Player-led games vs. GM-led games

[Darth Ultron]

Of course they want to play a character. What they may not want is to play the part you've scripted out for them in your pre-designed screenplay.



Right, I'm talking about the player with a pre-designed screenplay for themselves and they just want the DM to run that.

[HidesHisEyes]

:vaarsuvius: I weep bitter tears for this thread, which dies a little each day so that other discussions may live.

I don't think it's right to suggest someone be banned for vehemently disagreeing with everyone. I've found a lot of food for thought in this thread, and if I get tired of it I just won't read it anymore. Having said that, you guys may be onto something. Maybe if this thread dies of natural causes we can just start a new one called something along the same lines. You flog a horse to death, you get a new horse and direct the flogger's attention at it. You go home and say a prayer for the brave horse and his noble sacrifice.

[Segev]

Right, I'm talking about the player with a pre-designed screenplay for themselves and they just want the DM to run that.

And nobody else has even brought that up, so you're arguing against a straw man, here.

[Max_Killjoy]

Right, I'm talking about the player with a pre-designed screenplay for themselves and they just want the DM to run that.

There's only one person in this "discussion" arguing for anything like a predesigned screenplay...

[thirdkingdom]

There's only one person in this "discussion" arguing for anything like a predesigned screenplay...


Hmmm. Who would that be, I wonder?

[kyoryu]

There's only one person in this "discussion" arguing for anything like a predesigned screenplay...

Oh, come on, a number of people are clearly arguing for totally random things with no plot and where nothing happens.

:smallcool:

[OldTrees1]

I don't think it's right to suggest someone be banned for vehemently disagreeing with everyone. I've found a lot of food for thought in this thread, and if I get tired of it I just won't read it anymore. Having said that, you guys may be onto something. Maybe if this thread dies of natural causes we can just start a new one called something along the same lines. You flog a horse to death, you get a new horse and direct the flogger's attention at it. You go home and say a prayer for the brave horse and his noble sacrifice.

Nobody is suggesting anything related to bans.

However Darth does more than vehemently disagree. He often replies to a thread by derailing that thread by starting this same off topic unending argument again and again.

[kyoryu]

Nobody is suggesting anything related to bans.

However Darth does more than vehemently disagree. He often replies to a thread by derailing that thread by starting this same off topic unending argument again and again.

Which is certainly something that should be avoided.

Which is why I like the idea of centralizing the argument in this thread.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't think this is derailing the thread. I think this is just extending the thread past its natural expiration date.

[kyoryu]

I don't think this is derailing the thread. I think this is just extending the thread past its natural expiration date.

The thread doesn't have a DNR, and the protestors outside are preventing us from pulling the plug.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think this is derailing the thread. I think this is just extending the thread past its natural expiration date.

I see it as the original thread (discussing, comparing, & contrasting player led vs GM led games) cut short before it was 1 page old. However I could be wrong on this matter so I will drop the topic.

[Max_Killjoy]

I see it as the original thread (discussing, comparing, & contrasting player led vs GM led games) cut short before it was 1 page old. However I could be wrong on this matter so I will drop the topic.

You're dead on, actually.

The very first page alone has you-know-who tilting at his personal windmills three times.

[kyoryu]

You're dead on, actually.

The very first page alone has you-know-who tilting at his personal windmills three times.

Hey, I tried to prevent the infection!


Why are you arguing with him???

[Cluedrew]

As I recall (although it was quite a few pages back now so I may be recalling incorrectly) the thread only really started focusing on railroading (and "railroading") after the main topic started to dry up.

Now I suppose there are still more things to say. For instance sandbox has been used as an example of a player led game but is it really? To me at least a sandbox is a setting focused game, and setting is really the GM's territory. So how does that work out? Serious question, I haven't played much of sandbox style games and I haven't been able to theory craft my way through that.

[Max_Killjoy]

As I recall (although it was quite a few pages back now so I may be recalling incorrectly) the thread only really started focusing on railroading (and "railroading") after the main topic started to dry up.

