Player-led games vs. GM-led games

[ComradeBear]

Improv was definitely part of the game then, and random tables can be an asset.
Don't dog them!
(please?)

Just to be clear, I personally have no problem with rolling on a table. They're great for Hexcrawl games and other games involving wandering in the wilderness.

I'm simply summarizing the common logical thread I have observed from Darth. Nothing more.

[Frozen_Feet]

To be honest, based on the thread title, I expected to see a discussion of something completely different than "what is a railroad?" or "what is a sandbox?" Hence, to me, the entire discussion is a sidetrack, and Darth Ultron and people replying to him are a particularly pointless sidetrack. We had this entire discussion many times over in the much more indicatively named "linear versus non-linear".

It is my opinion that where a game falls on linear-nonlinear -scale is completely orthogonal to whether a game is player- or GM-led, or even if the game is player- or GM-driven.

[Segev]

Now see this is what I just outright call a jerk DM. The jerk DM that writes a novel, has the players experience it, but they are little more then ''readers'' and nothing they do matters. But I would not just toss the ''jerk Dm'' under the wide umbrella of ''it's a railroad and all railroads are bad''.

(...)

The players want to go south to the ''Land of Shapesand'' and the DM says ''up ahead is a wide river and a wooden bridge across it. And the players, rightly so, think a monster might be guarding the bridge. The jerk player will immediately cry railroad as they feel ''forced'' to encounter the bridge monster. But any player with a brain cell of common sense will say ''well, it makes sense for a monster to guard a spot they know travelers will pass'', and of course it is. But in any RPG the players do have the ''fill in the blank'' of they can try to cross the river, or fly over it, or build their own bridge or whatever. The player ways might not succeed, and if the DM just ''has them all fail'' he is a jerk, but no normal (non-jerk) game forces the players to ''have the characters only take the bridge''.

See, just as you can have a "jerk DM" with or without it being a real railroad, you can have a "jerk player" with or without it being a real railroad.

Your "bridge encounter" is a railroad if nothing except crossing the bridge and fighting the bridge troll to the DM's desired conclusion (whether that's killing it or befriending it or taking its quest to go to the dragon's lair and get the macguffin that the DM wants the players to pick up before going to the Land of Shapesand) is possible.

If the players see the bridge and guess, "There's a troll guarding it," and they decide that they'd rather go a half-mile to the right and conjure their own bridge, or fly, or shoot arrows with ropes attached across upon which to swing...

...and the DM lets them try, with reasonable difficulties applied, then it isn't a railroad.

...but the DM makes it impossible, then it is a railroad.

To be honest, based on the thread title, I expected to see a discussion of something completely different than "what is a railroad?" or "what is a sandbox?" Hence, to me, the entire discussion is a sidetrack, and Darth Ultron and people replying to him are a particularly pointless sidetrack. We had this entire discussion many times over in the much more indicatively named "linear versus non-linear".

It is my opinion that where a game falls on linear-nonlinear -scale is completely orthogonal to whether a game is player- or GM-led, or even if the game is player- or GM-driven.

Fair enough, though I think it inevitable that you'll have some element of this.

I suppose you CAN have a player-led linear adventure. The degree to which that's really feasible is questionable, however, since the player-led aspect of a game is what the players choose to do. If a player proactively seeks a linear adventure, that's good, of course, for the adventure, but the adventure itself is perforce GM-led. The GM is the one who has the map of the line and who keeps unfolding it before the players. "Player-led" requires an inherent amount of sandboxyness in that player choices forge the path forward, which almost by definition makes the adventure non-linear. (The sole exception is when the players just happen to always pick the linear path as their path forward, without the DM having to lead them to it in any way. This is...rare...to say the least.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I was referencing the omniscient character, who (presumably) has a way to be omniscient.

Somewhere in the chain of posts I missed the "omniscient" part.

[Stealth Marmot]

I did my definition of railroading a while back and one of its main features is that one player (usually GM) forces the others along a particular path. Force being an important word here, if everyone follows a pre-determined path because they want to its not a railroad. It only a railroad if it has rails.

