens.

*(9-21) The Isle of Dread:*  Once the party passes beyond the wall, the island is theirs to explore.  There is a trail to some tar pits, but other than that, there is no guidance and no clues as to which direction the party will need to travel, or where they will find this mysterious city.

Railroading: None.  The Isle of Dread itself is just one big jungle-covered sandbox, full of random encounters.  (In fact, even some of the "fixed" encounters are rolled on a table.)  The party just wanders around in the jungle for days, weeks, or months, until they find the central plateau.  Granted, it's right smack-dab in the center of the island so it's both obvious and impossible to miss, but still.  A sandbox.

*(22-23) The Central Plateau:*  The module assumes that eventually, the party will find this geological formation and will want to explore it.  There's even a rope bridge for convenience...which is the biggest plot hole in the book.  I mean, if the village ancestors fled this way centuries ago, never wanted to return, and never wanted to be followed, why did they leave the bridge?  Wouldn't they have cut this bridge down on their way out?  Anyway.  There's a bridge, the party crosses it, and finds themselves on a big, volcano-topped plateau.  Inside that volcano is a crater lake and a small village.

Railroading: A little.  This is another giant sandbox, but it's bottlenecked at the entrance and the exit.  The party has to reach the plateau by rope bridge, and they eventually have to climb the volcano to move the adventure forward.  The module offers no clues or incentive to do so, however...it's almost like the module assumes that the party will eventually get bored enough to decide to look inside the volcano for an ancient city.  And the only thing interesting in the volcano is a small village.

*(23) The Village of Mantru:* This tiny little village introduces a couple of NPCs, and provides the party a place to rest and replenish their resources.  Eventually the villagers ask the party for their help in eradicating a threat: "a group of renegade tribesmen (now headhunters) have taken up residence inside a great ruined temple on the western side of an island in the center of the lake."

Railroading: Total.  The party really has no choice.  I mean, sure, they can decide not to help and turn around and go home, I guess, but that's not a real "choice."  The adventure cannot move forward until the party decides to visit Taboo Island.

*(24-27) Taboo Island:* The party agrees to help the villagers fight the headhunters, and they cross the freshwater lake by canoe.  They arrive at the ruin of a massive temple, explore the ruin, fight the Big Bad, and get the treasure.

Railroading: Total.  While "this rocky island is dotted with small ruins," only one ruin is given any mention: the Temple of the Gods.  In fact, the entrance to the temple is actually a canoe dock...almost as if the author wanted to discourage exploration of anything else on this tiny island.  The temple itself is a dungeon crawl, in the classic three-level format.  The great black pearl, sadly, is still inside a giant oyster...a bit anticlimatic and very easy to miss, but there you go.

*Epologue:* There is no mention about how the party returns to the mainland.  The module stops with the description of the Temple, but offers some alternate scenarios for further adventure on the island.  These options are barely one paragraph each, and are mostly just notes on what else the party can do on the island the next time they come back (if they want to.)  Things like "Map the Island," "Exterminate the Pirates," "Destroy the Zombie Master," and "Dinosaur Hunt" are all presented, but it is left to the DM to flesh these options out.
[/SBLOCK]
So, I guess the Isle of Dread isn't as rail-bound as I remembered it being.  The story is good, but all of the great parts about it that I remember from the times that I've played it were not in the module at all...they were things that I added on the fly to flesh it out.  The clues about the island ancestors, for example, and all of the little signs and wonders that guide the party to the good stuff, were all improved by me using the module as a rough framework.

Hmm.  Turns out, most of my favorite adventure module is, by and large, a giant sandbox.

Pass the crow.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> Turns out, most of my favorite adventure module is, by and large, a giant sandbox.






CleverNickName said:


> Pass the crow.



How 'bout a Widmer instead?


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 10, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> . Why? In most cases, it's not like the adventure is going to get up and walk away...it'll still be there a week later once the PCs get Lefty out of jail; never mind that a remote adventure location might also make an excellent place to hide until the hue and cry dies down. Why?  All this tells me is that this particular DM can't hit the curveball; and that's not the players' fault.  Sure the DM has prepared an adventure, but there's nothing saying the PCs are ever gonna get to it.




I'm cheating a little: the module mentioned by CleverNickname was *Test of the Warlords*, a classic Champion D&D module which begins with the king offering you a piece of land in Norworld (medieval Norway) and all you got to do is clear it out and make it inhabitable for the civilized folks, and you get to be declared Jarl of it. Its for high level PCs (15+) and its got a good mix of politics, dungeons, and even mass combat in it.

Stealing from the guy WHOSE ABOUT TO GIVE YOU LAND pretty much sabotages the whole plot, doesn't it? If it was, say, Tomb of Horrors or something, I might've agreed.



The Shaman said:


> Which is why I stipulated, "If the players *enjoy* . . . ."And if Lefty's player is chafing at the fact that Lefty _*the Thief*_ never gets to steal stuff because all the adventurers ever do is fight orcs or giants or dragons, and now the freaking *KING* is standing, in all his bejeweled glory, a mere five-foot step away?
> 
> 'Sticking to the module,' or '. . . the dungeon master's story,' as the case may be, can make running Lefty a tiresome chore.




But you can please all the people all of the time, and (from the sound of it) the only guy amused by the scenario was the instigator. Which means everyone else gets dragged into it unwillingly. They might have some fun this time, but what about the next, and the next after that? 

And any thief stealing from the king in his audience chamber surrounded by guards as the king is offering up reward for services done is not only stupid beyond all reason, he's a piss-poor ROLE-player as well.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> But you can please all the people all of the time, and (from the sound of it) the only guy amused by the scenario was the instigator. Which means everyone else gets dragged into it unwillingly. They might have some fun this time, but what about the next, and the next after that?



So the thief is nevers supposed to be a thief?

That's silly.







Remathilis said:


> And any thief stealing from the king in his audience chamber surrounded by guards as the king is offering up reward for services done is not only stupid beyond all reason, he's a piss-poor ROLE-player as well.



Actually, it would be the pocket-pick of a lifetime for an enterprising thief - giving in to the temptation to cut the king's purse in his audience chamber in front of his guards strikes me as _outstanding_ roleplaying.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 10, 2010)

FireLance said:


> You do not cure a man of hypothermia by setting him on fire.



You do if you're the typical PC!


----------



## billd91 (Dec 10, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> So the thief is nevers supposed to be a thief?




I think it's more a question of the thief is expected to not be a particularly dumb and brazen thief, not that he's never expected to steal.



The Shaman said:


> That's silly.Actually, it would be the pocket-pick of a lifetime for an enterprising thief - giving in to the temptation to cut the king's purse in his audience chamber in front of his guards strikes me as _outstanding_ roleplaying.




Sure, it would be the pocket pick of a lifetime. But let's face it, it's going to require a bit of planning to pull off a caper like that and it has tremendous risks. Doing it on a spur of the moment as opposed to doing it with a plan limits itself to outstanding role-playing for a particularly reckless or dumb sort of character.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 10, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think the problem with this conception, for me, is that the players aren't the only "readers" of this story. The DM also gets the reader experience as the players interact with the framework of the story in ways that surprise or are novel to the DM.
> I agree that the DM's job is to manage the game and present enough good content to give the players what they need to make it a good time. But they also bear responsibility for making it a good game as well, just individually less than the DM's share.




The problem is not when Joe says OOC that he wants to rob the King, whom is a mere 5 foot-step away. The problem is when he feels that it's his right to obliterate the game by doing so. And that nobody should stand in his way when he tries. What starts out as good fun, suddenly becomes serious out-of-game player confrontation when someone tries to stop him.

Lets whip up a scene:
Joe, a mere 5 feet from the king, announces OOC that he's about to rob him.
Jim, the kinght-in-shining armor type, tells him with a laugh that he'd have to stop him if he tried, since Jim's PC is the lawful good type.
Joe, thinking that Jim is only joking, makes his attempt. To his surprise, Jim isn't kidding, and rolls an attack to stun him/announces his presence to the king/tackles(or grapples) him.
Joe, now thrown in prison to be executed at morning is incensed.

Proceed to party implosion when Joe's friend Jane rides in to his defense OOC, while the DM doesn't know what to do, and Jake defends Jim for good role-playing... in 3...2...1...

I've got a game that I'm in ATM where we have a "loose cannon", and he is exactly one of those types who gets incensed when your character clearly doesn't trust his character, and takes it as a personal attack as though YOU don't trust HIM.(which in this particular game, I actually don't trust him on the most improtant factor, that is, ensuring we all are enjoying the game.) In my particular case, I'd be Jim, and I wouldn't spend a second trying to break Joe out of prison.

IMO, I'll sacrifice a little sandboxing for a little more player cohesion by simple hand-waving that "no, you cannot do this", to ensure that everyone understands that some things are NOT healthy for the game.



The Shaman said:


> So the thief is nevers supposed to be a thief?
> 
> That's silly.Actually, it would be the pocket-pick of a lifetime for an enterprising thief - giving in to the temptation to cut the king's purse in his audience chamber in front of his guards strikes me as _outstanding_ roleplaying.



 Theives aren't supposed to be theives when it has the potential of destroying the good health of the game.  Getting your own character thrown in jail to be executed at dawn is one thing, robbing the King runs the additional risk of getting your whole party thrown in jail to be executed.  Aside from as mentioned above, can cause serious complications to the good feelings of the group IRL.


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 10, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> The key is they have to want to play. The lack of which is what ruins games more than anything.




I agree with this. I think an issue that crops up in campaigns that DM has to contend with is player energy too. The thread "I don't GM by the nose", the OP had a really interesting story to tell in that his players were not only unsure of what to do (for whatever reasons), but one of those reasons could be they just don't have the energy to be engaged. 

I'm sure that many of us DMs have had that kind of player who, despite our best efforts to provide an engaging story, develop the handouts, NPCs, and deliver our best performance, the players just shrug their shoulders and give a "I dunno. Sure, whatever."  Looking at this from an outside perspective, one can't help but find it funny though when delivering it in the middle of the game, the DM is completely frustrated.


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 10, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Lets whip up a scene:
> Joe, a mere 5 feet from the king, announces OOC that he's about to rob him.
> Jim, the kinght-in-shining armor type, tells him with a laugh that he'd have to stop him if he tried, since Jim's PC is the lawful good type.
> Joe, thinking that Jim is only joking, makes his attempt.  To his surprise, Jim isn't kidding, and rolls an attack to stun him/announces his presence to the king/tackles(or grapples) him.
> Joe, now thrown in prison to be executed at morning is incensed.




Interesting! I had a similar scene from my players back in the 2e days. The players made up 1st level characters and it's our very first session. One of my players always wants to play evil characters and keeps pushing the envelope with me about it but I always kept saying no because the other players want to play heroic games. So he creates a rogue with the intent to go around stealing from locals, NPCs, etc.

The rogue doesn't even wait until the party gets together and he starts stealing, gets caught in the act, and now his future teammates are assisting the local law to catch him, which they do. Of course, he resists arrest, commits assualt, and a slew of other crimes while being apprehended. The rogue is sentenced to 10 years and I told the player he had to make up a new character. He was annoyed that the other players went after him! Then he complained to me about how I was out to get him for him wanting to play evil too! Luckily, he got out of that "phase" and started playing cohesively (or at least made the effort to be part of the team).


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

*CleverNickName*, here's what my 'sandbox' looks like.

I want the game to feel like the cape-and-sword novels by Dumas, Sabatini, Orzcy, Weyman, and Pérez-Reverte, so one of my early planning steps was to identify some of the shared elements of swashbuckling tales - the adventurers are involved with historical figures and present for historical events, social conflict is as important as martial conflict, coincidences are common, and so on - and figure out ways to incorporate them into the game.

Accordingly I filled up my setting with lots of historical figures as non-player characters and projected a timeline of future events based on the history of the period in which the adventurers may become involved (frex, a soldier called to campaign in Italy or join the siege at La Rochelle) as well as some fictional events connected to historical occurances (frex, intrigues surrounding the marriage of Louis XIII's sister to the Prince of Wales).

Coincidences present a bit of a challenge in a _status quo_, 'sandboxy' setting - if the adventurers are free to go where they please and do what they will, how do I introduce coincidences without plopping down encounters in front of the adventurers? The answer for me was random encounters. I consider random encounters to represent the 'living' setting; they are also a means of subtly reinforcing the genre, so for my random encounters, I created situations involving different npcs from the game, most of whom are connected to one another in a complex web of relationships.

Frex, the same knight of Malta appears in two different random encounters - a duel upon which the adventurers stumble and a visit to the horse market of Paris - and he is connected to the participants of two others, so should the adventurers meet this particular knight of Malta as a result of a random encounter or some action they've initiated during the course of the game, there exists the possibility of a (literal) 'chance encounter' with the chevalier or his friends somewhere down the line. In this way I'm able to include the genre element of coincidences while preserving the sense of a living setting and a light touch on my part as referee. I've no idea when or even if the chevalier will become involved in the campaign, and if he does, I have no idea if he will end up as a friend or foe of the adventurers - that will depend on them and how they deal with the situations in which he is presented.

I also deliberated about what ruleset I wanted to use. I ultimately opted for _Flashing Blades_ for a number of reasons: a great combat system that captures the feel of [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Direction-Stage-Screen-William/dp/0435086804]William Hobbs' fight choreography[/ame], genre-appropriate player characters, and career rules which give the adventurers the chance to grasp the levers of power and influence over time and change the course of history in actual play.

One of the rules which add to the genre-appropriateness of the adventurers is Advantages and Secrets. Like many of the characters of cape-and-sword tales, the adventurers may choose an ally, or a title, or a secret loyalty, and so on - consider d'Artagnan and M. de Tréville, Berault and Cardinal Richelieu, Alatriste and don Francisco de Quevedo, and so on. Advantages and Secrets can provide an adventurer with a resource to call upon during the course of the game; unlike many referees, however, I don't use these as sources of 'plot hooks' because I have no plots _per se_ on which to snag the adventurers - it's up to the player to decide how to best utilize an Advantage like Contact or a Secret like Secret Loyalty in the course of playing the game.

(Note that this is one of the areas where *pemerton*'s approach and mine differ - if I've understood correctly, the adventurers in *pemerton*'s games begin with a broader range of connections to the setting and the characters therein on which they build, whereas I prefer that the adventurers begin with only a strand of a connection then develop more in actual play. After many posts back and forth, I've come to the conclusion that we are chasing similar experiences in the games we run, but *pemerton* directs his efforts from behind the screen at the inner life of the adventurers while I prefer to manage their external circumstances. Two different approaches with similar goals - and isn't it great that our little hobby makes both of them possible?)

So, like you, *CleverNickName*, books and movies do influence how I approach my game, but they do it in terms of genre-emulation rather than story structure. I prefer to put as much of the focus as possible on actual play, and to make the adventurers real protagonists in that they drive the game by their choices; my job is to have the setting react accordingly. In my experience this produces rising-and-falling action as the adventurers lay their plans and attempt to execute them.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 10, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> I disagree.
> 
> It is possible to have a single, central conflict within a role-playing game. In fact, I prefer it that way. Less work for everyone, fewer distractions, easier to follow, etc.
> 
> ...




I think you are partially disagreeing with something I didn't say. I said, "It's true that it is difficult to get a single, central conflict without a single author. " Note the "without". If you want a single, central conflict--it is much easier to get it if you have single author. I was saying that to contrast with all the other stuff you had listed, and versus your implication that the only way to get those with any ease was via a single author. Since I can easily get all the rest of it with multiple authors, and prefer mulitple twining conflicts, the difficulty of producing a cohesive, single conflict is not one that bothers me.

Also, I suspect that we are not quite on the same page with what twining conflicts means. I suspect you are still thinking about twining conflicts from the same author. If you want the conflicts to twine in a scripted manner, ultimately to a scripted story, then yeah ... you need that single author even more. OTOH, if you want the conflicts to arise out of a agreed-upon setting and characters with well-defined motivations, placed into situations likely to lead to some kind of conflict, then ... multiple authors are apt to lead to more surprises, mysteries, etc. I'll grant there is an art to building such situations collaboratively, but it ain't rocket science.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 10, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> So the thief is nevers supposed to be a thief?
> 
> That's silly.Actually, it would be the pocket-pick of a lifetime for an enterprising thief - giving in to the temptation to cut the king's purse in his audience chamber in front of his guards strikes me as _outstanding_ roleplaying.




Oh, the thief can be a thief all he wants. Steal from merchants and barkeeps. Rob noblemen blind in the dead of night. Sneak back in to the kings castle after dark and walk off with as much damn loot as your bags can carry. The trick is to know when and where to find your mark. This guy fails mark finding 101. Stealing from the guy offering you and your allies patronage shows that you are dumb, crazy, or doing it "for the lulz". None of which is appreciated at my table by the other players thankyouverymuch.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 10, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think it's more a question of the thief is expected to not be a particularly dumb and brazen thief, not that he's never expected to steal.



Brazen, definitely, but there's the absolute heaven in it.

Dumb? I disagree. Dangerous, perhaps even foolhardy, but not dumb.







billd91 said:


> Sure, it would be the pocket pick of a lifetime. But let's face it, it's going to require a bit of planning to pull off a caper like that . . .



Contriving a reason to brush past the king? Offer him a wine goblet, stumble during a dance, offer to hold his cloak - I mean, as long as the thief isn't wearing his Thieves' Guild t-shirt and is reasonably competent, getting a couple of fingers in the king's doublet doesn't require prohibitively-extensive planning.







billd91 said:


> . . . and it has tremendous risks.



And the chance to cover oneself in glory.

This is what adventurers do - or should do, in my humble opinion.







shidaku said:


> The problem is not when Joe says OOC that he wants to rob the King, whom is a mere 5 foot-step away. The problem is when he feels that it's his right to obliterate the game by doing so.



An adventurer - a thief - gets arrested or killed for trying to steal something and it can "*obliterate* the game?" Seriously?

If a game is that fragile, I'm not inclined to think that the thieving character is the real problem.







shidaku said:


> Theives aren't supposed to be theives when it has the potential of destroying the good health of the game.  Getting your own character thrown in jail to be executed at dawn is one thing, robbing the King runs the additional risk of getting your whole party thrown in jail to be executed.  Aside from as mentioned above, can cause serious complications to the good feelings of the group IRL.



So can telling a player that her character must forever toe a line set by the referee or the rest of the adventurers.

If the players as a group understand that there are reasonable in-game consequences for their characters' actions, then I would not consider this to be disruptive to the 'good order' of the game - and again, if the "good health" of a game can be destroyed by the risky-but-reasonable in-character actions of one of the adventurers, I think there are other issues with that game.

Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it sounds to me like both of you consider picking the king's pocket to be the functional equivalent of the adventurers-as-marauders who kill every npc they meet or players who create anti-social, self-consciously disruptive loner characters. I think that's a false equivalency.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 10, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> This is what adventurers do - or should do, in my humble opinion.
> An adventurer - a thief - gets arrested or killed for trying to steal something and it can "*obliterate* the game?" Seriously?



Yes, because they begin to moan about why the party didn't help him.  Why the DM didn't make it easier for him, how this shouldn't happen to him.  Or they get pissy over why the party(who is now a man short) refuses to rescue him from the nigh-impenetrable fortress of the King's dungeon.  

When a player thinks it's their _right_ to do things that will have consequences for the entire game, not just themselves, that's the problem.



> If a game is that fragile, I'm not inclined to think that the thieving character is the real problem.So can telling a player that her character must forever toe a line set by the referee or the rest of the adventurers.



Spoken like a true responsibility dodgder.  It's always the party's fault, the DM's fault, no, it's never YOUR fault for doing something so incredibly stupid that you knew you wouldn't get backed up on.



> If the players as a group understand that there are reasonable in-game consequences for their characters' actions, then I would not consider this to be disruptive to the 'good order' of the game - and again, if the "good health" of a game can be destroyed by the risky-but-reasonable in-character actions of one of the adventurers, I think there are other issues with that game.



That's exactly my point.  People who pull such maneuvers clearly don't understand that there are consequences for their actions.  They expect that because they are they rogue that entitles them to practice completly lawless behaviour and not get punished for it.

Robbing the King is not "risky but reasonable".  It's stupid.  The best of crime lords don't try that except on the rarest of occassions and they do so with incredible preparation.  They don't just randomly decide to pick-pocket the King as he's walking down the street with a full legion of guards around him.



> Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it sounds to me like both of you consider picking the king's pocket to be the functional equivalent of the adventurers-as-marauders who kill every npc they meet or players who create anti-social, self-consciously disruptive loner characters. I think that's a false equivalency.



 I do, particularly when the King has nothing against your party, or especially when the King is offering patronage to the players.  A mild reaction from a _King_ over this sort of thing is immediate execution.  Players who seek these sorts of situations out, they shoot the guy talking to your character because he leans in to speak softly.  They rob the King because he happens to be within arms-reach.  This is game-destructive behaviour that disregards the game, the players, and the related good nature of things in favor of a "do what I want, everyone else be damned" attitude.

It's one I don't take lightly, as the point of the game is GROUP play, cohesion and working together to achieve amazing new heights.  Not individualistic game-destroying self-righteousness.  If you have no intention of working _with_ the other players, then why are you here?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 10, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> If the players as a group understand that there are reasonable in-game consequences for their characters' actions, then I would not consider this to be disruptive to the 'good order' of the game - and again, if the "good health" of a game can be destroyed by the risky-but-reasonable in-character actions of one of the adventurers, I think there are other issues with that game.




Well, hold on a second.

There's "reasonable" as in, "it is reasonable physically - pockets can be picked".  Then there's reasonable as in, "this is a reasonable plan that a sane person would consider a good idea". It is reasonable in the first sense, and not so much in the second sense.  

Now, great adventures are often built on unreasonable plans, but you generally ought to have the agreement of others at the table before you impose the results upon them.  It is all well and good to say that folks understand consequences - but a player need to know that his actions have consequences for the other players, as well as their characters.  This is a cooperative game, and keeping that in mind is the kind of metagaming that isn't so bad.

"Sure, this is cool fun for me, personally, but are the other players going to enjoy the consequences of my trashing their relationship with the King?"


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 10, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I've got a game that I'm in ATM where we have a "loose cannon", and he is exactly one of those types who gets incensed when your character clearly doesn't trust his character, and takes it as a personal attack as though YOU don't trust HIM.




Ugh. I hate that. I can put up with the instigator type pretty well as long as they're okay with facing the music. If you play a loose cannon, expect to be cut loose.

Unfortunately, the most aggressive instigators are usually also the ones who will get terribly offended OOC when other PCs say, "Dude, you brought this on yourself. I want no part of it; you're on your own." (Or, for the more egregious offenses: "Okay, that's it. I'm taking you down before you get us all killed.")


----------



## the Jester (Dec 10, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think it's more a question of the thief is expected to not be a particularly dumb and brazen thief, not that he's never expected to steal...
> 
> Sure, it would be the pocket pick of a lifetime. But let's face it, it's going to require a bit of planning to pull off a caper like that and it has tremendous risks. Doing it on a spur of the moment as opposed to doing it with a plan limits itself to outstanding role-playing for a particularly reckless or dumb sort of character.




Exept that he's a 15th level character, one of the most skilled (if not THE most skilled) pickpockets in the land.

Honestly, knowing this, my expectation is that the thief will probably succeed with none the wiser, so who cares?

If not, he may just have to live with the consequences.



shidaku said:


> Lets whip up a scene:
> Joe, a mere 5 feet from the king, announces OOC that he's about to rob him.
> Jim, the kinght-in-shining armor type, tells him with a laugh that he'd have to stop him if he tried, since Jim's PC is the lawful good type.
> Joe, thinking that Jim is only joking, makes his attempt. To his surprise, Jim isn't kidding, and rolls an attack to stun him/announces his presence to the king/tackles(or grapples) him.
> Joe, now thrown in prison to be executed at morning is incensed.




The real problem isn't with how anyone is acting per se, it's that Joe is an idiot who thinks he is the only one entitled to do any roleplaying. 

As a fellow player _or_ the dm, I'd have no sympathy at all for him. He might be able to bargain his way out of trouble, he might end up missing a hand, he might end up in jail for a long time or dead (time to make a new character!) but to me, it's the same principle as when a pc keeps committing arson until he gets caught. He chose his death. (And yes, there was an arsonist pc in my campaign who ended up hanging.)

If Joe expects the rest of the party to go along with his roleplaying, he damn well better expect to go along with theirs, _especially when he is warned in so many words._ Blowing it off and then throwing a fit if the other players do exactly what they warned him they would do- well, that's not the kind of guy I'd have at my table in the first place, personally. My players know how to roll with the punches- they have to, because I am totally cool with maiming or killing pcs to the point of a tpk, especially when they bring it on themselves. For instance, by starting a fight in the king's throne room.

It's the same issue that some players present- they insist on playing the kind of character that the rest of the party would leave behind if he wasn't a pc.

The solution I prefer is for the party to leave him behind and have the player make another pc. Because the group wouldn't travel with that type of character, and the fact that there's a player instead of the dm behind the mask shouldn't matter a dingo's kidneys. If you don't want to have the throne room scenario play out in your party, don't travel with a light-fingered thief prone to pick the pockets of important people. 

As a side note, if you've ever read the Guardians of the Flame series, there's a very early scene where [sblock]the thief [the main characters are from our world but basically get sucked into a D&D game] tries to steal from the wrong guy and severe consequences immediately ensue.[/sblock] It's very educational as to what the tone of the series will be like, and I love that scene- it's a shocking early slap in the face to the party's sensibilities. 

Again, all this is a matter of preferred playstyle and not badwrongfun; I'm just discussing my preferences.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 10, 2010)

the Jester said:


> The real problem isn't with how anyone is acting per se, it's that Joe is an idiot who thinks he is the only one entitled to do any roleplaying.



Well, more than he defines how role-playing will happen.



> ...snip...
> 
> Again, all this is a matter of preferred playstyle and not badwrongfun; I'm just discussing my preferences.




Which is why I try to have a pre-game, character-building night.  So everyone can understand what roles everyone else wants to fill, and they can all work together better.


----------



## Janx (Dec 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, hold on a second.
> 
> There's "reasonable" as in, "it is reasonable physically - pockets can be picked".  Then there's reasonable as in, "this is a reasonable plan that a sane person would consider a good idea". It is reasonable in the first sense, and not so much in the second sense.
> 
> ...




I concur.    It is POSSIBLE to attempt to do anything in a D&D game.  It is not always REASONABLE to attempt to do those things.

Some peopel cite RPGs as letting them unwind and do stuff they can't do in the real world.

I contend that in a "serious" campaign, the same social limitations apply.  Yes, you can physically attempt to rob the king.  However, you can do the same thing for the mayor of your real world town.  But in both worlds, there are reasons we don't generally attempt to do these things.

As a GM, I try not to hard-code specific endings for the campaign (and the PCs throw the ring into mt Doom, the end.).  

But when the players say they want to remove the goblin threat so they can extend their mining operations, I write material to present challenges to them as them pursue that goal.  When so dork decides to do some stupid random activity that gets them all in trouble and completely throws out their goal, is that time wasted?

Some would say no.  I think there's plenty who would say the dork acted stupidly and just cratered the campaign.  I'd say its cratered if the campaign with those characters doesn't continue in as regular a fashion after that point (as in it peters out).

I'm all for the campaign changing directions through game play.  I'm not for this happening through stupid game play, especially if its ends a campaign (thus contaminating my investment in my PC who's now locked in a dead campaign because of your actions).

I think there's some number of players who play their character as if they live there.  They try not to act stupid, other than the occasional pun or joke, because they despise watching shows where the the protagonists do the stupidest things to make matters worse for the sake of plot (like not communicating which is the root of all comic book drama).  Now take a party of those players and sub one out for a 13 year-old nephew.  Who sees he has a 16 CHA and is a Rogue so he spends the rest of the game looking up girls skirts and trying to steal from every body.

That's the kind of player who causes trouble, in the stupid game play kind.

One way to describe it, is the player is breaking verisimilitude of the campaign.  There's plenty of places for doing crazy, unpredictable things.  Then there's times to not do stupid stuff for the sake of doing stupid stuff.

Kind of like how I hate in anime when they flip a character to a goofily drawn, large-mouthed, spazz.  What the smurf is up with that?  People like that should be the first to die before 1st level due to some orc attack or falling down a well.


----------



## nedjer (Dec 10, 2010)

Did someone mention metagaming. Better parachute out of here, as it always locks me into a loop. Mainly because not metagaming is such an extreme form of metagaming


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Contriving a reason to brush past the king? Offer him a wine goblet, stumble during a dance, offer to hold his cloak - I mean, as long as the thief isn't wearing his Thieves' Guild t-shirt and is reasonably competent, getting a couple of fingers in the king's doublet doesn't require prohibitively-extensive planning.




I think there's several ways this "pick-pocket the king" can be looked at.

In the hands of a serious player and a high enough level PC, he might be using this as a means to demonstrate to the king that he has skill and need of the party's protection services in the next scene (where he reveals the ring he took from the king's hand).

In the hands of a dork, this is more of a lark.  There's no thought involved.  He's trying to do as much "wrong" as he can, to see how far he can get. The problem is, that's not the kind of game the rest of the party wants to play.

I think the theory here, is that the former kind of behavior and intent can contaminate the campaign.  It can get ruin the reputation of the other PCs (they may even be lumped in with him, since they were all together).  Does Shaman want that in his game?

Part of the problem, that I've touched in a variety of threads is that the party gets stuck with PCs joining them, that they wouldn't accept as NPCs.  Pehaps if the players had been told they had the authority to approve any member (thus kicking out the problem PC BEFORE he brings them down) it would solve the problem.  While technically, the PCs have always had this power, there is a peer pressure to let everyone at the table join the group.  Thus, the feeling that they're stuck with the idiot.

If the GM opened the campaign with something like: I'd like you alll to make PCs that can work together and would realistically do so.  If any of you makes an undesirable, I remind the party that you do not have to accept him into your group, and can deal with him in character as you all see fit.

I don't like deliberate and antagonistic PvP in my RPGs.  But I also don't like players being equally unrealistic in accepting undesirables into their party.  Just as the dork who wants to pick-pocket the king may be out of character or verisimilitude, so is the party who accepts him.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Dec 11, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> Is this a cop-out? I personally think that the PCs should be given all the freedom in the world to rund own blind alleys and chase red herrings; indeed, interesting roleplaying situations can pop up when this happens and it can end up leading to more interesting RPG experiences than the GM had originally intended.
> 
> On the other hand, are GMs missing out on something by not railroading? Is all this "the PCs must be free!" chatter robbing us of our right to tell a good story?





I hate to say this, but it is true: it depends entirely upon the group and their level of involvement.  I've never been a tabletop RPG DM, but I have been a GM for an online roleplaying simulation, and have done so for 10 years.  The "crew" has changed considerably over time, and during certain years, I've had little choice BUT to railroad the players into actually DOING something, since the times when I gave them free rein or asked them to be creative in solving a problem, absolutely nothing happened.  Either literally (no one spoke for minutes on end) or figuratively (people all did meaningless things that didn't develop their characters or drive any sort of plot forward).

Railroading was NOT that great in those instances, but it led to a good story being told, and somehow, the people being told what to do enjoyed themselves.  Eventually I got tired of it and made it clear it wouldn't happen this way anymore.

I can definitely see a DM being stuck with a group like this.  It's not my cup of tea.  If I was in a group where the DM railroaded the group EVERY time, I'd find another group.  I'm willing to tolerate it once in a while if the plot is especially interesting, but I'm just not the kind of player where this is ever a necessity -- I try my best to keep things going, help the DM shape the story, interact with other PCs, and the like.  By the same token, if I was in a group where the players all simply demanded that the DM tell them what to do, and couldn't think of interesting things to do during "down time" in a town or village ... I'd also be looking for a new group, or at least, new players to suggest to the DM.

Bottom line: there are players out there that, if relied upon to "move" the train, will cause the group to never see anything but the inside of the station.  Sometimes, there's just 1 or 2 in a group ... sometimes it's the entire group.  If you are in a group with 0 such people, I say congratulations and do what you can to keep them all happy.  My current 3.5 game has 0 such people, and I love it.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 11, 2010)

Janx said:


> ...I think there's some number of players who play their character as if they live there. They try not to act stupid, other than the occasional pun or joke, because they despise watching shows where the the protagonists do the stupidest things to make matters worse for the sake of plot (like not communicating which is the root of all comic book drama). Now take a party of those players and sub one out for a 13 year-old nephew. Who sees he has a 16 CHA and is a Rogue so he spends the rest of the game looking up girls skirts and trying to steal from every body.
> 
> That's the kind of player who causes trouble, in the stupid game play kind...




I really liked all of your post, especially this part. I like a player to realistically play a character. Even if said character has a 6 for Charisma and Wisdom. I don't like _Players _with a 6 for Charisma and Wisdom...


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 11, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Yes, because they begin to moan about why the party didn't help him.  Why the DM didn't make it easier for him, how this shouldn't happen to him.  Or they get pissy over why the party(who is now a man short) refuses to rescue him from the nigh-impenetrable fortress of the King's dungeon.



Or the player rolls his eyes, shrugs his shoulders, and says, "Well, that could've gone better. Someone hand me a character sheet, please?"

I can't speak to your experiences, of course, but I tend to run into very few drama queens when I game.







shidaku said:


> When a player thinks it's their _right_ to do things that will have consequences for the entire game, not just themselves, that's the problem.



Such as the player of the paladin dictating to the player of the thief, using out-of-character knowledge to  over the thief character in-game?







shidaku said:


> Spoken like a true responsibility dodgder. It's always the party's fault, the DM's fault, no, it's never YOUR fault for doing something so incredibly stupid that you knew you wouldn't get backed up on.



Lighten up, Francis.







shidaku said:


> People who pull such maneuvers clearly don't understand that there are consequences for their actions.  They expect that because they are they rogue that entitles them to practice completly lawless behaviour and not get punished for it.



Overgeneralize much?

You're splattering a lot of gamers who don't deserve it with that tarry brush you're waving around. Again, maybe this is't something you've experienced, but there are lots and lots of gamers out there who are not self-absorbed me-monkeys, who recognize that failure may carry consequences for their characters, and _are fine with that_.







shidaku said:


> Robbing the King is not "risky but reasonable".  It's stupid.  The best of crime lords don't try that except on the rarest of occassions and they do so with incredible preparation.  They don't just randomly decide to pick-pocket the King as he's walking down the street with a full legion of guards around him.



Because every crime lord in every world thinks exactly the same way? Because a clever thief could never find a way to get past the guards?

Your thinking about what is possible seems extraordinarily narrow.







shidaku said:


> A mild reaction from a _King_ over this sort of thing is immediate execution.



Now we're getting into the realm of pure silliness.

Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.

Again, your assumptions about the range of possibilities seem terribly limited and limiting.







shidaku said:


> This is game-destructive behaviour that disregards the game, the players, and the related good nature of things in favor of a "do what I want, everyone else be damned" attitude.
> 
> It's one I don't take lightly, as the point of the game is GROUP play, cohesion and working together to achieve amazing new heights.  Not individualistic game-destroying self-righteousness.  If you have no intention of working _with_ the other players, then why are you here?



My approach to gaming is far less rigid and proscribed than yours. I have no problem with an adventurer showboating once in awhile. I have no problem with adventurers working at cross-purposes with one another. I enjoy a more freewheeling atmosphere, which is why I work to create an environment were the players and their characters drive the action, and my role behind the screen is mostly reactive. I enjoy adventurers who dream big, who scheme relentlessly and take big risks, even for things that may seem trivial to others.

For me gaming requires both give and take, and in my experience demands for group-think work against everyone's enjoyment more than they facilitate it.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> So the thief is nevers supposed to be a thief?
> 
> That's silly.Actually, it would be the pocket-pick of a lifetime for an enterprising thief - giving in to the temptation to cut the king's purse in his audience chamber in front of his guards strikes me as _outstanding_ roleplaying.




I don't consider using your class skills a determinant factor in roleplaying.  But then I differentiate playing a role in the party (rogue) from playing a role as a character. The latter being "roleplaying" in my definition.

Now for the right rogue character, this feat of daring may indeed befit his character.

Or it could just be some dumb-assery.

The act itself isn't outstanding roleplaying.  outstanding gaming maybe if he has the skills to do it.   But roleplaying could only be judged in the context of the character's prior portrayal.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.




this is another interesting avenue to consider (which was one of my supporting arguments of why sandboxes aren't really neutral simulations run by a human).

in any action taken by a PC, the DM chooses from a variety of outcomes.

The king COULD laugh it off.  The king COULD have him executed.  Or stuff in between.  

If it is true that a single player's stupid antics could crater a campaign, it also hinges on how a DM reacts to it in game.  By not making a big deal of it, the moment is quickly forgotten and moved past.  By bringing in the guards, he risks getting a hostile response from the PCs which makes them enemies of the state.

I think whether pickpocketing the king is stupid or clever depends on the context.  And the impact of it depends on the DM's reaction to it.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Your thinking about what is possible seems extraordinarily narrow.Now we're getting into the realm of pure silliness.
> 
> Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.




Silliness? When an execution would be the most likely historical outcome? Sure, the king *could* laugh it off, but that would be one mighty confident king considering what such behavior would invite from anyone else who hears of it. But silliness to impose a realistic consequence to the action? No.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Lighten up, Francis.




*
Folks,

This thread has already been around a while, so it may have lived through it's useful span already.  But, let's allow for a warning:

Treat each other with respect.  Don't be dismissive, and don't get personal.

Thanks.*


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 11, 2010)

Janx said:


> One way to describe it, is the player is breaking verisimilitude of the campaign. There's plenty of places for doing crazy, unpredictable things. Then there's times to not do stupid stuff for the sake of doing stupid stuff.
> 
> Kind of like how I hate in anime when they flip a character to a goofily drawn, large-mouthed, spazz. *What the smurf is up with that?* People like that should be the first to die before 1st level due to some orc attack or falling down a well.




Face Fault - Television Tropes & Idioms

There are more.



The Shaman said:


> Your thinking about what is possible seems extraordinarily narrow.Now we're getting into the realm of pure silliness.
> 
> Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. *Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.*




Now that's my kind of king. Heh, could probably do it with a high enough bluff check to play it off as a joke or as if you were really doing something else.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 11, 2010)

Mallus said:


> You do if you're the typical PC!



I don't care how high a Heal check you rolled. That's _still_ not going to work*. 

* Unless, of course, you have a feat, power or class ability that allows you to heal someone by setting him on fire**.

** Not to be confused with a feat, power or class ability that allows you to heal someone by setting _someone else_ on fire.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Dec 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Creating a story and a progression of adventures to tell it. Coercing the players (as with the high DC for the pickpocket-the-king attempt) or engaging in a meta-discussion to keep the "story" in order.




He did say he built his story based on the character hooks, though, if I am not mistaken.  

If I create a PC who craves vengeance for his parents and the DM comes up with a story that involve chasing down their murderers, of course I am following every plot points!

Concerning the thief example; I can see his point.  It's highly disruptive behavior for the group.  

That being said, if it occured in game and I was one of the other PCs, I'd apologize profusely for his behaviour, urge the king to hang the jackass and then move on with the mission.

The other player wants to roleplay a rogue so 'ballsy' he'd try to pickpocket a king?  Well, I want to roleplay a sensible man who does not associate with complete morons.  Let him roll a new character while we move on with the story and let's hope this one actually wants to work with the party.  Otherwise... well, get used to making new characters.  It's harsh, but I have the same right to control my characters as the disruptive player and if the DM wants to avoid such conflicts pre-emptively, it's not half a bad idea.

Yeah, I have some experience with players who roleplay PCs in ways that puts them at odds with the other PCs.  It's highly annoying because if allowed, it forces the other players to either bend their own roleplaying to accomodate the guy taking the asocial actions or else get into PvP.  I don't think handling this OOC by putting the stop on an action that would sabotage the session is unreasonable, though it's the only way to handle it.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 11, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> *(5) The Hook:*
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Railroading: Total.  The players have no input in this whole introduction.



This is in part a terminology issue, but not entirely.

I don't agree that this is railroading. It is scene-framing, in that it presents the players with a situation in which their PCs find themselves.

Crucial to the distinction drawn here between railroading and scene-framing is that railroading is an approach to _play_. It is the GM exercising determinative power over the course of play. In this example from the Isle of Dread, no play has occurred yet, and so no power has been exercised.

What _would_ be railroading would be if, having framed this scene, the GM then told the players "So you find yourselves at the docks, looking for a boat to take you to the island on the map."

Having identified what is taking place as scene-framing rather than railroading doesn't mean I particularly like it as it stands. Unless the players have already indicated that their PCs are nautical treasure-seeking types, there is nothing about this introduction that links it to something compelling in a PC's backstory. But that could be fairly easily remedied - for example, the map could be signed by a former mentor (or nemesis) of one of the PCs, or the city could be described as having a shrine to some friendly or enemy god.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> *pemerton* directs his efforts from behind the screen at the inner life of the adventurers while I prefer to manage their external circumstances.



That sounds right to me - I think we have a reasonable sense of one another's games. 

I'd add two glosses to the "inner life" description of my game.

First, because I'm still running D&D - a fantasy adventure game - the "inner life" has a lot of external manifestation. So there are lots of conflicts with demons, devils, gods, cultists etc - antagonists the opposition to which is expressive of the inner life of the PC.

Second, there's no literary greatness in what we're doing at the table! I think that RPGing stories - certainly the ones I GM - are far less compelling for non-participants than for participants. My theory as to why this is so is the one I stated upthread - the dialogue is poor, the plot often slow and meandering, and the inner lives somewhat attenuated - so as a performance it's not that engaging. But for the participants there is an overlap between PCs and players that generates tension and resolution that can be pretty engaging.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 11, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> "Um, listen," Joss Whedon says to Sara Michelle Gellar, "Buffy can shoot Willow in the face with the shotgun, but you will all regret it if she does."  He turns to face Alyson Hannigan, Nicholas Brendon, and Anthony Stewart Head.    "Your characters don't know this yet, but Willow is going to be needed in a couple of years.  The point of the story isn't just to stop Willow, but to also _save_ Willow.  Okay?  Does anyone have any questions?"




Just one: Can you e-mail me the story when you're done writing it? Or would you prefer my snail mail address so that you can send me a hardcopy?



invokethehojo said:


> If I write a detailed plot for an  adventure, using up a lot of my spare time, then I think I have a right  to "railroad" the PC's in a way that keeps them from wasting the effort I  put in...




Better solution: Stop prepping your games like that.

Non-linear prep is easier, takes less time, and is generally less wasteful.

The best part is you don't have to spend a lot of time trying to guess what the players will enjoy doing, because players tend to know what they'd like to do and then they go and do it.

IMO, using linear plots as a tool to deal with disruptive and obnoxious players is generally pretty ineffective. It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing dry tinder on it or concluding that the best way to clean-up all that kryptonite is to send Superman out to pick it up. Not only are you using the adventure structure most susceptible to disruption, but quite a few players are obnoxious and disruptive specifically BECAUSE they want to derail your pre-designed plot.

Some of them are doing it because they're just jerks. But some are doing it because they don't like being railroaded. And quite a few are subconsciously doing the only meaningful action they have (because the railroad has made any other action irrelevant).

I've found that most players like that, once they realize there's no predetermined plot to disrupt, will stop trying to disrupt it and settle down into productive members of the group.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 11, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Second, there's no literary greatness in what we're doing at the table! I think that RPGing stories - certainly the ones I GM - are far less compelling for non-participants than for participants.



HEY!!!  Stop bringing reality into my fantasy!  Stop it right now, I say! 


> My theory as to why this is so is the one I stated upthread - the dialogue is poor, the plot often slow and meandering, and the inner lives somewhat attenuated - so as a performance it's not that engaging. But for the participants there is an overlap between PCs and players that generates tension and resolution that can be pretty engaging.



Sadly, all true - though occasionally random chance will allow a really good story to somehow  rear its ugly head long enough to get noticed before being dragged back down into the murk...

Lan-"do I get experience points for killing the ugly head?"-efan


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 11, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Silliness? When an execution would be the most likely historical outcome?



Sorry, *bill*, but I have to call shenanigans there. Historically 'kings' ranged from the absolute monarchs of powerful nation-states to elected caretakers with little authority and even less power to local warlords with grand pretensions. There's no way you can reasonably claim 'historical accuracy' without qualifying it with a big bag of caveats and exceptions based on time, place, and culture.

Perhaps more importantly, if we're not talking about a historical game in particular, then really what we're looking at is whether or not the king's reaction is genre-appropriate and setting-appropriate.

Frex, the set-up was the king wants the adventurers to establish a dominion in his name. If the thief gets caught - and that could be a damn big 'if,' which is something only *The Jester* seemed consider, with everyone else _assuming_ that the thief would be caught - then his punishment could be exile to the new land with the paladin supervising the thief's parole.

The assumption that every king is unfailingly bloodthirsty and vindictive is malarkey, in my humble opinion.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 11, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Better solution: Stop prepping your games like that.



I can find no fault in your logic.

Nor can I give you experience again at this time.


----------



## nedjer (Dec 11, 2010)

'a right to railroad'   

I'm starting play at 1. I'll open the session with that one. Tell everyone I've had a major rethink about my GM style, that I'm running the show from now on and that rules are rules. £20 says I get at least five expletives and two items of food thrown at me


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 11, 2010)

nedjer said:


> ...and two items of food thrown at me




Hey, to get the good snacks, a DM's gotta do what he's gotta do...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 11, 2010)

Olgar's definition:

Railroading is what occurs when players lack the illusion of choice.

Ideally, players should be able to make meaningful choices in the game which can change the way they approach situations and affect the way the game develops.  The is no right or wrong answer to a situation; there are only choices and consequences.  Practically speaking, truly unlimited adventure design in this manner is hard to get right, so DMs limit choice.  Done well, this is tranparent to the players -- the dungeon scenario is successful as a gaming environment because of this, as the players have choices (left corridor vs. right corridor; open a door vs. bypass it) while still limiting the number of outcomes to keep the game managable for the DM.

It is possible to design a game where there are essentially no choices that is still a good game because the DM still allows for the illusion of choice.  An example might be a wilderness exploration adventure where the series of events that play out are predetermined but the players still pick from the right or left path, or whether to go into the mountains or hills -- it's just that the outcome is the same regardless of choice (assuming players aren't clever enough to go back to revisit the road not taken!).  

On the worst kind of railroad there is not only no choice, it is obvious there isn't one.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2010)

At this point, I think the king example is beat to death.  Fact is, it was a 15the level adventure.  it may be plausible, in character for the rogue to make the attempt.

I think those of us on the "that's a player being stupid" scenario have seen this kind of "bad" behavior (usually from people acting like 13 year olds).  Most likely from a low-level PC doing stuff that every other player knows not to do.  And that this situation is differentiated from a PC trying something innovative and daring, rather than WTF are you thinking.  Context matters...

I'd like to dial back to the guy with the Flashing Blades campaign.  The gist was, he said he made a ton of NPCs and had random encounter tables to trigger interactions with them.  The idea being, these interactions get the PCs involved in stuff and alter how the PCs will engage the next random encounter which may also have relationships to past encounters.

Definitely sounds like a good no matter what kind of game style.  When I talk about wanting story elements in my game, this is one of them.  Stuff that happened before is related to whats happening now (with "random" stuff and "red herrings" thrown in now and then to break up the pattern.  Fiction has this.

The question for the sandbox guys is this scenario:  You've got X number of plot hooks (opportunities or threats) for the PCs to pursue.  They pick one and pursue it.

Can you not make what happens next follow the 3 act story model?

If you're ad-libbing it using the content you have (locations and NPCs) and re-arranging things, can you not decide to reveal clues when the PCs get off track from their goal (wrong direction, mis-understood clue)?  Can you not decide that things are heating up and so this is the "climax".  Or that their failure at the last encounter is the "setback".

When I hear sandbox guys say you it can't be a story.  I call bull-crap.  I think you can have no clue on what's going to happen after the current encounter and still incorporate these concepts.

I often talk about not liking the idea of a sandbox, yet I love my Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.  What I don't like about it, as I hear some folks preface it, is as a "status quo" sandbox.  That's BS.  With a human at the reigns, I want the world to react to my decisions.  That has repercussions in the execution of it, that have to be accounted for in the meta-game.

Namely, just as with the argument against Critical Fumbles, the adventurer is going to be presented with more plot hooks (threats and opportunities) that he can't do them all at once.  If the GM actively applies the consequences for ignoring them, especially the threats, the PC will ultimately lose.  

Plus, the fact that PCs really don't have a choice with a threat, no more than you have a choice to ignore the mugger trying to rob you, so you can finish putting your groceries in the car.

As one guy said, "its not like the plot hook is going to go away."  The reality is, except for static location opportunities, yes, they will go away, as most threats are immediate (the goblins will attack next week if you don't help), or time oriented opportunities (if you don't move in now, another mining company will claim that area).

I certainly think you couldn't go wrong with having lots of opportunities as plot hooks.  Threats as plot hooks could be looked at as railroads by some, namely because if the PC is vested in the game, he really doesn't have a choice if that threat will affect him.

To wind this back to the original OP... Spider Man 2 on the PS2 is a sandbox.  If you ignore the "story" quests, you can web-sling around NYC and help all the people you want in random encounters.  At the end of the night though, you've technically done stuff, but it's not the samee as going through a story (and I mean a story framed around what your doing).

Perhaps, that's what the quote alludes to, a very sandbox of random encounters that don't relate to anything else, and thus don't build up to anything.

I'm certain that railroading (in my definition of it) is not the answer to that in any game style.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 11, 2010)

Janx brings up a good point ie. video game sandboxes.

Due to limitations of digital media, even the sandboxiest game (Grand Theft Auto) features dual modes: a sandbox where you steal cars, kill hookers, buy property, play mini-games like ambulance driver, etc. Its fun, but for the story to advance, you need to do the missions which are very strongly rail-roaded. 

Another example. In WoW, you can spend YEARS wandering the game selling, grinding, crafting, chatting with friends, and camping for loot without ever doing more than the opening missions. Sandbox in every word. Yet, there is no plot that springs from that; just the tales of your daily events. To face the Lich King and his minions requires a bit more rail-roading (visit here, slay that, fetch this) than typical grind/guild/raid check-ins.

A good DM can cover mask the stark difference between "grind" activities like selling loot or stealing ambulances and the "quest" missions better than a computer can. He can hide the scene changes, rework plot hooks, or even invert dungeons to make the transition from grind to quest look natural. 

But it doesn't stop the fact that if you want Tony to get revenge or you want to slay the lich-king, you gotta bite the DMs plot hooks for a while.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 11, 2010)

Janx said:


> I'm certain that railroading (in my definition of it) is not the answer to that in any game style.




   Fair enough, but I'd note that there's a tendency in some parts of this hobby for "railroading" to mean simply "not a consequence-free sandbox." It's sort of like how 'munchkin' has evolved to mean 'doubleplusungood'. 

   And again, by reports (I haven't listened to the podcast myself), Ken Hite was referring to this in the context of GUMSHOE and other investigation-oriented games, which play quite differently than D&D. (Something about 'typically not being driven by a rebellious, amoral, adolescent hatred of authority and Will to Power' might fit in here.  ) He may also have been somewhat facetious; tone doesn't carry well in text. Did it sound completely serious in context?


----------



## nedjer (Dec 11, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Hey, to get the good snacks, a DM's gotta do what he's gotta do...




Got a couple of my own marshmallows chucked at me. Escaped with no major head injuries despite not wearing a helmet. Lightly toasted the rest of the packet and used them as hot chocolate croutons.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 12, 2010)

I know someones mentioned that the king example is probably beat to death, but I just read something today I wanted to bring up. I recall someone mentioning that for trying to pickpocket the king was worthy of "execution at least, historically". I'm not too sure about historical cases of being pickpocketed. ROBBING the kings funds is one thing, actually robbing his person (like maybe *a *ring) is still bad-but its not the same. (Although, they could regard that as treason if you weren't a foreigner) I have learned however that attempted *regicide *is on the far end of the scale and about as bad as it gets.



> In France, the judicial penalty for regicides (i.e. those who had murdered, or attempted to murder, the King) was especially hard, even in regard to the harsh judicial practices of pre-revolutionary France. As with many criminals, the regicide was tortured so as to make him tell the names of his accomplices. However, the method of execution itself was a form of torture. Here is a description of the death of Robert-François Damiens, who attempted to kill Louis XV:
> He was first tortured with red-hot pincers; his hand, holding the knife used in the attempted murder, was burnt using sulphur; molten wax, lead, and boiling oil were poured into his wounds. Horses were then harnessed to his arms and legs for his dismemberment. Damiens' joints would not break; after some hours, representatives of the Parlement ordered the executioner and his aides to cut Damiens' joints. Damiens was then dismembered, to the applause of the crowd. His trunk, apparently still living, was then burnt at the stake.​






I would say if the rogue failed it would merit prison more than likely (depending on what deeds the rogue and his party had already done) or possibly just the party being mistrusted and the whole lot banished/thrown out. 
​


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Sorry, *bill*, but I have to call shenanigans there. Historically 'kings' ranged from the absolute monarchs of powerful nation-states to elected caretakers with little authority and even less power to local warlords with grand pretensions. There's no way you can reasonably claim 'historical accuracy' without qualifying it with a big bag of caveats and exceptions based on time, place, and culture.
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> The assumption that every king is unfailingly bloodthirsty and vindictive is malarkey, in my humble opinion.




You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm reasonably confident in mine that a severe penalty for being caught is a more predictable outcome than laughing at the audacity of the thief. And that includes a general view of history as well, considering how severely theft has typically been punished.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 12, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> But it doesn't stop the fact that if you want Tony to get revenge or you want to slay the lich-king, you gotta bite the DMs plot hooks for a while.




This assumes that the only generative source of plot is the GM. This is true in the video games you're using as your model/analogy, but it's not true in a tabletop game: Players do not have to be entirely reactive. They can generate plot.

OTOH, this discussion of active vs. reactive play at the table is ultimately misleading because all gameplay involves both action and reaction. It's not a meaningful distinction between railroaded and non-railroaded play. I'm going to digress for a moment to present a definition of railroading:

Railroading happens when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.

There are two main methods of achieving railroading:

(1) Enforcing Failure. ("I use my spell to drill through the wall [that I'm not supposed to get through]." "It doesn't work [because you're not supposed to get through it].")

(2) False Choice. ("I go left." "You enter the Vampire's Lair." [REWIND] "I go right." "You enter the Vampire's Lair.")

The key here is the _motive_. If the PCs try to negotiate a peace treaty with Godzilla or beat through an adamantium door with a fluffy pillow, the fact that they have no chance of success is not railroading. That's just the nature of the scenario.

Returning more directly to your post, I think the term "plot hook" tends to carry with it some poor connotations because it implies the existence of a predetermined plot. It equates the presentation of any scenario or situation with railroading.

But if the mob boss the PCs pissed off last week sends an assassin to kill them, that's not railroading. That's just the game world reacting to their actions.

I've started referring to hooks as "scenario hooks". Not just for semantical clarity, but because I think there's an important aspect of technique inherent in the shift: A scenario hook is designed to make the players aware of an element of the game world that they can interact with. A plot hook is designed to make the players interact with an element of the game world _in a specific way_.

This doesn't really close anything off, but it does open up huge swaths of design territory that wouldn't be available under the plotted approach.


----------



## Janx (Dec 12, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Returning more directly to your post, I think the term "plot hook" tends to carry with it some poor connotations because it implies the existence of a predetermined plot. It equates the presentation of any scenario or situation with railroading.




I can't give you more XP at this time....

you nailed my definition of railroading.  those 2 modes are HOW railroading is typically enacted.  The determining factor being motive by the GM.

On the term plot hook, I'm trying to use the terms Opportunity or Threat instead.

As in the GM makes the PCs aware of a relevant Opportunity for them, or a threat to them (or their concerns).

Tony seeking revenge against them would be a Threat.  A potential weak link in Tony's network would have been the Opportunity they party pursued last week.

A Threat is something the PC will most likely have to deal with, as it very likely has bad consequences if ignored.  Thus, it should be used sparingly, perhaps as a consequence to last week's game, or to goad the PCs back into action.

I reckon, there are folks who could see an chain of Threats to their PC as a railroad, as they don't have a practical Choice.  Just as in real-life, if your car breaks down, and you need to get to work, that's the adventure you're going on, the quest to get to work/fix your car in time to go to work.  Followed by next week's fight off the mugger who is trying to steal your newly repaired car.

Because the alternative means you get fired, can't make rent, and end up on the streets where you get shanked for beer money by a whino.

Generally, I don't consider any of that railroading, it's just the random encounters of life that you gotta deal with.

Where it gets to be railroading is that the GM plans for the mugger to steal your car, so nothing you do can succeed, often to the point of ridiculousness.  Just so you can go on his adventure to recover your car, or go without it because he thought you had too much equipment, and wanted you to struggle.


----------



## chaochou (Dec 12, 2010)

I personally think that railroading at some level was so endemic to gaming for so long that it's easy to see it as the only way to game, and to defend against accusations of doing it. Personally, I don't care whether a railroad stops me picking the King's pocket or is of the 'All roads lead to Rome' variety, where we have every freedom exept to avoid the boss fight at the end - it's still railroading.

I think what needs to be accepted is that railroading can be fun. It can work. A published scenario is a railroad. Writing a plot is a railroad. But if everyone is cool with that, fine. More power to you. I've run and played a ton and had a blast.

When people talk about railroading in a bad sense, what it actually means is you have conflicting playstyles at the table.

Take the pickpocketing the king example. The underlying assumption is that the party is going to co-operate with 'the story'. And that the thief 'not co-operating' with 'the story' is going to mess things up and the rest of the players are going to be unhappy.
But really, all that demonstrates is that two different play styles at the same table don't mix.

All this stuff about 'sandbox' gaming being 'directionless' just means the game was badly run, perhaps by someone who lacked the tools to do the job properly. I've gacked it a number of times myself.

That style of game requires, from the outset, motivated NPCs with agendas and relationships, motivated pro-active PCs with agendas, weaknesses and relationships, and a situation with immediate threats to deal with which will put all those agendas into conflict. Check out Sorceror, Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World... There's no lack of direction, no scarcity of things to do, but critically, no plot. What happens in game _is_ the plot.

Going back to the pickpocketing example. The style I prefer now is for the thief to say 'I'm picking the King's pocket' and the rest of the players go 'Awesome, this is going to be so coool' and we tell the story of the day the thief picked the King's pocket. I don't impose _my _story, I help the players tell _theirs_.

But that wasn't always the case. I can enjoy both.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 12, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> This assumes that the only generative source of plot is the GM. This is true in the video games you're using as your model/analogy, but it's not true in a tabletop game: Players do not have to be entirely reactive. They can generate plot.




Here's where I end up getting confused/frustrated with the sandbox crowd; what constitutes a "plot"?

Lets take, for example a classic canard; there is a tiny keep on the borderlands and there is a bunch of caves not too far away from them that is loaded with monsters and evil cultists. On the surface, this is a quintessential sandbox, right? 

Lets take it one step further; what are the monster's goals? Why have they all amassed there. Gathering an army? Digging for a lost chieftain's riches? Dupped by a real-estate ponzi scheme? Lets assume, for a moment, they are called by the cultists in cave H* to serve some dark and nefarious master.

We're still in sandbox land, all we've done is add some backstory to our dungeon scenario. 

So reasonably, the PCs are lured by one or more hooks to want to explore the caves. Gold, hostages, fighting evil by moonlight, etc. 

Waitasecond...

First, we assume the PCs actually WANT to go to the caves, because quite easily here the DM could use the power of the choo-choo to force them there. Even if the DM starts them all out in the Keep with the classic 3d6x10 gp worth of stuff, they might, as a group, be more interested in other things. They may want to go south and explore swamps, check out Quasequenton (which the module strictly tells the DM to railroad the PCs away from if he's not prepped for it) or any number of side events. Hell, they may want to raid the keep, kill the guards, rape the horses and ride off on the women while the keep burns. 