Now I suppose there are still more things to say. For instance sandbox has been used as an example of a player led game but is it really? To me at least a sandbox is a setting focused game, and setting is really the GM's territory. So how does that work out? Serious question, I haven't played much of sandbox style games and I haven't been able to theory craft my way through that.



I'd say that the opposite of "railroad" is not "player led" and it's not "sandbox". The opposite of railroad is "living, breathing setting and NPCs that respond and interact dynamically".

[Cluedrew]

I am not saying that sandbox is the opposite of a railroad. I have my opinions of railroads and their opposites. I think you can find the in this thread and if not I would be happy to discuss them. After a break, please.

[Max_Killjoy]

I am not saying that sandbox is the opposite of a railroad. I have my opinions of railroads and their opposites. I think you can find the in this thread and if not I would be happy to discuss them. After a break, please.

Sorry, I didn't mean that's what you were saying.

[OldTrees1]

As I recall (although it was quite a few pages back now so I may be recalling incorrectly) the thread only really started focusing on railroading (and "railroading") after the main topic started to dry up.

Now I suppose there are still more things to say. For instance sandbox has been used as an example of a player led game but is it really? To me at least a sandbox is a setting focused game, and setting is really the GM's territory. So how does that work out? Serious question, I haven't played much of sandbox style games and I haven't been able to theory craft my way through that.

I would consider Player-Led and GM-Led to be independent of it being or not being a sandbox.

Say I have a bunch of PCs set in a sandbox and they go pursuing their own motives with their chosen encounters with the setting as a means to their ends. I would call that Player-Led because the goals the players chose are directing the encountering.

However if I have a bunch of PCs that wander through the sandbox and react to the plans/goals of NPCs. I would consider that GM-Led because it is the goals of the NPCs that are directing the encountering.

The kind of plot grenades that might show up in a sandbox would also fall into a GM-Led example.

Of course you can have mixtures because it is at least a continuum if not even more nuanced.

What about when the players are guided to an encounter, but their reaction is completely unexpected by the DM? Say they receive a letter petitioning aid against a raiding dragon. However the PCs decide to go team up with the dragon and start a continent wide bandit operation. I think the GM led the group to the encounter but the Players led them to the dragon bandit band plot.

[HidesHisEyes]

As I recall (although it was quite a few pages back now so I may be recalling incorrectly) the thread only really started focusing on railroading (and "railroading") after the main topic started to dry up.

Now I suppose there are still more things to say. For instance sandbox has been used as an example of a player led game but is it really? To me at least a sandbox is a setting focused game, and setting is really the GM's territory. So how does that work out? Serious question, I haven't played much of sandbox style games and I haven't been able to theory craft my way through that.

Yeah, I certainly never intended this to be a discussion about the definition of railroading. Once it became that I made a new thread called "more thoughts on player freedom" where we followed up the original discussion. To me as well, the sandbox/non-sandbox distinction isn't quite the same as player-led/GM-led. I think it's all about who provides the objectives. When players provide the objectives it's player-led and when the GM does it's GM-led. In reality it's not a binary distinction but a back-and-forth between players and GM. The other thread was about my attempt to make a structure for that back-and-forth so that the GM knows who is providing the objectives at a given time and so can run the game more effectively. The way I see it, in an on-going campaign where the goal is for the players to direct the narrative as far as logically possible, the structure looks something like this:

- The group as a whole decides what kind of game they want to run, what type of thing the PCs will be doing and from there what type of characters the players will need to make.
- The players make their characters based on those initial decisions.
- Play starts, and the GM takes control and presents a world with hooks and things to follow up.
- The players take control and decide which thing to pursue, which quest to undertake, what their goal is.
- The GM takes control again to design something for the players to play based on their decision.
- The players take control when they play it, and decide on their next objective.
- The GM takes control to design the next adventure based on their decision...

And so on.


I would consider Player-Led and GM-Led to be independent of it being or not being a sandbox.

Say I have a bunch of PCs set in a sandbox and they go pursuing their own motives with their chosen encounters with the setting as a means to their ends. I would call that Player-Led because the goals the players chose are directing the encountering.