This reminds me of what I considered to be ingenious design in the game Skyrim.

As soon as you exit the cave after escaping Helgen, you can go anywhere you like. You aren't bound towards anything. The main quest points you towards Riverwood, and eventually towards Whiterun, but most people end up getting the Golden Claw as a sidequest and then going to Whiterun, and they NEVER feel forced to do so since they have the option of going ANYWHERE.

And some do. But the majority of them follow the main quest for a short while enough to make it so Dragons appear.

And it never feels like railroading.

[Segev]

I did my definition of railroading a while back and one of its main features is that one player (usually GM) forces the others along a particular path. Force being an important word here, if everyone follows a pre-determined path because they want to its not a railroad. It only a railroad if it has rails.

In general, I agree, though I tend to treat linear adventures as having "grades" of "railroadyness." Essentially, if you're soft-forced to follow the adventure because failure to do so leads to no game, it's at least on some level a railroad. It just can be one where you can ride any of the cars you like, and even pick which train to switch to at each station.

Also the Cosmic Butler sounds completely awesome.

Thanks! I sometimes like to think of him as the grand-nephew to Alfred, and confused as to why anybody thinks he holds a candle to the great-uncle he hopes to one day be like.

[Frozen_Feet]

I suppose you CAN have a player-led linear adventure. The degree to which that's really feasible is questionable, however, since the player-led aspect of a game is what the players choose to do.

1) Feasible in what manner? It is certainly possible for such a game to go on for long periods of time. Whether it's any fun is questionable.

2) Players can very well choose to play snakes-and-ladders.

If a player proactively seeks a linear adventure, that's good, of course, for the adventure, but the adventure itself is perforce GM-led. The GM is the one who has the map of the line and who keeps unfolding it before the players. "Player-led" requires an inherent amount of sandboxyness in that player choices forge the path forward, which almost by definition makes the adventure non-linear. (The sole exception is when the players just happen to always pick the linear path as their path forward, without the DM having to lead them to it in any way. This is...rare...to say the least.)

You are assuming a traditional tabletop game with a GM. As I've already noted, GM-less freeform games are common and what you here describe as "rare at least" is common as well.

You'd do better to approach this as a thought experiment and discard the role of a GM entirely. Imagine a small group of nominal equals trying to seek a consensus despite differing tastes. Each pair of exclusive tastes removes one possible line of events, and this can be severe enough that only one viable compromise exists. It can also lead to what is known as "consensus trap" - that is, a scenario where there would be a change that could improve the situation, which would not be disagreed by anybody, but it is never voiced because everyone is afraid of offending others.

That is how you get a linear adventure no-one likes in a player-led game. Bizarrely enough, I've seen a lot of people suggest consensus gaming as sort of golden standard for even traditional tabletop games, without acknowledging these issues. (Or worse: the most obvious method of impartially breaking consensus, random chance AKA rolling dice is decried as WrongBad.)

[kyoryu]

That is how you get a linear adventure no-one likes in a player-led game. Bizarrely enough, I've seen a lot of people suggest consensus gaming as sort of golden standard for even traditional tabletop games, without acknowledging these issues. (Or worse: the most obvious method of impartially breaking consensus, random chance AKA rolling dice is decried as WrongBad.)

Personally, I think the best idea to handle these issues is to get on the same page before the game starts.

Saying "let's play an RPG!" or "let's play D&D!" without further detail is like saying "let's see a movie!" or "let's eat food!" and committing to that without any thought as to what you will eat/see until that time.

Much like RPGs, while that might work for small groups that already know each others' preferences, it often results in chaos for people that aren't that intimate with each other. So work out which movie/food you're going to do in advance, and be willing to accept some people saying "hey, I'm going to bow out of this one, but call me next time!"

[Frozen_Feet]

@Kyoryu: you just suggested forming a consensus as a solution to escaping a consensus-based trap. Starting to box yourself in earlier does not lead to any better results than doing so later.

