The Forge Archives

Hi!
This is the first time I am actively participating in this great forum, which I have only recently discovered. So your comments will be welcome:-)

The following on railroading and the dangers of railroading was initiated through
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7563&highlight
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:27 pm    Post subject: Well of Souls 1; Peter Nordstrand.


************ From Well of Souls 1 ***********
"
Quote start:
If you want to apply pressure, increase the amount of humiliation or debasement he suffers, most importantly in front of Josette, perhaps with her catching a fair amount of backlash as well. To really up the drama, have her be totally resentful of Sir N, perhaps for the having her sent away on top of all the stuff going on right at that moment.

If you totally trash Sir N's reputation, and even go as far as destroying his position, suddenly, stuff like a Secret Plan become much, much more appealing. You have to be headed towards rock bottom for the dark hand of temptation to mean anything.


And how do you propose I do this without railroading? Two ways comes to mind:

1. Establish *before actual play* how darn humiliated Sir N is. This requires the players acceptance (which probably wouldn't be hard to get ... he seems to want exactly that).

2. Ignore that particular Bang for the time being. Instead follow the general principles of a) apply pressure everywhere, and try to make everyone (NPCs as well as player heroes) desperate, and b) empower the player by giving him info. The result will quite possibly be a pretty powerful Bang. ... Hm, I like this better.


****** Next quote:

Chris, I can put Sir N in a tight spot. I can make everybody around him desperate. I can do my best to make him desperate. I can have NPCs (deliberately or as a consequence of other actions) try to humiliate Sir N or put him in a position where he is likely to get humiliated. No problemo.

However, if I decide that Sir N *must* be humiliated, I am railroading. Why? Because that is the same as protecting a predetermined plot. Your advice is great, but if done right I can never be certain that Sir N is humiliated. The only way I could possibly ensure his humiliation is by making decisions for the player that rightly belongs to him, and him only.

************* Quote end! **********
(check Well of Souls 1 for the entire thread!)

The main question in this specific discussion is whether the GM can or should allow Sir N to be railroaded or not in order to reach a certain point campaign-wise, which would be useful for further storytelling. However, is railroading to reach a certain storytelling point in this specific case or generally all necessary? Or even acceptable in a storytelling or role-playing environment?

Personally, I strongly believe that purposeful and deliberate as well as accidental railroading must be avoided at any cost and at all times. By removing the free will of the players, the roleplaying element becomes restricted and may cause the players to lose interest in the campaign world.

If the GM feels it absolutely necessary for the storytelling and story-development that the PC's reach a certain point or does something specific there are other ways than railroading.

Below I will try to pinpoint some, but by all means not all, of these essential points that are necessary to keep in mind when the GM is generating his/her world and scenarioes if railroading is to be avoided.

First we must define the traditional standard premises for most gaming worlds:
1. When the gaming world is created, there will be a virtually unlimited number of potential plots and plot-lines even if they are not pre-planned. Any interaction with an NPC will for instance open up for a potential new plot.
2. There will at any given time be different races/nations/groups with different goals, all not involved with the main plot and quite possibly left unused or with little detail only by the GM. Each of these races/nations/groups will have independent goals that all can open up for new potential plots.
3. Even if there is an epic main plot these other plot-lines will be latent and possible for the players to explore. Likewise, these sub-plots may have an influence on the gaming world if the GM uses them actively.
4. Most given gaming worlds are dynamic. I.e. all the potential plots will be active in the background whether the players interfere or not.
5. Whether these unused plotlines are used or not they have the potential to influence the gaming environment when things change in these areas. Mostly, though, they will just be there, adding flavour to the gaming world, unless they directly have an influence on the players' plot/area.

Secondly we must define the traditional standard premises for the specific session/campaign/plot (whether bought or self-created):
1. When the GM is planning a gaming session he/she usually has some ideas what he/she wants to do and probably also what the players want to do - the latter's ideas may or may not be incorporated into any given game plot or sub-plot.
2. There will be any number of NPC's involved in any given plot. Some of these will be planned non-expendable VIP's, while others will be expendable. There usually will be only one or just a few main Big Baddies, whom the GM plans to use as main protagonist for a long time.
3. There will be any number of locations with treasure, NPC's, information, friends, etc. Some will be known while others will be explored as the game progresses.
4. Usually the GM will focus on the one main plot, be that epic or localised.
5. Usually the GM has a plan that he/she follows and a plan that he/she wants the players to follow.  