However if I have a bunch of PCs that wander through the sandbox and react to the plans/goals of NPCs. I would consider that GM-Led because it is the goals of the NPCs that are directing the encountering.

The kind of plot grenades that might show up in a sandbox would also fall into a GM-Led example.

Of course you can have mixtures because it is at least a continuum if not even more nuanced.

What about when the players are guided to an encounter, but their reaction is completely unexpected by the DM? Say they receive a letter petitioning aid against a raiding dragon. However the PCs decide to go team up with the dragon and start a continent wide bandit operation. I think the GM led the group to the encounter but the Players led them to the dragon bandit band plot.

So this scenario would bother me somewhat as a GM. In one of my games it's likely that the initial discussion would probably have resulted in a decision to play either as adventurers/hero types who are likely to kill and evil dragon OR villainous types likely to team up with it and become bandits. If I had no idea which of those things they were going to do once they got to the dragon's lair then I'd feel very unsure about my ability to make a decent adventure out of it in terms of actual gameplay. Assuming we had agreed to play a game about adventurers, it would fit into my structure like this:

- I present players with a world that includes a town in need of someone to help them against its dragon.
- Players choose to answer the call and set off for the town. This happens at the end of a session or in between sessions by email or whatever.
- I design the specifics of the "dragon raids" adventure: the town and its inhabitants, the dragon itself, the layout of its lair. I give some (but not too much thought) to how the players might deal with the problem.
- We play the adventure and I follow the players' lead as they navigate the elements of the adventure I've come up with.

Notice that once they've chosen the adventure they are more or less "locked in" to it since that adventure is what I will turn up to the next session with notes on. But once we're playing, the players are in charge of how to go about resolving the adventure. They can explore the town and ask questions about the dragon - maybe they find out enough about him to know how to get him to leave without a fight - or maybe they charge straight into his lair with weapons drawn, or maybe they try and trick him or lure him away or seek aid from someone else. That, in my mind, is a miniature sandbox within the larger sandbox of the campaign (where the players are also in charge since they choose the adventures in the first place).

[OldTrees1]

So this scenario would bother me somewhat as a GM. In one of my games it's likely that the initial discussion would probably have resulted in a decision to play either as adventurers/hero types who are likely to kill and evil dragon OR villainous types likely to team up with it and become bandits. If I had no idea which of those things they were going to do once they got to the dragon's lair then I'd feel very unsure about my ability to make a decent adventure out of it in terms of actual gameplay. Assuming we had agreed to play a game about adventurers, it would fit into my structure like this:

- I present players with a world that includes a town in need of someone to help them against its dragon.
- Players choose to answer the call and set off for the town. This happens at the end of a session or in between sessions by email or whatever.
- I design the specifics of the "dragon raids" adventure: the town and its inhabitants, the dragon itself, the layout of its lair. I give some (but not too much thought) to how the players might deal with the problem.
- We play the adventure and I follow the players' lead as they navigate the elements of the adventure I've come up with.

Notice that once they've chosen the adventure they are more or less "locked in" to it since that adventure is what I will turn up to the next session with notes on. But once we're playing, the players are in charge of how to go about resolving the adventure. They can explore the town and ask questions about the dragon - maybe they find out enough about him to know how to get him to leave without a fight - or maybe they charge straight into his lair with weapons drawn, or maybe they try and trick him or lure him away or seek aid from someone else. That, in my mind, is a miniature sandbox within the larger sandbox of the campaign (where the players are also in charge since they choose the adventures in the first place).

So at the strategic level you run a GM-led game but at the tactical level it is a Player-led game. You are crafting the environment the players will be in, but the players lead the group through that environment. By altering the size and scope of the strategic/tactical levels as well as the distance between them I think that describes a broad sub genre of sandbox games.

Likewise from your reasoning for your particular structure we can see that the Player-led parts of the game add uncertainty to the GM and thus affect the GM's ability to plan ahead.

Sidenote: Good example of a good way to handle your own personal discomfort at that specific uncertainty by including it in the pre campaign expectations discussion. :smallsmile: