Player-led games vs. GM-led games

[2D8HP]

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

Not unlike my approach to GM'ing being re-defined as "narrativist" or "story based", when really it's just my not remembering the rules due to senility.





:

[Darth Ultron]

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.

Well, of course your seeing ''railroad'' as a bad word. And even more so you do the act of ''railroading'', but then don't call it that and say you don't do it. Railroading is not a bad word, any more then optimizing is for example, but it can be used by a jerk DM in a bad way or a jerk player in a bad way. You'd never say ''all optimizer are roll players that don't want to role play'', right? But you'd say ''all railroading is bad''.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I think it would be fun and helpful if you, Darth Ultron, were to describe to us, in at least some detail, how one of your plots goes.

[Darth Ultron]

I think it would be fun and helpful if you, Darth Ultron, were to describe to us, in at least some detail, how one of your plots goes.

So Back Ground:
The elf kingdom and orc kingdom are at war. The PC's start out as mercenaries, all of races other then elf, dwarf and orc, hired by the orcs, first as nameless arrow stoppers, but later as an 'a-team'. The PC are 'evil' on their character sheets, but they act '21st century good' anyway. Then an elven princess comes to them and asks for help as the elves are loosing the war. She offers a good bribe of a wish each and deal and the PC's agree to help. Her plan is to get the so far neutral dwarves involved in the war. She is not sure how to do that....

The Current Adventure Starts:
So they need a way to get the dwarves on the elf side. They come up with the plan of ''kidnap the dwarven princess'' (they almost ''kidnapped the elven princess'' when they first met and plan to turn her over to the orcs...but decided not to). They head back to the orcs and suggest they do the plan(not mentioning the elven princess part) and the orcs agree and support them. So they had over to dwarven lands. They offer their services to the dwarves as an 'a-team' and quick earn some fame..while still ''working'' for the orcs(and elves) and really playing the middle. It's a big juggling act full of politics, role playing, combat and warfare. They hope to attract the attention of the dwarf king and get invited to the royal hold.

Now
The Pc's have just found a kenku with a message from the elf king to the dwarf trade guild with a plan to end the war: have the elves surrender and accept orc rule...if they can get the dwarf king to step in and be ''peace keeper'' to make sure the orcs don't slaughter the elves. Note the elf king does not know about the princesses PC plot, it's unknown if she knows what the king is up too. The Pc's want the elves to win and are thinking about somehow getting this information to the dwarf king(they know the guild and king are not working together). The last game was avoiding and fighting trade guild thugs, elf assassins (from princess number two), orc thieves and recapturing that kenku that has escaped from them twice....

Plot
I know the full big plot (the war) and the medium plots(the politics) and as the Pc's are not demi gods they can't have any real effect on them. The small plots (the immediate ones in front of the Pcs) have a basic timeline and set events, with a couple ''what ifs'' if the Pcs attempt to change something. I have paragraphs about each NPC and lots of notes and pre made encounters. Mostly things just happen around and to the Pcs. The elven assassin encounter happened in the woods, as soon as the Pc's left town after the kenku(the first time he escaped). A jerk player would say ''the kenku escaped and ran right to the elven assassin encounter...railroad!'', for example. The sandboxy person would say ''Um the kenku went north towards the capital on the road and that is where the elves were hiding as it's the main road'' in the improve or react to players or whatever way they say. I simply say ''everything is railroaded as there is a complex plot'' and ''I want the game to be fun and interesting and active''.

Is that enough detail?

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, of course your seeing ''railroad'' as a bad word. And even more so you do the act of ''railroading'', but then don't call it that and say you don't do it. Railroading is not a bad word, any more then optimizing is for example, but it can be used by a jerk DM in a bad way or a jerk player in a bad way. You'd never say ''all optimizer are roll players that don't want to role play'', right? But you'd say ''all railroading is bad''.

Take the number of gamers who have ever played.

Subtract 1 for you.

Divide (number of gamers minus Darth Ultron) by (number of gamers).

The figure you get will be the percentage of gamers using "railroad" to mean "the DM shoves his pre-planned course of events down the players throats, and the players can only proceed by going along with that planned course of events".

"1" is the number of people who use "railroad" to mean "the game is not 100% random and unstructured, and has no prep work done at all, and everything is pure chaos".

[Segev]

It doesn't sound like you're running a railroad, Darth_Ultron, unless you told them "no, you cant kidnap the elf princess," rather than them deciding not to. If you could have run with it whatever choice they made, you are, by definition, not running a railroad.

Railroads constrain choices to the point that the players MUST follow the tracks.

[Cluedrew]

You'd never say ''all optimizer are roll players that don't want to role play'', right? But you'd say ''all railroading is bad''.