Considerations on how to avoid railroading:
1. The most important thing a GM must do is to take a step back from his/her main plot. This will give the GM the necessary overview of the gaming environment to allow him/her to accept that the PC's do not do the main plot, and thus that the GM will avoid railroading the players.
2. The gaming world should be considered a palette of possible GM plots, a candy shop for the players where they can do what they like, and a dynamic
3. Any action will have consequences that are logical and in line with the gaming world. I.e. the slaughter of a village by PC's WILL lead to police investigation, which in turn MAY lead to PC pursecution IF clues to the culprits can be found.
4. Giving up the control of the plot is of main importance if railroading is to be avoided.
5. When one NPC dies he/she can always be replaced by someone else. This also true for the Big Baddie. Thus, the GM should not protect the Big Baddie completely - while making it difficult to get to him/her, it shouldn't be totally impossible.
6. Try to consider all plausible player actions and routes and try to prepare for that.
7. GM familiarity with his/her world is essential in order to be prepared to allowing the PC's to do whatever they like to do
8. The GM should always be prepared to accept that the players are NOT going the way that the GM has planned/prepared for them.
9. By doing so, the GM is also prepared to accept any course of action that goes beyond anything that he/she has contemplated. In other words: The important thing here is not that the players do what the GM wants them to do, but that the GM knows his/her world well enough to allow the players to do what THEY want to do.
10. This also means that the GM must be ready to ad-lib on the fly, rather than running the planned action. What are the consequences of this acceptance of players ignoring presented plots?  
11. Thus, the GM (and the players) must decide, before playing, what kind of world they are going to use for their gaming. Will they want an epic tale like Lord of the Rings, or will they prefer to play a more localised game?
12. Also, one must realise that when the GM presents plot opportunities and accepts that they are not always used, the presented plot options are still active within the world environment. If the players ignores the plot, this INACTION will indeed still have an effect on the gaming world, as would the active action/intervention. So, for instance, if they ignore the plot to assassinate the king and place his eveil twin on the throne, then the plot may succeed and the gaming environment, which the players are used to, will change accordingly.
13. The epic tale can easily lead to some railroading, since the GM knows what the PCs are going to do. However, if they suddenly tire of following the epic quest, this must also be accepted by the GM and the gaming world. The GM must then decide what consequences this 'failure to complete the quest' will have on the gaming world and take proper actions. But it is difficult to force the players to do an epic quest against their wishes.
14. Because the important thing is not that the players do what the GM wants them to do, but that the GM knows his/her world well enough to allow the players to do what THEY want to do.

Therefore, Sir N in the quote from Well of Souls 1 above may be humiliated by the NPC action. However, Sir N and the other PC's ought to have an opportunity to avoid this humiliation and or to counter the plot before it happens. If they fail, then Sir N will be humiliated and they have to face the consequences.  In this way Sir N can be humiliated without railroading the player.

This is just one way to avoid railroading - there are probably many other ways to avoid railroading.

Your comments are most welcome!

_________________
There is no such thing as true objectivity.
- likewise, there is no such thing as one true way to game:-)

Hi Michael,

I think I may have miscommunicated my idea in the Well of Souls post, in that I failed to add the usual Narrativist disclaimer, "If the situation is appropriate, without forcing player decisions, etc."  The key point is to see  themes and areas which in which you can apply pressure to make things exciting, without forcing nor predicting any particular response on the part of the player.

Many of your concerns regarding railroading disappear completely when the GM starts running with no plot at all.  The preparations that you see Peter going through are possible but not guaranteed events, called Bangs.  You'll also want to note that while the event may or may not happen, the player's reaction to it, is completely open and not predicted on the part of the GM.  

You'll also find that there has been a LOT of discussion on these boards, with a LOT of useful techniques for non-railroaded play.  For many of us, it has become the standard mode of play.  You may want to look into some of these threads for reference:

Bangs: http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1047

Scene framing: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6689

Relationships Maps:  http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=831
http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=224

Kickers: http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1359

You may also wish to search using any of those terms above as well for further research.  Also, take a very close look at Narrativism in Ron's GNS essay.  While you can play non-railroaded games in any of the 3 modes, you CANNOT railroad and have Narrativism happening.

Finally, for even further reference, you will want to check out the original Well of Souls thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6696

Chris
(edited links)

Hiya Chris,
Thanks a lot. Will do.
Mike

I can only refer you to my response in that same thread.

Also, the definition of Railroading is often problematic. To see a discussion on that topic, see this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4405

FWIW, there was a period where all my play looked very much like what you propose. I would have literally 50 or so plots just hanging out waiting to go. But even by some definitions of raliroading, that method still counts. All depends on who controls what.

Mike

Thanks for the thread and comments Mike,

I have a lot of comments, but am rather hung up at the moment. Will be back asap.

However, briefly, you ask what railraoding actually is. Interesting question! Traditionally in roleplaying groups (equivalent of a project group), the GM (=the project leader) defines the world and game setting (=the project book/script), with the players (=project workers) 'working' their  way through various plots and situations.  

Now, the traditional project organisation (not roleplaying) works by the script, except where they have turned modern and become more pro-active, by which I mean that the script is more a general directive froim which to explore the potentials in the situation rather than the traditional by-the-book style.

When this is compared to the roleplaying situation, we have a typical pro-active project: There is some kind of general idea (= the world frame and whatever plots the GM has presented) and a group of players who are there for the fun and who mostly drags the plot one way or the other in a constant communication and interaction with themselves and the GM and the world frame. This expands the initial general idea and the end product becomes a highly entertaining and successful experience for everybody involved (we are talking the theoretical ideal roleplaying group here).

Well, the GM has defined the world, and thus to some degree already railroaded everybody. The social contract includes that everybody agrees to play within this gaming environment, which is dynamic IF the players and the GM are pro-actively working together for the common fun.

However, if the GM tries to force the players to do something, like I did in my most spectacularly failed attempt at roleplaying (I tried to have players play the characters from the Dragonlance books, rather than allow them to explore the world, their own characters or the gaming environment, which meant that the campaign died very quickly! terrible! terrible!!), then it is railroading.

Thus, if players do not like the way a plot is going, but am unable to leave it because the GM forces them to stick to the plot (like in the excellent Knights of the Dinner Table, which you so brilliantly quote), this is railroading. If the players accept the plot and follows it of their own free will, then it is not.

Therefore the question whether it is railroading or not becomes the ability of the GM to allow players to explore and influence the gaming environment.  

At the moment I am trying to test the feasibility to have the players build some scene frames up from which I can take the plot  and situation. Obviously they know the world quite well, so their ideas will match the world frame. I'll come back to this later when i know if it works or not.

Sleep well to all:-)
Mike

Hi Mike,

QuoteAt the moment I am trying to test the feasibility to have the players build some scene frames up from which I can take the plot and situation. Obviously they know the world quite well, so their ideas will match the world frame. I'll come back to this later when i know if it works or not.

This has been successfully implemented in several games.  Trollbabe's scene request is probably the most notable, although Universalis, Sorcerer's Kickers, and transitioning scenes from Monologues of Victory from the Pool all have this to one degree or another.

Chris

Excellent!

Traditional is also contentious here, but we'll go with your ideas for the purposes of the discussion.

QuoteWell, the GM has defined the world, and thus to some degree already railroaded everybody. The social contract includes that everybody agrees to play within this gaming environment, which is dynamic IF the players and the GM are pro-actively working together for the common fun.

See, that's what the thread about Railroading was talking about. If you mean that GM introductions to the world are things which cannot be changed by the player, then you're saying that in "traditional" games, all GM participation is Railroading. Which isn't very useful. Because as we see above, this sort of Railroading doesn't bug the players in the right sort of social contract. Given the negative connotations of the term, it doesn't make sense to use Railroading in this fashion. It must mean the GM use of authority to create things in a way that violates the Social Contract.

QuoteThus, if players do not like the way a plot is going, but am unable to leave it because the GM forces them to stick to the plot (like in the excellent Knights of the Dinner Table, which you so brilliantly quote), this is railroading. If the players accept the plot and follows it of their own free will, then it is not.

This, too is problematic. Because it assumes the "Traditional" mode. Some players don't want to have to follow any plot that originates pre-play with GM ideas. Around here this is called Narrativist play.

QuoteTherefore the question whether it is railroading or not becomes the ability of the GM to allow players to explore and influence the gaming environment.

Again, you assume your own preferences are held by all players. What if the players want the GM to decide the plot? And want to just follow it out to it's conclusion? This is a common and perfectly workable play style as well.

Basically, what I keep trying to say is that it's Railroading, if and when, the GM makes decisions for the players that they want to make. If they want to make all the decisions, then any GM interference is Railroading. If they just want to hear a story be told to them, then no amount of GM decision making is Railroading.

The key to avoiding Railroading is understanding what the players want to control. One way to find out what the players like to control is to ask them. This isn't as effective as it sounds, however, because often players don't understand the issues of control. They say, I want to control my character, and the GM controls the world. Well, the problem with this traditional split is that there are fine points about when one conflicts with the other. In fact, a typical problem is exactly the one that you're noting.

Another way to do this is to select a game to play, because often the game will say quite a bit about what the players can control. For example, in a game I co-authored, Universalis, there is no GM because the players control absolutely everything. Call of Cthulhu, OTOH, has a tradition of having players go through very linear and pre-plotted scenarios. And there are players who like both these modes, and everything in-between. Players who know and like a particular game's standard can assure themselves of the "right" level of Control simply by playing that game.

In any case, a lot of the theory on this site is all about what Control means, and in what myriad ways players want to have it. I suggest that understanding this theory goes a long way to understanding the whole Railroading phenomenon.

Given that the Traditional mode of play is only one of many, the sort of play that you're describing has been done a lot before. While not the most common mode, as mentioned, you'll even find that there are lots of games that cater to these other modes of play.

Mike

Hello,

I was under the impression that the Is 'railroading' a useful term? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1349) thread covered most of these issues without much controversy.

Best,
Ron

It does. I just wanted to give Mike here an explanation in the context of his arguments. It would have been easier to just post another link... ;-)

Mike

Hmm ... thanks for the context and comments!

My goal with this thread was not really to discuss the terminology or semantics, but to discuss ways to avoid 'railroading', i.e. provide some tools to aid the GM's creative work.

The formal definition of 'railroading' is:
[(n.) The construction of a railroad; the business of managing or operating a railroad.]

For the purpose of this discussion, I would be happy to use the term as:
[Forcing the players to follow the plot in one direction dictated by the GM without allowing the players the option to explore beyond the plot.]

This allows for GM participation in one way or another, which is good since the game consists of a dialogue between players and the GM.

"Again, you assume your own preferences are held by all players. "
Nope - of course my views are not the only way to view the world - check my epitaph (There is no such thing as true objectivity) if you're in  doubt:-)

More later!

All the best & keep up the good work:-)
Mike

Edited by adding: "i.e. provide some tools to aid the GM's creative work."

Quote from: Michael Bjorklund
For the purpose of this discussion, I would be happy to use the term as:
[Forcing the players to follow the plot in one direction dictated by the GM without allowing the players the option to explore beyond the plot.]

Cool.

What do you think about the idea of not having a plot at all?

Mike

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: Michael Bjorklund
For the purpose of this discussion, I would be happy to use the term as:
[Forcing the players to follow the plot in one direction dictated by the GM without allowing the players the option to explore beyond the plot.]

Cool.

What do you think about the idea of not having a plot at all?

Interesting question!

No problem, I guess, IF we assume that the players and the GM have decided on this approach fromt the outset (if the players are expecting a plot and there is nothing, then it may be somewhat strange for all the participants?!).  

This gaming world environment (guess that would be GWE? Well, it is from now on!) would create a totally open as well as totally open-ended. Plots would be derived and developed in pro-active communication between players and GM during play, probably on-the-fly.

As with Universalis (?? sorry if this is a wrong reference), it may not even be necessary to know anything about the GWE before the game starts.

However, if the above plot-free situation was to take place in either an already established and previously used GWE or a GWE that was pre-definded by the GM, then the GM would have to know his/her GWE pretty well to enable the players to explore, though the players would still have to provide loads of input to NPC's, etc. Hmm ... is this really a different approach from the Universalis method?

Anyway, plots would naturally develop as the players are interacting with the GWE, whether it was pre-defined or created on-the-fly or decided through a brainstorming/Universalis method. It is the actual interaction between players, GM and GWE (which may be considered a dynamic entity in it's own right in this connection?), which creates the fundament for 'plots', with 'plots' being anything that gives substance to the story/story-telling.

Hope this gives you an idea about my thoughts on your question?

I'm off to bed now, so sleep tight and have sweet dreams about saving dragons in distress and defeating the cruel damsels .. errrr :-)

All the best
Mike

A few comments to the 'no plot' gaming - hopefully I am not reinventing the deep saucer?!

The way I think the act of playing RPG's best can be described is as a theatre act, or alternatively a film or a TV show. The difference is that the plot develops on-the-fly and there are no pre-written lines or even a definate script.  

I would guess that in traditional roleplaying there have been some scenarios, either bought or home-made, which have formed the basis for the role playing sessions. The GWE (Gaming World Environment) nevertheless becomes dynamic, since the players influence how the world looks like.

If there is 'no plot' from the outset we remove the directing from the GM and allow the players to be the driving force (even more than before) - at least if I have understood some of the very great ideas in here correctly ... please correct me if I am wrong!  Nevertheless the GM/GWE reacts to the players actions and thus some of the directing still is in the court of the GM, unless the players themselves also play the NPCs.

In other words, since players will always try to influence their GWE I don't believe that a GWE can exist without a plot ever appearing, i.e. the plot will be a result of player actions even if a 'no plot from the outset' GWE has been etsablished. Please correct me if I am wrong!

To make sure there are no misunderstandings, I should stress that all the above views from me are simply that, i.e. my views. Thus, they are not the only truth! Also please forgive me if the above has been covered in another thread, which I may have missed.

All the best
Mike

Your observations a pretty astute, IMO, and match those of many here.

QuoteIf there is 'no plot' from the outset we remove the directing from the GM and allow the players to be the driving force (even more than before) - at least if I have understood some of the very great ideas in here correctly ... please correct me if I am wrong! Nevertheless the GM/GWE reacts to the players actions and thus some of the directing still is in the court of the GM, unless the players themselves also play the NPCs.

This is what's called Narrativism here. When the players take control of the situation to the extent that they create a plot - as long as plot means story with theme.

Now, one can imagine a complete simulation. Wherin the players merely have the characters do "what the characters would do". And the GM only responds with his authority as the motive force behind the world, and has it do "what the world would do". In this theoretical game, Players playing competely Simulationist, and the GM responding with what we term Open play, what you'd get is not really what could be legitamately termed a plot, but something more like real life. Just a series of events.

Now, things can be engineered so that the events that occur must be out of the ordinary. Wandering monster tables can be consulted as appropriate to see if the characters are acosted by beasties. So the characters in these theoretical games don't live "normal" lives. But they are something like a simulation of what these character's lives are like.

Thing is, that eventually, something is going to come along that has a little more "plot" potential. As soon as the GM or players start chasing that down, the game becomes less a simulation, and more about pursuing themes. This is a shift towards Narrativism. More pronounced Narrativism involves players accepting the idea that they can be more active promoters of the plot - more correctly in creating themes.

Anyhow, these are all actually common forms of play to some extent. That is you see these modes given more or less use in most play (and the third element which is challenge).

Part of the general theory around here (well, a part that I promote) is that having a well defined mechanism for promoting some particular mix of these modes is important, as then the players and GM will never get confused about what they are supposed to control, and what they can expect to leave in another participant's hands. In that way can Railroading best be avoided.

BTW, Some players will "drift" a system, and use it in a way not intended by the designer. This is fine, as long as, again, everyone is still on the same sheet of music with what is, essentially, a new system.

Mike

Quote from: Michael BjorklundIf there is 'no plot' from the outset we remove the directing from the GM and allow the players to be the driving force (even more than before) - at least if I have understood some of the very great ideas in here correctly ... please correct me if I am wrong!  Nevertheless the GM/GWE reacts to the players actions and thus some of the directing still is in the court of the GM, unless the players themselves also play the NPCs.

If I understand both you and Ron correctly, this sounds to me like what he calls "playing bass". The concept is that the referee, like the bass player in a jazz band, is there to hold things together and let the other players take center stage and decide where the song is going. I set up the beat, the key, the basic progression, but you all make the music. I do a lot of scenarios that way.

It's not the only way to avoid railroading; there are actually quite a few. I'm particularly fascinated by a style I've dubbed trailblazing. This allows the referee to create the plot he hopes will be played out by the players, but leaves the players free to do whatever they want, thus retaining full control of their characters. What makes it work is an element in the social contract through which the players are committed to having their characters find the clues and discover and play out the referee's intended plot--like reading a mystery, when you've committed yourself to trying to figure it out, sort of. It remains free and interactive in one sense, yet the players are in another sense following the referee's script by digging up his clues. Trailblazing works as long as all the players are committed to it, and is the model for most "competition modules" in which the players are trying to achieve the goals set by the module more efficiently than any other team of players.

I do that sometimes, but generally I prefer to create the starting situation and then interact with the players to see what they want to make out of it. In some ways that's tougher, because you have to create a lot of possible directions all of which will be interesting, rather than creating only one which you're assuming your players will follow.

--M. J. Young

"Trailblazing" is an interesting concept, thanks.

Wonder if you're using any of the methods I suggested in my initial mail? I.e. the things about prepping a lot of different sequences, which becomes active if and when the players does this or that (minor rewrite of my first mail)?

This goes well in hand with 'scene framing', since the various scenes can be prepped before the players reaches any certain point in the GWE (Gaming World Environment). Thus they do not necessarily have to be dumped into a certain scene, instead it waits for their activiation of the scene for it to happen?

Comments and ideas?!

Hi Mike,

Another method which I find works exceedingly well is to set up a conflict, have a list of NPCs and motivations, and then drop player characters into scenes on the basis of "what would be interesting", ala reality TV, that is, you put characters together who you know will likely conflict or interact in a dramatic fashion.  This works very well for games like The Riddle of Steel where motivations are included in the mechanics, but can work for all games if you take the time to produce NPC motivations.

Chris

Quote from: Bankuei

Another method which I find works exceedingly well is to set up a conflict, have a list of NPCs and motivations, and then drop player characters into scenes on the basis of "what would be interesting", ala reality TV, that is, you put characters together who you know will likely conflict or interact in a dramatic fashion.  This works very well for games like The Riddle of Steel where motivations are included in the mechanics, but can work for all games if you take the time to produce NPC motivations.

Chris

Yo!
Interesting, definately interesting. though somewhat like I have done before, it seems to go a step further - I might be tempted to use that. Please feel free to elaborate!  

I am currently prepping three friends of mine who have never played in my campaign before, but who have extensive experiece from systems like D&D + Vampire + problaby more, to enter my Runequest campaign.  

They have been charged to decide on their character backgorunds after giving some of the GWE (Gaming World Environment) basics [system= Runequest ver. 3 but without magic, and in historical Europe without monsters (only humans), and have thus added some of the historical details and a few details on their area].  They have been asked to design their character via the narrativist approach rather than roll stats. So far so good.

Currently I am contemplating on how to best introduce them to system, GWE, mechanics and initial-plot-or-acctivity-to-engage-their-imagination (based on their character stories). Not that I am unhappy about my previous methods, but I have found what I have read about here at The Forge to be very inspiring, so I will probably use some of this actively.

And precisely the above method is what I most have in mind right now.  If I need to engage them in combat I will do so first on a combat level that is VERY EASY before they encounter anything strong. Otherwise I try to mostly use the narrativist approach and hope that they will play along.

As for the potential dangers in railroading within the method you suggest - any comments?

More suggestions and comments will be welcome:-)

All the best
Mike

Hi Mike,

Much elaboration to be found here:
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/waystoplay.html

Scenes are created on the spot, no preplanning, no plot to railroad players with.  The players reactions are left open, and you take the responses from that, figure out if any other reactions would happen by any NPCs(via motivations) and plug together the next scene.  It's Nar play, Scene framing + a couple of tools basically.

QuoteThey have been asked to design their character via the narrativist approach rather than roll stats. So far so good.

Be careful, don't confuse writing up your character, freeforming it, etc, with narrativist play.  You can take "roll up everything, including homeland" ala RQ and still get narrativist play.  The Narrativism happens, or doesn't happen in play.  It's about Player Input and Theme.

Chris

Quote from: Michael BjorklundWonder if you're using any of the methods I suggested in my initial mail? I.e. the things about prepping a lot of different sequences, which becomes active if and when the players does this or that (minor rewrite of my first mail)?

I think I've done most of the things you suggest, to one degree or another.

I write a lot of Multiverser scenarios, and many of those are for publication. Since the referee in Multiverser has very little power to push the player character into any particular story, I'm always giving thought to what to do if the player doesn't go where you want.

Multiverser worlds really break down into two types--what we call Multiverser worlds properly, and what we call Story worlds. The former type are just places where things are happening and the player character can find adventure within them. The latter are places where some specific thing is happening with which the referee hopes the player character will become involved. In the latter case, there are a number of tools offered to get him there.

Hooks and bait are the ones I use most often. You need to have some understanding of what motivates the characters (and even of what catches the players) so that you can lure them into the story you want them to pursue. There's nothing wrong with this, as far as I can see--the players are free to ignore the bait and do something else. I've had players do that to me. The question then is always, what do you do with this story now?

An example would be The Prisoner of Zenda. You probably know the book; Rudolf Rassendil travels to Zenda to see the coronation of his distant cousin King Rudolf of Ruritania (the fourth, I think). People react a bit oddly to him, and he doesn't understand why, until abruptly he encounters three men, one of them the king, the other two his top aids, and discovers that he looks exactly like the king. The king insists on an explanation, and offers something to explain their relationship, demanding then that Rassendil come have dinner with him and talk about family.

Now, I drop my player into the Rassendil role, and it's rather easy to arrange for him to meet the king (more on that in a moment). At that moment, the player is completely free to refuse to have dinner with the king--but his Aide de Camp General Sapt is standing there even now trying to figure out what sort of nefarious plot is going on here, and he's going to be suspicious of any lack of cooperation on the character's part. Then, when the king is drugged by the wine provided by Duke Michael (who is trying to usurp the throne), what happens if the character refuses to help save the throne by impersonating the king?

I don't ask that rhetorically; I ask it practically. This can become a story at any moment in which the character is arrested for treason against the king, and we can see where it goes from there. The story is filled with moments like that, places where the player could take it off the track and create a new story from that point forward. I follow the book only in as far as it tells me what the other characters are like, and what they are likely to do in response to the most obvious options. Depart from the script, and we'll find out where it goes--maybe the player character will treacherously kill everyone who knows he's not the king, marry the Princess Flavia, and rule Ruritania (the temptation Rassendil resisted). I'm not invested in where the story ends; only in where it starts.

The other technique I use quite a bit is illusionism. I don't use it to the point that it is objectionable, but I do use it. Illusionism is the technique of making it appear that a player's character choices matter when they actually don't.

I've previously offered the example of The Dancing Princess. At the beginning of that world/adventure, the player character finds himself in a field by a road, and I ask which way he goes. In nearly every case they take the road; some cross the fields. It doesn't matter to me in the least. Whichever way the player goes, that's the direction toward the city where the action is going to happen. He thinks he's choosing something, but he isn't.

The same thing applies to the Zenda moment when the character meets the king. In the book, it happens when he falls asleep in a wood that happens to be the royal game preserve, and they awaken him to question him. An astute player might decide not to enter the royal game preserve; that doesn't matter in the least. What matters is that the player character meets the king, and that really can happen just about anywhere. I've decided that's going to happen, so if I can't get the character to the king, I'll put the king wherever the character happens to be going.

I'm working on a scenario right now in playtest which uses a very strong illusionism streak. It's got a series of encounters that happen in a complex. The player has full freedom to travel in any direction within this complex desired (and it's a very large complex), and to map it--maps are provided for the referee. However, the encounters will all occur, and all in the order in which they're listed in the description. It doesn't matter where they occur, beyond the parameters required by the encounter, so I can put them pretty much anywhere the player character happens to be. The player thinks that his choices are controling what happens, but they aren't. The adventure is written much more like a movie storyboard, in which I know the order in which the events are going to occur but not how the hero will handle them.

The trick to making illusionism work without turning it into railroading is simple: take away from the player all the decisions that don't matter, and leave him all those that do. As I suggest in an old article, Game Ideas Unlimited: Left or Right? (this is on Gaming Outpost, a subscriber site; it will hopefully appear on the Valdron Inc site in a couple weeks, but that site is currently down due to domain problems), when you get to the bottom of the stairs and have to decide which way to turn, and you have absolutely no information on which to base that decision, what difference does it make if you are taking a chance on what happens next, or if the referee is going to organize things such that whichever way you choose is the right way? When the decisions matter, the player should have control; when they don't matter (or worse, when the wrong choice when there's no clear indication of the right choice will completely derail play) illusionism is a great response.

I'm not sure how much of this is helpful, but I thought I'd offer it all the same.

--M. J. Young

Hi M.J.Young,

Will be back asap with a few comments to your excellent mail, but things are rather hectic at the moment.  Please be patient!

All the best
Mike

Sorry about the delay!

"I write a lot of Multiverser scenarios, and many of those are for publication. Since the referee in Multiverser has very little power to push the player character into any particular story, I'm always giving thought to what to do if the player doesn't go where you want."

Don't know anything about 'Multiverser' ...  have I missed a link to material on this somewhere? Sounds interesting ...

"Multiverser worlds really break down into two types--what we call Multiverser worlds properly, and what we call Story worlds. ..."

Okay ...

"Hooks and bait are the ones I use most often. You need to have some understanding of what motivates the characters (and even of what catches the players) so that you can lure them into the story you want them to pursue. There's nothing wrong with this, as far as I can see--the players are free to ignore the bait and do something else. I've had players do that to me. The question then is always, what do you do with this story now?"

Agreed.  

"An example would be The Prisoner of Zenda. ... Now, I drop my player into the Rassendil role, ... Then, when the king is drugged by the wine provided by Duke Michael (who is trying to usurp the throne), what happens if the character refuses to help save the throne by impersonating the king?"

Great for scene framing! Also a correct question - shows good dynamicism in the universe. Makes it come alive.

"I don't ask that rhetorically; I ask it practically."

Precisely!

"... The story is filled with moments like that, places where the player could take it off the track and create a new story from that point forward. I follow the book only in as far as it tells me what the other characters are like, and what they are likely to do in response to the most obvious options. Depart from the script, and we'll find out where it goes--maybe the player character will treacherously kill everyone who knows he's not the king, marry the Princess Flavia, and rule Ruritania (the temptation Rassendil resisted). I'm not invested in where the story ends; only in where it starts."

And this is why being a GM is so exiting! One writes on dynamically evolving book/script/whatever and doesn't  know where it will end.

"The other technique I use quite a bit is illusionism. I don't use it to the point that it is objectionable, but I do use it. "

The material on The Forge on Illusionism is very good as with all other stuff here.

"I've previously offered the example of The Dancing Princess. At the beginning of that world/adventure, the player character finds himself in a field by a road, and I ask which way he goes. In nearly every case they take the road; some cross the fields. It doesn't matter to me in the least. Whichever way the player goes, that's the direction toward the city where the action is going to happen. He thinks he's choosing something, but he isn't."

I quite recognise this. However, I still try to allow for PC's to go towards the plot and then ignore it or to add to the plot or scene via their ideas and input. Quite often their thoughts about what this or that bad guy or location or scene or whatever is much more imaginative and interesting and rich and promising than what I originally had in mind that I simply ditch my own ideas and use what they are talking about, adapted on-the-fly to the plot.

"The same thing applies to the Zenda moment when the character meets the king. ... An astute player might decide not to enter the royal game preserve; that doesn't matter in the least. ...  I'll put the king wherever the character happens to be going."

Agreed.

"I'm working on a scenario right now in playtest which uses a very strong illusionism streak. It's got a series of encounters that happen in a complex. The player has full freedom to travel in any direction within this complex desired (and it's a very large complex), and to map it--maps are provided for the referee. However, the encounters will all occur, and all in the order in which they're listed in the description. It doesn't matter where they occur, beyond the parameters required by the encounter, so I can put them pretty much anywhere the player character happens to be. The player thinks that his choices are controling what happens, but they aren't. The adventure is written much more like a movie storyboard, in which I know the order in which the events are going to occur but not how the hero will handle them."

This sounds interesting - please feel free to mail me (us?) and tell how this worked out.

"The trick to making illusionism work without turning it into railroading is simple: take away from the player all the decisions that don't matter, and leave him all those that do. As I suggest in an old article, Game Ideas Unlimited: Left or Right? (this is on Gaming Outpost, a subscriber site; it will hopefully appear on the Valdron Inc site in a couple weeks, but that site is currently down due to domain problems), when you get to the bottom of the stairs and have to decide which way to turn, and you have absolutely no information on which to base that decision, what difference does it make if you are taking a chance on what happens next, or if the referee is going to organize things such that whichever way you choose is the right way? When the decisions matter, the player should have control; when they don't matter (or worse, when the wrong choice when there's no clear indication of the right choice will completely derail play) illusionism is a great response."

Agreed. However, sometimes it is also fun to have the players take the reigns and lead the plot whereever they want to go ... even when using the illusionist plot:-)

I'd like to read this article - is it visible for smoochers like me yet?

"I'm not sure how much of this is helpful, but I thought I'd offer it all the same. "

Hope that people can use these interesting thoughts!

All the best and more later
Mike

Quote from: Michael 'Mike' BjorklundDon't know anything about 'Multiverser' ...  have I missed a link to material on this somewhere? Sounds interesting ...

We're still having domain name problems; I'm not sure what it's going to take to get the sites back up and running, and I'm not really in the loop on that. Meanwhile, there's some information about the books on my personal site, and you are certainly welcome to visit the official forum at Gaming Outpost, where there are several games in progress online. I'd be happy to answer any questions directly, as well.

Quote from: Quoting me, Mike then"I'm working on a scenario right now in playtest which uses a very strong illusionism streak. It's got a series of encounters that happen in a complex. The player has full freedom to travel in any direction within this complex desired (and it's a very large complex), and to map it--maps are provided for the referee. However, the encounters will all occur, and all in the order in which they're listed in the description. It doesn't matter where they occur, beyond the parameters required by the encounter, so I can put them pretty much anywhere the player character happens to be. The player thinks that his choices are controling what happens, but they aren't. The adventure is written much more like a movie storyboard, in which I know the order in which the events are going to occur but not how the hero will handle them."

This sounds interesting - please feel free to mail me (us?) and tell how this worked out.

If you visit the forum, you can watch it unfold in the thread What Kelly Spies, starting about a week or so back (it's a long thread that includes her entry in this world and some prep time). I'd be glad to send you a beta copy of what I've got on it if you're that interested, but I'll need an e-mail address. You can reach me at MJYoung@mjyoung.net if you want.

Quote from: Again quoting me, Mike"As I suggest in an old article, Game Ideas Unlimited: Left or Right? (this is on Gaming Outpost, a subscriber site; it will hopefully appear on the Valdron Inc site in a couple weeks, but that site is currently down due to domain problems), when you get to the bottom of the stairs and have to decide which way to turn, and you have absolutely no information on which to base that decision, what difference does it make if you are taking a chance on what happens next, or if the referee is going to organize things such that whichever way you choose is the right way? When the decisions matter, the player should have control; when they don't matter (or worse, when the wrong choice when there's no clear indication of the right choice will completely derail play) illusionism is a great response."

...I'd like to read this article - is it visible for smoochers like me yet?

It is sitting on our server waiting for the domain problems to be fixed. You can read it at Gaming Outpost for a $1 subscription by PayPal for one month membership (and I've got over a hundred articles there, and there are some worthwhile ones from other authors as well). I thought we'd have the domain problem fixed this week, but it doesn't look like that's happening, so I can't really predict availability.


--M. J. Young