Also, all your examples of doing stuff without much discussion are perfectly doable - and enjoying them isn't about intimacy or any such thing. It's about not expecting Heaven from spontaneous decisions.

[Airk]

@Kyoryu: you just suggested forming a consensus as a solution to escaping a consensus-based trap. Starting to box yourself in earlier does not lead to any better results than doing so later.

Huh? No, he proposed forming a consensus to avoid later discovering that there was no consensus. Y'know, like planning.


Anyway, I think this is relevant and timely for this thread:

http://theangrygm.com/whos-driving-t...enture-anyway/

[Lacuna Caster]

@Kyoryu: you just suggested forming a consensus as a solution to escaping a consensus-based trap. Starting to box yourself in earlier does not lead to any better results than doing so later.

Maybe... but it can avoid the (distinct) no-concensus-is-viable trap, where the group eventually explodes over creative differences or has to begrudgingly put up with eachother.

In any case, I think Kyoryu is suggesting a concensus based on honest communication of initial preferences, rather than one based on saving face after sunk cost.

I do find your example of player-led railroading rather interesting, though.

[Frozen_Feet]

Huh? No, he proposed forming a consensus to avoid later discovering that there was no consensus. Y'know, like planning.

Sure... but it does not make sense as response to me, when what I've been doing is describe problems arising from overplanning.

Again: the consensus trap comes to being when everyone is avoiding actions when they think the consensus is against them, when there really is not. The trap is only gotten out of when it's realized there is no consensus, which will not happen untill someone acts in a manner to break it.

[Airk]

Again: the consensus trap comes to being when everyone is avoiding actions when they think the consensus is against them, when there really is not. The trap is only gotten out of when it's realized there is no consensus, which will not happen untill someone acts in a manner to break it.

How does coming to a clear, spoken consensus NOT help you avoid situations where people behave in a certain way because they erroneously think the consensus is against them? Wouldn't putting everything on the table make it clear to people what the consensus is and isn't and therefore avoid this "trap"? Your proposed solution is a solution of last resort, only to be used when you've already made a hash of things by not coming to a consensus in the first place.

Let's use a simple example - romance in a game.

In your hypothetical, there's no romance in the game because everyone is nervous that everyone else doesn't want it, until someone finally decides to go for it anyway, risking everyone going "WTF buddy?"
If you were following Kyoryu's advice, everyone would already know what the consensus was - or at the very least, understand that, hey, we talk about stuff that we do and don't want in the game - so either the problem is solved before you ever get to the problem, or at the very least, it gets solved by someone saying "Hey, are we okay with romance in this game?"

Kyoryu's solution is cleaner than yours.

[Max_Killjoy]

How does coming to a clear, spoken consensus NOT help you avoid situations where people behave in a certain way because they erroneously think the consensus is against them? Wouldn't putting everything on the table make it clear to people what the consensus is and isn't and therefore avoid this "trap"? Your proposed solution is a solution of last resort, only to be used when you've already made a hash of things by not coming to a consensus in the first place.

Let's use a simple example - romance in a game.

In your hypothetical, there's no romance in the game because everyone is nervous that everyone else doesn't want it, until someone finally decides to go for it anyway, risking everyone going "WTF buddy?"
If you were following Kyoryu's advice, everyone would already know what the consensus was - or at the very least, understand that, hey, we talk about stuff that we do and don't want in the game - so either the problem is solved before you ever get to the problem, or at the very least, it gets solved by someone saying "Hey, are we okay with romance in this game?"

Kyoryu's solution is cleaner than yours.

I think unstated expectations and unintended divergences in what players want from a game are the source of a lot of the discord we see in these threads.

[2D8HP]

I think unstated expectations and unintended divergences in what players want from a game are the source of a lot of the discord we see in these threads.