That's because of what me mean. When I say railroading I mean forcing the plot to progress in a certain way despite other players not wanting it to go that way. It is by definition a problem, so a similar word would be "problem", railroading is not like optimization where it can be good or bad, it is a problem.

No I am not talking about everyone agreeing to follow a particular path. I am not taking about the GM incentivising certain decisions or merely guiding the direction. I am not talking about planning ahead or compromising on the contents of the game or throwing obstacles in the paths of players.

I am talking about railroading, which is different from (although can include) all of those things.

That is what I mean, and it seems to be closer to what most people mean when they say railroading than "GM having any influence on the game".

[Darth Ultron]

It doesn't sound like you're running a railroad, Darth_Ultron, unless you told them "no, you cant kidnap the elf princess," rather than them deciding not to. If you could have run with it whatever choice they made, you are, by definition, not running a railroad.

Railroads constrain choices to the point that the players MUST follow the tracks.

As I have said, your talking about the Jerk DM Railroad. The same way the bad optimizers that just want to cheat and roll play are jerks. But in both cases not all railroading and optimization is bad, just because of a few jerks.

That's because of what me mean. When I say railroading I mean forcing the plot to progress in a certain way despite other players not wanting it to go that way. It is by definition a problem, so a similar word would be "problem", railroading is not like optimization where it can be good or bad, it is a problem.

This gets back to the core problem. You can't have a plot or ''linear adventure'' that makes sense and is not random without railroading. Worse, it's hard to have a good game without railroading....though it does depend on what you think is fun. If you just want to randomly roll dice for a couple hours, you can do that with no railroading.

Unless the characters in a game are demi gods, they generally can't ''stop or alter a plot'', assuming your game world makes common sense. So the plot will often ''not go the way the players want''. It's not to say the players can never change anything...they can in small limited ways. But that is kinda the whole point of the game is the players ''fighting'' along the plot and hoping to change it...just a bit. And if the players could really change things with a d20 roll the game would be pointless.

[Cluedrew]

This gets back to the core problem. You can't have a plot or ''linear adventure'' that makes sense and is not random without railroading.

All you have to do stop being railroading is to get player buy in. In other words if they want the "plot or linear adventure" then it is not a railroad.

If you just want to randomly roll dice for a couple hours, you can do that with no railroading.

Depends on what you mean by random. If you mean "not determined ahead of time like a movie script" then yes, randomly rolling dice for a dozen hours has produced some of the best games I have ever played.

And I'm starting to go piecemeal. Let me skip to the main point. When we (I'm not exactly sure how big 'we' is but you are the only person who I know doesn't fall into that group) say railroading we are referring to what you mean by bad railroading. But put the other way when you say railroading you mean railroading and an incredibly broad group of other things. And unless you have a very strong argument as to why we should change our internal definitions, you should probably keep that in mind. (Which is not to say it is one way, I have tried to understand your definitions.)

... Yeah that is my main point. That and the first point. I'll skip the other asides.

[Chauncymancer]

There was previously coined a term, Illusionism, such that Illusionism was the-thing-you-are-doing-when-you-railroad, and Railroading was the-thing-you-are-doing-in-Illusionism-but-the-players-don't-want-it-and-you're-doing-it-anyway.
(Fun fact: Railroading actually got its start as a RPG euphemism because Railroading used to be a more generally used term meaning "to force someone to do something without their consent".)

[oxybe]

Darth Ultron, what would you do in this situation:

You, the GM have just presented a potential quest hook to the party: Go in the neighbouring valley and rescue the captive princess before the dragon eats her during the full moon as part of a ceremony.

The players, after discussing, decide to decline that offer of employment. "Our characters don't really care much for the royalty and assaulting a dragon in it's lair is above our pay grade, quite honestly. There is taking acceptable and calculated risks and that dragon falls under neither conceits of acceptable risk or a calculated one" one of the players relays to you, the GM.

In character, they then respectfully decline the questgiver: their current skillset is not the one you should be looking for when it comes to hunting and killing a dragon and might further endanger the princess by giving the dragon an early warning.

Later, at their inn/cottage/lair/starbucks, they then begin discussing their next plans on what they would like to do: As the paladin is wanting to start looking for the materials and smith needed to get himself a suit of mythril fullplate, the barbarian gets it in his head now for a big adamantine greataxe. the wizard would like to increase the quality of his tools, and he's been thinking of getting a magical crystal ball for a while now, while the rogue would like to see if there's anyone in the area who can take the ironwood door they looted a while back (adventurers will be adventurers) and use it as material for a new crossbow.

So what would you do as gm: The party has declined your hook and are discussing among themselves what they are interested in doing (or at least look into the possibilities of doing) as a group... what do?