Have we hit our first railroad: the assumption that since the adventure is based around the Caves of Chaos, we are actually GOING to the caves of chaos? 

However, for simplicity, they are typical PCs and they know the drill; fight, loot, retreat, repeat. Several sessions of increasingly larger HD humanoids later, they reach the Cult. Through luck, will, and guile, they subdue the head priest and one bad save vs. _charm person _later, the priest sings like a canary about how he's gathering humanoids because his master, Vecna/Orcus/Bane/Sauron whatever, told him to gather an army to march on the realms of men. 

What we've done is spill the "backstory" we created to the PCs. They are appalled by the revelation, put their "friend" to the sword, and decide they MUST do something about this!*

* This isn't railroading here, the PCs come to this conclusion on their own. We could, for a moment, assume the PCs feel their job is done and head off to, say, check out the Ghost Tower of Inverness, but they actually feel it is their job to explore this further.

What they don't know is that, right now, they bit the DMs plot hook. They did it willingly. No Deity or NPC told them to, no black-robed cultist is holding their friends/family/dog hostage. They have chosen, of their own free will, to figure out what the BBEG is doing and stop him. As the DM, I will continue to throw clues and hints their way as to the nature of their foe, ways to stop him, and occasional "plots" by the bad guys to foil (the king is a doppelganger!).

Are we rail-roading yet? 

I mean, the DM has an end-point in mind (stop the cultists before Armageddon) and the PCs are going to follow the bread-crumbs to get to it. At any point, they can deviate from the trail to do other things (slay a dragon, start a keep, marry the princess, etc) and possibly even give up altogether (and face the consequences of an evil army marching on the realms of man). The PCs aren't strictly "forced" into it, but they will follow my "plot" be reacting to events as well as trying to out-think and outmaneuver the cult. Eventually, if they are smart/lucky/good, they will face the BBEG and stop him once and for all. 

Is that a rail-road? If yes, why? If not, why not?

The DM here is generating the plot. The PCs are reacting to it. Did the PCs just take the last train out of Sandboxland?


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 12, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Or the player rolls his eyes, shrugs his shoulders, and says, "Well, that could've gone better. Someone hand me a character sheet, please?"



But I'm not commenting upon good player behavior, I'm talking about bad behavior.



> I can't speak to your experiences, of course, but I tend to run into very few drama queens when I game.Such as the player of the paladin dictating to the player of the thief, using out-of-character knowledge to  over the thief character in-game?Lighten up, Francis.Overgeneralize much?



If players are TRYING to harm other players, either through getting them in trouble with the law or some such, it's a problem.  But if the paladin says to the thief OOC, that because he's playing lawful good, he'll have to try to stop the rogue, that is good roleplaying.  Likewise, a criminal, or wanna-be criminal who hears that his buddy will have him arrested if he sees him commit a crime right in front of his face, will if he's a good RPer, realize the best time to rob the King is not right in front of the LG paladin buddy.



> You're splattering a lot of gamers who don't deserve it with that tarry brush you're waving around. Again, maybe this is't something you've experienced, but there are lots and lots of gamers out there who are not self-absorbed me-monkeys, who recognize that failure may carry consequences for their characters, and _are fine with that_.Because every crime lord in every world thinks exactly the same way? Because a clever thief could never find a way to get past the guards?



Of course there are.  If this discussion had turned to be about good behavior, I would have talked about that.  Since it isn't, I didn't.  And I'm talking about specifically, people who do things that will obviously put the whole party in a stick and possibly damage the game.  If those people choose to STILL do that, then I have no love for them.

In my settings?  No, they wouldn't.  Because if every upstart criminal on the streets could get past the King's guards, then the King would probably be dead because these guards would be unlikely to stop a well-trained professional assassin.



> Your thinking about what is possible seems extraordinarily narrow.Now we're getting into the realm of pure silliness.



Kings stay kings for a reason.  One of those reasons is that they are very good about not allowing just anybody to get close to them.  Now, at lvl 15, a theif may not be "just anybody", but that depends largely on the scale of the world.



> Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.



No.  I don't find humor in having to torture the party because the thief decided it was his lucky day.



> Again, your assumptions about the range of possibilities seem terribly limited and limiting.My approach to gaming is far less rigid and proscribed than yours. I have no problem with an adventurer showboating once in awhile. I have no problem with adventurers working at cross-purposes with one another. I enjoy a more freewheeling atmosphere, which is why I work to create an environment were the players and their characters drive the action, and my role behind the screen is mostly reactive. I enjoy adventurers who dream big, who scheme relentlessly and take big risks, even for things that may seem trivial to others.



Ah, because I dont want to risk my game over foolishness, I am "restrictive" and "limiting".  I can live with that.  I do no like player-driven stories as they generally tend to be driven into the ground or the nearest tavern.  Participation should be equal on both sides of the screen.  

I'm not against the thief plotting to rob the King, but plotting out a strategy to rob the King is very different from spotting him on the street and deciding to pick his pockets.



> For me gaming requires both give and take, and in my experience demands for group-think work against everyone's enjoyment more than they facilitate it.



Group-think is bad.  But rarely have I seen players behave as a mindless mob.  Moreoften, when 4/5 players say "hey, we'd rather you didn't do that, it could get us all killed.", the 5th player consents.  When he doesn't, that is a sign of behavior I'd rather not tolerate in the given contexts.

Disregard for the well being of your fellow PCs, and the overall enjoyment of the game is bad.


----------



## gamerprinter (Dec 12, 2010)

I haven't read the thread beyond the first page - too damn many pages. But all this depends on your definition of 'railroading'. Personally, as a DM for my players, if I don't create a little direction for them, they don't go anywhere, so often its more than just plot hooks to guide.

However, as I said, it depends on your definition. I've heard definitions from both extremes. To me 'railroading' is not giving the players any options and forcing them through your story, only as the GM intended. But I've heard, especially from those who absolutely hate railroading, that any element that takes away total freedom of choice is considered railroading. And I don't agree with this.

Some groups want total freedom of choice and they do things compelled by their own reasoning, which is fine, but this doesn't describe my group. And if I provided no direction, they'd still be at the inn they met each two months ago. I don't know if its lack of motivation, or one active decision to stay and the rest being just followers.

When I give them direction they get to it and get things done.

So I don't believe in railroading, but I also don't believe in total freedom for the players, because at least mine need some direction.

GP


----------



## Nagol (Dec 12, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Here's where I end up getting confused/frustrated with the sandbox crowd; what constitutes a "plot"?




A plot is a series of events leading from a starting situation to a defined end state.  



> Lets take, for example a classic canard; there is a tiny keep on the borderlands and there is a bunch of caves not too far away from them that is loaded with monsters and evil cultists. On the surface, this is a quintessential sandbox, right?
> 
> Lets take it one step further; what are the monster's goals? Why have they all amassed there. Gathering an army? Digging for a lost chieftain's riches? Dupped by a real-estate ponzi scheme? Lets assume, for a moment, they are called by the cultists in cave H* to serve some dark and nefarious master.
> 
> ...




And that's understood in a sandbox.  The PCs can decide to do anything or nothing.  It's up to them.



> Have we hit our first railroad: the assumption that since the adventure is based around the Caves of Chaos, we are actually GOING to the caves of chaos?





At this point it's not a railroad, merely an area developed because the DM believes the area MAY be of interest to the PCs.  If not, it gets put back in the binder as the PCs wander off to a different map.




> However, for simplicity, they are typical PCs and they know the drill; fight, loot, retreat, repeat. Several sessions of increasingly larger HD humanoids later, they reach the Cult. Through luck, will, and guile, they subdue the head priest and one bad save vs. _charm person _later, the priest sings like a canary about how he's gathering humanoids because his master, Vecna/Orcus/Bane/Sauron whatever, told him to gather an army to march on the realms of men.
> 
> What we've done is spill the "backstory" we created to the PCs. They are appalled by the revelation, put their "friend" to the sword, and decide they MUST do something about this!*
> 
> * This isn't railroading here, the PCs come to this conclusion on their own. We could, for a moment, assume the PCs feel their job is done and head off to, say, check out the Ghost Tower of Inverness, but they actually feel it is their job to explore this further.




Agreed. 




> What they don't know is that, right now, they bit the DMs plot hook. They did it willingly. No Deity or NPC told them to, no black-robed cultist is holding their friends/family/dog hostage. They have chosen, of their own free will, to figure out what the BBEG is doing and stop him. As the DM, I will continue to throw clues and hints their way as to the nature of their foe, ways to stop him, and occasional "plots" by the bad guys to foil (the king is a doppelganger!).
> 
> Are we rail-roading yet?




Nope.  The choice to proceed (or not) and deal with the situation in front of them remains firmly in the PCs hands.




> I mean, the DM has an end-point in mind (stop the cultists before Armageddon) and the PCs are going to follow the bread-crumbs to get to it.




WARNING Will Robinson!  This is the point of danger.  The DM has an end-point goal.  In a sandbox, he doesn't.  The DM can prepare a timeline of bad/really bad/worse things that will happen unless the PCs stop it, but there is no goal on his part to get them there.  Perhaps the PCs would prefer to play a rebellious cadre out to topple the new regme once the Armageddon strikes.



> At any point, they can deviate from the trail to do other things (slay a dragon, start a keep, marry the princess, etc) and possibly even give up altogether (and face the consequences of an evil army marching on the realms of man). The PCs aren't strictly "forced" into it, but they will follow my "plot" be reacting to events as well as trying to out-think and outmaneuver the cult. Eventually, if they are smart/lucky/good, they will face the BBEG and stop him once and for all.
> 
> Is that a rail-road? If yes, why? If not, why not?




So long as the Pcs can take any action and face the resulting situations, no.  If the DM has a particular end-point he wants to reach, it can be very frustrating for him if the PCs don't share that goal of their own accord though.



> The DM here is generating the plot. The PCs are reacting to it. Did the PCs just take the last train out of Sandboxland?




The DM is generating events.  So long as the PCs are free to deal with those events on their own terms, it isn't a railroad.  

Railroads are built to get the PCs "back on track" to reach a defined end-goal.


----------



## chaochou (Dec 12, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Some groups want total freedom of choice and they do things compelled by  their own reasoning, which is fine, but this doesn't describe my group.  And if I provided no direction, they'd still be at the inn they met  each two months ago.




And that's what this thread has shown in almost every post.

It's not that one way or the other can't work - it's just that they can't co-exist at the same table.

If a game is a railroad with a GM authored or bought scenario 'plot'  that's cool. A group can have a lot of fun with those provided everyone  'knows the drill' as someone put it earlier.

The problems start when the GM tries to hand over narrative control to  players who don't want it, or a player tries to take narrative control  from a GM who won't share it.



shidaku said:


> I'm not against the thief plotting to rob the King, but plotting out a  strategy to rob the King is very different from spotting him on the  street and deciding to pick his pockets.




I suspect this is illustrative. This is not about the amount of planning - it's about who's in control of the fiction.

I mean, you'd be fine if a player had plotted this heist perfectly _on his own without telling you_ and then did it, right?

Or is that not possible? No, you'd want to make sure he had to talk to you about lots of stuff to do this. Which keeps you in control of the fiction, right?


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 12, 2010)

chaochou said:


> I suspect this is illustrative. This is not about the amount of planning - it's about who's in control of the fiction.
> 
> I mean, you'd be fine if a player had plotted this heist perfectly _on his own without telling you_ and then did it, right?
> 
> Or is that not possible? No, you'd want to make sure he had to talk to you about lots of stuff to do this. Which keeps you in control of the fiction, right?




If any player wants to do something, then they have to run it past the DM.  It's not a matter of controlling the fiction, but for every room he wants to sneak into, for every guard he has to avoid, I, the DM, have to come up with a suitable challenge for him.  Even if it's as simple as telling him he's entered a room w/X guards and what the DC for sneaking is.

No player just "does something" in the game because otherwise they're playing in _their_ world, not mine.  Because even in the most sandboxy world, you the DM still tells the players if there are buildings, caves, dungeons, ect...

Yes, he can't just invent dungeons and guards to avoid, because then he's playing his game, not mine.  And if he'd rather play his game, which harkens back to my original point of a player who disregards others in favor of his own personal whatevers, why is he playing a group game?


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 12, 2010)

Nagol said:


> A plot is a series of events leading from a starting situation to a defined end state.
> 
> WARNING Will Robinson!  This is the point of danger.  The DM has an end-point goal.  In a sandbox, he doesn't.  The DM can prepare a timeline of bad/really bad/worse things that will happen unless the PCs stop it, but there is no goal on his part to get them there.  Perhaps the PCs would prefer to play a rebellious cadre out to topple the new regme once the Armageddon strikes




I think here is where Sandbox and I gently part ways then...

When I plan out a game, I tend to have an opening (cave of chaos) and a nebulous endpoint (lets say, stop Orcus). They're might be 1,000 different ways to get there, but if I introduce an element like "the cult is gathering an army for Orcus" I think its safe to say the PCs will go investigate it and the chase is on. In all my years, with probably dozens of players, introducing such a plot hook means the PCs will follow it. Why? I dunno. They like heroic quests, think that's what the DM wants, I can't guess. I do know that I've NEVER met a player who heard such news and said "that's nice. I wonder what's happening in Greyhawk right now?"

So to that end, I guess I'm a gentle railroader. I don't give my PCs enough choices to pick X or Y, or X is such an obvious choice that Y is mostly token opposition. It works with my group, so I'm happy with it. I've given up tight railroad control decades ago, and I'm well aware that, if given unlimited choice, the PCs would never leave the tavern (rowboating). Its a fair trade from my players and I; they accept some loss of autonomy for a greater DM-designed storyline.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 12, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I think here is where Sandbox and I gently part ways then...
> 
> When I plan out a game, I tend to have an opening (cave of chaos) and a nebulous endpoint (lets say, stop Orcus). They're might be 1,000 different ways to get there, but if I introduce an element like "the cult is gathering an army for Orcus" I think its safe to say the PCs will go investigate it and the chase is on. In all my years, with probably dozens of players, introducing such a plot hook means the PCs will follow it. Why? I dunno. They like heroic quests, think that's what the DM wants, I can't guess. I do know that I've NEVER met a player who heard such news and said "that's nice. I wonder what's happening in Greyhawk right now?"
> 
> So to that end, I guess I'm a gentle railroader. I don't give my PCs enough choices to pick X or Y, or X is such an obvious choice that Y is mostly token opposition. It works with my group, so I'm happy with it. I've given up tight railroad control decades ago, and I'm well aware that, if given unlimited choice, the PCs would never leave the tavern (rowboating). Its a fair trade from my players and I; they accept some loss of autonomy for a greater DM-designed storyline.




A way to handle that situation without a railroad is to build it into the explicit table contract for the game.  In other words, rather than say "Let's play D&D" you say "Let's play a game where the PCs stop a great demonic invasion."  That way the DM and player expectations are aligned and PC direction is more predictable.

I've had groups decide the current situation wasn't to their taste and a grand exploration was in order.  My current group walked 1,000 miles from their home base to look for a rumoured lost city because it caught their fancy more than the political/military intrigue happening around them.  They've never gone back.

I've had groups decide to avoid rather than confront.  A oft-talked about group in my gaming circle were instrumental in starting a doom and fled the continent rather than deal with it.  The doom wasn't their fault, but they released something that started it.  Stopping it wasn't too hard, but they told a few people and then left to a safe distance.  The people they told didn't really believe them or thought they were handling it until...


----------



## chaochou (Dec 12, 2010)

shidaku said:


> If any player wants to do something, then they have to run it past the DM.  It's not a matter of controlling the fiction, but for every room he wants to sneak into, for every guard he has to avoid, I, the DM, have to come up with a suitable challenge for him.  Even if it's as simple as telling him he's entered a room w/X guards and what the DC for sneaking is.
> 
> No player just "does something" in the game because otherwise they're playing in _their_ world, not mine.  Because even in the most sandboxy world, you the DM still tells the players if there are buildings, caves, dungeons, ect...
> 
> Yes, he can't just invent dungeons and guards to avoid, because then he's playing his game, not mine.  And if he'd rather play his game, which harkens back to my original point of a player who disregards others in favor of his own personal whatevers, why is he playing a group game?




We can turn this round - if it's _your _world, and _your _personal whatevers, why are _you _playing a group game?

The reality is that most games with the playstyle that encourages the thief to pick-pocket the king (the sandboxy ones as you call them) do so in a world created by the players and encourage the players to keep creating it.

In that situation, if the thief pickpocketed the King, I'd be asking _all the other players_ 'What's the coolest thing that could be in that pouch?' Which is to say 'Where do you want the story to go next?'

A glowing pendant of Orcus and a magic ring, you say? Maybe the kindly old king ain't so kindly after all. And what does this ring do?

A huge gem of unfathomable value? Hmmm. How exactly are you going to sell that? And what's the King doing carrying it round with him?

A handkerchief with 'Meet me behind the Abbey' written in make-up you say? Who is the frisky King meeting, I wonder?

Or 50 gp and we're back on 'the story'.

The Dresden Files has players create the city and all the major NPCs. Apocalypse World does as well, hell Dust Devils lets players narrate entire scenes how they want them to go. Sorcerer lets players frame scenes with who they want, where they want. With guards to avoid if that's fun for them. So lots of games allow players to do exactly what you said they can't. It's all out there.

So some games aren't about mine, or yours, but ours. When that 'ours' becomes a fight over 'mine' or 'yours' then there's a problem. Who controls the fiction? Everything you've just said is entirely about who controls the fiction. And in your games the answer is clearly 'me' 'my world' 'my game'.

I'm not saying it isn't fun, but it's not the only way to play.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Dec 13, 2010)

I find that you need to find a balance between railroading and for the want of a better word can be called "freedom". Railroading is a very, very powerful temptation that a GM needs to recognise and resist. Do the PCs have to find out about the plot in that way? It's not their fault they missed it or blew it up.

However, sometimes if the PCs are going *completely* in the wrong direction you need to call a time out. I have said a few times OOC x is important to the plot, you may want to check it out, particularly when I have pitched a game and the players have agreed to play it. This is the case a lot of the time with modules, by bringing the module the players have agreed to follow the story, there can be loose bits where they deviate but the module is *usually* what the GM is prepared to run.

I approach Star Wars games rather differently though, as all of them are customised. By now, I have a pretty good idea what sort of games in the Star Wars universe my players like to play. I use the three act formula, three events that usually take up two sessions each with outcomes that are independant of what the players actually do. Star Wars games are also a lot more character-driven, as that is the nature of the game. My player usually take turns in the spotlight, which has recently shifted away from two players to give others a turn.
One of the best things about SW I think is the starships, as the players who don't turn up are simply back at the ship.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> So reasonably, the PCs are lured by one or more hooks to want to explore the caves. Gold, hostages, fighting evil by moonlight, etc.
> 
> Waitasecond...
> 
> First, we assume the PCs actually WANT to go to the caves, because quite easily here the DM could use the power of the choo-choo to force them there. Even if the DM starts them all out in the Keep with the classic 3d6x10 gp worth of stuff, they might, as a group, be more interested in other things.





Remathilis said:


> But it doesn't stop the fact that if you want Tony to get revenge or you want to slay the lich-king, you gotta bite the DMs plot hooks for a while.



There is an alternative. The GM can design encounters/scenarios that "bite" the hooks that the players have built into their PCs.



chaochou said:


> I'm not saying it isn't fun, but it's not the only way to play.



Some good posts. Unfortunately I can't posrep you at this time.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Dec 13, 2010)

The time when I most railroad, if I do it at all, would have to be at the start of games when I need to get the players into the story. And sometimes I do this apologetically, if the players are really clueless and not biting the plothooks at all.

If they keep missing them, you tend to get tired of dangling them.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

Nagol said:


> WARNING Will Robinson!  This is the point of danger.  The DM has an end-point goal.  In a sandbox, he doesn't.  The DM can prepare a timeline of bad/really bad/worse things that will happen unless the PCs stop it, but there is no goal on his part to get them there.  Perhaps the PCs would prefer to play a rebellious cadre out to topple the new regme once the Armageddon strikes.




This. One mark of a good true sandbox DM, imho, is that _if the bad guys are trying to destroy the world, the DM is okay with the world ending up destroyed._ If the pcs ignore or fail to stop the world-devouring threat and there is nobody else willing and able to hold back the hordes of annihilation, well, them's the breaks.

And yes, I speak as someone whose campaign world of about 15 years ended up devoured by Tharizdun. 

What happened next? I drew a new map and the players grabbed up 4d6.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> However, sometimes if the PCs are going *completely* in the wrong direction you need to call a time out.




You're assuming that there is a "wrong" direction. Someone as far to the "sandboxer" end of the spectrum as myself doesn't do that.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm talking about strange things like hanging around in the pub for hours, going to planet X when you need to go to Y or a general "let's not go to the dungeon we expected to go through in this game when we signed up for it".


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 13, 2010)

Nagol said:


> WARNING Will Robinson! This is the point of danger. The DM has an end-point goal. In a sandbox, he doesn't. The DM can prepare a timeline of bad/really bad/worse things that will happen unless the PCs stop it, but there is no goal on his part to get them there. Perhaps the PCs would prefer to play a rebellious cadre out to topple the new regme once the Armageddon strikes.






the Jester said:


> This. One mark of a good true sandbox DM, imho, is that _if the bad guys are trying to destroy the world, the DM is okay with the world ending up destroyed._ If the pcs ignore or fail to stop the world-devouring threat and there is nobody else willing and able to hold back the hordes of annihilation, well, them's the breaks.




Using your definition of a sandbox DM:

Just because a sandbox DM is okay if the end goal isn't achieved, it doesn't necessarily follow that a sandbox DM can't _have_ an end goal. A sandbox DM will simply not railroad the players toward that one goal, but will allow them to go where they want. Having a goal does not define sandbox or railroad...what you do with it does.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 13, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Using your definition of a sandbox DM:
> 
> Just because a sandbox DM is okay if the end goal isn't achieved, it doesn't necessarily follow that a sandbox DM can't _have_ an end goal.  A sandbox DM will simply not railroad the players toward that one goal, but will allow them to go where they want.  Having a goal does not define sandbox or railroad...what you do with it does.




It can be hard to have an end goal for the sandbox and respond to player choices without continually guiding them toward it.  Railroading is the extreme form of such guidance.  My preference is to not guide the PC decisions save through the use of the gaming contract as I described above.

Few end goal plans will survive contact with player choices otherwise!


----------



## Nagol (Dec 13, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I'm talking about strange things like hanging around in the pub for hours, going to planet X when you need to go to Y or a general "let's not go to the dungeon we expected to go through in this game when we signed up for it".




For many of us, that is acceptable play.  For me, the only unacceptable part is the last one.  If you signed onto a set of expectations, you should follow through.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 13, 2010)

chaochou said:


> We can turn this round - if it's _your _world, and _your _personal whatevers, why are _you _playing a group game?



This logic could be applied to any game.  Any world.



> The reality is that most games with the playstyle that encourages the thief to pick-pocket the king (the sandboxy ones as you call them) do so in a world created by the players and encourage the players to keep creating it.



I think we're using different terms for "world", for me, "world" is the setting, the overall design, where the mountains are, where the kingdoms are, what kind of societies exist.

You seem to be referring to "the world" as the individual actions and events that take place within it around the PCs.  

If I'm wrong, then we are indeed at an ideological impasse, and will go no further.



> In that situation, if the thief pickpocketed the King, I'd be asking _all the other players_ 'What's the coolest thing that could be in that pouch?' Which is to say 'Where do you want the story to go next?'



That assumes everyone supports his actions.  The scenario I presented is one where the others, or some of them, do not.  As previously mentioned, I supposed two anti-thetical PCs. a lawless rogue, and a lawful paladin.  Supposed the rogue has stolen from the king, by lawful good standards, the PC must return it, and turn in the rogue.

I simply don't see that as beneficial to the game to create, or allow that sort of player-vs-player setup and call it "story".  As I said, the game is worthless if all the players are going to do is run it into the ground.



> The Dresden Files has players create the city and all the major NPCs. Apocalypse World does as well, hell Dust Devils lets players narrate entire scenes how they want them to go. Sorcerer lets players frame scenes with who they want, where they want. With guards to avoid if that's fun for them. So lots of games allow players to do exactly what you said they can't. It's all out there.



Group designing a game is NOT the same as a single player designing what they think should happen.



> So some games aren't about mine, or yours, but ours. When that 'ours' becomes a fight over 'mine' or 'yours' then there's a problem. Who controls the fiction? Everything you've just said is entirely about who controls the fiction. And in your games the answer is clearly 'me' 'my world' 'my game'.
> 
> I'm not saying it isn't fun, but it's not the only way to play.



Someone, must, at the end of the day, have final say on what does, or does not happen.  Pure democracy is either mob rule or permanent lockdown.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 13, 2010)

Nagol said:


> It can be hard to have an end goal for the sandbox and respond to player choices without continually guiding them toward it.  Railroading is the extreme form of such guidance.  My preference is to not guide the PC decisions save through the use of the gaming contract as I described above.
> 
> Few end goal plans will survive contact with player choices otherwise!




There is a point where stagnation occurs though; the PCs through whatever reason feel they have no place to go next to further their goals. Perhaps the group who has decided to fight Orcus needs some clues as to ways to stop his plans or perhaps a group of mercenaries need a few leads to find the next job. Here I think the DM has an obligation to jump in with a big red arrow to point to the next...something. 

My rule of thumb is always give the PCs something to do. Even if it doesn't pertain to any long term goal. Have orcs raid a nearby town, or a treasure map enter into the hands of thief. NEVER, EVER let them sit at the tavern drinking and wenching for hours on end.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Dec 13, 2010)

Nagol said:


> For many of us, that is acceptable play. For me, the only unacceptable part is the last one. If you signed onto a set of expectations, you should follow through.




Well by now my players know what to expect when they sign up for one of my games. They get story, not a very heavy story but one that makes sense and ties things together. They get good encounters with interesting monsters that will do their darndest to live as well as a tactical challenge. And they get fun, like when I pop things into games just for the lols like the gazebo.

But how would you feel if you have brought your players to a huge battle, that you have spent 80% of the game getting them to, and a few of them want to go skiing. :|
My response to that was to let their characters go skiing, but they're not in the battle.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 13, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I'm talking about strange things like hanging around in the pub for hours, going to planet X when you need to go to Y or a general "let's not go to the dungeon we expected to go through in this game when we signed up for it".




You are combining three different phenomenons here.

1.) Stagnation: The PC don't know what to do next. I think its perfectly fine to RR them into doing SOMETHING, even if its just a random encounter.

2.) Course Correction: Having them go to Planet Y because its vital to the plot is railroading. Having them go to Planet Y because the guy who hired them to pick up cargo stationed there is not.

3.) Idontwanna: A problem where the players refuse to bite the campaign hook tossed down. This CAN LEAD to Stagnation (screw the module, lets go get drunk) or Course Correction (He wants us to go to Y? Lets go to X instead) but usually there is another problem underneath.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Dec 13, 2010)

The second option you have a point, except when this is a combination of the other two. "We go to planet Y as we just want to sit around and get drunk".

And how about this:

GM sends the players to planet Y from planet X to pick up a passenger they are supposed to return to planet X. They instead decide to go to Planet Z because the guy who hired them on planet Y already paid them before they completed the job, and people on Planet Z will give them more money for this person.

GM then sends a star destroyer out of nowhere so the players will go to planet X.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I'm talking about strange things like hanging around in the pub for hours, going to planet X when you need to go to Y or a general "let's not go to the dungeon we expected to go through in this game when we signed up for it".




As a dm, I am totally cool with any of those, though I find the last one irksome if I've done a bunch of prep for that dungeon. But I let my prep be guided by the pcs- I ask them what they are likely to do and try to prep with that in mind.



El Mahdi said:


> Using your definition of a sandbox DM:
> 
> Just because a sandbox DM is okay if the end goal isn't achieved, it doesn't necessarily follow that a sandbox DM can't _have_ an end goal.




Sure, I suppose. 

My style is more like throw an unending succession of different factions with goals, monstrous plots, etc. at the pcs and let them choose which ones to bite at and follow up on. The rest evolve on their own, usually in the background or with another group that follows up on them [eventually].



Katana_Geldar said:


> And how about this:
> 
> GM sends the players to planet Y from planet X to pick up a passenger they are supposed to return to planet X. They instead decide to go to Planet Z because the guy who hired them on planet Y already paid them before they completed the job, and people on Planet Z will give them more money for this person.




Sounds like the dudes on planet Y need to learn about paying for services rendered upon delivery.



Katana_Geldar said:


> GM then sends a star destroyer out of nowhere so the players will go to planet X.




I would say that a better approach is to wait until the pcs have forgotten about this and then spring the bounty hunters. Also, they have a harder and harder time getting good-paying jobs because of their reputation.

YMMV etc.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 13, 2010)

chaochou said:


> I think what needs to be accepted is that railroading can be fun. It can work.




Absolutely.



> A published scenario is a railroad.




Not necessarily. There are lots of published scenarios that aren't  railroads. _Masks of Nyarlathotep_, _Keep on the Borderlands_,  _Isle of Dread_, and the _Banewarrens_ all leap to mind (with  varying degrees of non-linearity).



Remathilis said:


> First, we assume the PCs actually WANT to go to the caves, because quite easily here the DM could use the power of the choo-choo to force them there. (...) Have we hit our first railroad: the assumption that since the adventure  is based around the Caves of Chaos, we are actually GOING to the caves  of chaos?




The ability to choose which opportunities to pursue is pretty much the definition of a sandbox campaign. So, yes, if the DM predetermines what scenario the PCs are going to engage with each week then you are not, in fact, running a sandbox campaign.

With that being said, most people consider enforced scenario selection to be the lightest form of railroading and pretty much inoffensive (assuming you didn't promise a sandbox campaign).

Pretty much everything else you described isn't a railroad (although it's not really a sandbox, either), with one possible exception.



> I mean, the DM has an end-point in mind (stop the cultists before  Armageddon) and the PCs are going to follow the bread-crumbs to get to  it. At any point, they can deviate from the trail to do other things  (slay a dragon, start a keep, marry the princess, etc) and possibly even  give up altogether (and face the consequences of an evil army marching  on the realms of man).




The "Armageddon scenario" is kind of a tricky one to judge.

If I said: "I totally gave them a choice: They either do what I want them to do or their PC will definitely die." Then it's not particularly difficult to see that I'm not really offering any sort of legitimate choice.

The Armageddon scenario similarly says: "I totally gave them a choice: They either do what I want them to do or I blow up the entire world with them in it." It seems like a similar dishonest is being manifested in this so-called "choice".

OTOH, I don't think "I'm threatening something you care about" automatically equates to "I'm railroading you".

There's a legitimate grey area here. But if you sat me down and forced me to pass judgment on some hypothetical example the first thing I'd look at is the specificity of the action being "forced". There's a scale between 

(1) "you've found the One Ring, Sauron is seeking it"

(2) "you've found the One Ring and Frodo, specifically, must carry it to Mt. Doom"

(3) "you've found the One Ring, Frodo must carry it, and he must go to Bree, Rivendell, Moria, and Lothlorien in that order"

With less (or no) railroading at one end and a lot of railroading at the other.

What I will say is that Armageddon scenarios tend to preclude sandbox play specifically because the priority _demanded_ by the Armageddon scenario tends to preclude freedom in scenario selection. (Although this doesn't necessarily have to be true: For example, World War II can be going on in the background without the PCs feeling as if they're personally responsible for stopping Hitler.)



> They may want to go south and explore swamps, check out Quasequenton (which the module strictly tells the DM to railroad the PCs away from if he's not prepped for it)




Huh? I don't remember that in B2 nor can I seem to find any reference to it now that I'm reviewing the module. Is this something from _Return to the Keep on the Borderlands_ perhaps?

Final note: I think part of your confusion is probably stemming from treating "sandbox" as being the polar opposite of "railroading". This isn't particularly true. The defining trait of a sandbox campaign is freedom in scenario selection; but, as I noted above, this is generally considered the _lightest_ form of railroading, not the most severe form.

The other source of your confusion may lie in trying to determine whether something is a "railroad" by trying to identify whether it has a "plot"; and then specifically trying to identify the "plot" by describing the sequence of events as it occurred at the game table. The problem here is that everything has a plot _after the fact_. Railroading happens when the GM attempts to enforce a sequence of events which has been *pre*-plotted.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 13, 2010)

shidaku said:


> That assumes everyone supports his actions.  The scenario I presented is one where the others, or some of them, do not.  As previously mentioned, I supposed two anti-thetical PCs. a lawless rogue, and a lawful paladin.  Supposed the rogue has stolen from the king, by lawful good standards, the PC must return it, and turn in the rogue.



I think the idea was the GM would ask the _players_, not the PCs.

Even the player of the paladin might still have an interesting idea as to what it would be fun for the rogue to find in the king's pocket.



shidaku said:


> Someone, must, at the end of the day, have final say on what does, or does not happen.  Pure democracy is either mob rule or permanent lockdown.



This assertion isn't especially convincing in Hobbes, where it is put in the context of governing a state, and thus where something important is actually at stake. In relation to a leisure passtime it's even less convincing.

In many non-traditional RPGs, for example, authority over the backstory, or scene framing, rotates from player to player as the game is played.



shidaku said:


> I think we're using different terms for "world", for me, "world" is the setting, the overall design, where the mountains are, where the kingdoms are, what kind of societies exist.
> 
> You seem to be referring to "the world" as the individual actions and events that take place within it around the PCs.
> 
> If I'm wrong, then we are indeed at an ideological impasse, and will go no further.



I don't see any ideological impasse. It's not about ideology - it's about facts. RPGs actually exist, and are played by people, which don't work in the way you are describing - that is, they don't rely upon a GM who has the sort of authority over backstory, scene framing, action resolution and so on that you are asserting is a necessary feature of a roleplaying game.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Having them go to Planet Y because its vital to the plot is railroading. Having them go to Planet Y because the guy who hired them to pick up cargo stationed there is not.



I don't really feel the force of this distinction. Did the GM decide that the guy in question is on planet Y?

Either the players may or may not choose to go to planet Y. If they have no choice, then force is being exerted. If the GM exerts that force by manipulating the action resolution system, or by vetoing the choices the players make in the course of play, whether via ingame or metagame techniques, then we have a railroad.

If, as GM, you want the players on planet Y then why not just drop the railroad and start things on planet Y. This will make it clear to the players where you think the game's action is. It negates any need for illusionism or manipulation. And if the players object, you can then have a genuine conversation with them about what you're all hoping to get out of the game. If you've really got good reasons for starting the action on planet Y, presumably you'll be able to explain them to your players!

To put it another way: for those who aren't interested in sandbox play, aggressive scene framing by the GM seems to give all the benefits of railroading without the need to faff around with plot hooks, illusions and manipulation. I think the endurance of railroading is a symptom of some conviction that ingame events must appear to unfold naturally from one another without any obvious metagame inteference. Hence instead of just scene framing, the GM asks the players "So what do your PCs do now?" and then manipulates the outcome of their choices (including perhaps fudging action resolution mechanics) to get things to the desired scene. Like I said, why not just drop the pretense, admit that there is a metagame agenda at work, and proceed accordingly?



Katana_Geldar said:


> GM sends the players to planet Y from planet X to pick up a passenger they are supposed to return to planet X. They instead decide to go to Planet Z because the guy who hired them on planet Y already paid them before they completed the job, and people on Planet Z will give them more money for this person.
> 
> GM then sends a star destroyer out of nowhere so the players will go to planet X.



In my view, a classic example of bad GMing that is wasting the players' time. If the GM wants them on planet Y, just start the action there!


----------



## Nagol (Dec 13, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> Well by now my players know what to expect when they sign up for one of my games. They get story, not a very heavy story but one that makes sense and ties things together. They get good encounters with interesting monsters that will do their darndest to live as well as a tactical challenge. And they get fun, like when I pop things into games just for the lols like the gazebo.
> 
> But how would you feel if you have brought your players to a huge battle, that you have spent 80% of the game getting them to, and a few of them want to go skiing. :|
> My response to that was to let their characters go skiing, but they're not in the battle.




I don'r bring my players anywhere.  They take me.  If the PCs are at a huge battle, it's because they wanted to be there or it formed around due to circumstances.

What they do in the scenario is up to them.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> There is a point where stagnation occurs though; the PCs through whatever reason feel they have no place to go next to further their goals. Perhaps the group who has decided to fight Orcus needs some clues as to ways to stop his plans or perhaps a group of mercenaries need a few leads to find the next job. Here I think the DM has an obligation to jump in with a big red arrow to point to the next...something.
> 
> My rule of thumb is always give the PCs something to do. Even if it doesn't pertain to any long term goal. Have orcs raid a nearby town, or a treasure map enter into the hands of thief. NEVER, EVER let them sit at the tavern drinking and wenching for hours on end.




The world is not a static place and world-altering situations are rarely invisible.  The march of time will usually reveal further symptoms of trouble for the PCs to react towards should they wish.  My worlds typically have too many loose threads/possible activities rather than too few.  Every so often the players feel overwhelmed with choice and have to make some hard decisions about where to focus.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis I wish I could give you XP for each of your posts in this thread. I think you understand the distinction between railroading and playing the game very well.

By the definations thrown about in this thread almost all published scenarios are railroady but to me they have been some of the best that I have DMed. Perfect examples are the Shackled City and Age of Worms adventure paths. Essentially these are very railroady with players thrown in at the start with adventure A which progresses to adventure B...etc. But you know what, they are fantastic campaigns and only at the start of Shackled City did I get a lighthearted "railroad" comment from one my player. The they got on with it because they are good players in a good game should want to tell the story that the DM has brought to the table.


----------



## chaochou (Dec 13, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I think we're using different terms for "world", for me, "world" is the setting, the overall design, where the mountains are, where the kingdoms are, what kind of societies exist.




I already cited four games where this explicitly isn't the case. Where the PCs design the setting and the NPCs in it, and their motives.



shidaku said:


> Group designing a game is NOT the same as a single player designing what they think should happen.




Nope. But you have asserted that the GM creates the setting. And populates the world with NPCs. And decides where the guards are. And what the challenges are. So I gave you four games where that isn't true. I can cite you plenty more.



shidaku said:


> That assumes everyone supports his actions.  The scenario I presented is  one where the others, or some of them, do not.  As previously  mentioned, I supposed two anti-thetical PCs. a lawless rogue, and a  lawful paladin.  Supposed the rogue has stolen from the king, by lawful  good standards, the PC must return it, and turn in the rogue.




This is super-interesting. By 'lawful good standards he must...' Really?

What if the rogue saved his life? Or saved his sister's life? Is the Paladin not allowed any sort of conflict between his morality and his personal feelings for, or obligations to, the thief? He has no feelings for that thief after, what was it, 15 levels of adventuring?

Or is he not allowed to see the glowing Pendant of Orcus in the pouch and struggle to reconcile the thief's lawlessless with some possible greater good from investigating the King's motives?

Gaming gold right there. A PC with mutually exclusive courses of action, both of which he believes in. A classic bang. A moment where we really see what the Paladin believes in.

I've said all along that any disruption around the table is down to a clash of gaming styles at the table. I don't think locking the thief up and having the player roll a new character solves that. Do you?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2010)

Sorrowdusk said:


> This is why I think parties should make decisions together instead of ONE person doing some random but highly influential act. If they ALL want to rob the king though, they should be allowed to _try_. Although it might be better to kill the orcs, dragons, villains, etc straight off and take the Lord's reward-thus allowing the DM to run his scenario, and _then _rob the king AFTER they have gained his trust-allowing the players to pursue their own goal. It's a give/take thing.




Personally, I believe that in-game character issues are usually best dealt with by the other players.  Have a PC that's causing problems constantly?  Don't adventure with that PC.  Have a player that's causing problems constantly, regardless of what PC he runs?  Don't play with that player.

Problem?  Problem solved.

The difficulty, IMHO, arises from the idea that you _*must*_ play with these characters, or that you *must* play with these certain individuals.

Remove that mindset, and you remove the problem entirely.

IMO, I'll sacrifice a little player cohesion to ensure that everyone understands that we are ALL responsible for the health of the game.  Nor do I believe that my assumptions about what the players want to do are necessarily true.  In some cases, the players might *enjoy* the rogue's attempt (or might enjoy helping the Royal Guard give him a beatdown).

In other cases, a player may very well be willing to sacrifice a character to the king's chopping block just to determine whether or not he has boarded a choo-choo.  I.e., this sort of disruptive behaviour is, IMHO and IME, often the result of being presented with an "illusion of choice" where the player in question has decided to "disbelieve the illusion".

Or, as another has put it:



Beginning of the End said:


> I've found that most players like that, once they realize there's no predetermined plot to disrupt, will stop trying to disrupt it and settle down into productive members of the group.






nedjer said:


> 'a right to railroad'




If you can fill a table, you have the right to run any type of game you like.



pemerton said:


> This is in part a terminology issue, but not entirely.
> 
> I don't agree that this is railroading. It is scene-framing, in that it presents the players with a situation in which their PCs find themselves.
> 
> Crucial to the distinction drawn here between railroading and scene-framing is that railroading is an approach to _play_. It is the GM exercising determinative power over the course of play. In this example from the Isle of Dread, no play has occurred yet, and so no power has been exercised.




Agreed.



Beginning of the End said:


> Railroading happens when the GM negates the choice made by a player in order to enforce a pre-conceived path through the adventure.
> 
> There are two main methods of achieving railroading:
> 
> ...




aGREED.



Remathilis said:


> When I plan out a game, I tend to have an opening (cave of chaos) and a nebulous endpoint (lets say, stop Orcus). They're might be 1,000 different ways to get there, but if I introduce an element like "the cult is gathering an army for Orcus" I think its safe to say the PCs will go investigate it and the chase is on. In all my years, with probably dozens of players, introducing such a plot hook means the PCs will follow it.




Interestingly enough, I am conducting a game right now in which the world is about to end.  The PCs have less than three months game time to resolve the situation, escape the world, etc.  This is a move to end the "playtest campaign" for RCFG, and enter the persistant sandbox with the (hopefully by that time) completed ruleset.

Thus far, the players have chosen to follow a number of possible hooks -- but all centering on other things.



the Jester said:


> This. One mark of a good true sandbox DM, imho, is that _if the bad guys are trying to destroy the world, the DM is okay with the world ending up destroyed._ If the pcs ignore or fail to stop the world-devouring threat and there is nobody else willing and able to hold back the hordes of annihilation, well, them's the breaks.




Yup.  I'm giving the players a chance to "rescue" their playtest PCs.....but if they choose not to, they choose not to.  Both the world and the ruleset are permeable in multiple ways.



Beginning of the End said:


> The ability to choose which opportunities to pursue is pretty much the definition of a sandbox campaign. So, yes, if the DM predetermines what scenario the PCs are going to engage with each week then you are not, in fact, running a sandbox campaign.




Agreed.



> The "Armageddon scenario" is kind of a tricky one to judge.
> 
> If I said: "I totally gave them a choice: They either do what I want them to do or their PC will definitely die." Then it's not particularly difficult to see that I'm not really offering any sort of legitimate choice.
> 
> ...




There's your example.  Judge it!  



RC


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 13, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Huh? I don't remember that in B2 nor can I seem to find any reference to it now that I'm reviewing the module. Is this something from _Return to the Keep on the Borderlands_ perhaps?




Sorry, it was the Caves of the Unknown, which offers this quote: 



			
				Keep of the Borderlands said:
			
		

> [FONT=Century Gothic, sans-serif]The *Caves of the Unknown *area is left for you to use as a place to devise your own cavern complex or dungeon maze. You may also wish to expand on the other encounter areas, designing camps, lairs or lost ruins to permit more adventuring. If you do not wish to undertake this at first, simply DO NOT ALLOW YOUR PLAYERS TO LOCATE IT EVEN IF THEY THOROUGHLY SEARCH THE VERY SPACE IT IS IN. (It was hidden by a magical illusion so as to be undetectable...) [/FONT]




If that's not the definition of Railroad Gary, I don't know what it. 



pemerton said:


> I don't really feel the force of this distinction. Did the GM decide that the guy in question is on planet Y?
> 
> Either the players may or may not choose to go to planet Y. If they have no choice, then force is being exerted. If the GM exerts that force by manipulating the action resolution system, or by vetoing the choices the players make in the course of play, whether via ingame or metagame techniques, then we have a railroad.




Lets make this dead simple. 

A guy on planet X hires you to get someone on planet Y and bring it to him for a fat sum of money (a fetch quest). 

Since the only place that someone is on planet Y, is that now a railroad? 

By your definition, it is. 



Nagol said:


> The world is not a static place and world-altering situations are rarely invisible.  The march of time will usually reveal further symptoms of trouble for the PCs to react towards should they wish.  My worlds typically have too many loose threads/possible activities rather than too few.  Every so often the players feel overwhelmed with choice and have to make some hard decisions about where to focus.




How is THAT any better than a railroad? If the PCs are so overwhelmed with choices that the only thing they feel comfortable doing is hanging out in a tavern, you might want to cull a few threads and strengthen some others to get them off their duffs.

If I wanted to role-play dudes getting drunk in a bar, I'd GO TO A BAR!



DragonLancer said:


> Remathilis I wish I could give you XP for each of your posts in this thread. I think you understand the distinction between railroading and playing the game very well.




Thanks DL.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> <snip>
> 
> How is THAT any better than a railroad? If the PCs are so overwhelmed with choices that the only thing they feel comfortable doing is hanging out in a tavern, you might want to cull a few threads and strengthen some others to get them off their duffs.
> 
> ...




Umm, where did the idea my players have the PCs hang out in a bar doing nothing come from ? Of course, they can if they wish, but that dosn't usually last more than a few moments of play time.

The players get overwhelmed because they pledge too much of that precious resource known as time towards too many activities.  They react by focusing their efforts on those areas the players feel are most important to them.  The refocus can take some play time as the players negotiate with each other and NPCs. 

As for trimming the possibilities, the world is large, dynamic, and full of potential adventure.  I don't believe I know better than the players what they are most interested in.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Lets make this dead simple.
> 
> A guy on planet X hires you to get someone on planet Y and bring it to him for a fat sum of money (a fetch quest).
> 
> Since the only place that someone is on planet Y, is that now a railroad?




Can you refuse the hire and do something else?  If so, then not a railroad.

Can you take the downpayment and run?  If so, then not a railroad.

Can you try to kill the potential patron and take his stuff?  If so, then not a railroad.

Can you go to planet Z and try to pass off the guy as the guy you were hired to get?  If so, then not a railroad.



RC


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> If that's not the definition of Railroad Gary, I don't know what it.



Then you don't know what is, in my humble opinion.

Are you seriously suggesting that the advice to not let the adventurers find _what you haven't created_ is railroading?







Remathilis said:


> A guy on planet X hires you to get someone on planet Y and bring it to him for a fat sum of money (a fetch quest).
> 
> Since the only place that someone is on planet Y, is that now a railroad?
> 
> By your definition, it is.



No, by *pemerton*'s definition, it's not.

*pemerton* wrote, ". . . manipulating the action resolution system, or by vetoing the choices the players make in the course of play . . . ," which means if you fudge the dice or refuse to allow the any other choice but to go to Planet Y, then you're railroading.

Saying that there's a guy on Planet Y who someone on Planet X wants retrieved isn't a railroad - saying that adventurers can't get clearance to travel to any other planet but Y or misjumping their ship there when they attempt to reach Planet P is a railroad.


----------



## chaochou (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Lets make this dead simple.
> 
> A guy on planet X hires you to get someone on planet Y and bring it to him for a fat sum of money (a fetch quest).
> 
> Since the only place that someone is on planet Y, is that now a railroad?




Or another way to look at it: 'Does anyone at the table care?'

If everyone in the game is down with going to planet Y and doing the mission thing and you're all having fun, it doesn't need a label. It's functional, it's fun, it's play.

Railroading, in the sense of 'bad', is disagreement at the table about the amount of freedom the players can exercise on play. In that sense your example is undefined.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Then you don't know what is, in my humble opinion.




So, it comes to page 12 of a conversation, and still folks are saying to each other that they don't know what the subject even is?  

Classic.

Edit:  I should clarify - I am not picking on The Shaman here, in particular.  I am more noting the classic form found in the various 'wars (Edition Wars, Playstyle Wars, and so on).  Many pages in, and folks still cannot agree on what, exactly, they're arguing about.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 13, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I think the idea was the GM would ask the _players_, not the PCs.



Irrelevent. The players are playing their characters in the game. The loot from the King is in the game. It doesn't matter what the players think if they're playing their characters, it's what their characters think that matters.



> Even the player of the paladin might still have an interesting idea as to what it would be fun for the rogue to find in the king's pocket.



Of course, and he would likewise have fun turning the rogue in.



> This assertion isn't especially convincing in Hobbes, where it is put in the context of governing a state, and thus where something important is actually at stake. In relation to a leisure passtime it's even less convincing.



As much as I would like to get into a theoretical political discussion, my point was for illustration, not a stepping stone into my favored past-time, political debate.

The point can be summed up as a variation of "never split the party". Don't split characters up in-game, as it's a great way for them all to die. Likewise, splits between players are a good way for the game to die because there will be a lack of cohesion, resulting in the game locking down and nothing being accomplished, or the majority siding against the minority.

D&D is as much a social gathering as it is a game. If you don't preserve the enjoyable social atmosphere, then you're left with a very barren game.



> In many non-traditional RPGs, for example, authority over the backstory, or scene framing, rotates from player to player as the game is played.



I was under the impression we were discussing D&D. I readily admit there are other games that do things differently because IMO they were designed to function that way. IMO D&D is not.



> I don't see any ideological impasse. It's not about ideology - it's about facts. RPGs actually exist, and are played by people, which don't work in the way you are describing - that is, they don't rely upon a GM who has the sort of authority over backstory, scene framing, action resolution and so on that you are asserting is a necessary feature of a roleplaying game.



I'm not sure what world you live in, but I've yet to find a single D&D game, even the most incredibly sandboxy, in which the DM is not in charge. "RPGs" are not what I'm concerned about. I'm talking about D&D. I'm certain we can come up with other games that are played differently, because they are in general, _different games._



chaochou said:


> I already cited four games where this explicitly isn't the case. Where the PCs design the setting and the NPCs in it, and their motives.



Great! We're agreed that different games are different. 



> Nope. But you have asserted that the GM creates the setting. And populates the world with NPCs. And decides where the guards are. And what the challenges are. So I gave you four games where that isn't true. I can cite you plenty more.



Great! We agreed different games are different! 



> This is super-interesting. By 'lawful good standards he must...' Really?



In every edition before 4.0, by lawful good HE MUST, or he was no longer a paladin. Though 4.0 has changed that, players playing "lawful good" understand that "good" and "lawful" means they don't support robbing people.



> What if the rogue saved his life? Or saved his sister's life? Is the Paladin not allowed any sort of conflict between his morality and his personal feelings for, or obligations to, the thief? He has no feelings for that thief after, what was it, 15 levels of adventuring?



Of course he can. These make for all sorts of interesting conferences. They weren't included in my previous example. But I certainly agree that extenuating circumstances can change the way things would be expected to happen. I included none because we can add ANY extenuating circumstanes. What if the rogue is really the King's son?



> Or is he not allowed to see the glowing Pendant of Orcus in the pouch and struggle to reconcile the thief's lawlessless with some possible greater good from investigating the King's motives?



Certainly, he could, he may likewise choose to not look in the sack and cover his ears until someone comes over and shows him the thing. At which point he may reconsider his stance.



> Gaming gold right there. A PC with mutually exclusive courses of action, both of which he believes in. A classic bang. A moment where we really see what the Paladin believes in.



I kept my example simple for a reason. Because it was simple, adding "what ifs" to get out of the original problem created by it simply ignores the whole point and premise.



> I've said all along that any disruption around the table is down to a clash of gaming styles at the table. I don't think locking the thief up and having the player roll a new character solves that. Do you?



As I said, I do not. What if the lawful good player does? How do I reconcile that? Certainly I could do something as you suggest, cause the paladin to question his support for the law.  That however, can come out looking like I'm supporting one player against another, why must he be forced to question his morality when the guy who has none is not questioning his? Likewise, I could prevent the rogue from stealing from the King to begin with, and thus, never create a problem, sure, the player may be bummed he couldn't rob the King, but there are plenty of ways to do so without forcing a player to re-evaluate their character's moral standing because of the actions of another.

In my situation, I force the rogue's player to learn his limits.  In yours, you force the paladin to re-evaluate his morals.  One way or the other, someone is getting forced to do something they'd rather not do.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Then you don't know what is, in my humble opinion.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the advice to not let the adventurers find _what you haven't created_ is railroading?




I think this is open to some legitimate debate. Saying "you can't find X no matter what you do" is certainly a railroading technique.

But given the full context of how Gygax designed his campaigns (with dungeons that constantly shifted and changed when you weren't looking at them), this particular application looks more like "they can't find it because it doesn't exist yet; if some sort of explanation is later demanded, here's a retcon you can use".

And failing to find something because it doesn't exist wouldn't be railroading.



Umbran said:


> So, it comes to page 12 of a conversation, and  still folks are saying to each other that they don't know what the  subject even is?
> 
> Classic.




Gray areas are gray; people disagree about them. Film at 11.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 13, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Then you don't know what is, in my humble opinion.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the advice to not let the adventurers find _what you haven't created_ is railroading.




Yes. 

Does it limit a PCs legitimate choices in a given scenario? (IE Search the area, find the dungeon)?
Does it create a bottle-neck for the adventure the DM has prepped over what the PCs have chosen to do?
Is it done for an out-of-game, rather than in-game reason? 
Is it explained in the world via a handwave that cannot be detected, dispelled, or otherwise affected by the PCs?

How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"? Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> I think this is open to some legitimate debate.




I agree.  There is an element of intent involved, but IMHO once you've decided that the Caves are there, they are there....whether you are ready or not.  



> Gray areas are gray; people disagree about them. Film at 11.




Overall, very good post, and sorry I couldn't XP you.


RC


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Yes.
> 
> Does it limit a PCs legitimate choices in a given scenario? (IE Search the area, find the dungeon)?
> Does it create a bottle-neck for the adventure the DM has prepped over what the PCs have chosen to do?
> ...




"Can" and "should" are what are in question here.  The DM does a lot of work, is it right that the players should expect him to do more just because they want to go in X direction?  

Sure, the DM _can_ wing it, but I highly doubt it's going to be as good as what he had planned.  

Which begs the question: if the choices of the PCs make the game sub-par, _should_ the DM indulge them?

Which further begs: if players decisions should always be indulged, what is the point in creating any content for them, if the game is always going to give them what they want?


----------



## the Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

Nagol said:


> My worlds typically have too many loose threads/possible activities rather than too few.  Every so often the players feel overwhelmed with choice and have to make some hard decisions about where to focus.




I think that this is another mark of a good sandbox, or at least a good indication that you're in a campaign that tends towards the sandbox end of the 'railroad-rowboat' spectrum.

Player choice is meaningless without things to choose between, after all.

From my current group, which is 8th-10th level, here are a few of the dangling threads they have going:


Find this ogre that stole some info from the wizard's tower and seems to have it in for them
Slay a radioactive hydra as a final initiation before being allowed into a secret organization
Work on building up their stronghold
Work on improving the small nation they are building
Journey south to investigate this secret cult (which is connected to that ogre)
Journey south to a residuum tasting
Journey east to meet the liege that they are under
Hunt down remnants of the mercenary company that tried to take over their nation
Try to find the troll king rising in the fens to the north
Finish dealing with the Garden of Graves (they are currently in the middle of this one)
Try to find the secret spy for the yuan-ti that they know is in their territory
Try to hunt the hag that tried to catch the soul of one of the pcs when she died
Explore a chasm opened by an earthquake that has goblins, duergar and undead (at least) underneath it
Do something about these wererats and purple dragon that they got defeated by early in the campaign
Seek out a phoenix that they saw in the distance in the mountains to the west

I'm certain that there are other plot hooks dangling around, too- not to mention that they can do something else entirely, and my groups often do.  I like having a vast world with lots going on, and I like that the players choose to explore different areas.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 13, 2010)

shidaku said:


> "Can" and "should" are what are in question here.  The DM does a lot of work, is it right that the players should expect him to do more just because they want to go in X direction?




In a sandbox campaign, the answer to that question is pretty much definitionally "yes".



Remathilis said:


> How, exactly, is it any different from telling  your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"?  Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of  sandbox play?




With that being said, ideological purity is overrated.

Take the West Marches, for example. A rule was imposed that the characters in the campaign had to explore the frontier. Is that less sandbox-y than a campaign in which players could abandon the frontier and go back to civilization? Sure. Is it particularly accurate to say, therefore, that the West Marches isn't a sandbox campaign? Not really.

And even if we want to embrace that ideological purity, "winging it" may not be the preferred method for dealing with "I want to go south" or "I want to go to civilization".

For example, my preferred response to that scenario is generally to say, "Let's take a break." Depending on the amount of prep required that break can range anywhere from 15 minutes to "see you next week".


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 13, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I'm cheating a little: the module mentioned by CleverNickname was *Test of the Warlords*, a classic Champion D&D module which begins with the king offering you a piece of land in Norworld (medieval Norway) and all you got to do is clear it out and make it inhabitable for the civilized folks, and you get to be declared Jarl of it. Its for high level PCs (15+) and its got a good mix of politics, dungeons, and even mass combat in it.
> 
> Stealing from the guy WHOSE ABOUT TO GIVE YOU LAND pretty much sabotages the whole plot, doesn't it? If it was, say, Tomb of Horrors or something, I might've agreed.




If you're a pickpocket, why would you want to be exiled from civilization? You're seeing this as the King is giving them a huge gift, but whether deliberately or in practice, he's exiling them to a far part of the world where they may die, or may clean up a problem area for the king and afterwards they will be tied up where the King doesn't have to worry about the threat to his power. Heck, the King doesn't even "own" the land he's giving them; possession on the ground, from your description, is with uncivilized folks, and if the King can't suppress them, the PCs probably could have gone up there, taken the land, and proclaimed themselves King, with the old King not being able to do anything about it.

If we created characters to run this module, I would be deeply frustrated if a player chose to make  a pickpocket. But if we're talking preexisting characters, asking them to be exiled from civilization to do the king's work and take on the responsibility for a bunch of commoners is a big request that many characters just may not be interested in.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 13, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> In a sandbox campaign, the answer to that question is pretty much definitionally "yes".




Which, as my other questions asked, raised the following.

Why should players be allowed to have that expectation?  And why should the DM bother to plan or prepare anything, if he knows players can just walk away from it any time they like?

Even if the DM is not a PC in the game, the DM is still playing the game with everyone else.  If the incentive for players to play this sandbox is because they can do anything because the DM will create it for them, what is the DM's incentive?  To do more work?

That hardly seems like a good incentive.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> I think this is open to some legitimate debate. Saying "you can't find X no matter what you do" is certainly a railroading technique.



True.







Beginning of the End said:


> But given the full context of how Gygax designed his campaigns (with dungeons that constantly shifted and changed when you weren't looking at them), this particular application looks more like *"they can't find it because it doesn't exist yet; if some sort of explanation is later demanded, here's a retcon you can use"*.
> 
> And failing to find something because it doesn't exist wouldn't be railroading.



Which is the point I hastily and inartfully tried to make.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 13, 2010)

chaochou said:


> Or another way to look at it: 'Does anyone at the table care?'
> 
> If everyone in the game is down with going to planet Y and doing the mission thing and you're all having fun, it doesn't need a label. It's functional, it's fun, it's play.
> 
> Railroading, in the sense of 'bad', is disagreement at the table about the amount of freedom the players can exercise on play. In that sense your example is undefined.



"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "

AAARGH!


----------



## the Jester (Dec 13, 2010)

chaochou said:


> Or another way to look at it: 'Does anyone at the table care?'
> 
> If everyone in the game is down with going to planet Y and doing the mission thing and you're all having fun, it doesn't need a label. It's functional, it's fun, it's play.