True, but since surprise is an element of the game (otherwise why dice and other players?), I don't see how you can have consensus for every possible potential quarrel.
And I've definitely seen "no evil PC's" requirements be effectively ignored by players with nominally "Neutral" and "good" characters, so while it may help some, and if it hurts, it would likely be just by making personal conflicts come sooner rather than later, the worst table top experiences I've had I simply didn't imagine that they could happen, so I wouldn't have thought to ask to ban them before they happened!

[Airk]

True, but since surprise is an element of the game (otherwise why dice and other players?), I don't see how you can have consensus for every possible potential quarrel.

No, but it sets the stage for people to discuss other things as they come up instead of just crossing their fingers and hoping for the best.

And I've definitely seen "no evil PC's" requirements be effectively ignored by players with nominally "Neutral" and "good" characters,

That is the fault of everyone at that table.

so while it may help some, and if it hurts, it would likely be just by making personal conflicts come sooner rather than later, the worst table top experiences I've had I simply didn't imagine that they could happen, so I wouldn't have thought to ask to ban them before they happened!

Well, you can learn from those, eh?

[Frozen_Feet]

How does coming to a clear, spoken consensus NOT help you avoid situations where people behave in a certain way because they erroneously think the consensus is against them?

The fallacy is in assuming that "before the game" is a special time when you can form a consensus without falling into the trap. It isn't.

Wouldn't putting everything on the table make it clear to people what the consensus is and isn't and therefore avoid this "trap"?

Be realistic. There is never enough time nor incentive to put everything on the table for a mere tabletop game.

Your proposed solution is a solution of last resort, only to be used when you've already made a hash of things by not coming to a consensus in the first place.

That's both a contradiction to what you've said and a good way to fall into the trap.

Think of what you're saying. You're saying "put everything to the table first" and then you say "but attempting anything that's violating an assumed consensus should only be done as a last resort".

To use your own example: suppose player A is new to the hobby. They won't think to ask "can we have romance?", because they don't know what's supposed to happen in RPGs, period. Player B was told by unrelated person C, who isn't even present, that RPGs are not for romance. Player D would like to have romance, but fears to suggest it because A is of different gender and they think it would be creepy.

There. Before you've even had your desired first discussion, you have two players silencing themselves because they think making the suggestion would be against some wide-spread opinion, when in truth they are just projecting their preconceived notions on others. If only there was some way to break the ice - some endeavor where making a goof of yourself is acceptable, like a game of some sort....

Oh. Wait.

[Airk]

The fallacy is in assuming that "before the game" is a special time when you can form a consensus without falling into the trap. It isn't.

Simply put: I disagree.

Be realistic. There is never enough time nor incentive to put everything on the table for a mere tabletop game.

Oh there's plenty of time and incentive, because it actually takes very little time for any given item, and the incentive is obvious. It's just a question of figuring out what "everything" is. Obviously, you won't get everything, but in so doing, you've established a willingness to discuss which eliminates the roadblock when it comes up for other things.

Think of what you're saying. You're saying "put everything to the table first" and then you say "but attempting anything that's violating an assumed consensus should only be done as a last resort".

To use your own example: suppose player A is new to the hobby. They won't think to ask "can we have romance?", because they don't know what's supposed to happen in RPGs, period. Player B was told by unrelated person C, who isn't even present, that RPGs are not for romance. Player D would like to have romance, but fears to suggest it because A is of different gender and they think it would be creepy.

There. Before you've even had your desired first discussion, you have two players silencing themselves because they think making the suggestion would be against some wide-spread opinion, when in truth they are just projecting their preconceived notions on others. If only there was some way to break the ice - some endeavor where making a goof of yourself is acceptable, like a game of some sort....

Or, you know, someone asking the question "What would you guys like to see in this game? We're all adults here, so we can talk about things. We're not judging, we're just discussing so that we don't take the game somewhere people don't want to go, or not go somewhere people want to. For example..."

Approaching this topic like mature adults who are capable of having a conversation without being offended instead of middle schoolers who are trying to guess what everyone else wants helps a lot.

[kyoryu]

So the problem of people being afraid to bring things up out of fear that they'll be considered offensive is, I think, one primarily of table culture.

