Consequences, Railroading, and Schrodinger's Dungeon

[Jakinbandw]

Most quantum Ogres are just the DM introducing fiction to the game. If that’s railroading then everyone railroads.

A quantum ogre is if I am given 2 roads to walk down, and instead I teleport, then the gm says that my teleportation fails and I'm on the road in front of an ogre.

The quantum ogre is bad because it involves lying to the players. That same GM could have asked that I not teleport because they had an important encounter on the first road, and they hadn't yet prepared for me to arrive in the town this session.

It's not the lack of choice that people are upset about in the quantum ogre example, it's the blatant lying to the players.

[Easy e]

It's not the lack of choice that people are upset about in the quantum ogre example, it's the blatant lying to the players.

This makes sense to me. However, it feels like the Quantum Ogre is a symptom and the cause is having an adversarial GM/Player relationship.

I bet you could rail road and lie to your players a lot IF the players did not feel like the GM was out to TPK or thwart all their schemes in the first place. Not that I recommend trying that approach, but a lot of these discussion are talking around the fact that the players and GMs are not working together.

[Tanarii]

"The Quantum Ogre" example uses a random encounter on the road because that's an easy scenario to comprehend with minimal other context.
No, it doesn't. It involved planned encounters that occur in a specific order, regardless of which of three different areas they could possibly be the players choose to go to.

[kyoryu]

Think about it like Spicy Food.


I love this analogy. It also encapsulates a lot of the frustration in the conversation to me.

A: "I don't like spicy food."
B: "Well, how do you define spicy food?"
A: "It's food that tastes hot. Usually because of peppers in it."
B: "Ah, are green peppers spicy?"
A: "Uh, no?"
B: "So, then, how can you say that peppers make spicy food?"
A: "Because some peppers are spicy!"
B: "That sounds really vague."
A: "Look, if you add spicy peppers to food, it gets spicy, and I don't like that."
B: "So, if the chef adds things to food, it makes it spicy? But since chefs add things to all food, doesn't that mean all food is spicy? And therefore there's no objection?"
A: "No! It's not the fact that the chef is adding stuff to the food! It's the fact that it's spicy!"
B: "Sometimes people put a little cayenne in food, and that doesn't seem to bother people."
A: "Yeah, a little spicy stuff usually doesn't make the food spicy."
B: "So spicy food is okay."
A: "No! Just a touch of cayenne won't make a whole dish spicy!"
B: "Lots of people like spicy food."
A: "But I don't! Make it for people that like it, that's fine, just tell me so I don't have to eat it!"
B: "What if I just don't tell you? And add lots of peppers but give you bread and honey and milk to eat with it. Then maybe you won't notice it's not spicy."
A: "How about you just don't give me spicy food?"
B: "But there's no definition of spicy food. Or all food is spicy. One of the two."
A: "UGH! I don't like spicy food, that's all!"
B: "But some people say they don't like spicy food, but some things that are spicy they're okay with."
A: "Yeah, but that's because they don't like really spicy food but are okay with food that's a little spicy."
B: "So, there's no standard definition of spicy. Therefore giving you spicy food is okay."
A: "How about no? I mean, there's a pretty reasonable limit at which food is definitely spicy. And maybe if you're adding enough that it might be spicy, just tell people?"
B: "Some people are super sensitive and think that even a little bit of pepper is spicy. So, really, isn't all food spicy?"
A: "No! Those people are outliers! There's reasonable defintiions that like 90% of people agree on."
B: "Hrm. I don't think so. I think it's really just okay for me to make spicy food and serve it to everyone, even if they claim that they don't like 'spicy' food."


This makes sense to me. However, it feels like the Quantum Ogre is a symptom and the cause is having an adversarial GM/Player relationship.

I bet you could rail road and lie to your players a lot IF the players did not feel like the GM was out to TPK or thwart all their schemes in the first place. Not that I recommend trying that approach, but a lot of these discussion are talking around the fact that the players and GMs are not working together.

Nah. For some people the point is that level of decision making, and taking it away takes away the fun.

And then there's the fact that the deception required usually starts to become apparent after a while - typically when players notice their decision don't ever impact anything, or when they start running into the increasing walls put up to keep them on rails. That kind of inherently leads to an adversarial situation.

If you're gonna run a linear game, just acknowledge it up front.

[OldTrees1]

That’s a big place of disagreement. IMO, Agency is not a more or less affair. Either you have agency or you don’t. Either you had a meaningful choice or you didn’t. Either your meaningful choice was invalidated or it wasn’t.

Agency is very much a more or less affair. A character can get more meaningful choices or fewer meaningful choices. They could have a meaningful choice about which city to visit AND a meaningful choice about what enemies they might encounter, OR they might only get 1 of the choices OR neither choice OR both choices and another choice on top of that.

Player Agency is a measurement of all these atoms of agency. You can have more or less. The PCs in a sandbox campaign have more agency than the PCs in a tyrannical Railroad. Both have some agency, but one has more than the other. One gets more choices about more things and has fewer choices invalidated.


You are adding additional characteristic to the items in the river, which breaks the parable/metaphor I was using. The climbing a cliff, is the equivalent of an item diverting into a canal or taking some other path in the river. Hiking up stream is the equivalent of time travel.

For instance, you in your life are on a river and your story will end at some point, will it end at the end of the river or before? Most likely people and thusly characters die before the end of the entire river empties into the sea.

The question becomes what parts of the river do they see!

I look at the River methodology as follows:






The river analogy implied to me that the river already exists. So I thought it was a parable for the flow of a A to B story with the players controlling the path from A to B. Under that parable my GMing style would break the parable by allowing the players to choose their destination. They might never go to B. They might leave the river.

However it sounds like I misunderstood. You are using the river banks to represent the limits of player agency on the river of time. You are not assuming the river's shape / destination / etc are defined. So it sounds like your river can be paraphrased as "Players don't have 100% agency and time happens". If that is what you meant, then I want to understand why you wanted to reinforce that common sense.

That said, how you described your use of the river (the flood for example) is not universal to all GMing. However you might get more relevant replies this 2nd time around. However you can't step in the same river twice, so expect some misconceptions to be carried downstream by the first attempt. (River jokes were intentional)


I love this analogy. It also encapsulates a lot of the frustration in the conversation to me.
My sympathies to "A".
If "B" could progress further into the conversation then maybe "C" could pop in with a different (lower/higher) tolerance than "A". Then "A" and "C" would recognize their preference can and do differ. Then they would attempt to explain their specific difference.

[kyoryu]

My sympathies to "A".
If "B" could progress further into the conversation then maybe "C" could pop in with a different (lower/higher) tolerance than "A". Then "A" and "C" would recognize their preference can and do differ. Then they would attempt to explain their specific difference.

Differing tolerances were brought up :)

[Frogreaver]

A quantum ogre is if I am given 2 roads to walk down, and instead I teleport, then the gm says that my teleportation fails and I'm on the road in front of an ogre.

The quantum ogre is bad because it involves lying to the players. That same GM could have asked that I not teleport because they had an important encounter on the first road, and they hadn't yet prepared for me to arrive in the town this session.

It's not the lack of choice that people are upset about in the quantum ogre example, it's the blatant lying to the players.

The primary complaint I've seen here is that it is railroading.


No, it doesn't. It involved planned encounters that occur in a specific order, regardless of which of three different areas they could possibly be the players choose to go to.

Why does the number of encounters this happens with have any bearing?


"Most uses of spices are just the chef introducing some flavor to the food. If that's cooking spicy food than everything is spicy"
And yet you can recognize the difference between bell peppers and jalapenos.

Except my position is not making that kind of fallacy. Have fun berating a position that no one is taking.


Agency is very much a more or less affair. A character can get more meaningful choices or fewer meaningful choices.

IMO, Agency is not about the number of meaningful choices you get but whether you get to make meaningful choices.

I'm not disputing that there can be more or less meaningful choices, nor that some choices can be more meaningful than others - only that whatever that's measuring, it's not agency.


They could have a meaningful choice about which city to visit AND a meaningful choice about what enemies they might encounter, OR they might only get 1 of the choices OR neither choice OR both choices and another choice on top of that.

Yes they could.


Player Agency is a measurement of all these atoms of agency. You can have more or less. The PCs in a sandbox campaign have more agency than the PCs in a tyrannical Railroad. Both have some agency, but one has more than the other. One gets more choices about more things and has fewer choices invalidated.

This still appears to be one of the largest parts of our disagreement. If it's really a tyrannical railroad i'd say the players lack agency.

[JNAProductions]

Then make your position clear, Frogreaver. Because right now, it is not clear at all.

[Frogreaver]

Then make your position clear, Frogreaver. Because right now, it is not clear at all.

I have been. What would you like to know about it?

[icefractal]

One factor that's inconvenient to theories of better gaming, but IME often true, is that the extent to which people mind railroading depends a lot on how satisfied they are with the game in other regards.

The same players who I saw being happy playing a fairly linear game and even voluntarily waiving certain actions to avoid breaking the plot ... were (in a different campaign) pushing hard against every NPC and feeling railroaded when they were at all blocked, even in IC ways.

The difference? The first game was run better than the second. People enjoyed it and felt the GM had their best interests at heart, so they rolled with it. In the latter game, it wasn't as fun and the GM (a different one) had previously burned through his trust, so people more often took the most negative view.

I'm not saying that's the only thing that matters, but it does matter.

[JNAProductions]

I have been. What would you like to know about it?

The position in general. You have not been as clear in your position as you think you are-so please, summarize.


One factor that's inconvenient to theories of better gaming, but IME often true, is that the extent to which people mind railroading depends a lot on how satisfied they are with the game in other regards.

The same players who I saw being happy playing a fairly linear game and even voluntarily waiving certain actions to avoid breaking the plot ... were (in a different campaign) pushing hard against every NPC and feeling railroaded when they were at all blocked, even in IC ways.

The difference? The first game was run better than the second. People enjoyed it and felt the GM had their best interests at heart, so they rolled with it. In the latter game, it wasn't as fun and the GM (a different one) had previously burned through his trust, so people more often took the most negative view.

I'm not saying that's the only thing that matters, but it does matter.

For sure-in the same way a great movie can get away with a plot hole, while a crappy one can't without being mocked.

[Frogreaver]

The position in general. You have not been as clear in your position as you think you are-so please, summarize.

Meaningful Choices are choices that can change/alter the fiction in important ways.

Agency is a person's ability to make meaningful choices. Implicitly this has a few requirements. (1) That you can learn (learning is essential because as the fiction is changed new information must constantly be considered) , (2) That you don't enter a state such that no further meaningful choices can be made (PC death being the prime example of such a state but not the only), (3) This applies to all aspects of the game the player has access to (can't think of a better way to say this 3rd one).

Railroading is when the GM uses force (of which there are many techniques) for the purpose of removing otherwise legitimate player choices, usually so that the game goes in the direction he has prepped for. Unless done for a whole campaign it doesn't remove player agency due to (2) - but even in somewhat shorter bursts it can lead to a rather long setup phase (long parts of sessions or multiple sessions) where the players have no meaningful choices. Typically players signed up to play a game where they can typically make meaningful choices and so railroading is typically bad because in most instances it's a dramatic break from player expectations. It's this mismatch of expectations that is the real problem with railroading. But very short railroads in the midst of a broader campaign can provide the GM with an excellent tool to setup interesting challenges and fiction for the players while still keeping up with their expectations that they will have mostly meaningful choices. So railroading is not necessarily always bad.

Is this the kind of stuff you were looking for?

[OldTrees1]

IMO, Agency is not about the number of meaningful choices you get but whether you get to make meaningful choices.

I'm not disputing that there can be more or less meaningful choices, nor that some choices can be more meaningful than others - only that whatever that's measuring, it's not agency.

Yes they could.

This still appears to be one of the largest parts of our disagreement. If it's really a tyrannical railroad i'd say the players lack agency.

I am confused, in a tyrannical railroad the players might get at least 1 meaningful choice. Therefore they have some agency. They have agency but they have less than players in a game with less railroading. Even in a game where the PCs have no agency, the player has agency over if they get up a leave.

If you try to cast it as a binary between "any meaningful choices vs 0 meaningful choices" then you are either ignoring or equating the entire possibility space of 2+ meaningful choices.

I understand how "If there is a meaningful choice, then the player has agency" however I don't understand how "The game that only let's you have 1 choice" is equivalent to a sandbox where you get a wealth of meaningful choices. It is meaningful to describe "The player does not have agency over this and that" or "The player does have agency over that and this". Those are descriptions of the meaningful choices the player gets and the shape of the agency they have.

There is a difference between the tyrannical railroad and the open sandbox. One has more player agency than the other. If this is an irreconcilable difference, then I don't want to engage with you equating all games to the tyrannical railroad with a single meaningful choice. So if that is where it must be, then let's drop it.

[Frogreaver]

I am confused, in a tyrannical railroad the players might get at least 1 meaningful choice. Therefore they have some agency. They have agency but they have less than players in a game with less railroading. Even in a game where the PCs have no agency, the player has agency over if they get up a leave.

IMO. A player has no meaningful choices in a tyrannical railroad. Any potentially meaningful choice they make will ultimately be negated because in a tyranical railroad the train stays on the tracks regardless of what the players do.

Nor do I find it logical to bring up actions outside the game when talking about player agency within the game. (As you did above).


If you try to cast it as a binary between "any meaningful choices vs 0 meaningful choices" then you are either ignoring or equating the entire possibility space of 2+ meaningful choices.

I understand how "If there is a meaningful choice, then the player has agency" however I don't understand how "The game that only let's you have 1 choice" is equivalent to a sandbox where you get a wealth of meaningful choices. It is meaningful to describe "The player does not have agency over this and that" or "The player does have agency over that and this". Those are descriptions of the meaningful choices the player gets and the shape of the agency they have.

Because Agency isn't a measure of how many meaningful choices you have.


There is a difference between the tyrannical railroad and the open sandbox. One has more player agency than the other. If this is an irreconcilable difference, then I don't want to engage with you equating all games to the tyrannical railroad with a single meaningful choice. So if that is where it must be, then let's drop it.

This blows my mind - I said players had no agency in tyrannical railroads - and yet here you are telling me that I'm equating sandboxes to tyranical railroads when my position is actually that players have agency in sandboxes and don't in tyrannical railroads.

[MR_Anderson]

The river analogy implied to me that the river already exists. So I thought it was a parable for the flow of a A to B story with the players controlling the path from A to B. Under that parable my GMing style would break the parable by allowing the players to choose their destination. They might never go to B. They might leave the river.

The DM/GM determines the river as he/she likes, and the PC are metaphorically tossed in at some point, usually not the beginning and not the end, so not A or Z. In this metaphor/analogy we are limited to 26 points with letters, but understand it really is infinite, and not always sequential.

So lets say players find themselves at C, and they want to go to F. Well maybe they can go straight to F, or maybe going straight to F makes no sense. If it makes no sense, then maybe they need to go to E before they go to F, but D is a waste of time so it certainly is skipped as it isn’t needed. I would let them go to F if that is what they want, just after E.

Maybe if they go to F, they can never go to L, M, N, O, & P. These letters can represent places in time. Maybe going to F is blowing up Alderaan with the Death Star, and Alderaan had L through P.

These letters could also represent events or actions in a character’s life like becoming a vampire. For instance, back to the player who wanted to play a Vampire in my world; his character never would have known about vampires at the beginning, he had to find vampires through playing the character to unlock that path story-wise.

All I am doing with this river flow is using it to restrict players to the limits of their character and the general flow of the story. Many players play with player knowledge and not always character knowledge, I use this to try and restrict that.

This usually comes off in gaming with a player saying, “I want to do Q, R, & S with my character.” I respond, “Q and R are fine, but no you can’t do S, at least not right now,” or “Explain to me how your character would even know about S.”

It is basically auto approval for anything the players can explain story-wise. I will always have the power to veto anything they want to do, but the players actually have that same power as they could refuse to follow certain parts of the storyline or a certain path that they are presented with.

Funny enough, they have already rejected a certain path and later what I had intended as an ally might end up being a foe, as that story arc happened as the river flowed, they just never went there.


However it sounds like I misunderstood. You are using the river banks to represent the limits of player agency on the river of time. You are not assuming the river's shape / destination / etc are defined. So it sounds like your river can be paraphrased as "Players don't have 100% agency and time happens". If that is what you meant, then I want to understand why you wanted to reinforce that common sense.

Is common sense common?

I wouldn’t agree with everything you just said, but most of it; I mean the river is fluid (A pun, but also serious) as it can change, but sometimes there are some very hard points that I have preplanned and will not change, like the cataclysmic event coming in the adventure I am running.

For story purposes I have other less hard points that do shift as needed, but they aren’t beyond being completely ruined by the players, as they still have Freewill. The story changes with the flow.


That said, how you described your use of the river (the flood for example) is not universal to all GMing. However you might get more relevant replies this 2nd time around. However you can't step in the same river twice, so expect some misconceptions to be carried downstream by the first attempt. (River jokes were intentional)

I understood that there would be river jokes, I banked on it.

So the Flood is metaphorically the world preventing the players from living and doing whatever they want forever. It is no different than if someone moves to the mountains and just does what they want to do and sooner or later adventures come exploring, or an evil tyrant has arose to power and now is coming for a new tax on them.

The Flood is me saying, okay you’ve played the Hobbit in the Shire long enough, time to get swept away by a need of the river.

It really is there to prompt the return to a story line that has been abandoned that didn’t stop on the account of no longer caring by the PC’s, and the flow of that story didn’t get stopped by anything else.

Hopefully I’ve elaborated much more to make what I call the river methodology make sense.

[OldTrees1]

IMO. A player has no meaningful choices in a tyrannical railroad. Any potentially meaningful choice they make will ultimately be negated because in a tyranical railroad the train stays on the tracks regardless of what the players do.

Nor do I find it logical to bring up actions outside the game when talking about player agency within the game. (As you did above).

Because Agency isn't a measure of how many meaningful choices you have.

This blows my mind - I said players had no agency in tyrannical railroads - and yet here you are telling me that I'm equating sandboxes to tyranical railroads when my position is actually that players have agency in sandboxes and don't in tyrannical railroads.

You have accepted no distinction between being able to make meaningful choices vs being granted the smallest possible meaningful choice. Even tyrannical railroads can have the smallest possible meaningful choice. If you don't accept a means of distinguishing along the continuum then I have to assume you use a binary. Since you stated that "if meaningful choice exists then agency exists" and tyrannical railroads can have the smallest possible meaningful choice, then your position as applied contradicts your position as professed. Which should I believe? I went for your position as applied because it implies less of a semantic language barrier. Was that wrong? Are there meaningful choices that don't grant player agency according to you?

Even in a tyrannical railroad the players have some agency, that agency is just limited by the railroad. It is useful to be able to distinguish between different scales of agency. If you are picking an arbitrary point, ignoring all agency below that point, and equating all agency above that point, then I see no value in that.

[HidesHisEyes]

I think you answered your first question with your second. But for the record, how are the majority of XP gained in most games? (hint, killing, and looting).

Well I already acknowledged that we play games that reward killing and looting. But as I said, how many games really push players into that behaviour *for its own sake*? How many games make it undesirable to have a larger goal that just happens to entail killing and looting? Also, I’m a little skeptical about the xp system argument. In my experience very few people actually use the xp system as written in 5E. It seems very standard, in practice, to do “milestone” xp, or devise a homebrew xp system.

And in Dungeon World (yeah it’s a meme among my irl group that I always end up mentioning DW, but there’s a reason for that!) you do indeed get xp for killing and looting: 1 xp for killing and 1 xp for looting, per session. The rest comes from learning about the world, roleplaying your alignment, exploring relationships with other PCs and (the majority) failing rolls.


If the players decide the goals and direction of the game, the GMs role becomes purely reactionary. To take the example to the N-th level, any attempt to add an element to the story that the players themselves did not directly initiate could be seen as "railroading" ("What do you mean the city we are in is being attacked by Orcs?? You're trying to get us to introduce a plot arc!")

Ok but I didn’t take it to the Nth level, you did. You’re talking about this:
PCs: we go to the city
GM: the city is under attack by orcs, the campaign is about an orc invasion now

I’m talking about this:
PCs: we go to the city to seek information on the whereabouts of our missing friend
GM: the city is under attack by orcs. How are you going to handle this situation while searching for the information you want?