[2D8HP]

The players.....
......In character.....
........at their inn/cottage/lair/starbucks,

I've been using The Green Dragon Inn

Spoiler: A call to adventure!

Show

100 years ago the sorcerer Zenopus built a tower on the low hills overlooking Portown. The tower was close to the sea cliffs west of the town and, appropriately, next door to the graveyard.
Rumor has it that the magician made extensive cellars and tunnels underneath the tower. The town is located on the ruins of a much older city of doubtful history and Zenopus was said to excavate in his cellars in search of ancient treasures.

Fifty years ago, on a cold wintry night, the wizard's tower was suddenly engulfed in green flame. Several of his human servants escaped the holocaust, saying their rnaster had been destroyed by some powerful force he had unleashed in the depths of the tower.
Needless to say the tower stood vacant fora while afterthis, but then the neighbors and the night watchmen comploined that ghostly blue lights appeared in the windows at night, that ghastly screams could be heard emanating from the tower ot all hours, and goblin figures could be seen dancina on the tower roof in the moonlight. Finally the authorities had a catapult rolled through the streets of the town and the tower was battered to rubble. This stopped the hauntings but the townsfolk continue to shun the ruins. The entrance to the old dungeons can be easily located as a flight of broad stone steps leading down into darkness, but the few adventurous souls who hove descended into crypts below the ruin have either reported only empty stone corridors or have failed to return at all.
Other magic-users have moved into the town but the site of the old tower remains abandoned.
Whispered tales are told of fabulous treasure and unspeakable monsters in the underground passages below the hilltop, and the story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of the older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.
Portown is a small but busy city 'linking the caravan routes from the south to the merchscant ships that dare the pirate-infested waters of the Northern Sea. Humans and non-humans from all over the globe meet here.
At he Green Dragon Inn, the players of the game gather their characters for an assault on the fabulous passages beneath the ruined Wizard's tower.



None better for me, even after 38 years!

I think that after 38 years, it's time to give the tavern keeper a surname of "Starbuck".

Not a mood breaker at all!

[hifidelity2]

Darth Ultron, what would you do in this situation:

You, the GM have just presented a potential quest hook to the party: Go in the neighbouring valley and rescue the captive princess before the dragon eats her during the full moon as part of a ceremony.

The players, after discussing, decide to decline that offer of employment. "Our characters don't really care much for the royalty and assaulting a dragon in it's lair is above our pay grade, quite honestly. There is taking acceptable and calculated risks and that dragon falls under neither conceits of acceptable risk or a calculated one" one of the players relays to you, the GM.

In character, they then respectfully decline the questgiver: their current skillset is not the one you should be looking for when it comes to hunting and killing a dragon and might further endanger the princess by giving the dragon an early warning.

Later, at their inn/cottage/lair/starbucks, they then begin discussing their next plans on what they would like to do: As the paladin is wanting to start looking for the materials and smith needed to get himself a suit of mythril fullplate, the barbarian gets it in his head now for a big adamantine greataxe. the wizard would like to increase the quality of his tools, and he's been thinking of getting a magical crystal ball for a while now, while the rogue would like to see if there's anyone in the area who can take the ironwood door they looted a while back (adventurers will be adventurers) and use it as material for a new crossbow.

So what would you do as gm: The party has declined your hook and are discussing among themselves what they are interested in doing (or at least look into the possibilities of doing) as a group... what do?

For me I have no issues in the party turning down the hook

Of course

- After some investigation they find that the dragon has the biggest horde of the things they want. Naturally when they we asked to rescue said princess they were offered some help (Dragon slaying sword maybe). By turning down the quest they will make the task harder
- The ignore dragon quest but it has heard that they have been hired to kill it and so become a major pain for them as it turns up at just the wrong time. Of course I would allow them to put the record straight
- The king(dom) that wanted to hire them is now annoyed with them – enough to banish them, tax them, generally make their life more difficult
or
- Accept it and start writing plots for the items needed

[Stealth Marmot]

So what would you do as gm: The party has declined your hook and are discussing among themselves what they are interested in doing (or at least look into the possibilities of doing) as a group... what do?

This is definitely an awkward situation. Generally, a DM doesn't have a backup adventure planned, though some occasionally do.

If I were in such a situation, I would improvise the downtime the best I could for a while and then eventually simply confess that the Dragon's Lair was my only adventure hook I had planned, and if I didn't feel comfortable winging it just admit that I goofed up expecting their characters to go there.

I would then spend the rest of the time discussing with the players why they felt that their characters weren't the type capable of taking down the dragon, or I would point out how the request was to rescue the princess, not kill the dragon. After that, talk about what sorts of adventures they as players and as characters would expect.

There is a certain degree of trust between player and GM. There should be an understanding that the GM is going to throw a hook and the players should expect to run towards it. This might mean bending your character a little for the sake of story, but it is a GM's responsibility to make sure the hook would appeal to the characters given.

I would be a bit disappointed as a GM for players to outright dismiss an adventure and plot hook of course, and if the players rejected or ignored a main plot hook more than once, I would consider asking the players if they would be more interested in a different game since this one clearly wasn't working for them.

This boils down to player/GM communication

[Segev]

As I have said, your talking about the Jerk DM Railroad. The same way the bad optimizers that just want to cheat and roll play are jerks. But in both cases not all railroading and optimization is bad, just because of a few jerks.

Thing is, you don't get to re-define the term "railroad" to be broader than that. Railroads require rails. If your plot isn't on rails, then it isn't a railroad.

Here, Cluedrew put it well:

When we (I'm not exactly sure how big 'we' is but you are the only person who I know doesn't fall into that group) say railroading we are referring to what you mean by bad railroading. But put the other way when you say railroading you mean railroading and an incredibly broad group of other things. And unless you have a very strong argument as to why we should change our internal definitions, you should probably keep that in mind. (Which is not to say it is one way, I have tried to understand your definitions.)

So instead of constantly trying to argue that everybody who says "railroading is bad" is wrong and biased and mean and doesn't know what they're talking about (or are implied to be jerk players who just want to ruin your game), you would get a lot more mileage out of accepting the definition as it's used colloquially. (It happens to be correct, in this case, but even if you disagree about the "correct" definition of "railroading," you can at least agree to use the definition common to those with whom you're conversing.) So if you accept that, when people decry "railroading," they're talking about what you term "jerk DM railroading," you'll be on the same page and not feel like what you consider good gaming demonized.

Meanwhile, if you cease to call anything that isn't "railroading" "playing randomly," you'll get much less resistance, as well.

You are, essentially, saying that anybody who complains about spicy food wants wet cardboard and nothing else. Because any flavor at all a "jerk eater" will claim is "spicy." And then you go on to claim that, therefore, everybody actually likes spicy food because everybody likes food to taste better than wet cardboard, and everybody whining about spicy food is just a jerk trying to ruin your efforts to make a good meal. Never mind that "spicy," to most people, means "hot" in the sense that it has some capsasin-like burn to its flavor. (Whether actual capsasin is present or not.)

Unless the characters in a game are demi gods, they generally can't ''stop or alter a plot'', assuming your game world makes common sense. So the plot will often ''not go the way the players want''. It's not to say the players can never change anything...they can in small limited ways. But that is kinda the whole point of the game is the players ''fighting'' along the plot and hoping to change it...just a bit. And if the players could really change things with a d20 roll the game would be pointless.

So... If the conniving second son hires the PCs to assassinate his father and his older brother, the PCs can't change the plot from "evil second son rises to the throne" by their choice to...


...refuse the mission?
...accept the mission?
...accept the mission and rat out the second son instead of fulfilling it?
...refuse the mission and tell on the second son?
...killing the second son right then and there for his gall in asking a party that considers itself CG to do such a terrible thing?


Because each of those choices seems like it would lead to a different plot, to me.


The PCs don't need to be ungodly powerful to change the plot. They just need to be able to make meaningful choices that can alter what other NPCs' options are.

[2D8HP]

Railroad =
Being captured and enslaved and forced to fight in a gladiatorial arena.




Not Railroad/Awesome! =

A motivation of treasure!



I'd have to say that I would like to start the campaign In medias res, by the DM telling us something like:

Spoiler: set up from 77 years ago!

Show

“In the Year of the Behemoth, the Month of the Hedgehog, The Day of the Toad."

"Satisfied that they your near the goal of your quest, you think of how you had slit the interesting-looking vellum page from the ancient book on architecture that reposed in the library of the rapacious and overbearing Lord Rannarsh."

“It was a page of thick vellum, ancient and curiously greenish. Three edges were frayed and worn; the fourth showed a clean and recent cut. It was inscribed with the intricate hieroglyphs of Lankhmarian writing, done in the black ink of the squid. Reading":
"Let kings stack their treasure houses ceiling-high, and merchants burst their vaults with hoarded coin, and fools envy them. I have a treasure that outvalues theirs. A diamond as big as a man's skull. Twelve rubies each as big as the skull of a cat. Seventeen emeralds each as big as the skull of a mole. And certain rods of crystal and bars of orichalcum. Let Overlords swagger jewel-bedecked and queens load themselves with gems, and fools adore them. I have a treasure that will outlast theirs. A treasure house have I builded for it in the far southern forest, where the two hills hump double, like sleeping camels, a day's ride beyond the village of Soreev.