Even in that case, I think that pre-discussion helps. Honest talk about where peoples' boundaries are can help to create an atmosphere of trust, which can then empower people to try things - knowing that, if they cross a line, they'll be gently asked not to. Explicitly setting *that* expectation up front can help, as well.

This is, I think, a much bigger problem when putting together groups out of strangers than people that already know each other and have some idea of everyone's boundaries.

[Max_Killjoy]

No solution here is perfect.

But trying to discuss the nature of the game and shared or conflicting expectations, and at least getting the issues out of the table BEFORE you're seven sessions into the campaign... I just don't see how that can be useless or pointless.

[Stealth Marmot]

Or, you know, someone asking the question "What would you guys like to see in this game? We're all adults here, so we can talk about things. We're not judging, we're just discussing so that we don't take the game somewhere people don't want to go, or not go somewhere people want to. For example..."

A good follow up question is asking "Now everyone be honest, what sorts of things are you NOT comfortable with? Is there anything you would be uncomfortable hearing about or included in the game?"

If they don't say anything, bring up some lighter things like Romance, and sex, and eventually, bring up rape. Some players are uncomfortable even discussing the idea. Animal abuse, personal abuse, nasty language OOC or IC, certain words even (I roleplay in an MMO with a player who does not like the C word).

It's important to bring these up in a quick and serious manner, so that you don't end up causing real discomfort down the line. You should also ask what they are not comfortable DOING and what they are not comfortable SEEING or HEARING.

You might want to ask that question individually and then afterwards announce to everyone that certain things are off limits or discouraged. Don't point fingers as to who.

Romance is one of those things that players can probably live with seeing and hearing about, but not always comfortable DOING. Asking about it might change whether you have the NPC barmaid hit on the bard.

[Segev]

I would contend that a "GM-less free-form" that has a linear story railroading players along has those who are enforcing the story taking on the roll of GM. I don't mean that to try to redefine terms until I'm "right," either. I mean it by definition of the GM: they're setting the stage, they're defining the NPCs, they're structuring the encounters, and (since we're talking about this specific case) they're enforcing the rails.

A "GM-less" game is really just a game of people taking turns being the GM, with a lot more input from the "non-GM" players at various times and who the GM is changing possibly from scene to scene. Barring simply sitting and talking with no voluntary nor environmental action from the outside world, somebody is playing de facto GM at all times.

[kyoryu]

Interestingly enough, though I hadn't heard this term before, the Angry GM has an article using almost the same terminology.

http://theangrygm.com/whos-driving-t...enture-anyway/

He seems to divide things up based on who sets the next scene.... which is pretty much where I've landed as well. It's as clean of a definition as any I've found.

[oxybe]

True, but since surprise is an element of the game (otherwise why dice and other players?), I don't see how you can have consensus for every possible potential quarrel.
And I've definitely seen "no evil PC's" requirements be effectively ignored by players with nominally "Neutral" and "good" characters, so while it may help some, and if it hurts, it would likely be just by making personal conflicts come sooner rather than later, the worst table top experiences I've had I simply didn't imagine that they could happen, so I wouldn't have thought to ask to ban them before they happened!

You can't honestly believe there is no difference between surprise due to RNG and surprise due to misaligned expectations?

The first is simply dice being dice. In an event where randomness is applicable, a 95% chance of success is still a 5% chance of failure.

The second is signing up for D&D and getting D&D... IN SPAAAAAAAAAACE! While technically Spelljammer is D&D, it doesn't conform to the traditional (or at least stereotypical) idea of D&D, which is Tolkien with the serial numbers filed off. Or maybe you're one of the unlucky folks who randomly signs up for a local game and gets one of those off-the-wall corner cases Penny Arcade joked about during 5th ed's crowdsourcing. Those aren't really what comes to people's mind when they think "D&D"

The first (RNG being RNG) rarely affects the entirely of the campaign by itself, or at least shouldn't. The whole course of the campaign residing on the roll of a dice should only occur and be the culmination of many actions and rolls, some successful and some failed.