And this is an excellent point. As several folks have pointed out, there is a spectrum here, not two distinct states. (From railroad to rowboat, the extreme and negative ends, through story-based and sandbox play styles to some mushed-up half-and-half in the middle.) 



Beginning of the End said:


> I think this is open to some legitimate debate. Saying "you can't find X no matter what you do" is certainly a railroading technique.
> 
> But given the full context of how Gygax designed his campaigns (with dungeons that constantly shifted and changed when you weren't looking at them), this particular application looks more like "they can't find it because it doesn't exist yet; if some sort of explanation is later demanded, here's a retcon you can use".
> 
> And failing to find something because it doesn't exist wouldn't be railroading.




First of all, RC, you're covered. 

Second, this is a very important point. The dungeons of early D&D were not static. Passages appeared and disappeared, populations came and vanished almost magically, doors stuck for adventurers but not monsters, all monsters could see in the dark- all IIRC, but I don't think I'm far off. Early dungeons were almost alive in themselves, constantly mutating.

(As an aside, I think the mythology surrounding Torog in 4e is a great step towards this type of dungeon.)

All that said...



Remathilis said:


> Does it limit a PCs legitimate choices in a given scenario? (IE Search the area, find the dungeon)?
> Does it create a bottle-neck for the adventure the DM has prepped over what the PCs have chosen to do?
> Is it done for an out-of-game, rather than in-game reason?
> Is it explained in the world via a handwave that cannot be detected, dispelled, or otherwise affected by the PCs?
> ...




Unless you make some kind of assumption that justifies the whole "Whoops, how did I miss that?" thing, I would agree that this is railroading.



shidaku said:


> "Can" and "should" are what are in question here.  The DM does a lot of work, is it right that the players should expect him to do more just because they want to go in X direction?
> 
> Sure, the DM _can_ wing it, but I highly doubt it's going to be as good as what he had planned.
> 
> ...




Well, the dm can feel free to say either, "OK, we'll have to resume next time" or "Give me a couple of minutes to do some quick prep." Heck, if you have any smokers, you know they're ready for a break any time! 

However, one of the arts within the art of sandboxing is the ability to improvise. Most sandbox dms that I have played under seem to do pretty well, and if they don't, the group generally knows that they are leaving the 'cool stuff' when they go in an unexpected direction. It is up to them, though- sometimes they just want to explore something new. 

Improvisational dms develop the skill by doing it. While the winged stuff might not be very hot tonight, perhaps by next April it's not bad, and in June and July there could be a couple of mostly improvised sessions that hit a home run. Just like designing encounters, you get better at improvising with practice.

Now, not all dms are good at improvisation, not even all sandbox dms. But let's not just assume that a game is bad because the dm is winging it.

And yes, the dm should 'indulge' the pcs' in-game choices. _It simply isn't his place to dictate what they do._ As always, YMMV- but to me, that's the whole issue right there.

Re: What's the point of creating content in a sandbox? First, I would guess that most sandbox dms love creating campaign content for its own sake. Second, sandbox content _might be_ for this group, but the next group in the area could easily run across it instead- or as well. Sandboxers get to reuse maps, dugneons, npcs, etc a lot.


----------



## chaochou (Dec 13, 2010)

See, it's gone like this.

I identified the problem in the thief pickpocketing the king scene as one of a fight over narrative control. Over who gets to control the fiction.

You rejected that, saying players never have narrative control.

I pointed you to a number of games where they do, in game and pre-game.

You said 'Oh, but that's not D&D' I'm talking about D&D, it never happens in D&D.

Well, I'm afraid you're talking horlicks. I can give narrative control, world creation, NPC creation, problem creation and story progression to players as easily in D&D as in Sorcerer. Just with a certain GMing approach.

I've even shown you the first step by getting the players to say what's in the king's purse and therefore how to give them control of the story.

 And you still flatly assert that it's impossible.

Then you say that giving the rogue freedom is going to cause all sorts of problems. Of course it is, if you railroad them. I've shown you a couple of options of how not to railroad the rogue or the paladin and you've said, variously 'Now you're just making stuff up' and 'No, you're just railroading the paladin, I'm railroading the rogue.'

Key point 1. Yes, I just made stuff up. Stuff which helps tell a story. Stuff which helps tell the story the players are doing. That's just called GMing. That's what we're doing. GMing the situation.

(I'd point out that you've made loads of stuff up to try and enforce your railroad - about legions of guards, and how pickpocketing him is impossible with all the people around. About how it's an automatic death sentence. Even how the Paladin spots the pickpocket attempt before it happens and tackles the thief to the ground. Must be a mind-reading Paladin I guess.)

Key point 2. I haven't railroaded anyone. The rogue has acted - and if you remove his agency to act (your option) you deny the player any function at your table. So I've let the rogue act and the rogue's action has prompted a moral dilemma on the part of the paladin. You're accusing me of railroading through inaction? Jeez.

Key point 3: Whether the 'rest of the group' feels this behaviour disruptive or not is irrelevant to my definition of the problem being 'Who controls the fiction?'. Calling it disruptive means they side with the GM on narrative control rights. If they want the player to have control of the story, the GMs a railroader. If it never comes up, the game runs with fun for everyone.

So if you want to argue about it more, you need to provide an alternative definition of railroading. Without that, as has been the case, you're not actually arguing, you're just continuing this barrage of gainsaying.

Have fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2010)

I would just like to thank everyone for making this one of the most enjoyable threads on EN World in quite some time.

Thanks.


RC


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 13, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Well, the dm can feel free to say either, "OK, we'll have to resume next time" or "Give me a couple of minutes to do some quick prep." Heck, if you have any smokers, you know they're ready for a break any time!



I suppose that is true.  But I still feel as if the content created in 15 minutes is going to be lackluster to the content created over a week or more.  Likewise, if they can do this at any time, they could do it the moment you all sit down.  Thus wasting an evening.



> However, one of the arts within the art of sandboxing is the ability to improvise. Most sandbox dms that I have played under seem to do pretty well, and if they don't, the group generally knows that they are leaving the 'cool stuff' when they go in an unexpected direction. It is up to them, though- sometimes they just want to explore something new.



I suppose as long as the group understands that they are asking for improv, and that it will be only as good as that can get, then it's all right.  Expecting equitable to pre-prepared content out of improv I take issue with.



> Improvisational dms develop the skill by doing it. While the winged stuff might not be very hot tonight, perhaps by next April it's not bad, and in June and July there could be a couple of mostly improvised sessions that hit a home run. Just like designing encounters, you get better at improvising with practice.



No argument there.



> Now, not all dms are good at improvisation, not even all sandbox dms. But let's not just assume that a game is bad because the dm is winging it.
> 
> And yes, the dm should 'indulge' the pcs' in-game choices. _It simply isn't his place to dictate what they do._ As always, YMMV- but to me, that's the whole issue right there.



I think there's a fine line between what you can't do and what you're told not to do.  I can let you steal the King's pouch, I can also make it incredibly hard.  I can make it so difficult, you may think it unwise to do so.  

Making things difficult is not the same IMO, as saying "no you can't", but sometimes the latter, IMO, is necessary.  Sometimes the carrot doesn't work and you must use the stick.



> Re: What's the point of creating content in a sandbox? First, I would guess that most sandbox dms love creating campaign content for its own sake. Second, sandbox content _might be_ for this group, but the next group in the area could easily run across it instead- or as well. Sandboxers get to reuse maps, dugneons, npcs, etc a lot.



I suppose this is because I tend to run smaller, shorter campaings.  With smaller worlds come more detail, and thus, more work.  I would rather not apply the work that goes into creating one small town and it's surrounding area, for the game that will likely never leave it, to an entire world.



chaochou said:


> See, it's gone like this.
> 
> I identified the problem in the thief pickpocketing the king scene as one of a fight over narrative control. Over who gets to control the fiction.
> 
> You rejected that, saying players never have narrative control.



Which I did not.  I questioned how MUCH control players or the DM should have. 



> So if you want to argue about it more, you need to provide an alternative definition of railroading. Without that, as has been the case, you're not actually arguing, you're just continuing this barrage of gainsaying.
> 
> Have fun.



Lets start from the bottom, since you appear to have missed that I've yet to call "railroading" anything.



> Key point 3: Whether the 'rest of the group' feels this behaviour disruptive or not is irrelevant to my definition of the problem being 'Who controls the fiction?'. Calling it disruptive means they side with the GM on narrative control rights. If they want the player to have control of the story, the GMs a railroader. If it never comes up, the game runs with fun for everyone.



No, it doesn't.  Players can disagree with the DM, and disagree with a player as well.  Perhaps I allow the rogue this attempt, but other players still don't want him to do it, and even upon offering them the possibility of great reward, they refuse.

Disruptive behavior is behvaiour that distrubs the fun and enjoyable atmosphere of the game.  It may be small, and not an issue to me the DM, it likewise may be a huge game issue.



> Key point 2. I haven't railroaded anyone. The rogue has acted - and if you remove his agency to act (your option) you deny the player any function at your table. So I've let the rogue act and the rogue's action has prompted a moral dilemma on the part of the paladin. You're accusing me of railroading through inaction? Jeez.



Touchy!  Railroading can come through inaction as well as action.  By your choices of what was in the "Kings Bag-o-Mystery", forced a players hand.  Don't pass the buck off the rogue, the king could very well have simply had a pretty note in there written from the Queen about how much she loved him.
YOU are the one who chose to put something in there that forced a player to question their moral standing.  Key words: "You" "forced" "player".  The player must now question his morality, or side against the party.  If that's not forcing someone into action and therefore railroading, I don't know what is.



> Key point 1. Yes, I just made stuff up. Stuff which helps tell a story. Stuff which helps tell the story the players are doing. That's just called GMing. That's what we're doing. GMing the situation.
> 
> (I'd point out that you've made loads of stuff up to try and enforce your railroad - about legions of guards, and how pickpocketing him is impossible with all the people around. About how it's an automatic death sentence. Even how the Paladin spots the pickpocket attempt before it happens and tackles the thief to the ground. Must be a mind-reading Paladin I guess.)



Oh so now GMs are in charge?  I thought players were in charge?  Or is your argument only that players should be in charge when it suits you and GMs should be in charge when it's important?

Having a legion of guards, having tons of people looking, _noticing what someone in your own party is doing_ is not "enforcing a railroad".  These are what actually happens in the real world and in a game with other players.  When a King travels, he is guarded, where the King travels, people come to watch, and your party almost always notices what individual party members are doing.

Actively dodging the eye of your own party generally means you are aware your party doesn't approve, and if they knew they would stop you.  How then does it elicit a positive reaction from them once you succeed in your efforts you know they disapprove of?



> Then you say that giving the rogue freedom is going to cause all sorts of problems. Of course it is, if you railroad them. I've shown you a couple of options of how not to railroad the rogue or the paladin and you've said, variously 'Now you're just making stuff up' and 'No, you're just railroading the paladin, I'm railroading the rogue.'



No, you attempted to avoid drama and the issue at hand within the party by handing them a cookie.  By distracting from the problem of a law-abiding citizen standing by while a crime is committed.  

Allowing the rogue to damage party relations is beneficial to noone.  Your options have simply been to railroad someone else.  The train was never derailed, it simply went to Tulsa instead of Denver.



> I've even shown you the first step by getting the players to say what's in the king's purse and therefore how to give them control of the story.
> 
> And you still flatly assert that it's impossible.



Because the issue isn't about what's in the purse.  The issue is about taking it in the first place.  Before they even know what's in it.  Even if I randomly decide what's in it, perhaps only a rose, does that make it not a crime?  Aren't those who stop crime bound to turn criminals in?  The issue has only been dodged, it hasn't gone away.



> You said 'Oh, but that's not D&D' I'm talking about D&D, it never happens in D&D.
> 
> Well, I'm afraid you're talking horlicks. I can give narrative control, world creation, NPC creation, problem creation and story progression to players as easily in D&D as in Sorcerer. Just with a certain GMing approach.



As I already stated, that's great so long as this is known to all players at the beginning.


----------



## Janx (Dec 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would just like to thank everyone for making this one of the most enjoyable threads on EN World in quite some time.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ...




It has stayed fairly diplomatic, considering its length.  Though Umbran may have a point that we keep re-hashing that the other guy doesn't get it.

I have a very specific definition of railroading.  Mainly to flag it as OMG, don't do that regardless of play-style.

Ken Hite in the OP basically implied by his apparent definition that NOT railroading, a sandbox led to stagnation, which meant nothing got done.

While I'm not a sandbox fan (namely in that I don't want to do the work I think I need to do to run one, nor am I confident in the results of doing so), I still think Hite's quote is BS.

Just as somebody's cure for Stagnation is to RR them to action.  I don't define it nore recognize the cure.

Stagnation is when the PCs aren't accomplishing anything, to their own detriment of fun.  The cure is to bring in stimulous to get them to react, and hopefully be pro-active after dealing with the stimulous.  A minor Threat, like an orc patrol coming upon then whilst they argue about the best way to enter the dungeon, for instance.

That's not RR.  Nor does it force an outcome or force them towards anything else.  it simply spurs them to SOME action, and might reveal new information and Opportunity.

I'm a lazy DM.  I don't want to generate too much material.  So I ask my players what they're goals are, and examine their backstories. I then generate one or two Opportunities or Threats that I think they'll go for (and my group tends to do so).  I build enough material to fulfill them pursuing that goal. 

Yes, I assume they'll succeed, but that's just a handy tool to determine what content they'd need next to get to their goal.

If the PCs said no, they don't want to pursue the Opportunity or Threat, I guess I'm screwed.  I'd have to apologize and say, "well, I need to revise things.  What DO you want to do, since you aren't interested in X?"

If the PCs are going the "wrong" direction, and I only mean "wrong" in the sense of they want to go to cuba, but are going North" I will relay, in game or out of game, new clues or blatant GM advice that what they're doing doesn't seem to be moving them to their chosen goal.  Also not RR, as I'm simply giving them more info, and even verifying that their goal has not actually changed.

On the point of Apocalyptic adventures, not be mean, but only and idiot GM runs an adventure where player failure causes an unrecoverable change in the campaign world.  Basically, if you're not sure your PCs will work to stop the apocalypse (and not just because they want it to happen), then don't run a game where if they go surfing, the world ends.

When you run a game where the PCS HAVE to deal with it, you've got risk of negative world impact.  If you can't accept that, then lower the stakes or be prepared to have NPCs deal with it.  The "war to save the day by NPCs" can be a backdrop to the PCs actions, rather than be the PCs adventure.

There are non-RR ways to deal with stuff in sandbox or "narrow scope" styles.

If you don't want the PCs to get side-tracked, don't present them with more Opportunities or Threats than they are able to handle.  The whole planet x,y and z thing wouldn't happen if the PCs didn't KNOW there was a counter-offer.  if the PCs are going to the next story element, don't mess with it.

If you want to do a cool speeder bike chase in the forest and they're about to go to Endor, don't freaking tell them they can get a better deal on Tatooine.

Lastly, something I've just pondered.  It may not be functionally useful to consider a dungeon as a sandbox.  It is a place, where for practical purposes, once entered, the PCs will enter rooms and kill stuff until they achieve their goal.  Regardless of play style (all but the worst GM, anyway), they all run about the same.  In truth, because the choices are so limited.  Choose a direction, enter a room.  or don't.

The tricky part, that sandbox style debates would be better to endorse/explain is the concept of how the party gets started into doing ANYTHING MEANINGFUL.  The sandbox/narrative difference starts with assumptions about how the party learns about their adventuring choices and what they do.  The dungeon's such a narrow and small thing, that its not really relevant.  it runs itself.  What's tricky is how and why does the party get to the dungeon, and what could they be doing if they didn't go there.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Dec 14, 2010)

I think we actually need to go back and look at where the phrase "railroading" came from. From what I know it came from the phrase "on rails" which referred to stories that progressed, with or without player interaction, the same way as themepark rail rides such as the Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean. Do to their resistance/immunity to interaction these types of stories are disliked if not hated in games where one of the main selling points is PC/Story interaction.

As for the "thief pickpocketing the king" situation? It is a game disruption plain and simple. The player is interrupting the setup of the adventure, just as if someone's phone had gone off. There are multiple ways to deal with such disruptions, all of which vary in quality, and that DM chose to veto the action. The only thing that this has to do with "railroading" is that the thief's player attempted to justify why his disruption should go through anyways was to accuse the DM of railroading.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 14, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Why should players be allowed to have that expectation?  And why should the DM bother to plan or prepare anything, if he knows players can just walk away from it any time they like?




The reason I, personally, come to the game table is in order to see what happens when the PCs interact with the scenario I've designed. If I'm only interested in my pre-conceived plot, then why don't I just write a story?

YMMV, but the appeal of the sandbox campaign is to take that core concept and write it large across the entire campaign world.



shidaku said:


> Likewise, if they can do this at any time, they  could do it the moment you all sit down.  Thus wasting an evening.




Theoretically, yes. That's possible. Realistically? No. That doesn't happen. People don't spend all week saying "we're definitely going to attack the slavers next week" and then sit down at the game table and say "actually,  it, let's go kill the king instead".

Players are not random number generators.

With that being said, there is the possibility of a curve ball being thrown early in a session that causes the players to radically revise their plans. There are two solutions for this: (1) Anticipate the effect of the curve ball and prep accordingly. (2) If you see a curve ball coming don't end the session until _after_ you've thrown it.



> If the incentive for players to play this sandbox is because they can do anything because the DM will create it for them, what is the DM's incentive?  To do more work?




IME, a properly prepared sandbox generally requires _less_ work in the long-term. (With the break even point coming right around session 3 or 4 for me.)

First, know what your players are planning to do and prep for that.

Second, prep flexible material. If you prep a plot and the PCs don't follow it, then you've wasted prep. If you prep a cult of bad guys and the PCs don't pursue them, then the activities of that cult can continue generating background detail; events; new adventuring locales; etc. Don't prep plots, prep scenarios.

Third, weave your material. Stuff in the real world interconnects. Do the same thing with your campaign world: The cult can form an alliance with the local mob bosses; the corrupt vizier can be a cult member; and the cult might be trying to recruit orcs from the Tribe of the Third Scar. You aren't trying to force the PCs to pursue the cult, but (a) you're giving them multiple chances to follow that thread if they want to and (b) even if they don't engage directly with the cult, all that cult-based stuff you prepped has now manifested itself into the campaign world in multiple ways. Node-Based Scenario Design

Fourth, multitask the sandbox. Either run another campaign in the sandbox after your first or you can run multiple campaigns in the sandbox at the same time.

My sandbox campaigns see very little wasted prep and a lot more recycling than my plotted campaigns.



> I suppose this is because I tend to run smaller, shorter campaings.   With smaller worlds come more detail, and thus, more work.  I would  rather not apply the work that goes into creating one small town and  it's surrounding area, for the game that will likely never leave it, to  an entire world.




Nothing about running a sandbox requires you to prep material that will never be used. My current sandbox campaign is located entirely inside a fantasy metropolis. The players could theoretically leave, but it's really unlikely that they're going to. So how much time have I spent prepping material outside of that metropolis? Absolutely none. Why would I?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 14, 2010)

Man, first post in a long, long time.  I think I picked a good discussion - it's been interesting reading ...



shidaku said:


> If any player wants to do something, then they have to run it past the DM.  It's not a matter of controlling the fiction, but for every room he wants to sneak into, for every guard he has to avoid, I, the DM, have to come up with a suitable challenge for him.  Even if it's as simple as telling him he's entered a room w/X guards and what the DC for sneaking is.




As (for argument's sake) the thief's player, I might feel justified in pointing out the fact that I am currently standing next to the king, who is, by all accounts, not expecting me to attempt pick his pocket.  Rather, he's attempting to grant me a title and some land on his borders.

I have, in effect, _already succeeded in my grand plan to worm my way into the king's good graces and next to his person to enable my pickpocket attempt_.

I don't need the DM to create rooms for me to sneak through or rooftops to climb or guards to ghost past, because I _just did_.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 14, 2010)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> As for the "thief pickpocketing the king" situation? It is a game disruption plain and simple. The player is interrupting the setup of the adventure, just as if someone's phone had gone off. There are multiple ways to deal with such disruptions, all of which vary in quality, and that DM chose to veto the action. The only thing that this has to do with "railroading" is that the thief's player attempted to justify why his disruption should go through anyways was to accuse the DM of railroading.




I disagree. This has everything to do with railroading. Again, the litmus test (to me) is: _Did the dm dictate player action?_ In this case, the answer is yes. So yes, it's a railroad.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 14, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I don't really feel the force of this distinction. Did the GM decide that the guy in question is on planet Y?
> 
> Either the players may or may not choose to go to planet Y. If they have no choice, then force is being exerted. If the GM exerts that force by manipulating the action resolution system, or by vetoing the choices the players make in the course of play, whether via ingame or metagame techniques, then we have a railroad.
> 
> If, as GM, you want the players on planet Y then why not just drop the railroad and start things on planet Y. This will make it clear to the players where you think the game's action is.



And also make it clear to the players that they're riding the rails; because regardless of whether you as GM want them on planet Y or not there realistically needs to be a choice for the players/PCs as to whether (and how) they go from planet X to Y and whether they do it in a straight line.

If they're on planet X they're probably there for a reason - say, they just busted up a smuggling ring on planet W and took the bad guys to the authorities on X.  To suddenly jump them to planet Y seems like the very definition of railroading, and needs to be done only rarely and with much forethought.

That said, there are occasions when jumping the party right into mid-scene can work well.

Lan-"party teleports in by divine action in answer to someone's prayers"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Theoretically, yes. That's possible. Realistically? No. That doesn't happen. People don't spend all week saying "we're definitely going to attack the slavers next week" and then sit down at the game table and say "actually,  it, let's go kill the king instead".



You haven't met my players, have you?

All too often they'll make plans at the end of a session to do something or go somewhere next session, so during the week I'll give some thought to what might result from this.  But when the next session starts they've completely forgotten the plans they made last week and start the planning process over again, often resulting in their doing something different to their decision from the previous week and throwing such prep as I've done out the window.



> Players are not random number generators.



Correct.  They're random action generators.

Lan-"random numbers are left to the dice"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Dec 14, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> A guy on planet X hires you to get someone on planet Y and bring it to him for a fat sum of money (a fetch quest).
> 
> Since the only place that someone is on planet Y, is that now a railroad?
> 
> By your definition, it is.



Like RC, The Shaman and Chaouchou said, it's only a railroad if the GM forces the players to take their PCs to planet X (whether the force is overt or covert). If the GM simply introduces the option of going to planet Y into the game, and the players take it up, there is no railroad.



Remathilis said:


> How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"? Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?



Railroading isn't about preparation vs winging it - it's about forcing the players to play their PCs in a certain way, and about the GM controlling play at the expense of the players. If the GM hasn't got stuff prepared, the GM hasn't got stuff prepared. Once the GM tells this to the players, the players can either agree to take a break (like Shaman said) or can agree to do something else that the GM has got prepared, or can even urge the GM to wing it.



shidaku said:


> why should the DM bother to plan or prepare anything, if he knows players can just walk away from it any time they like?



Well, in my case I prepare stuff that I'm pretty confident will engage the players, because it "bites" the hooks that they have built into their PCs via character backstory and prior play. Sometimes I misjudge. In those circumstances discussions of the sort just mentioned take place, and a compromise is reached - I wing something or prep something new, or the players follow a lead that's not their first preference while I do my best, in GMing it, to bring it into line with what the players are looking for.



shidaku said:


> YOU are the one who chose to put something in there that forced a player to question their moral standing.  Key words: "You" "forced" "player".  The player must now question his morality, or side against the party.  If that's not forcing someone into action and therefore railroading, I don't know what is.



This isn't railroading. This is GMing. The whole point of GMing the sort of game that Chaochou and I are talking about is for the GM to initiate situations which force the players to make interesting choices for their PCs. (And it is the PC whose moral commitments are put into question, not the morality of the player - at least, not directly - the player's moral views may be reflected to some extent in the choices s/he makes for her/his PC.)

What would be railroading would be for the GM to force the player to resolve the dilemma in one particular way.



shidaku said:


> Oh so now GMs are in charge?  I thought players were in charge?  Or is your argument only that players should be in charge when it suits you and GMs should be in charge when it's important?



The way I play - I can't speak in this level of detail for Chaochou - is that the GM frames scenes, and the players choose how to resolve them. It is not a question of "importance" but of distinct roles in playing the game.



shidaku said:


> Irrelevent. The players are playing their characters in the game. The loot from the King is in the game. It doesn't matter what the players think if they're playing their characters, it's what their characters think that matters.



Well, if you won't allow the players at your table to do anything other than play their characters, you'll have trouble implementing some of the ideas that Chaochou is talking about. And you won't be able to talk frankly about the sorts of encounters and adventures your players want their PCs to engage in.



shidaku said:


> What if the lawful good player does?



But I am moved to ask, is it the player or the PC who is lawful good?



shidaku said:


> _noticing what someone in your own party is doing_ is not "enforcing a railroad".  These are what actually happens in the real world and in a game with other players.



Here is another case where distinguishing players and PCs helps. Presumably the _players_ know the thief is attempting to pick the king's pocket (unless the player of the thief uses the time-honoured technique of passing a note). But why would the paladin PC notice? The typical 15th level thief's sleight of hand bonus well outstrips the typical 15th level paladin's perception bonus.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 14, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> And also make it clear to the players that they're riding the rails; because regardless of whether you as GM want them on planet Y or not there realistically needs to be a choice for the players/PCs as to whether (and how) they go from planet X to Y and whether they do it in a straight line.



I think we've discussed this before. My view is that aggressive scene-framing by the GM is acceptable although railroading is not, because the former _does not involve invalidating the actual play that the players are trying to engage in._ (Of course, it would be different if, for the players, the whole point of play had been to get to planet X. If the players think they're about to get a big payoff from the campaign, and you as GM unilaterally rob them of that, that does become a railroad. In the planet X/planet Y example, as presented, it didn't look like that.)

Of course, if you frame the planet Y scene and one of the player says "Hey, we would never have left planet X because of . . ." then you as GM may have your work cut out to avoid the mutiny! This is where talking to your players can help. But at least the conversation starts with everything out in the open. There's no illusions, and no wasting of anyone's playing time and effort.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 14, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> "You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "
> 
> AAARGH!



Gotcha covered, Shaman.


----------



## chaochou (Dec 14, 2010)

shidaku said:


> If any player wants to do something, then they have to run it past the DM.
> 
> No player just "does something" in the game.
> 
> Someone, must, at the end of the day, have final say on what does, or  does not happen.





shidaku said:


> I'm not sure what world you live in, but I've yet to find a single  D&D game, even the most incredibly sandboxy, in which the DM is not  in charge.




Ahh, so we're talking about who's in charge. Right.



shidaku said:


> Which I did not.  I questioned how MUCH control players or the DM should have.




Oh look. Now we're talking about degrees of control. Not what you said before though is it? The GM is in charge. No player just does something. A player must run it by the GM. How do these totally unsubstantiated assertions represent a debate about degrees of control?



shidaku said:


> Supposed the rogue has stolen from the king, by lawful good standards, the PC must return it, and turn in the rogue.





shidaku said:


> Oh so now GMs are in charge?  I thought players were in charge?  Or is  your argument only that players should be in charge when it suits you  and GMs should be in charge when it's important?




Now go back and look at what I made up. Reasons why the Paladin _player_ might choose not to turn in the rogue which you asserted must happen.
I created some reasons why that player_ might not_. I didn't force anything to happen in the game, nor did I even talk to the Paladin player. I simply gave reasons why your assertion of fact was no such thing. You were forcing the Paladin - 'he must'. I was disputing your assertions and undermining your use of force. At no point was I ever _in charge_.

You assert the Paladin will spot a pickpocket before it happens. You assert it's a death sentence. You exert as much force as possible to stop something happening that you don't want. Quote me where I exert force on any player. Please. Find the quote.



shidaku said:


> By your choices of what was in the "Kings Bag-o-Mystery", forced a  players hand.  Don't pass the buck off the rogue, the king could very  well have simply had a pretty note in there written from the Queen about  how much she loved him.
> YOU are the one who chose to put something in there that forced a player  to question their moral standing.  Key words: "You" "forced" "player".   The player must now question his morality, or side against the party.   If that's not forcing someone into action and therefore railroading, I  don't know what is.




 Quote me where I decided what was in the bag. I gave some examples of what players might say. Quote me where _I_ decide. Or did I say, "I ask *the players* what's the coolest that could be in the bag?" *They *could say it would be hilarious if it was empty. Or a pretty note from the queen. I've never even stated whether I would assume a power of veto, let alone decide. If there's something in there that unsettles the paladin it was *the players* who chose it, including the Paladin. You're accusations of force (oh the irony) suddenly look a little empty. But please, find the quote.



shidaku said:


> Your options have simply been to railroad someone else.




And where are those quotes, I wonder?

The only in-game interaction I've put forward in the whole thread is I'd ask the players what the coolest thing in the bag is.

Other than that, what I've said is: *the thief* does his thing. *the paladin* considers his course of action. I've argued that such consideration might be more difficult than your absolute 'Lawful Good must turn him in'. *The players* decide whether to put 50gp (or 5gp or 2cp as joke) in the bag and continue on their merry way or use the situation to create something new and cool about the world. That's it. Where's the railroad? It's done in under a minute and all I ever did was ask 'So, guys, what's in the king's pouch?'

Actually, don't bother looking for the quotes. We both know they ain't there. But why not make up yet more garbage to justify your dysfunctional and possibly acrimoneous railroad which is totally unnecessary in this situation?

Take care.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 14, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> All too often they'll make plans at the end of a session to do something or go somewhere next session, so during the week I'll give some thought to what might result from this.  But when the next session starts they've completely forgotten the plans they made last week and start the planning process over again, often resulting in their doing something different to their decision from the previous week and throwing such prep as I've done out the window.




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.


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 14, 2010)

Some have suggested that railroading is what happens when the DM robs the player of a choice.  I don't think this isn't necessarily true.  When I remove certain feats and spells from the game, I'm not doing it because I have a specific story arc in mind.  It restricts player choice, but since the story doesn't exist yet, there is nothing to railroad.

So to me, railroading is something that you do to the story, not the players.  It doesn't have to have anything to do with telling a player "no, you can't do that."   In fact, it can be completely invisible to even the keenest player.  For example, imagine the following encounter key.

*1.  Main Chamber:* this 20' x 20' room has heavy oak doors in the middle of the north, south, east, and west walls.  Each doorway opens into a 70' long corridor that extends outward into darkness.  Regardless of which corridor the party chooses to take, it will lead to Area 2, described below.  If the party splits up, one of the groups (chosen randomly) arrives at Area 2 and all others arrive at a dead end.

In this example, I have given the players the illusion of a choice, when they don't necessarily have one.  And they will never know unless they read my encounter key.

Another way it can be done:

*Chests:*  In this crypt, there are twelve treasure chests, shown by the symbol ($) on the map.  The location of the chests or the order in which they are opened is not important.

The first chest the party opens, regardless of its location, contains one ruby (50 gp value) and the key to Room #3.

The second chest opened will be boobytrapped with a poison dart, and contains a bag of sand.

The third chest the party opens contains...etc, etc.

Again, the players think they have a choice, but they really don't.  I have already decided the results of their exploration to fit my story.  And like any good railroad engineer, I've written it so that the players will never know.  Choice is unaffected, at least from the perspective of the player.

Not that I would ever do this to my players.    I'm just saying, it can be done.  And it can be done in such a way that nobody would ever know.  But anyway, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to see it, was it scripted?

The example I gave about the thief wanting to pick the pocket of the king (and me putting the kabosh on it) made the player angry, and that's not cool.  I was trying to keep the game on track...but I don't think that is a bad thing.  I think it's part of the DM's job, actually.

I guess I could have allowed it but make it unimportant, as some have suggested.  For example, I could have just rolled a die flippiantly behind the screen, ignored the result, announced that his attempt was successful, and give him the king's grocery list or something equally worthless.  He would have gotten 20 seconds of everyone's attention, everyone else would have rolled their eyes, and we would have continued on with the story at hand.

But if I were the player, I think that would have made me _even more_ angry.  I'd rather be told "no" than be placated.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Dec 14, 2010)

the Jester said:


> I disagree. This has everything to do with railroading. Again, the litmus test (to me) is: _Did the dm dictate player action?_ In this case, the answer is yes. So yes, it's a railroad.




I disagree. What the DM did here was deny an action not dictate one. If a player wanted to attack an orc and there are no orcs in the combat area would you call not letting the character attack orcs railroading as well?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2010)

My basic issue with sandboxing is generally pacing.  Which, to me, is exactly what the Thief VS the King example represents.  It's not that stealing from the king is bad or good, it's that it can very, very quickly grind the game to a complete standstill while we attempt to resolve what happened.

Add to that the possibility that it can take considerable time to resolve and that only one player at the table actually cares, and you can have a very, very boring session.  Not that you necessarily will.  It might be a great one.  But, IME, more often than not it's going to be a couple of hours of wanking about until it gets resolved one way or another.

And this can be the issue with sandbox campaigns.  Because you've got competing interests at the table, particularly if you have one player who simply cannot repress impulses, you can possibly result in a situation that Ken Hite talks about with stagnant games.  You wind up with the Seinfeld version of a campaign - it's a campaign about nothing! - because the players can never come together long enough to actually accomplish anything.

Note, I'm not saying this is a likely outcome.  In the right group, it's fine and will likely not happen.  And, I wonder if having stable groups where the players know each other very well has any relationship to how well people find sandboxes work.

In newer groups, where the players don't know each other that well, I've seen this go so horribly, horribly wrong.  

The one good thing about railroads is that the pacing can be stepped up far higher.  In a railroad, you trade player freedom for pace.  Sure, you can't choose to do X, Y or Z, but, you will progress through things much faster, so, it's not boring.

Again, this isn't necessarily the only result.  Railroads can go horribly, horribly wrong as well.  

But, at the end of the day, suiting the campaign style to the group will result in a much better game all around.  For some groups, sacrificing pace for choice is worth it.  For others, not so much.  It's all about getting what you want.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 14, 2010)

EDIT: Not worth it.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> My basic issue with sandboxing is generally pacing.  Which, to me, is exactly what the Thief VS the King example represents.  It's not that stealing from the king is bad or good, it's that it can very, very quickly grind the game to a complete standstill while we attempt to resolve what happened.



It all depends on expectations, really.

A game where the expectaton is to blast through a fair amount of story in a session is likely not going to benefit from an attempt to pick King John's pocketses. (note that such expectations seem to come from the DM more often than the players)

A game where the expectation is that things will proceed at their own pace could very well have a grand old time with King John and his pocketses.



> Add to that the possibility that it can take considerable time to resolve and that only one player at the table actually cares, and you can have a very, very boring session.



Every player at the table is gonna care pretty quick if the theft goes wrong*, and though it might take time to resolve nobody will be left out who wants to be involved.

And if the theft goes right it can be resolved as simply as:
1. Thief's player passes a note to DM describing actions
2. DM rolls for success, King's perception, or whatever (or player rolls, depending how the group does such things) to determine outcome
2a. Other PCs maybe roll perception checks to notice what's happening
3. DM passes note back to player describing the purloined loot
4. We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

* - provided, of course, that his-her PC(s) is(are) present at the time.

Lan-"I've stolen from many people, but never a king.  I like a challenge"-efan


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2010)

Good grief, this thread is moving too fast for me to keep up. 

Some interesting discussion, though.







Remathilis said:


> How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"?



The difference, as *BotE* already noted upthread, is that Mr Gygax's advice is directed at introducing something to the campaign at a later time. My maladroit reply upthread did a poor job of conveying that.







Remathilis said:


> Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?



As others have already noted, a 'sandbox' setting doesn't need to be infinite to be a 'sandbox' - the 'sandbox' is as much about the style of play as it is the setting for play. Frex, when I ran a _Traveller_ game a few years back, I asked the players to remain within the subsector for awhile, giving them something like twenty to thirty charted star systems (and some other stuff not on the regular merchant's nav files) to muck about in however they pleased.

The "wing it" element of running a _status quo_ setting _may_ include going off the edges of the map, but more importantly, in my experience, it's about the setting reacting to what the adventurers are doing. Frex, if the adventurers take sides in a dispute, that should have ramifications; the referee responds in character- and institutionally-appropriate ways to the actions of the adventurers - it may attract new allies, it may earn them new enemies, it may bring them to the attention of the authorities, and so on. For me, that's where much of the "winging it" comes from, and that's what a good deal of my prep is geared toward, such as understanding the complex web of relationships and loyalties between npcs in the setting - if the adventurers tug a strand, who notices, and who's likely to tug back?

To use an actual play example, I mentioned a chevalier npc, a knight of Malta, who was a possible random encounter; on Saturday night, one of his encounters came up - the adventurer, an off-duty King's Musketeer, came upon the aftermath of a duel involving the chevalier. I based the chevalier's reaction to the adventurer on a roll of the dice; the reaction was favorable, so I ruled out an immediate attack - instead, the chevalier decided that the time was right for him and his companion to leave their dead and dying opponents.

Now the chevalier doesn't know the adventurer, but he knows that the musketeer could possibly identify him or his companion, and that dueling is agaisnt the royal edicts. The chevalier may want to know more about this particular musketeer, a tall, stocky fellow with a foreign accent, so I will determine what the chevalier is likely to do next with a little help from Mythic GME.

When I set up this encounter, I knew who the combatants were, why they were dueling, and to whom they are connected. I created the encounter before I knew anything about the adventurer; the first time I saw the character sheet was when we sat down to play. Anything which may transpire subsequent to this encounter will do so because of what the musketeer said and did, informed by what I know of the personalities of the npcs and their connections.

There is no 'story' in my mind, no 'three acts' or 'adventure' to which this is an opening. I can say with certainty however that there will be consequences that stem from this chance meeting because of how the adventurer handled it.

That, to me, is "winging it."


----------



## the Jester (Dec 14, 2010)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> I disagree. What the DM did here was deny an action not dictate one. If a player wanted to attack an orc and there are no orcs in the combat area would you call not letting the character attack orcs railroading as well?




No, but that's a totally different situation. The equivalent of your situation is the thief deciding to pick the king's pocket _even though the king isn't there._

Conversely, the equivalent of the thief situation regarding orcs is when the dm wants the players to negotiate with the orcs and won't allow the pcs to attack.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> My basic issue with sandboxing is generally pacing.  Which, to me, is exactly what the Thief VS the King example represents.  It's not that stealing from the king is bad or good, it's that it can very, very quickly grind the game to a complete standstill while we attempt to resolve what happened.




Laying aside the socially dysfunctional people you say you play with for a moment, let's focus on this: Your entire position relies on the assumption that the GM's plot is more interesting than what the players want to do.



> Sure, you can't choose to do X, Y or Z, but, you will progress through things much faster, so, it's not boring.




Progress through _what_? Your claim relies entirely on the premise that the only thing that matters is ticking off items on the GM's pre-planned checklist. If the checklist doesn't exist your position becomes fairly incoherent.

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.

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.



The Shaman said:


> The "wing it" element of running a _status quo_ setting _may_  include going off the edges of the map, but more importantly, in my  experience, it's about the setting reacting to what the adventurers are  doing. Frex, if the adventurers take sides in a dispute, that should  have ramifications; the referee responds in character- and  institutionally-appropriate ways to the actions of the adventurers - it  may attract new allies, it may earn them new enemies, it may bring them  to the attention of the authorities, and so on.




QFT.

Let me give another example of how smart prep in sandbox play means less prep and easier prep than for plotted adventures.

In my current campaign I prepped a "backdrop" in which the Dragon Church would fracture into two competing factions. (A "backdrop" is a sequence of events which the PCs will hear about through rumors, newsheets, and the like.) These events in the Dragon Church were designed to establish certain elements of the church which would factor into a seemingly unrelated sequence of events that one of my PCs had gotten deeply involved with.

When one of the PCs decided to attend a local tournament, I included the order of knighthood associated with the Dragon Church among the orders competing in the tournament. At this point I was able to reuse the heraldry I had designed for the upcoming backdrop of the church schism.

A little while later, this same PC decided they wanted to pursue a knighthood. Recalling the tourney, they chose the order of knighthood associated with the Dragon Church and approached it. Their application to squire themselves was accepted.

Now that the Dragon Church knighthood had been more immediately engaged, I designed three stat blocks: One for the leaders of the knighthood, one for elite members of the knighthood, and one for the weakest members of the knighthood. I also fleshed out my notes for three NPCs (the PC's trainer, the head of the order, and the order's second-in-command) and gave each of them a stat block (elite, leader, leader).

Total prep so-far: Graphic for the heraldry. One page of notes on the church's doctrine. Three stat blocks. One page of schism events each described in 1-2 sentences. 2 pages describing the major NPCs involved.

Here's where the sandbox really kicks it into gear: 

(1) The first schism event kicks off with an assassination attempt on the head of the order while he's at the tourney field. This was literally three sentences of prep: "Abanar takes several knights to the tournament field to recruit them in opposing the False Pope. Sir Gemmell, under orders from the False Pope, sends two men to assassinate Abanar. Abanar's knights kill the assassins, they ride to the Godskeep, and are driven back by Gemmell's knights."

But through sheer coincidence the PC squire decided to visit the tourney field that day for completely unrelated reasons. The PC ended up helping to thwart the assassination; rode through the streets with Abanar's knights; helped to assault the Godskeep; and then escaped during the ensuing rout.

(2) The PC was then approached by both factions in the dispute. After several intense roleplaying encounters he chose Abanar's side.

(3) The PC then inadvertently betrayed Abanar's location to Gemmell through another series of accidental coincidences that led him to believe (much to my surprise!) that he was facing a test of loyalty. He and the other PCs then narrowly managed to rescue Abanar. (Used those knight stat blocks again.)

(4) They secured Abanar in an abandoned dungeon complex they had cleared out several levels earlier. (More recycling of material.)

(5) The PC is now serving under Gemmell while secretly spying for Abanar.

So from about 5 pages worth of prep, we've generated several sessions worth of exciting play.

And, ultimately, what's the secret behind the success of this improv? Is it because I'm amazingly awesome?

Nah. It's just (a) prepping raw material with dramatic potential; (b) opportunistically empowering the players; and (c) roleplaying.

I'm not succeeding in the absence of prep. I'm succeeding because I'm prepping the right stuff and not wasting my time on less effective prep (like predetermined plots).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Your entire position relies on the assumption that the GM's plot is more interesting than what the players want to do.




QFT.

In a nutshell, this is the prime cause of railroading.


RC


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 14, 2010)

As a DM, my only problem with the "thief pickpocketing the king" setup is the possibility that it will lead to spending hours on a scenario that the thief wants to do and the other players don't give a damn about. Hence, my solution is geared toward rapidly resolving the thief's initial attempt and giving the other players an opportunity to disavow the thief, leave him to suffer the consequences of his actions, and get on with what they were doing. If they choose not to take it, that's their business.

If the whole party is down with this "Let's steal from the king" scenario, I'll run with it and make up something on the fly. Of course, the scenario I devise will be pretty rough around the edges compared to what I had prepped, with a much higher likelihood of leading to a narrative dead end, but that's the price all players should be ready to pay when they decide to go in a weird unexpected direction.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End - please go back and reread what I wrote.  Note, there are numerous caveats in what I put there.  Things like, "can" and "possibly" and "could happen".  

I think I was pretty even handed in saying that either way can work, depending on the group.  I'm certainly not arguing in favour of one or the other.  

Admittedly I prefer a more streamlined game.  I do.  I'm certainly not going to appologise for that.  I'm not really interested in watching a train wreck because Bob decides to be a prat.  This is a situation that can easily spiral out of control.  Bob's character is attacked by the guards, the rest of the party steps in to help Bob, one TPK later and we're back to 1st level.

All because Bob would think it was funny to do something blindingly stupid.

Again, this is only one possible outcome.  It might turn into gaming gold and everyone has a fantastic time.  Unfortunately, IME, when players start doing this, they're more interested in their own fun than the fun of the group.  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.)

Hey, you don't like this style of gaming.  I get that.  That's totally fair.  But, please, don't mischaracterize what I was saying as some sort of condemnation of playstyle.  Both styles have their strengths and drawbacks.  I prefer one over the other, but, I'm certainly not saying that the other one is wrong.

Just why it's wrong for me


----------



## the Jester (Dec 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'm not really interested in watching a train wreck because Bob decides to be a prat.  This is a situation that can easily spiral out of control.  Bob's character is attacked by the guards, the rest of the party steps in to help Bob, one TPK later and we're back to 1st level.
> 
> All because Bob would think it was funny to do something blindingly stupid.
> 
> Again, this is only one possible outcome.  It might turn into gaming gold and everyone has a fantastic time.  Unfortunately, IME, when players start doing this, they're more interested in their own fun than the fun of the group.




When you have a Bob that is willing to pick the king's pockets, the other pcs are well served by being willing to let Bob hang alone. 

That said, yes, you are absolutely right that this kind of thing _can_ derail a campaign if the campaign is story-focused. 



Hussar said:


> I don't play with people like that any more, so, it doesn't come up in my groups.




And this is really the crux of the matter.

If you run a story-focused game, don't play with people that will, by nature of their personality, disrupt the story in order to throw it off-track. If you run a sandbox, don't play with people that will, by nature of their personality, be bored and unengaged if you don't lead them to a story.

Really, whatever your playstyle, you want to have players that enjoy and engage with that style, or else you'll have problems. And that's ignoring the 'problem player' phenomenon completely.



> Both styles have their strengths and drawbacks.  I prefer one over the other, but, I'm certainly not saying that the other one is wrong.
> 
> Just why it's wrong for me




And let's all all keep this in mind- there isn't a right way to play or a wrong way to play, there are only personal preferences and dms that are better at some of the subskills of dming than they are at others.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Your entire position relies on the assumption that the GM's plot is more interesting than what the players want to do.




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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 14, 2010)

Umbran said:


> 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 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.

The problem, IMHO, is thinking of a more linear model as being automatically railroading, or a less linear model as being automatically rowboating (Celebrim's term).

Railroading is an extreme of the linear model, where the choices of the players -- where the players believe that they are able, or should be able, to make these choices -- have been negated by the linear nature of the game.

Rowboating is an extreme of the sandbox model, where the choices of the players -- where the players should have sufficient context to make these choices -- have been negated by the contextually "blank" nature of the setting.

Both are really subsets of the same problem:  Negating player choices, which erodes players' involvement (emotional, intellectual, or otherwise) with the game.  I don't think that any of us, no matter how linear or sandbox-y we may be, want that.


RC


----------



## Nagol (Dec 14, 2010)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Dec 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Dec 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> 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 (Dec 14, 2010)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Dec 14, 2010)

Umbran said:


> 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 (Dec 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 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 (Dec 14, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> 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 (Dec 14, 2010)

the Jester said:


> 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?
> 
> ...




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 (Dec 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Dec 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> 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.



Umbran said:


> 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.



Celebrim said:


> 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.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 14, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Honest question: You don't think there was any way the pcs, or at least some of them, might have escaped?




I think it is possible, although I would haven't rated it highly likely.  However, even if they had escaped - "scattering into the woods" as you would have it - they would have become hunted bandits in the winter in the mountains.  This would not have been the game most signed up for, and it probably just would have delayed the TPK a bit.  



> 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?




They could have, but this isn't a society with a 20th century idea of what constitutes justice or anachronistic notions of what amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.   Having realized that fighting their way out is hopeless, surrendering puts them in no less of a hopeless position.   This is less likely to work than fleeing, and probably even less likely to work than fighting out the encounter and hoping the enemy rolled nothing but ones.



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




Oh, they wouldn't have needed to have talked him into starting an investigation.  He would have launched into one on his own.  Problem is, he would have had convincing evidence of banditry, and that's a death penalty all on its own.



> I see a lot of assumptions about the party's actions or attitude in your post.




Huh?  I didn't make a single assumption about the PC's.  I'm extrapolating how the NPC's would act based on what I know of them, and at first level there is no reasonable way the party would have survived the wrath the town watch.  And its not like the NPC wasn't even a reasonable guy, because he was willing to help negotiate the PC's out of a later situation that they got themselves into that could have got them hung... but that was in a much different sitaution (they'd already proved themselves heroic by that point, they hadn't killed anyone, the offended party was alive and able and eventually willing to drop the charges, etc.).  In this situation, the likely outcome would have been very grim.



> 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 don't know what you are seeing, but I think you have this all set up wrong in your mind.  This wouldn't have been a case of the party being wrongfully accused.  They would have been actually guilty of banditry, and so they had no way to prove their innocence.  They were armed on the Prince's highways, stole property and were found in possession of said property.  No evidence in their favor existed.  Case closed.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 14, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> 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.




I recommend more politeness in the future.  My reading comprehension is not in question.



> 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?




So, you are suggesting that the world conforms itself to certain outcomes which the group is going to be more okay with?  

Are you sure you object to railroading?  Because that sounds to me a lot like illusionism.  And once you have illusionism you are just one more convienent rationalization from a railroad if you aren't yet already on board, which at this point I require some convincing of.  Seems to me that you snuck on the back of the train but ended up in the same station as the DMs you have been arguing with.  I'm admitting to putting the party on rails for a brief time 'for their own' good and for my own reasons.  You just admitted to doing the same thing, but with alot more illusionism and rationalization.



> You appear to be very confused.




It may be, but since I feel the same about you, let's refrain from making that the basis of our understanding of each other.



> I offered four different possible  outcomes. Only one of them featured an alternative path to the Norworld  mission.




I know that.  But let's look at those four outcomes again:



> - You're going to get something valuable from the king.




Afterwhich, you get the mission from the King - who is none the wiser about the theft - to clear out Norwold.



> - You're going to get involved in an epic chase through the palace.




And if you are captured, well you can be sentenced to clear out Norworld.



> - You're going to be arrested and thrown in prison and need to concoct your escape.




And if you fail to escape, well you can be sentenced to clear out Norworld.



> - You're going to be captured and sentenced to clear out Norworld and make it habitable for civilized folks.




Like we didn't see that one coming.   In practice, I'm willing to bet virtually every 'outcome' ends up in the same place, because by your own admission: "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?"

See, we've already established what sort of DM you are.  You are the DM who makes the world change to conform to what will be interesting for the group, because well a TPK would be an undesirable outcome (unless everyone wanted that).  We've already established that you adjudicate in ways that you think lead to the interesting story.  You're a conductor, and you are on the train.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 14, 2010)

Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."
> 
> This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.
> 
> ...




IME, objections to the pejorative term "railroading" arise from a desire to uphold story as an unalloyed good. Further, there is a confusion between story and plot. All RPGs have stories, whether they are paint-by-numbers quests or meandering slaughterfests, whereas a plot is an artificial purpose, one which may not be relevant to RPGs. 

The PCs must be free. Telling the GM's preferred story may be, well, preferred, but is definitely not necessary. RPGs with less real freedom are not necessarily poorer experiences, but they are lesser examples of roleplaying. The argument that "railroading is good" necessarily involves a different definition of railroading than I use. My definition of a railroad is a game which has become degenerate BECAUSE of insufficient player freedom and further the loss of the illusion of freedom where it normally exists. Not only are the players thwarted in pushing their PCs down a desired course, but they realize that deviating from the GM's course is futility. 

While games may vary on a continum from programatic to freeform/sandbox, a real railroad is degenerate on nearly all levels. Social contracts are violated, player freedom is restricted, no emotionally satisfying events occur, and uncertainty evaporates. I object to redefining the term "railroad" as something else, because there must be a term for such a game, and railroad is the historically preferred one. There are other terms, like programmatic, linear, plot-driven, or event-driven scenarios, that adequately describe less freeform games in a non-pejorative sense. A traditional plot-driven game is more like a "highway" than a railroad; it does not start and stop according to the conductor's whim, and the possibility exists, however disasterous it may be, for the players to deviate from the course. If deviation is impossible, it's hard to argue that you are actually playing an RPG at all.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2010)

the Jester said:


> When you have a Bob that is willing to pick the king's pockets, the other pcs are well served by being willing to let Bob hang alone.
> 
> That said, yes, you are absolutely right that this kind of thing _can_ derail a campaign if the campaign is story-focused.
> 
> ...




QFT.  Must spread xp around.  Yadda Yadda yadda.  Could someone cover me please for saying stuff so much better than I can?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2010)

Pawsplay- I can pretty much agree with that.

I do wish there was a non-pejorative term for a DM nudging the action along in a non-invasive (or at least non-intrusive) manner that is acceptable to everyone at the table.  In other words a term for a non-degenerative form of railroading.  Because it certainly exists.  You can have plotsy games that don't piss off your players.  The popularity of the Adventure Paths proves that.

I'm just not sure what to call that game style.

Although, I have one minor quibble.  I would reverse your terms story and plot.  Plot is simply the actions that occur in a story, as separated from theme and setting and other elements.  I would say that all RPG's have a plot, even if it's just Go Here and Kill Everything.  Story is what comes after play has finished and you can tie it all together in a coherent narrative.

IMO, a keyed dungeon map is a plot.  It's a loose plot that will be add-libbed much of the time and events in that dungeon will certainly vary from one play group to the next, but it's still a plot.  You enter Cave C, meet the goblins, fight your way through, meet the Goblin Chief and get the Big Treasure.  Or, you die horribly in the first encounter.  Or second or have to retreat, or whatever.  

But, the keyed dungeon oulines a vague, general plot that the players are going to interact with.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Pawsplay- I can pretty much agree with that.
> 
> I do wish there was a non-pejorative term for a DM nudging the action along in a non-invasive (or at least non-intrusive) manner that is acceptable to everyone at the table.  In other words a term for a non-degenerative form of railroading.  Because it certainly exists.  You can have plotsy games that don't piss off your players.  The popularity of the Adventure Paths proves that.




There are such terms. 
"nudging"
"multiple victory pathways"
"illusion of choice"
"bald-faced GM hinting"
"narrative buy-in by the players"
"writing adventures that make sense on their own merits and don't require constant GM intervention to avoid losing their purpose to the relentless logical progression of events caused by PC actions"




> I'm just not sure what to call that game style.




I made several suggestions, depending on emphasis. The "core clue" game would be event-driven.



> Although, I have one minor quibble.  I would reverse your terms story and plot.  Plot is simply the actions that occur in a story, as separated from theme and setting and other elements.  I would say that all RPG's have a plot, even if it's just Go Here and Kill Everything.  Story is what comes after play has finished and you can tie it all together in a coherent narrative.
> 
> IMO, a keyed dungeon map is a plot.  It's a loose plot that will be add-libbed much of the time and events in that dungeon will certainly vary from one play group to the next, but it's still a plot.  You enter Cave C, meet the goblins, fight your way through, meet the Goblin Chief and get the Big Treasure.  Or, you die horribly in the first encounter.  Or second or have to retreat, or whatever.
> 
> But, the keyed dungeon oulines a vague, general plot that the players are going to interact with.




No, a plot is what you *want* to have happen. As you note, story is inevitible, and unfolding. You seem to be talking about events. Plot is a way of organizing events. 

I am deeply suspicious of "plot" in an RPG for a number of reasons.

The GM's view of the future is hazy.
Plot is a modernist concept that presupposes thematic unity; aside from the question of whether your players are modernists, RPGs with their focus on text and freedom from artifical constraints of theme and consistency are a fundamentally postmodern form.
The GM does not know best.
The best goal is to have no goal.

Writers use plots to hang a story on. RPGs have a similar concept. However, the analog in an RPG is not a "plot," it's an adventure. The adventure is the framework for the story, including various decision points made by the players. The scenario is the structure, a starting point with an uncertain ending point.

Instead of plot, I think of "trajectories"... events that are likely if the PCs do nothing, or if they take one of several likely choices. But any trajectory can be altered in a second by a force generating new motion in another direction.


----------



## Canor Morum (Dec 15, 2010)

There seems to be a disagreement as to how much control the players should have over the world.  When I run a game there is no argument.  The players control their characters, I control the world.  I can suggest ideas or say "are you sure that's what you want to do?" but ultimately it is up to them. 

This is one reason I don't use adventure modules or plan things out too far in advance.  In my opinion, saying "no, you can't do that because it ruins my story" is poor DMing.  You are basically telling the players that their characters don't matter and you are not imaginative enough to involve them in the story.  

It is difficult to make up events, npcs, and details on the fly and there is nothing wrong with running a pre-planned adventure if that is what everyone agrees to.  I think most players come to the table with higher expectations though.  They participate with the idea that their decisions will influence the outcome of the story and shape of the world.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend more politeness in the future.  My reading comprehension is not in question.




Your reading comprehension is pretty much nonexistent. You're replying to someone calling your reading comprehension into question by claiming that your reading comprehension isn't in question.

I'd like to assume that was intentional irony on your part, but the rest of your post suffered from a similar basic failure to read what I wrote.

I'm assuming with 6,000+ posts under your belt that you're capable of doing better than this. Please try harder in the future.

*Mod Edit*: Ladies and gentlemen, this is called "being rude".  Don't do it, or you too can earn a nice restful vacation from EN World. ~Umbran


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2010)

Pawsplay - Trajectories, I like that.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 15, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Your reading comprehension is pretty much nonexistent. You're replying to someone calling your reading comprehension into question by claiming that your reading comprehension isn't in question.




Since you fail to understand the reference or the meaning, I will explain it to you.

There is a story told in New Orleans.  I don't remember the exact details, but it goes like this:  

A wealthy planter comes into Galatoires and says, "I brought the little lady down to New Orleans so she could have a fancy dinner.", and the Maitre'd says, "We shall endeavor to impress."  So the man orders all the most expensive items on the menu, but when they arrive he does nothing but complain.  "This is undercooked.", "This is too spicy.", "The portions are too small.", "Not enough salt.", and so on and so forth.  Finally at the end of the meal, the man demands that the Maitre'D bring the chef out, but the Maitre'D refuses.  The man is now fuming with rage and says that he shall tell everyone how he ate at Galatoires and it was the worst meal he'd ever had.  And the Maitre'D just smiles and says, "You may tell anyone you wish.  This is Galatoires.  _Our_ taste is not in question."

Hopefully that clears up my meaning for you.



> I'm assuming with 6,000+ posts under your belt that you're capable of doing better than this. Please try harder in the future.




Assume whatever you like.  Neither my reading comprehension nor my ability to write is under any sort of question.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> The "wing it" element of running a _status quo_ setting _may_ include going off the edges of the map, but more importantly, in my experience, it's about the setting reacting to what the adventurers are doing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I can't posrep you at the moment - but a nice actual play example of how a game can have interesting stuff happen without the GM having to railroad.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 15, 2010)

Umbran said:


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



Who is saying this? In the actual play examples, and descriptions of approaches to play, give by me, by Chaochou, by The Shaman and Beginning of the End, the GM has also had control. But the GM's control is in _framing the scene_ - whether that be by determining what is in the king's pocket and what the king's mood is, or by determining what the False Pope or chevalier are doing, or . . .

But the players get to decide how to engage the scene that the GM has framed. And the GM and players together than resolve the scene, using whatever mechanics are relevant - I _think_ I use more structure action resolution for social scenes than The Shaman (4e skill challenges vs reaction roll) but there is still a lot of overlap in our approaches, as far as I can tell. We both have to play out the NPCs' responses in light of the dice rolls, and in light of the responses of the PCs to those responses.



Hussar said:


> I do wish there was a non-pejorative term for a DM nudging the action along in a non-invasive (or at least non-intrusive) manner that is acceptable to everyone at the table.



I call it scene framing. Plus action resolution. It requires being sensitive to what the players care about.

Contrary to what Celebrim said, if the thief player doesn't care one way or another about going to clear out the forest, but _does_ care about whether or not his PC is the one who tried brazenly to rob the king in plain sight, then it is not a railroad to set up the encounter the way Beginning of the End described, _provided that_ the actual robbery attempt is resolved, and its implications for the thief's reputation brought into play in the gameworld.

Like Chaochou said upthread, using NPCs response to force hard choices on the players, or to direct them into events that are engaging for them, isn't railroading. It's GMing!


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 15, 2010)

Janx said:


> 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...



To which the first reply I'd likely hear would contain something like "let's think this through some more", "I've come up with a better idea", and-or "we decided that?  Really?"

There's an online game log they can read anytime they like, it still doesn't help sometimes...

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> No, a plot is what you *want* to have happen. As you note, story is inevitible, and unfolding. You seem to be talking about events. Plot is a way of organizing events.
> 
> I am deeply suspicious of "plot" in an RPG for a number of reasons.
> 
> ...



I storyboard ahead of time, by adventure; mostly thinking about 
What do I have that I can run, and-or what am I willing to design on my own
What do I have in mind for an overarching backstory, if anything
What level will they need to be to go through what adventure
About how long will each adventure take in real-world time
Can I string any of these adventures together into coherent series
Then I sit back and watch it all fall apart as the months and years go by. 

Lan-"but at least I'm storyboarded out to 2015"-efan


----------



## MichaelSomething (Dec 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> There are other terms, like programmatic, linear, plot-driven, or event-driven scenarios, that adequately describe less freeform games in a non-pejorative sense. A traditional plot-driven game is more like a "highway" than a railroad; it does not start and stop according to the conductor's whim, and the possibility exists, however disasterous it may be, for the players to deviate from the course.




Now that I think of it, the most used term for it would be "adventure path" coined by the good folks of Paizo.  They're proof that there is a strong (or at least working) market for adventure paths.  Of course, Kingmaker shows that is some desire for the sandbox as well.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> This wouldn't have been a case of the party being wrongfully accused.  They would have been actually guilty of banditry, and so they had no way to prove their innocence.  They were armed on the Prince's highways, stole property and were found in possession of said property.  No evidence in their favor existed.  Case closed.



If we're talking about a game with divination magic, then it may not be quite so cut-and-dried.

The adventurers may lack mundane evidence, but in exchange for submitting to a _quest_ on behalf of the religion, a cleric may be able to offer magically-obtained evidence of the adventurers' veracity and innocence.

And if not, there's always bribery.







Janx said:


> 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.



And in so doing, you render the player's choices meaningless.

For me this removes one of the reasons for running the setting the way I like to run it; this is why I think illusionism can be just as bad as railroading.







Janx said:


> 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.



I might call for an attribute or skill check which, if successful, offers a reminder of those consequences. The adventurer is still free to pursue whatever course of action the player wishes, but the choice is a better informed one.







Janx said:


> Top that off with, MAKE SURE YOUR PCS HAVE TIME TO PURSUE THEIR GOALS.



Worth repeating.







Janx said:


> 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.



Or because the thief gives in to an impulse when presented with a unique opportunity.


----------



## Starfox (Dec 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I do wish there was a non-pejorative term for a DM nudging the action along in a non-invasive (or at least non-intrusive) manner that is acceptable to everyone at the table.  In other words a term for a non-degenerative form of railroading...




I think the term for this is... Railroading. Only not in a bad way. Just as the text the OP commented on involved someone who had accepted the term railroading and made it his own. I think this is only a matter of time.

This is not the first time - I note that many political parties have names and/or symbols that were originally derogatorily. And words like Gay have been "cleaned" by being accepted by the gay community. This is a natural process.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> If we're talking about a game with divination magic, then it may not be quite so cut-and-dried.
> 
> The adventurers may lack mundane evidence, but in exchange for submitting to a _quest_ on behalf of the religion, a cleric may be able to offer magically-obtained evidence of the adventurers' veracity and innocence.




That might work in some campaign world, but by long standing and virtually world wide tradition, magically obtained evidence is not admissable in court on campaign world.  This is certainly true of the 'Free Cities' where something resembling a modern belief in civil and natural rights exists.  The reasons are quite similar to the reasons the results of lie detector tests aren't admissable in court:

1) Basically, you only have the word of the spellcaster that the evidence he presents is true.  Except in a few theocracies dominated by a single sect and similar situations, this isn't considered sufficient.
2) The results are too easy to fake.  A charlatan could easily use illusions or simply a bit of performance to appear to be performing 'divinations'.
3) The tests may be quite accurate, but they are most innaccurate precisely in the case when the most accuracy is needed.  The powerful and the skillful can find the means to evade most divination tests, and it is precisely from these that society most needs to defend itself. 



> And if not, there's always bribery.




The particular magistrate in the city was virtually incorruptible, and the party lacked the resources to make a creditable bribe.   Believe me, this wasn't an easy decision.  If I'd thought a believable way out of the troubles existed that didn't involve the equivalent of divine intervention by the DM and wouldn't have conveyed to the party the idea that whatever they did, they were safe, because the almighty DM would take care of them, I wouldn't have taken the step I did.   Likewise, if I'd thought for a second that the player understood what he was doing and that the group was experienced enough to handle that sort of game wrecking, I would have let it happen.  It was a very extraordinary step for me to make.  Normally I let the dice fall where they may.

After the session, I told the player what I had done and why, which was AFAIC an apology - because I don't take that step very often and I probably wouldn't take it at all with a more experienced group.  But I've been playing the game longer than all six of my current players combined.



> For me this removes one of the reasons for running the setting the way I like to run it; this is why I think illusionism can be just as bad as railroading.




I absolutely agree.  My point wasn't that illusionism was less bad than railroading, but rather to start to demonstrate equivalence between illusionism and railroading.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 15, 2010)

Janx said:


> 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.




If you start breaking chains of consequences in order to preserve your story goals, how is that any different than "railroading"?  You can rationalize this to yourself by saying that you are doing it for the players own good, because it is the story that they would prefer to have, but isn't that exactly the same rationalization that a DM who is heavily railroading is making? 



> 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.




Sure, I will do that from time to time.  However, by intervening in the situation in this way, you putting yourself on very slippery ground.   Sure, you won't be "saying no", but you aren't as far away from railroading as you seem to think when you say to a player, "You don't _want_ to do that." or "Your character wouldn't _want_ to do that."   In my case, explaining the situation to the player would have been functionally equivalent to saying, "If you do that, I will see to it that you die."   I don't see that as being really different than saying, "No."   Asking a character to make a choice under duress isn't giving them real freedom and real choices.   It's saying, "See, you can either do what I want you to do and go along with my story, or else I can make things really hard on you, understand?"  That's a railroad, and you'd recognize it as such if it was written into a module.



> 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.




Also a railroad.  Seriously, "step off your appointed stage and you don't get any screen time"?  That's about the most diabolical and dastardly railroading I've ever heard suggested.  That would be one of the few things that would tempt me to do something I've never done in my history of gaming, walk out in the middle of a session.



> 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.




Right.  Railroad.  



> 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.




The irony in that statement is so sharp that it makes me want to wince rather than make fun of you.


----------



## Janx (Dec 15, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> And in so doing, you render the player's choices meaningless.
> 
> For me this removes one of the reasons for running the setting the way I like to run it; this is why I think illusionism can be just as bad as railroading.
> Quote:




I disagree.

Celebrim already had a chain of stuff planned for this guy.  Who happened to be on the road, and happened to be the ONE guy the PCs chose to rob, without knowing who he is.

If its going to cause such a mess, swap the guy out.  It's not that big a freaking deal.

The PCs are still horse thieves, and they still have a horse, and there's still a guy going to cry to the cops.

The GM-crime isn't swapping some stuff out because it invalidates stuff so bad.

The GM-crime MIGHT be having so much hinge on an NPC in advance (possible in a sandbox).  You shouldn't know so much about this guy.  Him getting murdered, and or standing up for the PCs in the future is something you decide to do in the FUTURE to instigate some events for the PC.

Part of this may be confusing because I'm not sure if Celebrim is relaying a point in the past where the PC COULD have robbed an NPC and how it would have screwed up everything (because to him its already happened).

That's a horse of a different color.  Of course playing what if they PCs had done X will screw up everything.

But in the present, that can't happen unless your adventure notes say it does.  In which case, if the PCs are about to throw off your adventure unintentionally, shift some stuff around.  Because to THEM they don't know or care about this stranger on a horse.  The relationship of the stranger to future events doesn't exist.

Being unwilling to decouple this stranger from being the same man who gets murdered for the sake of keeping things going the way the PCs want is akin to a DM refusing to accept alternative decisions by the PCs to get out of a problem (a prime example of railroading).

Steadfast adherance to your notes is a GM-crime that generally leads to railroading.  While I don't consider it railroading to do as Shaman says and keep the stranger as the same person, I do consider it an inflexibility to adapt to keep the players going in the direction they want to go. Which is presumably not to get caught or TPK.


If you've got an adventure outline, this horse robbery does not HAVE to cascade out of control.  It should still have some impact on the world.  But sticking to your notes is in the same league as assuming that pick-pocketing the king results in TPK.  It doesn't HAVE to spiral out of control unless you the GM decide it does.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> <snip>
> 
> Sure, I will do that from time to time.  However, by intervening in the situation in this way, you putting yourself on very slippery ground.   Sure, you won't be "saying no", but you aren't as far away from railroading as you seem to think when you say to a player, "You don't _want_ to do that." or "Your character wouldn't _want_ to do that."   In my case, explaining the situation to the player would have been functionally equivalent to saying, "If you do that, I will see to it that you die."   I don't see that as being really different than saying, "No."   Asking a character to make a choice under duress isn't giving them real freedom and real choices.   It's saying, "See, you can either do what I want you to do and go along with my story, or else I can make things really hard on you, understand?"  That's a railroad, and you'd recognize it as such if it was written into a module.
> 
> <snip>




So long as the player has the opportunity to understand the consequences of his choices as his character would, I agree with the above.  If the player thought muscling a guy for his horse was only as bad a say stealing a bicycle in the modern world then not informing him of the obvious expected consequence robs meaning from his choice.  In my mind, a meaningful choice is one with consequences where the consquence is plausible and can be understood by the person making the choice.

Armchair quarterbacking is easy and fun though so I'll add my two cents.

Asking for a Knowledge (Local) DC 5 check so that the player understands the ramifications of horse theft as well as other members of the society do would be reasonable in my mind especiaily if the player is new the the milieu and the character is not.  Succes has the side benefit of informing others at the table about the expected risks in their companion's behaviour and they can decide their courses of action in the event the player continues his direction (like objecting and preventing the robery, turning him in, killing the rider, or getting of of Dodge before the law hears what happened).

Switching the result doesn't inform the player about the milieu and societal norms and bulids false expectations into the players because past experience doesn't track well with expected results.  In this case, the false expectation (Intimidate doesn't work well) can be buried in the large set of unknowns that affect the victim's response so little harm was done.


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 15, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I do wish there was a non-pejorative term for a DM nudging the action along in a non-invasive (or at least non-intrusive) manner that is acceptable to everyone at the table.  In other words a term for a non-degenerative form of railroading.  Because it certainly exists.  You can have plotsy games that don't piss off your players.  The popularity of the Adventure Paths proves that.




In the MMO business, people contrast the sandbox with "theme park" play. The point of the experience is to go on the rides and see the featured attractions. WoW is a theme park MMO, for instance, and its opposite would be the sandbox that is EVE Online. You could make the argument that an Adventure Path is sort of a theme park: each adventure is a ride, and you're pretty much touring the park. 

I think railroad's a useful (and not entirely perjorative) term, though, because it can be fairly objectively defined: can you leave the rails? Whether or not players _want_ to determines whether the game is good or not. Some people won't ever want to play or run a railroad, but if you have a group that likes roller coasters, you might be fine.



> IMO, a keyed dungeon map is a plot.  It's a loose plot that will be add-libbed much of the time and events in that dungeon will certainly vary from one play group to the next, but it's still a plot.  You enter Cave C, meet the goblins, fight your way through, meet the Goblin Chief and get the Big Treasure.  Or, you die horribly in the first encounter.  Or second or have to retreat, or whatever.




I tend to think of a keyed dungeon map as a situation, and the intended actions of a bunch of NPCs as a plot. So, for instance, the classic I6 Ravenloft has a situation in the form of a castle map; it assumes that this is the castle as the players arrive. But it also has a plot: what Strahd wants, what he's going to actively do to get it, and so on. The plot is in part crystallized when you use the card mechanic to select his goals. Then when you get into an adventure where you need Situation A to resolve in one specific way in order to get to Situation B, which also has to resolve in one specific way, I tend to think of that as scripted. It might be a loose script, like an Adventure Path, or it might be a tight script, which is a railroad.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 15, 2010)

Nagol said:


> So long as the player has the opportunity to understand the consequences of his choices as his character would, I agree with the above.  If the player thought muscling a guy for his horse was only as bad a say stealing a bicycle in the modern world then not informing him of the obvious expected consequence robs meaning from his choice.  In my mind, a meaningful choice is one with consequences where the consquence is plausible and can be understood by the person making the choice.




I agree to a large extent, and so much of the time when you read about player horror stories its because the DM has inadvertantly or deliberately taken to the Nitro Miller school of DMing - don't provide sufficient information about the game world to the player's to allow them to make informed choices because you think the game plays better when you spring suprises on the players.



> Asking for a Knowledge (Local) DC 5 check so that the player understands the ramifications of horse theft as well as other members of the society do would be reasonable in my mind especiaily if the player is new the the milieu and the character is not...Switching the result doesn't inform the player about the milieu and societal norms and bulids false expectations into the players because past experience doesn't track well with expected results.  In this case, the false expectation (Intimidate doesn't work well) can be buried in the large set of unknowns that affect the victim's response so little harm was done.




This is one of the reasons I took care to talk to the player after the event.  From that discussion, I don't think that the fundamental problem was anything you mention here.  The fundamental problem was not that the player didn't understand that stealing horses was felonious behavior, but rather that the player didn't understand that the consequences of his action could extend beyond the current scene that he was in.  The idea that - when playing a game - that the in game actors would have 'memories' and take actions when they weren't 'on stage' with his character, and that they would utilize resources, and indeed that the consequences of actions in one scene could carry over into another scene wasn't something that he had really grasped.   The player was reasoning, in essense, "At the end of the scene, the NPC and his horse will essentially disappear unless I take the horse with me.  This character is no physical threat to me, so my logical course of action at this time is to try to take his stuff before he goes away and I lose access to them."  

The player is a first time PnP gamer, with extensive video game experience.  Problems of this sort have cropped up repeatedly.  He's repeatedly engaged in actions that seem utterly irrational to me, but which become understandable if you start to view them with cRPG logic.   For example, he has a tendency to see any scene color as providing a 'minigame' that he can play, with the expectation that whatever said mini-game is will have a better than 50% chance of success and will be profitable to him.  Of course, this is a problem because I'm often not offering a 'minigame' here at all, but for me what is merely local color.   He's extremely good at spotting 'Chekov's Gun', which in some cases means he sees my plots before I plan on having them revealed, but means that he also spots 2 or 3 plots for every one I intend because he's used to a world where adding features to it is expensive and time consuming labor and so you don't add alot of things that aren't absolutely essential to the story and intended to be used at some point.  I have to be really careful about my throwaway lines because they have a tendency to become red herrings at an alarming rate.  He's learning, but its mostly by the school of putting your hand in the fire and finding out its hot.  I just hope I don't kill his creativity along the way.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 15, 2010)

Starfox said:


> I think the term for this is... Railroading. Only not in a bad way.




No, a railroad is neither non-invasive nor non-intrusive.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 15, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I tend to think of a keyed dungeon map as a situation, and the intended actions of a bunch of NPCs as a plot. So, for instance, the classic I6 Ravenloft has a situation in the form of a castle map; it assumes that this is the castle as the players arrive. But it also has a plot: what Strahd wants, what he's going to actively do to get it, and so on. The plot is in part crystallized when you use the card mechanic to select his goals. Then when you get into an adventure where you need Situation A to resolve in one specific way in order to get to Situation B, which also has to resolve in one specific way, I tend to think of that as scripted. It might be a loose script, like an Adventure Path, or it might be a tight script, which is a railroad.




The problem with even saying "plot" is the connotaton that you can say, "In scene 3, when the PCs confront Strahd," or whatever. Which you just cannot do in an RPG without infringing on reasonable player choice.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Sure, I will do that from time to time.  However, by intervening in the situation in this way, you putting yourself on very slippery ground.   Sure, you won't be "saying no", but you aren't as far away from railroading as you seem to think when you say to a player, "You don't _want_ to do that." or "Your character wouldn't _want_ to do that."   In my case, explaining the situation to the player would have been functionally equivalent to saying, "If you do that, I will see to it that you die."   I don't see that as being really different than saying, "No."   Asking a character to make a choice under duress isn't giving them real freedom and real choices.   It's saying, "See, you can either do what I want you to do and go along with my story, or else I can make things really hard on you, understand?"  That's a railroad, and you'd recognize it as such if it was written into a module.




Actually, it is worlds apart. Making decisions under duress is making decisions, and indeed, is participating in the struggle the character would be experiencing. That is essentially what most RPGs are: a series of decisions made under duress.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The irony in that statement is so sharp that it makes me want to wince rather than make fun of you.






Janx said:


> Celebrim already had a chain of stuff planned for this guy.  Who happened to be on the road, and happened to be the ONE guy the PCs chose to rob, without knowing who he is.



Most of the npcs the adventurers are likely to meet in my game are involved in a complex web of relationships and intrigues, and if interaction with the adventurers result in an npc dying, then the stuff the npc is involved in changes as a result of the adventurers' actions. It's not that big a freaking deal.







Janx said:


> But in the present, that can't happen unless your adventure notes say it does.  In which case, if the PCs are about to throw off your adventure unintentionally, shift some stuff around.  Because to THEM they don't know or care about this stranger on a horse.  The relationship of the stranger to future events doesn't exist.



In my game, that relationship certainly does exist.

I know who the friends of the chevalier de Didonne are. I know the intrigues in which he's involved. Those relationships may now come into play because of the meeting between the chevalier and the musketeer-adventurer; this would be no less true had the adventurer killed the chevalier instead.

I set up my encounters specifically so that whatever actions the adventurers take may - indeed, _are likely to_ - foster future events. At the same time, I don't have a specific take on what those events will be, because while I know a lot about the npcs, I don't presume to know what the adventurers will do in any given encounter. Perhaps more importantly, I'm not invested in any particular outcome, because _whatever_ happens may produce a cascade of consequences.

This is why illusionism is an anathema to me; saying that nothing exists until the adventurers come into contact with it - and in your example, maybe not even then - and should be freely mutated to conform to the referee's story takes away from one of the main reasons I enjoy roleplaying games, the synergy of imagination taking place around the table producing a unique outcome.







Janx said:


> Being unwilling to decouple this stranger from being the same man who gets murdered for the sake of keeping things going the way the PCs want is akin to a DM refusing to accept alternative decisions by the PCs to get out of a problem (a prime example of railroading).



Letting the consequences of the adventurers' actions stand is not the same thing as taking away the players' choices - quite the opposite, actually.







Janx said:


> Steadfast adherance to your notes is a GM-crime that generally leads to railroading.



"Generally?" No, I don't believe that to be true it all.

Railroading comes from demanding a specific outcome from an event or series of events which may produce a range of outcomes if played straight.  







Janx said:


> While I don't consider it railroading to do as Shaman says and keep the stranger as the same person, I do consider it an inflexibility to adapt to keep the players going in the direction they want to go. Which is presumably not to get caught or TPK.



While I agree that most players don't want their characters caught or killed, it is infexibility on the part of the referee to prevent either of those consequences by changing the events of the game in actual play. In my experience, it's a referee most concerned with 'telling a story' who starts filling in encounters with safety rails, orange cones, and warning signs - or going so far as a becoming a traffic cop with a whistle and a stop sign outright directing traffic.


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> The problem with even saying "plot" is the connotaton that you can say, "In scene 3, when the PCs confront Strahd," or whatever. Which you just cannot do in an RPG without infringing on reasonable player choice.




It's a problem, but I think the connotation itself is problematic. I've seen people use "plot" to describe what are fully scripted adventures, with only one way in and one way out -- or worse, to describe their expectations that whenever someone else uses the term "plot", that a tight script is what the speaker means. That's why I'd personally like to see "script" used when we're talking about something that isn't improv.

Really, it's a similar problem to what Hussar describes when he wishes for a non-perjorative term for "railroad" -- and goes on to say "one that doesn't imply that the players are having fun." Railroading _shouldn't_ imply that the players aren't having fun -- assuming that because it's a railroad, the players aren't enjoying themselves, is basically projection. Now, it's a technique that has a high chance of creating sessions that players don't enjoy. But it doesn't guarantee it. I feel there's a similar level of projection that has made the word "plot" a nastier four-letter word than it deserves.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 15, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> It's a problem, but I think the connotation itself is problematic. I've seen people use "plot" to describe what are fully scripted adventures, with only one way in and one way out -- or worse, to describe their expectations that whenever someone else uses the term "plot", that a tight script is what the speaker means. That's why I'd personally like to see "script" used when we're talking about something that isn't improv.




I use "plot" to mean, "Those actions which have been taken by the NPC's in the past, together with the goals and schemes that they have for the future."  "Plot" to me refers to that first section of my prep - what has happened or has been happening before the PC's began interacting with these NPC's.  It's a description of past events, ultimate goals, and steps that they are most likely to take from here.   To me its almost synonymous with "Background", and its the part of my preperation that most distinguishes a story based adventure from a location based adventure.   When prepping a location like a wilderness or a cavern complex, I'll probably pay very little attention to the current inhabitants recent history.   When prepping a story based adventure I'll probably spend a couple of pages outlining the story thus far and into which the PC's will be inserted by 'chance events'.  

To me, in an RPG, the term 'plot' even more greatly emphasises its primary sense of "a secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, esp. a hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose: a plot to overthrow the government." alongside that of its secondary literary sense of, "the plan, scheme, or main story of a literary or dramatic work, as a play, novel, or short story." so that the word has a particularly attractive double meaning.

From the plot I can get some vague idea of how future events will unfold, but I generally don't script out alot of future events and certainly not more than a session in advance.  Too much can occur in a session that invalidates any far off event.   However, I can generally plan "plots" out retrospectively based on what the PC's have been doing, and what the NPC must have been doing (in my estimation of course) based on what the NPC could have known, accomplished, and intends to do.   So each week I might arrive with a new "plot" that summarizes what else has been going on in the world 'offstage' as it were, and how these events are likely to impact or eventually come to the attention of the PC's.  

The summation of these plots and the events that occur in the game is the campaign's story.

"Railroading" refers to the practice of using illusionism to achieve particularly desirable plot, for example, insuring the success of the players when failure would not be deemed desirable or in insuring the failure of the players (and hense the success of 'the plot' in both senses of the word) when failure is not deemed dramatically desirable or insuring that a series of events occurs in what is deemed a dramaticly desirable order or simply for more pragmatic reasons such as insuring that the majority of the time the players stay somewhere in the area the DM has had time to sufficiently prepare and detail.  Some DMs are of course better at it than others, some need to rely on it less than others by virtue of better prep, and others use a lighter hand than others.  But I've yet to see the DM that doesn't use some techniques that amount to railroading.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 15, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> It's a problem, but I think the connotation itself is problematic. I've seen people use "plot" to describe what are fully scripted adventures, with only one way in and one way out -- or worse, to describe their expectations that whenever someone else uses the term "plot", that a tight script is what the speaker means. That's why I'd personally like to see "script" used when we're talking about something that isn't improv.
> 
> Really, it's a similar problem to what Hussar describes when he wishes for a non-perjorative term for "railroad" -- and goes on to say "one that doesn't imply that the players are having fun." Railroading _shouldn't_ imply that the players aren't having fun -- assuming that because it's a railroad, the players aren't enjoying themselves, is basically projection. Now, it's a technique that has a high chance of creating sessions that players don't enjoy. But it doesn't guarantee it. I feel there's a similar level of projection that has made the word "plot" a nastier four-letter word than it deserves.




Simply because the players allow themselves to be entertained doesn't let the GM off the hook. Certainly, i would not say railroading guarantees no one has fun, and I said so in a previous post. But it is a dysfunctional process. 

Some of the talk seems to refer to railroading as a technique, which I don't think fits the parameters of discussion. Railroading is a style, which includes techniques such as abandoning illusionism, narrative fiat, withholding in-game knowledge, removing meanginful choices, and so forth. I don't think a "little bit" of railroading is ever good, though it may not be bad. I think if you want to run a successful game, artful illusionism, narrative flexibility, imaginative play, and meanginful choices are good things. 

If you don't think "railroading" is a four-letter word, maybe you haven't really seen it.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I"Railroading" refers to the practice of using illusionism to achieve particularly desirable plot, for example, insuring the success of the players when failure would not be deemed desirable or in insuring the failure of the players (and hense the success of 'the plot' in both senses of the word) when failure is not deemed dramatically desirable or insuring that a series of events occurs in what is deemed a dramaticly desirable order or simply for more pragmatic reasons such as insuring that the majority of the time the players stay somewhere in the area the DM has had time to sufficiently prepare and detail.




I'm going to argue exactly the opposite. Illusionism is usually characterized as the illusion of choice. In a railroaded game, there really isn't any sense that the players have a choice about what will happen. They are spectators and subjects. Further, if they refuse to comply with the railroading attempt, it is more likely nothing will happen rather than something. The railroading GM versus the recalcitrant players is in fact a recipe for aimless actions, if not escalation and a frustration-induced TPK.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I'm going to argue exactly the opposite. Illusionism is usually characterized as the illusion of choice. In a railroaded game, there really isn't any sense that the players have a choice about what will happen.




Illusions are hard to maintain.  Naturally, so long as the players aren't aware that they are on rails, they are unlikely to complain about it.  When the illusion breaks down is when the problem appears to begin.  I'd like to argue that the problem is the illusion itself.

I've said elsewhere that you really can't ever know in general if you are on a railroad until you try to get off.  Sure, there are DMs out there that tell you what you do and don't even ask for input, but even then it can be some time before players realize that they are really on rails.  Players will probably at first assume that they are on some sort of narrow-broad-narrow ride, and it may be some time before they realize that they aren't merely in transit, but locked in.



> They are spectators and subjects. Further, if they refuse to comply with the railroading attempt, it is more likely nothing will happen rather than something. The railroading GM versus the recalcitrant players is in fact a recipe for aimless actions, if not escalation and a frustration-induced TPK.




How does that contrast with what I said?

I think I'm going to have to find the time to write on this at more length.  People are talking about this in really vague terms, and I think something like an Aristotelian definition might actually clear things up a bit.  Our one example we've beat on is limiting people's understanding I think.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 15, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Illusions are hard to maintain.  Naturally, so long as the players aren't aware that they are on rails, they are unlikely to complain about it.  When the illusion breaks down is when the problem appears to begin.  I'd like to argue that the problem is the illusion itself.




If the players never step off the rails, that is an assumption, not an illusion. An illusion should have a plausible chance of fooling the mind and senses. Letting people do what they will do, and think what they will think, is hardly an artful illusion, even if they are content to follow the GM's breadcrumbs, and mistakenly imagine themselves as authors of their characters' destinies.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 15, 2010)

So, in summation of an excellent thread...

1.) Railroading is a playstyle that is unique but not diametrically opposed to sandboxing or rowboating. 
2.) It can be good, bad, or neutral, depending on the views of the DM & PCs.
3.) The rational result of an action (IE pickpocketing the king) isn't a railroad, except for when it is.
4.) Illusionism is the term for covering your rails with sand and saying you're going to the beach.
5.) If given nothing to do, PCs will either try to conquer the world or get drunk at a tavern. There is no in-between.
6.) Background material is ok if it stays in the background.
7.) The definition of what "railroad" and "sandbox" is are as fluid and everchanging as one of Gygax's dungeons.
8.) Dragonlance was a better novel series than a module series.
9.) One way or another, you're going to Norworld dammit! 
10.) Railroading is terrible and constitutes badwrongfun. Except when it doesn't.


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 15, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Simply because the players allow themselves to be entertained doesn't let the GM off the hook. Certainly, i would not say railroading guarantees no one has fun, and I said so in a previous post. But it is a dysfunctional process.




I disagree. At its worst, it can be... but so too is a rowboat campaign. But the reason that I think that people get so irritated at the mention of railroading, even in games they don't participate and where every involved party is having fun, is that railroading does not actively prepare a group to play in a rail-less gaming group. That is not the same thing as dysfunctional. 

The games I've seen, and seen discussed, where railroading is not just acceptable but preferable are frequently ones where there may be external stresses that make RPG night less attractive when it's about high-stakes choices at every turn. Some groups want to go on the theme park. They want to ride the rides, and for them time not spent on the rails is essentially "standing in line." Again, this doesn't prepare the players to participate in the more demanding kind of game that probably most of us here prefer. But what's often overlooked is that a more demanding game is not a plus to those players. And at that point, what anyone who isn't involved in their game thinks is pretty immaterial. 



> Some of the talk seems to refer to railroading as a technique, which I don't think fits the parameters of discussion. Railroading is a style, which includes techniques such as abandoning illusionism, narrative fiat, withholding in-game knowledge, removing meanginful choices, and so forth. I don't think a "little bit" of railroading is ever good, though it may not be bad. I think if you want to run a successful game, artful illusionism, narrative flexibility, imaginative play, and meanginful choices are good things.




I'm agreed that all the techniques you describe are valuable tools for any GM's arsenal, but I believe that taking your players' desires into account trumps _all_ that stuff. If they want an on-the-rails ride from scene to scene, then spending time trying to get them to abandon that mode of thought and start jumping the rails is arguably (and I'll argue it) pretty counter-productive to the game a good one for _them_.



> If you don't think "railroading" is a four-letter word, maybe you haven't really seen it.




And the counterpoint is that if you don't think it can be anything but badwrongfun, maybe you haven't really met any gamers who've looked at multiple models of play but prefer to ride the rails.


----------



## Starfox (Dec 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> No, a railroad is neither non-invasive nor non-intrusive.




QUOTE=Celebrim (but not in reference to his posts, just stealing his wording): The irony in that statement is so sharp that it makes me want to wince rather than make fun of you.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I'm agreed that all the techniques you describe are valuable tools for any GM's arsenal, but I believe that taking your players' desires into account trumps _all_ that stuff. If they want an on-the-rails ride from scene to scene, then spending time trying to get them to abandon that mode of thought and start jumping the rails is arguably (and I'll argue it) pretty counter-productive to the game a good one for _them_.




The techniques I mentioned do not depend on the player's willingness or desire to "jump the rails." Even if the players amicably follow what looks like the obvious path, they still benefit from being afforded the respect of real choices, attempts to maintain the appearance of continuity in the game world, being allowed to make reasonable attempts to solve challenges, etc.



> And the counterpoint is that if you don't think it can be anything but badwrongfun, maybe you haven't really met any gamers who've looked at multiple models of play but prefer to ride the rails.




I just don't agree that a successful "theme park" game and a railroad have the same characteristics. I would not call a game a "railroad" simply based on the initial scenario, even if the GM plans on funneling events toward a certain goal. Railroading refers to how the game functions in play. Railroading is coercive. A game that affords the players respect and provides fun, however carefully orchestrated, is not coercive. Saying, "X happens in Act III" may be wishful thinking, but there is nothing badwrongfun about aiming for that outcome, if you think it would be fun. But if your players don't like X, and they have a reasonable chance to avert it, what happens when they do Y will tell you whether you are running a railroad. 

I am fluent with many models of play. I am also familiar with a genre of experience that I would not wish on anyone. I am making a distinction between badwrongfun (i.e other styles of play which may afford more or less liberty in realistic player choices) and what is strictly unfun. What Hite calls getting somewhere does not fit my definition of a railroad. I look at the comments cited in the OP as a volley in an ongoing dialectic between freedom and thematics, and as with much of partisan rhetoric, the casualty is honest and understanding communication. Railroading has NOTHING to do with getting somewhere o accomplishing something, nor does accomplishing something mean the same thing to everyone. In a discussion of railroading (I don't know the exact context, but as I understand the situation) Hite chose to make that comment, choosing to make a rhetorical point about GM control over player freedom, rather than acknowledging a dysfunctional scenario. Hite's comment is a glib defense of what is sometimes inaccurately called railroading by people who want to stretch the definition. It was a defensive comment, and ironically enough, laden with negative judgment against people who are less concerned about "accomplishing something" (whatever that means) and more with other rewards of their chosen playstyle. 

My take: "You are having badwrongfun" -> "No, YOU are having badwrongfun."

In practice, both freeform styles and more tightly controlled, programmatic scenarios are BOTH aimed at accomplishing something.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2010)

Breaking this down again from the beginning.



Walking Paradox said:


> I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."




Railroading *is* a pejorative term for a game in which the group accomplishes something, but not I think the standard usage, and certainly it is not *just* that. Railroading refers also to a dysfunctional play style in which the GM basically thwards the PCs intentions because of some meta-goal of the GM; I believe this is the most standard, most clear, and generally most consistent definition of the concept. Further the group is not "actually" accomplishing something, they are simply accomplishing something, and play in which GM guidance propels events are not barred from "actually" accomplishing something. That "actually" is a hostile zing at a group who have not, as a whole, caused offense. People are free to "actually" accomplish things in their own preferred style.



> This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.




That doesn't sound like railroading. There are clues, the PCs discover them, the players decide on a course of action.



> Is this a cop-out? I personally think that the PCs should be given all the freedom in the world to rund own blind alleys and chase red herrings; indeed, interesting roleplaying situations can pop up when this happens and it can end up leading to more interesting RPG experiences than the GM had originally intended.




It is not a cop-out, but simply a narrow-minded view of what can be "accomplished."



> On the other hand, are GMs missing out on something by not railroading? Is all this "the PCs must be free!" chatter robbing us of our right to tell a good story?




There is no "right" to tell a good story. Certainly there is no "right" to railroad, which is not a good story. Storytelling is fundamentally different in RPGs than in poetic media, and the GM must be prepared for a variety of responses, even with the same group and in similar scenarios.

Imagine Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith, for a moment, as RPG scenarios, in RotJ Luke rejects the Dark Side, whereas in RotS, Anakin embraces it. In a Star Wars RPG, both outcomes are possible. In a railroaded game, the GM has already presumed to make Luke or Anakin's choice, although he does not have the ability to actually force that choice. The player can always refuse to act in one fashion or the other, and the GM can only accept that choice, or not ask the player to choose. A railroaded game contains dysfunction in that the GM does not acknowledge this fundamental truth.


----------



## Janx (Dec 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, it is worlds apart. Making decisions under duress is making decisions, and indeed, is participating in the struggle the character would be experiencing. That is essentially what most RPGs are: a series of decisions made under duress.




I think you're both right on this.

HOW the DM tells the PC that a proposed action is not a good idea matters.  In either event, yes the DM is attempting to manipulate the PC.

Advising him of the POSSIBLE consequences in general terms seems to be the fairest.  As in "if you attempt to steal that horse, you may be marked as an outlaw and if caught the penalty could be death"

its factual, and in no way tells the player what to do.  The other wordings celebrim used had language that lead the player, which seems wrong to me.

In any case, as pawplay suggests, the PCs are supposed to be under duress for their most important decisions. That's how you make them important.  It's the conflict.  Sitting in a tavern, discussing the merits of the idea of taking a horse from a random stranger is hardly any duress at all.  

Though the odd thought is, if I was going to take a horse, I'd kill the witness.  Problem solved...


----------



## Janx (Dec 16, 2010)

taking a different stab at the stranger and the horse, since I seem to have failed at the last.

celebrims got a stranger on a horse.  The PCs meet him on the road.  A PC decides to take the horse.  Celebrim knows that this stranger is going to be important later for 2 different things, and that if the PC takes the horse, its going to go badly for the PCs.

Assuming I got the gist of his tale correct, I think the "right" handling varies on if your running a sandbox or a story.

In a sandbox, I'm not sure it's right to know so much about this guy's future. I suspect in Shaman's game, he'd only know what this guy will do (help the PCs and get murdered) when it comes closer to being handy to have this guy help and get murdered.

Thus, in a sandbox (and this is not an informed opinion) it seems to me that you would stick to the facts that this guy's name is Joe the Plumber and he lives in Plumbsville and knows the butcher.  But whether he'd act to help the PCs later, or get murdered is information you wouldn't know until some time later.

This is much as the same way with the pickpocketed King.  As a DM, you may have no clue what's in his pocket, or that a PC would even try to pick-pocket him, in what you started as a social encounter.  So when the attempt is made, you've got to decide what happens next, and what will be the consequence of the attempt (let alone the DC of the attempt itself).

I think it is part of the DM's job to make that determination of the nature and scope of the outcome of that pick-pocket attempt.  Just as it is to do so with the horse theivery.  Unless you've got some paper that says "on any attempt to rob an NPC, this is what happens" then you're winging it.

If you're winging it, you've an obligation to make what happens next be both plausible and fair.  But there's still a lot of room for variance in outcomes.

For a GM running a published adventure and not a sandbox,   Choosing less disastrous outcomes may be acceptable if it means helping the players keep running the adventure that they still want to play.

I'm OK with the GM moving things around to support what the players goals are.

I'm not OK with the GM thwarting the PCs actions to ensure they end up in situation X 

So in Celebrim's campaign, the PC's story was " we were going to solve this problerm PC1 had, decided we needed horses so we jacked a guy's horse.  He ratted us out, and we ended up dodging the law in the woods, like Robin Hood or something.  it was awesome"

In my campaign, the PCs story was "We were going to solve this problem PC1 had, decided we needed horses so we jacked a guy's horse.  Got into some trouble over it, but managed to dodge the fuzz long enough for PC1 to find what he needed and failed to solve his problem in an epic fight, because the fuzz showed up in the middle of it.  it was awesome"

As long as both games end with "it was awesome", I'm OK with that.  And in my game, it's not like I'm going to ignore the horse-jacking.  It'll be a factor in the next session, too.  In the current session, I make it a complication to their goal.  I just don't let it totally kill the notes I have for stuff the PCs find on their way to solve PC1's problem.

In the King's scenario, I've only got a shuffling problem if the thief fails.  Otherwise, he gets something from the pocket, and the party goes to Norwold.  Heck, I've got more problems if they choose to decline the offer to go to Norwold, which could be a reasonable chance, depending on the party.

That's where the chances of railroading (as in really bad DM behavior) could kick in, trying to get them to go to Norwold.

As a GM, I would only present the Norwold trip if I could make sure it was really enticing to the players and I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Dec 16, 2010)

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule on how to railroad light, as it's up to each DM to decide how well their players are of carrying the plot forward...and whether there should be a plot at all.

I've had a very interesting time running *the same module* for *two different groups*. It's 4e Tomb of Horrors superadventure, *relatively* plot-light (at least at the beginning) so it means I can do what I like with getting the players well onto to wagon.

I have found though, that the second group (online, the other one is real time), is a lot more spontaneous and I have to improv more than with my real-time group, though I have to prod them quite a bit more to keep them moving along to where the action is going to be.
One of the great things about the module, like Gary's original, is that locations were rather non-specific, all you had to worry about was what plane you were on and that is it. And this means I can do a Shrodringer's Gun with the locations: the dungeon just happens to be where I need it to be for the players to find it. 
They've missed a few plot hooks, and I've had to provide them with more obvious ones, but since they are more inclined to talk to NPCs than the first group I took through the module I've had to improv a lot.

When I feel like railroading, I always think of Shrodringer's Gun and that usually kills the temptation. Ask yourself "How important is it that X happens?" 

Do the players have to talk to the king to get the quest? Does the King have to be in a certain place in order to give the players the quest? As long as you keep your object firmly in mind, you won't railroad...much.

I see story in an RPG more like stepping stones, there are a few options and alternative routes but you all end up in the same place...unless you are wiling to put your ending in the hands of your players. Something I have not done, yet.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 16, 2010)

A question - what do people in this thread make of the following quote from Paul Czege?

Let me say that I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive:

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​
I think it very effectively exposes, as Ron points out above, that although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.

How does it feel? I suspect it feels like being a guest on a fast-paced political roundtable television program. I think the players probably love it for the adrenaline, but sometimes can't help but breathe a calming sigh when I say "cut."​
When I read this, I see an account of how an RPG can be run with very active GMing, in a way that will generate a story that is engaging for the players and GM, but without railroading. (Although in my game I would say that the firehose is more of a garden hose - my game is a bit more relaxed than what Czege describes. And we also have more traditional party play.)

Other thoughts?


----------



## Janx (Dec 16, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> When I feel like railroading, I always think of Shrodringer's Gun and that usually kills the temptation. Ask yourself "How important is it that X happens?"
> 
> Do the players have to talk to the king to get the quest? Does the King have to be in a certain place in order to give the players the quest? As long as you keep your object firmly in mind, you won't railroad...much.
> 
> I see story in an RPG more like stepping stones, there are a few options and alternative routes but you all end up in the same place...unless you are wiling to put your ending in the hands of your players. Something I have not done, yet.




I like the shrodringer's gun term.

Siince it's a quantum physics reference, the other aspect of quantum physics applies.  You tend to find what you're looking for.

Thus, if the players are looking for the next clue, the next dungeon, low and behold there it is.  Which happens to be the one you've prepared for the night.

The very important converse, is that if the players are not only not looking, but avoiding a dungeon, then you don't put them anywhere near a dungeon.

Failure to obey this converse rule, is railroading in all definitions I can see.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 16, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> It's a problem, but I think the connotation itself is problematic. I've seen people use "plot" to describe what are fully scripted adventures, with only one way in and one way out -- or worse, to describe their expectations that whenever someone else uses the term "plot", that a tight script is what the speaker means. That's why I'd personally like to see "script" used when we're talking about something that isn't improv.
> 
> Really, it's a similar problem to what Hussar describes when he wishes for a non-perjorative term for "railroad" -- and goes on to say "one that doesn't imply that the players are having fun." Railroading _shouldn't_ imply that the players aren't having fun -- assuming that because it's a railroad, the players aren't enjoying themselves, is basically projection. Now, it's a technique that has a high chance of creating sessions that players don't enjoy. But it doesn't guarantee it. I feel there's a similar level of projection that has made the word "plot" a nastier four-letter word than it deserves.




I was giving this a bit of thought and I think I realize why it gets so hard to discuss this sometimes.  

We tend to frame the discussion in terms of railroad at one end of the spectrum and sandbox at the other.  On the surface, that seems pretty logical.  After all, in a railroad you have no meaningful choices and in a sandbox, you have lots.

The problem comes in when the connotations are added.  Pawsplay illustrates this perfectly.  He's hardly alone in saying that railroaded games are bad.  And, really, if you just asked most DM's, "Hey, is your game a railroad?" most would probably say no, simply because railroad has such negative connotations.

But, take that a step further.  if Railroad=bad game, and the opposite of Railroad is Sandbox, then doesn't it follow that Sandbox=Good Game?  I think that's the attitude that somes off sometimes.  Anyone who has story or plotsy type games, theme park games if you like, or Adventure Path style games, are not sandbox games, and thus, are not good games.

And it can be taken a step further.  After all, a good DM won't run a bad game, obviously, therefore, good DM's run Sandbox games.

Now, I'm not saying that this is true.  But, there's a current of that in a lot of these discussions.  Call a DM a Railroading DM and see what happens.  Call him a Sandbox DM and he smiles and thanks you.

I really don't think you can decouple the concept of Railroad from the negative connotations.  At least not easily.  

In my mind, the discussion should be framed as Linear vs Sandbox.  A Linear campaign will follow a fairly well defined path forward.  That path is defined by the DM at the outset of the game.  Adventure Paths are linear, module A leads to B leads to C.  Within each adventure, you might have a great deal of freedom, but, you are still going to progress through a pre-developed storyline.  

I guess the String of Pearls campaign construct illustrates this well as well.

Now, at least in my mind, there isn't the negative connotations.  You can be a great DM and run a Linear Campaign or a Sandbox campaign.  Both have strong and weak points and depending on your personal tastes, you can prefer one or the other.  Or both.  I'm pretty easy and don't mind swinging from both sides of the plate.

Hus "Currently rebuilding the World's Largest Dungeon" sar.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2010)

Building on what Hussar said, Sandbox and Linear are a polarity. 

Railroads are not really on that spectrum; they are a type of game with several characteristics, including fairly high linearality but with degeneration. If you take a railroad game and revere the linear polarity you get The GM Staring at the Players Who Do Nothing While the GM Does Nothing. To actually get a good game, you actually need to reverse a number of other factors, and you do not need to reverse linearlity. 

Railroad games are:
- High linear premise, but with dysfunctional behavior and low incentives for the players to participate
- Low simulation/world of imagination/verisimilitude but also low in meta resolution of player goals
- Degenerate in the area of illusion, neither illusory nor realistical, but lacking imaginary surface entirely

And so forth. It's a series of Do Not Computes, as opposed to a healthy game, which have a number of traits that could go either direction
- linear vs. sandbox
- realistical versus illusory
- dramaturgical versus tactical

and so forth


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2010)

There is a long and interesting thread in which I observed several qualities of sandbox play. My summary post:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269921-what-makes-sandbox-14.html#post5044445



			
				Quoting for the benefit of the discussion in this thread said:
			
		

> My list so far:
> - The primary meta-game goal is discovery/exploration, which subordinates the meta-game goals of plot and cohesion
> - The game is high on GM control of background, but low on GM control of events. In terms of trajectories, they remain constant until affected by the PCs, and the secondary effects of the PCs' actions.
> - The environment is rich in things to do, rather than one thing being obviously more interesting than other choices.
> ...


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2010)

Janx said:


> In a sandbox, I'm not sure it's right to know so much about this guy's future. I suspect in Shaman's game, he'd only know what this guy will do (help the PCs and get murdered) when it comes closer to being handy to have this guy help and get murdered.
> 
> Thus, in a sandbox (and this is not an informed opinion) it seems to me that you would stick to the facts that this guy's name is Joe the Plumber and he lives in Plumbsville and knows the butcher.  But whether he'd act to help the PCs later, or get murdered is information you wouldn't know until some time later.



Consider for a moment that I'm running a historical game. That means that I know, with varying degrees of detail, the fate of of quite a few of the npcs.

Frex, I know that the comte de Soissons, a prince of royal blood, will die at the very moment his rebellion against the king achieves a crushing victory over a French army, that he will either kill himself by accidentally discharging his pistol into his face while raising the visor of his helmet (ever seen _that one_ on a critical fumble table?!) or he will be shot by an assassin hired by Cardinal Richelieu from among his own staff officers as they stand overlooking the battlefield. (History is unclear as to which is true, by the way.)

I know this will happen on 6 July 1641, at the battle of La Marfée - unless the adventurers change history by their actions.

I know similar information about some of my fictional npcs as well. Frex, the marquis de Saint-Méran, a loyal creature of the duc de Guise, will follow the duke into exile in Italy in 1631 rather than submit to Cardinal Richelieu - again, unless the actions of the adventurers change history (in this case the future-history of the campaign world).

I have no idea if the fate of either of these characters will be affected by the adventurers. They could become allies or enemies of the adventurers, or they may never cross each others' paths, or the adventurers' actions could indirectly affect either one in some way. (Maybe an adventurer kills one of them over a horse . . .)

Each of these npcs is a part of the living setting that exists independently of the adventurers, until or unless their paths cross one another, directly or indirectly, in the course of actual play.







Janx said:


> If you're winging it, you've an obligation to make what happens next be both plausible and fair.  But there's still a lot of room for variance in outcomes.



I agree, but when I decide 'what happens next,' I'm guided by what makes sense in the context of the situation, not what makes for a 'better story' or averts a tpk.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> 4.) Illusionism is the term for covering your rails with sand and saying you're going to the beach.






Remathilis said:


> 5.) If given nothing to do, PCs will either try to conquer the world or get drunk at a tavern. There is no in-between.



5a.) Equally acceptable options include getting drunk in a tavern as a prelude to conquering the world, or conquering the world then getting drunk in a tavern. But nothing else.







Remathilis said:


> 8.) Dragonlance was a better novel series than a module series.



8a.) And it was a sucktastic novel series.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 16, 2010)

Janx said:


> ... The PCs are still horse thieves ... That's a horse of a different color ...



Maybe so, but those PCs are still gonna steal that horse if they can! 

Lan-"and if it's a donkeyhorse, even better"-efan


----------



## Nagol (Dec 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> There is a long and interesting thread in which I observed several qualities of sandbox play. My summary post:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269921-what-makes-sandbox-14.html#post5044445




The list is pretty good save for the first element -- focus on discovery versus plot/cohesion is not a necessary condition.

When I ran a superheroic CHAMPIONS campaigns the focus was strongly NOT discovery, but it was still a sandbox according to the rest of the metrics.  The players likened the cmapigns to massive soap operas in that relationships and context became incredibly important which I think illustrates a focus on plot/cohesion.


----------



## Canor Morum (Dec 16, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The player is a first time PnP gamer, with extensive video game  experience.  Problems of this sort have cropped up repeatedly.  He's  repeatedly engaged in actions that seem utterly irrational to me, but  which become understandable if you start to view them with cRPG logic.




This is worth highlighting.  I think that some players and DMs wrongly  assume the goal of a table top RPG is to simulate a video game  experience.  This is understandable given that many initially learned  about RPGs from video games.  A TTRPG offers so much more than even the  best sandbox video game could, however.  

Ignoring the open ended flexibility and improvisational storytelling  aspects defeats the whole purpose in my mind.  The world should not  exist as a static background.  The players actions and imagination  should breathe life into the world and shape it in unique ways.   Predetermined outcomes and scripted events stifle this process.


----------



## Steelwill (Dec 16, 2010)

Railroading is only a problem when its noticeable.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 16, 2010)

Pawsplay said:
			
		

> you do not need to reverse linearlity.




But, in Star Trek, the best way to solve any problem with the Enterprise is to reverse the linearity.  

I'm curious about some thing though.  The Shaman, you talk about NPC's in your world having pre-scripted fates.  If the PC's do not intervene, NPC X will die on a certain day in a certain way.

How is that not a pre-scripted event?  I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted.  Now, since there is no way the players could possibly know that NPC X is going to die on a particular day in a particular way (unless they read your notes), does it actually matter?

To put it another way, what makes it better that NPC X will die on such and such a day in such and such a way, predetermined before play even begins, vs a DM who decides that NPC X will die in such and such a way in order to serve a particular theme or plot development in his game?

Since the event is entirely pre-scripted, and, since the PC's have no way of knowing that he's going to blow his own brains out on such and such a day, they have no way of actually preventing this, how is this not a railroad?  It's an event which may affect them (if they have ties in some way to this NPC - if they don't then who cares if he lives or dies anyway) that they have zero control over not no ability to affect.

In what way is this not a railroad?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted.




This should be taken, perhaps, as a clue that you don't understand what is meant by the term, "sandbox", by those running sandbox-style games.



> In what way is this not a railroad?




It doesn't steal agency from _*player choices*_.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted.



Are you confusing tabletop rpgs with video games?

I make no assumptions about what the _adventurers_ will do, but many events in the setting exist independent of the adventurers, unless or until the adventurers get involved. A _status quo_ setting can (and in my opinion, should) have lots of stuff going on - it's about creating a living setting for the adventurers to explore, and by 'explore' doesn't mean just filling in blank hexes on a map.

Right now in my game a French army is laying siege to Genoa while the king readies another army at home to attack the Huguenots again. The adventurers are not likely to change either of these events right now, so they will follow their historical courses. Neither event may involve the adventurers directly, but one of the npcs who befriended our gallant musketeer last Saturday will be joining the campaign against the Huguenots during the summer, so the event affects his availability as a resource to the adventurer.

Video game-worlds do nothing until the players do something; tabletop game-worlds need not be so static.







Hussar said:


> Now, since there is no way the players could possibly know that NPC X is going to die on a particular day in a particular way (unless they read your notes), does it actually matter?



Yes, it may, directly and indirectly - directly, if indeed the npc is a friend or rival, or indirectly, as part of the living setting.







Hussar said:


> To put it another way, what makes it better that NPC X will die on such and such a day in such and such a way, predetermined before play even begins, vs a DM who decides that NPC X will die in such and such a way in order to serve a particular theme or plot development in his game?



It doesn't make it objectively "better" - it makes it different.

Your whole post seems to ignore, for whatever reason, the key point of what I wrote however, specifically, ". . . *unless the adventurers change the future-history of the setting by their actions*."

Frex, if Cardinal Richelieu is killed or otherwise removed from his position by the actions of the adventurers, for example, then the duc de Guise may not be forced into exile, and the comte de Soissons may never get shot in the face leading a rebellion against the king.

(It's worth noting that in _Flashing Blades_, a character may rise to occupy the position of first minister to the king, a cardinal, a marshal of France, the grandmaster of an order of knights, and so on - their ultimate ability to affect meaningful changes on the setting is considerable.)

In one case you there are events in the game that take place unless or until the adventurers act. In the other case, your 'serving a theme or plot development' case, there are events in the game in which the adventurers are _supposed to act_ by design.







Hussar said:


> Since the event is entirely pre-scripted, and, since the PC's have no way of knowing that he's going to blow his own brains out on such and such a day, they have no way of actually preventing this, how is this not a railroad?  It's an event which may affect them (if they have ties in some way to this NPC - if they don't then who cares if he lives or dies anyway) that they have zero control over not no ability to affect.
> 
> In what way is this not a railroad?



First, one can't 'railroad' *non*-player characters.

Second, the adventurers may indeed have the ability to affect the outcome, as noted above _and_ in my previous post. They do not have ultimate power over life and death by their mere presence, however, so the duc de Guise dies of natural causes in 1640, whether or not he's been forced into exile.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted....
> 
> Since the event is entirely pre-scripted, and, since the PC's have no way of knowing that he's going to blow his own brains out on such and such a day, they have no way of actually preventing this, how is this not a railroad?  It's an event which may affect them (if they have ties in some way to this NPC - if they don't then who cares if he lives or dies anyway) that they have zero control over not no ability to affect.
> 
> In what way is this not a railroad?




First of all, the pcs can prevent or change this npc's fate by interacting with him. The Shaman is talking about a game in historical context, where one of the assumptions is that history goes on as we know it _unless the pcs interfere with it_.

It's not a railroad because the pcs have freedom of choice. This npc's ultimate fate assumes no player action. I would wager that, should the pcs so choose, they could kill him long before his 'appointed day' comes.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> We tend to frame the discussion in terms of railroad at one end of the spectrum and sandbox at the other.  On the surface, that seems pretty logical.  After all, in a railroad you have no meaningful choices and in a sandbox, you have lots.
> 
> The problem comes in when the connotations are added.  Pawsplay illustrates this perfectly.  He's hardly alone in saying that railroaded games are bad.  And, really, if you just asked most DM's, "Hey, is your game a railroad?" most would probably say no, simply because railroad has such negative connotations.
> 
> But, take that a step further.  if Railroad=bad game, and the opposite of Railroad is Sandbox, then doesn't it follow that Sandbox=Good Game?




Yes- that's why I've been trying to use "sandbox" and "story-based game" ("linear" has negative connotations too imho), with "railroad" and "rowboat" the extremes where, as Pawsplay puts it, things get dysfunctional.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 16, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> And this means I can do a Shrodringer's Gun with the locations: the dungeon just happens to be where I need it to be for the players to find it.  They've missed a few plot hooks, and I've had to provide them with more obvious ones, but since they are more inclined to talk to NPCs than the first group I took through the module I've had to improv a lot.
> 
> When I feel like railroading, I always think of Shrodringer's Gun and that usually kills the temptation. Ask yourself "How important is it that X happens?"
> 
> Do the players have to talk to the king to get the quest? Does the King have to be in a certain place in order to give the players the quest?* As long as you keep your object firmly in mind, you won't railroad...much.*



 - emphasis added

I honestly can't tell what stance the poster is making, but he says clearly and well what I find seems to be the position a lot of other posters are hedging around.  

Namely, he seems to be saying that so long as you keep the illusion of player choice up, you aren't actually on the railroad.  

But look at that last sentence, "As long as you keep your object firmly in mind, you won't railroad...".   

That to me shows the inherent contridiction in such a stance.   The whole concept of "railroading" is that the DM has some destination (and often some journey) so fimly in mind that he doesn't allow deviation from it.   Nothing so gaurantees that you'll railroad the players as having some destination firmly in mind.   

The most powerful tool a DM has for railroading his players is there lack of knowledge about the game universe and his ability to manipulate what they can't see to force them back onto the DM's desired path.   Some DMs are better than hiding the rails than others, but its all railroading and no proper discussion of railroading can be undertaken until you realize that.   Otherwise, you'll be busy trying to say that your railroading isn't railroading because its 'good' and railroading is inherently bad, so what you are doing to insure the PC's do exactly what you want them to do can't be railroading.  

Railroading refers to a broad variaty of techniques for effectively limiting player choice so that the story proceeds according to the DM's wishes.  Sometimes these ways are subtle, sometimes they are intrusive, sometimes they are arguably justifiable.  In fact, the majority of players accept railroading as a necessary feature of the game in some circumstances.  But all the different techniques share in common that they limit player choice and turn players into observers with limited ability to effect the current or future situations. 

Let me suggest some definitions:

"Linear": A game where one event follows logical from the previous and moves toward a predictable destination without side treks.

"Theme Park": A game that is sparcely detailed except for a few areas intended to be attractions.  The attractions are usually connected by some sort of short railroad that whisks the players between attractions.  Players have an expectation of empowerment and freedom only within the attractions.

"Adventure Path": A linear theme park.  Often associated with published modules because a complex adventure can be orchestrated on a comparitively few pages and requiring comparitively low reliance on DM experience.

"Sandbox":  A game, or a portion of a game, which is evenly detailed over a wide area and carries an assumption of a large amount of player freedom and empowerment.   Generally seen as the opposite of 'linear'.  Often associated with home brews because of the large amount of work involved to successfully set up the sandbox, although some published worlds (FR, HARN, and campaigns based loosely in the 'real world') are sufficiently detailed to support some sort of sandboxing.

"Rowboat": A degenerate sandbox which involves scant or nonexistant details and poor player empowerment.  Often associated with 'winging it', especially by GMs with limited experience running other types of games and thus without a ready toolbox of plots, places, and characters to draw from.  

"Railroad": A degenerate Adventure Path where not only you can't get off the train, you can't choose not to get on it, or an Adventure Path that consists solely of train and no attractions.  Often associated with homebrew adventure paths where the GM has fallen to much in love with his own imagined story and outcomes, but sometimes seen in published adventures (DL if played without a DM experienced in sandboxing, some 2e AD&D especially for the FR, published VtM modules, certain CoC adventures, etc.)

"Playset": A campaign that liberally switches between adventure paths and sandboxes to try to capture the best of both, frex a sandbox that contains numerous themeparks or an adventure path which passes through several very broad attractions with multiple sidetreks.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'm curious about some thing though.  The Shaman, you talk about NPC's in your world having pre-scripted fates.  If the PC's do not intervene, NPC X will die on a certain day in a certain way.
> 
> How is that not a pre-scripted event?  I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted.  Now, since there is no way the players could possibly know that NPC X is going to die on a particular day in a particular way (unless they read your notes), does it actually matter?




In a sandbox, nothing is assumed about what the *PCs* will do or what they should do. That doesn't apply to NPCs who are entirely under the DM's control. If the PCs don't know an NPC is going to die on x day in y way, it may still matter. But it will be up to the PCs to decide how they'll deal with those events, similarly, if the PCs have an effect on the NPC that makes the death less likely, the DM certain can and should adjust his plans for the background.



Hussar said:


> To put it another way, what makes it better that NPC X will die on such and such a day in such and such a way, predetermined before play even begins, vs a DM who decides that NPC X will die in such and such a way in order to serve a particular theme or plot development in his game?




It's not better and if you dig down, it's not even really different. Even in a sandbox, the campaign can have plots going on and themes. In fact, I think they should. It's just that the *PCs* have control of what plots they'll get involved in or how they will react to ones that happen to cross their paths. Think of it as the campaign world having its own ongoing story (or collection of stories) that would unfold if the PCs never got involved. Then think of how it changes as the PCs take specific actions and get involved in their own particular and specific ways.



Hussar said:


> Since the event is entirely pre-scripted, and, since the PC's have no way of knowing that he's going to blow his own brains out on such and such a day, they have no way of actually preventing this, how is this not a railroad?  It's an event which may affect them (if they have ties in some way to this NPC - if they don't then who cares if he lives or dies anyway) that they have zero control over not no ability to affect.
> 
> In what way is this not a railroad?