That’s not “railroading” in any meaningful sense. It’s the GM introducing story elements, throwing challenges in the PCs’ path as they pursue the goal they set. The GM isn’t forcing them to care about the orcs or engage with them any further than is necessary for them to pursue their goal. But the GM still has the authority to introduce the orcs because the GM has authority over the game world, and is there (partially) to put resistance in front of the PCs.

Again, it’s a mixture of elements, some coming from the players, some from the GM. That mixture produces the story.


Oh, it is fun. For a little while. More so for the players. But trust me, getting everything you want, when you want it gets old and usually devolves into nothing more than an extended power trip.

See above. You don’t get everything you want, because the GM is always throwing spanners in the works, introducing elements that make your life difficult, introducing conflict and tension, so you’ll get an engaging narrative. This is also why it’s not a power trip - your power is constantly being tested against the challenges and complications thrown in by the GM, and sometimes you fail. In my example above I went with the PCs succeeding at killing the king and selling the queen - but they could absolutely fail, end up in jail about to be executed. And then you’d see where the story goes from there.


The general consensus seems to be that if the GM works to come up with a story element, and the players simply choose to ignore it, the GM is supposed to scrap all of that work. If they try to use the work elsewhere, they are now "railroading" players. Meanwhile, what a lot of anti-railroading posts seem to advocate is still railroading...it's just the players railroading the GM. Let the players decide their own goals equates to let the players railroad the GM into having to constantly come up with content on the fly while the PCs roll around the game world like a giant ball of chaos.

When I add a story element into the game as GM, it amounts to adding a couple of nodes to a mind map. I write about ten words. If it’s a more complex one then I might do some extra notes on NPCs, locations, hazards, monsters (maybe up to 100 words, and maybe a rough map or I’ll download a map). The bare minimum I need to introduce the thing at the table. Because I’m not writing a story or even building a world, I’m doing prep: literally preparing for the game. If the players don’t engage with it I’m throwing about 10-20 minutes of work and if I end up reusing it later they’ll never know. If they do engage with it, my minimal prep plus their actions plus the game mechanics is easily enough for me to improvise without having to come up with entirely new content on the fly. And they don’t roll around like a ball of chaos, in general, because the game/campaign always starts with us figuring out together what kind of game we’re going to be playing, what the PCs care about and what kind of situations they’re likely to end up in. I know roughly what to expect from them, they know roughly what to expect from me, neither of us know what is actually going to happen.

I promise you this works. What I’ll concede is that it is much harder in D&D 5E, mainly because that game wants you to do balanced combat encounters and those take some thought to design. In a system designed to be lightweight and flexible - FATE, Risus, most OSR games and most PbtA games - it works.

[Satinavian]

The primary complaint I've seen here is that it is railroading.
The complaint is not about railroading. The complaint is about railroading and lying to your players about that fact because you suspect you wouldn't get buy in on the railroading.

There are many groups out there playing happily with varying degrees of railroading. They tend to work well because the players know this and are ok with it. They even tend to atcively try to find the rails and stay on them to make the set plot to seem more plausible and avoid heavyhanded measures by the GM to keep on rails.

But when the GM does not have such a group and tries to railroad secretly anyway, it all falls to pieces. Especially prone to thie are GMs who think themself to be smarter than their players and therefore able to hide it.

[Quertus]

That’s a big place of disagreement. IMO, Agency is not a more or less affair. Either you have agency or you don’t. Either you had a meaningful choice or you didn’t. Either your meaningful choice was invalidated or it wasn’t.


Meaningful Choices are choices that can change/alter the fiction in important ways.

Agency is a person's ability to make meaningful choices. Implicitly this has a few requirements. (1) That you can learn (learning is essential because as the fiction is changed new information must constantly be considered) , (2) That you don't enter a state such that no further meaningful choices can be made (PC death being the prime example of such a state but not the only), (3) This applies to all aspects of the game the player has access to (can't think of a better way to say this 3rd one).

Railroading is when the GM uses force (of which there are many techniques) for the purpose of removing otherwise legitimate player choices, usually so that the game goes in the direction he has prepped for. Unless done for a whole campaign it doesn't remove player agency due to (2) - but even in somewhat shorter bursts it can lead to a rather long setup phase (long parts of sessions or multiple sessions) where the players have no meaningful choices. Typically players signed up to play a game where they can typically make meaningful choices and so railroading is typically bad because in most instances it's a dramatic break from player expectations. It's this mismatch of expectations that is the real problem with railroading. But very short railroads in the midst of a broader campaign can provide the GM with an excellent tool to setup interesting challenges and fiction for the players while still keeping up with their expectations that they will have mostly meaningful choices. So railroading is not necessarily always bad.

Is this the kind of stuff you were looking for?

Well, huh.

What is the nature of Agency? In the Playground, one can type most anything. There's some topics, like [REDACTED], that are verboten; and others, like "Moby ****", that we don't have the agency to successfully post. But, generally, really high agency, and a great community that does not abuse that agency.

In videogames, there are cut scenes, where the player has 0 agency. Outside those, the player only has as much agency as has been coded. The Duke can pick up weapons and shoot whichever he wants at whatever he wants, but things that aren't coded to take damage won't take damage, he'll only say his prescripted lines, and he's bounded by the walls of the game. Spiderman can climb on those walls (and the ceiling, and sometimes his foes), and you can choose what he says from a drop-down list, but if cars aren't coded as weapons, he cannot pick them up and throw them, and he can't choose to toss Aunt May off the skyscraper.

But all that is probably just me warming up / stretching / getting into the right space. I don't think we need those examples. I think when you're saying this:


Railroading is when the GM uses force (of which there are many techniques) for the purpose of removing otherwise legitimate player choices, usually so that the game goes in the direction he has prepped for. Unless done for a whole campaign it doesn't remove player agency due to (2)

That what you're saying, to parallel that for clarity, is:


Murder is when the GM uses force (of which there are many techniques) for the purpose of removing otherwise legitimate life, usually so that the game goes in the direction he has prepped for. Unless done for a whole world it doesn't remove live due to (2)

Just because you kill one choice, it doesn't mean you kill all choices; just because you kill one life, it doesn't mean you kill all life. Sure. And most definitions would parallel Railroading with murder, not genocide. And you do, as well.

You just then go on to say, effectively, "murder isn't bad, because they didn't commit genocide, so it's fine - there's still life". And that's a perfectly valid stance to take.

Just… most people don't agree with that stance. Most people (literally and figuratively) draw the line at "murder is bad".

Have I correctly identified the point of confusion / disagreement?


I’ve been DM’ing for well over 20 years, and in my opinion it is the perfect system. Most of what the Players want is achieved, most of what the DM wants is also achieved. A little is given by both parties and sometimes both sides are surprised by the final product and a new or redefined flow of the River.

I do have buy-in from the players on certain things like not being so serious about every little check needed all the time, or making simple mistakes. We’ve implemented a “red light” system that we turn to red in certain encounters or situations so they know when absolute full attention to checks, movements, and choices is needed and that mistakes could result in character death or worse. This allows for a fun time to hang with the guys, as well as maintaining meaningful impact of decisions by the players as needed in certain key events.

This allows general fun and not stressing details about every rule every moment of each session. It’s an agreement that I as the DM, won’t screw them over for playing sloppy or distracted while at the same time they don’t complain about the decisions I make just to move the game forward at times.

Our group has played since the 80’s, so we have plenty of experience in D&D and have learned that we like characters and adventures that come together forming a story, something memorable. We’ve also learned the hard way what inter-party fighting does, so it is something that the DM can impose his will to try and prevent.

I know that not everyone will agree with these controls and this methodology, but that is okay. I just wanted to make sure people didn’t see it as absolutely Railroading or Linear style. The River methodology as I use it is basically Player Freewill tossed into the River the DM created of his/her Freewill. The players can do anything they want, so long as it makes sense storytelling-wise, and somethings are inevitable.

For instance the players in my game just found out that they live on one planet, and that there is at least one other near by that was/is inhabited. There are ships that sail among the stars called Aetherships, and there is an event coming that will basically destroy all life on their planet.

Did I railroad a Spelljammer adventure, some would say yes, but the cataclysm is the result of actions by other NPCs prior to the life of all the PCs, so they must deal with that event, as it had been set into motion already.

Do I want to run a Spelljammer Campaign, yes, but the players might decide to resettle elsewhere. I am willing to bet that after basically 40 years of playing together, knowing the players, and that they never have played Spelljammer (most of them not even knowing what Spelljammer is), they will want to explore what it has to offer.

The idea of "casual" vs "red light" mode is interesting. I… don't think it's my preferred style, tbh, but I can see those who like "previously, on…" intros to appreciate knowing where/how to focus their attention. I prefer

Once upon a time, in my very first campaign, in a player's very first experience with RPGs, the players committed the cardinal sin, and split the party.

This "new" player (his character had made it up to double-digit level) ended up in… a treasure room? 4 artifacts lay in the 4 cardinal directions, but it was what was floating in the center of the room that caught his attention: a black sphere. Perfectly black.

The player kept asking questions, trying to understand exactly what he was seeing, having his character shine lights on it (he had a gnomish flashlight, Continual Light in a metal rod with bullseye lantern tech on one end), look at it from different angles, etc. He also investigated the floating, by walking around it, sticking his hands over and under it, etc.

Finally, when he has concluded that it was beyond his character's comprehension, he decided to take it back to the rest of the party to examine (:smalleek:!)

In as neutral a tone as I could manage, I asked *how* he accomplished this. You could hear a pin drop as the rest of the players (who recognized the Sphere of Annihilation) waited for his answer.

He took off his cloak, threw it over the sphere, and intended to gather the ends and drag it along.

I described how the cloak feel through the sphere, as though the Sphere were but am illusion; however, they're was now a perfectly round hole in his cloak.

He gathered up his cloak, and backed away from the sphere.

Undeterred, he investigated the next relic.

When the bombastic genie popped out of its lamp, before it could finish thanking him, and offer him wishes, he had fled back to where he had last seen the rest of the party.

So… what if your players / PCs were all like, "you know what, we really Hate, with a burning passion, a) spelljamming; b) most everyone in that world; C) the gods, who are powered by the existence of those on that world. Therefore, we a) are going to create an epic dwoemer that makes all spelljamming ships crash; b) get those few we care about off world to our party demiplane; C) create an epic dwoemer that prevents planar travel off world; d) celebrate while watching the world die; e) roast marshmallows over its corpse; F) gleefully watch the gods starve; G) harvest their bodies; h) sell their corpses; I) play a planescape game", how would you respond?

(I accidentally cut out the part where you talked about "railroading" because "your character doesn't know that"; ie, you (seemingly) exclusively play with a single group, and that group lacks role-playing skill / ability to self-differentiate between player and character knowledge. I will have to think about that, and about the definitions of both "player agency" and "railroading". You've definitely given me food for thought. Senility willing, I'll circle back to that once I've had a chance to digest it.)

[Frogreaver]

Well, huh.

What is the nature of Agency? In the Playground, one can type most anything. There's some topics, like [REDACTED], that are verboten; and others, like "Moby ****", that we don't have the agency to successfully post. But, generally, really high agency, and a great community that does not abuse that agency.

In videogames, there are cut scenes, where the player has 0 agency. Outside those, the player only has as much agency as has been coded. The Duke can pick up weapons and shoot whichever he wants at whatever he wants, but things that aren't coded to take damage won't take damage, he'll only say his prescripted lines, and he's bounded by the walls of the game. Spiderman can climb on those walls (and the ceiling, and sometimes his foes), and you can choose what he says from a drop-down list, but if cars aren't coded as weapons, he cannot pick them up and throw them, and he can't choose to toss Aunt May off the skyscraper.

But all that is probably just me warming up / stretching / getting into the right space. I don't think we need those examples. I think when you're saying this:


Railroading is when the GM uses force (of which there are many techniques) for the purpose of removing otherwise legitimate player choices, usually so that the game goes in the direction he has prepped for. Unless done for a whole campaign it doesn't remove player agency due to (2)

That what you're saying, to parallel that for clarity, is:


Murder is when the GM uses force (of which there are many techniques) for the purpose of removing otherwise legitimate life, usually so that the game goes in the direction he has prepped for. Unless done for a whole world it doesn't remove live due to (2)

Just because you kill one choice, it doesn't mean you kill all choices; just because you kill one life, it doesn't mean you kill all life. Sure. And most definitions would parallel Railroading with murder, not genocide. And you do, as well.

You just then go on to say, effectively, "murder isn't bad, because they didn't commit genocide, so it's fine - there's still life". And that's a perfectly valid stance to take.

Just… most people don't agree with that stance. Most people (literally and figuratively) draw the line at "murder is bad".

Have I correctly identified the point of confusion / disagreement?



The idea of "casual" vs "red light" mode is interesting. I… don't think it's my preferred style, tbh, but I can see those who like "previously, on…" intros to appreciate knowing where/how to focus their attention. I prefer

Once upon a time, in my very first campaign, in a player's very first experience with RPGs, the players committed the cardinal sin, and split the party.

This "new" player (his character had made it up to double-digit level) ended up in… a treasure room? 4 artifacts lay in the 4 cardinal directions, but it was what was floating in the center of the room that caught his attention: a black sphere. Perfectly black.

The player kept asking questions, trying to understand exactly what he was seeing, having his character shine lights on it (he had a gnomish flashlight, Continual Light in a metal rod with bullseye lantern tech on one end), look at it from different angles, etc. He also investigated the floating, by walking around it, sticking his hands over and under it, etc.

Finally, when he has concluded that it was beyond his character's comprehension, he decided to take it back to the rest of the party to examine (:smalleek:!)

In as neutral a tone as I could manage, I asked *how* he accomplished this. You could hear a pin drop as the rest of the players (who recognized the Sphere of Annihilation) waited for his answer.

He took off his cloak, threw it over the sphere, and intended to gather the ends and drag it along.

I described how the cloak feel through the sphere, as though the Sphere were but am illusion; however, they're was now a perfectly round hole in his cloak.

He gathered up his cloak, and backed away from the sphere.

Undeterred, he investigated the next relic.

When the bombastic genie popped out of its lamp, before it could finish thanking him, and offer him wishes, he had fled back to where he had last seen the rest of the party.

So… what if your players / PCs were all like, "you know what, we really Hate, with a burning passion, a) spelljamming; b) most everyone in that world; C) the gods, who are powered by the existence of those on that world. Therefore, we a) are going to create an epic dwoemer that makes all spelljamming ships crash; b) get those few we care about off world to our party demiplane; C) create an epic dwoemer that prevents planar travel off world; d) celebrate while watching the world die; e) roast marshmallows over its corpse; F) gleefully watch the gods starve; G) harvest their bodies; h) sell their corpses; I) play a planescape game", how would you respond?

(I accidentally cut out the part where you talked about "railroading" because "your character doesn't know that"; ie, you (seemingly) exclusively play with a single group, and that group lacks role-playing skill / ability to self-differentiate between player and character knowledge. I will have to think about that, and about the definitions of both "player agency" and "railroading". You've definitely given me food for thought. Senility willing, I'll circle back to that once I've had a chance to digest it.)

I don’t think your going to get much productive discussion when you are intent on portraying your opponents as comparable to those that believe murder is acceptable.

[kyoryu]

IMO. A player has no meaningful choices in a tyrannical railroad. Any potentially meaningful choice they make will ultimately be negated because in a tyranical railroad the train stays on the tracks regardless of what the players do.

...

Because Agency isn't a measure of how many meaningful choices you have.

...

This blows my mind - I said players had no agency in tyrannical railroads - and yet here you are telling me that I'm equating sandboxes to tyranical railroads when my position is actually that players have agency in sandboxes and don't in tyrannical railroads.

So I note here a few things.

You are defining a "tyrannical railroad" as one where players have exactly zero meaningful decisions. You are drawing a sharp distinction between it and, for the sake of argument call it the "penultimate tyrannical railroad" (PTR), a game where players have exactly one meaningful decision.

This seems odd. Most players would not really find those to be that different. A game where you have one decision early in the game (say the first session), but then offers zero meaningful decisions is identical to the Tyrannical Railroad to anyone starting in the second session.

Secondly, you are equating the PTR with the most wide open sandbox game. This is interesting because.... I don't see it. And I don't know any players that would see it that way, either.

There are a few logical takeaways from this:

1) Tyrannical Railroads are bad
2) Agency is binary. You have it or you don't. There are no fractional values, and you cannot talk about "more agency" or "less agency".
3) If you offer players even a single meaningful decision, it is not a Tyrannical Railroad, as the players Have Agency.
4) So long as you offer at least one meaningful decision, players cannot complain that they don't have agency, because they do.
5) Complaints about reducing agency are meaningless, so long as at least one meaningful decision is given
6) All techniques are valid and can be used without complaint, unless you are running a Tyrannical Railroad. Since you have given at least one meaningful decision, you are not running a Tyrannical Railroad, but are running a reasonable game.

Do you disagree with any of these points? I disagree with, well, most of them. All of them except the first, really. Specifically:

2) I do not agree agency is binary. Even if a single decision either involves agency or doesn't, that doesn't apply to a game. A game that has one point of real agency is not the same as one where there are constant points of agency
3) Again, while agency may be binary for a single decision, the frequency of decisions involving agency can change. There is little practical difference between a "Tyrannical Railroad" and a game with exactly one decision point. A useful way of looking at these sharp differences is "will somebody that likes one like the other? Will somebody that dislikes one dislike the other?" Somebody that likes the Tyrannical Railroad will be very happy with the PTR as well. Somebody that likes the Ultimate Sandbox will probably not like either the Tyrannical Railroad or the PTR.
4) If those moments of agency are what some players want (note: not all) want. Giving them one of those in ten hours is not going to satisfy them if they're looking for one every few minutes.
5) "Complaints about not getting to eat are meaningless, so long as you get fed once a month."
6) Again, some people want more points of agency, and will not like common "railroading" techniques being used to subvert that. The fact that they got to make a decision five sessions ago won't change that. Most players will accepted reduced decisions in some cases, provided that that is a result of decisions/chocies (and, again, some people don't care or actively want fewer choices like that).

While it's an interesting POV, it doesn't match my observations.

Specifically:

1) Nearly all games, even the most railroady-railroads to ever rail a road, offer at least one meaningful decision. This to me makes the Tyrannical Railroad a strawman more than anything.
2) Players clearly have different preferences, and some people just don't like games where decisions are frequently meaningless or rendered irrelevant by GM Fiat. The fact that a single decision is presented that is meaningful doesn't change that. It's just not the style they're looking for.
3) It's generally a good idea to take people at mostly face value. If they say they don't like something, they don't. Proving them wrong is pointless and unhelpful. (Note: Factually wrong is one thing. Trying to prove a preference wrong is unhelpful - you can't, it's a preference. The best you can do is "well, you're using the wrong word for your preference" or "your preference seems inconsistent.
I think there's something else here.")
4) This seems like a justification for extremely linear games, by offering a smattering of meaningful choices in them. The problem is that linear games don't need justification - the only thing anybody has said is that you should be honest about what type of game you're running, so that people can have the option of choosing to play in a game that meets their general desires. (And, yes, people running more open games should also be honest and up front about that, as some people prefer more linear games).

Do you disagree with any of those statements?

[MR_Anderson]

The idea of "casual" vs "red light" mode is interesting. I… don't think it's my preferred style, tbh, but I can see those who like "previously, on…" intros to appreciate knowing where/how to focus their attention. I prefer

Once upon a time, in my very first campaign, in a player's very first experience with RPGs, the players committed the cardinal sin, and split the party.

This "new" player (his character had made it up to double-digit level) ended up in… a treasure room? 4 artifacts lay in the 4 cardinal directions, but it was what was floating in the center of the room that caught his attention: a black sphere. Perfectly black.

The player kept asking questions, trying to understand exactly what he was seeing, having his character shine lights on it (he had a gnomish flashlight, Continual Light in a metal rod with bullseye lantern tech on one end), look at it from different angles, etc. He also investigated the floating, by walking around it, sticking his hands over and under it, etc.

Finally, when he has concluded that it was beyond his character's comprehension, he decided to take it back to the rest of the party to examine (:smalleek:!)

In as neutral a tone as I could manage, I asked *how* he accomplished this. You could hear a pin drop as the rest of the players (who recognized the Sphere of Annihilation) waited for his answer.