"A great treasure house with a high tower, fit for a king's dwelling—yet no king may dwell there. Immediately below the keystone of the chief dome my treasure lies hid, eternal as the glittering stars. It will outlast me and my name,"

Spoiler: set up from 39 years ago!

Show

100 years ago the sorcerer Zenopus built a tower on the low hills overlooking Portown. The tower was close to the sea cliffs west of the town and, appropriately, next door to the graveyard.
Rumor has it that the magician made extensive cellars and tunnels underneath the tower. The town is located on the ruins of a much older city of doubtful history and Zenopus was said to excavate in his cellars in search of ancient treasures.

Fifty years ago, on a cold wintry night, the wizard's tower was suddenly engulfed in green flame. Several of his human servants escaped the holocaust, saying their rnaster had been destroyed by some powerful force he had unleashed in the depths of the tower.
Needless to say the tower stood vacant fora while afterthis, but then the neighbors and the night watchmen comploined that ghostly blue lights appeared in the windows at night, that ghastly screams could be heard emanating from the tower ot all hours, and goblin figures could be seen dancina on the tower roof in the moonlight. Finally the authorities had a catapult rolled through the streets of the town and the tower was battered to rubble. This stopped the hauntings but the townsfolk continue to shun the ruins. The entrance to the old dungeons can be easily located as a flight of broad stone steps leading down into darkness, but the few adventurous souls who hove descended into crypts below the ruin have either reported only empty stone corridors or have failed to return at all.
Other magic-users have moved into the town but the site of the old tower remains abandoned.
Whispered tales are told of fabulous treasure and unspeakable monsters in the underground passages below the hilltop, and the story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of the older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.
Portown is a small but busy city 'linking the caravan routes from the south to the merchant ships that dare the pirate-infested waters of the Northern Sea. Humans and non-humans from all over the globe meet here.
At he Green Dragon Inn, the players of the game gather their characters for an assault on the fabulous passages beneath the ruined Wizard's tower.

See the difference is that in the arena example the DM has dropped the PC's into a situation that is lame with their having no choice in the matter, whereas in the treasure seeking examples, the DM has dropped the PC's into a situation that is AWESOME! so of course the players would choose it.

I believe I've settled that question



Your welcome.
"By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"

"When do we get there?"
"Real soon!"

"Demon Dogs!"

"What is best in life?

"This goes to eleven".

"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"

"A shrubbery!".

[Stealth Marmot]

It occurs to me that railroading is probably more acceptable with newer parties that have no direction as of yet.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It occurs to me that railroading is probably more acceptable with newer parties that have no direction as of yet.

I think this would teach them bad habits. Though a good thing to do is start the game in media res with an immediate problem/challenge that they HAVE to deal with before they can strike out in their own direction.

[FreddyNoNose]

I have never bought into the term "sandbox". It is just something people say but there isn't a clear definition AND there is a consensus on a definition. It is often used to shun/shame non-sandbox games. Oh, that game is themepark I only play sandbox as they are superior and let me choose anything I want without restriction.

[Segev]

I have never bought into the term "sandbox". It is just something people say but there isn't a clear definition AND there is a consensus on a definition. It is often used to shun/shame non-sandbox games. Oh, that game is themepark I only play sandbox as they are superior and let me choose anything I want without restriction.

While I can see it being used to "shame" non-sandbox games, in the sense that it is generally contrasted with "railroad" which is almost invariably thought to refer to the extreme (and negative) example of its type, I don't really see much difference between "theme park" and "sandbox."

All "sandbox" really means is that the game is set up so that the players' characters drive the plot of the game. Not necessarily the plot of the setting, but of the game. As opposed to the plot of the game driving them.

There is little wrong with the plot of a game driving the PCs. Linear and branching stories are neat and can be fun. The main reason sandboxes get so touted, I think, is to use the contrast with what is wrong with railroads to try to help people pull away from those flaws by incorporating aspects of the sandbox where they're helpful.

A branching (or even linear) plot can be made non-railroad by simply having the same kind of understanding of the motive forces behind that plot that are essential in a sandbox. So that, if players balk in some fashion at the path laid out, the GM can adapt.

An adapting linear plot might veer entirely away from the GM's plans, but the GM's response is to re-map a new path forward. A sandbox game would adapt by simply changing the current situation, with the GM planning far less "forward" and far more "peripheral."

In a sandbox, the GM is very prepared for the PCs to veer off in any direction, but hasn't got long-term plans necessarily laid out. His "wasted" preparation is in all the stuff the PCs never go to.

In a linear game, the GM is very prepared to go all the way down the planned path with the players, possibly with multiple "if/then" branches based on predicted likely choices. His "wasted prep" occurs when the players abandon the path, forcing the GM to rewrite the plot.

[oxybe]

Themepark is generally referring to a worldbuild method where you have a bunch of separate microcosms that don't interact. Think disneyworld: you've got a bunch of distinct areas, but some mascots will simply not ever wander into a different area.

Here are orcs, here are dragons, this is a fire dungeon, welcome to elf forest, etc... and the players are the only people to really go from area to area and once they've experienced it, they'll likely leave it for another and unless there's a big shakeup, you won't see the orcs mingling in dragonland.

Sandbox is generally referring to a more open experience where the players are free to go about and build and destroy things as their capabilities allows: some players bring a bucket, some bring a shovel, others a watering can, etc... and they're left to play. But as a whole the sandbox campaign is based around what the players want to do and the GM helping them reach those goals, akin to leaving a kid to play in a sandbox, the parent being there to supervise and make sure they don't hurt each other.

You can have a Themepark Sandbox... they're not mutually exclusive.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Themepark" is more from video game design, in which the players might be interacting with what looks like an open world, but it's always in a very controlled and designed way, and the world only changes in response to their actions in pre-planned ways.

[Segev]

Themepark is generally referring to a worldbuild method where you have a bunch of separate microcosms that don't interact. Think disneyworld: you've got a bunch of distinct areas, but some mascots will simply not ever wander into a different area.

Huh. I hadn't heard that definition before. I...really haven't seen games run like that, because the isolation required between parts of the world seems off-kilter when the PCs can go between them. But I suppose in a sufficiently "explorer" focused game...

"Themepark" is more from video game design, in which the players might be interacting with what looks like an open world, but it's always in a very controlled and designed way, and the world only changes in response to their actions in pre-planned ways.

That makes a little more sense, and the isolation is masked by having the plots be pretty vertical once inside it with planned intersection points. Okay, I see it here. Thanks for the clarification.

[HidesHisEyes]

I feel like I'm in the odd position of at least in part agreeing with both Max and Darth (or at least with what I think their trying to say).

I also don't think a completely "player-led game is an RPG at all, it's a story-telling game which is not the same thing! And a completely GM-led game is a fiction recitation (an authors reading) also not the same thing!

I've done the story-telling game thing where you take turns adding to the narrative of what the author/player said before, and I've been in the audience for book readings, and while those activities can be fun, if I'm invited to play a FRPG, I'm disappointed if I find that it won't be one.

If I'm a player I except to experience a little bit of exploring a fantastic world. I don't expect to play a game in which I'm equally expected to make up the world, which interferes with my perception of exploring one. I'm also disappointed to find that the "FRPG" I've been to "play" is instead an invitation to be in the audience of an author's story recitation.

As GM I want to do some Worldbuilding, and than be surprised by what happens in the scenes I've set up, if I didn't want to be surprised I'd just write a story! And I absolutely would not want to be a GM in which my role is mostly to hold a stop watch.

It may just be my lack of imagination, but extremely player-led, and completely GM-led RPG's just don't seem that fun to me, and hardly RPG's at all.

Fun is in the balance.

I completely agree. by the way I hope you've found a good game to take part in after your long-awaited return to RPGs!

I think that what Darth Ultron is doing when he insists there's no such thing as a true sandbox, or truly player-led game, is describing what Angry GM calls "the ******* around game". That is, a game where no one has any idea what they want to do, the GM has maybe a map and a vague idea of what's in each location and the players have little idea of who their characters are or what they want to do. I agree that this kind of game always either ends or resolves into a different type of game very quickly since no one (or almost no one, I guess, it takes all sorts) actually enjoys it. But it's not what I meant by "player-led game". The GM is always going to be designing things and providing challenges, whether in advance or on the fly. My distinction with GM-led vs player-led was about who provides the OBJECTIVES. In the GM-led game the GM says "this is your mission", whereas in the player-led game the players say "this is what we'd like to do". In either case the GM designs the specifics, but it's a significant decision because a lot of players like to feel that they have agency in the actual direction of the plot, not just how the characters go about resolving each plot point (fight the guard or pay him off, cast sleep or cast fireball, intimidate or deceive etc.)

For our purposes "plot" just means the sequence of stuff that ends up happening, whether it was planned ahead of time by the GM, published in a book by Paizo or emerged as a result of the decisions made by players. The crucial question is who is providing the objectives.

I do think Darth is right to say in player-led games the players effectively choose an objective from a list of options. In a skilfully run game the list is constantly changing in response to the players' actions, but I am extremely sceptical of the idea that anyone can provide a truly organic game world without solidifying bits of it into tangible options. And that's perfectly acceptable to me. In fact my preferred system these days is for the GM to present a list of fairly tangible options over WhatsApp or something after wach session (or each objective achieved), the players choose in advance of the next session, then the GM prepares something to actually play based on that choice. It sounds like Darth Ultron's "sandboxes are actually railroads" model but it's not, because as a player I not only chose the adventure but did the stuff that led to the adventure being available to choose in the first place. That's agency, as I would define it.

[Lorsa]

As I have said, your talking about the Jerk DM Railroad. The same way the bad optimizers that just want to cheat and roll play are jerks. But in both cases not all railroading and optimization is bad, just because of a few jerks.

While railroading can come in many shapes or forms, in various strengths and be directed towards different parts of the game, in general, railroading is exactly that; the jerk DM railraod. Attempting to define it any other way without some measure of scale or more complex definitions just makes it loose its usefulness as a word.

Words are used to point to a concept. So when people say "I don't want beef" you can avoid cooking beef instead of replying "all food that is not beans is beef". Beef is a specific type of food, just as railroading is a specific type of game.

This gets back to the core problem. You can't have a plot or ''linear adventure'' that makes sense and is not random without railroading. Worse, it's hard to have a good game without railroading....though it does depend on what you think is fun. If you just want to randomly roll dice for a couple hours, you can do that with no railroading.

In a way, I do agree with you. It is impossible to have a truly linear adventure without some measure of railroading. However, I would argue that linear, railroaded adventures typically make LESS sense than the non-railroaded, open-ended adventures. The act of railroading usually breaks verisimilitude into little pieces as the characters' actions are no longer given their logical outcome.

Therefore, it is hard to have a good game WITH railroading (since railroading inevitably brings us to the "jerk DM railroad").

In your case, for your game, if you would have allowed the characters to either kill or kidnap the elf princess and have it mean a kidnapped or dead princess, then it is not railroading. Nor is it a true linear adventure, as those usually hinges on "the princess comes and gives the PCs a quest which they follow".

Unless the characters in a game are demi gods, they generally can't ''stop or alter a plot'', assuming your game world makes common sense. So the plot will often ''not go the way the players want''. It's not to say the players can never change anything...they can in small limited ways. But that is kinda the whole point of the game is the players ''fighting'' along the plot and hoping to change it...just a bit. And if the players could really change things with a d20 roll the game would be pointless.

Well, a d20 roll could kill an elf princess. Wouldn't that change the plot? Seems like it should.

Why wouldn't characters be able to alter a plot? That must depend on what the plot is right? Not to mention that the only "plot" that really matters in a RPG is whatever happens to the PCs. That they should be able to change at a very drastic level. Unless the game is railroaded.

I mean, if the characters decides to side with the Orcs or the Elves will have drastic (or should have drastic) consequences for their own lives and experiences, even if it turns out not to alter the war between the races in any way.

[Lorsa]

I think that what Darth Ultron is doing when he insists there's no such thing as a true sandbox, or truly player-led game, is describing what Angry GM calls "the ******* around game". That is, a game where no one has any idea what they want to do, the GM has maybe a map and a vague idea of what's in each location and the players have little idea of who their characters are or what they want to do. I agree that this kind of game always either ends or resolves into a different type of game very quickly since no one (or almost no one, I guess, it takes all sorts) actually enjoys it. But it's not what I meant by "player-led game". The GM is always going to be designing things and providing challenges, whether in advance or on the fly. My distinction with GM-led vs player-led was about who provides the OBJECTIVES. In the GM-led game the GM says "this is your mission", whereas in the player-led game the players say "this is what we'd like to do". In either case the GM designs the specifics, but it's a significant decision because a lot of players like to feel that they have agency in the actual direction of the plot, not just how the characters go about resolving each plot point (fight the guard or pay him off, cast sleep or cast fireball, intimidate or deceive etc.)

For our purposes "plot" just means the sequence of stuff that ends up happening, whether it was planned ahead of time by the GM, published in a book by Paizo or emerged as a result of the decisions made by players. The crucial question is who is providing the objectives.

The crucial question to the original post's definition of player-led vs. GM.led games seems to definitely be who is providing the objectives.

The matter of making players feel a sense of agency is more complex though. A game where you can choose which railroad to go to isn't going to be much better than the one where you are forced on just the one rail.

This is why I think railroading needs to be broken up into smaller pieces, in order to more accurately model what's going on at a RPG table. In this way, what you arrive with is multiple axes, each of which can tilt in the "player-controlled" or "GM-controlled" direction. For some of them, there is a side too far to the GM-side where agency is lost, and for others there is a side too far to the player-side where the game becomes unstructured and more like "****ing around".

As an example of what I mean, you have already defined two axes:

"Who picks the adventure/objective" and "Who decides how individual problems/situations are resolved".