It's not limiting the choices of the PCs. You can't railroad an NPC. It's how the life of the NPC plays out from a particular point in time if adventurers don't happen along and change it. Maybe they'll change it for the better, maybe even for the worse. Maybe their influence will be so minimal that they won't change it much at all. But the choices of how they interact with that NPC will be all in the hands of the players.


----------



## nedjer (Dec 16, 2010)

The illusion of player choice sure ain't player choice. Can't say I favour any of those options. Even the playset. A compromise between player choice and adventure paths also ain't player choice.

I choose 'the path less travelled', where player choice builds and mediates gameplay in the adventure playground beyond the sandbox.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Yes- that's why I've been trying to use "sandbox" and "story-based game" ("linear" has negative connotations too imho), with "railroad" and "rowboat" the extremes where, as Pawsplay puts it, things get dysfunctional.




All RPGs are story-based games.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 16, 2010)

Nagol said:


> The list is pretty good save for the first element -- focus on discovery versus plot/cohesion is not a necessary condition.
> 
> When I ran a superheroic CHAMPIONS campaigns the focus was strongly NOT discovery, but it was still a sandbox according to the rest of the metrics.  The players likened the cmapigns to massive soap operas in that relationships and context became incredibly important which I think illustrates a focus on plot/cohesion.




In my opinion, that is still a focus on exploration and discovery over plot and cohesion. Relationships simply replace geography as the imaginary surface. To be non-exploratory, the menaing, significance, outcome, morality etc. of the relationships would have to be somewhat predetermined. In fact, "soap opera" games are, by my definition, in the deep end of the sandbox, where most scenarios consist of, "You meet Person X, whose secret agenda is Y."


----------



## chaochou (Dec 16, 2010)

Railroading:      Control of a player-character's decisions, or opportunities for  decisions, by another person (not the player of the character) in any  way which *breaks the Social Contract for that group, **in the eyes of the  character's player*.

(from The Forge :: The Provisional Glossary)

If you are running an adventure where you, the GM, want to get the players from Point A to Point B you are reliant on the players co-operating to get to Point B. If they won't, or they complain about it, the social contract is broken.

Just having a Point B isn't railroading. But there's always the risk of having to fudge, change, manipulate or force events *in a way a player objects to* in order to get to Point B, at which point there is railroading. It's an inherent risk in that A to B approach, which is why it has become synonymous - erroneously - with the real problem: the conflict at the table.

Fundamentally there are two ways not to railroad. One is to get the players from Point A to Point B without them complaining about it. The other is by *not having a point B*. Both are equally valid, equally playable and equally fun, depending on your taste.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Relationships simply replace geography as the imaginary surface.



My flowcharts of relationships between characters look like dungeon maps, with the characters as rooms and the relationships as hallways.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 16, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> All RPGs are story-based games.




Agreed.  The term "story-based" is bad on at least two levels.  First, it is as you point out so vague as to be completely non-descriptive.  And, secondly, the stem "-based" in English has the  additional meaning of "partial" not merely "rooted in".  A "truth-based" story is in fact, at least partially fiction - it is partially rooted in truth but partially made up.   A very much dislike the popularization of the stem here and elsewhere.

And as an additional point, trying to avoid 'linear' to avoid a negative connotation ends up disparaging the thing it is meant to constrast with and so is no improvement.

I think 'adventure path' would suffice.  It carries the connotation of linear ('it is a path') but is widely seen as something 'good'.



pawsplay said:


> In my opinion, that is still a focus on exploration and discovery over plot and cohesion. Relationships simply replace geography as the imaginary surface. To be non-exploratory, the menaing, significance, outcome, morality etc. of the relationships would have to be somewhat predetermined. In fact, "soap opera" games are, by my definition, in the deep end of the sandbox, where most scenarios consist of, "You meet Person X, whose secret agenda is Y."




I have to agree with this as well.   Internal exploration and discovery is very much in keeping with most sandbox games.  The character is itself part of the mental toy that is being played with in a simulation style game.   In a rowboat game, it's presumably all you have. (Which implies certain high drama high concept groups might do fine in even a rowboat, being able to entertain themselves simply by interacting with each other.  Of course, those groups might arguably do ok on a railroad as well, since they really don't care if they are going anywhere.)


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 16, 2010)

Well ONE way to do it, is between games or during down time 'actions' ROLL any fights between NPCs to see what side kills the other or how injurred someone is in an assassination attempt, JUST so even you (the DM) didnt know in advance how it would turn out. You could just HAVE bandits attack a town and take over, or you could actually SEE if your bandits could take over the town before the PCs arrival, determine casualties on both sides and figure it that way. 




Hussar said:


> But, in Star Trek, the best way to solve any problem with the Enterprise is to reverse the linearity.
> 
> I'm curious about some thing though. The Shaman, you talk about NPC's in your world having pre-scripted fates. If the PC's do not intervene, NPC X will die on a certain day in a certain way.
> 
> ...


----------



## the Jester (Dec 17, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> All RPGs are story-based games.




I think we are going to have some terminology disagreements.

I would argue that (using my definitions) a good story-based game does not have to be linear but it cannot be a sandbox. A sandbox may well have various plot lines running through it, as a story-based game must. A sandbox can have linear adventures in it- any adventure that is a sequence of rooms in a certain order is linear, and as long as the pcs choose to follow that sequence it can still be a sandbox.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 17, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> /snip for excellent post




Fair enough.  I can buy that.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2010)

the Jester said:


> I think we are going to have some terminology disagreements.
> 
> I would argue that (using my definitions) a good story-based game does not have to be linear but it cannot be a sandbox. A sandbox may well have various plot lines running through it, as a story-based game must. A sandbox can have linear adventures in it- any adventure that is a sequence of rooms in a certain order is linear, and as long as the pcs choose to follow that sequence it can still be a sandbox.




How are you defining "story?"

Also, I'm going to take issue with your remarks about linear adventures; a "series" of rooms is almost unknown in RPGs. You would be talking about the 18 hole golf course of the Demented God, or the Very Long Corridor on the Borderlands.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 17, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Also, I'm going to take issue with your remarks about linear adventures; a "series" of rooms is almost unknown in RPGs. You would be talking about the 18 hole golf course of the Demented God, or the Very Long Corridor on the Borderlands.



Is _VLCotB_ the one with all the goblinoids living in the Horizontal Mine Shaft of Chaos?


----------



## Barastrondo (Dec 17, 2010)

This seems like a relevant link to the discussion. For those who would like a little hint rather than a cold link, it's essentially a look at modules as how their maps demonstrate linearity or branching paths. 

One of my favorite module series from back in the day was the Slave Lords series. I still find it very interesting how radically different that series went, from the sprawling stockade map and chance to explore Suderham to the linear dungeon in A3 and the outright "if you want to run A4, your players will board the railroad right now" ending to it.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 17, 2010)

Something that occurs to me, reading this, is perhaps there isn't such a large divide between linear campaigns and sandboxes as I thought.  Would the following be a fair characterization?

A sandbox campaign is one where events will occur with or without PC interaction and the expectation of the table is that the players will determine for themselves which events to interact with, if any at all.

A linear campaign is one where events will occur with or without PC interatction and the expectation at the table is that the players will interact with the events presented.

Where railroading comes into the picture is when the DM decides how the players will interact with the event and removes any options of interacting with an event in anything other than the proscribed way.

Is this fair?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> We tend to frame the discussion in terms of railroad at one end of the spectrum and sandbox at the other.  On the surface, that seems pretty logical.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In my mind, the discussion should be framed as Linear vs Sandbox.  A Linear campaign will follow a fairly well defined path forward.



I've been spending the whole thread arguing against this dichotomy.

There is a type of game that is neither linear - in the sense that it has no defined path - but is not a sandbox. It is a game in which the GM presents the players (via their PCs) with situations that engage the known concerns of the players (signalled via PC backstories plus choices made in previous episodes of play) and then sees how the players respond.

Thus, The Shaman says about his sandbox:



The Shaman said:


> when I decide 'what happens next,' I'm guided by what makes sense in the context of the situation, not what makes for a 'better story' or averts a tpk.



Whereas in the sort of game I'm taling about, when I decide "what happens next" I'm guided not only by what makes sense in the context of the situation, but by what will push the players to keep engaging. (Like in the quote from Paul Czege that I posted above.)



pawsplay said:


> There is a long and interesting thread in which I observed several qualities of sandbox play. My summary



Good summary.



Celebrim said:


> Let me suggest some definitions:
> 
> <snip list of types of game>



This list is not exclusive. In particular, it doesn't contain the sort of play that I describe above.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 17, 2010)

What would you call a game where the DM's pre-designed story is somewhat linear but it's almost completely irrelevant whether the players stay on said storyline or not? (assume it's a given that they'll be on *a* storyline, whether it's the one the DM intended or not)

What would you call a game where several somewhat-linear storylines cross paths and interact with each other as they go along, with the players forced to make choices as to which storyline (if any) they wish to engage with?  What would you call it if each storyline had its own party following it but the parties sometimes interacted with each other to the point of exchanging characters and-or players, and the outcome of one story could and would affect some or all of the others? (in other words, multiple parties bashing around concurrently in the same region of a game world)

What would you call a game where the DM had several pre-designed storylines that may or may not eventually meet, and in fact may or may not even get played depending on how the campaign goes?

Lan-"the above situations all describe my current campaign"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Dec 17, 2010)

Lanefan, that sounds like Celebrim's "play set".

But I'm curious as to what you mean by pre-designed story.

In my game, I prepare encounters that, everything else being equal, I will present to the players. For example, currently the PCs are trying to move through the foothills from point A (where they've just destroyed a demonic temple) to point B (where they have to pay some duergar slavers to redeem some prisoners). I am doing this via a skill challenge, and at certain points in the challenge certain encounter will occur (with the PCs getting advantages or disadvantages depending on how the skill challenge is going). So unless the players decide to abandon the trip to point B, and thus to abandon the skill challenge, those encounters _will_ occur. But how they play out is up for grabs - for example, one is with some hags, and I have that statted up as both a negotiation skill challenge and a combat, because I'm not at all sure how the players will handle it. (In the previous game the same players had their PCs befriend rather than kill a night hag who had useful info for them - they have a soft spot for helpful information-dispensing NPCs even when those NPCs are evil.) Indeed, I'm anticipating that this encounter could be what prompts the players not to keep going to point B, and instead to decide to try and enter the Feywild.

Is this anything like what you have in mind when you talk about "the DM's pre-designed story"?


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Dec 17, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Also, I'm going to take issue with your remarks about linear adventures; a "series" of rooms is almost unknown in RPGs. You would be talking about the 18 hole golf course of the Demented God, or the Very Long Corridor on the Borderlands.




Dungeon Mapping

Take a look at that, one of the things that makes an adventure interesting is how much choice you have. A dungeon can have all the friggin twists in the world, but its "decision map" what the above is really all about, can effectively be linear. Some would call that railroady. And really, whether its indoors or outdoors under or above ground, a "series" of rooms.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 17, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I've been spending the whole thread arguing against this dichotomy.
> 
> There is a type of game that is neither linear - in the sense that it has no defined path - but is not a sandbox. It is a game in which the GM presents the players (via their PCs) with situations that engage the known concerns of the players (signalled via PC backstories plus choices made in previous episodes of play) and then sees how the players respond.




Without knowing more about how you play and prep, I can't really say whether you are on an adventure path or in a sandbox.  But the important point that has to be made is that I can't know which of the two you are doing because what you have described is (IMO) simply 'good DMing' and is a feature of either good linear or good sandbox play.  Whether you are doing a sandbox, or whether you are constructing an adventure path from week to week, presumably the good DM is feeding the players situations that engauge their known concerns signalled via PC backstories plus choices made in previous episodes of play.  I'd be doing that even if I was running the Dragon Lance moduels (as written, a very railroady adventure path) or if I was running an open ended 'pirate campaign' where the PC's sailed around in a boat exploring a world I had detailed.

There is of course more than one axis by which game structures can be plotted and described.   Linear vs. non-linear is not the only feature of games, adventures, and campaigns.   Just because you can pick out a salient feature of your game that doesn't lie on the llinear vs. non-linear axis doesn't mean that the distinction between an adventure path and a sandbox isn't real.   It could be that you are playing in a fuzzy grey area in the middle where you switch back and forth between linear preperation for the session (tonight A will happen, then B will happen, then C will happen) and sandbox preperation (typically a map, location details, random encounter tables of various sorts whether events, monsters, or weather, large lists of wandering NPC's, etc.), and so the most salient feature of your prep is the tailoring you do to the dramatic conflict and themes proposed by the players.  

The axis you are talking about, who controls the dramatic theme of play, is an interesting one - one that gets alot of discussion at Forge - but it doesn't mean that play isn't linear vs. non-linear.   One additional way to describe a Railroad (the game type, as opposed to the act of railroading) is that it is not only linear, but the players have no ability through play to control or choose the dramatic conflict or the themes of the story.   It is usually a feature of sandboxing that the players have greater control over the theme than in linear play, but its quite easy to imagine a Rowboat world where the players don't control the theme because there is no theme and they lack the ability to create meaningful dramatic conflict because the GM simply isn't putting enough effort into the story.   Similarly, we could imagine a DM running the Dragon Lance modules with player created characters rather than pre-generated ones, and the DM tailoring the game to the conflicts generated by those party and intraparty conflicts rather than the stock ones presented by the modules and official story.   The story is still on the whole linear with familiar places and events,  if slightly different from the linear one presented in the modules, but the small events of the story revolve around different tensions and the PC's may have different presumed relationships with various NPC's.   One of the original PC's might for example turn out to have been a dragon all along.  Another might end up being a dragon Highlord's son, etc.

Lastly, I don't want to give the impression that I think good GMing means that the players are solely in control of the stories dramatic themes.   The GM is a player too, and as the player most invested in the game (in terms of time and effort put into it, for example) the GM has a the reasonable expectation of having very large say what the story is about.   Most players expect and have a reasonable expectation that the GM has a very interesting, exciting, twist filled, and thought provoking story in mind.  Very little to me says poor DMing like a DM that doesn't have a story in mind and expects the players to effectively do all the work of world and story creation.  I'm just saying that the good GM, in addition to crafting his own compelling story, takes cues from the players regarding what they are interested in.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 17, 2010)

Another very good post, Celebrim, and sorry I cannot XP you for it at this time!


----------



## P1NBACK (Dec 17, 2010)

the Jester said:


> I would argue that (using my definitions) a good story-based game does not have to be linear but it cannot be a sandbox.




This is so, so wrong. 

Care to define "story-based"?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 17, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Just because you can pick out a salient feature of your game that doesn't lie on the llinear vs. non-linear axis doesn't mean that the distinction between an adventure path and a sandbox isn't real.




And, as a corollary - just because you can make a real distinction between path and sandbox, doesn't mean that distinction is always particularly meaningful. 

I do frequently wonder exactly how "real" the distinctions we draw are.  Many of the forms we talk about (GNS theory, say, or the sandbox/path dichotomy) are theoretical constructions made after the fact.  Honestly, it seems a lot like the development of Freudian psychology - people working off of anecdotes and what seems reasonable in their own minds come up with a form that kinda-sorta hangs together.  

If we accept that Good GMing stands outside the dichotomy, then it seems to me that the dichotomy is of rather academic interest, as compared to the far more practical, "How do I be a good GM?"  Our discussions often seem to forget that.

The theoretical structures are often helpful for analysis - giving you a language and framework in which to structure thoughts. But ultimately you ought to be able to remove your analysis from one framework, and move it to another.  If you cannot, that means that the framework is no longer your tool, but your master.



> The axis you are talking about, who controls the dramatic theme of play, is an interesting one - one that gets alot of discussion at Forge - but it doesn't mean that play isn't linear vs. non-linear.




A good point - and maybe lack of this insight has created one of the major sticking points we come across in these discussions:  player's having "meaningful choice" in the game.  

Imagine a player with a lot of thematic choice.  Many themes imply a direction of action, so that a GM who creates to the thematic choice has a very good idea where the players intend to go, and may not need much beyond a very linear play.


----------



## P1NBACK (Dec 17, 2010)

It's not railroading unless there is explicit or implicit choice taken away from the players. 

If the plots 'on rails' or the GM has expected outcomes and the players choose to go along with it, then that is not railroading. This is a style of play. 

Do I prefer that style? Hell no. 

But, do some people? Yes. 

They want to be there, along for the ride. 

It's not railroading though. 

It becomes railroading when a player makes a decision and that decision is rendered meaningless because of another player (usually the GM). 

There can be a conflict of interest though. Players 1 and 2 want to go along with the pre-plotted story, while players 3 and 4 don't. This creates a conflict of interest and a GM might railroad players 3 and 4 to "keep the game moving". That's railroading. 

To prevent railroading, make the social contract explicit upfront - define what each player expects out of the game. And, GM, don't  with that. 

Some games give explicit instructions to avoid railroading (see Apocalypse World). Others give explicit instructions to railroad (see recent Dungeon column about 'Cheat, Lie and Steal'). Fudging dice is railroading (an implicit destruction of choices). 

Yeah.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 17, 2010)

pemerton said:


> There is a type of game that is neither linear - in the sense that it has no defined path - but is not a sandbox. It is a game in which the GM presents the players (via their PCs) with situations that engage the known concerns of the players (signalled via PC backstories plus choices made in previous episodes of play) and then sees how the players respond.




As long as the resolution remains untethered, that could still be a sandbox. It's a characterization sandbox. We've already discussed geographic sandboxes, intrigue/urban sandboxes, and relationship sandboxes. If the GM continuously adds more related elements, responsively, related to PC themes, that would be less sandboxy. 

I think the dichotomy of extremes is useful for demonstrating what is being talked about, but sandbox v. linear is definitely a spectrum, not a dichotomy. When I run long-term campaigns, I tend to run a hybrid style, basically a sandbox but dynamic with new encounters being added along the way according to what I think would be interesting. I still take care not to constrain the PCs' viable options, though.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 17, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> As long as the resolution remains untethered, that could still be a sandbox. It's a characterization sandbox. We've already discussed geographic sandboxes, intrigue/urban sandboxes, and relationship sandboxes. If the GM continuously adds more related elements, responsively, related to PC themes, that would be less sandboxy.




True, but the longer you live in any given location, the more your experiences there frame your decisions regarding the area. If the GM is adding more themes based on player actions and decisions within a given location, I don't think this necessarily causes it to become less sandboxy. The choice of a bard to sleep around could piss off a small town's families, and this element(the angry parents of their now deflowered lassies), is based on the backstory of the bard, and his actual actions in the game.

The player still has a variety of ways to address, or not address the situation that has presented itsself, but I don't believe that these new developments have limited the ability of players to shape their own stories on behalf of the GM.

Perhaps the paladin has a thing for fluffy bunnies, and as such, they are presented with a place full of them, stalked by a dark cult that sacrifices them to an evil god. But left unchecked, they would multiply out of control, as the area has no natural predators. Where once there was just "a town", there is now "a town full of cute bunnies and a dark cult worshipping some dark god". The group retains the decision to deal with this or not, but IMO, it adds a great deal to the world, without removing the choice of the players.

True, it's not a "blank canvas" sandbox, but the PCs have painted the picture themselves. It's only not blank because of their decisions, their limitations are the ones they've developed on their own.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 17, 2010)

Umbran said:


> And, as a corollary - just because you can make a real distinction between path and sandbox, doesn't mean that distinction is always particularly meaningful.




Agreed.



> I do frequently wonder exactly how "real" the distinctions we draw are...If we accept that Good GMing stands outside the dichotomy, then it seems to me that the dichotomy is of rather academic interest, as compared to the far more practical, "How do I be a good GM?"  Our discussions often seem to forget that.




You've pretty much banged the nail on the head with that statement.  

My interest in this thread isn't "Railroading is badwrongfun." or "Sandboxing is badwrongfun.", but rather in getting people to see that the two preparation and play approaches are both just tools that a skilled DM can employ to achieve a particular result for a particular party.  I think these academic discussions can be very useful, but only in so far as they lead to answers to the question, "How can I be a better game master?"  I'm interested in the discussion only to the degree it helps people hone there tools or find some that they never thought were in their toolset. (I also find that explaining myself to others is the only way I can be even a little bit sure I'm not completely confused.)

I'm not at all certain that peoples stances on academic issues like this reflect how they actually play.  The terms 'railroad' and 'sandbox' seem to have acquired connotations that are more important to people than the sometimes loosely understood meanings of the terms, so that it's more important for people to identify which tribe they belong than it is for actually describing what they do in the game.  I think too often we just throw around terms as synnonyms for 'wrong', which is what I think alot of Forge-babble boils down to.


----------



## Emirikol (Dec 17, 2010)

Railroad just means it's easy to run.  Like the above poster indicates, it varies by group.

It could be argued that if every character in the group stays together and follows any plot whatsoever, that's a railroad.

I think what people mean though is that there are no choices to go outside the plot. It's all fine and dandy to say that we want those choices, but a Gm cannot be expected to sit around and prep 12 hours for every particular option that a player may decide, on a whim, that he wants to follow up.

I'll take easy to run, but I've been doing it a long time...
jh


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 18, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> My interest in this thread isn't "Railroading is badwrongfun." or "Sandboxing is badwrongfun.", but rather in getting people to see that the two preparation and play approaches are both just tools that a skilled DM can employ to achieve a particular result for a particular party.  I think these academic discussions can be very useful, but only in so far as they lead to answers to the question, "How can I be a better game master?"  I'm interested in the discussion only to the degree it helps people hone there tools or find some that they never thought were in their toolset. (I also find that explaining myself to others is the only way I can be even a little bit sure I'm not completely confused.)




In that vein, my main purpose in talking about my conception of a railroad is to define an approach that is not good GMing. My preference would be to reserve the term railroading for unfun. I would much prefer to use a descriptive term for a linear or programmatic game, like adventure path or scripted game or whatever, than deal with the usurpation of "railroad." I don't think anyone who runs a pathy game has anything to gain by claiming solidarity with honest-to-goodness railroaders; in fact, wittingly or not, I think that rhetorical stance is a disservice to GMs who may not realize the potential problems in brazenly trying to control the PCs, or trying to maintain a specific story outcome, no matter how much it may strain logic given the situation at that time. 

"Railroading is a pejorative term for a game in which something is actually accomplished," is, I think, largely a disservice. Nothing is actually accomplished in an actual railroad. People who are not actually railroading do not have to accept being called railroaders. People who have experience with railroading can recognize genuine problems and point them out without slandering playstyles that may be dissimilar to their own.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Without knowing more about how you play and prep, I can't really say whether you are on an adventure path or in a sandbox.



Not an adventure path, as there is no predetermined set of adventures to be gone through. These are worked out by me (as GM) from session to session in response to the actions of the PCs and revealed (or sometimes imputed) preferences of the players.

Not a sandbox, as the PCs are not really free to explore the world. I agree with Pawsplay that sandbox implies exploration as a focus of play, and that is not the case in my game.



Celebrim said:


> But the important point that has to be made is that I can't know which of the two you are doing because what you have described is (IMO) simply 'good DMing' and is a feature of either good linear or good sandbox play.  Whether you are doing a sandbox, or whether you are constructing an adventure path from week to week, presumably the good DM is feeding the players situations that engauge their known concerns signalled via PC backstories plus choices made in previous episodes of play.



Well, that seems to me to rule out an adventure path as "good GMing", becaus in an adventure path the players are not free to choose who shall be their PCs' enemies and allies (except in some marginal cases). If the PCs decide to join rather than try to overthrow the evil cult, the adventure path grinds to a halt.

I know, from experience, that this is not so in my game,  because in my game there is no predetermined "final enemy/BBEG".



Celebrim said:


> Just because you can pick out a salient feature of your game that doesn't lie on the llinear vs. non-linear axis doesn't mean that the distinction between an adventure path and a sandbox isn't real.



I don't at all dispute that it's real. I just deny that it is exhaustive.



Celebrim said:


> It could be that you are playing in a fuzzy grey area in the middle where you switch back and forth between linear preperation for the session (tonight A will happen, then B will happen, then C will happen) and sandbox preperation (typically a map, location details, random encounter tables of various sorts whether events, monsters, or weather, large lists of wandering NPC's, etc.), and so the most salient feature of your prep is the tailoring you do to the dramatic conflict and themes proposed by the players.



Neither of those things describes my prep. I've posted on how I prep upthread, in chaochou's sandbox thread, and in the "GM by the nose" thread.  In this thread I've also posted a quote from Paul Czege that describes how I like to prep for my game (although as I said, I'm a bit more relaxed than Czege in how I push resolution of situations/encounters).



Celebrim said:


> the small events of the story revolve around different tensions and the PC's may have different presumed relationships with various NPC's.   One of the original PC's might for example turn out to have been a dragon all along.  Another might end up being a dragon Highlord's son, etc.



I like to GM a game where the large events of the story revolve around tensions between PCs, and between PCs and NPCs, that emerge and are resolved in the course of play. This precludes linearity, because there is no predetermined destination. A brief actual play example: when the PCs encountered the duergar slavers, I had assumed that they would fight them as a prelude to raiding the duergar stronghold to free the prisoners. Instead they negotiated a deal with the slavers to ransom the prisoners for a share of the loot taken from the hobgoblins from whom the duergar had bought the prisoners. (Mechanically, this was resolved as a skill challenge.) So instead of a fight plus a fortress raid, the game is headed towards a settlement of the ransom transaction at a designated time and place.

This is not linear. No one knew that the game would head in that direction until after the encounter had actually been played out. But it is not a sandbox. The players are not exploring the world that I have written up for that purpose - I am shaping the world and the NPCs within it in order to push the various buttons that are built into the PCs (via backstory and previous play) in something like the way Paul Czege describes.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 18, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> As long as the resolution remains untethered, that could still be a sandbox. It's a characterization sandbox. We've already discussed geographic sandboxes, intrigue/urban sandboxes, and relationship sandboxes. If the GM continuously adds more related elements, responsively, related to PC themes, that would be less sandboxy.



But that's what I do - add stuff responsively. I don't think it's a characterisation sandbox - it's not about exploring characters, it's about building them and testing them. 



pawsplay said:


> I think the dichotomy of extremes is useful for demonstrating what is being talked about



I'm not a big fan of presenting the two approaches as dichotomous, because this tends to crowd out recognition of other approaches to play that I prefer. Upthread The Shaman described well some similarities and some differences between the games that s/he (I think he?) and I run. I think The Shaman's game has a strong exploration element - the players develop their PCs in part by finding useful contacts/opportunities in the gameworld. This makes it a sandbox, to my mind.

In my game, the players don't have to search for contacts and opportunities. They know I will throw these at them. The play consists in working out how to respond to these NPCs and situations - where the "working out" isn't normally a tactical/strategic working out, but a thematic/moral working out.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 18, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I'm not a big fan of presenting the two approaches as dichotomous, because this tends to crowd out recognition of other approaches to play that I prefer. Upthread The Shaman described well some similarities and some differences between the games that s/he (I think he?) and I run. I think The Shaman's game has a strong exploration element - the players develop their PCs in part by finding useful contacts/opportunities in the gameworld. This makes it a sandbox, to my mind.
> 
> In my game, the players don't have to search for contacts and opportunities. They know I will throw these at them. The play consists in working out how to respond to these NPCs and situations - where the "working out" isn't normally a tactical/strategic working out, but a thematic/moral working out.



I think that's a fair assessment.

And I am a guy,* *pemerton*.


* Well, except for that one time in college.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 18, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Not a sandbox, as the PCs are not really free to explore the world. I agree with Pawsplay that sandbox implies exploration as a focus of play, and that is not the case in my game.




You keep subconsciously thinking of exploration in terms of physical spaces as if that was the only or even most interesting sort of exploration.

I went and tracked down the posts you refered to about your prep and play style, and you are firmly in the sandbox style.  There are lots of clues, but to me the most telling was this quote:



> To keep the momentum going, in my experience you need (i)* a fairly rich and layered myth/history*, with (ii) *lots of interrelated elements that both relate to the PCs' backgrounds (and players' thematic concerns) and will give the players lots of scope to make choices about alliances/enemies/how to engage*, and (iii) *a story structure (established via geography, antagonist's motivations, etc) that makes it plausible for multiple such choices to be made and have their ramifications play out over many sessions of play without things being forced to an early conclusion* (the game can become derailed if things go too far in this direction, and the story is so convoluted, dense or just plain slow that no progress towards a conclusion seems to be possible). And obviously the players have to be happy to buy into this.
> 
> The upshot is fairly complex plots with the PCs at the centre of events in the unfolding history of the gameworld. *The game can become fairly sprawling, in terms of the relevant geography* and the PC's salient field of action, but it's not a sandbox (ie the players aren't exploring the world with their PCs - if anything, *they are exploring their PCs with the world as a tool in that* endeavour). At the practical level, players ensure at least some of the PCs have sufficient knowledge skills to engage with the gameworld, and* they take lots of notes to keep track of everything, and draw relationship charts or similar to keep track of enemies/allies/factions/historical connections etc*.




All of that speaks to sandboxing.  In particular, I like the last bolded session because it tangibly describes the real geography that is being primarily explored here (though it seems alot of physical geography is being explored as well).  If the players are drawing relationship charts to keep track of the many enemies, allies, and factions they are relating to you can lay money that you are in a sandbox.

The fact that you've worked out a complex mythology for your game world and you put your characters into it seems also to me to be very telling.

All in all I'd describe you as mostly sandbox, done in what sounds like a mixture of the High Drama and Low Drama styles.  You've got a nice little fantasy soap opera going by the sound of it.



> Well, that seems to me to rule out an adventure path as "good GMing", becaus in an adventure path the players are not free to choose who shall be their PCs' enemies and allies (except in some marginal cases). If the PCs decide to join rather than try to overthrow the evil cult, the adventure path grinds to a halt.




Depends on how good the DM is at improvising.  A good DM will retool and start up again, creating a new adventure path on the fly beginning at the unexpected fork in the road that destroyed his prior plans, reusing and repurposing whatever material he made in advance while still following the broad outline of his story arc only with the PC's now in the role formerly occupied by antagonists.  The 'adventure path' portion of my current campaign is actually fairly resilient to the player's changing sides, and the general theme of a world spanning chase that is my inspiration doesn't change no matter which side they are competing for.  

When something like this occurs and the players 'get off the train', you just bring out a new set of tools and conflicts that accord with the goals your players have implicitly stated they are more interested in.  And the fact that we now have a branching tree shows that while many groups may go through an AP in a text book linear way, others may end up in some complex gray area which isn't entirely one or the other.



> This precludes linearity, because there is no predetermined destination.




Even if I hadn't established from reading your other posts that you were a sandboxer, the very fact that your game precludes linearity to me would be a strong indication that you were.  



> A brief actual play example: when the PCs encountered the duergar slavers, I had assumed that they would fight them as a prelude to raiding the duergar stronghold to free the prisoners. Instead they negotiated a deal with the slavers to ransom the prisoners for a share of the loot taken from the hobgoblins from whom the duergar had bought the prisoners. (Mechanically, this was resolved as a skill challenge.) So instead of a fight plus a fortress raid, the game is headed towards a settlement of the ransom transaction at a designated time and place.




And, while I think I've established that you are sandbox, from this snippet I couldn't really tell.  To provide you with an example, when I first began plotting out my campaign there was one particular character that I had intended to bring into relationship with the characters in the role of an advisor/mentor figure.  However, because of a series of events that I did not foresee, the players have gotten themselves into a quite hostile relationship with the character so that in his future role in the story he is more likely to be a foil or even antagonist than any sort of ally.  Likewise, in any reasonably good adventure path, the players would still have the oppurtunity to resolve a conflict with the duegar slavers in any number of ways - combat, stealthy raiding, bribes, diplomacy, winning an ally willing to initiate military conflict, etc.   The way I know that you are likely on a sandbox isn't because the players had freedom to choose how to resolve a conflict, but because I suspect they had some control over the conflict they'd choose to resolve and some say over what conflict they'll address after the ransom transaction is complete.  Moreover they have apparantly complete freedom over 'where they go' in the terrain you've created, which is 'political' for a lack of a better word, in that they can by apparant design define almost limitlessly how they relate to each particular group.

On the other hand, you might be nearer to my style even than that, in that you might be running an adventure path and a sandbox nearly simultaneously and switching back and forth as necessary.  Two sessions ago I ran a nearly complete 'sandbox' that I think would have been very familiar to you.  Everything I prepped had to do with player goals and events from their personal background.  Last session I dragged the players back on the adventure path, which is the fight against a group who is at least for now the clear bad guys.  Naturally, there was once again an example of my reoccuring theme of 'the chase', in this case, a scene inspired by the boat hopping chase in 'Mad God's Key'.  As the players begin to get a feel for the situation, I suspect we'll default to more and more sandbox play with more and more player initiative (and I'll adapt less and less published material into my story line).


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 18, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Lanefan, that sounds like Celebrim's "play set".
> 
> But I'm curious as to what you mean by pre-designed story.



Given your example of the journey through the foothills, I'm probably talking about a broader scale than you are.

In my case, the "pre-designed story" might consist of having three or four small adventure paths pre-planned, along with several stand-alone adventures and a vague backstory that might end up tying them all together if I'm lucky.

Then I'll sit down and storyboard, something like:

Adventure A ==> Adventure B ==> Adventure C (by now should know way around local region and have a clue about political history and backstory; and be average 2nd-3rd level)

split party if enough players by then

Group 1 to Adventure path D-H (thwart Ares' plans, meet some important people)

Group 2 to Adventure I ==> Adventure J ==> Adventure K if high enough level (get involved in politics, learn undead lords exist)

New group (3) does Adventure L then merges with one of the pre-existing groups? (find Zeus relic, required later in Adventure T)

etc., etc., along with a long list of throw-in adventures and side-trek ideas.

That's an example of what my pre-designed story might look like, except it would be scribbled out on a piece of paper with lots of crossings out and re-writings and overall be much less legible.

18 months later it might get re-done after Group 1 bails out during Adventure G and goes on a side trek, allowing Ares to bring his plans to fruition and thus changing the future I'd had in mind.  I might also re-do it if I have better ideas later and-or the players start coming up with adventure ideas of their own.

Lan-"the storyboard for my current game is now up to version 5.0"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Dec 18, 2010)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> Well, that seems to me to rule out an adventure path as "good GMing", becaus in an adventure path the players are not free to choose who shall be their PCs' enemies and allies (except in some marginal cases). If the PCs decide to join rather than try to overthrow the evil cult, the adventure path grinds to a halt.
> 
> I know, from experience, that this is not so in my game, because in my game there is no predetermined "final enemy/BBEG".




Well, that's not entirely true though.  For example, in the Savage Tide AP, you could take, right off the bat, essentially two paths.  If you took the "good" path, then certain factions and NPC's would react to you in a certain way, and if you took the "evil" path, different opportunities and NPC's opened up.

Granted, the "evil" path was a lot less fleshed out, mostly because the presumption (and page count) was that players would take the high road.  But, it was certainly there.  

The funny thing is, you'd still hit pretty much the same adventures, but, the theme and actions within those adventures would be totally different.  

So, I do disagree that an AP requires you to follow such a narrowly defined path.  There are AP's out there that allow a great deal of freedom, even though you're still likely to progress through the same locations.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 18, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> This is so, so wrong.
> 
> Care to define "story-based"?




First of all, in a discussion with a large component _about making the definitions,_ your "so, so wrong" is really out of line IMHO. If you want to wave the "I do it right and you're having badwrongfun" flag around, I'll rapidly disengage from discussing this stuff with you. Likewise, if you assert that your definitions win!!1!!eleventyone!! without discussion, that's fine- you win the thread, go home.

But I'll assume that you want to have a meaningful discussion, so I'll go ahead and respond this time. I said: 



			
				Me said:
			
		

> I would argue that (using my definitions) a good story-based game does not have to be linear but it cannot be a sandbox. A sandbox may well have various plot lines running through it, as a story-based game must. A sandbox can have linear adventures in it- any adventure that is a sequence of rooms in a certain order is linear, and as long as the pcs choose to follow that sequence it can still be a sandbox.




So let me give more specific concrete examples, using published adventures.

An example of a sandbox published adventure is _the Secret of Bone Hill,_ which presents a region of an island, a full town, several dungeons and other adventure areas, etc. There are various plot threads running through the module- but there is no overarching mission that the pcs must engage in, there is no "end boss" or end goal to the module, etc. The clerics running the temple of gambling have as much detail as the npc spy in town; the assumption is that the pcs will move through the module interacting with various persons and creatures, exploring locations, etc., but there is no stick whacking them if they stray off the path.

I think we can all agree this is a sandbox adventure.

A linear adventure is just that: 1-2-3-4. There is a distinct sequence of events and the pcs cannot deviate from that sequence and still 'finish' the adventure. Good examples include many delves, 

A story-based adventure is one where the considerations of the story outweigh the input of the players. The early DragonLance modules are especially egregious this way, but there are other examples too- hello Avatar trilogy!

A linear adventure can be set in a sandbox and work just fine _as long as the pcs have the option to disengage from it._ If the pcs are going into a delve with 3 rooms that are sequential, 1-2-3, and the pcs decide not to venture into room 2 after finishing up room 1, that's a sign of sandbox style dming. 

In a story-based linear campaign, the pcs wouldn't be able to accomplish anything else until they got the macguffin that they were after.

A story-based non-linear campaign is one where, instead of going 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8, the pcs starts at 1 and ends at 8 but the stuff in the middle is largely up to the players. For instance, _Red Hand of Doom_ can be a good example of a non-linear story-based campaign. The test is, Can the pcs walk away from this adventure? If the answer is yes (even if the decision later comes back to haunt them), I smell sandboxery. If the answer is no- then I smell a story-based campaign, where the dm's story is more important than the free choices of the players.

So: Linear is a style choice _related to but not the same as_ railroading/story-based games/adventure paths/what have you.

As in all cases, none of these things are strictly one way or the other, or at least it is very rare to see a campaign that is "all sandbox all the time" or "completely story". 

YMMV etc.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 18, 2010)

pemerton said:


> But that's what I do - add stuff responsively. I don't think it's a characterisation sandbox - it's not about exploring characters, it's about building them and testing them.




I'm really struggling to see the distinction. Character-testing is practically a synonym for character exploration, as nearly as I can see.



> I'm not a big fan of presenting the two approaches as dichotomous, because this tends to crowd out recognition of other approaches to play that I prefer.




How so? Start a thread on a hybrid approach, see what happens.



> Upthread The Shaman described well some similarities and some differences between the games that s/he (I think he?) and I run. I think The Shaman's game has a strong exploration element - the players develop their PCs in part by finding useful contacts/opportunities in the gameworld. This makes it a sandbox, to my mind.
> 
> In my game, the players don't have to search for contacts and opportunities. They know I will throw these at them. The play consists in working out how to respond to these NPCs and situations - where the "working out" isn't normally a tactical/strategic working out, but a thematic/moral working out.




Tactical-strategic play is not, per se, sandboxing. "We found a dragon guarding gold, and because of our greed, were slain," is, in theory, an acceptable sandbox outcome. While others may disagree, I think adding elements responsively does tend to decrease sandbox qualities in a game, but if the aim is still to present plausible and interesting scenarios that result in exploration, I think we are still talking about a basically sanxbox approach.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 18, 2010)

the Jester said:
			
		

> A linear adventure is just that: 1-2-3-4. There is a distinct sequence of events and the pcs cannot deviate from that sequence and still 'finish' the adventure. Good examples include many delves,




Where I demur is that I consider that there are _degrees_ of linearity. One pattern can approximate a single line, albeit a fuzzy one, more closely than another.



> A story-based non-linear campaign is one where, instead of going 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8, the pcs starts at 1 and ends at 8 but the stuff in the middle is largely up to the players.



What I have seen more often than either of those is more like 1 - (interlude) - 2 - 3 - (interlude) - 4 - etc..

It may be a fine academic point to come up with a large lexicon for different amounts and kinds of branching, but the fundamental question remains, "Is there a plot or not?".

Every history is strictly linear after the fact! What matters is the shape of the universe of possibilities _before_ we select one.

The _architectural_ linearity of a space does not necessarily mean linearity of _action_. In the last resort, what matters is whether we can get out of that structure and remain in the game.

If it's the Tomb of Horrors _or nothing_, then the game is the Tomb of Horrors. That can have a lot of twists and turns in events -- but they are limited to the (pretty linear) confines of those chambers plus a camp outside.

If the Tomb of Horrors just happens to be located on a larger map, as for instance a shopping mall is on the map of a city, then neither Tomb nor Mall constitutes "the adventure". Rather, what each of those is, is _a place_.

The places are elements in an _environment_ rather than a plot. "The adventure" (or "the campaign") is not a program through which the GM is stepping. "The adventure" is whatever players are undertaking, whatever is going on right now while we are playing.

It is like playing The Russian Campaign instead of Squad Leader. In The Russian Campaign, you decide where to move your pieces turn by turn over a big swathe of the Eurasian continent. In Squad Leader, just crossing the street is an accomplishment!


----------



## Starfox (Dec 19, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> My interest in this thread isn't "Railroading is badwrongfun." or "Sandboxing is badwrongfun.", but rather in getting people to see that the two preparation and play approaches are both just tools that a skilled DM can employ to achieve a particular result for a particular party.






Ariosto said:


> Where I demur is that I consider that there are _degrees_ of linearity. One pattern can approximate a single line, albeit a fuzzy one, more closely than another.




Continuing on the line presented in the two quotes, using a painting analogy.

As a GM, I have a palette of tools. Many of these are like colors; they come in different shades. One such tool is plot structure - it comes from very light (sandbox) to very heavy (linear or railroad). Depending on the needs of my story at the moment, I might use a light shade of plot or a heavy shade of plot. Sometimes, I essentially don't have a plot. But these are tools on my palette; they do not define me as a GM no more than orange defines William Turner as a painter.

Of course some GMs have common styles and themes they return to, just like the orange skies of William Turner. But it does not mean we cannot do some different things outside our normal scale of shades.

Nor does the shades we use make us good or bad GMs. Just as a white or black painting is generally less interesting than one with more detail, it is generally good to avoid the extremes of plot freedom or linearity. But there are no absolutes. No badwrongfun.


----------



## Janx (Dec 20, 2010)

Emirikol said:


> Railroad just means it's easy to run.  Like the above poster indicates, it varies by group.
> 
> It could be argued that if every character in the group stays together and follows any plot whatsoever, that's a railroad.




I suspect it is quite the opposite.  The railroad DM (and I mean one using negative DM behaviors) is probably struggling to keep the game going, and is constantly having to figure out how to keep his party on track.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 20, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I'm really struggling to see the distinction. Character-testing is practically a synonym for character exploration, as nearly as I can see.



Maybe. For me, "exploration" tends to presuppose something already there to explore - in this case, a character - whereas I'm happy for my game to involve building and testing the PCs. The PCs have a backstory which is part of the input, but their character isn't something pregiven - it is something that emerges out of play.



pawsplay said:


> While others may disagree, I think adding elements responsively does tend to decrease sandbox qualities in a game, but if the aim is still to present plausible and interesting scenarios that result in exploration, I think we are still talking about a basically sanxbox approach.



I agree with you that adding elements responsively reduces sandboxing. But I don't think it therefore increases linearity/railroading (not necessarily, at least).

I'll proceed by reference to the following quote:


Ariosto said:


> Every history is strictly linear after the fact! What matters is the shape of the universe of possibilities _before_ we select one.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I envisage a sandbox as permitting the players to explore, via their PCs, more-or-less well-defined places.

In a responsive game, this isn't the case, as the places aren't just waiting there to explore. Instead they are introduced (not exclusively, but in the way I play mostly, by the GM) in response to actions taken by the players.

That's why I don't think of it as a sandbox.

But it is not linear, because - before the fact - no one knows which places will be visited or what will take place. That is because as a GM I can't respond until the players have their PCs do something - and because I don't always know what this will be, I don't always know what my response will be.



pawsplay said:


> Start a thread on a hybrid approach, see what happens.



Well, I've tried to bring it up a few times in this thread and the "GM by the nose thread", including with actual play examples and an illustrative quote from Paul Czege. But only The Shaman seems really to have picked up on the point.

I should also add - I don't see the way I play as anything very radical in practice. I'm sure that lots of others run similar games. It's only at the level of describing or theoretically analysing what is going on that brings out the difference from sandboxes and linearity/railroading.

I think it is more like a sandbox than it is a linear game, because player choices drive the direction of play. But the responsive aspect on the part of the GM is quite different from a paradigmatic sandbox. In some ways its closer to No Myth, although I do use a degree of backstory that pure No Myth would eschew.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 20, 2010)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But the responsive aspect on the part of the GM is quite different from a paradigmatic sandbox.



Please, could you recap what the quite different "responsive aspect of the GM" is?

I also wonder, what is your source for the paradigm of what you consider a paradigmatic sandbox?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 20, 2010)

Ariosto, my sense of the paradigm is based on posts on a number of threads - recently, the "GM by the nose" and "Railroading is a pejorative term" threads. I think exploration is crucial to it. 

The sort of responsiveness I was talking about is the GM developing things and introducing game elements based not on ingame causal logic but metagaming logic, the idea being to keep the thematic pressure up to the players. This is at odds, I think, with exploration - because the GM is manipulating motives and backstory behind the scenes - and hence, I think, at odds with sandboxing.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 20, 2010)

Pem - would it be fair to say that the more the DM changes the setting in accordance with the characters being played, the further that campaign strays from being a sandbox?

Just trying to see if I'm following you right.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 20, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Please, could you recap what the quite different "responsive aspect of the GM" is?



A player creates a character who is deathly afraid of snakes, so when the adventurers discover a lost tomb in the desert, the referee decides it's filled with asps and cobras. If the character was afraid of spiders, then it might be full of tarantulas instead.

Did I get that right, *pemerton*?


----------



## the Jester (Dec 20, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Where I demur is that I consider that there are _degrees_ of linearity.




Oh, absolutely- for instance, if a linear adventure assumes 1-2-3-4, maybe 2 is a whole dungeon that is largely nonlinear but the final chamber must still be breached in order to 'move forward'.



Hussar said:


> Pem - would it be fair to say that the more the DM changes the setting in accordance with the characters being played, the further that campaign strays from being a sandbox?




I would totally agree with that, at least outside of setting changes caused by the pcs, e.g. the Baron of Restenford is dead because the pcs killed him.

The snakes vs. spiders example is a pretty perfect illustration of a non-sandbox playstyle approach imho (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that!).


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 20, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Maybe. For me, "exploration" tends to presuppose something already there to explore - in this case, a character - whereas I'm happy for my game to involve building and testing the PCs. The PCs have a backstory which is part of the input, but their character isn't something pregiven - it is something that emerges out of play.




Emergence during play is a trait of exploration, in contrast to thematics, which are intended from the beginning.



> I agree with you that adding elements responsively reduces sandboxing. But I don't think it therefore increases linearity/railroading (not necessarily, at least).




I suppose it's possible someone is responsive, but does so randomly and not toward any distinct end. But I think I feel pretty comfortable saying that responsiveness has a tendency to decrease sandboxiness and increase linearlity.



> Well, I've tried to bring it up a few times in this thread and the "GM by the nose thread", including with actual play examples and an illustrative quote from Paul Czege. But only The Shaman seems really to have picked up on the point.




Again, my suggestion is to start a new thread. Trying to attack a sideline during a discussion tends to draw more resistance than engagement. 



> I should also add - I don't see the way I play as anything very radical in practice. I'm sure that lots of others run similar games. It's only at the level of describing or theoretically analysing what is going on that brings out the difference from sandboxes and linearity/railroading.




I disagree. I think a great many games are easily categorized as one or the other, and further, that hybrid games have a fairly distinct character as well. I think where these discussions tend to miss is that many people assume linearality and sandbox games are extremes, when I think they are a natural paradigm across a variety of specific GMing styles.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 21, 2010)

Pawsplay said:
			
		

> I suppose it's possible someone is responsive, but does so randomly and not toward any distinct end. But I think I feel pretty comfortable saying that responsiveness has a tendency to decrease sandboxiness and increase linearlity.




As a tendency, I think I'd agree.  Although there could pretty easily be exceptions - the player expresses a wish to go exploring, so the DM stuffs a great big empty place to go explore, just as an off the top of my head example.  

But, I think it may be better to say that responsiveness on the part of the DM will increase the chances that the players will go in a particular direction.  If the players want X and you give them X, then in all likelihood, X is what you're going to do.

It's not railroading, but, that other thing which I've never seen a good name for, when the characters still have choices, but the situation is created in such a way that the most likely choice is predictable.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> A player creates a character who is deathly afraid of snakes, so when the adventurers discover a lost tomb in the desert, the referee decides it's filled with asps and cobras. If the character was afraid of spiders, then it might be full of tarantulas instead.
> 
> Did I get that right, *pemerton*?



Yes, that's right. And when one of the PCs is a cleric of the Raven Queen then the cultists will be Orcus, not Zehir. And one of the PCs is described as an orphan, then the prisoner/slave will in fact be his long lost mother.  Etc etc.



Hussar said:


> Pem - would it be fair to say that the more the DM changes the setting in accordance with the characters being played, the further that campaign strays from being a sandbox?



That's my view, because under these circumstances there is less and less _exploration_.



the Jester said:


> The snakes vs. spiders example is a pretty perfect illustration of a non-sandbox playstyle approach imho (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that!).



I agree. That's why I wouldn't normally describe my game as a sandbox.



pawsplay said:


> I suppose it's possible someone is responsive, but does so randomly and not toward any distinct end. But I think I feel pretty comfortable saying that responsiveness has a tendency to decrease sandboxiness and increase linearlity.



I agree that it is not a sandbox. It doesn't increase linearity (as characterised earlier in this thread, along the lines of "predetermined resolution") because there is no predetermined resolution. Will the PC flee from the snakes or face up to his fear? Will the cleric of the Raven Queen fight the cult, or join them? Will the orphan rescue his mother, or sacrifice her in the course of defeating the cult? No one knows until we actually play the game!


----------



## Nagol (Dec 21, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Yes, that's right. And when one of the PCs is a cleric of the Raven Queen then the cultists will be Orcus, not Zehir. And one of the PCs is described as an orphan, then the prisoner/slave will in fact be his long lost mother.  Etc etc.
> 
> That's my view, because under these circumstances there is less and less _exploration_.
> 
> ...




One final clarification if I may ask:  Let's suppose the test is snakes and the prisoner is the mom of the orphan.  The PC flees the scene and never penetrates to find anythng past that first room.  Does the prisoner stop being the mom or do the consequences play out for the unrescued prisoner?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 21, 2010)

Nagol, it might depend a bit on other stuff - for example, if the PC has rumours that his mum is imprisoned in the desert temple of Orcus, then that has to be accounted for somehow (which might include it turning out to be a false rumour).

But basically the answer is the first, not the second - ie consequences don't play out for the unrescued prisoner unless there is some compelling reason to do that - for example, it might be interesting to confront that PC with the price of his cowardice.

This is why I say my approach has some resemblance to No Myth. Unlike pure No Myth I do prep in advance, in part because I find it hard to come up with anything too intricate on the fly (and my players like intricate) and in part because 4e's action resolution likes prep. But the basic idea of No Myth - that the world has no reality outside what has actually been revealed in play - is the approach that I adopt. So while I may have my backstory all nicely written up, I will happily change it during the course of play if doing so (i) won't disturb anything that has been revealed in play and (ii) will make the game interesting along the sort of line I'm describing.

Again, I think that this is not really a sandbox approach to play, because it is not about exploration. But like I've been reiterating, it is not linear in the sense of a pre-determined outcome, because there is no pre-determined outcome. 

Again to reiterate, I don't play with quite the same hardcore spirit that Paul Czege describes in the quote I posted upthread, but I do play in something like that way - the situations are tailored by me to engage the players, and I keep that engagement in mind as they unfold, but the resolution isn't known until the players and I jointly find out where we end up - which partially depends on our choices during play and partially on the whims of the dice used for action resolution.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 21, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I agree that it is not a sandbox. It doesn't increase linearity (as characterised earlier in this thread, along the lines of "predetermined resolution") because there is no predetermined resolution. Will the PC flee from the snakes or face up to his fear? Will the cleric of the Raven Queen fight the cult, or join them? Will the orphan rescue his mother, or sacrifice her in the course of defeating the cult? No one knows until we actually play the game!




There certainly is increased linearality. If I know a PC is afraid of snakes, and I include snakes, I've decided we will definitely be addressing that theme. That is obviously a non-random situation that has nothing to do with an imaginary world and everthing with my preference for a particular story element. The advantage of such an approach is that it is focused. The disadvantage is that it is distinctly biased, which means playing to GM and player preferences and away from the unknown. The fact that I create space for the unkown ("Will the PC flee?..." etc etc) does not negate the fact that I have the PC on a linear path toward an encounter of my preference, with a range of possible outcomes that is substantially more predictable than an encounter with less tailored content.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 21, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> There certainly is increased linearality. If I know a PC is afraid of snakes, and I include snakes, I've decided we will definitely be addressing that theme. That is obviously a non-random situation that has nothing to do with an imaginary world and everthing with my preference for a particular story element. The advantage of such an approach is that it is focused. The disadvantage is that it is distinctly biased, which means playing to GM and player preferences and away from the unknown. The fact that I create space for the unkown ("Will the PC flee?..." etc etc) does not negate the fact that I have the PC on a linear path toward an encounter of my preference, with a range of possible outcomes that is substantially more predictable than an encounter with less tailored content.




I don't see it linear in the sense of situation A will lead to B which will be resolved in situation C.

What is happening is the 'solution space' of possible situations is being normalised against the player preferences.  

When running CHAMPIONS superheroic campaigns, such normalisation is effectively codified in the rules.  The players and GM negotiate how frequently a power limitation (cost reducer) and character disadvantage (extra points for character design) will appear in game.

If a character takes "afraid of snakes, irrational action, common" then snakes will appear in up to 1/2 of the situations that character finds himself.  The character may still run into spiders instead, but it is likely more rare because of the bias on snakes for situations.

What changes it from a sandbox in my mind is the NoMyth fluidity of the universe once a element has been placed.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 22, 2010)

Just addding to what Nagol said:



pawsplay said:


> There certainly is increased linearality. If I know a PC is afraid of snakes, and I include snakes, I've decided we will definitely be addressing that theme.



No - the player decided we'd be addressing that them when s/he introduced a PC afraid of snakes.



pawsplay said:


> That is obviously a non-random situation that has nothing to do with an imaginary world and everthing with my preference for a particular story element.



Non-random? Yes. My preference? No, it's the player's preference.



pawsplay said:


> The disadvantage is that it is distinctly biased, which means playing to GM and player preferences and away from the unknown.



I don't see how playing to the preferences of those at the table is a disadvantage. It's the whole point of the way that I like to play an RPG.



pawsplay said:


> The fact that I create space for the unkown ("Will the PC flee?..." etc etc) does not negate the fact that I have the PC on a linear path toward an encounter of my preference



I didn't put the PC on that path - the player did.



pawsplay said:


> a range of possible outcomes that is substantially more predictable than an encounter with less tailored content.



Well, that really is up for grabs, in my view. In my experience the outcomes are less predictable when the situations put at stake conflicting values/concerns/themes with which the players are strongly engaged. The elements that make up those outcomes are predictable, of course - the PCs, the snakes, the Orcus cultists etc. But the way it resolves is up for grabs. Again, I refer to the Paul Czege quote posted upthread for elaboration of this point.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 22, 2010)

pemerton said:


> No - the player decided we'd be addressing that them when s/he introduced a PC afraid of snakes.




Not necessarily.  That is only true for certain expectations about the game world, namely, that we are playing a narrative game where the DM will throw bangs at the players to heighten tension.   For most players, on selecting a phobia of snakes, there is definately not the realization or belief that in doing so they are committing to addressing a theme at all.  So we really can't say from the fact that there is a phobia on the character sheet what the player's preference was when they selected it.

The player deciding to play a character that is afraid of snakes may have reasoned any of the following:

1) I would like to have benefit X.  Taking a phobia of snakes would let my character have benefit X and doesn't sound too crippling, because in my past experience snakes aren't a very common opponent and so the disadvantage might come up only a few times over the entire course of the campaign.  If I know that this going to be a campaign against a snake cult, I'd chose something else.
2) A phobia of snakes makes my otherwise well-rounded character seem less like a perfect Mary Jane, and makes my character more interesting and believable even if it doesn't play an actual important role in the story.   My expectation is that it in fact will serve only as a sort of local color and not interfere with or be important to the main story arc (much like for example Indiana Jones fear of snakes).
3) I will take a phobia of snakes because I think it might be fun to play out every so often when I find a snake and it will help make my character memorable, but my expectation is that the DM will not use his knowledge of my phobia of snakes against me but instead only place snakes at such times that he would place snakes even if I didn't have a phobia.
4) I'm taking a phobia of snakes in the expectation that my players fear of them will be an important part of the upcoming narrative.  Indeed my expectation is that my fear of snakes will play a critical role in not just my character development, but the development of the narrative as well.

In the case of players #1-#3, if you place snakes in responce to the fact that they have taken a phobia of them, they will yell "Railroad" and IMO they will have every right to do so unless you made it clear to them ahead of time that the sort of game you would be running was not the one that they were imagining.  (Player #1 is imagining a 'Gamist' game.   Player #2 is imagining probably something like a High Drama adventure path.   Player #3 is probably imagining some sort of exploratory sandbox.)



> I don't see how playing to the preferences of those at the table is a disadvantage. *It's the whole point of the way that I like to play an RPG.*




Are you sure we are talking about player preference and not your preference?


----------



## steenan (Dec 23, 2010)

I cannot give an XP to *pemerton* at the moment, but I wholeheartedly agree with his line of reasoning here. I approach RPG in very similar way and play with people who do the same.

I like putting my players in intense situations, strongly resonating with their PCs, and then letting them address the situations as they prefer. I want them to make dramatic choices and for that, we need a conflict. Making them choose is my job; deciding which choice is right is theirs.

I see no sense in putting things in game that are not to be addressed. If I describe an NPC of a piece of the setting, I'm expecting my players to interact with it. I won't force them to, but I definitely won't stop them. The same works the other way. When my players put something in their characters' backgrounds, they expect me to address it. 

I will challenge PC's honor, push him, make him choose between keeping his word and gaining something he wants. I will make him face his fear and either defeat it or succumb. I will introduce an NPC for the cold hearted mercenary to care for. I will ask questions for the players to answer. Only when faced with choice, they can show who they characters really are and how they change.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 23, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Are you sure we are talking about player preference and not your preference?



As far as what the character puts on the character sheet, then it's reasonable to say that it is player preference.

As far as the idea of character-sheet-as-wish-list, it's pretty clearly the preference of both the player and *pemerton*, or the player wouldn't be there.

(Excluding the possibility that *pemerton* exerts some sort of Svengali-like power over gamers, of course. But just as a precaution, don't look *pemerton* in the eyes.)







steenan said:


> I see no sense in putting things in game that are not to be addressed. If I describe an NPC of a piece of the setting, I'm expecting my players to interact with it. I won't force them to, but I definitely won't stop them.



I don't put anything in the games I run that is not to be addressed.

I also don't make the decision on exactly when or how a lot of it will be addressed, though, so I create a lot of material that may or may not come into play on any given night. It's there, waiting for the players to seek it out or stochasticity to bring it to them.







steenan said:


> When my players put something in their characters' backgrounds, they expect me to address it.



I want to encounter a lot more in the game that what is on my character sheet. I want to face situations for which my character sheet would give no clue.

And my character sheet is just who 'my guy' is at the moment; it's not who he'll be in a few weeks, or a few months, or (the gaming gawds willing) a few years. My stats and abilities and my sketchy little background won't tell you everything I want from roleplaying game, and what I want will change over time. If you're relying on my character sheet, you're not doing enough to make an interesting game.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 23, 2010)

pemerton said:


> No - the player decided we'd be addressing that them when s/he introduced a PC afraid of snakes.