He took off his cloak, threw it over the sphere, and intended to gather the ends and drag it along.

I described how the cloak feel through the sphere, as though the Sphere were but am illusion; however, they're was now a perfectly round hole in his cloak.

He gathered up his cloak, and backed away from the sphere.

Undeterred, he investigated the next relic.

When the bombastic genie popped out of its lamp, before it could finish thanking him, and offer him wishes, he had fled back to where he had last seen the rest of the party.


Well, the tool of Casual Play vs Red Light Play is certainly not for everyone. I like it, because for the most part our group gathers as guys to hang out first and foremost. Some people place the game as the most important aspect and in groups like that, it probably will not work.

I share it in hopes that some others can take advantage of the idea. It has helped eliminate much of the rule bickering, and spending more time in books than what is in combat.

As for the example of the Sphere of Annihilation, that couldn’t happen in our group. Basically everyone knows every usual magic item that has made it’s way from previous editions, but the scenario certainly would play out exactly described in either Casual or Red Light mode, there was no death. Maybe in casual I’d suggest using a sack first if they were about to lose a CHA +6 Cape, but it depends on how dumb they really were playing it.


So… what if your players / PCs were all like, "you know what, we really Hate, with a burning passion, a) spelljamming; b) most everyone in that world; C) the gods, who are powered by the existence of those on that world. Therefore, we a) are going to create an epic dwoemer that makes all spelljamming ships crash; b) get those few we care about off world to our party demiplane; C) create an epic dwoemer that prevents planar travel off world; d) celebrate while watching the world die; e) roast marshmallows over its corpse; F) gleefully watch the gods starve; G) harvest their bodies; h) sell their corpses; I) play a planescape game", how would you respond?

(I accidentally cut out the part where you talked about "railroading" because "your character doesn't know that"; ie, you (seemingly) exclusively play with a single group, and that group lacks role-playing skill / ability to self-differentiate between player and character knowledge. I will have to think about that, and about the definitions of both "player agency" and "railroading". You've definitely given me food for thought. Senility willing, I'll circle back to that once I've had a chance to digest it.)

As for the Players wanting to watch things burn, the players are assuming the gods are powered by believers. Even if they were, Avatars would be used by gods to end such a plan. That isn’t railroading, that is self preservation by powers beyond their control, and unification of gods against a group of players I think the gods will win.

Jumping to a Planescape campaign requires 1) knowing about it, and 2) getting to it. The first is much easier of the two, but the flow of the story has limited the understanding of the planes and the ability to obtain a means to travel to them.

The group is mixed, there are some of us that have played in other groups, but then there are some that haven’t. We’re pretty good at player vs character knowledge, but you are correct there are some that don’t understand the difference, but that isn’t the reason for it.

However, I have in my experience found the majority of games driven by players where they want to do crazy ideas have usually been driven by player knowledge and not character knowledge.

[kyoryu]

I promise you this works. What I’ll concede is that it is much harder in D&D 5E, mainly because that game wants you to do balanced combat encounters and those take some thought to design. In a system designed to be lightweight and flexible - FATE, Risus, most OSR games and most PbtA games - it works.

It's not that hard (well, at least in 4e). At a given point in time, you have a reasonable idea of what might be in the area and what the players might do. It's pretty easy to get a set of stock critters available for that that you can throw out as necessary if the players get into a brawl, based on what they're donig, the likely makeup of the fight, etc.

It won't be as fully bespoke as if everything was planned out, but that's the tradeoff.

[BRC]

It's not that hard (well, at least in 4e). At a given point in time, you have a reasonable idea of what might be in the area and what the players might do. It's pretty easy to get a set of stock critters available for that that you can throw out as necessary if the players get into a brawl, based on what they're donig, the likely makeup of the fight, etc.

It won't be as fully bespoke as if everything was planned out, but that's the tradeoff.

I mean, this is an interesting level of agency, albeit one that rarely receives much in the way of pushback from players.

The system and genre can serve as a form of indirectly limiting agency by controlling what sorts of things the system is good at modeling.

Consider, for example, threatening somebody by holding a knife to their throat. They are at your complete mercy. It's a classic trope. The aggressor can kill the victim with a single stroke of the blade, whether that victim is a child or a mighty knight.

D&D 5e (And 3.5 by my memory) is TERRIBLE at modeling this. Beyond the fact that it doesn't really have rules for getting a weapon onto somebody's throat, doesn't have a great way to calculate the damage from such an attack.

You could call it an automatic critical hit with a dagger, that's 2d4+ strength or dex, whichever is higher. Not a fatal blow for most characters.
A rogue deals substantially more, since the sneak attack dice are also applied. That might fall into the "Instantly Lethal" territory, but that says that only Rogues can actually threaten mid level characters by holding a knife to their throat.

So, a plan like "Sneak into the Cult Hideout, wake up the Cult Leader with a knife to his throat, make him tell us where the prisoners are being kept" doesn't really work, simply because that trick, very much a staple of all sorts of adventure fiction of the sorts D&D is supposed to ape, isn't really properly modeled in the system. You're threatening him with a moderately damaging melee attack (2d4+Str or Dex).

[Frogreaver]

So I note here a few things.

You are defining a "tyrannical railroad" as one where players have exactly zero meaningful decisions. You are drawing a sharp distinction between it and, for the sake of argument call it the "penultimate tyrannical railroad" (PTR), a game where players have exactly one meaningful decision.

The only thing I can think of that might fall into that category is a pick your train style railroad and even then i'd be hesitant to call picking your train a meaningful choice. But for the sake of this discussion let's assume that is a meaningful choice.

Agency is about having the ability to make meaningful decisions and so your 1 meaningful choice tyrannical railroad would meet this part of my agency definition. However, there was an additional part of my definition of agency and it was that in order for a player to have agency they must not enter a game state such that they no longer have the ability to make meaningful choices. This happens in your one meaningful choice tyranical rail road. And so by my definition of agency players wouldn't have it in this 1 meaningful choice tyrannical railroad either.

Contrast this with a game where there's a great deal of lead up information and the player makes a single choice and the outcome is then solely predicated on their single choice (say a sports bet).


This seems odd. Most players would not really find those to be that different. A game where you have one decision early in the game (say the first session), but then offers zero meaningful decisions is identical to the Tyrannical Railroad to anyone starting in the second session.

Sure.


Secondly, you are equating the PTR with the most wide open sandbox game. This is interesting because.... I don't see it. And I don't know any players that would see it that way, either.

I only equate in terms of agency.


There are a few logical takeaways from this:

1) Tyrannical Railroads are bad

Yes


2) Agency is binary. You have it or you don't. There are no fractional values, and you cannot talk about "more agency" or "less agency".

Yes


3) If you offer players even a single meaningful decision, it is not a Tyrannical Railroad, as the players Have Agency.

No. But that's quite a loaded question with alot of assumptions built in. Would have been better to separate out those assumptions into separate questions.


4) So long as you offer at least one meaningful decision, players cannot complain that they don't have agency, because they do.

A single meaningful choice is a necessary condition for agency but not sufficient.


5) Complaints about reducing agency are meaningless, so long as at least one meaningful decision is given

Correct, what is being complained about is a reduction of meaningful choices - not a reduction of agency. A reduction in meaningful choices is a valid subjective complaint.


6) All techniques are valid and can be used without complaint, unless you are running a Tyrannical Railroad. Since you have given at least one meaningful decision, you are not running a Tyrannical Railroad, but are running a reasonable game.

No


While it's an interesting POV, it doesn't match my observations.

Specifically:

1) Nearly all games, even the most railroady-railroads to ever rail a road, offer at least one meaningful decision. This to me makes the Tyrannical Railroad a strawman more than anything.

I'm not the one that brought up the tyrannical railroad.


2) Players clearly have different preferences, and some people just don't like games where decisions are frequently meaningless or rendered irrelevant by GM Fiat. The fact that a single decision is presented that is meaningful doesn't change that. It's just not the style they're looking for.

Preferences are fine. What makes you think I'm against anyone having preferences? It's fine to dislike games that only provide a single meaningful choice. It's just not okay to say that's less agency when agency means something different.


3) It's generally a good idea to take people at mostly face value. If they say they don't like something, they don't. Proving them wrong is pointless and unhelpful. (Note: Factually wrong is one thing. Trying to prove a preference wrong is unhelpful - you can't, it's a preference. The best you can do is "well, you're using the wrong word for your preference" or "your preference seems inconsistent.
I think there's something else here.")

I've never told anyone they are wrong for liking a game with less meaningful choices. Only that the dislike cannot be about less agency because agency is binary.


4) This seems like a justification for extremely linear games, by offering a smattering of meaningful choices in them. The problem is that linear games don't need justification - the only thing anybody has said is that you should be honest about what type of game you're running, so that people can have the option of choosing to play in a game that meets their general desires. (And, yes, people running more open games should also be honest and up front about that, as some people prefer more linear games).

Do you disagree with any of those statements?

It's false assumptions like these that tend to be the problem IMO. I'm not trying to justify any style. What I am saying is that lack of agency isn't usually the actual reason for the complaints because agency is binary.

[JNAProductions]

And yet everyone else here, as far as I can tell, is not using agency as a binary.

Perhaps you should use words as others use them, and not Humpty Dumpty this.

[Batcathat]

I can agree that agency is binary in a given situation. Which is to say, the GM can allow the party to decide some situations (where they have agency) but not others (where they don't have agency).

[Frogreaver]

And yet everyone else here, as far as I can tell, is not using agency as a binary.

Perhaps you should use words as others use them, and not Humpty Dumpty this.

Agency has meaning well outside the RPG space. The way it’s being used here doesn’t align well with what it means in other spaces.


I can agree that agency is binary in a given situation. Which is to say, the GM can allow the party to decide some situations (where they have agency) but not others (where they don't have agency).

All you’re doing there is making agency synonymous with meaningful choice and while it’s closely related, it’s not really the same thing.

[Quertus]

I don’t think your going to get much productive discussion when you are intent on portraying your opponents as comparable to those that believe murder is acceptable.

That's… how logic works. The question is, is the form of the argument the same.

And I chose "murder vs genocide" because they match the "is considered bad" theme.

You are correct, that the example given by kyoryu committed genocide on all further choice, and thus failed to provide agency by your definition.

But what if we reverse it?

You have absolutely no meaningful decisions to make, until the final encounter of the campaign.

Would it be fair to characterize that as still "a campaign with agency" by your definitions?

Also, you're assuming I have opponents. That seems a suboptimal outlook.

[kyoryu]

I've never told anyone they are wrong for liking a game with less meaningful choices. Only that the dislike cannot be about less agency because agency is binary.


So, really, you've understood the point all along, and aren't really disagreeing, but are getting that pedantic about which word is being used, even though it's clear that the word has a common usage in this thread?

I'm done.

[Frogreaver]

That's… how logic works. The question is, is the form of the argument the same.

And I chose "murder vs genocide" because they match the "is considered bad" theme.

You are correct, that the example given by kyoryu committed genocide on all further choice, and thus failed to provide agency by your definition.

But what if we reverse it?

You have absolutely no meaningful decisions to make, until the final encounter of the campaign.

Would it be fair to characterize that as still "a campaign with agency" by your definitions?

Also, you're assuming I have opponents. That seems a suboptimal outlook.

If it matters at all it’s not just that the comparison was offensive. The logic was was fallacious as well.

As to the question about not having meaningful choices until the final encounter. I would say yes the players had agency there. But if getting to that final encounter took a while I’d say they’d all be pissed about the lack of meaningful choices within the game - and rightfully so.

Oh and what word other than opponent would you prefer for someone who is at odds with your position in a discussion?


So, really, you've understood the point all along, and aren't really disagreeing, but are getting that pedantic about which word is being used, even though it's clear that the word has a common usage in this thread?

I'm done.

It’s not just being pendantic. I’d say that most disagreements about agency and discussions about it if people using your definiton simply used ‘meaningful choices’ in place of agency.

People just don’t care as much if you compare and contrast the number of meaningful choices.

[Batcathat]

All you’re doing there is making agency synonymous with meaningful choice and while it’s closely related, it’s not really the same thing.

So how would you define agency in this context (yes, it's a term outside of this but one that can have different meanings) and, more importantly, if it encompasses more than an individual choice, how much does it encompass and why? (I feel like I'm phrasing it weirdly, I'll try to come up with a better way if you don't get what I'm trying to say).

[Frogreaver]

So how would you define agency in this context (yes, it's a term outside of this but one that can have different meanings) and, more importantly, if it encompasses more than an individual choice, how much does it encompass and why? (I feel like I'm phrasing it weirdly, I'll try to come up with a better way if you don't get what I'm trying to say).

Great question.

I'm not sure how to precisely define it with words, but I think I can explain it.

So let's say we are zoomed in on a random single second of the characters fiction. It's very likely he/we have no meaningful choice to make in that randomly chosen second. We zoom out from there a little more to a resolution of 10 minutes. He/we still probably don't have a meaningful choice at that time. But suppose that if we zoom out to a resolution of 1 hour we are able to find a meaningful choice. Now suppose we zoomed out further. For agency to exist we would need to be able to find more meaningful choices the further out we zoomed (up until the conclusion of the game/end of the characters life).

Does that help at all?

[Batcathat]

Does that help at all?

I think so. So by your definition a character whose first session was extremely railroaded by the GM would never have agency even if every session after that was full of meaningful choices?

[NichG]

And in some circles, agency is the number of bits of mutual information between the outcome and the identity of the actor...

Definitions don't ultimately matter for their own sake - they are only useful if they enhance understanding. When they're used to refuse to move past a particular point, that utility is lost.

If someone at your table complains about something and you say their complaint is invalid because they aren't using language in exactly the way you think they should, you're basically avoiding facing the fact that, whether they can express it or not, something you are doing is making them unhappy. The resolution could be any number of things, but being pedantic about it is just trying to avoid actually having to acknowledge that there's something to resolve.

Similarly, if someone with no stake is complaining (such as a forumite who doesn't play in your games objecting to your style), it's better to just say 'you're not at my table, so you don't have to like it' than to try to get them to commit to a definition and then argue that they should actually approve of your style based on that definition.

[Frogreaver]

I think so. So by your definition a character whose first session was extremely railroaded by the GM would never have agency even if every session after that was full of meaningful choices?

The opposite actually.

[Batcathat]

The opposite actually.

Oh, I see. So as long as there are meaningful choices here and there throughout the character's existance the character has agency by your definition?

[Jakinbandw]

The opposite actually.

So if a character has no choices at all, as long as one might be planned for the end of the campaign it's not railroading in your eyes?

[BRC]

So if a character has no choices at all, as long as one might be planned for the end of the campaign it's not railroading in your eyes?
I think the idea is that there must be regular meaningful choices throughout the campaign.

Seeing as this whole argument is based around the idea of Agency as a Binary, there is presumably some density of meaningful choices at which point players in a campaign go from "having agency" to "Not having agency" .

[Jakinbandw]

I think the idea is that there must be regular meaningful choices throughout the campaign.

Seeing as this whole argument is based around the idea of Agency as a Binary, there is presumably some density of meaningful choices at which point players in a campaign go from "having agency" to "Not having agency" .

He's said before that it's one choice.

[Frogreaver]

I think the idea is that there must be regular meaningful choices throughout the campaign.

Seeing as this whole argument is based around the idea of Agency as a Binary, there is presumably some density of meaningful choices at which point players in a campaign go from "having agency" to "Not having agency" .

That's a good description. Though I think some people might still muddle it up because they will view density as a more physical quality (so more/less density) and less mathematical (rational numbers are dense in the set of real numbers - a binary quality).


Oh, I see. So as long as there are meaningful choices here and there throughout the character's existance the character has agency by your definition?

That is correct.


He's said before that it's one choice.

In general it can be - depending heavily on the game being played. In the context of most RPG's, having a single meaningful choice isn't typically enough.

[icefractal]

I think number of choices or even frequency of choices is an incomplete metric, because not all choices are equally meaningful. One way to evaluate them, not the only one but potentially a useful one, is in terms of the amount of divergence they produce.

Let's take a step back to "choose your own adventure" books. If you have a story that's twenty pages long, with a single binary choice to make every page, and the choices are fully divergent (as in, will lead to entirely separate paths), then that's ... about half a million pages. Obviously that's not what they do. Most choices converge to one of a few primary story-lines. Some choices converge almost immediately.

Flash forward to narrative in video games. Under the hood, many aren't that different than CYOA books. And while a computer can hold millions of pages, you still don't have the budget to pay a writer for that many. Not to mention that people now expect graphics, sound, etc. A million scenes for a short-ish story remains infeasible.

So, most games cheat. It's a lot easier to cheat than with a CYOA book, because people can't see what the virtual page numbers are. Plus you have the ability to do things like "use this scene but with this particular detail varying based on prior choices". Having worked on some of these games, it's surprising how many choices are basically just cosmetic.


Let's take an example. You're a college student, talking to your room-mates about what to do tonight, and the goal is to get you to the next scene where your friend gets abducted by a UFO in the parking lot of a Denny's:
[1] "Friday night! Let's go out to that new bar."
A) "You go ahead, but I need to study." -> goto [2]
B) "I'm still hungover, let's just get some food instead." -> goto [3]
C) "Hell yeah, let's do it!" -> goto [4]

[2] After they leave, you study for a couple hours, until you get a frantic phone call.
"Oh god, you gotta come help, Fred is swaying around saying crazy stuff! Meet us at the Denny's"
goto [5]

[3] "Want to try that new sushi place, or just hit up the Denny's?"
A) "Let's get sushi." -> goto [6]
B) "Denny's sounds fine." -> goto [7]

[4] The bar is fun, if over-priced. After a few hours of drinking, you end up at the Denny's. While eating your pancakes, you hear someone yelling out in the parking lot. Looking out the window, it's your friend Fred!
goto [8]

[5] Hurriedly putting on your shoes, you drive out there, prepared to be pissed off at Fred if he's just drunk. As you approach, you see Fred in the parking lot looking at the sky and shouting something.
goto [8]

[6] Pulling up outside the sushi place, you see an unwelcome sign.
"Closed for health violations? Damn, glad we didn't eat there. Let's try Denny's instead."
goto [7]

[7] The Denny's is pretty empty tonight. While eating your pancakes, you hear someone yelling out in the parking lot. Looking out the window, it's your friend Fred!
goto [8]

[8] Fred gets abducted by a UFO.
As you can see, the 'choices' here changed nothing and converged within a scene or two. So, not much of a choice. Some converge even faster (one line of dialog different) and some stay divergent for longer but eventually converge before starting a new chapter / season.


You can think of choices (or character abilities) in TTRPGs the same way: how much will they cause events to diverge from an alternate reality where you made the other choice (or didn't have the ability)?

The same choice can be significant or cosmetic depending on how the GM runs things. Say you're playing a cyberpunk game, you've got hacking skills, and you hack into DiabloCorp to see what they're up to. Turns out they're doing illegal experiments on kidnapped vagrants in a facility down by the docks.

If you wouldn't otherwise have that info, and would only have found out later when the experimental subjects are fully transformed and tearing **** up downtown, then it's a significant divergence and your hacking was a significant ability.

If you would have found out anyway by another method (one of your contacts tells you that weird things have been going on in this warehouse, and they saw people getting dragged in there unconscious) then it was a cosmetic divergence and (in this case at least) being able to hack was a cosmetic ability.

Middle-ground - you would have found out either way, but hacking lets you show up better-prepared. A semi-significant choice/ability in that case.

I think the feeling of freedom depends more on how significant your choices are than how many of them you make.

[Frogreaver]

I think number of choices or even frequency of choices is an incomplete metric, because not all choices are equally meaningful. One way to evaluate them, not the only one but potentially a useful one, is in terms of the amount of divergence they produce.

I think that depends on what one means by meaningful. Many people consider choices they enjoy making to be meaningful (that may be choosing their characters accent or clothing or hairstyle, etc). But in the context of the game and the fiction generated with it - such choices aren't usually meaningful.


You can think of choices (or character abilities) in TTRPGs the same way: how much will they cause events to diverge from an alternate reality where you made the other choice (or didn't have the ability)?


I don't think such a measurement is measuring meaningfulness
There are infinite alternate realities and so one can always find an alternate reality where your choice diverges more



The same choice can be significant or cosmetic depending on how the GM runs things. Say you're playing a cyberpunk game, you've got hacking skills, and you hack into DiabloCorp to see what they're up to. Turns out they're doing illegal experiments on kidnapped vagrants in a facility down by the docks.

If you wouldn't otherwise have that info, and would only have found out later when the experimental subjects are fully transformed and tearing **** up downtown, then it's a significant divergence and your hacking was a significant ability.

I wouldn't view this as a meaningful choice - at least not without additional context suggesting otherwise. It's potentially like going through a random door with no information on what's the other side. That's a choice, but regardless of what's on the other side, it wasn't a meaningful one. It takes more than choices and consequences to create meaning. We would need some context on why you hacked DiabloCorp (especially instead of hacking DevilCorp for example).


If you would have found out anyway by another method (one of your contacts tells you that weird things have been going on in this warehouse, and they saw people getting dragged in there unconscious) then it was a cosmetic divergence and (in this case at least) being able to hack was a cosmetic ability.

IMO, just because something is not a cosmetic choice doesn't automatically make it a meaningful choice.


Middle-ground - you would have found out either way, but hacking lets you show up better-prepared. A semi-significant choice/ability in that case.

Depends alot on the context of why you hacked them in the first place. Your example also presupposes that the fiction about DiabloCorp is pregenerated prior to the game and not being created spontaneously in response to the hack attempt.


I think the feeling of freedom depends more on how significant your choices are than how many of them you make.

Agreed. But when I talk about agency I'm not talking about a subjective 'feeling of freedom'. I'm talking about something more concrete - the ability to make meaningful choices.

[NichG]

I don't think such a measurement is measuring meaningfulness
There are infinite alternate realities and so one can always find an alternate reality where your choice diverges more



If you can predict (infer) which player out of a population of potential players played in the campaign based on the campaign's trajectory, then it prevents you from cheating the count just by having distinctions that don't make a difference.

[Frogreaver]

If you can predict (infer) which player out of a population of potential players played in the campaign based on the campaign's trajectory, then it prevents you from cheating the count just by having distinctions that don't make a difference.

This makes no sense to me.

[NichG]

This makes no sense to me.

To put it more simply, how much does it matter that you're sitting at the table rather than someone else. If a campaign allows for a great degree of expression of the will of the players, then you can look at the story and figure out what sort of players produced it. If a campaign would go more or less the same regardless of who was playing, you can't deduce the player from the outcome. This is a continuous value, measured in bits, and captures a sort of meaningfulness from a player-subjective point of view: decisions which are made randomly or where any player would make the same choice do not contribute to identifying the player at all.

[Batcathat]

That is correct.

Okay, I understand your position better now. I think we mostly disagree on the timescale on which agency is "measured".

For example, let's say Character A and Character B are both played for ten sessions. A is very railroaded for seven sessions, only really getting to decide things in sessions one, four and nine. Meanwhile, B is only railroaded for a single session, otherwise being free to make their own decisions. I would argue that — even if agency is binary in a given situation or a given session — B has more agency than A over their existence.

[Frogreaver]

Okay, I understand your position better now. I think we mostly disagree on the timescale on which agency is "measured".

For example, let's say Character A and Character B are both played for ten sessions. A is very railroaded for seven sessions, only really getting to decide things in sessions one, four and nine. Meanwhile, B is only railroaded for a single session, otherwise being free to make their own decisions. I would argue that — even if agency is binary in a given situation or a given session — B has more agency than A over their existence.

Here's what I would consider the facts of that situation.

1. Player B made more meaningful choices than Player A
2. Player B made a higher proportion of meaningful choices than Player A compared to the 'on screen' time of the character

Which brings me to a question. Is it the actual total number of meaningful choices or the proportion of meaningful choices that gives a character more agency in your view?

My view isn't that agency is binary in a given situation or session - but is binary over the course of the game. In my view both Player A and Player B would have agency. The End. However we could go on and talk about which one made more meaningful choices, which one made a higher proportion of meaningful choices, about the kinds of meaningful choices they were making, about whose meaningful choices were more 'impactful', etc.

One thing you see some in getting outside the D&D bubble are RPG's that give the players the option of introducing fiction outside their characters actions. That's a whole different type of meaningful choice one can make than one could ever make in D&D. And since those games don't inherently preclude making any of the same kinds of choices that a D&D game would offer then presumably players make more meaningful choices both in the absolute and proportional sense in such games. Do you believe such games offer more agency to players than D&D games do?

[Batcathat]

Which brings me to a question. Is it the actual total number of meaningful choices or the proportion of meaningful choices that gives a character more agency in your view?

Interesting question. The proportion, I suppose.


One thing you see some in getting outside the D&D bubble are RPG's that give the players the option of introducing fiction outside their characters actions. That's a whole different type of meaningful choice one can make than one could ever make in D&D. And since those games don't inherently preclude making any of the same kinds of choices that a D&D game would offer then presumably players make more meaningful choices both in the absolute and proportional sense in such games. Do you believe such games offer more agency to players than D&D games do?

Not more agency, no. I do agree that it's binary (so having even more choices wouldn't make more agency), I just view it on a different scale.

[Tanarii]

Agency is not binary. How important / meaningful a choice is can vary.

Even DM denial/abrogation of agency isn't binary. Chokers* are a good example of this: you can limit choices while still leaving some nicely meaningful ones open, or you can limit choices so less meaningful ones are the only ones available, or you can limit choices so much that no meaningful choices are left.

Illusionism is just a term for a DM doing the last one, while pretending they aren't. Possibly even the middle option from time to time, but really any given example by proponents typically fall into the last. The Quantum Ogre, as written not as often misconstrued, is an example of the last one. And worth a note that the Quantum Ogre was originally written by someone who was trying to defend illusionism, and then later realized the error of their ways when their example defense was deconstructed by the Hack and Slash blog.

*The "Chokers" Alexandrian term is a good one, to distinguish between planning limitations in advance, and "railroading" or actively denying/abrogating a player choice once made.

[kyoryu]

I think agency is variable. And I think it's at least somewhat measurable.

I propose that agency is:

1) Measured between two points in time
2) Is essentially the combination of the number of possible outcomes as well as the difference between those outcomes. I suspect the number of decisions (or number of times between the start and the end you have divergent states) is a useful input as well.

Typically, it's probably best to measure agency between comparable points - after two separate encounters that may not be adjacent, at the beginning and end of a story arc, at the beginning and end of the campaign, etc. This gets rid of the "but you can make choices in combat!" argument, which I think doesn't actually mean you have agency at the level most people are looking for.

We could probably debate on how to weight those factors, but it passes a fairly reasonable sniff test.

[MR_Anderson]

This discussion of Agency is funny, and technically Agency is not the same as Freewill.

If I we have two groups of players (Group A & B) and they both play over a set of 10 sessions to play out a military operation as follows:

Group A: Is given no choices until the final session. (1 out of 10 the players have Freewill) The final choice can determine the outcome of of the operation.

Group B: Is given choices in the first nine sessions, (9 out of 10 the players have Freewill) The final session no choices are given to determine the outcome.

Group A has Agency, but Group B had more Freewill.

People have argued for thousands of years about what’s the point of Freewill if the end result is already known or doesn’t change. The point is, it doesn’t change the fact that a person had his/her Freewill, and what the individual wanted wasn’t Freewill, but actually the Power to impact something other than themselves, thus Agency. In that case they would remove Agency from all others.


Ponder this: I as the DM tell the 5 Players that they can do whatever they want with any outcome, but I will only allow what the majority (3 Players) determines.

WHO HAS AGENCY?

The DM clearly isn’t determining the outcomes, even if the DM restricted how outcomes are determined.

What if the DM says whoever has the highest % of their Hit Points determines everything, making it 1 deciding for the other 4. The DM still isn’t determining the outcome.

If multiple people have determined to have or share Agency in these scenarios, then Agency is not Binary.

[Quertus]

To put it more simply, how much does it matter that you're sitting at the table rather than someone else. If a campaign allows for a great degree of expression of the will of the players, then you can look at the story and figure out what sort of players produced it. If a campaign would go more or less the same regardless of who was playing, you can't deduce the player from the outcome. This is a continuous value, measured in bits, and captures a sort of meaningfulness from a player-subjective point of view: decisions which are made randomly or where any player would make the same choice do not contribute to identifying the player at all.

That's… a brilliant way of looking at things!

Hmmm… I think I tend to think of it in terms of the character rather than the player, that it matters that these characters went on this adventure, and, if even the same players had brought different characters, it would have turned out differently, due to differences both mechanical and personality-based.

Which… makes me wonder if we're saying the same thing, or even compatable things. Thoughts?


If it matters at all it’s not just that the comparison was offensive. The logic was was fallacious as well.

Then please point out how the logic was "fallacious". Give a counterexample. Something. Hmmm… upon further examination, your explanations in later posts have finally rendered your position distinctly different from my parallel. Which makes the logic flawless, just the understanding of your position was incomplete.


As to the question about not having meaningful choices until the final encounter. I would say yes the players had agency there. But if getting to that final encounter took a while I’d say they’d all be pissed about the lack of meaningful choices within the game - and rightfully so.

Never mind, your further posts clarified what I was going to ask about.


Oh and what word other than opponent would you prefer for someone who is at odds with your position in a discussion?

I am a seeker of truth. So… teacher, collaborator, student, clue-by-four target, sounding board (aka sympathetic strawman / devil's advocate) or, most rarely, someone with internally consistent logic but irreconcilable differences (like, often, my brother) - these are among the valid roles one could play.

At the time I made that post, as I didn't understand your position (and, in fact, I think it would be fair to say, no-one posting in this thread - with the possible exception of yourself - understood what your position was), it would be unreasonable for me to try to oppose it.

As you seemed to be having trouble expressing yourself and/or understanding others, I had taken on the role of "guide" to your "lost soul".


It’s not just being pendantic. I’d say that most disagreements about agency and discussions about it if people using your definiton simply used ‘meaningful choices’ in place of agency.

I don't think that's as clear. Because I don't care about the number of choices I am given so much as the number that are unrealistically (unversimilitudinally?) taken away.

In the "UFO abduction" scenario, if at [6] my character says, "man, I'm really hungry for sushi now - let's go to the sushi place in the next town", or at the transition from [1a] to [2] they turn off their phone, or at [4] they hook up with someone, and the GM responds with "you can't - that'll break my game!", or develops some contrivance to negate the logical agency of those decisions, it doesn't matter to me how many meaningful decision I got to make that hour for whether or not I call rails.


People just don’t care as much if you compare and contrast the number of meaningful choices.

I feel that this is more important than I understand - can you elaborate?

[OldTrees1]

Interesting question. The proportion, I suppose.

There are 2 campaigns running.
Alice is in campaign A and gets 1 meaningful choice, but they are the only PC.
Bob is in campaign B and gets 10 meaningful choices about 5x the aspects of the world and with 3x the options per choice. However they are one of 4 PCs.

We can make claims about the absolute amount of agency Alice gets by measuring the bounds of her 1 meaningful choice
We can make claims about the relative amount of agency Alice gets compared to a counterfactual where she gets 1 more choice or her 1 choice has a broader scope.
We can make relative claims about Bob's agency vs Charlie's agency with them both in the same campaign.
We can make relative claims about Alice's agency vs Bob's agency even though they are not in the same campaign.

In this case Bob still has more agency than Alice even if Alice has a greater proportion of her railroad's agency compared to Bob's smaller proportion of his linear branching campaign's agency.

If I had to guess, it is the shape and size of the agency that matters to you more than having more or less than someone else in the same campaign.


I feel that this is more important than I understand - can you elaborate?

Some Context:
Since they see agency as a discrete binary with only 0% or 100%, I compared a railroad with 1 meaningful choice vs a sandbox campaign (more choices, with more options, about more aspects, etc). For simplicities sake I focused on number of meaningful choices rather than dive into the nuances of the many axes where agency can be greater or lesser. However you already understand agency can vary in size/shape in more ways than just number of choices.

There are multiple axes so no single axis tells the whole story, but if you can still describe the impact on the volume when any axis changes.
vs
There are no axes. It is a discrete binary between 0 and 1. Those axes are unrelated to the term and thus should be talked about separately without using the term.

[NichG]

That's… a brilliant way of looking at things!

Hmmm… I think I tend to think of it in terms of the character rather than the player, that it matters that these characters went on this adventure, and, if even the same players had brought different characters, it would have turned out differently, due to differences both mechanical and personality-based.

Which… makes me wonder if we're saying the same thing, or even compatable things. Thoughts?


I mostly brought it up in light of the argument (paraphrased) that other more serious people outside the forum use this word a particular way, so their definition should hold in place of the forum's definition' argument. The point was that yes, in fact, there are many different ways people might define a word and context matters much more than the authority of the source. This particular definition comes from when people are trying to identify agency in dynamical systems like cellular automata, because you can draw a boundary around some part of the system, vary it, and then see how much the rest of the system changes, thereby measuring quantitatively how much agency the bit you drew a boundary around has over the rest of the world. This mutual information definition wouldn't be particularly practical for, say, determining the historical freedoms possessed by different castes of people in a sociological study, or in establishing legal responsibility for an accident, or ...

So if you actually want to use this thing, you can use it whenever you can draw a logical boundary and when you can establish the distribution of variations that are possible for what could be inside the boundary. I would still say player rather than character though, because you can practically speaking sample from the distribution of other possible players at that table, but if you talk about the distribution of possible characters you're vulnerable to hypotheticals that would never actually see play: 'what if I played a character who was obsessed with opening a cheese shop and just wanted to ignore the adventure', etc. If no one actually sits down to a table and tries to play that character ever, then any sort of gain in freedoms from the DM saying 'yes, I would run that cheese shop adventure' is illusionary because no one will ever take them up on it.

[Frogreaver]

Interesting question. The proportion, I suppose.

I think most here would agree with that. I would say that such a thought helps push back against the notion that agency is not binary. If more agency occurs based on the proportion of meaningful choices you have then how can we say whether a players lack of meaningful choice in this particular instance won't ultimately produce a 'path' that yields a future with a greater proportion of meaningful choices than if he had a meaningful choice in place of this particular non-choice.

And so logically, if one insists on there being more agency, and that a greater proportion of meaningful choices yields greater agency, then it becomes clear that sometimes a little bit of railroading can have the effect of actually increasing player agency.

(*Note I don't ascribe to the theory of more and less agency - this is a critique of the kinds of oddness you end up with if you use that theory - and oddnesses such as this are one reason I've abandoned the more/less agency framework.)


Not more agency, no. I do agree that it's binary (so having even more choices wouldn't make more agency), I just view it on a different scale.

Right, which is part of why talking about meaningful choices is so much easier that talking about agency - everyone has their own views about what agency is, how it's measured, whether it's binary or not. There's no wonder discussions about agency tend to come to a grinding halt.


Agency is not binary. How important / meaningful a choice is can vary.

Even DM denial/abrogation of agency isn't binary. Chokers* are a good example of this: you can limit choices while still leaving some nicely meaningful ones open, or you can limit choices so less meaningful ones are the only ones available, or you can limit choices so much that no meaningful choices are left.

In the context of an RPG - the DM creating any fiction naturally limits meaningful choices. Is the DM's creation of fiction actually a choker that reduces agency? I think no, because it simultaneously creates opportunities for meaningful choices.


Illusionism is just a term for a DM doing the last one, while pretending they aren't. Possibly even the middle option from time to time, but really any given example by proponents typically fall into the last.

Is illusionism a choker or is this particular DM's use of it simultaneously creating opportunities for meaningful choices?


*The "Chokers" Alexandrian term is a good one, to distinguish between planning limitations in advance, and "railroading" or actively denying/abrogating a player choice once made.

In terms of agency and choice reduction - What's the difference between a preplanned choker and a spontaneously decided one?


This discussion of Agency is funny, and technically Agency is not the same as Freewill.

If I we have two groups of players (Group A & B) and they both play over a set of 10 sessions to play out a military operation as follows:

Group A: Is given no choices until the final session. (1 out of 10 the players have Freewill) The final choice can determine the outcome of of the operation.

Group B: Is given choices in the first nine sessions, (9 out of 10 the players have Freewill) The final session no choices are given to determine the outcome.

Group A has Agency, but Group B had more Freewill.

People have argued for thousands of years about what’s the point of Freewill if the end result is already known or doesn’t change. The point is, it doesn’t change the fact that a person had his/her Freewill, and what the individual wanted wasn’t Freewill, but actually the Power to impact something other than themselves, thus Agency. In that case they would remove Agency from all others.


Ponder this: I as the DM tell the 5 Players that they can do whatever they want with any outcome, but I will only allow what the majority (3 Players) determines.

WHO HAS AGENCY?

The DM clearly isn’t determining the outcomes, even if the DM restricted how outcomes are determined.

What if the DM says whoever has the highest % of their Hit Points determines everything, making it 1 deciding for the other 4. The DM still isn’t determining the outcome.

If multiple people have determined to have or share Agency in these scenarios, then Agency is not Binary.

There's alot of good stuff here, especially on the free will side.

The last question seems pretty trivial to pick apart. People that grant others the authority to decide are ultimately responsible for those decisions. People can decide things collectively - and if that's being done then it's the collective making the meaningful choice and ultimately that collective that has agency. So that doesn't really show that Agency is not Binary


I feel that this is more important than I understand - can you elaborate?

Agency is contentious. People have different definitions of it (and the more we dig in here, the more and more we see of that). But getting back to the contentious part - various claims of this game style has more agency than yours have been used to attack, belittle and demean other peoples playstyles.

[Mutazoia]

"Railroading" itself is an illusion. Railroading means you are on a set of rails and can only go where they lead. You can't turn left or right, you can't speed up or slow down. You have zero choices where you go and how fast you get there. You're just along for the ride. So unless the GM sits you down and reads his latest novel at you, dictating what you do and what you say the entire time, you are not being railroaded.

You have the option to engage in, or avoid, any encounter you choose. If the encounter is vital to the plot at hand, you may have to encounter it regardless, but the occasional signpost is hardly "railroading".

[HidesHisEyes]

"Railroading" itself is an illusion. Railroading means you are on a set of rails and can only go where they lead. You can't turn left or right, you can't speed up or slow down. You have zero choices where you go and how fast you get there. You're just along for the ride. So unless the GM sits you down and reads his latest novel at you, dictating what you do and what you say the entire time, you are not being railroaded.

You have the option to engage in, or avoid, any encounter you choose. If the encounter is vital to the plot at hand, you may have to encounter it regardless, but the occasional signpost is hardly "railroading".

But you’re just collapsing the concept to its most extreme imaginable form and then saying it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist in that form. It’s like saying “skyscrapers are an illusion” because there are no buildings that actually extend above Earth’s atmosphere.

I know none of us agree on what the term should mean, but I’ve been clear on what I mean by it: a railroad is when the GM has a predetermined narrative in mind and tries to ensure that narrative plays out. There is room for player agency within this - that’s why I don’t subscribe to the “limiting player agency” definition. Of course in practice players will still make choices and have some influence on things even in the most strictly enforced railroad. But there’s still a difference between playing a game to generate an unknown, emergent narrative and playing a game to progress through a predetermined narrative, and I think the difference is significant enough to warrant special terms.

Now if you insist on reserving the term “railroad” for a specific phenomenon that’s so extreme that it can only exist hypothetically, then so be it. My point is only that I dislike the predetermined narrative game style. I think it has its place but it doesn’t use the medium to its full potential and I wish more people would recognise that it’s not the only option.

But again, of course, if it works for any given individual or game group and they’re having fun walking through predetermined narratives (with any degree of limited freedom along the way) then good for them, crack on.

[Frogreaver]

But you’re just collapsing the concept to its most extreme imaginable form and then saying it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist in that form. It’s like saying “skyscrapers are an illusion” because there are no buildings that actually extend above Earth’s atmosphere.

I know none of us agree on what the term should mean, but I’ve been clear on what I mean by it: a railroad is when the GM has a predetermined narrative in mind and tries to ensure that narrative plays out. There is room for player agency within this - that’s why I don’t subscribe to the “limiting player agency” definition. Of course in practice players will still make choices and have some influence on things even in the most strictly enforced railroad. But there’s still a difference between playing a game to generate an unknown, emergent narrative and playing a game to progress through a predetermined narrative, and I think the difference is significant enough to warrant special terms.

Now if you insist on reserving the term “railroad” for a specific phenomenon that’s so extreme that it can only exist hypothetically, then so be it. My point is only that I dislike the predetermined narrative game style. I think it has its place but it doesn’t use the medium to its full potential and I wish more people would recognise that it’s not the only option.

But again, of course, if it works for any given individual or game group and they’re having fun walking through predetermined narratives (with any degree of limited freedom along the way) then good for them, crack on.

Railroading has quite the negative connotation. If you really are using railroading to describe a predetermined narrative game style then your actually labelling that style as 'bad' whether you intend to or not. That's why there's pushback.

[kyoryu]

Railroading has quite the negative connotation. If you really are using railroading to describe a predetermined narrative game style then your actually labelling that style as 'bad' whether you intend to or not. That's why there's pushback.

Which is why I've been suggesting and using "linear game" for that style, and "railroading" for "running a linear game while claiming otherwise."

(I actually think there's a more concrete distinction, but i'll have to wait til I get the time to post that)

[HidesHisEyes]

Railroading has quite the negative connotation. If you really are using railroading to describe a predetermined narrative game style then your actually labelling that style as 'bad' whether you intend to or not. That's why there's pushback.

Well yes I’m comfortable labelling it as bad. As I say I dislike it. I just include the caveat in my last paragraph there now and then to remind people that all of this is subjective and I’m not intending to tell anyone how to play.

[JNAProductions]

Which is why I've been suggesting and using "linear game" for that style, and "railroading" for "running a linear game while claiming otherwise."

(I actually think there's a more concrete distinction, but i'll have to wait til I get the time to post that)

Yeah. Linear game is one with a predetermined narrative, with few-to-no branching points. Ideally, a linear game should still have the encounters make a difference in some way, but the path is set for you.
A railroaded game pretty much has to be linear, but it's when the GM forces players into the linearity against their wishes, through various methods ranging from brute force to lies.

Linear games are fine. Not my preference, but some people love them, and they're just as right as I am for liking more open-ended games.

[OldTrees1]

Which is why I've been suggesting and using "linear game" for that style, and "railroading" for "running a linear game while claiming otherwise."

(I actually think there's a more concrete distinction, but i'll have to wait til I get the time to post that)

If you have a word that is applicable to more of the continuum, I would like to hear it. Some games are not linear games but could either have or not have a mechanic that decreases player agency below the default assumption. The players in those games may or may not have preference that disagree with that effect and thus label it "railroading" despite it not being close to what they would label a full "railroad".

For example if I converted an informed choice into a quantum ogre inside my sandbox campaign. Neither position would be described as a linear game. However I am still doing an action that moves the game towards a linear game (and if the players' preferences' object, towards a railroad).

In other words: Games with more agency than a linear game, for example sandbox campaigns, can experience railroading. Do you have a neutral term that fits that sentence?

[Frogreaver]

Well yes I’m comfortable labelling it as bad. As I say I dislike it. I just include the caveat in my last paragraph there now and then to remind people that all of this is subjective and I’m not intending to tell anyone how to play.

You don't see the issue there?


In other words: Games with more agency than a linear game, for example sandbox campaigns, can experience railroading. Do you have a neutral term that fits that sentence?

Isn't that more neutral term just GM Force?

[HidesHisEyes]

You don't see the issue there?


I mean… no?

This whole discussion is about personal preferences, so if I use a term with negative connotations that should just mean people understand that my preference is against that thing. What’s the issue?

[Talakeal]

Which is why I've been suggesting and using "linear game" for that style, and "railroading" for "running a linear game while claiming otherwise."

(I actually think there's a more concrete distinction, but i'll have to wait til I get the time to post that)

I don't agree with that at all.

For example, I think improv heavy games where the GM just makes up what happens as they go along are very low in both linear plot and player agency, regardless of what the GM claims.

[Trafalgar]

I was really hoping this thread was about a homebrewed gigantic cat-like demon named Schrodinger that's both alive and dead at the same time.

[kyoryu]

If you have a word that is applicable to more of the continuum, I would like to hear it. Some games are not linear games but could either have or not have a mechanic that decreases player agency below the default assumption. The players in those games may or may not have preference that disagree with that effect and thus label it "railroading" despite it not being close to what they would label a full "railroad".

For example if I converted an informed choice into a quantum ogre inside my sandbox campaign. Neither position would be described as a linear game. However I am still doing an action that moves the game towards a linear game (and if the players' preferences' object, towards a railroad).

In other words: Games with more agency than a linear game, for example sandbox campaigns, can experience railroading. Do you have a neutral term that fits that sentence?


I don't agree with that at all.

For example, I think improv heavy games where the GM just makes up what happens as they go along are very low in both linear plot and player agency, regardless of what the GM claims.

So, I think what you're asking is for a word to describe a situation where the GM is reducing or negating player choice, but not necessarily in a "railroad" situation as I've defined it?

How about "GM Negation"? The core of it is that the GM is negating player choices - either pre-emptively (by preventing them) or after the fact (magician's choice, roadblocks, etc.).

It's also neutral enough that it can be used in discussions without triggering a defensive reaction.

But what I was going more towards was a difference in game styles - I'm thinking of the two as "scene node graph" and "evolving state function", or "node" and "state" for short. Those need some explanation though, I think.

[NichG]

You could draw a difference between a reactive GM and a proactive GM, along the traditional fiction stereotype (which is often overturned now) that villains get to be proactive and create the impetus for the protagonist to then react.

So the question there is about whether the GM is relying on the players to provide the impetus and the world responds, or if the world will provide an impetus which the players cannot reasonably refuse to respond to. There would be points in between such as a turn taking style where the GM provides an impetus for the players, and the players are expected to push to take control of the momentum of events and force the world to react.

[Vahnavoi]

In other words: Games with more agency than a linear game, for example sandbox campaigns, can experience railroading. Do you have a neutral term that fits that sentence?

"In a complex game with lot of choice you may end up in Zugzwang, a position in which you're compelled to make a move that'll limit your future choices"

or

"In a branching game with high total amount of agency you can still enter a linear path where you have little choice"

Those are neutral ways to say your agency can sometimes be reduced in a game, when that's accepted by-product of a game's rules.

[HidesHisEyes]

You could draw a difference between a reactive GM and a proactive GM, along the traditional fiction stereotype (which is often overturned now) that villains get to be proactive and create the impetus for the protagonist to then react.

So the question there is about whether the GM is relying on the players to provide the impetus and the world responds, or if the world will provide an impetus which the players cannot reasonably refuse to respond to. There would be points in between such as a turn taking style where the GM provides an impetus for the players, and the players are expected to push to take control of the momentum of events and force the world to react.

This is a really useful way to think about it. If the gm and players take turns being proactive based on the events of the game, you get an emergent, non-predetermined narrative, but player agency is preserved.

[Frogreaver]

I don't agree with that at all.

For example, I think improv heavy games where the GM just makes up what happens as they go along are very low in both linear plot and player agency, regardless of what the GM claims.

What is it about improv style games that you feel take away agency?

[Vahnavoi]

Flip your question around: how do improv games give players agency?

[Frogreaver]

Flip your question around: how do improv games give players agency?

The same way every other game where players are faced with meaningful choices gives players agency.

Presumably there’s an underlying concept that choices are less meaningful when the DM is improving. I’m curious where that concept lies as I would suggest the opposite is more likely true. Every choice the players make gets a tailor made response from the DM who has no agenda for where the game should go - which seems it would create more meaningful choices.

[Vahnavoi]

Humor me: which strikes you as more realistic description of what an improvising game master is actually doing?

1) the game master is infinitely able and willing to entertain whatever a player says and can produce truly distinct content for every possible move.

2) the game master has a small handful of abstract ideas in their mind around which they'll construct their response regardless of what the player says, and each idea is such that once fed to a player, it will produce a reasonably predictable response to keep the sequence of events on a logical path.

[Frogreaver]

Humor me: which strikes you as more realistic description of what an improvising game master is actually doing?

1) the game master is infinitely able and willing to entertain whatever a player says and can produce truly distinct content for every possible move.

2) the game master has a small handful of abstract ideas in their mind around which they'll construct their response regardless of what the player says, and each idea is such that once fed to a player, it will produce a reasonably predictable response to keep the sequence of events on a logical path.

I think there’s more than 2 options.

But it also depends on the game. In more story now/narrative games the expected method of play leans heavily into improv and the mechanics are set up in such a way to encourage that and to crate a fair process for coming up with fiction and complications for the players actions. Placing these games closer to your first option.

For a game like d&d I would say it’s often your second option but doesn’t have to be.

[Vahnavoi]

I think there’s more than 2 options.

Not what's being asked.


But it also depends on the game. In more story now/narrative games the expected method of play leans heavily into improv and the mechanics are set up in such a way to encourage that and to crate a fair process for coming up with fiction and complications for the players actions. Placing these games closer to your first option.

For a game like d&d I would say it’s often your second option but doesn’t have to be.

Your first paragraph describes systems which codify 2) into their very rules. That you say they're closer to 1) than however you imagine improv in D&D is done, is pretty odd.

[Morgaln]

Humor me: which strikes you as more realistic description of what an improvising game master is actually doing?

1) the game master is infinitely able and willing to entertain whatever a player says and can produce truly distinct content for every possible move.

2) the game master has a small handful of abstract ideas in their mind around which they'll construct their response regardless of what the player says, and each idea is such that once fed to a player, it will produce a reasonably predictable response to keep the sequence of events on a logical path.

The answer is somewhere in between.

An improv game is not a blank slate where nothing is determined until he players interact with it. Even in an improv game, the GM will have some ideas about setting, NPCs and the like. Those have an influence on how the game world reacts to whatever the players are doing.

Obviously I can only talk about how I do improv, so it might be different for others, but: I don't know where my games end up. I start my games by providing an initial situation; where the game goes from there very much depends on how the players choose to deal with that situation. Often, I don't know what is the underlying cause for that situation. That will come out during play; it's an emergent quality, not a pre-determined one. And I'm certainly not above taking player theories and incorporating them into the narrative when I like them and they fit into the established facts.

As an example: In my last game of Werewolf: the Apocalypse, the initial setup was the following: A kinfolk came to the players and asked for help. He's a catholic priest who is running a shelter for the homeless downtown. Several regulars in the shelter have vanished over the last few weeks, and he is worried about them. The police isn't interested in searching for homeless people, so the characters are the only ones he can ask for help.
I didn't know what happened to those homeless people when we started playing. I was waiting for what the players would do and improv what they found out during the investigation. In the end, it turned out that a medical facility doing research on various highly dangerous pathogens had kidnapped them. For what purpose isn't clear yet, as the last session was early 2020, and for reasons that are probably obvious, it felt like somewhat bad taste to continue a story about a possible engineered virus outbreak at that time.

I know this style probably sounds terrible to many people, but it works great and my players regularly praise my games. Note that I am upfront about all of this. My players know this is how my games work. I've never had issues about it with anyone. The only major issue I ever had with a (former) player was him complaining that my games were too realistic and his actions had consequences (not quite in those words, but that's what it came down to).

Even if a game leans heavily towards number 2, I honestly don't see how even that style would mean less player agency than a linear plot. It doesn't necessarily mean more player agency, mind you, but it's not automatically less either.

[kyoryu]

Humor me: which strikes you as more realistic description of what an improvising game master is actually doing?

1) the game master is infinitely able and willing to entertain whatever a player says and can produce truly distinct content for every possible move.

2) the game master has a small handful of abstract ideas in their mind around which they'll construct their response regardless of what the player says, and each idea is such that once fed to a player, it will produce a reasonably predictable response to keep the sequence of events on a logical path.

Both.

Some GMs have very limited ideas of what is "realistic" or possible and so will gently nudge people back onto the "realistic" path (aka what they thought made sense).

Some GMs are very good about accepting player input and making it work and viable.

I strongly believe that the former GMs are truly believing that they're not railroading, but for all practical purposes they are.

Fortunately, it's a skill that can be taught. The primary lesson is one that some people have a hard time with, though, and that boils down to "the opinions of other people are just as valid as yours. Their ideas are just as valid. Them having a different view doesn't mean it's wrong."

As a GM, I presume that (so long as it seems like we're playing in good faith) any player-given idea is reasonable, unless there is a hard fact stopping it. The very fact that the player is proposing it to me indicates that they think it's reasonable, and so in good faith I should not reject it, but look for a way that it could be reasonable (unless, as I said, there's some kind of hidden information that they're not aware of).

I've played with GMs that do the same.

[Frogreaver]

Not what's being asked.

Then donÂ’t present a false dichotomy in your question.




Your first paragraph describes systems which codify 2) into their very rules. That you say they're closer to 1) than however you imagine improv in D&D is done, is pretty odd.

IÂ’m not sure that you understand how those games work if thatÂ’s your takeaway of them.

[OldTrees1]

Humor me: which strikes you as more realistic description of what an improvising game master is actually doing?

1) the game master is infinitely able and willing to entertain whatever a player says and can produce truly distinct content for every possible move.

2) the game master has a small handful of abstract ideas in their mind around which they'll construct their response regardless of what the player says, and each idea is such that once fed to a player, it will produce a reasonably predictable response to keep the sequence of events on a logical path.

Depends on the GM. Just like the non improv GMs might plan a linear game, a linear branching game, a node based game, or even a sandbox they started a decade ago*.

However, in general, I assume #1 is a more accurate description. If the PC walks over to a chessboard and moves a knight up 2 and over 1, they might get similar content to if they strolled over to the chessboard and moved the knight over 1 and up 2. So inputs that would have similar outputs might have similar content. However I would expect a different outcome if the PC did something else.

Of course my experience is mostly with sandbox improv GMing where the sandbox acts as a grounding to the improv. Basically I am running a simulation where Time and the Players cause input and I watch the world change. It would be exhausting to try to prepare all of the simulation possibilities in advance, but type #1 improv handles it.

* I find some degree of improv almost necessary as player agency increases. It stops being efficient to plan for everything in advance. It starts being more efficient to be able to create the output in real time so you know what prep is needed based on PC input rather than prepping everything that was possible before PC input was known.

[kyoryu]

However, in general, I assume #1 is a more accurate description. If the PC walks over to a chessboard and moves a knight up 2 and over 1, they might get similar content to if they strolled over to the chessboard and moved the knight over 1 and up 2. So inputs that would have similar outputs might have similar content. However I would expect a different outcome if the PC did something else.

And, usefully, I think option #2 is just frankly bad GMing. It's the GM overriding player input based on their own biases.

And yes, I say it's bad GMing. If you are presenting a game as being open to player plans, then not being open to them is bad, whether it's done consciously or not. At that point, just run a linear game, be hoenst about, and have a good time with it. If you're going to run a more open game, then be open to player input and run with it.

The fact that an open game can be run poorly isn't a reason to not run open games.

[NichG]

It's easier to write given a prompt than just starting from a blank page. I find improv in GMing to be similar - the players choosing a thing to do makes it easier to generate content than if I tried to generate content ahead of time. So I find it much more realistic that a GM could find it easier to actually react and create in response to a prompt than to have things already entirely in mind, and I find the view that 'no, people couldn't possibly run games that way' perplexing.

That doesn't mean every input will have a unique output or that everything about the output can be controlled by the input.

[kyoryu]

It's easier to write given a prompt than just starting from a blank page. I find improv in GMing to be similar - the players choosing a thing to do makes it easier to generate content than if I tried to generate content ahead of time. So I find it much more realistic that a GM could find it easier to actually react and create in response to a prompt than to have things already entirely in mind, and I find the view that 'no, people couldn't possibly run games that way' perplexing.

That doesn't mean every input will have a unique output or that everything about the output can be controlled by the input.

Exactly.

The process for improvisation as a GM usually looks like:

Player: "I want to do the thing."
Me: <Hrm, okay, is that at all feasible? Let's assume it is. Okay, is this difficult? Could this go poorly? Could it go well? What's in the way? What do I know about the world that would impact this? What's required to make this happen? Okay, cool....>
Me: "Alright, you head over to the place..."

Realistically, it's an implicitly collaborative process - the GM comes up with the original scenario, the player takes that and adds with what they'd do... the GM fills in the blanks for that, generating a way to figure out what happens, and the GM takes the results of that and factors it back into the world, creating a new situation. And keep that cycle going.

It's a loop that allows everybody to feed off of everybody else and create something that is unique to the group.

As mentioned above, it does fail if the GM doesn't take any input from the group, or consciously or subconsciously nullifies it. But for this style of game, that's "bad GMing" and should be dealt with as such.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's easier to write given a prompt than just starting from a blank page. I find improv in GMing to be similar - the players choosing a thing to do makes it easier to generate content than if I tried to generate content ahead of time. So I find it much more realistic that a GM could find it easier to actually react and create in response to a prompt than to have things already entirely in mind, and I find the view that 'no, people couldn't possibly run games that way' perplexing.

That doesn't mean every input will have a unique output or that everything about the output can be controlled by the input.

Very much this. In fact, I find "blank slate, ab initio" scenario design almost impossible. Sure, for things that I'll have to do detailed work, I need some lead time. But simply asking "ok, what's the plan for next time?" gets me enough lead time to get the basics in place; if they depart from that in play, I have a place to start.

And the world has a strong say in things--sometimes you've gotten into a river that is pushing you along real fast of your own will and by your previous choices. So like it or not, it's going to carry you downstream a bit. You can fight against it, you can teleport out of it, but either way you're all wet. (ok, this analogy is getting a bit baroque).

[kyoryu]

Very much this. In fact, I find "blank slate, ab initio" scenario design almost impossible. Sure, for things that I'll have to do detailed work, I need some lead time. But simply asking "ok, what's the plan for next time?" gets me enough lead time to get the basics in place; if they depart from that in play, I have a place to start.

And the world has a strong say in things--sometimes you've gotten into a river that is pushing you along real fast of your own will and by your previous choices. So like it or not, it's going to carry you downstream a bit. You can fight against it, you can teleport out of it, but either way you're all wet. (ok, this analogy is getting a bit baroque).

It's a function - NewWorldState = f(OldWorldState, PlayerInput, GMInput, Random)

Sometimes one of those is more relevant than the others. Most prep is around understanding the world state, and figuring out pieces to use for the areas the players are most likely to deal with, as well as understanding NPCs and their agendas and figuring out what they're doing.

The other way is to not worry about the world state so much, and prepare a sequence of encounters for the players to deal with. But the prep to do that is very different than the prep to have the world to refer to, so I'd generally recommend mostly doing one or the other.

[icefractal]

I don't think improv causes railroading, but I don't think it prevents it either.
Maybe it prevents hard railroading, but IME soft railroading is by far the more common one anyway, and that works just fine in improv.

In fact I'd go farther and say that the most common type of railroading is unconscious railroading, which improv is just as susceptible to if not more.

By unconscious railroading I mean essentially having a bias in favor of a certain path. Actions which move toward that path will be more successful and often lead part-way there even on a failure, actions which move away from it will have more obstacles and tend to re-route toward the favored path. It's pretty easy to do this without realizing it.

[Vahnavoi]

Your answers are more revealing than I thought.

To wit: every single one of you has an over-idealized opinion of how real improvisation works. To the point where you think you're talking about #1 when you're describing #2.

Consider: human short-term memory is limited, to a handful of items. This alone should hint you that reality is closer to #2 than #1. Always.

Consider also: all natural languages have rules and structure which direct flow of conversation in a predictable way. Everything you say in a natural language to a person who also speaks that language puts constraints on what counts as a logical reply. Statements and replies outside those bounds bring a discussion to halt.

I can't feasibly comment on all details your replies, so I'll pick few which I think are most useful for you to understand what I mean:


It's a function - NewWorldState = f(OldWorldState, PlayerInput, GMInput, Random)

The function is real. The point I'm making is that the number of valid inputs per decision point are actually fairly small, both for the players and the game master, and the outputs further constrain the future inputs. This becomes apparent once you realize how limits of human cognition apply to the function. This is how an improv game where nobody is consciously railroading, nobody knows how the game will end and everyone feels like they have a lot of choice, can still have actually very little choice in it and be very predictable to an outside observer who knows enough of the relevant elements. Magic tricks and psychological manipulation exploit known versions of this, but it also happens naturally all the time.

Moving on:


The process for improvisation as a GM usually looks like:

Player: "I want to do the thing."
Me: <Hrm, okay, is that at all feasible? Let's assume it is. Okay, is this difficult? Could this go poorly? Could it go well? What's in the way? What do I know about the world that would impact this? What's required to make this happen? Okay, cool....>
Me: "Alright, you head over to the place..."

It ought to be obvous this "improv" process is no different from non-improv planning process. What makes it improvisation, then, is not the type of decisions being made, but the moment when the decisions are being made and speed they're being made at. This brings us to this:


And, usefully, I think option #2 is just frankly bad GMing. It's the GM overriding player input based on their own biases.

The number of living humans who can escape their own biases when making decisions on-the-spot, at speed, is close to zero. It's one of the stronger findings of modern psychology that virtually all humans are subject to a number of common biases and that merely knowing about being biased does nothing to remove those biases. In virtually all cases, circumventing a bias takes a lot of deliberate thought, at which point it no longer makes any damn sense to talk about improvisation.

The realistic expectation is that when a human begins improvising, their biases have stronger influence on the outcome, not weaker. Trying to make a value judgement out of this and labeling it "bad GMing" is pretty much besides the point. Everybody does this.

[BRC]

Humor me: which strikes you as more realistic description of what an improvising game master is actually doing?

1) the game master is infinitely able and willing to entertain whatever a player says and can produce truly distinct content for every possible move.

2) the game master has a small handful of abstract ideas in their mind around which they'll construct their response regardless of what the player says, and each idea is such that once fed to a player, it will produce a reasonably predictable response to keep the sequence of events on a logical path.
#1 is closer, but is so wrong that I wouldn't accept it as a valid description.

Improv GMing, like Improv Theater (or playing in an RPG) is about Scenarios, and responding to an action within the context of a scenario.

Which is neither "Infinitely able and willing to entertain whatever a player says" nor "A small handful of abstract ideas".



It ought to be obvous this "improv" process is no different from non-improv planning process. What makes it improvisation, then, is not the type of decisions being made, but the moment when the decisions are being made and speed they're being made at.

Please look up the word "Improvised" For me, would you?

Consider Theater, would you say that construction of an Improvised scene is the same as the same two actors writing the scene together, rehearsing it, and performing it later, just with the decisions being made at different times and speeds?


Or, more to the point, would you have the same response when comparing an improvised scene between two actors, and a scene that was only written by one of the actors?

Just as an Improv actor is improvising responses to their scene partner, the Improvised GM is working to respond to the actions of their Players, which is a completely different process than writing something on your own, even if what you're writing is a set of pre-planned responses to potential actions.


The number of living humans who can escape their own biases when making decisions on-the-spot, at speed, is close to zero. It's one of the stronger findings of modern psychology that virtually all humans are subject to a number of common biases and that merely knowing about being biased does nothing to remove those biases. In virtually all cases, circumventing a bias takes a lot of deliberate thought, at which point it no longer makes any damn sense to talk about improvisation.



I'd like you to expand what you mean by "Bias" here.

If I'm reading it right, you are referring to the GM being Biased towards one of a few potential outcomes for a scene, and arguing that truly improvising a response is impossible, because the GM is always going to be biased towards the resolutions they already thought of.

The key is that the GM isn't "Making Decisions" about what happens. They are RESPONDING to player actions in the context of the game mechanics and the scenario. An RPG doesn't work by the GM simply declaring outcomes.


Imagine this scenario: The Party encounters Bandits on the road.

The GM is Biased towards one of two outcomes: The PC's fight off the bandits, or the PC's pay the bandits to let them pass.

In your schema, if the PC's decide to throw down a Smoke Cloud and run away from the Bandits, they will only escape if the GM is able to, through an act of incrediable willpower, Overcome their biases going into the scene and allow this third outcome.

How do you think an average GM, one who did not previously consider running away, would respond to that? Would they insist that the bandits catch up to the PC's, despite the confusion of the smoke cloud, and restart the encounter?

What if all the PC's are on horseback and the Bandits are not?

What if the PC's teleport away, rather than fight the Bandits?


Edit: It sounds like you're less describing an RPG game and more describing some sort of moderated storywriting session, where one Writer (The GM) asks some others (The Players) For ideas on how a scene should go, and then picks the outcome they like best.

[NichG]

Consider: human short-term memory is limited, to a handful of items. This alone should hint you that reality is closer to #2 than #1. Always.


Assembly language on a system with 4-5 registers and a tape supports more programs than you'll ever be able to explore within the lifetime of the universe. Don't mistake pedantic formal correctness for meaningful distinctions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Assembly language on a system with 4-5 registers and a tape supports more programs than you'll ever be able to explore within the lifetime of the universe. Don't mistake pedantic formal correctness for meaningful distinctions.

Yeah. The number of times I've stopped, gone "huh. Wasn't expecting that at all" and torn up my notes and ad-libbed based on my knowledge of the world and the nearby area and proceeded on is...well...large enough that I've stopped making detailed notes at all. And the number of smaller-scale "get into the flow of the narration and find myself saying something completely unexpected (to me) that sends things careening off in a different direction" or "in responding to something they say, bypass a huge chunk of the imagined challenge because it no longer fits the flow of the narrative" is also substantial. Like...just about every session.


It's one reason I don't want heavy-weight non-combat (ie social/exploration) rules--those rules, just like the heavy-weight battle-maps required for online play, provide constraints that make me less willing to deviate from what I've planned. And less able to respond to out-of-the-box ideas. In part because the rules themselves provide boundaries and mark areas as off-limits. Rules are scaffolding (in the instructional-design sense). Which is good, sometimes. But not good in other places. Scaffolding where it's not needed impedes learning and growth and (in this context) fun, just like missing scaffolding where it is needed does. And what is needed/not-needed is an individual judgement.

[dafrca]

In fact I'd go farther and say that the most common type of railroading is unconscious railroading, which improv is just as susceptible to if not more.
While I dislike railroading players when I GM, I have caught myself doing "unconscious railroading" as you call it. When I do I try to step back and stop but I know I have shown a bias for a particular path because I think it would be more fun etcetera. It is somewhat strange when you realize you were doing this without realizing it. :smallbiggrin:

[HidesHisEyes]

Humor me: which strikes you as more realistic description of what an improvising game master is actually doing?

1) the game master is infinitely able and willing to entertain whatever a player says and can produce truly distinct content for every possible move.

2) the game master has a small handful of abstract ideas in their mind around which they'll construct their response regardless of what the player says, and each idea is such that once fed to a player, it will produce a reasonably predictable response to keep the sequence of events on a logical path.

It’s not really either.

I don’t want to rehash my earlier arguments in this thread, but I think your incredulity is down to the fact that you’re thinking of the GM as operating like a computer. And because you’re aware of the limits of certain aspects of human cognition, you see the dichotomy as “supercomputer” vs “kinda rubbish computer”. But the real dichotomy is “human” vs “computer”, and we GM as human beings. We don’t take in information and process it and output specific, deterministic results as you suggest in option 1 (supercomputer). We react organically to what is in front of us and use our creative brains to improvise something feasible and engaging.

Does that mean we’re biased? Yeah. But I don’t think being biased makes improv-heavy, non-railroading GMing impossible. Games that embrace this style (again I’m thinking mainly of PbtA) also embrace bias - but the game tells you what that bias is supposed to be. The game rules give the GM an agenda and principles that they’re supposed to follow. It takes some practice but these principles come to shape your biases. They include things like “fill their lives with adventure”, “think dangerous” and “be a fan of the characters”. These are the things the GM is supposed to be biased towards when playing that game, because that’s the experience the game’s designers were intending.

Now, most games are not as explicit about this stuff as PbtA games are. Many games explicitly want to leave this stuff up to the group to decide for themselves. That’s fine. You can come up with your own principles, and ideally share them with the group so everyone’s on the same page, and exert some control over the bias that way.

Of course there are also going to be unconscious, person-specific biases of the kind you describe at play. That’s ok. Again, we’re not computers. Playing a roleplaying game is a fundamentally human activity. The game itself takes the form of a conversation between a group of people, so there will be unconscious bias and other messiness involved as there is in all human communication. This can become a problem, but it isn’t one inherently.

Specifically, it doesn’t mean you can’t guarantee meaningful choices, player agency and emergent narratives on the fly. I know because I actually play games this way. I have even run the same one-shot (one I designed, not a published one) for two different groups and the narrative that emerged was COMPLETELY different the second time around. I’m sure some of my unconscious bias snuck in and influenced the outcome both times, but I’m equally sure the players in both groups would expect that. What else could they expect, exactly?

The point as far as this thread is concerned is that the one-shot I designed didn’t include a predetermined narrative sequence. Instead I turned up, mixed my prep (and my biases) with the PCs’ creativity (and their biases) and the game system (and its biases) and two different unique, marvellous, organic little stories emerged.


Don't mistake pedantic formal correctness for meaningful distinctions.

There’s been a lot of that on this thread.

[OldTrees1]

Your answers are more revealing than I thought.

To wit: every single one of you has an over-idealized opinion of how real improvisation works. To the point where you think you're talking about #1 when you're describing #2.

If true, then I suggest you clarify what you meant by #2 because it is really easy to do #1. Are you telling me you meant #2 is a function that accepts infinite inputs and has infinite distinct outputs? Or was that #1 and you are criticizing the replies for not listing out the infinite domain and range of the function?


Consider: human short-term memory is limited, to a handful of items. This alone should hint you that reality is closer to #2 than #1. Always.
Consider: A function does not store inputs nor outputs. The short-term memory of the GM is not a meaningful limitation on the improvisational style.

If you as a player give an input, I can mishear what you say and create several outputs based on what you might have said, and I can ask you to clarify what you said/meant. Then I can enact that output. I can do this for any possible input. The short term memory limit did not affect the output. Only the input and the function effected the output.

This alone should hint that reality is very close to #1.

Or maybe you are saying the players can only remember a small number of things, despite them having access to both short and long term memory. Maybe players are super predictable and stuck in there ways. Oh wait, I know plenty of players that can generate long lists of alternative inputs. They can frequently catch me by surprise. It is almost like Creativity is creative.



Consider also: all natural languages have rules and structure which direct flow of conversation in a predictable way. Everything you say in a natural language to a person who also speaks that language puts constraints on what counts as a logical reply. Statements and replies outside those bounds bring a discussion to halt.
And sometimes the list of logical replies are infinite.


It ought to be obvious this "improv" process is no different from non-improv planning process. What makes it improvisation, then, is not the type of decisions being made, but the moment when the decisions are being made and speed they're being made at. This brings us to this:

The number of living humans who can escape their own biases when making decisions on-the-spot, at speed, is close to zero. It's one of the stronger findings of modern psychology that virtually all humans are subject to a number of common biases and that merely knowing about being biased does nothing to remove those biases. In virtually all cases, circumventing a bias takes a lot of deliberate thought, at which point it no longer makes any damn sense to talk about improvisation.

The realistic expectation is that when a human begins improvising, their biases have stronger influence on the outcome, not weaker. Trying to make a value judgement out of this and labeling it "bad GMing" is pretty much besides the point. Everybody does this.

Great, so when I "improv" I am even more likely to enable player agency? I am even more likely to consider what the player is trying to have the PC do and what the verisimilitude outcome of that would be?

One of the benefits of improv is avoiding developing nearly as many expectations about the outcome. Rather than predicting the players actions, and then planning for those outcomes (thus biasing you towards one of the planned outcomes), the improv GM has a cleaner slate and thus is more open to unexpected inputs.



It's one reason I don't want heavy-weight non-combat (ie social/exploration) rules--those rules, just like the heavy-weight battle-maps required for online play, provide constraints that make me less willing to deviate from what I've planned. And less able to respond to out-of-the-box ideas. In part because the rules themselves provide boundaries and mark areas as off-limits. Rules are scaffolding (in the instructional-design sense). Which is good, sometimes. But not good in other places. Scaffolding where it's not needed impedes learning and growth and (in this context) fun, just like missing scaffolding where it is needed does. And what is needed/not-needed is an individual judgement.

Noted. That is good to know about.

[Frogreaver]

Your answers are more revealing than I thought.

To wit: every single one of you has an over-idealized opinion of how real improvisation works. To the point where you think you're talking about #1 when you're describing #2.

Let me ask you a question in response.


Let's say a DM presents the players with a scenario.
The players have their PC's do X (there are limitations such as already established fiction and genre logic on X but limitations don't make something finite. All Integers except 3 is still an infinite set after all)
The DM uses improv and has the NPC's respond by doing Y.


What restrictions do you view as sufficient to cause Y to be finite as opposed to infinite?


Consider: human short-term memory is limited, to a handful of items. This alone should hint you that reality is closer to #2 than #1. Always.

It's improv. Why would one need to memorize a bunch of stuff?


The function is real. The point I'm making is that the number of valid inputs per decision point are actually fairly small, both for the players and the game master, and the outputs further constrain the future inputs. This becomes apparent once you realize how limits of human cognition apply to the function. This is how an improv game where nobody is consciously railroading, nobody knows how the game will end and everyone feels like they have a lot of choice, can still have actually very little choice in it and be very predictable to an outside observer who knows enough of the relevant elements. Magic tricks and psychological manipulation exploit known versions of this, but it also happens naturally all the time.

That's more a function of how creative the players want to be.


It ought to be obvous this "improv" process is no different from non-improv planning process. What makes it improvisation, then, is not the type of decisions being made, but the moment when the decisions are being made and speed they're being made at. This brings us to this:

I think it's worthwhile to distinguish the 2 types of improv that goes on.

In a D&D sandbox style game there's fairly robust information about the world. The motivations of those in the world, etc. The DM can use that information to improvise answers to questions that arise that he hasn't yet prepared for. That's a form of improv and it's the one I think your criticism above most aptly applies to - that there's relative few legitimate input states and that each time the fiction gets updated there are fewer and fewer choices. I also see the parallels of this to your point directly above about there being little difference between improv here and deciding that detail before hand. I can clearly see that in relation to D&D.

However, in more story now/narrative games often very little is known about the world until gameplay occurs. That stuff gets found out in play by both the GM and the players. That is accomplished via a mechanical process involving both GM and player inputs that sets up the stakes for success and failure which allows those stakes to dictate just how much the fiction will get changed in favor or against the PC's depending on the outcome of the mechanic. The mechanics set up the abstract 'what' is going to happen. The GM and players ultimately fill in appropriate fictional details - and since it's accepted that the mechanics decided the plausibility of any such fictional updates then they don't have to rely on preestablished world facts to the same extent as more traditional games when determining plausibility and likelihood. This allows these kinds of games to twist and turn quite a bit more than more traditional games. Essentially they are much more free to branch away from the few logical paths because there is a process for introducing new fiction that is decided by mechanics and not a GM weighing plausibility and likelihood on his own based on already established world facts.

So when I say that D&D improv leads to more narrow choices - i'm closer to agreement with your concepts than you think. But, there's other games out there that handle this aspect with much more fictional freedom than typical D&D improv. My guess is that you've not ever experienced or discussed such games much before and so your biased by D&D colored glasses in discussing this in a general RPG context.

[HidesHisEyes]

However, in more story now/narrative games often very little is known about the world until gameplay occurs. That stuff gets found out in play by both the GM and the players. That is accomplished via a mechanical process involving both GM and player inputs that sets up the stakes for success and failure which allows those stakes to dictate just how much the fiction will get changed in favor or against the PC's depending on the outcome of the mechanic. The mechanics set up the abstract 'what' is going to happen. The GM and players ultimately fill in appropriate fictional details - and since it's accepted that the mechanics decided the plausibility of any such fictional updates then they don't have to rely on preestablished world facts to the same extent as more traditional games when determining plausibility and likelihood. This allows these kinds of games to twist and turn quite a bit more than more traditional games. Essentially they are much more free to branch away from the few logical paths because there is a process for introducing new fiction that is decided by mechanics and not a GM weighing plausibility and likelihood on his own based on already established world facts.


And as I mentioned, that kind of game will also often be more explicit about how they want the GM to weigh plausibility and likelihood, beyond making sure it agrees with established world facts. The mechanics are certainly involved in the process, but they also tell the GM what general principles to bear in mind - because they’re aiming to generate a particular kind of story, rather than simulate a reality. So the GM might be encouraged to think “what would happen now if this was a horror film” instead of “what would happen now if this was real.”

[kyoryu]

The function is real. The point I'm making is that the number of valid inputs per decision point are actually fairly small, both for the players and the game master, and the outputs further constrain the future inputs. This becomes apparent once you realize how limits of human cognition apply to the function. This is how an improv game where nobody is consciously railroading, nobody knows how the game will end and everyone feels like they have a lot of choice, can still have actually very little choice in it and be very predictable to an outside observer who knows enough of the relevant elements. Magic tricks and psychological manipulation exploit known versions of this, but it also happens naturally all the time.

Cool! This function provides a useful framework for discussion, then.

Yes, the number of inputs into the function are bound by the current state. Nobody would argue that - so I think requiring "infinite" is a bit of a strawman. I'd also point out that "bound" does not preclude "infinite" - the set of all real numbers between 1 and 2 is bound, but infinite.


It ought to be obvous this "improv" process is no different from non-improv planning process.

But it is. For one simple reason - in the improv process, the key input is "what the players do". Unless the GM is railroading (consciously or subconsciously), that is an unknown that enters into the function. Which means that the result of the function is unknown. Which means that the next function cannot be predicted well.

Since the entire game is an evolution of this state, with each new state being unpredictable (even if it has some bounds on it), then the complete state can drift further and further over time - the total number of possible end states increases dramatically and swiftly. While planning the details of the given encounter/scene, once it is known, don't differ much, the difference is that the non-improv GM plans the encounter, either by allowing only one or by allowing a choice from among a set limit of them.

With the improv GM, there is room for a decent amount of state to carry forward, as well, to inform future scenes. With the pre-planned GM, that state being carried forward is extremely limited.

To go back to the function, the actual state that can inform future iterations of the function (and we can effectively think of it as a curried function, so after scene 1 we can think of it as f-1 and f-2) is very limited, since the function has to be written in advance (aka the scene has to be written in advance). Since the author has no ability to know what that state will be, it can't be incorporated, by definition.


What makes it improvisation, then, is not the type of decisions being made, but the moment when the decisions are being made and speed they're being made at. This brings us to this:

No. What makes it different is the incorporation of information from the other humans at the table, and the fact that since the context of each scene is unknown, there is no prep to invalidate, and as such the possibility space of how the game state can evolve is, effectively, infinite (even if there are bounds). Some of these states may be more likely, of course.


The number of living humans who can escape their own biases when making decisions on-the-spot, at speed, is close to zero. It's one of the stronger findings of modern psychology that virtually all humans are subject to a number of common biases and that merely knowing about being biased does nothing to remove those biases. In virtually all cases, circumventing a bias takes a lot of deliberate thought, at which point it no longer makes any damn sense to talk about improvisation.

You're looking at this in a very binary way. If we look at our function again, we can think of it as a weight on the GMInformation and PlayerInformation values. The only way this becomes true is if the PlayerInformation weight is zero. Which would be bad GMing.

As I and others have pointed out, it's very possible for this to occur. Fortunately, there are ways to help prevent this during the planning phase, rather than the decision-making phase. The first one is not planning what the players will do. Not anticipating it, not figuring it out, not even designing solutions for the problems you give them. Limiting your planning and thoughts to what the GM should be planning (in this type of game) is critical. Plan for what your NPCs do, and their agendas. Even with that, there are tricks to not getting too attached to those - I plan my NPC agendas so that the agendas of multiple NPCs are mutually exclusive, and cannot both come to fruition. That way I know that at least one of them will have to be invalidated, even if the PCs do nothing.

It is entirely possible to minimize biases sufficiently that player input does have a significant impact on what happens, and that the final states of the game are effectively unknown.

Note: For a game with a premise, there's probably assumptions you can make about the final state. If there's an Evil Wizard enacting a plan, then the wizard will either succeed, or not. It's likely that the party will end up confronting the wizard. This is probably a safe bet. But it's not the only thing that could happen - they could join the Wizard. They could subvert his plans and get his organization to turn against him. They could somehow get him to turn from his plans. A head-to-head fight is probably the most likely one, but it's not the only one. But beyond this, the path to that final confrontation should be extremely unpredictable, the circumstances of it should be unpredictable, and the rest of the state of the world should be extremely unpredictable. "Either the wizard wins, or we stop him somehow" is baked into the premise as described, but that's only like one data point.


The realistic expectation is that when a human begins improvising, their biases have stronger influence on the outcome, not weaker. Trying to make a value judgement out of this and labeling it "bad GMing" is pretty much besides the point. Everybody does this.

Biases exist. They are not "bad GMing", nor did I claim there was. Strawman.

What is bad GMing is reducing the weight of player input to zero. And that is fairly easy to avoid, at least for most people.

[Quertus]

Some GMs have very limited ideas of what is "realistic" or possible and so will gently nudge people back onto the "realistic" path (aka what they thought made sense).

Some GMs are very good about accepting player input and making it work and viable.

I strongly believe that the former GMs are truly believing that they're not railroading, but for all practical purposes they are.

Fortunately, it's a skill that can be taught. The primary lesson is one that some people have a hard time with, though, and that boils down to "the opinions of other people are just as valid as yours. Their ideas are just as valid. Them having a different view doesn't mean it's wrong."

As a GM, I presume that (so long as it seems like we're playing in good faith) any player-given idea is reasonable, unless there is a hard fact stopping it. The very fact that the player is proposing it to me indicates that they think it's reasonable, and so in good faith I should not reject it, but look for a way that it could be reasonable (unless, as I said, there's some kind of hidden information that they're not aware of).

I've played with GMs that do the same.

Is it though?

"No, in D&D, you don't get a bonus to hit (or automatically hit, or automatically kill) your target just because you described your attack cleaving your foe in twain." "No, your 1st level Wizard cannot spontaneously develop 9th level casting." "No, you cannot use a mirror/prism to have your single-target spell affect the whole city." "No, you cannot advance to gumdrop mountain just because you have a gumdrop in your pocket." "No, the Queen can't mount the Knight, and suddenly move as either, let alone take two turns at once."

Is it really railroading to insist on playing by the rules?


It's easier to write given a prompt than just starting from a blank page. I find improv in GMing to be similar - the players choosing a thing to do makes it easier to generate content than if I tried to generate content ahead of time. So I find it much more realistic that a GM could find it easier to actually react and create in response to a prompt than to have things already entirely in mind, and I find the view that 'no, people couldn't possibly run games that way' perplexing.

That doesn't mean every input will have a unique output or that everything about the output can be controlled by the input.

Imagine two superheroes.

One is Rand M., a blank slate, defined by the "questions" the game "asks".

The other is Bruce Wayne, parents murdered in front of him, scary experience with bats, refuses to use guns as that's how his parents died.

I'll assume you believe me that Bruce starts with more depth than Rand.

Do you believe me when i say that I've never seen Rand end up with as much depth as Bruce started with?

Do you believe it likely, or even possible, that Rand will end the game with as much depth as Bruce ends the game with?

Do you believe that the base "I construct" (some random GM builds) already knowing how who plans on infiltrating it will be as realistic (versimilitudinal) as one created ahead of time, with no knowledge of who was doing what how? Which base is more likely to include water coolers unrelated to the plan?

I'm… really not sure how you'll answer these questions.

I can say that my personal experience is that humans do have finite "registers", and will often quickly fill those with what's "currently in focus", and simply not swap them out when examining problems (ie, building content) extemporaneously.

I think that this is where @oldtrees1 and I diverge, that I consider heavily planned personalities… that are "just roleplayed"… to fall under "planned" rather than "extemporaneous". And the same for well-planned bases etc - if it has to *react*, but its capabilities are already statted out, I find that a different beast than creating functionality on the fly.


It's a function - NewWorldState = f(OldWorldState, PlayerInput, GMInput, Random)

Although I very much agree with this in principle, I think that there's a little… Hmmm… "magic" going on behind the scenes.

One, I don't think "GM input" and "player input" are usually in the same format / of the same type. That is, usually, player input isn't of the form, "I really want to railroad this encounter such that the princess marries me".

Second, all the processing is taking place in the GM's mind, which… well, seems like you're well aware of the biases that produces, actually.

But, yeah, despite the fact that I agree, it still feels like this simple statement hides some… subtle traps.


The number of living humans who can escape their own biases when making decisions on-the-spot, at speed, is close to zero. It's one of the stronger findings of modern psychology that virtually all humans are subject to a number of common biases and that merely knowing about being biased does nothing to remove those biases. In virtually all cases, circumventing a bias takes a lot of deliberate thought, at which point it no longer makes any damn sense to talk about improvisation.

The realistic expectation is that when a human begins improvising, their biases have stronger influence on the outcome, not weaker. Trying to make a value judgement out of this and labeling it "bad GMing" is pretty much besides the point. Everybody does this.

Got an easy to read version of the research you're talking about?


there are ways to help prevent this during the planning phase, rather than the decision-making phase. The first one is not planning what the players will do. Not anticipating it, not figuring it out, not even designing solutions for the problems you give them. Limiting your planning and thoughts to what the GM should be planning (in this type of game) is critical. Plan for what your NPCs do, and their agendas. Even with that, there are tricks to not getting too attached to those - I plan my NPC agendas so that the agendas of multiple NPCs are mutually exclusive, and cannot both come to fruition. That way I know that at least one of them will have to be invalidated, even if the PCs do nothing.

It is entirely possible to minimize biases sufficiently that player input does have a significant impact on what happens, and that the final states of the game are effectively unknown.

Note: For a game with a premise, there's probably assumptions you can make about the final state. If there's an Evil Wizard enacting a plan, then the wizard will either succeed, or not. It's likely that the party will end up confronting the wizard. This is probably a safe bet. But it's not the only thing that could happen - they could join the Wizard. They could subvert his plans and get his organization to turn against him. They could somehow get him to turn from his plans. A head-to-head fight is probably the most likely one, but it's not the only one. But beyond this, the path to that final confrontation should be extremely unpredictable, the circumstances of it should be unpredictable, and the rest of the state of the world should be extremely unpredictable. "Either the wizard wins, or we stop him somehow" is baked into the premise as described, but that's only like one data point.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this. This feels like it could make the flip side bad of "… I didn't give it stats, because I didn't anticipate the possibility that you might interact with it".

I guess it depends on the GM, whether there even exists an amount of anticipation that lets them set up the board, without forming rails in their mind. Those who cannot… are the kind of bad GMs my gaming history has been plagued with. :smallfrown:

[NichG]

Imagine two superheroes.

One is Rand M., a blank slate, defined by the "questions" the game "asks".

The other is Bruce Wayne, parents murdered in front of him, scary experience with bats, refuses to use guns as that's how his parents died.

I'll assume you believe me that Bruce starts with more depth than Rand.

Do you believe me when i say that I've never seen Rand end up with as much depth as Bruce started with?

Do you believe it likely, or even possible, that Rand will end the game with as much depth as Bruce ends the game with?

Do you believe that the base "I construct" (some random GM builds) already knowing how who plans on infiltrating it will be as realistic (versimilitudinal) as one created ahead of time, with no knowledge of who was doing what how? Which base is more likely to include water coolers unrelated to the plan?

I'm… really not sure how you'll answer these questions.


I think that 'depth' is a non-sequitur here It's much easier to improv than to plan. That doesn't mean that all aspects of the output will be strictly superior in every way when improvising versus planning. Rather, both will allow you to do some things you can only do with that competency.

If you are unable to improvise as a GM, it means you won't be able to address situations which call for high degrees of conceptual flexibility or truly vast combinatorial information spaces without sacrificing the smoothness of the game. A player decides mid-campaign that actually the people who will be hurt by the evil overlord on the rise are all people they don't like anyhow, so they make a peace treaty and open up a restaurant chain serving isekai snacks. A player decides to dig into exactly how the logistics of food distribution work in the fantasy economy and wants to reform the farming system as a more effective means of ending a threat than a group of 4 people hitting it with swords. A player intentionally casts Teleport hundreds of times targeting a vaguely specified location like 'the place where mortals can rise to godhood', hoping for the teleportation error category of 'similar location'. A player decides to really dig into the politics of a monarchy down to the level of the burghers and knights in charge of minor holdings in order to organize a faction to suppress the political power of the king.

Planning for such things is extremely inefficient because of the vast branching factor involved in decisions that could be made. You would have to plan out the family trees of thousands of people in case someone might want to look for blackmail material. Or have lists of food cultures and minor businesses for every town and city, and enough factors to make there be a series of meaningful choices revolving around the restaurant and food supply business. So being able to improvise gives you the ability to continue to run in those cases, even though you could not have had a plan. Lacking that competency means you have fewer options in that case.

If you can't plan, it's going to be hard to run murder mysteries or things with very tight logical exclusions. It's not necessarily difficult to run things where discovery happens over a long period of time - that requires less in the way of detailed planning and more in the way of high levels of abstraction about the relationships between things.

But as to your specific questions, I'd say whether Rand or Bruce ends up having more 'depth' is going to depend far more on the player than the length of backstory. If you've got a player who is very efficient about concept, one sentence will do more than three pages from someone who was putting details because they felt they were things that had to be there because people have them. Both players need a mechanism to decide what to put down, but the one who is efficient with concept knows how they would derive the details from the idea anyhow and knows that they will have the ability to do that if they need to do so.

[icefractal]

Planning for such things is extremely inefficient because of the vast branching factor involved in decisions that could be made. You would have to plan out the family trees of thousands of people in case someone might want to look for blackmail material. Or have lists of food cultures and minor businesses for every town and city, and enough factors to make there be a series of meaningful choices revolving around the restaurant and food supply business. So being able to improvise gives you the ability to continue to run in those cases, even though you could not have had a plan. Lacking that competency means you have fewer options in that case.Depends on how far in advance you plan and how much happens in a single session, dunnit? I still consider it "planning" when you're creating material in advance for the next 1-2 sessions based on what happened in the last session.

So at worst, planning instead of pure improv means that you might have one significantly short session - if the players have really bad timing by making a huge unannounced change of plans near the start of a session, and yes, that is on them. Doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.

Admittedly, if your group expects to change the premise of the campaign several times during a single session and have things keep running ahead full-steam, you probably should go full improv. I've not been in a group like that, and IDK I'd even enjoy it as much.

[NichG]

Depends on how far in advance you plan and how much happens in a single session, dunnit? I still consider it "planning" when you're creating material in advance for the next 1-2 sessions based on what happened in the last session.

Sure, there's absolutely a continuum for all of these things. Someone might plan a week in advance, or a day, or an hour, or 10 minutes, or 30 seconds. Getting better at improvisation effectively means pushing those times down, being more efficient about what you have to figure out and when. It's a skill, and GMs who can do it well have more options as to what and how they run the game, and their players can have more options as to what things and decisions they could make which wouldn't create problems for the rest of the table.

I've been in a campaign where the players could spend 1000xp to create a portal to non-existent places described by a few sentences. Same campaign, we could spend XP to explore a combinatorial system or do lots of other in-character research and development, and the GM would extend the system on the spot as needed for whatever we combined or tried. Many of the sessions had the structure of an initial period of downtime/book-keeping stuff doing combinatorial exploration, then someone made a portal, we ordered food, and 30 minutes later after eating we'd go through the portal and the GM had come up with whatever was going on in that world. The particular GM was good enough at improv to do that and at a high level of quality. I've had other GMs who could hit that quality but only roughly within the confines of a linear plot they'd planned out before the campaign began. I've had other GMs who probably couldn't have hit that level of quality whether they were doing improv or planning in advance.

[HidesHisEyes]

Imagine two superheroes.

One is Rand M., a blank slate, defined by the "questions" the game "asks".

The other is Bruce Wayne, parents murdered in front of him, scary experience with bats, refuses to use guns as that's how his parents died.

I'll assume you believe me that Bruce starts with more depth than Rand.

Do you believe me when i say that I've never seen Rand end up with as much depth as Bruce started with?

Do you believe it likely, or even possible, that Rand will end the game with as much depth as Bruce ends the game with?

I have found that blank slate characters end up with far more depth than I would have expected back before I got interested in them. Might be more depth than you would expect too, even though I think you’re ultimately right about at least the last statement above.

But more importantly, character depth is simply less valuable to me than organic, emergent, unexpected growth. I’ve never played in an RPG campaign with a story and characters that could rival even a pretty good film or novel, to be honest. I can think of one example of an actual play YouTube series that did. But on the whole, character depth and actual quality of the story is not the point of RPGs, for me. The point is that the story and characters unfold on their own, as if by magic, while we sit around playing a fun game. It’s the only medium I know of that can offer this. For this reason, the less I know about my character at the beginning, the better (broadly speaking).

As usual, that’s a descriptive statement about my preferences, not a normative one about how anyone else should approach things!





I guess it depends on the GM, whether there even exists an amount of anticipation that lets them set up the board, without forming rails in their mind. Those who cannot… are the kind of bad GMs my gaming history has been plagued with. :smallfrown:

The GM and the game system. You were talking about giving NPCs stats in case the PCs interact with them. There are games where giving them stats means giving them three traits and assigning a number from 1 to 4 to each trait. There are games where NPCs don’t have stats at all. Some systems make the creation of the “base” WAAAAY easier than others, sometimes to the point where large parts of what we might think of as the base become things that can be improvised at the table.

[MoiMagnus]

Imagine two superheroes.

One is Rand M., a blank slate, defined by the "questions" the game "asks".

The other is Bruce Wayne, parents murdered in front of him, scary experience with bats, refuses to use guns as that's how his parents died.

I'll assume you believe me that Bruce starts with more depth than Rand.

Do you believe me when i say that I've never seen Rand end up with as much depth as Bruce started with?

Do you believe it likely, or even possible, that Rand will end the game with as much depth as Bruce ends the game with?

(Joining the conversation to answer this)

The answer will be "no, Rand will have less depth than Bruce" as long as you don't control for player bias: Rand has significantly more chances to be created by a player that doesn't care about character depth as much as as the player creating Bruce.

However, given "similar players" in both situations, I'm far less inclined to give a categorical answer. [Situation where this would happen is a player leaving the table, and the rather bland character being now played by a new player joining the table, which I've seen happen. Another probably more common situation is a player having significant personal growth during the campaign, and revisiting his/her bland character to have more depth].

The main "advantage" Rand has is that he is still a blank slate after the universe and the remaining of the team have been quite developed and well known from his player, meaning it is easier to establish interesting character dynamics with the remaining of the team and existing NPCs, compared to a character whose backstory was written before session 0.

While I wouldn't say I've seen a Rand reach "more" depth than a Bruce, I would definitely say I've seen a Rand reach "similar" depth than a Bruce. It just required the Rand's player to do similar level of work as the Bruce's player, except this work was done along the campaign rather than at character creation.

Admittedly, Bruce here having a single line of backstory, there is still way enough blank slate remaining to use this "advantage" too. In particular, everything between this childhood trauma and the beginning of the campaign is fully blank and ready to be filled as needed. I'd definitely advise players to make a Bruce rather than a Rand.

[HidesHisEyes]

(Joining the conversation to answer this)

The answer will be "no, Rand will have less depth than Bruce" as long as you don't control for player bias: Rand has significantly more chances to be created by a player that doesn't care about character depth as much as as the player creating Bruce.


I think there are other factors at play too. If you start with a blank slate, or a mostly blank slate, and then the GM sends you on an adventure that doesn’t offer opportunities for you to explore your character then you’re probably going to remain a mostly blank slate. Similar if the other PCs have nothing that ties their character to yours and no opportunity to create something that does. This is why I like doing character creation in session 0 and figuring out the campaign premise at the same time. Everyone starts with something pretty minimal, but what they do have has been created collaboratively with the potential for interaction and emergent development in mind.

The opposite of this - where the GM plans the campaign and each player builds their character complete with three-page backstory in complete isolation before anyone comes to the table, and then you spend all your time trying to awkwardly jam the disparate elements together - is pretty much my worst nightmare.

[Quertus]

Planning for such things is extremely inefficient because of the vast branching factor involved in decisions that could be made.

So I asked the wrong question. Rats.

This bit, though, confuses me.

So, your list preceding that statement? I was actually getting super psyched reading it, imagining players doing such on my worlds. Part of the reason I was so psyched was that I had done enough planning on said worlds that handling such was feasible.

Not enough planning specifically for that, but enough general planning that such did not sound like an arduous undertaking, like it would be were I starting from scratch, having never considered anything even remotely related before

Does this response make my thought process alien to your experience?


I have found that blank slate characters end up with far more depth than I would have expected back before I got interested in them. Might be more depth than you would expect too, even though I think you’re ultimately right about at least the last statement above.

But more importantly, character depth is simply less valuable to me than organic, emergent, unexpected growth. I’ve never played in an RPG campaign with a story and characters that could rival even a pretty good film or novel, to be honest. I can think of one example of an actual play YouTube series that did. But on the whole, character depth and actual quality of the story is not the point of RPGs, for me. The point is that the story and characters unfold on their own, as if by magic, while we sit around playing a fun game. It’s the only medium I know of that can offer this. For this reason, the less I know about my character at the beginning, the better (broadly speaking).

As usual, that’s a descriptive statement about my preferences, not a normative one about how anyone else should approach things!




The GM and the game system. You were talking about giving NPCs stats in case the PCs interact with them. There are games where giving them stats means giving them three traits and assigning a number from 1 to 4 to each trait. There are games where NPCs don’t have stats at all. Some systems make the creation of the “base” WAAAAY easier than others, sometimes to the point where large parts of what we might think of as the base become things that can be improvised at the table.

Fair to say that my example poorly communicated that it was a very specific instance of a general fault. The idea being, "GM doesn't plan, paints themselves into a corner, cannot find a path to move forwards".

I agree with you that no RPG will likely ever be as worth my time "for the story" or "for the acting" as a good movie, or a good book. And I agree that the point is therefore different. However, I must disagree on something, like what that point is, as I find that the more I know about the character going in, the better the experience.

Hmmm… the less I know about the content, the adventure, beyond enough to ensure that my character is a good fit, the better. The less I know about the party, beyond enough to ensure that we're not "the Paladin the Assassin the Undead Hunter and his dear childhood friend the Undead Master" / Guardians of the Galaxy level dysfunctional, the better.

So… perhaps we both appreciate the unknown outcome, I just prefer mine to have a different source of unknowns than you?


The main "advantage" Rand has is that he is still a blank slate after the universe and the remaining of the team have been quite developed and well known from his player, meaning it is easier to establish interesting character dynamics with the remaining of the team and existing NPCs, compared to a character whose backstory was written before session 0.

I'm really confused by this bit.

IME - and, if the success of Avengers vs the failure of (the DC counterpart that must not be named and the universe weeps unending tears that it ever existed) teaches us anything - the opposite is true, that established characters are easier to create interesting interpersonal dynamics for.


I think there are other factors at play too. If you start with a blank slate, or a mostly blank slate, and then the GM sends you on an adventure that doesn’t offer opportunities for you to explore your character then you’re probably going to remain a mostly blank slate. Similar if the other PCs have nothing that ties their character to yours and no opportunity to create something that does. This is why I like doing character creation in session 0 and figuring out the campaign premise at the same time. Everyone starts with something pretty minimal, but what they do have has been created collaboratively with the potential for interaction and emergent development in mind.

The opposite of this - where the GM plans the campaign and each player builds their character complete with three-page backstory in complete isolation before anyone comes to the table, and then you spend all your time trying to awkwardly jam the disparate elements together - is pretty much my worst nightmare.

So… presumably, you weren't cloned in a lab and born yesterday. Presumably, you and I and everyone else on the Playground have been around for a good number of years, and have lives rich with, well, backstory.

We're (presumably) (most of us) meeting here for the first time.

Yet you chose to come here, to this, your worst nightmare.

(Alan Rickman's voice) "Was Wisconsin really that bad?"

So, I'm really, really curious how you feel about this kind of interaction between beings that presumably weren't crafted in tandem.

I see it as normal, as a "Tuesday" kinda thing, rather than as an unusual, "devil's night" / "end of the world" affair.

[NichG]

So I asked the wrong question. Rats.

This bit, though, confuses me.

So, your list preceding that statement? I was actually getting super psyched reading it, imagining players doing such on my worlds. Part of the reason I was so psyched was that I had done enough planning on said worlds that handling such was feasible.

Not enough planning specifically for that, but enough general planning that such did not sound like an arduous undertaking, like it would be were I starting from scratch, having never considered anything even remotely related before

Does this response make my thought process alien to your experience?


I think the difference may be between the idea of planning in the context of the specific world, versus increasing general understanding of things which could be applied to any world which would make things generally feasible. So e.g. you could prepare to run a restaurant game by figuring out the details of the food culture of your setting in advance, put in subsystems for ingredients and cooking, etc. Or you could generally keep an eye out for parcels of wisdom that help you understand how, in general, the food industry works, what sort of tensions exist in businesses, etc. You wouldn't plan out details for a particular world, you'd just become a person who would have an easier time writing those details if you needed to in the future.

[OldTrees1]

Is it though?

Is it really railroading to insist on playing by the rules?

I don't think that is what they were talking about.

What kyoryu was describing sounds more like a milder case of "some GMs" that can only imagine 1 valid solution. When the players come up with another valid solution, those GMs have trouble taking the time to honestly evaluate it rather than just reject it as something that obviously couldn't work.

You have been in other threads with this type of situation. Observers, and the players, could list many valid alternatives beyond the one the GM came up with. However for each of those the GM was unconvinced they were feasible without elaborating well enough to convince the observers. Some of those alternatives were obviously feasible.

GM: There is a wide swift river. Upstream there is a bridge
Player: What if we set our boat pointed at a 45 degree angle and use the river to push us across (and downstream)
GM: I don't think that would work





I think that this is where @oldtrees1 and I diverge, that I consider heavily planned personalities… that are "just roleplayed"… to fall under "planned" rather than "extemporaneous". And the same for well-planned bases etc - if it has to *react*, but its capabilities are already statted out, I find that a different beast than creating functionality on the fly.

I don't think we diverge here in how we categorize things. However I try to have the best of both worlds by developing the ability to ask "What would I have prepped if I had prepped this?" by letting my sandbox setting live in my mind in addition to my normal prep.

So if I have it statted out? Those capabilities/personalities are planned.
If it is not statted out, then I use a well trained and grounded improv skill to use what I would have prepared had I known the future. Improv is a different beast than using planned content. This technique reduces the difference for me, however they remain different.

However in either case, if the players do something, I can have the simulation react to that player choice rather than be limited to only a limited number of registers. I have my finite planned prep, and infinite improv to cover the infinite player options and the single timeline I live in. Apparently someone upstream was doubting the ability for improv to take the PC choice as input.

[HidesHisEyes]

Fair to say that my example poorly communicated that it was a very specific instance of a general fault. The idea being, "GM doesn't plan, paints themselves into a corner, cannot find a path to move forwards".

I agree with you that no RPG will likely ever be as worth my time "for the story" or "for the acting" as a good movie, or a good book. And I agree that the point is therefore different. However, I must disagree on something, like what that point is, as I find that the more I know about the character going in, the better the experience.

Hmmm… the less I know about the content, the adventure, beyond enough to ensure that my character is a good fit, the better. The less I know about the party, beyond enough to ensure that we're not "the Paladin the Assassin the Undead Hunter and his dear childhood friend the Undead Master" / Guardians of the Galaxy level dysfunctional, the better.

So… perhaps we both appreciate the unknown outcome, I just prefer mine to have a different source of unknowns than you?



Yeah it sounds like we just have different values here and there’s nothing really to argue about. Which is good because we had started having the same discussion in two different threads!

I will just add that, on the “GM painting themselves into a corner” issue, this is actually a big reason why I was drawn towards more improv-heavy games in the first place. I use to paint myself into corners all the time when I used to plan more. The players caught me off guard every session, and the more I planned the more of a problem it was when they caught me off guard. The way I run games now, what I used to think of as “catching me off guard” is actually just playing the game, and GMing style is suited to it.

But again, totally personal, just how it’s turned out for me.




So… presumably, you weren't cloned in a lab and born yesterday. Presumably, you and I and everyone else on the Playground have been around for a good number of years, and have lives rich with, well, backstory.

We're (presumably) (most of us) meeting here for the first time.

Yet you chose to come here, to this, your worst nightmare.

(Alan Rickman's voice) "Was Wisconsin really that bad?"

So, I'm really, really curious how you feel about this kind of interaction between beings that presumably weren't crafted in tandem.

I see it as normal, as a "Tuesday" kinda thing, rather than as an unusual, "devil's night" / "end of the world" affair.

Haha fair enough. I might have been… slightly hyperbolic. Let’s say “less than my favourite playstyle” rather than worst nightmare. But in any case it applies to TTRPGs specifically, not my general interactions.

[kyoryu]

Is it though?

"No, in D&D, you don't get a bonus to hit (or automatically hit, or automatically kill) your target just because you described your attack cleaving your foe in twain." "No, your 1st level Wizard cannot spontaneously develop 9th level casting." "No, you cannot use a mirror/prism to have your single-target spell affect the whole city." "No, you cannot advance to gumdrop mountain just because you have a gumdrop in your pocket." "No, the Queen can't mount the Knight, and suddenly move as either, let alone take two turns at once."

Is it really railroading to insist on playing by the rules?

That's a really weird reading of what I wrote, really.

I'm not suggesting you let people break the rules. I am suggesting that when they come up with a plan, or an action that's in a less-strictly-defined area, that you should err on the side of presuming it's valid.


Although I very much agree with this in principle, I think that there's a little… Hmmm… "magic" going on behind the scenes.

One, I don't think "GM input" and "player input" are usually in the same format / of the same type. That is, usually, player input isn't of the form, "I really want to railroad this encounter such that the princess marries me".

Second, all the processing is taking place in the GM's mind, which… well, seems like you're well aware of the biases that produces, actually.

But, yeah, despite the fact that I agree, it still feels like this simple statement hides some… subtle traps.

Of course it's going on in the GM's mind, and of course the players' input is of a different form.

This is a framework, really, for talking about this stuff.


I'm not sure I completely agree with this. This feels like it could make the flip side bad of "… I didn't give it stats, because I didn't anticipate the possibility that you might interact with it".

I guess it depends on the GM, whether there even exists an amount of anticipation that lets them set up the board, without forming rails in their mind. Those who cannot… are the kind of bad GMs my gaming history has been plagued with. :smallfrown:

The first is about presuming what the players do. This is about making sure that you don't railroad them. Mostly by not doing your planning as a set of things they'll do in the first place, with a healthy dose of making sure you build self-destruct mechanisms into your own plans.

It's really useful to prevent that kind of inadvertent railroading. If you set the situation up so that you don't know what will happen, because it's inherently contradictory, then you stay open to possibilities.

[Satinavian]

That's a really weird reading of what I wrote, really.

I'm not suggesting you let people break the rules. I am suggesting that when they come up with a plan, or an action that's in a less-strictly-defined area, that you should err on the side of presuming it's valid.
That is something i disagree with.

As someone who strifes for versimilitude above all else, i would demand that a GM always tries to judge the possibility of such action as fairly as he can. I also don't like the Pulp genre very much.

It is very good to be open to player ideas and many of quite surprising ones are both reasonable and beneficial and change the whole situation. But going outside of the rules area should usually not result in an increase in success chance, especially considering that whatever the PCs are good at is probably covered somewhere in the rules. That has always irked me about the attitude "if you have to roll, you failed" in certain oldschool discussions.

Now this obviosly works better, the better the ideas of players and GMs about reasonable actions align. In rules heavy games the rules can give guidelines, in rules light games, you basically have to be on the same page, which surprisingly still often works as many groups recruit/form from a shared social background.

[Frogreaver]

That is something i disagree with.

As someone who strifes for versimilitude above all else, i would demand that a GM always tries to judge the possibility of such action as fairly as he can. I also don't like the Pulp genre very much.

It is very good to be open to player ideas and many of quite surprising ones are both reasonable and beneficial and change the whole situation. But going outside of the rules area should usually not result in an increase in success chance, especially considering that whatever the PCs are good at is probably covered somewhere in the rules. That has always irked me about the attitude "if you have to roll, you failed" in certain oldschool discussions.

Now this obviosly works better, the better the ideas of players and GMs about reasonable actions align. In rules heavy games the rules can give guidelines, in rules light games, you basically have to be on the same page, which surprisingly still often works as many groups recruit/form from a shared social background.

IMO. Verisimilitude does not equal most plausible or most possible.

[kyoryu]

That is something i disagree with.

As someone who strifes for versimilitude above all else, i would demand that a GM always tries to judge the possibility of such action as fairly as he can. I also don't like the Pulp genre very much.

Yes. "Err on the side of." As in, look for a way that it might make sense if there is one. It's not an absolute.


It is very good to be open to player ideas and many of quite surprising ones are both reasonable and beneficial and change the whole situation. But going outside of the rules area should usually not result in an increase in success chance, especially considering that whatever the PCs are good at is probably covered somewhere in the rules. That has always irked me about the attitude "if you have to roll, you failed" in certain oldschool discussions.

I never said anything about going outside of the rules. If you need to get into the castle, sneaking your way in, bluffing your way, getting a job as a guard, getting someone to hire you that has access to go in, these are all viable plans that can be done within the rules. The point is to not unnecessarily shut them down - if a player comes up with one of them that wasn't what you thought was the "obvious" way of doing it, then at least one person thinks it's reasonable. It still may not be (this isn't an absolute), but you should start from a "okay, the table seems to think this makes sense, I should strongly consider letting it be viable".

[Tanarii]

The point is to not unnecessarily shut them down - if a player comes up with one of them that wasn't what you thought was the "obvious" way of doing it, then at least one person thinks it's reasonable. It still may not be (this isn't an absolute), but you should start from a "okay, the table seems to think this makes sense, I should strongly consider letting it be viable".Using player ideas / plans merely existing as a basis for reasonableness isn't the best of ideas. IMX they regularly come up with gonzo plans with no hope of success even within a world that has very little basis in ours.

It's kind of like movie companies accepting an idea from JJ Abrams or Michael Bay as reasonable instead of a guaranteed plot hole.

[Frogreaver]

Using player ideas / plans merely existing as a basis for reasonableness isn't the best of ideas. IMX they regularly come up with gonzo plans with no hope of success even within a world that has very little basis in ours.

It's kind of like movie companies accepting an idea from JJ Abrams or Michael Bay as reasonable instead of a guaranteed plot hole.

So there’s two ways of handling things when the fiction the player is imagining gets out of sync with the fiction the dm is imagining.

1. You shut down player ideas because they don’t correspond to the fiction and genre the dm is imagining.
2. You allow player ideas because you understand their basis for reasonableness is most likely due to not being aligned to the fiction and genre the dm is imagining.

[kyoryu]

Using player ideas / plans merely existing as a basis for reasonableness isn't the best of ideas. IMX they regularly come up with gonzo plans with no hope of success even within a world that has very little basis in ours.

It's kind of like movie companies accepting an idea from JJ Abrams or Michael Bay as reasonable instead of a guaranteed plot hole.

It's an indicator that they think it's reasonable.

If they're that far off base, it's probably best to correct that gap. And even with less reasonable plans, you can come up with variations that would be reasonable. The point, again, is not "assume player plans are 100% reasonable, all the time, and that their plans should be 100% successful and optimal". It's "start with the fact that somebody in good faith believes it's reasonable, and see if there's a way it can be reasonable."

If you've decided that only your ideas of what are reasonable can possibly work, then you run into a risk of really reducing the option for players to feel like they have freedom in the game. At some point they start trying to figure out what the "right" solution is, rather than engaging with the scenario.

[Tanarii]

It's an indicator that they think it's reasonable.
I disagree. It's just as often an indicator they want to try to pull off something even they consider wildly unreasonable if they stop and think about it for a second, once it is pointed out to them.

[kyoryu]

I disagree. It's just as often an indicator they want to try to pull off something even they consider wildly unreasonable if they stop and think about it for a second, once it is pointed out to them.

"Presuming good faith". "Err on the side of".

Nothing is absolute. There are plans that will be floated that don't make sense and aren't reasonable. I don't deny that. The point here is that you should err on the side of assuming they're reasonable, if there's any reasonableness there at all.

[Tanarii]

"Presuming good faith". "Err on the side of".
I take it on good faith they are proposing to do something they think sounds really cool and exciting. Often exactly because it totally breaks both the rules (meta and in-universe) of the game / genre / setting we're playing, and they haven't stopped to think for a second.

Most often in combat for an individual, since that's fast paced. But also when brainstorming as a team and tossing out ideas left and right.

[kyoryu]

tossing out ideas left and right.

Sure, in a brainstorming session, there are gonna be a lot of half-baked ideas.

[HidesHisEyes]

I honestly don’t think there’s a good substitute for the player and GM just all being on the same page about the expectations and all acting in good faith. Players and GM both should “hold on lightly” to their own ideas and seriously entertain the other’s. If you really come up against mismatched that cause actual tension, and this keeps happening and talking it out doesn’t work, then you might need to find other people to play with.

[icefractal]

I'm not a fan of the "crazy plans always work" style (for a short game it's fine, but for a longer game it starts feeling same-y), but I still think that since the GM is acting as the other players' only interface to the world, it's on them to proactively clear up miscommunication.

By which I mean - if a PC is doing something that seems nonsensical and counterproductive to their goals, it's likely a result of mismatched views of the scenario, and that's as much likely to be the GM's fault as the player's.

So **** like ...
Player: "Alright, I go up to the coffin and open it."
GM: (huh, he didn't say he's avoiding the maggot swarm? ok ...) "As you walk through the swarm of maggots in front of it, they attack! Take 12 damage and make two Fortitude saves."
Player: "What?! What swarm?"
GM: "The maggots I said were swarming on the ground."
Player: "I thought that was just a few maggots to indicate how disgusting the room was and that there were body parts strewn around, not like literally a swarm."
GM: "Well, now you've learned to be more careful."

That's not good GMing. It's sure as hell not "outsmarting the players", which I've seen it presented as. It's mumbling a riddle too quietly for people to hear fully, then acting smug when they can't solve it.

And the answer is extremely simple:
Player: "Alright, I go up to the coffin and open it."
GM: "Right through the swarm of maggots?"

[BRC]

I always see the "Coming up with plans" step as a collaboration between the Players and the GM, with the GM, as the arbiter of the ultimate reality in the game, serving as a sanity filter.


If the PC has a crazy plan, the GM should say 'Here are the reasons you can think of that it won't work"

If the PC has a DIFFICULT plan, the GM should say "Here's what you will need to do to have a decent chance of success", prompting the players to solve those issues.

[kyoryu]

I'm not a fan of the "crazy plans always work" style (for a short game it's fine, but for a longer game it starts feeling same-y),

Well, good, because I never suggested that.

What I did suggest is that plans that might not be what the GM thinks are the optimal path should be considered.


but I still think that since the GM is acting as the other players' only interface to the world, it's on them to proactively clear up miscommunication.

100%


By which I mean - if a PC is doing something that seems nonsensical and counterproductive to their goals, it's likely a result of mismatched views of the scenario, and that's as much likely to be the GM's fault as the player's.

100%. I've made posts to this exact point.



I always see the "Coming up with plans" step as a collaboration between the Players and the GM, with the GM, as the arbiter of the ultimate reality in the game, serving as a sanity filter.

Sure, I agree with that.


If the PC has a crazy plan, the GM should say 'Here are the reasons you can think of that it won't work"

If the PC has a DIFFICULT plan, the GM should say "Here's what you will need to do to have a decent chance of success", prompting the players to solve those issues.

I generally agree with this.

The only thing I'd add is that the GM should be very careful that their biases towards the solutions they thought of don't end up inadvertently stonewalling player plans.

[BRC]

I generally agree with this.

The only thing I'd add is that the GM should be very careful that their biases towards the solutions they thought of don't end up inadvertently stonewalling player plans.

This is why it's always important to provide reasons, it gives the GM a chance to check their biases.

This isn't GUARANTEED to stop the GM from inadvertently stonewalling good plans, but it helps.

There's also a factor that, since the GM is the ultimate arbiter of the game's reality, the game's reality is going to reflect the GM's biases.

For example, let's say the PC's want to get a Macguffin, guarded by an indeterminate number of guards.

One of the Player's suggests a diversion to draw guards away from the Macguffin.

The GM is biased against that solution, because in their mind, a loud Diversion is likely to just get the Guards to gather around the Macguffin.
Whether they went into the discussion thinking that, or if it just came to mind the moment the subject of a Diversion came up, the idea is there now.

And since the GM determines the ultimate reality, attempting a diversion is just going to get the guards to gather around the Macguffin. They've decided that is how Guards will respond. The line between "Stonewalling a PC plan" and "Rejecting a bad plan" is pretty thin. Most Railroading GM's don't think of themselves that way after all.

A key part of this process is aligning the GM and the Player's perceptions of reality before they can clash in serious ways.

[kyoryu]

This is why it's always important to provide reasons, it gives the GM a chance to check their biases.

This isn't GUARANTEED to stop the GM from inadvertently stonewalling good plans, but it helps.

Sure, as does my advice to presume that if the players are presenting a plan in good faith, that they, at least, believe it is reasonable. And thus the GM should at least give pause to whether or not it is reasonable.


There's also a factor that, since the GM is the ultimate arbiter of the game's reality, the game's reality is going to reflect the GM's biases.

Of course. And a good GM is aware of this and puts in safeguards.


For example, let's say the PC's want to get a Macguffin, guarded by an indeterminate number of guards.

One of the Player's suggests a diversion to draw guards away from the Macguffin.

The GM is biased against that solution, because in their mind, a loud Diversion is likely to just get the Guards to gather around the Macguffin.
Whether they went into the discussion thinking that, or if it just came to mind the moment the subject of a Diversion came up, the idea is there now.

Sure. And this is where the GM can get into the subconscious railroading (though I'd argue it's not necessarily "railroading" in a strict definition, but that's a huge digression).


And since the GM determines the ultimate reality, attempting a diversion is just going to get the guards to gather around the Macguffin.

And this is where my advice pops into play. This is where the GM goes "huh, well I thought it would make the guards rally around the MacGuffin... but the players seem to think it's reasonable it would cause them to look.... is that at all a reasonable thing to occur? Well, it's not what I thought of, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. Sure, let's go with that."

OTOH, the PCs say that they want to spontaneously turn into ghosts and melt through the walls? Nope, not gonna happen.


They've decided that is how Guards will respond. The line between "Stonewalling a PC plan" and "Rejecting a bad plan" is pretty thin. Most Railroading GM's don't think of themselves that way after all.

Right. And the point is being aware that you are biased towards your solutions, and so it's easy to accidentally/subconsciously "railroad". And the two tools I recommend to avoid that are:

1) Present problems, not solutions. Because if you don't have a solution in mind, it's hard to be biased towards it.
2) Presume any even semi-plausible plan can work. In this case, why not? Sure, the guards could guard the MacGuffin - but is that really the only plan they might have? If there's more than one thing worth guarding, it might make more sense to at least have some guards search for the noisemakers and go from there.

And that's where my advice really comes into play. Is your initial thought "no, they'll rally round the MacGuffin"? Maybe. Sure, why not. But is that the only response? Is the players' ideas of what might happen also at least somewhat plausible, even if it's not your initial instinct? It seems like it's at least semi-plausible, so why not go with it. Work out what the dangers are (how many guards are there, they're now on alert and you'll have to dodge them, etc.). That doesn't mean it's a perfect plan (some guards will almost certainly stay at high-value targets), but there's no real reason not to allow the plan to have a chance.

There's a third one, too, which is a bit tougher:

3) Remember that the opponents don't have perfect knowledge, and live day to day lives. In this case, access to the MacGuffin needs to make sense based on what the purpose and normal access patterns are, guards have varying response times, they have false alarms, they have multiple priorities and don't necessarily know that the PCs are going for the MacGuffin, etc. It's just super easy to come up with a plan to defeat the exact plan the PCs have - in reality, the opposition has to not only deal with an unknown number of potential types of threats against different targets, but they also have to deal with schedules, resource limitations, etc.


A key part of this process is aligning the GM and the Player's perceptions of reality before they can clash in serious ways.

100%. And a big part of that is on the GM, into being willing to accept player ideas. Since they have the authoritative view, it's super easy for them to reject everything. Open up to ideas from the players.

And again, that doesn't mean blindly accept everything. Sometimes things just won't make any sense. But err on the side of allowing player plans to be viable. And to be clear, "err on the side" just means "if it's not completely clear if it's viable, and you have to make a choice, be wrong in favor of the players." If it's completely clear that a plan won't work? Then it just won't work. But if there's a reasonable slice of maybe involved? Go for it!