Another axis would be "Who controls scene transitions; when/where they start, when they end and in which order they occur". This is one I feel is most difficult to get a good balance of. Too heavy GM control will make the game feel railroad-y even if there is agency with choosing objectives and problem solutions. Too little GM control on the other hand, will easily make the game feel unstructured and messy.

I am not sure how to fit the "ability to affect the world/the plot". Ideally it should be incorporated into the "who decides how problems are resolved" axis, but maybe it isn't fully. More thinking is probably required for this.

There could be a problem when a GM only considers one of the axes as "railroading", and thus doesn't notice or realize that they are in fact railroading the game even though they let players pick their own objectives. Since there are at least 3+ ways a GM can railroad players, full agency doesn't show until all of them have been addressed. Some players will feel that one axis is more important than another, but they're all there to juggle.

In general, I think the best games are those where the GM provides a few options, but allows players to choose anything, even options not provided. Sort of like "here are a few objectives, but if you have other ideas they are welcome as well" and "these are a few ways to approach this problem, but go ahead and solve it however you like". In this way, the GM offers direction, but doesn't force anything on the players.

As for linear adventures, "if - then" branching statements and player agency, I think that if you try to include player agency by creating a bunch of "if - then" branching points, at some point you will reach so many "if - then" that the design becomes too cumbersome. At that point, you can either backtrack on your freedom, or realize that it's better simply to allow for an infinite number of "if" choices, but wait with the decision of "then" until the time the players have actually chosen the "if". This way, you will allow for maximum player agency, as you don't limit their choices in any way. It does require you to make reactive decisions though, but whenever you make the decision (before as an "if - then" or afterwards as only "then"), the GM has to make a decision. But placing the decision at the appropriate time can make a huge difference for the game and the experienced player agency.

[Quertus]

I think this would teach them bad habits. Though a good thing to do is start the game in media res with an immediate problem/challenge that they HAVE to deal with before they can strike out in their own direction.

I only recently learned that technique, and I need to use it more often. If helps cement the team, as well as forcing me away from my infinite buildup trap.

[HidesHisEyes]

There is a certain degree of trust between player and GM. There should be an understanding that the GM is going to throw a hook and the players should expect to run towards it. This might mean bending your character a little for the sake of story, but it is a GM's responsibility to make sure the hook would appeal to the characters ... This boils down to player/GM communication.

Absolutely. But I also think it's totally acceptable for the GM to say at the start "this is the kind of game I want to run, please bear this in mind both when you make your characters and as you play". The GM setting some limits is perfectly reasonable, I think, since it's the GM who does the work to make the game happen at all. And the GM should be having fun too. I don't have any time at all for the idea that the GM should bend over backwards to cater to the players' every whim. And don't forget that different GMs are good at different things; if players tell me they want nothing but HBO-style court intrigue then I'll tell them they should find a different GM because I'm not at all confident I could deliver a decent game of that kind (and also I wouldn't enjoy it).

[2D8HP]

I completely agree. by the way I hope you've found a good game to take part in after your long-awaited return to RPGs!

Wow that's one one the nicest thing that anyone's ever written me.

Thanks!

I think that what Darth Ultron is doing when he insists there's no such thing as a true sandbox, or truly player-led game, is describing what Angry GM calls "the ******* around game"

I'd have to say that the most player-led "role-playing.game" I ever tried to "play" (not a "sandbox", more like an "empty room") was even more anti-awesome than the lamest railroad I was a passenger on (arena fights, with healing provided).
Having no perception of PC agency while tiresome, isn't as bad as a DM who phones in a setting (a "Notables" dinner party" with mostly mute NPC's) and has the players do competative soliloquies.

I'd have to say that the best adventures start with an engaged DM, and proceed with imaginative players.

Without the DM providing a good start, and allowing room for PC shenanigans, the game is usually a dud.

For an "empty room" to be fun, the players have to be unusually witty, and for an "express-line railroad" to be fun the DM needs to spin a very good yarn.

In general I recommend a GM-led game at the start, player-led middle, and a balanced conclusion, but YMMV..

[Darth Ultron]

While railroading can come in many shapes or forms, in various strengths and be directed towards different parts of the game, in general, railroading is exactly that; the jerk DM railraod. Attempting to define it any other way without some measure of scale or more complex definitions just makes it loose its usefulness as a word.

My counter would be anyone optimizing is a jerk that does not want to role play at all. Some how I think you will disagree that *all* optimizer are jerks, right?

Therefore, it is hard to have a good game WITH railroading (since railroading inevitably brings us to the "jerk DM railroad").

It is hard to have a good game without a railroad, unless your just going to say ''any game I'd played in is a good game''.