I said "definitely." As in, it will happen, in this context. The player, by making the character, made an invitation to address that theme, but we are talking about the appearance of snakes in a particular scene, something the player generally has zero, no, not any control over.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 26, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Not necessarily.  That is only true for certain expectations about the game world, namely, that we are playing a narrative game where the DM will throw bangs at the players to heighten tension.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Are you sure we are talking about player preference and not your preference?



You seem to be implying that I may be mistaken about the gaming preferences of a group of players I've been GMing for years (in some cases, over 10 years). I guess it's possible that they just put up with it and are polite about it, but my best guess is that we're more-or-less on the same page as to what makes for a fun game.

Alternatively, there is The Shaman's hypothesis - I have Svengali-like powers!


----------



## pemerton (Dec 26, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I want to encounter a lot more in the game that what is on my character sheet. I want to face situations for which my character sheet would give no clue.
> 
> And my character sheet is just who 'my guy' is at the moment; it's not who he'll be in a few weeks, or a few months, or (the gaming gawds willing) a few years. My stats and abilities and my sketchy little background won't tell you everything I want from roleplaying game, and what I want will change over time. If you're relying on my character sheet, you're not doing enough to make an interesting game.



I like this.

Of course it raises the question - what's a character sheet?

In a game like Rolemaster, with very rich and dynamic character building mechanics, the character sheet can become almost a total picture of the PC (I once GMed a player whose PC was obsessed by Orcish legends, developed ranks in Orc Lay & Legend skill, and used Orcish Tarot cards for his Divination skill - it wasn't hard to guess what he wanted more of in the game!).

In 4e D&D the character sheet is a bit less rich on the mechanical side. In the posts upthread I've tried to refer to the conjunction of PC background and previous play. I think building on previous play is very important for running an engaging game. I think we agree on that also, given your posts on how you build encounters and NPCs into the game. Of course the building here can be guided by narrative logic, ingame causal logic, or the "coincidence" logic of the random encounter tables you've described (which I also like, I should add).


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Alternatively, there is The Shaman's hypothesis - I have Svengali-like powers!



Just so you know, I've taken to reading your posts with a pair of mirrors.

Just sayin'. 


pemerton said:


> Of course it raises the question - what's a character sheet?



I think my read is that it is a resource inventory rather than a wish list: "This is what my character can utilize in the course of play."







pemerton said:


> I think building on previous play is very important for running an engaging game. I think we agree on that also, given your posts on how you build encounters and NPCs into the game.



Yup, most definitely.







pemerton said:


> Of course the building here can be guided by narrative logic, ingame causal logic, or the "coincidence" logic of the random encounter tables you've described (which I also like, I should add).



I tend toward the later two, and thank you.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 28, 2010)

pemerton said:


> You seem to be implying that I may be mistaken about the gaming preferences of a group of players I've been GMing for years (in some cases, over 10 years).




Not at all.  I did not suggest or imply anything of the sort.

I suggested that you had excellent congruence between your desires and those of your players, and I implied that those desires had probably shaped each other.

What I was suggesting that the experience of gaming a group of players for over 10 years in no way prepares you for the range of player expectations that exist.  What I was suggesting is that you were infering from you particular experiences gaming a particular group general assertions about roleplaying as a whole that while they may hold true for your particular group, don't in fact hold true for all of roleplaying.

I certainly agree that for your players when they introduce a character with a fear of snakes, they probably expect you to have them face snakes.  It doesn't however follow that this is true of players generally.   In fact, I'd say that of the dozen or so groups I've played with, that your particular set of techniques is likely (though not certainly) fairly rare.  Some games of course specifically encourage it, but even those games are I think fairly rare in the ecology of RPGs.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 28, 2010)

Celebrim, it's probably not very useful to go back and try and re-parse the whole discussion to work out the degree of implied generality in various posts.

What I was trying to assert, however, is that there is a style of play which is not a paradigmatic sandbox, because it is responsive rather than exploratory - hence the snakes example, introduced by The Shaman and taken on board by me - but which is not linear/railroady/predetermined. My comments about player preferences were in response to Pawsplay suggesting this in fact a linear play because the GM's preferences are determining the course of play - my reply was that (i) the preferences in question are player preferences (ie the preferences of my particular players) and (ii) the GM only sets up the situations, but the players resolve them (via their PCs and the action resolution rules).

I don't know how many people prefer this way of playing. Not so many ENworlders is my impression, but I don't have any reason to think high volume ENworld posters are terribly representative of RPGers in general.

On the one hand, I suspect that (quasi-)No Myth with a reasonably high degree of player input might be more common with a lot of more casual gamers than with ENworlders if only because it tends to be light on prep and makes the rewards of play very obvious very quickly. On the other hand, not many published mainstream or traditional RPG texts support this type of play, so maybe it (or approximations to it) aren't very common. Like I said, ultimately I'm not in a position to know.


----------



## Janx (Dec 28, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> I think my read is that it is a resource inventory rather than a wish list: "This is what my character can utilize in the course of play."Yup, most definitely.I tend toward the later two, and thank you.




well, it's been my experience that it's a bit of both.

Per other advice I've long ago read, an adventure should have some skill challenges (not just all combat).  The idea being, that some of those challenges be of skills the players have.

Barring a dungeon exploration or optional side trek, it would be wise to make those skill challenges based on what the PCs can do, if you have any hope of there being at least one path to succeed.

If you had a party of all rogues, and you were writing adventures (and not sandbox material), you'd also be very likely to write material to support what rogues would likely want to do (theives guild stuff, city stuff, opportunities to rob and sneak).

If you had  a party of all wizards, you'd probably write adventures set around the wizarding world (and probably skip generic dungeon crawls).

Players who create oprhan PCs with no fears are the negative reaction to this kind of DMing.  They build PCs on which the DM can get no leverage.  I've got one friend who goes as far as making monk Forsaker vow of poverty PCs just so he has no equipment to lose either.

As a GM, if your sheet doesn't say your afraid of snakes, I may never think to put snakes in the game.  If your sheet doesn't say you can swim, I may never think to put water that needs swimming across in the way.

There is some level where the char sheet does inform the GM of what kind of challenges to put in the game.  At least in a game where the GM is looking at his characters, bot their stats and character and using that to build the next adventure.

I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 28, 2010)

pemerton said:


> What I was trying to assert, however, is that there is a style of play which is not a paradigmatic sandbox, because it is responsive rather than exploratory...




I know your general stake in the discussion.  I've been trying to pin down exactly what mix of exploratory and responsive elements you are using to see if I could say from this remote distance whether you were primarily responsive in nature or primarily exploratory.  However, I conceed that there are campaigns - of which yours may be an example - which are marked primarily by a narrative which is controlled to some extent by the declared narrative goals of the players.  I don't however conceed that that doesn't make them generally classifiable along the axis of - Adventure Path/Sandbox (or linear/non-linear).  

I agree that such campaigns lie somewhat outside the paradigm Adventure Path or Sandbox, because in classic RPG play the players aren't given a high degree of narrative control.  That is to say generally speaking, a player doesn't have the power to shape the setting on the metagame level.   If the player wants to shape the setting, they must do so within the game through character actions with the assumption that prior to the character impacting the setting through some choice that all details of the setting had been controlled by the DM.  Sitting down with the character and saying, "Ok, you want to play a barbarian who opposes a snake cult who has murdered your family, so I'll place a snake cult in the campaign."  is outside the usual paradigm.   

But, while it is unusual, it doesn't change the linearity of the campaign to do that.  It simply means that depending on the implementation, you have an adventure path where the players set the goals or a sandbox where the players populated the setting.  (Or of course, you might have some complex mixture of the two since midway on the linearity axis is still a point on the axis.)

Who set the preferences of play doesn't really matter IMO.  

Likewise, "the GM only sets up the situations but the players resolve them" is so generic of a comment that we can't distinguish a railroad from a rowboat using that test alone. 

I'm not convinced you are doing predominately linear play, but the technique of changing the scenario on the fly (regardless of the reason) is a linear technique.



> I don't know how many people prefer this way of playing. Not so many ENworlders is my impression, but I don't have any reason to think high volume ENworld posters are terribly representative of RPGers in general.
> 
> On the one hand, I suspect that (quasi-)No Myth with a reasonably high degree of player input might be more common with a lot of more casual gamers than with ENworlders if only because it tends to be light on prep and makes the rewards of play very obvious very quickly. On the other hand, not many published mainstream or traditional RPG texts support this type of play, so maybe it (or approximations to it) aren't very common. Like I said, ultimately I'm not in a position to know.




In GNS theory, what you described is generally called 'Narrative' play or 'nar-play'.  It is in my experience rather rare.  In my experience, it's quite the opposite of casual gaming.  Casual gamers are unlikely to hit upon it, and its more likely a sign of very mature roleplaying groups with alot of experience (like 10 years or more).


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 28, 2010)

Janx said:


> Per other advice I've long ago read, an adventure should have some skill challenges (not just all combat).  The idea being, that some of those challenges be of skills the players have.
> 
> Barring a dungeon exploration or optional side trek, it would be wise to make those skill challenges based on what the PCs can do, if you have any hope of there being at least one path to succeed.
> 
> ...



But as you note, in _status quo_ settings, the challenges are what the challenges are, and it's up to the _players_ to make up for areas where the adventurers lack necessary resources to deal with those challenges - they are in no way tailored to the adventurers' abilities, skills, or equipment.







Janx said:


> Players who create oprhan PCs with no fears are the negative reaction to this kind of DMing.  They build PCs on which the DM can get no leverage.



I'm not sure how you get from "adventurers lack necessary skills" to "adventurers without significant backstory."







Janx said:


> I've got one friend who goes as far as making monk Forsaker vow of poverty PCs just so he has no equipment to lose either.






Janx said:


> As a GM, if your sheet doesn't say your afraid of snakes, I may never think to put snakes in the game.  If your sheet doesn't say you can swim, I may never think to put water that needs swimming across in the way.



Seriously? Castles don't have moats if the characters can't swim? Dungeons don't have spiders unless characters are afraid of them?







Janx said:


> There is some level where the char sheet does inform the GM of what kind of challenges to put in the game.  At least in a game where the GM is looking at his characters, bot their stats and character and using that to build the next adventure.
> 
> I don't have a problem with that.



Okay.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 28, 2010)

I checked out "No Myth" at the Web page No Myth Roleplaying Summary. As usual with Forge talk, I think we can substitute orders of magnitude fewer words:

"Make it up as you go along."

Yes, there is a whole raft of assumptions unstated even on that Web page -- and, I'll bet, at the Forge generally.

For instance, "nothing you haven't said to the group exists" makes a campaign in the old sense practically impossible if the world that Jack and Dianne have been playing in "disappears" for Lucy and Desi until they get the lowdown on each particular part. The Monolithic Party of players is pretty well taken for granted.

"The [non-GM] players are the protagonists of the story" of course presumes the existence of "the story" in the first place. Without it, we need no more than the trivially conventional "the players are playing the game."

In this case, "the story" boils down to "genre definition". I think it unlikely that many folks -- even those enamored of very literary conceits -- would really want an RPG unconstrained by the rules of a genre to _some_ degree. I see that problems have arisen in D&D because of decisions to market the game to people hostile to the genre rules that informed its framework.

That framework or set of initial premises has very little weight on it relative to the burden that genre bears here. In "No Myth", clichés (no surprise that RISUS was basically designed to run this way) effectively _are_ the world unless/until someone stipulates otherwise.

It's basically what I do in my totally off the cuff D&D sessions -- except that I draw as well on a body of established facts that particular players may or may not know, and that I let the dice fall as they may rather than give PCs any more "protagonist bennies" than the game rules do.

(I don't run such sessions often, because they tend to get pretty bizarre. The "D&D genre" as I have known it encompasses all sorts of trippy stuff. That was especially true in my 1978-87 game, but it's still an "occupational hazard".)



			
				Web page op.cit. said:
			
		

> *The GM should handle all PC actions by agreeing that they succeed, or working out a conflict with the PC that they can roll dice for.* This is the standard never-say-no rule, but it's good to keep in mind.



 Standard at the Forge? This obviously does not apply to the vast majority of RPGs, in which things can (as in most worlds of fiction as well as in the real one) be either literally impossible or so ludicrously improbable that rolling for them at every opportunity would be a drag. "I run across the Grand Canyon on thin air." "With what magic?" "None, but we have to 'work out a conflict to roll dice for' anyway." "No dice, pal! If you step over that precipice, expect to fall."

There are in "No Myth" (at least per that Web page) also other aspects of a shift in emphasis away from the _exploratory game_ and toward _improvisational story telling_.

I suspect that the precipitous decline of strategy games such as the Avalon Hill classics, along with the rise of action-adventure hybrids with very strong story lines in video games (which are much more widespread), has contributed to a shift in assumptions and expectations in the RPG-playing demographic.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 28, 2010)

It cracks me up that the "No Myth Related Links" on that page include guides to plotting stories such as Lester Dent's formula for Doc Savage potboilers.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 28, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I checked out "No Myth" at the Web page No Myth Roleplaying Summary. As usual with Forge talk, I think we can substitute orders of magnitude fewer words:
> 
> "Make it up as you go along."




Yes.   We seem to have similar views on Forge talk.

And from the definition by example of 'Railroading' I provided in another thread, any campaign where you 'make it up as you go along' is linear and often a railroad.

Fortunately, I don't even much have to argue that if you accept 'No Myth' as the basis of or equivalent to how you run a game because, 'No Myth' is upfront about it:



> If the PCs are trying to find a secret door, and the adventure can't proceed until they do, then failure is not interesting; this shouldn't be rolled for. If the story calls for the PCs to be made prisoners so they'll fight in the arena, then success in resisting the guards sent to capture them isn't interesting; this shouldn't be rolled for either.




That's railroading, in this case, by The Hand Wave.  In fact, the discussion of technique is almost entirely a discussion of generously using The Hand Wave to railroad the game, and contains a lot of - to me at least - hilarious ironies, incongruities, and contridictions most of which probably have to do with the fact that the author admits that this is all theory with no basis in practical experience.  (Let's start with "Nothing about the plot is sacred..." which gets followed by a long list of things which should be sacred and a discussion of techniques for insuring that they happen.) Meanwhile, the discussion defining the technique lays out basically 'Schrodinger's Map' or 'Schrodinger's Gun'.  

It's an article on artful railroading, written from the perspective of someone who seems to think that all players want from RPG rules is to help them be cool.  It's the 'validation and empowerment' school of RPG thought, never mind that most power gamers (for instance) would HATE this because they recognize how it cheapens their success.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 28, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Fortunately, I don't even much have to argue that if you accept 'No Myth' as the basis of or equivalent to how you run a game because, 'No Myth' is upfront about it:




That seems at first glance at odds with what I read at the Web page I cited. However, the assumption that there must be such a prior thing as "the adventure" or "the story" that requires certain outcomes seems to be very deeply ingrained in some quarters.

It's rather silly from the "grognard" perspective. That Stalingrad might or might not fall, might or might not even be a high priority when (e.g.) the Caucasus oil fields beckon, is very definitely interesting to us! It is, in fact, fundamental to the interest of a _game_. We play to explore worlds of "what if".

The very essentials thus are different. The traditional game involves setting up a situation, after which the players' moves -- along with whatever chance factors may be involved -- determine the course of events. That is how it goes in everything from Checkers to Chainmail.

That was the very commonplace and uncontroversial assumption in place when we started referring to "railroad" setups in FRP. The term is pejorative because the behavior so designated constituted no less than _cheating_ except in cases such as tournaments and other convention scenarios that were regarded as less than the full game.

The basic procedures of play, as laid out in the handbooks of the original D&D game and others, are distinctly different from those in which the limited scenario is considered to be a whole "campaign". One might note that the basic unit of play in OD&D, C&S, Traveller, RuneQuest, and so on is the _game week_. The individual *player* selects activities at that scale -- a dungeon foray, wilderness expedition, research, training, etc. -- and the GM's responsibility is to adjudicate results.

This newer kind of game is like a kibbitzer butting in to insist that one _must_ play the Lepanto Opening because "the story" calls for it!

Sure, and we've got to have mustard in a PBJ sandwich because the bologna demands it, eh?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 28, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> For instance, "nothing you haven't said to the group exists" makes a campaign in the old sense practically impossible if the world that Jack and Dianne have been playing in "disappears" for Lucy and Desi until they get the lowdown on each particular part. The Monolithic Party of players is pretty well taken for granted.



Agreed. But the sort of old-style campaign play you refer to is, as far as I can tell, an extreme minority of D&D play, and probably has been since the early-to-mid 1980s, at least as far as my evidence goes (eg Dragon magazine letters pages).



Ariosto said:


> This obviously does not apply to the vast majority of RPGs, in which things can (as in most worlds of fiction as well as in the real one) be either literally impossible or so ludicrously improbable that rolling for them at every opportunity would be a drag. "I run across the Grand Canyon on thin air." "With what magic?" "None, but we have to 'work out a conflict to roll dice for' anyway." "No dice, pal! If you step over that precipice, expect to fall."



The HeroQuest rulebook has an extensive discussion of this issue, and the role of _impossibility_ in scene-framing. The absence of a similar discussion in the 4e skill challenge rules is one of the weaknesses in the presentation of those rules in the 4e rulebooks.



Ariosto said:


> There are in "No Myth" (at least per that Web page) also other aspects of a shift in emphasis away from the _exploratory game_ and toward _improvisational story telling_.



Well, that's exactly the context in which I made reference to it - although I don't accept the full force of your intended contrast between _game_ and _story-telling_.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 28, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> any campaign where you 'make it up as you go along' is linear and often a railroad.



Someone upthread suggested "linear" means "pre-determined". As a general rule, making it up as you go along doesn't involve pre-determination, especially if many of the constraints on what can be added (eg because elements of the gameworld have already been stipulated) are introduced by the players in the course of play.



Celebrim said:


> That's railroading, in this case, by The Hand Wave.  In fact, the discussion of technique is almost entirely a discussion of generously using The Hand Wave to railroad the game
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Meanwhile, the discussion defining the technique lays out basically 'Schrodinger's Map' or 'Schrodinger's Gun'.



If, as the game progresses, the GM makes things up in response to the players' choices, so as to foreground elements and themes that the players bring into play and to background elements and themes which they don't, where is the railroad (as in, where is the vitiation of player choice?) Undoubtedly _exploratory_ choices (like in the secret door example) aren't being validated, but then we're not talking about exploratory play here, are we?



Celebrim said:


> It's the 'validation and empowerment' school of RPG thought, never mind that most power gamers (for instance) would HATE this because they recognize how it cheapens their success.



Well, many power gamers wouldn't be playing a game in which a big part of the point of play is to explore thematic content or to jointly develop a game that is compelling and engaging on account of that content. Heroquest, forexample, isn't really a power gamer's game.

That said, "power gaming" can cover a range of approaches to play. A vanilla narrativist game played using a crunchy system like Rolemater or 4e still gives players who enjoy mechanical optimisation plenty of places to do their stuff. The rewards for that aren't _winning_ in the "beat the module" sense, but include (i) the same sort of satisfaction as one gets from solitaire or a crossword (ie doing a technical passtime well) and (ii) a greater ability to have the PCs succeed at ingame challenges. This doesn't necessarily change the overall thematic orientation of the game, but does mean that (for example) fewer encounters begin with "So, having been captured by the bad guys . . ." or "So, having struggled to make your way across the desert, and arriving at the oasis utterly exhausted . . .". Your critique of the "hand wave" and "schrodinger's" approaches seems to disregard to some extent the role of action resolution mechanics in constraining the GM and shaping the content of stipulated elements of the gameworld.

4e Essentials is interesting in this respect. In the Essentials rulebooks a skill challenge gives XP whether or not the player's succeed - the consequences of failure are purely ingame disadvantages for the PCs. This sort of approach isn't necessarily going to please all power gamers, but it can please some.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 29, 2010)

> But the sort of old-style campaign play you refer to is, as far as I can tell, an extreme minority of D&D play, and probably has been since the early-to-mid 1980s, at least as far as my evidence goes (eg Dragon magazine letters pages).



I would say it was so from the _late_ 1980s, *if* TSR's product line going into and on to the Second Edition era was in fact aimed squarely at an extreme majority of D&D play.

At any rate, that stuff self-selected to be buying it those who either (A) happened to want what TSR was selling or (B) did not yet know D&D from a hole in the ground. The rest of us, whatever our proportion in the hobby of playing D&D, obviously did not figure much in the commercial aspect.

When the commercial aspect becomes definitive, it naturally _defines_.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 29, 2010)

Ariosto, I don't think it's only commercial practice that has led to the preponderance of non-old-style campaign play in contemporary RPGing.

Running an old-style campaign presupposes a GM with a lot of spare time and a large group of willing players who are more interested in the game as such than in the socialising among a group of friends that comes with playing the game.

It also assumes that the story dimension of play - always lurking in a game about players controlling characters who are potential vehicles for protagonism - won't come into the foreground as the main concern of play.

That the social dynamics and aesthetic dynamics tend to head in a different direction from old-style play therefore isn't that surprising, in my view, even putting commercial concerns to one side.


----------



## Janx (Dec 29, 2010)

I have no idea how to use mult-quote.  Manually quoting sux...


The Shaman said:


> But as you note, in _status quo_ settings, the challenges are what the challenges are, and it's up to the _players_ to make up for areas where the adventurers lack necessary resources to deal with those challenges - they are in no way tailored to the adventurers' abilities, skills, or equipment.




Well, I don't put in every encounter just because the PC can handle it (more like I have to go out of my way to include an encounter that could utilize a PC's skill).  I should think an adventure contains a variety of encounters, some that are blatant "dude you have a skill for this", and some that are "I wonder how they'll solve it."



The Shaman said:


> I'm not sure how you get from "adventurers lack necessary skills" to "adventurers without significant backstory."




Backstory is page N of the character sheet.  The skills, class, equipment are all things the player wants to do or avoid getting hosed by (hence the 10' pole).  the backstory is often elements the PC hopes you'll use as a hook (yay! I get to pursue an adventure that focusses on ME).  Personal traits are potentially exploitable vulnerabilities for the GM to make a situation challenging in a roleplaying (as in personality) kind of way.

What I've seen is players who try to counter the DM leveragiing any personal weakness by creating a PC with no "holes" to exploit.  Not in my games, but my old GM.



The Shaman said:


> Seriously? Castles don't have moats if the characters can't swim? Dungeons don't have spiders unless characters are afraid of them?Okay.




Not literally like that.  At some point, the party will come across a river they need to get across, a castle with a moat just through inherent obviousness.  But I may never think to mention, "oh by the way, there's a ton of spider webs covering that rare painting you want to grab."   Shrodinger's Fear to paraphrase Celebrim.

If you don't mention having a fear, I won't think to have that element, thus it may only occur as a coincidence.  Consider the Indiana Jones scene.  The snakes are present BECAUSE he is afraid of them.  Not because the bad guy put them there.  But because the challenge would play against his fear.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 29, 2010)

Janx said:


> <snip>
> 
> What I've seen is players who try to counter the DM leveragiing any personal weakness by creating a PC with no "holes" to exploit.  Not in my games, but my old GM.




I have a habit of that -- more in my case because I don't want to be the centre of attention.  I get enough of that at work and as the primary GM.  As a player, I like to kick back and work quietly in the group.



> If you don't mention having a fear, I won't think to have that element, thus it may only occur as a coincidence.  Consider the Indiana Jones scene.  The snakes are present BECAUSE he is afraid of them.  Not because the bad guy put them there.  But because the challenge would play against his fear.




Actually, if you look at the movie franchise as oppposed to just the first movie, the snakes are there because there are snakes.  As passive obstacles, he faces snakes in the first, bugs in the second, and rats in the third.  He's only afraid of snakes so he breezes through the other two scenes.


----------



## Krensky (Dec 29, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Actually, if you look at the movie franchise as oppposed to just the first movie, the snakes are there because there are snakes.  As passive obstacles, he faces snakes in the first, bugs in the second, and rats in the third.  He's only afraid of snakes so he breezes through the other two scenes.




The only reason the snake is present at the campfire scene in Temple is because he's afraid of snakes, and the same with the snake exhibit in Last Crusade.

To get back on target, to a large degree the character sheet is a 'wishlist'. Horrible term but it'll have to do.

You take character options to build a combat monster who isn't all that hot at social interaction. This says to me "I want to rock the combat mini-game, 
but i don't care if I fumble my way through talking with the barmaid or the local baron". Similarly if you put down: afraid of snakes, you will encounter snakes. I won't go out of my way to contrive encounters or scenes with them, but when presented with a choice between snakes and spiders with all other things being equal, I'll be more likely to pick snakes. If you don't like it, fine, your character doesn't have to have fears or whatever.

This is doubly so in games where you get extra build points (or whatever). If you take Arachnophobia as a drawback, it's my duty to make sure you encounter spider semi regularly. Why? Because otherwise it's just free points. A drawback that doesn't come up isn't a drawback. If you don't like it, don't take any drawbacks.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 29, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Someone upthread suggested "linear" means "pre-determined". As a general rule, making it up as you go along doesn't involve pre-determination, especially if many of the constraints on what can be added (eg because elements of the gameworld have already been stipulated) are introduced by the players in the course of play...
> 
> If, as the game progresses, the GM makes things up in response to the players' choices, so as to foreground elements and themes that the players bring into play and to background elements and themes which they don't, where is the railroad (as in, where is the vitiation of player choice?) Undoubtedly _exploratory_ choices (like in the secret door example) aren't being validated, but then we're not talking about exploratory play here, are we?




It took me a very long time to realize that "making it up as you go along" has multiple meanings.  Granted, not as many meanings as "story" to roleplayers, but enough differences to cause confusion in this kind of discussion.

For example, what it means to me is usually not some form of, "pull X out of my subconscious as a quasi-reaction to player A having his character do Z."  It seems that is what some people mean, though.  Nor does it mean, "treat the player A choosing Z as a choice of what he wants explored, so I'll react with Y, which seems thematically appropriate."  No, what it usually means for me is, "I don't have something definitively prepped for player A doing Z, but I do have very clear ideas of how this world works and what the relevant NPCs think and plan.  So in that context, I'll have them do K--*which is what I probably would have chosen had I thought to prep this material absent any player input*."  

It is a somewhat "simulation" technique, and obviously different from what most people mean as, "making it up as you go along," which on the surface would normally seem to be the ultimate "anti-sim" technique.  Yet, this is so important to me, that I think of it as a tool for "setting integrity," and the players in the game can rarely tell whether I'm working off of prewritten notes, ad hoc decisions, or a mixture.  

When discussing, "making it up as you go along," the antecedent of "it" should be precise. 

Related, per the Champions disadvantage example, I'll note that we sometimes ran rather traditional (gaming style) Fantasy Hero games where the disadvantages were deliberately somewhat vague.  Instead of every character being Hunted by someone they had ticked off prior to play, we gave every character a 20 point generic hunted on the not unreasonable expectation (based on the nature of the players) that they would be ticking off someone on a regular basis.  Note that this is not a change of characterization or players having narrative control, but a way to manage a game where most of the interesting things happen in play.

So here we have an explicit flag on the character sheet, negotiated as part of the explicit contract before the game starts, that we will, "make up some antagonists as we go along."


----------



## Janx (Dec 29, 2010)

good golly, this thread goes on for centuries.

The OT was basically implying that if you don't railroad, nothing gets done.  I call BS.

I'm certain that stuff can get done in a sandbox, and in a "quest" focussed game.  I really hate all these extra terms floating around.

I write my adventures with an assumption that the party will pursue the goal I wrote my material for.  To Find the Murderer, for example.  Not a sandbox.  I take a chance on knowing the party will pursue the goal I wrote for, but in reality, I chose the goal based on what I think the player's/PC's goals are.  

It's worked out thus far.

The OT implied that a session in which the party didn't accomplish anything, was a waste of time, a bad session.  I think that can happen in my style, and in a sandbox style.  All that has to happen is for the party to refuse to pursue any activity of significance.  Sitting in the bar all night, shopping for clothes, etc.  Game style doesn't prevent time wasting by players...

Talk about _Status Quo_ or _No Myth_ or _Making It Up_ are just parameters to how a GM runs his game, not as to whether players dick around and get nothing done, to the detriment of their own goals.

I don't like the term _Status Quo_, as it implies a game world that is unchanging and not PC oriented.  I suspect what it really means, a sandbox DM makes a game space with lots of stuff to do, without expectation of the PCs he'll be having.  Then the PCs show up and he makes the world react to them.  

If the world does not react to the PCs, I'd say that's a lousy game style, as I can get that in Oblivion on my Xbox.

The _No Myth_ style, that seems like you'd have to be prepared to make up everything on the fly, and as Celebrim has discussed had tendencies to suffer from Shrodinger's Product Line due to the nature of having a human GM.  The gist is, the party gets what they look for, because the GM has so much he has to create, that ideas handed to him save him work, thus he bites them.

The whole _Making It Up_ thing is funny, because we're talking about a game where everything in it is made up. 

The GM is making up stuff before the game, some of it stays in his head, some of it gets written down.  Then the game starts.

The PCs decide to go to an undocumented place (say a hat store).  The GM now has to invent a hat shop, on the fly.

The PCs decide to go see the mayor, an NPC he has stats for, but wasn't expected to be involved in the game (because nothing presently going on is related to the mayor).  Now the GM has to make up dialog, and potential reactions to what the PCs do.

Even the most documented game world has stuff the GM is making up, if not physical entities, their reactions, the causal outcomes of player actions, the present location relative to the players (are they at the bar the PCs go to when looking for them?).

Making it up is just not definitive enough in a game where the GM is making all of it up.  The difference is whether there's a foundation of planned data the GM is working from, or is the whole thing spontaneously generated and decided.


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 29, 2010)

DMing is also a type of illusionism.
If you run a railroad adventure, but give to the players the illusion of choice, that it's a sandbox and they can do whatever they want, and they buy it, than you're golden.

The best DM I played with were also good liers.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 29, 2010)

ainatan said:


> DMing is also a type of illusionism.
> If you run a railroad adventure, but give to the players the illusion of choice, that it's a sandbox and they can do whatever they want, and they buy it, than you're golden.
> 
> The best DM I played with were also good liers.




All the players that have enjoyed my games?  If you tried this with them, they'd have you hanging upside down from the ceiling, faster than BA's cat could maul Dave after he tried to run a game for the Knights of the Dinner Table.

Because, as you said, *if they buy it*.  And as with a lot of such techniques, it works just fine right up until the moment that it doesn't.  Then it fails completely.  The problems with illusionism are analogous to an incident I read about several years ago involving a fatal bungie jumping incident.  The local police officer was asked if the victim being drunk as a skunk, using bad knots, and using a too-stiff rope contributed to the accident.  He allowed as how those didn't help much, but the real problem was bungie jumping off a 40' bridge with a 50' rope.

You can get away with illusionism for a long time, if you stay sober, tie good knots, and use appropriate ropes.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 29, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Someone upthread suggested "linear" means "pre-determined". As a general rule, making it up as you go along doesn't involve pre-determination,




Probably depends on how "pre" the pre-determined needs to be. I can make up scenes on the fly, and still have each scene only have one path leading out of it.

But I would tend to agree that for "linear" to have any meaning in terms of scenario design, it has to refer to a planned structure. If you attempt to assign it after the fact it becomes meaningless, because _all_ games follow a single sequence of events.

I guess I'm drawing a distinction between "just in time prep" and true "no myth" play. With "just in time prep" you say, "They're heading to the Old Sawmill. I'll put 12 orcs there and they can find a clue implicating Lord Turshill." (You could use "just in time prep" to create non-linear structures, of course.)

With "no myth" play you say, "You arrive at the Old Sawmill." There may be orcs; there may be a clue. We'll find out together. Such a form is inherently non-linear because there's an essentially infinite number of ways for the PCs to exit a given scene/sequence.



ainatan said:


> DMing is also a type of illusionism.
> If you run a railroad adventure, but give to the players the illusion of  choice, that it's a sandbox and they can do whatever they want, and  they buy it, than you're golden.




Whether players know it or not, this still has a huge impact on the game.

IME, it tends to make the game significantly less awesome, insofar as it removes the entire point of playing a roleplaying game (as opposed to writing a short story).


----------



## HeinorNY (Dec 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> IME, it tends to make the game significantly less awesome, insofar as it removes the entire point of playing a roleplaying game (as opposed to writing a short story).




Not if the players believe and trust the DM.


----------



## Janx (Dec 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> I guess I'm drawing a distinction between "just in time prep" and true "no myth" play. With "just in time prep" you say, "They're heading to the Old Sawmill. I'll put 12 orcs there and they can find a clue implicating Lord Turshill." (You could use "just in time prep" to create non-linear structures, of course.)




I like your term "just in time prep" (JITP) to describe the "making it up" that happens in game.

In your example, JITP is defining new game content (a new location, new monsters, and a new clue).

Celebrim's reference to Shrodinger's Trap (or any of his products), refers to JITP activity that creates an entity because the player mentioned it (probably by looking for it).  Particularly such that the GM would have forgot to consider if the entity could even be present.

JITP work to create game content to cover a space that was unforseen to be needed, is different than projecting reactions, new activities, and whereabouts of NPCs.  Its still subject to Shrodinger, in that if the PCs say "let's check the bar to see if Bob's been there", then the GM may think to put Bob there, so he can move the action along.

I'd like clarification on this "Linear" term.

The PCs go to the saw mill.  They find 12 orcs, kill them, and find a clue leading to the Lord. How is this linear (pre-initiative?)

Is it linear because it was written in the adventure notes?
Is it linear if the PCs spontaneously decided to check the mill and I JITP the encounter?
Is it linear because I left a clue to entice the PCs to move towards my expected "final" encounter with the BBEG?
Is it linear because there is a probable outcome (orcs defeated, clue found, PCs follow the clue?
Is it linear because I shuffled some stuff around to entice them toward the BBEG?

I'm not keen on the linear term, as when the encounter itself doesn't seem linear.

Sure, I suspect they'll beat the 12 orcs and find the clue.  But technically, they could parley, retreat, sneak and avoid, or even be defeated.

I'm all for content re-use/re-arrangement.  I'm not for thwarting of player intent.  If the PCs don't want to mess with the Lord, then I shouldn't shuffle content so they still face him.  

If the PCs are trying to get to the Lord (presumably involving figuring out the BBEG is the Lord, then going to him), then shuffling some game elements to enable their quest to go forward is acceptable.

Part of that license to rearrange is to get the PCs moving when they fritter their own time (dickering around about hat shopping, instead of finding the man who shot their pa). Or when they mis-interpret a clue, and get in the weeds, to bring in news that turns them around, or to make their dead end actually be the right direction.

In a "if it ain't written thusly, it ain't so" style, I gather that if the PCs go hat shopping, then they waste 4 hours of game time hat shopping unless a random encounter check turns up something.  If they keep digging into a dead end of a corridor, then they keep wasting time.  If they pursue the wrong suspect, they do that until they stop, and they never solve the mystery.

Just as Shaman assuming that I literally don't put water in the game because the char sheets doesn't say they can swim is taking a concept to a ridiculous extreme, I should hope a sandbox DM exercises some judgement and does something in or out of the game to correct a player stall, even those his notes don't cover it.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 29, 2010)

Janx said:


> I'd like clarification on this "Linear" term.




Good point. Let me unpack that. The presence of a clue doesn't make it linear, but what I was thinking of was specifically JITP where each scene only has one exit:

Location 1 only has clue(s) to Location 2.
Location 2 only has clue(s) to Location 3.
Location 3 only has clue(s) to Location 4.

This is just as linear as if you had drawn a dungeon where every room has a single exit leading to the next room. Whether you draw that dungeon before you start playing or you draw each room as the players enter it doesn't make any difference: It's still a linear structure.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 29, 2010)

ainatan said:


> Not if the players believe and trust the DM.
> Im not much of a railroader when I DM, more of a dm-by-ear. In most of my campaigns I didn't roll any dice, just threw them behind the screen to make the noise and made up the results. Monster stats sheets were actually just drawings of mountains and nude women.
> Was it less awesome for as a DM? Not really, I enjoyed a lot more the world building, NPC RP, dungeoncrafting and the storytelling, didn't care much about rules and numbers.
> Call me a big fat phony, but those were decades of fun and epic moments.




I tried to write a response to this, but then I realized I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with "less awesome for as a DM"... if only I could unlock the secrets of that contorted incantation, I'm sure it would all become clear.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 29, 2010)

- double post -


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 29, 2010)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Ariosto, I don't think it's only commercial practice that has led to the preponderance of non-old-style campaign play in contemporary RPGing.



Neither do I!

As I have said many times (perhaps not in this particular thread), there is a feedback loop. There are, quite apart from preference, practical logistical considerations.

*And They're All Made Out Of Ticky-Tacky*
Also, it's a boondoggle to equate "contemporary RPGing" with D&D, or any other particular game. If the hobby really were just a homogenized pudding, then we should have no use for such particularity as actually _naming_ one glop or another.

I don't go trying to "evangelize" Issaries, White Wolf, etc., into changing their games into D&D -- and I'm not seeing a lot of good coming from the opposite phenomenon. That "One True Wayism" is a pernicious weed in the hobby/industry.

*Female Dwarves Have Beards*
The shift to dependence on the commercial presentation was, as a practical necessity, afoot as early as the influx of 1977 due to the wide publication of Holmes Basic and the MM.

What the shift in commercial presentation has done is impose the selection pressure I mentioned, and thereby ensure the demographic in question. It increasingly deprecates the old game -- if that gets mentioned at all -- and pushes the railroad as the right way to play.

*Welcome To The Party*
The fundamental stumbling block, the notion of "the adventure" as a prearranged sequence of events orchestrated by the DM, seems widely already to have become not merely doubleplusgood but so "essential" that doing without it is almost literally unthinkable. People _try_ to get out of that mental box, but can barely touch the edge before falling back in.

Those who are able to grasp it often find this oldest of modes revolutionary. "Look at the Wilderlands! Look at the West Marches! Look at Kingmaker! Look at Points of Light!" The excitement is gratifying, because that's akin to the kind of excitement that got me and many others into D&D in the first place. It's also an indication that TSR and WotC have not just 'lost' but *buried* what made the brand.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 29, 2010)

Janx said:


> In a "if it ain't written thusly, it ain't so" style, I gather that if the PCs go hat shopping, then they waste 4 hours of game time hat shopping unless a random encounter check turns up something. If they keep digging into a dead end of a corridor, then they keep wasting time. If they pursue the wrong suspect, they do that until they stop, and they never solve the mystery.
> 
> Just as Shaman assuming that I literally don't put water in the game because the char sheets doesn't say they can swim is taking a concept to a ridiculous extreme, I should hope a sandbox DM exercises some judgement and does something in or out of the game to correct a player stall, even those his notes don't cover it.




Not just the DM, but the players too. What works is very much going to depend on the group and their preferences. Some people want subtle, social clues, and want everyone to pay attention to them. Others don't mind something about as subtle as a brick to the forehead: "Hey, were you trying to accomplish something with this shopping, because it has been going on for 10 minutes now..." In our group, we start very subtle, but rapidly escalate to OOC statements. I had one incident where I pushed the players too far, asked them which way they wanted to go, and they said, "where the main monster is." 

Personally, I've found the most effective means to be OOC, precisely because we are talking player issues here, not character issues. That is, if the players want their characters to shop in town for a whole week, in game--well, that's fine. A week will pass, and any NPCs with an agenda will meanwhile be pursuing it without interference. But we aren't going to spend more than a few minutes of game time on it, because it bores most of the players at the table. Same way with searching that dead end. If the players really want to push it, they can waste as much of their characters' lives searching a dead end, as they want. I'll just cut it off after a few minutes and asked them, search to the max or stop?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 29, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:


> It took me a very long time to realize that "making it up as you go along" has multiple meanings.
> 
> <snip elaboration of this point>



Nice post - unfortunately I can't XP you at this time.



Beginning of the End said:


> I'm drawing a distinction between "just in time prep" and true "no myth" play. With "just in time prep" you say, "They're heading to the Old Sawmill. I'll put 12 orcs there and they can find a clue implicating Lord Turshill." (You could use "just in time prep" to create non-linear structures, of course.)
> 
> With "no myth" play you say, "You arrive at the Old Sawmill." There may be orcs; there may be a clue. We'll find out together. Such a form is inherently non-linear because there's an essentially infinite number of ways for the PCs to exit a given scene/sequence.



Like I said upthread, the way I GM approximates to No Myth, but also to the Paul Czege quote I posted - so some prep, often fairly loose as to details of NPC personalities and motivations, and a readiness to revise/precisify in response to play.

On the other hand, as far as likely anatagonists are concerned, my approach is probably closer to just-in-time prep (if I haven't prepped in advance) because 4e doesn't reward on the spot improvisation of combat encounters.

As I see it, the key to avoiding railroading in this sort of play is to be open to a range of _resolutions_ of the scene/encounter. What introduces the No Myth element is that some of those possible resolutions are shaped in the course of play (eg a player decides to have his PC Mind Probe one of the orcs, or to inspect an ancient idol lying under sawdust shavings more closely, or . . . and now I as GM use that to introduce some interesting complication into the situation, and the players respond to that, and I respond to their response . . .).


----------



## pemerton (Dec 29, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:


> What works is very much going to depend on the group and their preferences.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Personally, I've found the most effective means to be OOC, precisely because we are talking player issues here, not character issues. That is, if the players want their characters to shop in town for a whole week, in game--well, that's fine. A week will pass, and any NPCs with an agenda will meanwhile be pursuing it without interference. But we aren't going to spend more than a few minutes of game time on it, because it bores most of the players at the table. Same way with searching that dead end. If the players really want to push it, they can waste as much of their characters' lives searching a dead end, as they want. I'll just cut it off after a few minutes and asked them, search to the max or stop?



Another good post.

I tend to take a similar approach. I think it's easier with the shopping than the searching, because almost never (in my experience, at least) is the shopping central to player protagonism, whereas searching can be, at least in some circumstances.

I think game mechanics can help with the search thing - for exampe, even in 4e there seems to be an implicit assumption that multiple Perception checks can be rolled to search a given space, whereas I would prefer a "let it ride" approach where a single check is made and that is taken to subsume the whole of the PC's effort to find something in the space concerned. In this way the action resolution mechanics would better conduce to the desired pacing of the game.


----------



## Janx (Dec 29, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Good point. Let me unpack that. The presence of a clue doesn't make it linear, but what I was thinking of was specifically JITP where each scene only has one exit:
> 
> Location 1 only has clue(s) to Location 2.
> Location 2 only has clue(s) to Location 3.
> ...




Hmm.. I don't think that's a JITP issue.  I can write an adventure on paper that way.

What you've designed is certainly a projected linear path to a goal of meet the BBEG at Location 4.

It doesn't mean that's how it'll play out, given possibilities of defeat, retreat, abandoning the the quest.  It also isn't much different than a travel to ThereVille session.  Where in the Gm rolled up 4 encounters on the road to ThereVille, the player's stated destination from the end of the last session.

In both scenarios, the players are very likely to hit each encounter, barring an unexpected change.  That would definitely be a linear plan.  

Though not necessarily a railroad by my definition of FORCING them to go to location 4, or to go to ThereVille.  They are welcome to use divinitation, information gathering, teleport spells to find alternatives.  In addition, there may be a number of possible choices to get from each location to the next (or clue to clue).

After the fact, what HAS transpired is obviously linear.  Before the fact, there's a lot of activities that have probable trajectories, therefore naturally being linear.

The PCs are going to look for clues to who the BBEG is
The PCs are going to then find the BBEG
the PCs are going to confront the BBEG

Pretty linear.  Assuming the players goal is "confront BBEGs" that's pretty much how it will play out, until the party fails, aborts, or succeeds.

But I think I have defined Linear at the Macro level, in that the path to any player goal tends to be linear, and BotE is defining the Micro level, where within the chain of encounters to pursue that goal, a tightly linear assumption is undesirable.


I suspect then, that a discussion of "Linear" in terms of GMing approach and adoptance of generally accepted best practices is to minimize the amount of Linear game expectation at the micro level.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 29, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> "I don't have something definitively prepped for player A doing Z, but I do have very clear ideas of how this world works and what the relevant NPCs think and plan. So in that context, I'll have them do K--*which is what I probably would have chosen had I thought to prep this material absent any player input*."




Same here.

Prof. M.A.R. Barker has published reams of material on Tékumel, but his ability to do that depended on the world first "living" in his mind. Even Ed Greenwood, whose Forgotten Realms have been detailed extensively by many other hands, does not (from what I have read) bury himself in reference works.

E. Gary Gygax for many years resisted pleas for his Greyhawk Castle dungeons partly because they had never existed in anything near the form he would expect to present as a commercial product. His co-DM, Rob Kuntz, has released some relatively "raw" examples of his own maps and keys from Kalibruhn/Greyhawk.



> Note that this is not a change of characterization or players having narrative control, but a way to manage a game where most of the interesting things happen in play.



With 3E, it seemed to me that the new D&D was rather reminiscent of the perennial Champions -- albeit not as well engineered, in my view. However, the trend in D&D over the past decade has been more and more away from "a game where most of the interesting things happen in play". The sub-game of "builds" and "back story" has come to loom almost as the main event!


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 29, 2010)

Janx said:
			
		

> Sure, I suspect they'll beat the 12 orcs and find the clue. But technically, they could parley, retreat, sneak and avoid, or even be defeated.



Then you might be "doing it wrong" according to the ideology that insists that "an adventure" is a story line that the players must be made to follow.



> If the PCs are trying to get to the Lord (presumably involving figuring out the BBEG is the Lord, then going to him), then shuffling some game elements to enable their quest to go forward is acceptable.



Like intentionally moving your king into position to get put in check? That may "be acceptable" in a peculiar circumstance, but it is hardly what we commonly mean by "playing Chess"! Likewise, "Tee Ball" -- not outright rigging of the outcome, but a reduction of the demands on basic skills -- is not normal Baseball. Such modification has its place as a variation. There is no good reason it must suddenly become _incumbent_ on us in playing Dungeons & Dragons.



> I should hope a sandbox DM exercises some judgement and does something in or out of the game to correct a player stall, even those his notes don't cover it.



It depends on the DM. From what I have heard, Mr. Gygax would entertain himself at the players' expense if he got bored. Others of us might aver that we find the proceedings tedious -- but not force the players to abandon whatever happens to entertain _them_.

The whole basic notion that a "player stall" or "waste of time" is when the players do something other than follow a DM's script to the end is the basic problem right there -- if you really want to try an old-fashioned game. Please abandon it utterly before taking one step further.


----------



## Nagol (Dec 29, 2010)

Janx said:


> <snip>
> 
> In a "if it ain't written thusly, it ain't so" style, I gather that if the PCs go hat shopping, then they waste 4 hours of game time hat shopping unless a random encounter check turns up something.  If they keep digging into a dead end of a corridor, then they keep wasting time.  If they pursue the wrong suspect, they do that until they stop, and they never solve the mystery.
> 
> Just as Shaman assuming that I literally don't put water in the game because the char sheets doesn't say they can swim is taking a concept to a ridiculous extreme, I should hope a sandbox DM exercises some judgement and does something in or out of the game to correct a player stall, even those his notes don't cover it.




The thing is I find the narrative that forms from the players' choices better than "correcting" the player choices to go after the right suspect!

One of the favourite moments happened when a player blew (a seemingly easy) murder mystery, accused the Crown Prince of the deed, provided testimony against him, had him exiled, and turned into a long-term avowed enemy.

If the players are stuck, OOC I'll discuss the situation generally and encourage them to review what they know.  I'll ask if they want time to pass (and with it the opportunity of further events to happen that may provide more light on the situation).

I won't alter the situation to meet the current player expectations nor will I tell the players the "correct" course of action to "get them on track".


----------



## pemerton (Dec 29, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> With 3E, it seemed to me that the new D&D was rather reminiscent of the perennial Champions -- albeit not as well engineered, in my view. However, the trend in D&D over the past decade has been more and more away from "a game where most of the interesting things happen in play". The sub-game of "builds" and "back story" has come to loom almost as the main event!



With respect to 3E, I agree with you.

With respect to 4e, I don't agree so much. In my experience 4e has features - both in the sorts of characters its build rules produce, and in its action resolution rules - that make _play_ far more central.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 30, 2010)

Janx said:


> In a "if it ain't written thusly, it ain't so" style, I gather that if the PCs go hat shopping, then they waste 4 hours of game time hat shopping unless a random encounter check turns up something.  If they keep digging into a dead end of a corridor, then they keep wasting time.  If they pursue the wrong suspect, they do that until they stop, and they never solve the mystery.




A couple quick points here:

(1) If the players really want to go hat-shopping for four hours of playing time, I don't see any particular reason to stop them. Presumably they're intelligent enough to only do something if they actually _want_ to be doing it.

Of course, if they make a habit of spending all their time doing stuff that I, as a GM, have no interest in participating in, then it's probably time to have a frank conversation about what sort of game (a) I'm willing to run and (b) they're willing to play and see if we can find some sort of common ground.

But in 20+ years of gaming, I've never had that happen. So worrying about it is a pretty low priority for me.

(2) If the players are spending four hours of playing time hat-shopping and they really _don't_ want to be doing that, then either (a) they think they're "supposed" to be doing that or (b) they're trying to accomplish something but they're going about it in the wrong way (or in a way which is incomprehensible to the GM).

In the case of the former, the easiest solution is to remove the concept of "supposed to" from the equation. If they're not looking for railroad tracks to follow, then they won't waste time trying to figure out what they're "supposed" to be doing.

In the case of the latter, the GM can either (a) resolve his incomprehension by asking "What are you trying to do?"; (b) use pacing to quickly resolve boring activities; or (c) both.

For example, if the PCs are hat-shopping _because they want to be seen in public so that the assassins can target them again_ and the DM doesn't understand why they're hat-shopping, the hat-shopping can drag on and on and on (for everybody involved). But if the GM asks, "What are you trying to do?" and they explain it to him, then the GM can:

- Ask them how long they plan to keep at it.
- Figure out how likely their plan is to succeed (if it is at all).
- Rapidly resolve the situation.

This use of pacing means that the table rarely/never gets bogged down in the boring stuff, because you can rapidly _skip it_.

I had a good example of this at the game table last night: At one point we spent 20 minutes of playing time with the PCs carefully probing a door that they thought might be trapped. (Why? Because they were enjoying themselves.) At another point we spent literally 30 seconds speeding through two days of rest. (Why? Because nothing interesting happened.)

When in doubt, ask them what they're trying to do and then resolve it in the most enjoyable way possible for the players involved (including yourself). "Most enjoyable" might be two hours of intense roleplaying; or it might be 15 seconds of saying "you poke around the bars at the waterfront, but nobody's heard anything about Fitzpatrick". (And both of those are potential resolutions for the _same action_.)



Janx said:


> Hmm.. I don't think that's a JITP issue.  I can write an adventure on paper that way.




Reread my post. That's not what I said. (In fact, I explicitly said exactly the opposite.)



> Though not necessarily a railroad by my definition of FORCING them to go  to location 4, or to go to ThereVille.  They are welcome to use  divinitation, information gathering, teleport spells to find  alternatives.  In addition, there may be a number of possible choices to  get from each location to the next (or clue to clue).




Here you seem to be saying "there is no railroading if any choice or variation possible". This is not useful, IMO.

While there is value in understanding that there are degrees of railroading -- with the lightest degree being scenario selection ("you're going to the Caves of Chaos tonight") and the strictest being the GM essentially taking control of the PCs and playing them for the characters -- restricting "railroading" to only apply to the most extreme cases is to attempt to redefine the term in a way which is neither (a) useful, nor (b) reflective of actual usage.



> The PCs are going to look for clues to who the BBEG is
> The PCs are going to then find the BBEG
> the PCs are going to confront the BBEG
> 
> Pretty linear.  Assuming the players goal is "confront BBEGs" that's  pretty much how it will play out, until the party fails, aborts, or  succeeds.




And here you're making the definition of "linear" so loose that you could accurately describe the West Marches sandbox as linear:

The PCs are going to explore.
The PCs are going to find something interesting.
The PCs are going to explore it until they go back to town or die.

Also not useful, IMO.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 30, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I think game mechanics can help with the search thing - for exampe, even in 4e there seems to be an implicit assumption that multiple Perception checks can be rolled to search a given space, whereas I would prefer a "let it ride" approach where a single check is made and that is taken to subsume the whole of the PC's effort to find something in the space concerned. In this way the action resolution mechanics would better conduce to the desired pacing of the game.




It is interesting that you bring up Let it Ride, because I was very much thinking about "intent" in my DMing, even before I ran Burning Wheel and got some terminology for what I was doing.  That is, in the search example, I was asking my players to commit to an intent, then adjudicating the results.  Once they said the search was important and were willing to spend a lot of time on it, I was comfortable saying, "Ok, you spend 4 hours and find nothing.  Keep going?"  And they'd decide to stop, or they'd say to set up camp and keep searching or keep searching until they run out of food or whatever.   Or if they were really frustrated, I might just tell them, "Dead end."  And we'd figure out how to get back to the fun.

Of course, sometimes there is something there.  And I don't play silly games with them of putting something there with no hint at all.  So if they are searching, there is a reason known to their characters.  Might be a good reason, a bad reason, or a bad assumption on their parts, but it isn't random.

Absent the BW model, most of adjudication was a combination of using the skill system, character actions, knowledge of the environment, and whatever ad hoc decisions are needed.  I just decide what they need before they roll, to keep myself honest.


----------



## Janx (Dec 30, 2010)

Nagol said:


> The thing is I find the narrative that forms from the players' choices better than "correcting" the player choices to go after the right suspect!




Also a valid thing to do.  If I was GMing it, I'd probably end up to that outcome if the PC is actively moving things that way.  

If he's wallowing because he doesn't know, and not moving at all, I'll bring in a game element (an NPC or a found clue, or news) that might trigger some action.

Murder mysteries are "special" cases to me, in that they often are hard to GM such that the players fully understand the clues and have a valid chance to solve them.  The result is, a majority of murder mysteries would be unsolved if the GM didn't apply some lubricant to make the players as effective as their fictional counterparts.

Right or wrong, it's just an observation that I and others have had in threads about running murder mystery adventures.  A majority of players don't get the clues in front of them, and it seems to be a format issue, rather than specifically the players fault.

A non-murder mystery just tends to be "there's a problem and if you dig around, do some recon, you'll know where the bad guy is and his defenses" and from there, the players decide on their approach.

I prefer to use course correction techniques when the players are stuck, and game time is getting wasted.  If the players are taking action (even if its the wrong action), I'll roll with it, because they are giving me something to work with.

In the case of the Prince being mistakenly accused, even that's tricky.  Once the PC starts locking in on the wrong suspect, it still stands to reason that new evidence (perhaps volunteered by an NPC as an alibi) would come to light, giving the PC a chance to reconsider.  

I would argue that NOT giving the PCs more information as they pursue a wrong course is sloppy GMing as well.  Surely somebody else will step forward or find a bit of evidence that is counter to the PCs erroneous charge. If the PCs disregard it, that's their choice.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 30, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> With 3E, it seemed to me that the new D&D was rather reminiscent of the perennial Champions -- albeit not as well engineered, in my view. However, the trend in D&D over the past decade has been more and more away from "a game where most of the interesting things happen in play". The sub-game of "builds" and "back story" has come to loom almost as the main event!




I see that as more of a circle than a straight line.  You go far enough "around" to builds and back story, and you end up back in play.  Two very different examples:

1. Given a moderately simple system of character constructions, the players will get involved in it, perhaps to the detriment of in-game play.  Make it more complex, though, and they'll just want results from the system and will focus again on play.  Part of this is attitude of the players.  I have one player who hasn't made her own character in years.  She always tells me generally what she wants and then lets me make it for her.  But she loves complex systems that give her stuff to do in play.

2. When the back story gets interesting enough, we just go back and play that.  Again, it is kind of an attitude thing.  If you value interesting things happening in play ... you value interesting things happening in play and will thus make that happen with whatever system or background story you are working with.

As for the attitude changing in published materials, I think it preceded 3E.  The first time I noticed it was in Dungeon magazine, the last couple of years of the 2E run.  There were several "adventures" where all the really interesting things happened to an NPC before an adventure started.  In several cases, there wasn't even a good way for the players to ever learn about any of it.  Of course, there is a fine line between giving the DM enough information to sink his teeth into the material, versus resolving the actions before the players get to interact with the situation.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 30, 2010)

Janx said:


> Murder mysteries are "special" cases to me, in that they often are hard to GM such that the players fully understand the clues and have a valid chance to solve them. The result is, a majority of murder mysteries would be unsolved if the GM didn't apply some lubricant to make the players as effective as their fictional counterparts.
> 
> Right or wrong, it's just an observation that I and others have had in threads about running murder mystery adventures. A majority of players don't get the clues in front of them, and it seems to be a format issue, rather than specifically the players fault.
> 
> A non-murder mystery just tends to be "there's a problem and if you dig around, do some recon, you'll know where the bad guy is and his defenses" and from there, the players decide on their approach.




Considering how many poor murder mysteries exist in written form, where the author has control of everything, this is not surprising.

My way of dealing with this is to provide about 3 times as many clues as would be used in a written mystery, many of them redundant.  Then I make some of them more difficult/dangerous to uncover.  And the players know I do this.  They never find all of the clues.  They find enough clues.  Sometimes, they find 10% of the clues, solve it instantly, and my jaw drops.  Sometimes I think pod people have replaced the usual players with aliens that have never encountered a mystery.  But eventually, they get there.  It is just a question of what it costs them and what happens to the world in the meantime.

I have let a "mystery" simmer over many sessions, and six months of real time.  The looks on their faces when they solve it are priceless.  It's this weird combination of extreme satisfaction at finally figuring it out, wonder at the answer, and a rather disgusted, "I can't believe you let us dangle that long while still making us care."  I just try to do my best Chesire cat impression.   Sometimes, they take it out on a nearby NPC.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> If the players are spending four hours of playing time hat-shopping and they really _don't_ want to be doing that, then either (a) they think they're "supposed" to be doing that or (b) they're trying to accomplish something but they're going about it in the wrong way (or in a way which is incomprehensible to the GM).



I think (a) can be a problem in some systems, for example Rolemaster. Because the action resolution mechanics in RM have a "total" character - they purport to be a total expression of the underlying causal reality of the gameworld - than resolving encounters/action _other than_ by playing it out via the action resolution mechanics can feel like cheating, both for players and for GM. This can lead to a very extreme version of "continuous play" as opposed to "scene framing".

Of course the pressure and desire not to cheat exist only in the minds of the participants. Nevertheless it is, in my experience, a real phenomenon.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 30, 2010)

> Murder mysteries are "special" cases to me, in that they often are hard to GM such that the players fully understand the clues and have a valid chance to solve them.



That is merely an example of the general case of deciding beforehand on a limited scenario.

If I show up for a D&D event at DunDraCon, then I usually -- or _always_ in the case of a tournament elimination round -- will expect a limited scenario due to circumstances.

If I go to  a *Call of  Cthulhu* game, I will expect something a bit looser but still strung on a line, because _Shadows of Yog-Sothoth_ has exerted such a profound influence practically from the start. It is likewise with *Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay*, which was conceived with the "high concept" of "CoC in D&D Drag" -- and delivered quite ably with _The Enemy Within_.

*Paranoia* is all about treating players as hapless pawns, except when it's all about them treating each other as the mutant traitors they are.

*Vampire* tried to elevate "illusionism" literally to an art form. That being about 20 years old, perhaps it now qualifies for the Retro Pretentious category in the only threefold model that makes sense to me.

Different games have different rules.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 30, 2010)

Crazy Jerome said:
			
		

> But eventually, they get there.  It is just a question of what it costs them and what happens to the world in the meantime.



