Consequences, Railroading, and Schrodinger's Dungeon

[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!