The second (actual setting vs implied/assumed setting), on the other hand, should be made clear so everyone at the table is sitting down to play the same game. I've heard it said "two people using the same system are not necessarily playing the same game" so making sure everyone is on the same page is a necessity for ease of play, IMO. It's why I always recommend, even for groups that are experienced, a "session 0" where you discuss stuff like:
-campaign introduction and the characters' place in it
-explaining themes explored, genre the game is set in
-character creation & defining a power level everyone is comfortable with
-discussion on houserules
-a more in-depth discussion of scheduling

or anything else that might be relevant and just bounce ideas and energy off each other.

As for "no evil PC's", that's because it says nothing on behaviour. It's about as restrictive as "no green t-shirts": you just put on a black t-shirt and you're good to go. You're not telling the player things he can't do, just "don't check these boxes".

The correct line is "No disruptive PCs, I want to run a game like LotR, so bring a character that wishes to actively work with the group towards their goals". This gives FAR more direction on what is actually expected from the player "no evils", as "evil" can be pretty vague and dependent on personal interpretations.

[2D8HP]

You can't honestly believe......

Good start!

the traditional (or at least stereotypical) idea of D&D, which is Tolkien with the serial numbers filed off.

Um...
I'd describe D&D as more "Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser in a mish-mash of Dying Earth and Middle Earth as done by Marvel Comics in issues of 'Sword of Sorcery' in 1973 (PM me if you want to see my previous posts/rants on the subject).

Or maybe you're one of the unlucky folks who randomly signs up for a local game and gets one of those off-the-wall corner cases Penny Arcade joked about during 5th ed's crowdsourcing.

Hilarious! The last 1e era D&D table I found (and walked out on) was a "Variant D&D game" (we didn't say "homebrew" back then).

[oxybe]

Good start!

You're welcome!

But that opener was in direct response to yours :

True, but since surprise is an element of the game (otherwise why dice and other players?), I don't see how you can have consensus for every possible potential quarrel.

This is full of hyperbole, so I see no reason to not give it the lack of respect it deserves. No one speaks in such absolutes like "every possible potential quarrel" or how because some randomness/chance exists in some areas of the game that any and all other aspects should bow to the altar of RNGesus.

And if someone does speak in those absolutes, I see no reason to begin conversation or discussion with them... I have better things to do and spend my energy on.

Um...
I'd describe D&D as more "Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser in a mish-mash of Dying Earth and Middle Earth as done by Marvel Comics in issues of 'Sword of Sorcery' in 1973 (PM me if you want to see my previous posts/rants on the subject).

Not really interested in reading rants, but what one believes or feels isn't really what the general public thinks, ie: the stereotypical / traditional idea of D&D basically an off-brand tolkien.

My personal ideal of D&D is probably closer to classical greek myth in scope with a dash of European, Roman, Mesopotamian, Asian (of the east & central variety), Aztec and North American mythologies and religions for taste, built around playing a fast and loose (and rather liberal for interpretation) group version of Vogler's Hero's Journey.

But what I want from D&D, what you want from D&D is not what the general public thinks of D&D... which is effectively a bargin bin LotR: elves, dwarves, short people, orcs and goblins with some big baddie tossed in as a central focus.

That or something you'd see on the side of a van in the '70 (or a throwback to that style).

Hilarious! The last 1e era D&D table I found (and walked out on) was a "Variant D&D game" (we didn't say "homebrew" back then).

The last 1st ed game I played was a Halloween one-shot a former player of ours ran using the Unearthed Arcana like... 7 years ago? I miss that guy. We'd just hang out and chill on nights where the game was cancelled.

[kyoryu]

As for "no evil PC's", that's because it says nothing on behaviour. It's about as restrictive as "no green t-shirts": you just put on a black t-shirt and you're good to go. You're not telling the player things he can't do, just "don't check these boxes".

Well, first off, there's certain classes you literally can't play without "checking that box".

Secondly, your point seems to come down to "People will do what they want, even if they agree otherwise, unless there's mechanics stopping them."