That is one way to set up an interesting game even if the "destination" in one sense is preordained. That factor is simply not an outcome that is actually at stake -- but there _are_ stakes at risk, and better and worse strategies.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 30, 2010)

Janx said:


> Murder mysteries are "special" cases to me, in that they often are hard to GM such that the players fully understand the clues and have a valid chance to solve them.  The result is, a majority of murder mysteries would be unsolved if the GM didn't apply some lubricant to make the players as effective as their fictional counterparts.




The Three Clue Rule changed my life.


----------



## Janx (Dec 30, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Reread my post. That's not what I said. (In fact, I explicitly said exactly the opposite.)




Actually, that's exactly what you said:
"but what I was thinking of was specifically JITP where each scene only has one exit:"





Beginning of the End said:


> And here you're making the definition of "linear" so loose that you could accurately describe the West Marches sandbox as linear:
> 
> The PCs are going to explore.
> The PCs are going to find something interesting.
> ...




And I also said that.  At the Macro level, most PC activities are linear.  And that as such, it wasn't useful to discern where flexibility needs to be added.

On my definition of railroading, remember, I only define it in the narrowest zone, wherein 90% of all DMs consider it bad behavior.  What Celebrim defines as stuff that CAN be railroading, I consider to be valid tools unless abused.


But anyway, thanks for defining a linear adventure example.  Except for what I consider a travel adventure (basically time filling/rat killing for low levels as they get to their destination), I don't tend to write my material that way that it is hard-coded (if they don't go to location 2, they'll never know how to get to location 3).


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 30, 2010)

Janx said:


> On my definition of railroading, remember, I only define it in the narrowest zone, wherein 90% of all DMs consider it bad behavior.  What Celebrim defines as stuff that CAN be railroading, I consider to be valid tools unless abused.




We'll be on the same page when you realize that I consider railroading a valid tool unless abused/over used/done artlessly/whatever.   Granted, if anything, I consider it overused and less than artfully done in many published examples of play (granting, most of those were intended for a tournament environment having limited time and limited goals), but not without also noting that many people nonetheless enjoyed those scenarios.

All that being said, I still disagree with the claim cited by the OP.  "Railroading" in the usual pejorative sense is indeed a DM crime.  While not everything that is called 'railroading' actually is railroading, when the DM is actually called out on railroading when he's actually railroading it is time IMO to immediately stop the train and mea culpa.   Railroading is likewise not required to 'tell a good story' or 'insure that the PCs have something to do' though railroading may be the only option of you have nothing prepared and does in many cases (those not involving DM narciscism) at least beat sitting in a rowboat.


----------



## Janx (Dec 30, 2010)

I'm down with what Celebrims saying.

I prefer to keep the label for just outright bad Dm behavior.

Otherwise, because of the negative connotation the term has to many gamers, the only non-railroad way is to sandbox.

And I reject that notion based on my experience of not sandboxing and not railroading


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 30, 2010)

Janx said:


> Otherwise, because of the negative connotation the term has to many gamers, the only non-railroad way is to sandbox.
> 
> And I reject that notion based on my experience of not sandboxing and not railroading




I reject the notion that the opposite of sandboxing is railroading.  The two terms aren't directly comparable.  The opposite of railroading is what I call rowboating.  The opposite of a sandbox is what is usually called now an adventure path.  For example, GDQ is not a sandbox but rather a recognizable adventure path, but for the most part fans of 'classic play' do not claim that it is a railroad either.

As I said, not everything that is called a railroad is actually a railroad.  Sometimes players with strong sandbox preferences (or what they think are sandbox preferences) will call a game a railroad if it isn't sufficiently sandbox-y for them.  Sometimes players will perjure a game as a 'railroad' in an effort to take narrative authority from the GM.  For example, I've seen players who would try to brow beat a DM by narrating not what he did but its intended outcome, and who would then call 'railroad' if the outcome of his propositions wasn't what he'd imagined it would be (that, or he'd call for a retcon, claiming his character would have done something different had he understood the situation better).  

The comic Knights of the Dinner Table is marked by the fact that the players consider pretty much everything the DM does to be a 'railroad', whether it is or not.   That BA attempts to control their dysfunctional behavior by actually railroading them tends to only, and comicly (or tragicly), make it worse.

All that being said, I think that either you have an adventure path, or you have a sandbox, or you have some complex mix of the two ('narrow-broad-narrow' or 'Theme Parks' or whatever).  I don't agree that just because you can plot a game on a separate axis of player empowerment or narrative authority (whatever you want to call it), that such games lose their 'linear coordinates'.   What is true is that on a graph of 'linearity' vs. 'player empowerment', games that feature alot of railroading tend to cluster in the corner marked by high linearity and low player empowerment.  High player empowerment is definately a way to avoid a railroad, but it isn't necessarily a way to avoid linearity.   If you want to use a 'railroad' analogy, it's something like the railroad in China Miéville's 'Iron Council' - yes, you are on a train, but the players have some authority to decide where to lay the rails (or more accurately, they have some authority to do the landscaping around the train).


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 30, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> All that being said, I still disagree with the claim cited by the OP. "Railroading" in the usual pejorative sense is indeed a DM crime.




I think the cited quip was -- intentionally or not -- a telling comment on the class of play with which the wag was acquainted. Able players get things done without needing a "Black Sox" scandal every game!



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Otherwise, because of the negative connotation the term has to many gamers, the only non-railroad way is to sandbox.



You've got that backwards! The games simply were what they were, as described in the rules-books. Nowadays, what used to be called a "campaign" gets called a "sandbox". That's not the only way to use the D&D rules, but it is the way the rules specify for setting up a campaign.



			
				D&D foreword said:
			
		

> While it is possible to play a single game, unrelated to any other game events past or future, it is the campaign for which these rules are designed.




Likewise, we can play smaller scenarios of _Rise and Decline of the Third Reich_ -- but the multiplayer campaign game is what it is.

"Railroading" is an offense regardless of whether we are playing a campaign or a limited scenario. It is just the case that they are two significantly different things.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The *scope* of the campaign game is ever so much greater! We can use a subset of the Checkers board and pieces to play Tic Tac Toe, and that may be fun. To get confined to a 3x3 area of the board while trying to play Checkers would be infuriating!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only way to play the game is to play the game. Breaking the rules is something else. When it's a violation of the letter of the rules, we call it "cheating". When it's a breach of faith with the spirit of the game and the trust of the players, but the rules applicable are not so cut and dried, some other term may seem meet.

People in another place (and perhaps another era) might have said, "That's just not cricket." 

Now, baseball literally is not cricket -- but it's not _called_ cricket, either. We don't expect them to be the same game. We don't get upset over "violations" of rules that simply do not apply.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Dec 30, 2010)

Janx said:


> Actually, that's exactly what you said:
> "but what I was thinking of was specifically JITP where each scene only has one exit:"




What I wrote in my original post: "(You could use "just in time prep" to create non-linear structures, of course.)"

I'm unclear on how you failed to comprehend that sentence.



> And I also said that.  At the Macro level, most PC activities are linear.




What you're describing is not linearity; it's vagueness coupled with a fuzzy, 20-20 hindsight.

Saying, "I woke up. Later I will go to sleep." And concluding that, therefore, life is linear and without meaningful choice is, at best, sophomoric.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 30, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> For example, GDQ is not a sandbox but rather a recognizable adventure path, but for the most part fans of 'classic play' do not claim that it is a railroad either.




I'll call it a railroad if, when we try to high-tail it somewhere other than the hill giants' settlement, it's like trying to get out of Hobb's End (_In the Mouth of Madness_) -- but not due to any such supernatural feature of the world with which we can actually deal.

I'll call it a railroad if we are likewise arbitrarily barred from joining the giants rather than massacring them, or if we have no choice but to go all the way down the line to "the finale" with Lolth. I call it a railroad when there *is* such a thing as "the line" to have "the finale" in the first place!

However, this is all *relative to a campaign*. If those "rails" are presented as the Origins '78 Tournament, or simply as "playing through these modules", then there's no imposture in constraints that are necessary assumptions of the scenario.

That's entirely separate from a campaign.

To deal with one common aspect: If one considers the GDQ modules as "an adventure" in the sense of a dramatic series of events conforming to a script in the text (which is actually not how they are written, except in cursory framing equally applicable -- or disposable! -- if any one were used singly, as I recall***) then considerable "railroading" may be necessary to get full use of them. If that's how one sees them, and one does not want to "waste money" already invested in purchasing them, then there is strong incentive to rig the game.

It would be unsporting to bring a character back into a campaign after going through a process rigged to ensure its survival to the end, with experience points and magic nonetheless accruing -- unless the other players got the same deal. It would be like playing a video game in the home version with a cracked and trained copy, then claiming that high score _in the arcade_.

*** At any rate, I never met anyone who felt it necessary to run them as an "adventure path" (which jargon had yet to be invented). The implication that an adventure path is not a railroad to "fans of classic play" may be an inference from a false premise.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 30, 2010)

Riffing on the computer-game analogy:

The Dungeon Master is in great part a game designer.

That it was (in early releases) impossible to finish Jet Set Willy was what we call a "bug" -- an _inadvertent_ flaw in the coding, rather than an intentional part of the design. It was not supposed to be a scam when the publisher offered a case of champagne and a helicopter ride to the first player to win the game!

Designers also sometimes intentionally impose or prohibit things in ways that players reckon "unfair". There are no formal, written rules whatsoever as to what kinds of situations are permitted. We are perfectly free to design games that players don't want to play.

"Unfair" or "railroad" is a more specific term than "bad", suggesting _a certain kind_ of badness.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 30, 2010)

Of course, what's "good" or "bad" depends upon the value system.

Ardent players of the actual arcade machine might call an easier imitation of *Defender* something pejorative. People who find the real thing so difficult as to be "unplayable" might have just the opposite opinion!


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 30, 2010)

Janx said:


> Well, I don't put in every encounter just because the PC can handle it (more like I have to go out of my way to include an encounter that could utilize a PC's skill).  I should think an adventure contains a variety of encounters, some that are blatant "dude you have a skill for this", and some that are "I wonder how they'll solve it."



A richly-developed game-world also offers a variety of encounters for which the adventurers may or may not have appropriate skills.







Janx said:


> Backstory is page N of the character sheet.  The skills, class, equipment are all things the player wants to do or avoid getting hosed by (hence the 10' pole).  the backstory is often elements the PC hopes you'll use as a hook (yay! I get to pursue an adventure that focusses on ME).



If you let the players decide the direction of the game, indeed put it on their shoulders to move the game forward by their in-character actions, then every game can be about the adventrers.







Janx said:


> Personal traits are potentially exploitable vulnerabilities for the GM to make a situation challenging in a roleplaying (as in personality) kind of way.



Aren't "potentially exploitable vulnerabilities" _exactly_ the reason you end up with this?







Janx said:


> What I've seen is players who try to counter the DM leveragiing any personal weakness by creating a PC with no "holes" to exploit.



Maybe if referees would stop going out of their way to  with a character's "exploitable vulnerabilities," there would be fewer orphan monks living in poverty.







Janx said:


> At some point, the party will come across a river they need to get across, a castle with a moat just through inherent obviousness.  But I may never think to mention, "oh by the way, there's a ton of spider webs covering that rare painting you want to grab."   Shrodinger's Fear to paraphrase Celebrim.
> 
> If you don't mention having a fear, I won't think to have that element, thus it may only occur as a coincidence.



Okay.







Janx said:


> Consider the Indiana Jones scene.  The snakes are present BECAUSE he is afraid of them.



The snakes are present BECAUSE the screenwriter used it to set up the scene with the snakes in the temple later in the script.

Again, what I like about roleplaying games are the ways in which they are _not_ like this.


Janx said:


> Part of that license to rearrange is to get the PCs moving when they fritter their own time (dickering around about hat shopping, instead of finding the man who shot their pa). Or when they mis-interpret a clue, and get in the weeds, to bring in news that turns them around, or to make their dead end actually be the right direction.



This presumes that there is a "right direction" to which the adventurers must be kept.







Janx said:


> In a "if it ain't written thusly, it ain't so" style, I gather that if the PCs go hat shopping, then they waste 4 hours of game time hat shopping unless a random encounter check turns up something.



If the players decide to spend four hours hat shopping, I'm guessing it's because they find hat shopping to be a pleasureable way to play the game for four hours, because it's not something they are driven to do in any syle of gaming with which I'm familiar.

An example of how a shopping trip played out during our last game-night: an adventurer wanted to purchase a small favor to give to one of two ladies who caught his eye - which one wasn't important at that moment. The player asked me, "I want to find something which would make a good gift." "How about a small satchel made of fine Flemish lace? It costs two _livres_," I replied. "That sounds good," he answered, and jotted it on his character sheet.

Are you suggesting that in 'sandbox' play that _every_ interaction with _every_ person an adventurer meets must be roleplayed out as an actual conversation?







Janx said:


> If they keep digging into a dead end of a corridor, then they keep wasting time.  If they pursue the wrong suspect, they do that until they stop, and they never solve the mystery. . . . I should hope a sandbox DM exercises some judgement and does something in or out of the game to correct a player stall, even those his notes don't cover it.



Giving the players freedom to drive the action means giving the players the freedom to make mistakes, and to suffer consequences for them, such as wandering down blind alleys, or barking up the wrong tree.

My feeling is that rising action isn't rising action without falling action, and that success isn't success without the possibility of failure.

The players need to use all the tools at their disposal to avoid logjams of their own creation - if they feel like they're getting nowhere with something, there's probably a good reason for that, and that's a good time for them to rethink their approach. The referee needs to create a game-world in which features existing in isolation are the exception and not the rule, that a web of interconnections join people and places so that the adventurers are not forced to follow a single tenuous line of clues to find adventure. The adventurers should be surrounded by information, though that by no means suggests that all of that information is accurate, that nothing is misleading.

In terms of practical, over-the-tabletop running the game, there's nothing wrong with the referee asking the players something like, "Tell me what it is you want to accomplish," instead of asking for single, discrete steps - "We need to find out if Baron de Bauchery was in town, so first we'll talk to the innkeeper at the Black Swan, and after that we'll take to the innkeeper at the Roe Deer, then . . . " becomes, "So you want to make the rounds of the local inns to find out if the Baron de Bauchery was staying in town when Princess Pinkflower disappeared? Tell me how you plan to approach this." Do they offer bribes? Do they attempt to intimidate the innkeepers? Do they present themselves as allies of the baron? Then resolve the action.

This wasn't at all uncommon in roleplaying games back in the day. Searching for rumors or a patron is a week-long activity in _Traveller_. _OD&D_ uses the week as the basic scale of time-keeping, with one day devoted to dungeon exploration and the rest to rest and refitting. _En Garde!_ turns are one week long, which also uses the month and the season as units of time in resolving game-play; the month carried over from _En Garde!_ to _Flashing Blades_ as a standard measure for resolving campaign-level action as well. A campaign turn in _Boot Hill_ is a week or a month at the referee's discretion. The knights in _Pendragon_ typically have one adventure per year.

When we meet next month, I'm going to ask one of the players in my game if there was anything on which he wished to follow up immediately from our last game-night; depending on what he chooses to do and how he chooses to pursue it, the action may resume where we left off, or it may jump forward a month.

Shifting time-scales and action resolution is normal and expected in _status quo_, 'sandbox'-y settings. In my experience, 'pixel-bitching' is more common in badly-designed linear adventures.

Btw, *Janx*, _status quo_ _doesn't_ mean 'nothing changes in the setting until the adventurers interact with it' - it means that the challenges in the game-world aren't scaled to the adventurers, so that if a party of first-level adventurers set off across the desert for the lair of an anicent blue dragon, the challenges of the desert environment and the dragon don't suddenly become CR 1-3.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 31, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> Maybe if referees would stop going out of their way to  with a character's "exploitable vulnerabilities," there would be fewer orphan monks living in poverty.



The key is to mess with those vulnerabilities in a way that opens up opportunities for the player to engage the game, rather than shuts the player/PC down.

It also helps if you let the PCs prosper occassionally, as well as suffer. Many published scenarios/settings seem very hostile to the idea that the PCs should be socially powerful actors within the gameworld (even a classic like Against the Giants assumes that high level PCs are subject to coercive threats from the local king).



The Shaman said:


> Btw, *Janx*, _status quo_ _doesn't_ mean 'nothing changes in the setting until the adventurers interact with it' - it means that the challenges in the game-world aren't scaled to the adventurers, so that if a party of first-level adventurers set off across the desert for the lair of an anicent blue dragon, the challenges of the desert environment and the dragon don't suddenly become CR 1-3.



Another reason I don't think of my game as a sandbox.


----------



## Celebrim (Dec 31, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I'll call it a railroad if, when we try to high-tail it somewhere other than the hill giants' settlement, it's like trying to get out of Hobb's End (_In the Mouth of Madness_) -- but not due to any such supernatural feature of the world with which we can actually deal.




Is this some necessary feature of the experience?  Exactly what is that sort of strawman intended to prove?



> I'll call it a railroad if we are likewise arbitrarily barred from joining the giants rather than massacring them, or if we have no choice but to go all the way down the line to "the finale" with Lolth. I call it a railroad when there *is* such a thing as "the line" to have "the finale" in the first place!




Again, is this some necessary feature of the experience?  And in any event, exactly how is this a contridiction of anything I said?  In what way does your calling this a railroad, in any way effect how we describe the game played by most people who have played GDQ?  While any concievable scenario can be ran as a railroad, why are you trying to invent rails where none actually exist?



> That's entirely separate from a campaign.




I'm beginning to wonder about this definition of 'campaign'.  It's beginning to sound so narrow as to exclude a non-trivial portion of how people actually played.



> To deal with one common aspect: If one considers the GDQ modules as "an adventure" in the sense of a dramatic series of events conforming to a script in the text (which is actually not how they are written...




Well, no it isn't how they are written, so what's your point?



> *** At any rate, I never met anyone who felt it necessary to run them as an "adventure path" (which jargon had yet to be invented).




The term may not have been invented, but nonetheless "adventure path" it is - right down to Gygax's some what careful calculation of the amount of treasure present so as to ensure that PC's would accrue enough XP to level up for the next episode in the series.  I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "run them as an adventure path", because I'm not at all sure how you think adventure paths are run or how you think GDQ was run but so far as I can tell GDQ and Desert of Desolation were largely run the way Age of Worms or the like is run today.



> The implication that an adventure path is not a railroad to "fans of classic play" may be an inference from a false premise.




Please explain, because I'm beginning to find your definition of 'classic play' to be sorely limiting if it excludes GDQ.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Is this some necessary feature of the experience?  Exactly what is that sort of strawman intended to prove?



I don't understand your question. Please try asking it in another way.



			
				Module G1 said:
			
		

> These adventurers must deliver a sharp check, deal a lesson to the clan of hill giants nearby, *or else return and put their heads upon the block for the headsman's axe!*



Riiiiiight ... We're level 9 to 14, bubelah; we can _easily_ come up with other alternatives ... and in a campaign, being able to act on those is basic to the game. *In a tournament or similar scenario, that back-story is just "fluff"; of course we are going to do whatever the scenario is!*



> While any concievable scenario can be ran as a railroad, why are you trying to invent rails where none actually exist?



Why do you make a big deal of GDQ "not being considered a railroad"? I don't consider it a railroad because _it's not a railroad_ in my experience! If there is some quality of "adventure paths" that _is_ of railroad nature, then you're talking about something that has nothing to do with what "classic gaming fans" -- or whatever you called us -- actually dig, or why we presumably don't dig some things you call "adventure paths". You are just arbitrarily conflating different things.



> I'm beginning to wonder about this definition of 'campaign'. It's beginning to sound so narrow as to exclude a non-trivial portion of how people actually played.



It was what it was, and *nobody ever claimed* that it did not "exclude a non-trivial portion" of other instances of playing the game. For heaven's sake, I very recently posted in this very thread a quote to that effect from the foreword written in November of 1973. Naturally the denotation excludes things other than what it denotes; that is what makes it useful in communication!

When it became confusing, because people were calling utterly different things "D&D campaigns" (with a pretty narrow set of assumptions, too), *we used the term "sandbox" instead for the old denotation.*



> Please explain, because I'm beginning to find your definition of 'classic play' to be sorely limiting if it excludes GDQ.



What I'm saying is that you may be -- now, I will say _probably are_ -- confusing different things.

In that post, I gave quite a number of illustrations, so maybe you could try reading it again.

For now, suffice that there are different phenomena:
(A) There is a *scenario* that is, "you are going to attack the hill giants". That's the game, one of sharply limited scope.
(B) There is a *linear sequence of scenarios*. In the tournament, the winners are definitely going on to play the next round, and the losers are not, regardless of any other considerations. There is no real causality to it other than that; any "in the imagined world" rationale is just tacked on (and nifty when it turns out to be at least plausible).
(C) There is the *plot-coherent linear sequence of scenarios*, such as the Dragonlance Saga. In this, the DM is supposed to rig things so that there is apparent causality and continuity to the sequence -- but not to let it get aborted. The players are not allowed to "fail" to go through scenarios 1,2,3 ... 11, 12, 13 (or whatever).
(D) There is the *campaign* as described by Gygax, Arneson and others, in keeping with prior art and usage in the wargames hobby. In this, the steading, glacial rift, hall, deep fastnesses of the drow and the kuo-toa people, and so on, are all parts of an encompassing environment. Players decide for themselves where to go and what to do, and when.


----------



## Ariosto (Dec 31, 2010)

If your game is openly billed as a _scenario_ -- "The Musgrave Ritual" or "Battle of the Five Armies" or what have you -- then anyone who pejoratively calls it on that account "a railroad" simply has no business signing up for it and then complaining about its being just what was advertised.

If you claim, "You are free to move about not only the cabin but all of Madagascar," but it turns out there's really nowhere to go except down the trap door under the rug in the sitting room ... then people may reasonably resent being misled.


----------



## bert1000 (Jan 1, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The sort of responsiveness I was talking about is the GM developing things and introducing game elements based not on ingame causal logic but metagaming logic, the idea being to keep the thematic pressure up to the players. This is at odds, I think, with exploration - because the GM is manipulating motives and backstory behind the scenes - and hence, I think, at odds with sandboxing.




This always trips me up in these discussions.  It seems to me that most people associate sandbox play with pre-determined (or randomly determined) places, NPCs, etc.    The "ultimate sandbox DM" would then have the entire world mapped out before hand in every detail, large and small.  In reality, however, no one can do this.  At some point a DM has to make up details that were not pre-determined or there isn't a random table for.   And many of these times, there are a multitude of choices that would not, in fact, be at odds with ingame causal logic.  It's just a choice.

So, does using prior details of the play up until then to choose these elements that need to be made up on the spot somehow make it less sandboxy?  I guess so, but it's unavoidable at some level so not sure it should count against sandboxing.

For example, what if the PCs decide to see if there are any unplundered tombs in an unexplored hex far to the north and the DM hasn't really pre-populated that hex yet.  There is nothing that has been revealed to the players up to now that would indicate that there is or isn't a tomb there.  They are playing in a world with lots of old ruins, so there certainly could be a tomb there  -- it isn't at odds with the inworld logic.  The DM needs to make a choice.  Or even if rolling randomly, has to assign a percentage (a choice).  

Back to the snake example above.  The PCs seek out a tomb to plunder.  The DM didn't flesh out this tomb before the PCs made their characters.   In fact, the DM is creating this tomb now for the next session since he didn't expect the PCs to go there.  One PC is afraid of snakes.  It is perfectly within the inworld logic that there could be snakes in a tomb (or spiders, or undead, etc.).  Unless the DM creates a completely random dungeon, then how can the DM populate the dungeon without being effected by the knowledge (one way or the other) that the PC is afraid of snakes?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 1, 2011)

I think the concern might make more sense if one presumes that pemerton really meant "to keep the thematic pressure up *on* (not 'to') the players".

Still, the attention may be misplaced. The purpose of the design is to provide the players with a fun, challenging game, so trying to characterize that intent as somehow unwholesome is a wrong turn.

I can understand the temptation as arising from a temperament or taste that happens to find the challenges of an old-style game "not fun".

The potential problem is in neglecting the expectation of a fun, challenging _game_. Capriciously changing rules undermines that.

Whether the rules are "ingame causal" or "metagaming" has in itself not much to do with that. It certainly has to do with the degree of "role-playing" in the sense of treating things from the perspective of the role being played, but that is something else.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 1, 2011)

The factors can be closely associated, though.

Unless one's literary model is a parody, one probably does not expect "the hero of the story" to go about self-consciously "breaking the third wall".

So, someone interested in turning the game into a literary device is probably on that account interested in acting at a remove from an "in those shoes" point of view.

Furthermore, having preconceptions to meet, one may find that the world's "internal  logic" is no more cooperative than dice that insist on generating random numbers. Miracles _on demand_ are needed.

Ideally, perhaps, there should be no great distinction. When the rules of the game and the rules of the imagined world are severely at odds, I reckon that's probably an example of bad game design.

Note that I include among the designers the GM and whoever else was involved in setting up whatever the game proximately and practically is. We can't very well blame the writers of Rules Set X for problems we have made for ourselves.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 2, 2011)

bert1000 said:


> At some point a DM has to make up details that were not pre-determined or there isn't a random table for.   And many of these times, there are a multitude of choices that would not, in fact, be at odds with ingame causal logic.  It's just a choice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Unless the DM creates a completely random dungeon, then how can the DM populate the dungeon without being effected by the knowledge (one way or the other) that the PC is afraid of snakes?



These are fair points. I'll leave it to the sandbox players/GMs to talk about how they handle these issues. What I was trying to say is that, in the way I play, the choice is made not by considering ingame consistency, but on the sort of metagame basis I described.

(Of course one doesn't want to _contradict_ ingame consistency - but in a fantasy RPG I tend to find that ingame consistency is pretty forgiving.)



Ariosto said:


> Capriciously changing rules undermines that.



I've got no interest in doing that. In this thread most of the discussion has been about scenario/world design, and in 4e there is no rule that has to be broken or changed to make it snakes rather than spiders.



Ariosto said:


> When the rules of the game and the rules of the imagined world are severely at odds, I reckon that's probably an example of bad game design.



Luckily I don't have this problem. I don't play a game where the rules of the game are at odds with the ingame causal logic of the gameworld. But nor do the rules of the game model that logic. They are to a significant extent external to it. For example, resolving a skill challenge doesn't model ingame processes - rather, it tells us at the table whether or not ingame actions have achieved certain things, and specifies the parameters within which the GM and players can stipulate various states of the gameworld.

The burden of maintaining the coherence of the gameworld falls on the GM and players when they undertake that stipulation within the parameters that the action resolution mechanics yield. (For example, if the skill challenge involved a PC going from A to B, the player of that PC cannot in the next stage of the skill challenge declare some action which presupposes the PC being located at  point A.) Again, I find that this is typically not all that hard to achieve.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 3, 2011)

bert1000 said:


> This always trips me up in these discussions.  It seems to me that most people associate sandbox play with pre-determined (or randomly determined) places, NPCs, etc.    The "ultimate sandbox DM" would then have the entire world mapped out before hand in every detail, large and small.  In reality, however, no one can do this.  At some point a DM has to make up details that were not pre-determined or there isn't a random table for.   And many of these times, there are a multitude of choices that would not, in fact, be at odds with ingame causal logic.  It's just a choice.



Forgive me for quoting myself, but I addressed this in another thread back in April.







The Shaman said:


> In the games I run, the adventurers can't "waltz out of the sandbox," because it's _all_ sandbox. The adventurers can't go 'off the reservation' because it's reservation in every direction.
> 
> I think of my prepration time as 'prepping to improvise.' I can't detail an entire game-world, or game-universe for some games, so I'll detail a few obvious locations then focus my preparation on what I need to know to differentiate the cultural and natural landscape the adventurers may discover in their travels. From this I can draw things like npc characterisations on the fly, and from there I'm simply reacting to whatever the adventurers do.
> 
> ...



As part of preparing to run a game, I'm building the tools I'll need behind the screen once we're actually playing.

Frex, I'm fortunate enough to have an exceptionally detailed map of the setting for my game, but even with this as a resource, there is no way I can reasonably attempt to key every settlement, every church, every abbey, every fortress. So far I've focused on detailing certain cities which I believe are most likely to come up in play: Paris (the central city of the setting), Rouen (the gateway to New France), La Rochelle (the Protestant stronghold and another important port), Toulouse (an important cultural and administrative location, the 'Paris' of southern France), and Marseille (the gateway to the Mediterranean). The importance of thse cities is such that I reasonably expect the adventurers to visit at least two or three of them in the course of playing the game.

But suppose the adventurers visit Bordeaux, or Clermont, or Lyon instead? Part of my prep focuses on being able to improvise so that a visit to each is distinctive in some way. Bourdeaux is home to the only significant population of Jews in France outside of Paris or Avignon and trades extensively with Portugal. Clermont is situated on the edge of one of the most geographically inhospitable regions of France, giving it the feel of a frontier town in the heart of the kingdom. Lyon is a historic banking center with strong cultural and business ties to the Swiss and the Italians. This allows me to take a generic random encounter and reskin it so that it's geographically appropriate to the setting and reinforces the cape-and-sword genre feel of the game.

And that's, for me, one of the approaches which characterizes running a 'sandbox'-y setting. I'm not improvising encounters to 'steer' the adventurers on the 'right track.' I'm not improvising encounters, or features of the game-world, in response to something on a player's character sheet. I'm not improvising 'level-appropriate' encounters.

Instead, I'm improvising encounters largely without regard to who adventurers are. If the adventurers head off cross-country in Provence, they may encounter a Roman ruin, and one of the more likely forms of wildlife to be found hiding among the fallen columns and crumbling foundations is a viper. That's about as close as I get to 'aiming' an encounter at an adventurer.

The exception to this is encounters which occur as a consequence of the adventurers' actions. If the adventurers rescue Princess Pinkflower from the château de Bauchery, a random encounter with troops or guards gets assigned a chance of being the baron's henchmen trying to steal her back.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 3, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But nor do the rules of the game model that logic. They are to a significant extent external to it.




I find this is one of the language ambiguities that causes problems.

In the sense that every detail of the game rules directly resembles an element of the game world logic, you are correct, the game rules don't need to model the logic.

In the sense that the results of the game rules are the same as the results of the game world logic, then the rules darned well ought to model the logic!  If the results of using the rules are not the same as the results of the logic, then the characters will have experiences that aren't really supposed to happen in the game world.

Say you're running a four-color supers game.  In four-color supers, characters don't die frequently.  If your game rules have one character death per weekly session, the game rules are not modeling the game world, and you've got a problem.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 5, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> If your game is openly billed as a _scenario_ -- "The Musgrave Ritual" or "Battle of the Five Armies" or what have you -- then anyone who pejoratively calls it on that account "a railroad" simply has no business signing up for it and then complaining about its being just what was advertised.
> 
> If you claim, "You are free to move about not only the cabin but all of Madagascar," but it turns out there's really nowhere to go except down the trap door under the rug in the sitting room ... then people may reasonably resent being misled.




That's a rather odd definition of scenario though.  I mean, you're basically saying that something like Shackled City - a series of twelve or thirteen distinct but related adventures - is a single scenario and not a campaign.

A scenario that takes you from 1st to Epic level in 3rd edition?  Most people would call that a campaign.

Likewise, GDQ, nine very large modules which can easily take a year of play time is a fair bit more than just a scenario.  It's not that hard to call it a campaign.

That's like saying T1-4 is just a scenario.  If a scenario can cover an entire play life of a group of characters, then what is a campaign?


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 5, 2011)

Hussar said:
			
		

> what is a campaign?



It's whatever you say it is, Hussar.

And that thing we used call a D&D campaign is whatever y'all decide we're allowed to call it, whenever you make up your minds.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2011)

Well, Ariosto, I don't know about you, but, I generally say that an adventure and a scenario are pretty much synonymous.  To me, a campaign is a series of adventures linked in some fashion, whether thematically, or simply by the fact that the same players played through all or most of them.

Well, I tried, but I see that playing pin the tail on the definition is still the game du jour so, I bid you adieu.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2011)

Umbran said:


> In the sense that every detail of the game rules directly resembles an element of the game world logic, you are correct, the game rules don't need to model the logic.
> 
> In the sense that the results of the game rules are the same as the results of the game world logic, then the rules darned well ought to model the logic!  If the results of using the rules are not the same as the results of the logic, then the characters will have experiences that aren't really supposed to happen in the game world.
> 
> Say you're running a four-color supers game.  In four-color supers, characters don't die frequently.  If your game rules have one character death per weekly session, the game rules are not modeling the game world, and you've got a problem.



Umbran, I had in mind a slighlty different distinction - though I don't dispute the importance of the point that you make.

The difference that I had in mind is that between games like (on the one hand) Rolemaster, Runequest and Classic Traveller, and (on the other hand) HeroQuest or (as I interpret it) 4e. In the former games, the rules very closely model the ingame causal logic of the gameworld (in Forge terminology, they are purist-for-system simulationist). In the latter games, the rules are closer to "meta-rules", distributing permissions to narrate ingame events, and establishing the parameters that constrain such permissions.

Any number of examples could be given. Just to pick one: both RM and RQ have fumble rules. If a fumble result is rolled on the dice, then not only does the action that the player has initiated fail, but we know that, in the gameworld, the PC has made a hash of the attempt. In 4e, on the other hand, a "1" is an automatic miss on an attack, but doesn't dictate anything about what has happened in the gameworld. It might be that the PC attempted an attack that went wild, or was fumbled, but equally it could be that the PC made a brilliant attack, thwarted only by the equal deftness of the opponent. The only constraint on the gameworld imposed by the rules is that whatever is said to happen, it must be consistent with the PC failing to reduce the opponent's ability to fight (because no hp have been delivered, given the miss - and putting to one side powers that do damage even on a miss).

To tie this back to your point - the world of RM and RQ is a world in which even the greatest heroes occasionally fumble their attacks. The world of 4e, on the other hand, and depending upon the story preferences of the players/GM (in different groups, a different person might actually enjoy the relevant narrative authority) can be such a world, but equally can be a world in which (at least some) heroes never fumble, and fail on occasion only because they face opponents almost as powerful and skillful as they are.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Forgive me for quoting myself, but I addressed this in another thread back in April.As part of preparing to run a game, I'm building the tools I'll need behind the screen once we're actually playing.
> 
> Frex, I'm fortunate enough to have an exceptionally detailed map of the setting for my game, but even with this as a resource, there is no way I can reasonably attempt to key every settlement, every church, every abbey, every fortress. So far I've focused on detailing certain cities which I believe are most likely to come up in play: Paris (the central city of the setting), Rouen (the gateway to New France), La Rochelle (the Protestant stronghold and another important port), Toulouse (an important cultural and administrative location, the 'Paris' of southern France), and Marseille (the gateway to the Mediterranean). The importance of thse cities is such that I reasonably expect the adventurers to visit at least two or three of them in the course of playing the game.
> 
> ...




I've been thinking about this and it finally struck me why I was having a problem.

How is this not describing Celebrim's Rowboat Campaign?  

I mean, you're saying that the players can go anywhere and do anything, but, they are not guaranteed to find adventure everywhere they go.  Instead, they proactively decide to head cross country and come across a Roman Ruin.  And their reward for being proactive is to meet ... a snake.

How is this not telling the players, "Sure you can go anywhere you want to go, but, if you head to places I didn't really anticipate, you are now in a "no-adventure zone" and be prepared for boredom?"

I'd much prefer that adventure seems to lurk under every rock and for some bizarre reason, trouble just seems to find the group, regardless of what we do.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I've been thinking about this and it finally struck me why I was having a problem.
> 
> How is this not describing Celebrim's Rowboat Campaign?




I can't tell if it is or isn't, but as best as I can tell if it does avoid it, it's because he's got only two players and he's running a successful Small Drama campaign heavy on theatrics and concern for the daily hardships and interpersonal conflict.  Basically, it's a soap opera set in 17th century France, possibly run with only one player at a time allowing the DM to lavish time on the players.  The fewer players you have, the more you can personalize the game and the more you can make the small stuff like making camp, shopping, small talk with NPCs and the like interesting.  Plus, he's a history buff and if he's got writerly skills its probably like getting immersed in a good historical novel.

It very much makes a difference whether you are running a game for one person, or two, or six, or forty, just like it very much makes a difference if you are running a game for people you've never played with before or you've been DMing for 18 years with the same group of people.

If he's successfully running a Small Drama game for more than two players, then its because he has a group of amateur thespians that spend most of their time talking with each other IC.  The group matters.

Of course, I can't really know what's going on in his game without sitting in on it.  These are all generous guesses as to what makes a game like that work.  I can't say however that the game he runs appeals to me as a player.  I find the whole thing terribly boring as described, and I always try to run the game that I as a player would enjoy.   But, also, it takes all kinds.   There is no gaurantee that everyone would enjoy my game (though I'm smug enough to assert that so far, everyone has).


----------



## Nagol (Jan 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I've been thinking about this and it finally struck me why I was having a problem.
> 
> How is this not describing Celebrim's Rowboat Campaign?
> 
> ...




The rowboat is a degenerate form of a sandbox that allows the players infinite choice but strips that choice of meaning by requiring those choices to be made without context of a situation or in response to the environment.

A sandbox allows the player to make meaningful choices. Meaning implies decisions made with knowledge/context of the environment and the environment reacting in plausible and understandable ways.

Deciding to strike out into the wilds chasing nothing in particular is a choice.  It is the players gambling that the choice will lead to something unexpected or that the expected ressult is preferable to their other current choices (for example, they are being hunted in town and don't want to confront the hunters).  Sometimes such gambles pay off othertimes they don't.  Always having the gamble pay off strips the choice of a lot of meaning for me.

Part of the draw for a sandbox for me is those range of choices include choices that are better for some strategies/outcomes and some are worse.  Players should weigh the expected result of their choices against their goals and preferred outcomes.


----------



## Janx (Jan 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, Ariosto, I don't know about you, but, I generally say that an adventure and a scenario are pretty much synonymous.  To me, a campaign is a series of adventures linked in some fashion, whether thematically, or simply by the fact that the same players played through all or most of them.
> 
> Well, I tried, but I see that playing pin the tail on the definition is still the game du jour so, I bid you adieu.




And thats why he's the only person in my Ignore list.  It does not appear possible to have a discussion of gaming elements with him.

Whereas, Shaman's tables of coincidentallly linked random encounters seems like a fascinating way to generate random game content (and thus the GM has little clue what's coming next).  Shaman could sell me on that idea within the framework of how I do things now, and that's a useful dialog.

I'm not sold on the idea that a sandbox has to explicitly be non-level appropriate.  Just as GMs in non-sandboxes don't literally make every encounter and every entity level appropriate.  A GM in the adventure path style writes content that is appropriate to levels needed to the adventure, and stuff that's not involved (and thus not assumed to be directly attacked) could be wildly varying in level.  Contrast that to the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion sandbox.  Wherein everything levels up with the PC.  So much so, its a valid strategy to play the game and never sleep (so you never level up), thus making the end encounters easier.

Basically, nobody has a campaign world where every encounter, every NPC, every place is literally level appropriate.  Its a style choice of whether the GM gives a hoot if the PCs go into too dangerous parts or parts he hasnt planned on.

Likewise, there are no rules to break when determining the reactions of NPCs, the level of the encounters, or any other event or entity in the game.  Rocks fall, everybody dies.

Any GM who deliberately counters players choices to force them through his content when they deliberately chose to avoid it is a crap DM.  When the players say, "we ally with the giants", or "we go south to avoid the giants" then the GM has to react to enable that, not actively try to make it fail so he can force them back into fighting with the giants like his adventure says they should.  That is such obviously bad GM behavior, they invented a term for it, "Railroading" that it shouldn't bear discussing or debating with any experienced GM such as would appear in this thread.

The questions to be pondered should not be the obvious stuff, as if that proves anything else is also bad.  The question should be what ideas from other gaming styles could be adapted to your own to avoid unfun situations and to enhance your game, not replace your game style with somebody else's.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I've been thinking about this and it finally struck me why I was having a problem.
> 
> How is this not describing Celebrim's Rowboat Campaign?



Because the adventurers are not adrift in a featureless void without meaningful options.

In my game-world they are surrounded by the incessant buzz of activity, the players are encouraged to proactively involve their characters in those activities, and from time to time that activity may spill onto the characters unexpectedly, in the form of random encounters.







Hussar said:


> I mean, you're saying that the players can go anywhere and do anything, but, they are not guaranteed to find adventure everywhere they go.  Instead, they proactively decide to head cross country and come across a Roman Ruin.  And their reward for being proactive is to meet ... a snake.



The example of the ruined villa and the viper is a reference to the on-going discussion about whether or not encounters and events in the game are created to specifically challenge an adventurer or adventurers based on backstory - I introduced the example of Indiana Jones in a post upthread to explain my understanding of *pemerton*'s approach to doing this in his game. My point with respect to the villa and the viper was, I don't introduce encounters to play on the adventurers' fears or backstory elements, so if they were to encounter a snake, this would be a likely instance when they would do so - I'm not throwing snakes at characters just to play on their phobias.

Since my game doesn't include 'dungeons' and 'monsters,' encounters tend to be a bit less over-the-top than is standard in _D&D_, so hazards associated with a ruined villa or temple might consist of a nest of vipers, a dangerous crumbling wall, a collapsing floor over a cistern, a hive of hornets, and so on. Roman ruins feature in a number of the random encounters I generated; frex, if an encounter with 'bandits' appears in Languedoc or Provence, one of the possibilities is that the adventurers stumble upon a bandit lair in a ruined temple.

(As an aside, one of the reasons I include ruined villas, castles, chuches, and so on throughout my random encounters is that they makes such great swashbuckling environments. Steps, piles of rubble, rows of columns, shifting slabs - a Roman ruin is a _great_ place to stage a sword fight, should the encounter go that way.)

But just for the sake of argument, let's suppose for a moment that in my game there _is_ such a thing as random encounter with a Roman ruin and one viper, and nothing else, as you suggest. You've written about "pacing" several times on this forum: given the limited time which gamers have to play, 'shopping trips,' 'empty rooms,' and the like are a waste of those precious game-night minutes of adventure.

I see a couple of problems with this approach. First, rising action isn't rising action without falling action, in my opinion - a well-paced game, in my experience, features peaks _and_ valleys. I have this problem with movies quite often - _Indiana Jones at the Temple of Doom_ ("Indiana Jones at the Tempo of ZOOM!") and _Van Helsing_ come to mind, where the actions simply becomes mind-numbing and I stop caring at all about the characters or their world.

'Exploring the world' in a 'sandbox'-y setting isn't just about 'filling in blank hexes on the map.' One 'explores' a world by interacting with its denizens and visiting its features, even denizens known to many and features which appear on a map readily available to anyone. Our last game night included a trip to the theatre - there was the possibility of a random encounter which might involve the adventurer, but nothing came up, so the five or ten minutes of real-time we spent on the show focused on the adventurer learning more about a couple of the npcs he met earlier on (including a woman he may be thinking about pursuing as a mistress) and the experience of visiting the theatre in 1625 Paris.

This leads to the second point: part of running a 'sandbox'-y game is providing the adventurers with resources which they may or may not choose to use. The musketeer-adventurer in my game now has the theatre as a resource; he can look for someone he knows there, arrange a rendezvous there, and so on. A ruined villa discovered by the adventurers in the _pays_ of Provence offers the same benefit - frex, should they need a place to stash Princess Pinkflower after rescuing her from the baron de Bauchery, this becomes one of the resources available to them.

To use a more _D&D_-friendly example, that empty room the adventurers discover in the dungeon right now may become the Alamo where they make their last stand later in the game.







Hussar said:


> How is this not telling the players, "Sure you can go anywhere you want to go, but, if you head to places I didn't really anticipate, you are now in a "no-adventure zone" and be prepared for boredom?"



Because my prep is intended to avoid _exactly_ that.







Hussar said:


> I'd much prefer that adventure seems to lurk under every rock and for some bizarre reason, trouble just seems to find the group, regardless of what we do.



And I prefer the adventurers to be the ones making trouble, not waiting for someone to spring it on them over and over again.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How is this not telling the players, "Sure you can go anywhere you want to go, but, if you head to places I didn't really anticipate, you are now in a "no-adventure zone" and be prepared for boredom?"



I'm not seeing where The Shaman even told that to *you*, so how you figure is surely a puzzle.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 6, 2011)

Janx said:
			
		

> And thats why he's the only person in my Ignore list.



Because I'm fed up with Hussar's arguing over definitions? Because (as he demonstrates right there) he won't take "yes" -- *literally, "It's whatever you say it is."* -- for an answer?

Oh, well. Unreasonable is as unreasonable does.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2011)

Double post deleted.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The rowboat is a degenerate form of a sandbox that allows the players infinite choice but strips that choice of meaning by requiring those choices to be made without context of a situation or in response to the environment.
> 
> A sandbox allows the player to make meaningful choices. Meaning implies decisions made with knowledge/context of the environment and the environment reacting in plausible and understandable ways.
> 
> Deciding to strike out into the wilds chasing nothing in particular is a choice.  It is the players gambling that the choice will lead to something unexpected or that the expected ressult is preferable to their other current choices (for example, they are being hunted in town and don't want to confront the hunters).  Sometimes such gambles pay off othertimes they don't.  Always having the gamble pay off strips the choice of a lot of meaning for me.



What I would want to add to this, is that I prefer every choice by the players nevertheless to produce interesting game play. I don't think that this robs those choices of meaning, because interesting game play can nevertheless be producing meaningfully different outcomes for the PCs (eg they may be more likely to achieve or fail in their goals, depending on choices made).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2011)

Janx said:


> GMs in non-sandboxes don't literally make every encounter and every entity level appropriate.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Basically, nobody has a campaign world where every encounter, every NPC, every place is literally level appropriate.  Its a style choice of whether the GM gives a hoot if the PCs go into too dangerous parts or parts he hasnt planned on.



I come pretty close to being a counter-example. When I prepare encounters they are  - whether combat or non-combat - level appropriate (within the 4e encounter design parameters). If the PCs head in a direction I hadn't anticipated/prepared, the encounters will likewise be level-appropriate.

Part of what facilitates this is that in my game the gameworld entities (NPCs, traps, mountain-climbing DCs etc) don't have mechanical expression until I build the encounter, and I'm happy to mechanically revise encounters up until I actually run them.

Not all games can be GMed like this (eg in Rolemaster, entities clearly do have a pre-encounter mechanical expression, because their mechanical expression is part of what defines their nature and capabilities within the gameworld). The fact that 4e can be run in this way is part of what I like about it.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What I would want to add to this, is that I prefer every choice by the players nevertheless to produce interesting game play. I don't think that this robs those choices of meaning, because interesting game play can nevertheless be producing meaningfully different outcomes for the PCs (eg they may be more likely to achieve or fail in their goals, depending on choices made).




I prefer the player choices to have consequence as well, but if the players want a quiet vacation and make the effort to achieve it, so be it.  Sometimes a quiet time is just a quiet time.

Other times the choices the group didn't follow will have consequence.  They may not find anything during their outing, but their absence from other scenes can allow forces to advance their agendas.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 6, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What I would want to add to this, is that I prefer every choice by the players nevertheless to produce interesting game play. I don't think that this robs those choices of meaning, because interesting game play can nevertheless be producing meaningfully different outcomes for the PCs (eg they may be more likely to achieve or fail in their goals, depending on choices made).




This is the point I was trying to make, but Pemerton made it better than I could.  I really need to refresh my writing skills.  

The Shaman - I do entirely agree that pacing is important, and you do need peaks and valleys.  But, I've seen way, way too many games where a valley becomes this vast plain of nothing interspersed by all too infrequent hillocks of action.

And, really, this is why I tend to be leery of sandboxes.  When the players have very large numbers of choices, it can lead to analysis paralysis or, possibly worse, campaign by committee where the group always does the choice that is least resisted by the players as a group.  Then again, if Celebrim is correct, and you're only dealing with two players, this is a non-issue.  In a larger group, say five or six players, this can become problematic.  

Not that you can't overcome the problem - splitting the party comes to mind immediately - but it's still a problem.

So, yes, if the player chooses to do X and X leads to three hours of stomping around empty rooms, then the DM needs to get it in gear and have something blow up.


----------



## Janx (Jan 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I come pretty close to being a counter-example. When I prepare encounters they are  - whether combat or non-combat - level appropriate (within the 4e encounter design parameters). If the PCs head in a direction I hadn't anticipated/prepared, the encounters will likewise be level-appropriate.
> 
> Part of what facilitates this is that in my game the gameworld entities (NPCs, traps, mountain-climbing DCs etc) don't have mechanical expression until I build the encounter, and I'm happy to mechanically revise encounters up until I actually run them.
> 
> Not all games can be GMed like this (eg in Rolemaster, entities clearly do have a pre-encounter mechanical expression, because their mechanical expression is part of what defines their nature and capabilities within the gameworld). The fact that 4e can be run in this way is part of what I like about it.





And there's nothing wrong with your way, as I enjoy playing Oblivion when I don't meta-game it for that aspect.

However, I bet you do have level variance in your game.  The BBEG is probably a few CRs higher than the party.  An early encounter is probably a few CRs lighter than the party.  The super powerful wizard in the tower yonder is probably much higher level than the party.  So is the king.  You may not have stats for them, but if the party went and talked to them, and more importantly interacted with them in a way that the stats mattered, you'd know if the NPC was higher or lower level than the party.

As opposed to the literal extreme that every encounter level equals the party level, and every NPC's level equals the party's level (how would they ever find a wizard to enchant their stuff?)

I don't give much thought to making NPCs and encounter areas that the PCs aren't supposed to find.  Or to say, stuff that's way out of their league.  I'll use random encounter tables to fluff out my adventure content (I pre-roll random encounters as part of my construction stage, so i don't have to pause the game to roll and look up stuff because that's how I forget to use a monster's powers that I just read the stats for).  A lot of times I use the random encounter results to generate what I think the story will be about.  Basically making something up to justify the results I got.  Sort of like what Shaman does with his NPC thing, but I do it ahead of time.

If I name-drop something more powerful, the PCs aren't going to randomly run into it just  so I get a chance to wipe them out.  If the PCs actively seek out something that I had planned to be high level, I'll start dropping clues that it's too tough before they get there.  I suppose when they get there, I have a choice on whether its even home, combative, or talkative.  Giving the PCs one last chance to not get killed.  I only recall one time long ago where a PC actually got hostile with a high level NPC, and that was a glitch of the player was an idiot, and I shouldn't have been using high level villains in a social situation.

Most of the time, my players sense the danger, keep it social, or avoid conflict (run away, there's a dragon in there).  Wasn't that the point of having higher level stuff, to teach them to do that?  Unless a DM is gleefully hoping the PCs don't get the hint and get themselves killed which kacks your campaign.  

If your players aren't stupid, and the GM is correctly conveying danger indicators, then no over-kill TPK can occur, thus making the point about having higher level dangers in your world be a moot point and you might as well just stick to the business of building game content in the style that you and your players enjoy and not fret whether pemerton's monsters are always the same level as the party.

I think my point is, game elements like higher level areas that the PCs would get killed in, for the sake of teaching the players to avoid, ends up being unused if the players already learned the lesson.  Thats not to invalidate situations where players are out of their league and THINK their way to success. But thinking that your campaign has to have high level danger areas when your campaign is currently low level, just to qualify for some golden "seal of sandbox approval" is wasted design effort.  You can just as easily justify revealing higher level areas when they're more feasible to encounter, thus saving yourself some work and still have the fun and respect of your players.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> However, I bet you do have level variance in your game.  The BBEG is probably a few CRs higher than the party.



Like I said, I follow the 4e guidelines - so I use encounters up to level +4.



Janx said:


> The super powerful wizard in the tower yonder is probably much higher level than the party.  So is the king.  You may not have stats for them, but if the party went and talked to them, and more importantly interacted with them in a way that the stats mattered, you'd know if the NPC was higher or lower level than the party.



In 4e this would generally be a skill challenge - so the NPCs don't need stats, as the DCs are dependent on the level of the challenge, which I would set following the guidelines.



Janx said:


> I think my point is, game elements like higher level areas that the PCs would get killed in, for the sake of teaching the players to avoid, ends up being unused if the players already learned the lesson.



I personally dislike this whole approach to play. Even when I use to run a sandbox (or much more sandboxy game) I didn't do this sort of thing. I was helped in that by using Rolemaster as my system - like 1st ed AD&D, Rolemaster is much less sensitive to level scaling than is a game like 4e.



Janx said:


> I'll use random encounter tables to fluff out my adventure content



I don't use random encounters in this way.



Janx said:


> you might as well just stick to the business of building game content in the style that you and your players enjoy and not fret whether pemerton's monsters are always the same level as the party.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But thinking that your campaign has to have high level danger areas when your campaign is currently low level, just to qualify for some golden "seal of sandbox approval" is wasted design effort.



I don't have much trouble sticking to this plan!


----------



## Hussar (Jan 7, 2011)

Celebrim does bring up an excellent point.  Gaming externalities will have an enormous impact on how your game works.  How many players, how long and how often do you play, how experiences are the players and DM, etc. etc. etc.  Things that are not covered in the rules at all will likely have at least as much impact on how the game runs as the rules themselves.

For example, we're doing a round robin, Adventure of the Week type of campaign right now.  We're all busy people, and no one has found the time to build a detailed campaign, or even a rather emaciated skeletal campaign for that matter.  So, we take turns running scenarios, using a roughly stable set of characters.  Once a given scenario is done, the reins get handed to the next person in line.

Now, to keep things going, the table has pretty much agreed that we won't strike off into the wilderness.  The DM of the day has a scenario and we're going to play that scenario.  Not that the scenarios themselves are railroads, but, the initial set up is entirely dictated by the DM of the day.  On my turn, I started the adventure after the party had already agreed to the employment offer, traveled for several days and came upon the scene of an ongoing attack on a farmstead.  

After that point, the players had a great deal of freedom in how they tackled things, but, the initial set up was entirely on me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Celebrim does bring up an excellent point.




I've found that he does that a lot.  Even when I disagree with him, I find his posts worth reading.

And it is a pleasure to continue reading posts from you which are worth reading, in this thread and others.  Keep up the good work in 2011!


RC


----------



## Janx (Jan 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now, to keep things going, the table has pretty much agreed that we won't strike off into the wilderness.  The DM of the day has a scenario and we're going to play that scenario.  Not that the scenarios themselves are railroads, but, the initial set up is entirely dictated by the DM of the day.  On my turn, I started the adventure after the party had already agreed to the employment offer, traveled for several days and came upon the scene of an ongoing attack on a farmstead.
> 
> After that point, the players had a great deal of freedom in how they tackled things, but, the initial set up was entirely on me.




That's comparable to how our group agrees to bite the plot hook, providing it makes sense to do so.

the only time we got bit by it was when the gm ran "3 Days to Kill", rather than a self-wrote adventure.  That adventure cratered the campaign, and we all didn't like the hook, but given the GM was newer, we wanted to get things moving only to find the only successful path was to not have gone on the adventure.

Some people only like sandboxes.  I don't like published adventures.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 7, 2011)

Celebrim said:


> I can't tell if it is or isn't, but as best as I can tell if it does avoid it, it's because he's got only two players and he's running a successful Small Drama campaign heavy on theatrics and concern for the daily hardships and interpersonal conflict.



I don't know what "Small Drama" means in this context, nor am I entirely sure how you're using "theatrics" here.

"Daily hardships" aren't a big deal, really, but interpersonal conflict is definitely the order of the day.







Celebrim said:


> Basically, it's a soap opera set in 17th century France . . .



To the extent that _The Three Musketeers_ and _Captain Alatiste_ and _Bardelys the Magnificent_ and _Under the Red Robe_ are soap operas, yes, I think that's fair.







Celebrim said:


> . . . possibly run with only one player at a time allowing the DM to lavish time on the players.



This Saturday will be the first time I actually have two of three players in the same room at the same time. I'm looking forward to it.







Celebrim said:


> The fewer players you have, the more you can personalize the game and the more you can make the small stuff like making camp, shopping, small talk with NPCs and the like interesting.



I think there are some genres which work better with a small number of players - espionage is one, swashbuckling another, Arthurian knights-errant a third.







Celebrim said:


> Plus, he's a history buff and if he's got writerly skills its probably like getting immersed in a good historical novel.



First and foremost, it should be a fun roleplaying game, but to the extent creating an imaginary world that feels like a Rafael Sabatini or Alexandre Dumas novel helps facilitate that, then yes, that is one of my goals.







Celebrim said:


> I can't say however that the game he runs appeals to me as a player.  I find the whole thing terribly boring as described . . .



Exactly the way I feel about most fantasy roleplaying games - dungeoncrawling is the only appeal holds _D&D_ for me, and I'm good with a once-a-year fix of that.







Celebrim said:


> . . . I always try to run the game that I as a player would enjoy.



Same here.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> I'm not sold on the idea that a sandbox has to explicitly be non-level appropriate.



The goal of most sandboxes is to create a world of diverse denizens and challenges - restricting that to a narrow range of options may fail to achieve that as the adventurers gain experience.







Janx said:


> Just as GMs in non-sandboxes don't literally make every encounter and every entity level appropriate.



No, but in my experience the range of encounter difficulty is proscribed much more than in a _status quo_ setting. Some linear adventures feature the express goal of getting the adventurers from one range of levels to another range of levels in anticipation of the next adventure, so often there is considerable focus on level appropriate encounters throughout.







Janx said:


> A GM in the adventure path style writes content that is appropriate to levels needed to the adventure, and stuff that's not involved (and thus not assumed to be directly attacked) could be wildly varying in level.



A 'sandbox,' _status quo_ referee makes no presumption that something will not be involved - it's all in play and in motion from the giddyup. 







Janx said:


> Contrast that to the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion sandbox.  Wherein everything levels up with the PC.  So much so, its a valid strategy to play the game and never sleep (so you never level up), thus making the end encounters easier.



Yeesh. 


Janx said:


> Basically, nobody has a campaign world where every encounter, every NPC, every place is literally level appropriate.



I don't know if I agree with that. Referees who only run adventure paths or other canned adventure fare run games where the range of challenge ratings are pretty proscribed.







Janx said:


> Its a style choice of whether the GM gives a hoot if the PCs go into too dangerous parts or parts he hasnt planned on.



I'm not sure what you mean here.







Janx said:


> Likewise, there are no rules to break when determining the reactions of NPCs, the level of the encounters, or any other event or entity in the game.



Last time I checked, reaction rolls are in fact based on rules of the game, modified by player character attributes and skills in some cases.

There seems to be an assumption here that if a referee _can_ break the rules and the verisimilitude of the setting, then that _will_ happen. I don't think that's true at all.







Janx said:


> Any GM who deliberately counters players choices to force them through his content when they deliberately chose to avoid it is a crap DM.  When the players say, "we ally with the giants", or "we go south to avoid the giants" then the GM has to react to enable that, not actively try to make it fail so he can force them back into fighting with the giants like his adventure says they should.  That is such obviously bad GM behavior, they invented a term for it, "Railroading" that it shouldn't bear discussing or debating with any experienced GM such as would appear in this thread.



Agreed.







Janx said:


> The questions to be pondered should not be the obvious stuff, as if that proves anything else is also bad.  The question should be what ideas from other gaming styles could be adapted to your own to avoid unfun situations and to enhance your game, not replace your game style with somebody else's.



A worthy goal.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The DM of the day has a scenario and we're going to play that scenario.  Not that the scenarios themselves are railroads, but, the initial set up is entirely dictated by the DM of the day.  On my turn, I started the adventure after the party had already agreed to the employment offer, traveled for several days and came upon the scene of an ongoing attack on a farmstead.
> 
> After that point, the players had a great deal of freedom in how they tackled things, but, the initial set up was entirely on me.





Janx said:


> That's comparable to how our group agrees to bite the plot hook, providing it makes sense to do so.



I see an interesting difference between what Hussar and Janx describe in these paragraphs.

Hussar, as I read him, is not describing "agreeing to bite the plot hook" - which would be the players having their PCs do something according to the dictates of the GM. Rather, he seems to be describing "hard scene framing" - the GM describing a situation in which the PCs find themselves, and which presupposes prior activity and choices on the part of the PCs.

_Provided that_ in scene framing in this way the GM doesn't foreclose a _meaningful_ choice on the part of the players, I personally prefer Hussar's way of doing it. It saves time and "searching for the fun", and tends to help make clear from the get-go what is at stake in the situation the PCs find themselves in.

The typical clue that the players feel that meaningful choice has been foreclosed in framing a scene would be a complaint from them to that effect. The most obvious sort of player preference that would pretty forseeably produce such a complaint would be a game that emphasises geographic exploration, such as much traditional D&D play.

One feature of typical published D&D adventures that I find irritating is the plot hook that seems to presuppose both (i) that the campaign is a traditional exploration campaign and (ii) that the players are happy to be more-or-less led by the GM in respect of a good chunk of that exploration (ie are happy to bite the GM's plot hooks). This combination of presuppositions seems a bit incoherent to me.


----------



## Janx (Jan 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> _Provided that_ in scene framing in this way the GM doesn't foreclose a _meaningful_ choice on the part of the players, I personally prefer Hussar's way of doing it. It saves time and "searching for the fun", and tends to help make clear from the get-go what is at stake in the situation the PCs find themselves in.




I'm wary of hussar's approach as may abrogate my right to decline to pursue the hook.  Granted, I have started games in "media res", already in the middle of action, but I try to limit the framing to a state that I think the PCs would realistically be in and minimize assumption of players actual choice.

Thus, forcing acceptance of being hired is risky to me.  My PC may have no interest in being a hired guard.  Though as a player, I might be resigned to accept it, for the sake of getting the game going.  I'm certainly wary of a starting situation of "being in jail" as the DM's asssumption of my behavior on how I got there may contradict with my own view on what would get me incarcerated.

It's a catch-22, I may not be happy with Hussar's starting me in a scene I didn't actually make a prior decision to accept, versus pemerton's dislike of being presented with a hook that it is implied that you should accept.

When I'm GMing, IF you reject my hook and there is no reasonable way to re-use the material, I must aquiesce and make up stuff (possibly pausing the game). I guess pretty good, and I haven't had that happen, but if it does, I chalk that up to a bad GMing decision.


On Shaman's reply:
_Its a style choice of whether the GM gives a hoot if the PCs go into too dangerous parts or parts he hasnt planned on. _
*I'm not sure what you mean here.*

What I mean is a GM who doesn't care if the 1st level PCs decide to walk the 20 miles to kill the 20th level Lich because he's bad and he's there.  I think there's some GMs who put that stuff in there, hoping the party gets killed, under the argument of "it's realistic that the world has dangers you should avoid".  When its really just idiot bait.

Contrasted with a GM who is also vested in the PCs and would like to see them succeed, or fail as a genuine, non-idiot failure, and not because they wandered onto the double-black slopes.

There's valid arguments for both styles, and I think it comes down to what the players and GM's goal for the campaign is.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I see an interesting difference between what Hussar and Janx describe in these paragraphs.
> 
> Hussar, as I read him, is not describing "agreeing to bite the plot hook" - which would be the players having their PCs do something according to the dictates of the GM. Rather, he seems to be describing "hard scene framing" - the GM describing a situation in which the PCs find themselves, and which presupposes prior activity and choices on the part of the PCs.
> 
> ...




The other three major reasons for player balking at this type of framing is if the scenario is one they would actively avoid such as a situation where they would be actively harming those they wish to aid (robbing the dead of a associated religion), the situation is one where the PCs are particularly uncomfortable (heavy armour hydrophobics being put on a deep water ship), or the players have a goal they wish to pursue immediately (chase the princess' kidnappers).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 7, 2011)

Janx said:


> I'm wary of hussar's approach as may abrogate my right to decline to pursue the hook.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's a catch-22, I may not be happy with Hussar's starting me in a scene I didn't actually make a prior decision to accept, versus pemerton's dislike of being presented with a hook that it is implied that you should accept.



My way of trying to handle this is to build the scene framing as much as possible expressly on what the players have already introduced into the game (either via PC backstory or via the resolutions of previous encounters). But this is in the context of what is meant to be an unfolding, "epic" campaign.

What Hussar has described sounds more like (for example) the way The Dying Earth is written to be played, where there is comparatively little linking episodes of play other than the common PCs. In that sort of campaign (which I guess is probably less "epic" and maybe a bit more light hearted - that's certainly true of The Dying Earth, and I hope I'm not defaming Hussar's game here) then the players probably don't have plans like "rescue the princess" that Hussar's hard scene framing will thwart. (Conversely, if they did, then I'm confident that Hussar is a good enough GM not to frame scenes that thwart such player desires.)


----------



## Janx (Jan 7, 2011)

pemerton said:


> (Conversely, if they did, then I'm confident that Hussar is a good enough GM not to frame scenes that thwart such player desires.)




This is a good point, that I think is forgotten when any of us nitpick at somebody's statement.

A good GM deals with exceptions as they occur and is acting in a more sensical way than a broad statement they may make about how they handle things.

In short, none of us are idiots and while we each have general methodologies, we don't stick to them so rigidly that we destroy our game.  Therefore, we shouldn't assume the worst in how somebody else says their game works.


----------



## Ariosto (Jan 8, 2011)

Janx said:
			
		

> I'm not sold on the idea that a sandbox has to explicitly be non-level appropriate.



That's not the idea.

Everything is "level appropriate" for _someone_!

Dave Arneson came up with levels in the first place so there could be something for everyone. The Superheroes and Wizards could find Balrogs to deal with, while the weaker figures could have a range of challenges better suited to them.

If all you've ever got is the same handful of people in lockstep, then you could run the game like a video game with _sequential_ levels, I guess. I'm not sure what kind of world that would be; it might (depending on your setup) get pretty bizarre in terms of role-playing. Adequate variety for a touch of strategic interest, though, probably involves only a portion of the range of possibilities.

TIME is another important element in the "bang for buck" of a wider and richer playing field versus a more constrained one. In board games, it takes a _lot_ more than a single day to get the full value out of something like Empires in Arms or Pacific War (although one can play very engaging limited scenarios using the latter). Something like Ogre or Illuminati or Nuclear War can certainly hold interest for replays, but it's basically a way to pass an hour or several -- not real-time years!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> we shouldn't assume the worst in how somebody else says their game works.



I can't XP you at this time, but wanted to express my agreement with this.

One thing I've enjoyed about this thread (and its "GM by the nose" predecessor) is that a lot of different viewpoints have been expressed and techniques discussed in a much more explanatory/exploratory fashion than is often the case on ENworld.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> I'm wary of hussar's approach as may abrogate my right to decline to pursue the hook.  Granted, I have started games in "media res", already in the middle of action, but I try to limit the framing to a state that I think the PCs would realistically be in and minimize assumption of players actual choice.
> 
> Thus, forcing acceptance of being hired is risky to me.  My PC may have no interest in being a hired guard.  Though as a player, I might be resigned to accept it, for the sake of getting the game going.  I'm certainly wary of a starting situation of "being in jail" as the DM's asssumption of my behavior on how I got there may contradict with my own view on what would get me incarcerated.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.  As you and Pemerton have later expounded, it's not a hard and fast rule.  Hard scene framing is exactly what I would call it.  And, we don't really get too fussed about it because it's been 100% up front that this is what was going to happen.  Again, since we're round robin DMing, and none of us has the time/energy to build an entire campaign, we've pretty much compromised by saying, "Ok, you are DM this week, you get to set the initial conditions and we will trust you with that power."

I have been involved in groups in the past where this would certainly never fly.  I'm really lucky right now to be in the group that I'm in, so, the whole trust issue never comes up.  Yeah, the initial conditions might be a bit wonky, but, hey, variety is the spice of life, so, if the DM, for example, started us off incarcerated, we'd probably run with it.

It's a really different style of gaming.

Pem - you mentioned The Dying Earth.  I only got to play a couple of very short sessions of that, but, MAN, do I want to play that game again.  That was a total blast.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 8, 2011)

For those still following this thread - an actual play example of a railroad and the ensuing player/GM meltdown can be found here.

From my point of view, the problem here isn't the lack of sandbox - that is, the GM presenting a detailed situation with which the players are expected to engage via their PCs - but with the GM trying also to dictate the form that that engagement will take, leaving the players little to do but make local tactical decisions and roll the dice.

This also sheds light, for me, on the "4e is a dice rolling exercise" notion. As the example shows, a 3E game can also reduce (for the players) to nothing but tactics and dice. It's just that in 3E it is harder than in 4e to describe tactics and dice rolls without using language that also engages with the gameworld, whereas in 4e this is possible using almost entirely the metagame rules vocabulary.

But to my mind this doesn't make a game like the one described in that post more of a roleplaying game. It's just a dice-rolling exercise with colour.

4e, then, might be seen as a system that makes railroading harder because it makes it harder to cloak the railroading in the colour of roleplaying - the fact that it's nothing but tactics and dice becomes transparent. (For the same reason, 4e will make the drift from roleplaying game to self-evident wargame/boardgame easier.)


----------



## Hussar (Jan 9, 2011)

Meh, the whole "4e is a dice rolling exercise" is overblown.  I mean, back in the day, when tactics had no mechanical benefit unless your DM gave them to you, all we ever did was throw d20's at the monster until it fell down.  Zero description, zero narration.  I rolled a 15, I do 7 damange, next! was pretty much how it played out around our tables.

Personally, I love the fact that mechanics are divorced from narration.  It means I can describe things however the heck I want to, rather than be shoehorned in based on mechanics.

I mean, someone here, and I forget who, mentioned in one of these threads running something like 14 combats in 4 hours.  Assuming an hour of non-combat play, that's 14 combats in 180 minutes, or just about 15 minutes per combat.

How much color are you actually going to get when combat is paced that fast?  And, after the fifth combat, who's actually going to bother when every combat has to play out with pretty much zero tactics.  The reason I say you can't have tactics is because, well, how much tactical play are you going to get in a 15 minute combat?

There really is a happy medium between fifteen minutes of dice wanking and 4 hour grind fests.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 10, 2011)

Spambot reported.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Meh, the whole "4e is a dice rolling exercise" is overblown.  I mean, back in the day, when tactics had no mechanical benefit unless your DM gave them to you . . .





*Hussar*, do you really want to go there again? Seriously?







Hussar said:


> . . . all we ever did was throw d20's at the monster until it fell down.  Zero description, zero narration.  I rolled a 15, I do 7 damange, next! was pretty much how it played out around our tables.



The experience of playing a game is generally enhanced by reading the rules first.

Our table was nothing like yours. I'll leave it at that.







Hussar said:


> Personally, I love the fact that mechanics are divorced from narration.  It means I can describe things however the heck I want to, rather than be shoehorned in based on mechanics.



I can definitely understand this.

Then again, I like games in which the mechanics and the narration are seamless - "I'll parry and riposte with a thrust to the gut!" is both fun narration _and_ the mechanical description of a character's turn during swordplay in _Flashing Blades_.







Hussar said:


> I mean, someone here, and I forget who, mentioned in one of these threads running something like 14 combats in 4 hours.  Assuming an hour of non-combat play, that's 14 combats in 180 minutes, or just about 15 minutes per combat.
> 
> How much color are you actually going to get when combat is paced that fast?  And, after the fifth combat, who's actually going to bother when every combat has to play out with pretty much zero tactics.  The reason I say you can't have tactics is because, well, how much tactical play are you going to get in a 15 minute combat?



Maybe their combats are short because their tactics are really good.







Hussar said:


> There really is a happy medium between fifteen minutes of dice wanking and 4 hour grind fests.



I'll take fifteen minutes of fast, furious, fun action, thanks.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 10, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> This Saturday will be the first time I actually have two of three players in the same room at the same time.



Unfortunately this didn't come to pass - one of the players is sick with the flu, so we pushed game-night back to next Saturday instead.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the events from last month play out - I used Mythic GME to determine some of the npcs reactions, and I'd like to start a new thread about how that worked, but I want to wait until after the next game-night, to see how it turns out in actual play.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 10, 2011)

Janx said:


> Janx said:
> 
> 
> > Its a style choice of whether the GM gives a hoot if the PCs go into too dangerous parts or parts he hasnt planned on.
> ...



I don't think I've met a referee who "hoped" the adventurers would die since I was about fourteen or so. And I don't assume adventurers, or players, are idiots to be duped.

I'm vested in the adventurers' success - in my ideal game, the adventurers leave giant boot prints all over the face of a game-world which trembles as they walk. What I don't do is _presume_ they will succeed, that's it's inherently their place in the cosmos to be successful - their success is earned, with skill and perseverance and luck, and I give them a game-world filled with resources they can use to be successful.

The double black diamond slopes are there, and yes, it's possible the adventurers can wander onto them. That's one of the hazards of the game, and that risk adds luster to the adventurers' triumphs.







Janx said:


> [There's valid arguments for both styles, and I think it comes down to what the players and GM's goal for the campaign is.



I think there's rarely an argument for hoping the adventurers fail.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Then again, I like games in which the mechanics and the narration are seamless - "I'll parry and riposte with a thrust to the gut!" is both fun narration and the mechanical description of a character's turn during swordplay in Flashing Blades.




So, what rules in AD&D would this engage?

Since I'm being told that older editions contained all sorts of rules for tactical play, let's see an example.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, what rules in AD&D would this engage?
> 
> Since I'm being told that older editions contained all sorts of rules for tactical play, let's see an example.



Oh, *Hussar*, do I really have to do this again?

_Flashing Blades_: twelve-second combat round. 1e _AD&D_: one minute combat round. _Flashing Blades_: Early Modern fencing. 1e _AD&D_: Medieval melee. Different rules, different emulation goals. Why not ask me about the suppressing fire rules for automatic weapons in 1e?

Now, rather than derail this thread any further, a more detailed answer to your question is here, starting with the fourth paragraph.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2011)

See, this is where things break down.  You list armor choice as one tactical consideration, for example.  That's logistics, not tactics.  Armor=good is about the only consideration you have, and, once that choice has been made, it never realistically changes.

You also list situational issues, like the hit dice of the enemies, over which the players have no control.  Again, that's not a tactical choice the players can make.  

You also list parrying an attack.  What parry rules exist in AD&D?

Moving to flank?  Without any spacial representations, how exactly do you "move to flank" away from a shield.  Of course this also ignores the fact that almost no monsters USE a shield, nor do they have a dex modifier.

So, IMO, there are pretty much no tactical considerations in the AD&D rules set.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, this is where things break down.  You list armor choice as one tactical consideration, for example.



Which is why I wrote, ". . . *starting with the fourth paragraph*," beginning with, "Once I encounter an opponent . . . ."







Hussar said:


> You also list situational issues, like the hit dice of the enemies, over which the players have no control.  Again, that's not a tactical choice the players can make.



Your 4th level fighter is facing a hobgoblin and three goblins, or a fighter and three men-at-arms, or a giant lizard and three kobolds - now you have a choice to make, based on what your character can do.







Hussar said:


> You also list parrying an attack.  What parry rules exist in AD&D?



1e _AD&D PHB_, p. 104, under "Melee Combat."







Hussar said:


> Moving to flank?  Without any spacial [sic] representations, how exactly do you "move to flank" away from a shield.



Are you really arguing that the _only_ way one can manage movement in combat is by using minis?

The 1e _AD&D DMG_ includes grids for position for minis or tokens, but as referees have done since the game began, you can also simply rely on description if you're so inclined.







Hussar said:


> Of course this also ignores the fact that almost no monsters USE a shield, nor do they have a dex modifier.



And you're ignoring the fact that "monsters" aren't the only opponents the adventurers face - brigands, the town watch, other adventurers, a knight and his squires, caravan guards, a pair of assassins, a gang of thieves, and so on and so forth.







Hussar said:


> So, IMO, there are pretty much no tactical considerations in the AD&D rules set.





I can lead you to water; taking a drink is on you.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Which is why I wrote, ". . . *starting with the fourth paragraph*," beginning with, "Once I encounter an opponent . . . .




So, how exactly do you choose your armor AFTER you encounter an opponent?



> "Your 4th level fighter is facing a hobgoblin and three goblins, or a fighter and three men-at-arms, or a giant lizard and three kobolds - now you have a choice to make, based on what your character can do.




Yup, and those choices consist of, for non-casters anyway, move up and attack or use a ranged weapon.  After you've made that choice, you're going to pretty much do exactly the same thing round after round until the bad guys fall down.



> 1e _AD&D PHB_, p. 104, under "Melee Combat."




And what do those rules actually say?



> Are you really arguing that the _only_ way one can manage movement in combat is by using minis?
> 
> The 1e _AD&D DMG_ includes grids for position for minis or tokens, but as referees have done since the game began, you can also simply rely on description if you're so inclined.




Fair enough.



> And you're ignoring the fact that "monsters" aren't the only opponents the adventurers face - brigands, the town watch, other adventurers, a knight and his squires, caravan guards, a pair of assassins, a gang of thieves, and so on and so forth.
> 
> I can lead you to water; taking a drink is on you.




Umm no, I'm not ignoring anything.  Look in the Monster Manual under every single entry you just listed.  What is their Dex modifier?  Oh, right, they don't have one.  

Sure, if you ignore the monster manual and build every encounter with NPC's, then, yes, they will have Dex scores.  Completely at odds with the DMG wandering monster tables, for example, which include only a small percentage of NPC's, but, quite possible.

You list a number of options, few of which actually apply AFTER an encounter begins and then claim a shopping list of tactical options for a system that is pretty much entirely abstract.

I'll pass on whatever it is you're drinking thanks.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jan 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Yup, and those choices consist of, for non-casters anyway, move up and attack or use a ranged weapon.  After you've made that choice, you're going to pretty much do exactly the same thing round after round until the bad guys fall down.




 That is very different from how combats played out in 1st Edition, for us. Tactical considerations include, but are not limited to, scouting, setting up ambushes, creating obstacles, setting up defensive positions and choke points, use of terrain, positioning on the battlefield, etc. 

Considering that the authors of the game -- Arneson and Gygax -- were wargamers and that the game developed from tactical wargames, I think you would be hard-pressed to claim that the game does not include tactical considerations.



Hussar said:


> Sure, if you ignore the monster manual and build every encounter with NPC's, then, yes, they will have Dex scores.  Completely at odds with the DMG wandering monster tables, for example, which include only a small percentage of NPC's, but, quite possible.




And the World of Greyhawk box setting contains random encounter tables that in many cases are upwards of 50%-60% Demi-Humans and Humans. It is amusing to think that Gary Gygax's setting was "completely at odds" with Gary Gygax's rules.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, how exactly do you choose your armor AFTER you encounter an opponent?



Didn't you just argue in your previous post that armor considerations were logistics, not tactics?

Please, make up your mind.







Hussar said:


> Yup, and those choices consist of, for non-casters anyway, move up and attack or use a ranged weapon.  After you've made that choice, you're going to pretty much do exactly the same thing round after round until the bad guys fall down.



No, those are the things _you're_ going to do round after round - I'm going to grapple, overbear, parry, move to flank, gain the high ground, set a weapon against a charge, _et cetera_, _et cetera_, just like it says in the rules of the game.

And with its mind-bogglingly vast array of feats and class abilities, guess how 3._x_ resolves all those tactical decisions the players make on behalf of their characters? (Hint: it involves throwing a d20 and reading the number. _Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil_.)







Hussar said:


> And what do those rules actually say?



They say what's written in my post on theRPGsite: "Do I parry an attack, applying my strength bonus as a penalty to my opponent's roll?"







Hussar said:


> Umm no, I'm not ignoring anything.  Look in the Monster Manual under every single entry you just listed.



Only two of those encounters - brigands and caravan guards - come from the _Monster Manual_; the rest are non-player characters made using the rules for classes in the _PHB_ or the rules for zero-level humans in the _DMG_.







Hussar said:


> What is their Dex modifier?  Oh, right, they don't have one.



In the examples which come from the _MM_, either they don't have one or it's rolled into their armor classes.







Hussar said:


> Sure, if you ignore the monster manual and build every encounter with NPC's, then, yes, they will have Dex scores.  Completely at odds with the DMG wandering monster tables, for example, which include only a small percentage of NPC's, but, quite possible.





Because the only encounters anyone should ever have must come from the wandering monster tables in the _DMG_? Could you please tell me where I would find _that _rule?







Hussar said:


> You list a number of options, few of which actually apply AFTER an encounter begins and then claim a shopping list of tactical options for a system that is pretty much entirely abstract.



Six or seven paragraphs of that post describe actions which may be taken during combat.

And please, could you point me to a roleplaying game that _doesn't_ abstract the physics of the game-world? I'm starting to feel deprived that _Flashing Blades_ only gives me the option to parry, instead of giving me the choice between a lateral parry from _quarte_ to _sixte_ versus a circular parry counter-_sixte_.

*Hussar*, for years now I've _literally_ quoted chapter and verse to you on the rules of 1e _AD&D_ in post after post after post after post after post after post, citing and explaining rules that you appeared to misunderstand or perhaps never learned, and now here we are again.

Here's something else I wrote in reply to you almost exactly four years ago.







The Shaman said:


> "Look, you didn't enjoy playing what you think of as 1e _AD&D_ - I think we all get that - but the game you played, under a bit of scrutiny, bears little relationship to the game set out in the rules or the possibilities inherent in the adventures that you so vehemently and consistently deride.
> 
> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you repeatedly blur the line between your extremely negative opinion and objective fact, and you commit the common fallacy of conflating your own experience into some kind of universal experience shared by all.
> 
> Do you think it might be time - past time, really - to dial back the 1e hate a little bit? To recognize that while you didn't enjoy the game you played as a kid, there was a lot - an awful lot, boatloads in fact - about the game that you never knew, or never took the time to learn?



*Hussar*, if you wrote something to the effect that you didn't care for the tactical options presented in 1e _AD&D_, that you prefer the more abundant, more intricate tactical options of later editions to 1e, I wouldn't bat any eye - I might even _agree_ with you. When I decided I wanted to run a swashbuckling game, I toyed around with ideas for a number of systems; I considered _AD&D_ with the 2e supplement _A Mighty Fortress_, but I rejected it because it didn't add anything which gave it the feel of swashbuckling - it still felt like the same medieval melee, but conducted with rapiers and matchlock pistols instead of bastard swords and battle axes.

I don't care if you like or dislike 1e or any other game; I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that 1e is the 'best' edition of _D&D_, because I simply don't have a dog in that hunt; _D&D_ is something I play once a year for a laugh with some gamer friends. I have no stake in the edition wars; I simply get tired of reading stuff that is proveably incorrect.

What I don't understand is why you repeatedly rip the game based on stuff that is just objectively, demonstrably wrong. If you wrote something to the effect of, "I think the tactical options in 1e are too close to their wargame roots and not fantastic enough for a fantasy roleplaying game," instead of, "There are _no_ tactical options in 1e _AD&D_ unless the DM says so," then you're on a factual basis with which no one can dispute.

And to everyone else, I sincerely apologize for this lengthy threadjack - it won't happen again.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 11, 2011)

For anyone interested, I posted here my actual play experience of running an exploration scenario in my 4e game last week.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2011)

/edit

No, I had a lengthy post to try to rebut The Shaman, but, I will agree with him here.  This is pointless.  We're not even talking the same language anymore.  

I would point something out though.  The Shaman is trying to paint this as some sort of edition warring edition bashing.  Sorry, simply not true.  I know that criticising the Edition That SHALT NOT be Questioned is just not going to lead anywhere.  I'm terribly sorry for bringing up various editions as this was completely not my intent.  I was simply pointing out in my original point, which got lost, that there is a happy medium between fifteen minute combats where there simply isn't enough time for there to be any real tactical considerations, and four hour snooze fests where every single tactical consideration is debated ad nauseum.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2011)

No, Hussar....It is simply that you are objectively wrong here.  Saying that there are no tactical options in 1e, when they are provided for in the rulebooks, is similar to saying that there are no skill challenges in 4e.  It is just wrong.

You have, yourself, admitted in times past that your knowledge of 1e is shaky.  Why would you want to argue the rules of a game you don't really know with someone who knows them?

The Shaman's rebuttal doesn't have anything to do with edition warring.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, Hussar....It is simply that you are objectively wrong here.  Saying that there are no tactical options in 1e, when they are provided for in the rulebooks, is similar to saying that there are no skill challenges in 4e.  It is just wrong.
> 
> You have, yourself, admitted in times past that your knowledge of 1e is shaky.  Why would you want to argue the rules of a game you don't really know with someone who knows them?
> 
> The Shaman's rebuttal doesn't have anything to do with edition warring.




Let's look at the actual post that started all this shall we?



Hussar said:


> Meh, the whole "4e is a dice rolling exercise" is overblown.  I mean, back in the day, when tactics had no mechanical benefit unless your DM gave them to you, all we ever did was throw d20's at the monster until it fell down.  Zero description, zero narration.  I rolled a 15, I do 7 damange, next! was pretty much how it played out around our tables.
> 
> Personally, I love the fact that mechanics are divorced from narration.  It means I can describe things however the heck I want to, rather than be shoehorned in based on mechanics.
> 
> ...




Now, you show me where I said that 1e has no tactical considerations.  At worst, I said that the tactical considerations were the purview of the DM.  I mean, heck, The Shaman lists choosing a target as a major tactical consideration in 1e.  And that's not even mechanically relevant.  Choosing one target over another has zero mechanical impact.

You guys can jump up and down about how much I'm defaming 1ed, but, please, at least read what I wrote first.  Heck I SPECIFICALLY STATED "was pretty much how it played out around our tables."  

So, how am I painting in broad strokes or talking about YOUR game, when I specifically state that I'm talking about how it played out at MY table?

Sheesh.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jan 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now, you show me where I said that 1e has no tactical considerations.




 Um...



Hussar said:


> So, IMO, there are pretty much no tactical considerations in the AD&D rules set.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now, you show me where I said that 1e has no tactical considerations.  At worst, I said that the tactical considerations were the purview of the DM.




You mean apart from "Since I'm being told that older editions contained all sorts of rules for tactical play, let's see an example."?  If you were not arguing that 1e didn't have rules for tactical play, I wonder why you are questioning what you are told.

The extremely strong implication of questioning every statement that tactical options exist in 1e is that you do not believe that they do.  When you continue despite being given evidence to the contrary, the extremely strong implication is that you believe that the opinion (that there are no or few tactical options in 1e) is correct regardless of the evidence that it is not.

EDIT:  And, of course, Jacob Marley has pointed out the exact quote.  



> I mean, heck, The Shaman lists choosing a target as a major tactical consideration in 1e.  And that's not even mechanically relevant.  Choosing one target over another has zero mechanical impact.




Not only does it have a demonstrable mechanical impact in 1e, it has a demonstrative mechanical impact in every edition.  It probably has a demonstrative mechanical impact in every rpg.

Consider:  Even when all opponents are exactly the same, it often makes sense for PCs to concentrate fire on one or two targets, rather than choose targets at random.  That way, they have a greater potential to reduce the amount of damage they receive.  In 1e, in fact, there are several creatures who offer an advantage when one targets specific body parts.  This might be the eye stalks of a beholder, or avoiding the better AC of a lion's mane.



> You guys can jump up and down about how much I'm defaming 1ed, but, please, at least read what I wrote first.




No one is jumping up and down.

But The Shaman is right when he says that 1e offers tactical options, and he is right when he says that how you played it around your tables is not how the game was written.  That you failed to avail yourselves of the rules does not reflect upon the rules themselves.

In a number of threads, I have noted that your posting has been much more even-handed of late.  I have been happy to have opportunity to XP you for it, and I have been happy to point it out in at least one thread.

I am the pot calling the kettle black, I am sure, but I'd just like to give you the opportunity to come back from the Dark Side on this topic.  Tactical options exist in 1e.  That is an objective fact.  If you didn't use them, that will surely colour your experience of 1e, much like not using skill challenges will change what 4e feels like.  

But your experience is not an artifact of the rules; it is an artifact of a failure to use the rules available.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2011)

Pemerton - appologies for derailing the thread.  My total bad for making a comment about the Edition that Shalt Not Be Criticised.  I'll bow out now since it appears that people are incapable of discussing the post and not the poster.  Heck, how much time do people have on their hands when they're dragging up stuff I wrote FOUR years ago?  

RC - Well, again, we seem to be speaking different languages.  Choosing a target (which really doesn't have ANY mechanical impact in ANY edition.  What bonus or penalty do I gain for choosing to attack opponent A rather than B?)  and choosing your armor don't really seem to be tactical choices to me, but, hey, what do I know.  If the list that The Shaman put forward is the best example of tactical options in AD&D, I'll stand by my point that AD&D doesn't exactly present you with a whole lot of tactical options.

But, again, it's a case where I made the mistake of criticising the Edition that Shalt Not Be Criticised.  So, I'll talk to you guys in a few months.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> My total bad for making a comment about the Edition that Shalt Not Be Criticised.






So, it is the edition, and not the content of the post?  Despite the fact that neither The Shaman nor I are regularly running 1e (and I haven't run 1e since 2e came out)?



Methinks the poster protests too much.



> Choosing a target (which really doesn't have ANY mechanical impact in ANY edition.  What bonus or penalty do I gain for choosing to attack opponent A rather than B?)




There are three PCs and three opponents.  Each opponent does an average 6 points of damage per round, and takes an average of three hits to fall.  

Assuming all attacks hit, and if the PCs go first each round:

If each PC targets a seperate opponent, each PC will take an average of 12 points of damage before the opponents fall, or 36 points total.

If the PCs all target the same opponent, the first falls without causing any damage on the first round, the second falls without causing any damage on the second round, and the third falls without causing any damage on the third round.  The damage taken by the PCs is 12 + 6, or 18....a clear mechanical difference over taking 36 points.

As an experiment, have your monsters all start targetting one PC first, then the next after the first falls, and then the next.  And then tell the players that there is no mechanical difference.  I dare you.  



> and choosing your armor don't really seem to be tactical choices to me




And, thankfully, no one made that claim, and you have already been told the same more than once.  

So, Strawman the 1st is that this is about defending an edition, and Strawman the 2nd is about choosing armour.  

The fact that choosing opponents is a tactical decision seems to be something you just fail to grasp.  Sorry, but in this case, right and wrong are not subjective.  The best thing you can do is show a little grace in accepting that.

Trying to make your error into some kind of faux edition warring is.......weak sauce.


RC


----------



## Presto2112 (Jan 12, 2011)

An old DM of mine taught me a neat trick which amounts to the following:

If you want the PCs to go to New York, and the PCs train actually goes to Chicago, then you move New York to Chicago, but make them think they're still in Chicago.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2011)

Presto2112 said:


> An old DM of mine taught me a neat trick which amounts to the following:
> 
> If you want the PCs to go to New York, and the PCs train actually goes to Chicago, then you move New York to Chicago, but make them think they're still in Chicago.




That's the technique known as Schrödinger’s Map.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 12, 2011)

Presto2112 said:


> An old DM of mine taught me a neat trick which amounts to the following:
> 
> If you want the PCs to go to New York, and the PCs train actually goes to Chicago, then you move New York to Chicago, but make them think they're still in Chicago.



This "neat trick" means that if the adventurers wanted to go to Chicago, or Denver, or Kansas City, and end up in New York no matter what, then the players' decisions were ignored by the referee.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of the atmosphere I'm looking for, as a player and especially as a referee.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, Ariosto, I don't know about you, but, I generally say that an adventure and a scenario are pretty much synonymous.



Hmmm...tough call.  I guess I've always seen "adventure" as meaning something fairly well-defined, as in a module; while "scenario" can be more, or less, or the same as a single adventure.

Take Village of Hommlet.  There's two distinct scenarios in there - the village and the dungeon - but it's all one interconnected adventure.

Or worse, take Night's Dark Terror.  There's about 6 different scenarios in that one...

But sometimes a relatively small but distinct adventure can occur within a larger scenario.  An example might be where the scenario is a journey from town to and through adventure A but the party gets sidetracked into minor adventure B en route, then keeps going.


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> One feature of typical published D&D adventures that I find irritating is the plot hook that seems to presuppose both (i) that the campaign is a traditional exploration campaign and (ii) that the players are happy to be more-or-less led by the GM in respect of a good chunk of that exploration (ie are happy to bite the GM's plot hooks). This combination of presuppositions seems a bit incoherent to me.



Which might be why I very rarely if ever use plot hooks as written (PHAW?) but instead lead in to the adventure in whatever way(s) make sense in the game world at the time.

That said, if they don't bite those hooks they won't get to that adventure; and if they don't bite any hooks they're probably going to get mighty bored. 

As for encounters always being level-appropriate, there's more than one way to look at it.

One supposes the DM is going to run *adventures* that are at least vaguely level-appropriate, and thus encounters within those should mostly take care of themselves.

But encounters in the greater world?  That's another question entirely, and having some encounters now and then that are wildly off-level is nothing more or less than realistic.  And "level-inappropriate" can go both ways: a couple of times in the past I've had foolhardy groups of 0th and 1st level bandits try and hold up high-level magic-laden parties, mostly for the amusement value for all involved... 

A 1e game, 7th-9th level party of about 9 characters with gobs of magic and wealth, capable of taking on just about anything, are somewhat lost deep in woods known to be dangerous.  One (1) solitary 1/2-HD dumb-like-post Kobold steps into the path in front of them, levels a crossbow at the leader, and says "Stand and deliver!" in a high squeaky voice.

The terrified party scatters to the four winds, except one Dwarf who charges the Kobold and (amazingly) manages to fall into the Kobold's small and badly-covered pit trap!

Once the players realized it was a mere Kobold and the gales of laughter subsided, they regrouped, killed it, and moved on...

Lan-"for just a moment, that Kobold had more impact than a fleet of Giants"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Moving to flank?  Without any spacial representations, how exactly do you "move to flank" away from a shield.  Of course this also ignores the fact that almost no monsters USE a shield, nor do they have a dex modifier.



You make sure you're the second person to melee with the foe, and state you're attacking the foe's weapon side as the shield is already occupied defending against the first guy.  1e does have rules for how many opponents each different size of shield can defend against...

As for monsters, while they don't have Dex. modifiers quite a few do have parts that are softer/easier to hit/more vulnerable than other parts; so the general principle remains pretty much the same.


> So, IMO, there are pretty much no tactical considerations in the AD&D rules set.



I'd say it's more that the strategy/tactics come in *before* the dice start flying, in terms of how you set the battle up to your best advantage (assuming you've a chance to do so).  Then, all the dice rolling determines whether your tactics are any good.

Lan-"the best strategy is charge; the best tactic is charge screaming"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Jan 12, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Or worse, take Night's Dark Terror.  There's about 6 different scenarios in that one...



The module that keeps on giving! My PCs are now at 10th level, having started in at 1st, and we haven't got to Threshhold yet (admittedly I've been pretty liberal in my interpretation and expansion of the module, including detours via half of Thunderspire Labyrinth, plus the witches encounter I posted about here).

Anyway, I would describe that as a module containing many adventures/scenarios. I don't really distinguish between the latter two terms.



Lanefan said:


> As for encounters always being level-appropriate, there's more than one way to look at it.
> 
> One supposes the DM is going to run *adventures* that are at least vaguely level-appropriate, and thus encounters within those should mostly take care of themselves.
> 
> But encounters in the greater world?  That's another question entirely, and having some encounters now and then that are wildly off-level is nothing more or less than realistic.



When it comes to this sort of thing I don't do realism. But in my other thread that I'm trying to cross-promote I talk about my first deliberate use of level-inappropriate combats in 4e (too low, not too high) as part of an exploration-style session. (I also talk about The Rule of the Ming Vase in 4e. So maybe there's some old-school hope for me yet!)


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2011)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I'd say it's more that the strategy/tactics come in *before* the dice start flying, in terms of how you set the battle up to your best advantage (assuming you've a chance to do so). Then, all the dice rolling determines whether your tactics are any good.




Now this I would agree with.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jan 12, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I'd say it's more that the strategy/tactics come in *before* the dice start flying, in terms of how you set the battle up to your best advantage (assuming you've a chance to do so). Then, all the dice rolling determines whether your tactics are any good.




I think that this is mostly correct -- and what I was suggesting in my earlier post -- however, there are some tactical decisions that will be made during combat as new information becomes available. 

For example, lets assume that there is an adventuring party that is currently fighting goblins in a dungeon. The party has decided that their best tactic is for the two fighters and the cleric to engage the goblins while the thief watches the passage leading out of the room and the wizard watches the passage coming into the room. After the first round of combat, the thief notices an ogre coming toward the commotion. The party now has a decision to make - what do they do with this new information?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2011)

Jacob Marley said:


> I think that this is mostly correct -- and what I was suggesting in my earlier post -- however, there are some tactical decisions that will be made during combat as new information becomes available.
> 
> For example, lets assume that there is an adventuring party that is currently fighting goblins in a dungeon. The party has decided that their best tactic is for the two fighters and the cleric to engage the goblins while the thief watches the passage leading out of the room and the wizard watches the passage coming into the room. After the first round of combat, the thief notices an ogre coming toward the commotion. The party now has a decision to make - what do they do with this new information?




But, bringing this back around to my point, how is that edition based?  What mechanical elements does your description engage?  What you are describing is just good play and it could exist in any RPG or, in fact, in almost any game.  

Are you going to make tactical decisions based on the in game narrative?  Of course.  It wouldn't be an RPG otherwise.  But, I can't see how your example would engage the mechanics (in any edition) in such a way as to make the mechanics relevant.

Good play is always good play.


----------



## Janx (Jan 13, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> This "neat trick" means that if the adventurers wanted to go to Chicago, or Denver, or Kansas City, and end up in New York no matter what, then the players' decisions were ignored by the referee.
> 
> That's pretty much the exact opposite of the atmosphere I'm looking for, as a player and especially as a referee.




the problem I see is what is really meant by the players choosing Chicago over New York.

If the PCs don't have a specific reason for choosing Chicago over New York, and the thing in New York is not really tied to new york, then SOME DM's and players have a problem moving the thing to Chicago.

If the PCs are specifically choosing Chicago over New York to avoid the thing, then moving it to Chicago should be considered a bad practice.

For some DMs some content can be considered flexible.  

There is some content, that should not be flexible, in that if the players make certain choices, they should successfully avoid encountering that content.

Take the Chicago vs. New York.

If you've got an encounter  for a pick-pocket to attempt a grab when the players arrive in the city.   It doesn't matter if you move this encounter.  The PCs aren't aware of it to avoid it, and it isn't contradictory for it to be possible to happen in either city.  The choice of city never really mattered, other than for local color.

If the PCs are going to Chicago, to avoid contact with somebody who is trying to take the McGuffin from them, then moving the bad guy to Chicago is Railroading because you are thwarting player decision.  The choice of city was crucial in this situation.

As a DM, if you've got all these locations pre-planned on what's where, or if you've got random tables to determine what's where, and what's going to happen next, then you've no NEED to move stuff around.

If as a DM, you haven't built all these encounters ahead of time, and don't have piles of encounter tables to do all this (like Shaman's NPC encounter table thing), then moving stuff MAY be acceptable practice.

I'm obviously of the latter camp.  I don't mind shuffling some stuff around, so I don't have to make a zilliion different things.  Perhaps what might help to contemplate this, is that the encounters are locationless.  Their location gets set when it is applicable to put it somewhere.  

The dark stranger in the inn with the map to adventure is an example.  Does it REALLY matter which inn he's at?  If the PCs aren't specifically avoiding him, then having him be at the inn the players decide to stay at is an accepted practice by many GMs.

If somebody wants to call in the GM Police on me because I didn't make 3 different dark strangers with 3 different maps (or other hooks) to each be placed individually in the 3 inns the town has, they take their gaming way too seriously.

I consider the real problem being the GM not taking "no thanks" as an answer.  When the players decline to follow-up on the map, then don't make the sherrif force the party to follow the map to the same dungeon.  Move on.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 13, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> This "neat trick" means that if the adventurers wanted to go to Chicago, or Denver, or Kansas City, and end up in New York no matter what, then the players' decisions were ignored by the referee.
> 
> That's pretty much the exact opposite of the atmosphere I'm looking for, as a player and especially as a referee.





Janx said:


> the problem I see is what is really meant by the players choosing Chicago over New York.



I agree with Janx here - and that doesn't necessarily mean I'm radically disagreeing with The Shaman - but I want to take the notion of "meaning" in another direction.

Janx gives examples where the choice of city isn't meaningful, because it isn't driven by any sort of concern that the GM is undermining by changing the location of an encounter (eg the pickpocket, or the cloaked stranger).

But another sort of meaning is this: maybe the players are choosing Chicago over New York because they want - for whatever reason is important to them or to their PCs - to learn the truth, in the gameworld, about Chicago. If this is their goal, then that goal is not undermined by the GM making up stuff about Chicago on the fly, or moving stuff to Chicago that, in his/her head, the GM had assumed would happen in New York. Because the players are still learning the gameworld truth about Chicago.

I've been thinking about this for the past week or two leading up to and subsequent to running a 4e, quasi-No Myth exploration scenario. I might start a new thread on this, but in short, I discovered that you can run a scenario in which exploration is the priority - in that the players' main goal is to find out what happened/what is going on in a particular location - without having pre-prepared the answers to their questions. You can make it up as you go along. It still serves the goal of exploration, because the players are still learning the truth about the gameworld.

Now _why_ the players would care about the truth in the gameworld - be it the truth about Chicago, or the truth about the time-travel scenario I ran - is another question. Maybe one of the players wants her PC to become mayor of Chicago because she herself was born there. Maybe the players have a magic item which they can only use properly if they understand the truth of the gameworld's history. There are any number of reasons why the players might care about this sort of thing, which don't depend upon there being some pre-determined truth that doesn't change, in response to their own choices and exploratory priorities as actually revealed in the course of play, from what was notionally written by the GM in the campaign handbook.



Janx said:


> I consider the real problem being the GM not taking "no thanks" as an answer.  When the players decline to follow-up on the map, then don't make the sherrif force the party to follow the map to the same dungeon.  Move on.



I agree with this, but think that rules in many traditional(-ish) RPGs like D&D could benefit from discussing it a bit more.

For example, they often contain GM advice along the lines of "the players may enjoy having their PCs' backstories incorporated into play from time to time" or "follow up on what seemed to interest the players, by including a connection to it in the next adventure". And I see posts on ENworld from time to time that talk about using PC backgrounds as a basis for sidequests.

But they don't tend to take the next step, which (in my experience) helps reduce the whole need to worry about "no thanks" of, saying "Combine PC backstories with those elements of prior play that interested the players and _make that into_ the next adventure". Once these things are not peripheral but _the game_, then you're less likely to get players saying "no thanks". 

Even under this approach, there can still be local issues of sequencing eg if there are two different things the players want to do - let's say, visit the Feywild and also redeem some slaves in a city on the world - then it is likely that the players and not the GM will determine the sequence, meaning you can have issues of unused prep or alternatively needing to improvise. But from my experience, most of your prep isn't wasted because most of it is prep for _excactly the adventures the players want_.

(And by way of acknowledgement: a lot of people think the Forge is a waste of time, but this approach to adventure design is something that really crystallised for me after reading an essay by Ron Edwards in which he talked about turning the usual conception of the plot hook on its head: instead of the GM offering a plot hook to the players, the players - by building and playing their PCs - establish plot hooks for the GM. Reading that and reflecting on it, and on actual play examples as well as rules from more non-traditional games, really helped me develop my GMing from the previously embryonic stage it had been in, where I was trying to break out of plot-hook driven simulationism but didn't quite know how.)


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 13, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The module that keeps on giving! My PCs are now at 10th level, having started in at 1st, and we haven't got to Threshhold yet (admittedly I've been pretty liberal in my interpretation and expansion of the module, including detours via half of Thunderspire Labyrinth, plus the witches encounter I posted about here).
> 
> Anyway, I would describe that as a module containing many adventures/scenarios.



I think of it as a module containing many really awful moments I'd rather forget but can't.  Probably the worst single module I've ever DMed was that one.

To be fair to it, one of these days I should probably haul it out and try running it again; but I'm concerned that might lead directly to poking my own eyes out with something sharp, so thus far I've held off.

Lan-"blinded by the night's dark terror"-efan


----------



## Janx (Jan 13, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But they don't tend to take the next step, which (in my experience) helps reduce the whole need to worry about "no thanks" of, saying "Combine PC backstories with those elements of prior play that interested the players and make that into the next adventure". Once these things are not peripheral but the game, then you're less likely to get players saying "no thanks".
> 
> Even under this approach, there can still be local issues of sequencing eg if there are two different things the players want to do - let's say, visit the Feywild and also redeem some slaves in a city on the world - then it is likely that the players and not the GM will determine the sequence, meaning you can have issues of unused prep or alternatively needing to improvise. But from my experience, most of your prep isn't wasted because most of it is prep for excactly the adventures the players want.




Thank you for seeing the distinction I'm making.

And what I quoted is how I try to run my game.  The early hooks are the hardest.  Subsequent games write themselves as I know what the PCs want based on whats gone on before.

In the Chicago vs. NYC example, I think the guy who wrote saw the scenario I described where "moving it" was OK.

I think Shaman sees the other scenario, where the distinction between the two cities and thus the player's choice is being thwarted.

I've been trying to get folks to see there is a distinction in meaning and usage of the technique. And that assuming an extreme interpretation misrepresents the writers intent.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 13, 2011)

Lanefan, I made that comment with memories of your experiences in mind! (Although I think poking your eyes out would be a bit extreme - just put it very carefully back on the shelf and walk slowly away . . .)

I really have done a lot of tweaking of it. I also think it has a lot of features that suit 4e well, or really lend themselves to tweaking in a 4e direction. And I've added in the whole 4e backstory material which has given the geography and history a lot more of an epic feel than it has taken just from the module.

The last time I tried to do this sort of thing with a module like that - ie one that has a lot of mini-episodes inside a fairly detailed geographic area - was OA7 Test of the Samurai, which is an Oriental Adventures module involving stopping a mad dragon from poisoning the skies of Japan in an attempt to gain immortality. I had a lot of fun with that also, but it didn't last quite as long as Night's Dark Terror has, and probably required a bit more tweaking.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 13, 2011)

Janx said:


> what I quoted is how I try to run my game.



What I find strange in some of these discussions is an insistence that a game must either be linear or sandbox, or at least somewhere on a spectrum between the two.

Because the sort of game I described, and - if we're understanding one another properly - the sort of game you also run, is one in which there is no sandbox in the classic sense (because you'll move the stuff from Chicago to New York, or make it up in response to what's gone before, or whatever) and yet it's not linear, because no one knows where it's going until it happens.

There also seems to be a lot of reluctance on the part of some GMs who post on ENworld to try and run this sort of non-linear, non-sandbox game. For example, I'm posting a bit on the moment on the "3.5E exalted-monk-paladin trainwreck" thread (I can't remember it's exact name). And the GM who started the thread has set up some interesting situations, by introducing a whole lot of cool stuff into a moduel s/he was running. But then s/he keeps talking about the way in which the players were _supposed_ to respond to it - even though this sort of expectation seems to have been a major cause of the very trainwreck in respect of which his/her OP was seeking advice.

I personally think it would be good for the game if DMGs and the like gave more advice on how a GM can run this sort of game, because it's a game style that I think tends to be satisfying for players - their choices shape the game - while also being comparatively light on the load it imposes on the GM - unlike at least the classic sandbox (look at the work The Shaman does to prep his game, for instance).


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 13, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Lanefan, I made that comment with memories of your experiences in mind! (Although I think poking your eyes out would be a bit extreme - just put it very carefully back on the shelf and walk slowly away . . .)
> 
> I really have done a lot of tweaking of it. I also think it has a lot of features that suit 4e well, or really lend themselves to tweaking in a 4e direction. And I've added in the whole 4e backstory material which has given the geography and history a lot more of an epic feel than it has taken just from the module.



Even with my limited 4e-fu I can somewhat see how that would work.  And having a worthwhile backstory helps as well - when I ran it the party had just unexpectedly arrived in the area and had no local connections or backstory whatsoever.

How easy/hard are you finding the monster conversion?  I've converted the other way (run a 4e module in 1e) and found 95% of it trivially easy...which usually means it's going to be hard going the other way.

Vaguely back on topic, one thing I found about NDT was that it quickly turned into a mini-sandbox once the players/PCs decided not to bother with anything like clues or investigation; they just wandered around the neighbourhood thrashing everything they met - including those who were in theory supposed to be allies!  I ended up having to do some varying-degrees-of-subtle railroading to not only get them back on track but get them on track in the first place.  And then they got slaughtered.  Repeatedly.


> The last time I tried to do this sort of thing with a module like that - ie one that has a lot of mini-episodes inside a fairly detailed geographic area - was OA7 Test of the Samurai, which is an Oriental Adventures module involving stopping a mad dragon from poisoning the skies of Japan in an attempt to gain immortality. I had a lot of fun with that also, but it didn't last quite as long as Night's Dark Terror has, and probably required a bit more tweaking.



I'm not familiar with this one at all, never did the OA thing.

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, bringing this back around to my point, how is that edition based?




Apart from yourself, I am not aware that anyone suggested that there were no rules in any edition for tactical play.  Most (if not all) editions have many of the same tactical elements.  Likewise most (if not all) rpgs with robust combat mechanics.

Indeed, it is difficult to avoid this, as tactics are based upon real world considerations.  From its wargaming roots, early D&D assumes that a knowledge of real world tactics should benefit players when engaging tactics within the game system.



> What mechanical elements does your description engage?




If nothing else, Armour Class, Hit Dice, and Damage.  

Among other rules for tactics in 1e:  Flanking, Facing (including the facing of monsters, which can effect AC and the attacks one faces....such as the sting or maw of a purple worm!), Limitations on Shield Use, Parrying, Attacks from Higher Ground, and Overbearing.  Those ones come directly to mind without having played the game in over 20 years.  

I assume that there are many more tactical options that could be pointed out by anyone more conversant with the system.


RC


----------



## Nagol (Jan 13, 2011)

Janx said:


> the problem I see is what is really meant by the players choosing Chicago over New York.
> 
> If the PCs don't have a specific reason for choosing Chicago over New York, and the thing in New York is not really tied to new york, then SOME DM's and players have a problem moving the thing to Chicago.
> 
> ...




If something is tied to the terrain of a big city, but not to a particular locale then *don't tie it to a particular locale*.  It won't have to be "moved" if the PCs end up in a different locale where the encounter makes sense.  A floating encounter like that similar to a wandering encounter just not randomised (or pehaps it is randomised and the PCs will only find the dark stranger on a 1-3 of a d6 any thime they go to an inn).


----------



## Janx (Jan 13, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Because the sort of game I described, and - if we're understanding one another properly - the sort of game you also run, is one in which there is no sandbox in the classic sense (because you'll move the stuff from Chicago to New York, or make it up in response to what's gone before, or whatever) and yet it's not linear, because no one knows where it's going until it happens.




Well I'll hesitate to say I don't know whats going to happen.  Partly because I'm fairly clever and humans are predictable. But also because if I re-arrange SOME components, then I certainly know whats going to happen at those points and can further predict what might happen next.

For instance, the party WILL be hit by the pick-pocket when they arrive in the city.  it doesn't matter which city.  As a GM, it is more valuable to me as a hook that this pick-pocket fail, and thus is detected.  Because that will probably initiate player action (they'll grab him on the spot or chase after him, or check video cameras to get a better ID on him).  If the pick pocket is fully successful, it could be completely undetected and untraceable, thus not providing any kind of lead to get the players into some action.

Some flexibility in shifting and re-using material means less prep work.  At the extreme end of that, of course is a railroad.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jan 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, bringing this back around to my point, how is that edition based?
> 
> _snip_
> 
> Good play is always good play.




RC said pretty much what I was thinking. I do not wish to derail this thread any further on the issue of tactics, but suffice it to say, I think we have differing opinions on what constitutes tactics. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Apart from yourself, I am not aware that anyone suggested that there were no rules in any edition for tactical play. Most (if not all) editions have many of the same tactical elements. Likewise most (if not all) rpgs with robust combat mechanics.
> 
> Indeed, it is difficult to avoid this, as tactics are based upon real world considerations. From its wargaming roots, early D&D assumes that a knowledge of real world tactics should benefit players when engaging tactics within the game system.
> 
> ...


----------



## awesomeocalypse (Jan 13, 2011)

No sandbox has ever given me what I'm looking for first and foremost in an RPG, and that is the sense that I am not simply a person inhabiting another world, but rather that I am the main character (or one of them, at least) of a story. More than anything, I want to feel like the world revoles around _me_.


I don't want to be vanquishing _a_ villain, I want to be vanquishing _the_ villain. I don't want to be a hero, I want to be _the_ hero. I don't want to pick up a magic sword, I want _the_ magic sword. In the same way that Dumbledore is less a person with independant agendas than he is a plot device to help Harry in his heroes journey, in the same way that everything the rest of the Fellowship does is secondary to and less important than what Frodo does, I want every single monster, NPC and setting element to orbit, in some sense, around the star that is me. I am Harry, Luke, Buffy and Frodo all in one. The other PCs can share that status, but that's it...if I get the sense that any of the NPCs in the world are somehow more important than I, that there are quests more important than my quest, that there is someone out there whose agenda matters more than my agenda...I get antsy.

So no, I don't like sandboxes. I don't want a million different plot threads that I could choose to pursue or not based on whather it interests me. i want *one* plot thread, that is so overwhelmingly important, and so intrinsically tied to me and my character, that the idea of doing anything else would be as laughable as Frodo deciding he'd rather go sing with Tom Bombadil than destroy the ring.

This might sound like unabashed, absolute D&D narcissism.

It is.

I don't play rpgs because I want to compromise on what sort of gratification I get. More than any other medium, rpgs can be tailored *exactly* to what the participants desire. So why would I want anything else? Being the man around whom everything revolves *rules*. 

So long as I have a bunch of fellow PCs who feel the same way, and a DM who relishes the chance to carefully craft a plot around a few specific PCs, then why would I want anything else?

edit: I noticed earlier in the thread some people were saying that, when faced with a railroad, their first instinct is to do everything they can to derail it. Not to be disruptive for the hell of it (though that can easily be the result), but because they feel on some level like its one of the only ways they can take action with meaningful consequence.

I am more or less exactly the opposite. Give me a tightly plotted story, where the principal appeal is seeing the plot unfold and finding out what happens next, and I'm happy as hell to stay on the plot and roleplay my character within the bounds of the story.

But put me in a game where the appeal is simply being able to do whatever I want to do, and I tend to start treating it the way I do a GTA sandbox--take actions just for the hell of it, don't sweat the consequences, and more or less act like a mixture of a Nietzschian superman and a kleptomaniac psychopath with a death wish.

This isn't to be disruptive for the hell of it, its simply the result of a massive shift in perspective.

If I am the chosen one, main character of this hugely important story, than that innkeeper I just met might be a stepping stone to the completion of that story. Certainly, even if he isn't hugely important, it probably makes sense in terms of completing the story to treat him with decency unless given a reason to otherwise.

But if there's no story, then who cares? Why *not* just rob that innkeeper or light him on fire? Sure, I might just get jailed or be killed by the guards, but the fight could be fun. And if I die, no biggie, I'll just roll up another dude who is just as capable of doing whatever the hell he wants as my current character is. I mean, its not like any of these characters are special or matter in any way. They're just random dudes in an imaginary world, and there are a theoretically infinite number of them.

The removal of a central plot puts me into pure GTA mode--none of it matters in any larger sense, the characters are disposable, and the central draw is mainly just acting in ways I never could in real life, messing crap up and enjoying the chaos that ensues.

A story keeps me from doing that by making the character I'm playing at that moment hugely important, and in a way that encourages him to engage with the world in a way that advances the story.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 13, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> one thing I found about NDT was that it quickly turned into a mini-sandbox once the players/PCs decided not to bother with anything like clues or investigation; they just wandered around the neighbourhood thrashing everything they met - including those who were in theory supposed to be allies!  I ended up having to do some varying-degrees-of-subtle railroading to not only get them back on track but get them on track in the first place.



I stipulated at the start of the campaign that every PC must have a backstory reason to be ready to fight goblins. As a result we got a youthful dwarf who (to his shame) had never seen a goblin, and was off to prove himself; a middle-aged pastry chef and wizard whose town had been destroyed by goblins; and an elf and half-elf whose village had been raided by goblins. A couple of sessions in we also got a paladin (of the Raven Queen, but still seeing himself as bound by duty to look after ordinary people). This made the early parts of the module easy to motivate -fight goblins, rescue prisoners etc.

I'm not using the Hutakaans (sp?) but instead minotaurs as the ancient empire, because this ties better into 4e mythology (including Thunderspire Labyrinth). I've also built into the history the idea that the dwarves were once under the tutelage of the minotaurs, which has helped engage the player of the dwarf as he learns more about the real history of his people.

I've also linked the slaver group to a devilish cult (from the 4e Dungeon adventure Heathen) and have also linked in Vecna and Torog via the magic-user who is the main enemy. This mythological stuff helps with engaging several of the PCs (eg the wizard/chef started out as an initiate of the Raven Queen (cleric multi-class) but has since retrained as an Inovker linked to Erathis, Ioun and Vecna also). And I've also got a Rod of Seven Parts plot in there, which ties in some of the abyss/chaos elements of minotaurs and Thunderspire Labyrinth, Erathis (because the Rod is a weapon of law) and 4e history (because, as they are discovering, the history of Nerath seems to have been linked to some parts of the Rod).

It's a long time since I've run a module without doing this sort of work to link it into the camaign.



Lanefan said:


> How easy/hard are you finding the monster conversion?  I've converted the other way (run a 4e module in 1e) and found 95% of it trivially easy...which usually means it's going to be hard going the other way.



The goblins converted pretty easily - in that I looked at the number of goblins, the shape of the map/terrain, and put in an equivalent number of 4e goblins (including minions) with the right sorts of roles to make a good encounter.

With some of the later encounters, like the tombs and the ruins, I've played a bit more fast-and-loose, putting in monsters that capture the general feel/theme (eg corruption corpses rather than the wyrds that the module uses), or adding in a few more monsters to make a better encounter (eg in the gelatinous cube encounter in the ruins, I also added in a spider pit inspired by a thread on ENworld about using spiders and webs in three dimensions). 

Again, this fits with the general way I use a module - to get some basic ideas, some maps, a bit of background and feel. Once I've got that, I'm pretty happy to fold, spindle, mutilate and incorporate - both in prep and as I go along - in order to get something that plays well at the table.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 15, 2011)

Jacob Marley said:


> RC said pretty much what I was thinking. I do not wish to derail this thread any further on the issue of tactics, but suffice it to say, I think we have differing opinions on what constitutes tactics.




Sorry about this.  One last gasp of the derailment and I'll shut up completely.  

I did think of a very good example where 1e mechanics (and 2e for that matter) influence tactical considerations.  The morale rules.  ((Yeah, it hit me cos of that thread in the 4e forums))

IIRC, you can trigger an individual morale check if you hit something for more than half its hp's and again at 1/4.  Group morale checks get triggered after the group takes so many casualties.  And, yes, that's a gross simplification - there's a lot more to it than that.

But, that has a pretty big affect on tactical choices.  Earlier on, someone mentioned focus fire being a very good tactic.  That's certainly true in 3e and 4e where damage has no real effect on combat effectiveness until the target is dead.  ((Or dying I suppose))  With morale rules in place, spreading out the damage can be equally effective.

There was an earlier example of three kobolds and a giant lizard.  In 3e, ganking the lizard first is pretty much the best option since the kobolds are nowhere near the same threat (assuming that there aren't NPC levels thrown into the mix - just stock kobolds).  But, in 1e, if you smoke the three kobolds, that causes the lizard to make a morale check and possibly flee the encounter, without actually doing any damage to it.

You can actually win encounters in 1e and 2e without killing anything.

That's an example of what I mean by mechanics having an effect on tactics.  Which is why I generally don't agree with RC's examples which have nothing to do with system.  They're examples of good tactics, sure, but, completely divorced from system, they're actually pretty irrelavent to my point which was that 1e mechanics don't actually have much effect on tactics.

A point which I've now just proven myself wrong about.


----------