I agree, that's true for some people. I don't play with those people.

[oxybe]

Well, first off, there's certain classes you literally can't play without "checking that box".

Secondly, your point seems to come down to "People will do what they want, even if they agree otherwise, unless there's mechanics stopping them."

I agree, that's true for some people. I don't play with those people.

My point is the exact opposite of that: my point is, be clear with what you expect from people instead of punishing someone a few sessions down the line because they failed to mind read you on a subject.

Since you seemed to have stopped reading after line, I make it pretty clear: If you don't want certain behaviours, you don't put a vague and quite frankly subjective mechanical restriction like "don't be evil" and expect it to stop some behaviours, you tell them: "No disruptive PCs, I want to run a game like LotR, so bring a character that wishes to actively work with the group towards their goals".

That's not a vague mechanical restriction put in place in a false hope to quell some unspoken actions, that's a clear definition of expected behaviour from the player.

[Lorsa]

Unless your game world is random and makes no sense, you have to have a railroad plot. If it's not linear, it's just a random mess.

Example: Eclipse Phase adventure (meant to be just a single multi-session adventure, not the start of a campaign)
GM: Myself
Players: Three friends from a city I used to live in.
Background: Following the setting guidelines, the characters are agents of Firewall. They have never worked together, some were new to Firewall altogether, whereas others were new to being Sentinels.

The game started off with the characters meeting another agent that has gathered them to send them on a mission. He tells them he got wind of a secret auction of various dangerous and X-risk rated goods that is going to take place on a scum-owned Mars cycler. Their job is to figure out when and where the auction is taking place, get an invitation, investigate the various items and take note of any ones that are specifically bad, find out who is selling and buying what and lastly to prevent X-risk items from falling into the wrong hands.

The characters didn't much seem to like their new contact, who seemed to be the guy in charge of them. They thought he was a bit of a punce, but acknowledged that he might have been puncing and decided to do the mission anyway.

Taking a short break from the story to do some analyzing; the mission clearly came from the GM. On the other hand, they made their characters as being members of Firewall, an organisation in which you are expected to get regular missions, so it wasn't like the players were forced to do this. Even in the game, the characters could have decided to screw this Firewall business, or their new boss, and go on a different path. They didn't, but they could have. Presenting an adventure, or a mission, is NOT railroading, and I'm fairly certain everyone would agree with this. From this moment, everything else that I had planned was a list of various types of individuals / factions that would attend the auction, a list of various items that would be sold, information on the scum mars cycler in general (such as names various shops, clubs, bars, brothels and the like) and 4-5 unrelated encounters / situations / adventures that could occur on the ship in any order (or not, depending on).

As the characters had very limited information, they decided to use their various reputation networks and contacts in order to gather some knowledge. I reminded them that if they wanted, they could do it while traveling towards the cycler, as the communication range from their shuttle was certainly long enough. One of them with a lot of anarchist rep got a bit of information on how the ship works, what rules (or lack of them) are in place, but also managed to get a name of a famous morph designer (the character herself was also into genehacking and morph design). Another character who was a smuggler with a lot of criminal contacts got a confirmation over the network that the auction was indeed taking place (even though his rep wasn't high enough to cash in a favor to know when and where). Tweaking his question somewhat to ask if anyone was doing any "special" type of smuggling job to scum ship anytime recently. I decided that this was likely so, and another smuggler responded by saying she was currently transporting three "hypercorp type" people and a large crate to the Mars cycler. Due to smuggler-client privileges, she wouldn't give off more details, but the characters figured out they could seek her out when they both got to the ship and use their physic character to extract more information.

Taking another analysis time-out; the players have already managed to advance "the plot", as they've acquired useful information and leads. This plot advancement was not prepared by me in advance, it evolved organically due to the players' actions (using their networks to gather intelligence) and logical outcomes based on the premise of the game world. It can thus impossibly be called a "railroad" as it lacks any pre-set rails. However, I fail to see how it can be defined as a "random mess". The only randomness involved was in the normal success/failure rolls of the gather information checks (the third player also tried to use his networks but failed his roll so didn't really get any information). It was hardly messy either, as the results obtained where clearly within the verisimilitude boundaries of the game.

When they arrive at the ship and move out from the docking part towards the commercial area, they encounter three individuals that claims to be "customs inspection" and say they want one of the character's morphs (the one with a very rare and pretty morph). This group is equivalent to the "troll guarding the bridge", and during their research they were told both that there weren't any customs inspection, and that new people often get jumped, robbed and morph-jacked. So this encounter was hardly a surprise to the players. The PCs cut the discussion short and opens fire all of a sudden, shoot down one of the robbers and then intimidates the other two to stop shooting. After some discussion and haggling, they allow the robbers to keep their shot friends' morph in return for a substantial amount of local reputation.

Analysis; this encounter was actually pre-planned from my part. However, the players were full aware that these sort of hings were common, and decided to take no precautions whatsoever. If they had use their networks to get into contact with someone that could come and meet them before they arrived for example, they could have avoided it. The players being players though, they actually hoped to be ambushed, since they figured they were bad-ass enough to survive and then rob the robbers. The outcome of them receiving rep was not something I planned for, it happened because the remaining robbers didn't want to loose their stuff and really didn't have anything else to offer.

Continuing with the game, the characters sought out the smuggler they'd been in contact with before. They bought her a ton of drinks, and once drunk enough not to notice, used physic powers to find out what the hypercorps people looked like, how big the crate was and if they knew what was in it. The computer-skilled player then proceeded to try and track them down through the open camera network. I told him that while there are cameras everywhere, they don't store feed locally. He then tried to follow the signals to the ship server and sort of "felt out the security level". I told him there was security, but not really good one. In fact, it was a bit surprisingly low, almost inviting. The player thus decided not to hack it and instead started looking for where the hypercorp guy was at the moment.

However, I had to figure out what would happen from the casual snooping about the ship systems, and decided that there was indeed an AGI informorph keeping track of security, that would immediately look into whoever was snooping about their systems. Since the PC was also an AGI, and on this ship they tend to band together, and since the characters had already gotten some local rep, the mesh security guy merely contacted the character, asked what he was doing, and offered to help. Later on, after the morph-designer character had gotten in touch with her contact, the security AGI ("Track") and the PC had some more conversation, during which the character revealed they were actually looking for some secret auction of rare and expensive goods. Track then told him that if anyone knew about this, it would probably be Feofil Smirnov.

More analysis of the latest development; at this point they both had managed to get help tracking someone they suspected were going to the auction, as well as gotten a name of someone on the ship that might be connected. They had thus advanced the plot in two ways. None of this was pre-determined by me. The characters made the decision to start looking for the hypercorp guy, and also to be honest with their reasons for being there. I did decide what would be the outcome of these actions, taking into account the set-up of the ship and the fact that they'd already managed to get reputation there (thus being on the in-list). So, it can hardly qualify as a railroad, since I had no idea the characters would choose this procedure, nor had I decided on some list that "if they do X it will lead to Y clue". Was it random? Again, apart from the skill check rolls, not really. It followed quite logically from how the world was set up. Did it make sense? Yes, clearly. The players felt it made lots of sense too. Does it qualify as a random mess? I don't think so, and my players don't think so.

I could go on, but unfortunately this has already taken me far too long to write, and I need to clean my apartment before my guests arrive. In conclusion though, plots can be advanced without railroading and still make sense.

Unless, of course, you use the term railroading to be synonymous with "GM makes a decision". In that case, you're alone in this, and you need to change your definition if you want to be able to communicate with others.

[Max_Killjoy]

Unless your game world is random and makes no sense, you have to have a railroad plot. If it's not linear, it's just a random mess.

That's a very... interesting false dichotomy.

It almost reads as if someone were attempting to redefine the terms so that when others call their approach to GMing "railroading", the badness has been defined right out of the term.