Compensating players for railroading

[TonyLB]

Your description is naturally focussed on the preventative Participationist Techniques, since those are what your players are concerned about.  That makes it hard for me to tell whether you're deploying a full spread of proactive techniques as well.  So I'll just ask.

Does the GM indicate strongly (perhaps even just telling players OOC) what direction they're expected to go?  If they're supposed to lose an item (for instance), I gather he doesn't simply tell them that.  Because of that his creativity seems to be running counter to theirs in at least some circumstances.

I'm not a bounded-participationist GM myself (i.e. running by modules) but I am getting pretty heavily into cooperative-participation, where the players have equal input into the things that "must happen", and then everyone works together to make them happen.  Obviously this pretty much requires being explicit about what things you all have to work toward.

[Halzebier]

Your description is naturally focussed on the preventative Participationist Techniques, since those are what your players are concerned about.  That makes it hard for me to tell whether you're deploying a full spread of proactive techniques as well.  So I'll just ask.

Does the GM indicate strongly (perhaps even just telling players OOC) what direction they're expected to go? If they're supposed to lose an item (for instance), I gather he doesn't simply tell them that.  Because of that his creativity seems to be running counter to theirs in at least some circumstances.

Occasionally, the GM drops hints when he feels that we're moving off the track.

Occasionally, players will indicate certain story desires, usually covertly by e-mail.

For instance, I pointed out to the GM that I, as a player, would enjoy it if my PC's animal companions bit the dust from time to time so I could try out a new animal and play out some grief.

I also took this matter into my own hands when an opportunity presented itself. The GM backed me up by introducing new potential animal companions (to take to or ignore at my leisure).

Early on, the party was stranded in the desert (a sandstorm hit and don't you know, when it was over, our caravan and guides and camels were gone).

The party had a hellish march ahead of it and my PC reacted by taking his beloved custom-made crossbow and his beloved little dog behind the next dune and returning without either.

(I could have invoked script immunity for either, i.e. no ill would have come of keeping them.)

The other players loved the scene, but when I pointed out several sessions later that I, as a player, was happy to see the dog go, two players criticized me for letting them look behind the scenes. My confession retroactively lessened the emotional impact of the scene for  them.

But I guess that's a whole 'nother topic.

I'm not a bounded-participationist GM myself (i.e. running by modules) but I am getting pretty heavily into cooperative-participation, where the players have equal input into the things that "must happen", and then everyone works together to make them happen.  Obviously this pretty much requires being explicit about what things you all have to work toward.

Flashbacks and non-linear campaigns* can work like that, but I have limited experience with the former and none with the latter.

*As in: Play the PCs as they're 20th level, then play them at 1st level and so on.

But I'm grateful you bring up pro-active player involvement in connection with this problem... I'll bring it up with at least one of my groups.

Regards,

Hal

[TonyLB]

Hal, player input into what must happen in the game can, indeed, work in Flashbacks and non-linear campaigns.  It can also work in straight-ahead, normal campaigns with a linear time-flow.  That's what I was referring to, and I'm guessing (from your response) that it may not be something you've considered.

Here's a wholly fictional example:

GM:  Okay, I'd like to run an adventure where you're lost in the desert.
PC#1:  We could do caravan duty, and get separated from the caravan.
PC#2:  Oh come on, I don't want to play being stupid enough to just wander away from a caravan.
GM:  Sandstorm maybe?  Anyone could get lost in one of those.
PC#2:  That works for me... but maybe we could juice it up, and give them some personal responsibility for their predicament.
PC#1:  A little girl could have wandered away from the caravan, and our heroes go out into the storm to find her.
PC#2:  Yeah, then we have a death-march while trying to keep a little kid alive.  Lots of tough choices there.
GM:  That works for me.  So, that's roughly where we're headed.  Let's play you guys getting the caravan-duty job and meeting the little girl.

[Halzebier]

Hal, player input into what must happen in the game can, indeed, work in Flashbacks and non-linear campaigns.  It can also work in straight-ahead, normal campaigns with a linear time-flow.  That's what I was referring to, and I'm guessing (from your response) that it may not be something you've considered.

I'm theoretically familiar with that approach and its application to 'normal' campaigns. My last post didn't give that impression, though.

Your example is a good one, and while I've seen such a process in action before, I have no practical experience with games where this is a cornerstone or built into the system (Universalis sits on my shelf, sadly unplayed).

Regards,

Hal

[TonyLB]

Cool... now I understand more.

So, on the original topic:  A reward is something that the players would be able to seek out.  From my understanding so far, it doesn't sound like your dealing with players who conscously interact with the illusions the GM is putting forth.

Might it be clearer to describe whatever you plan to give out as a "Consolation Prize"?  That connotes (to me) a sense that "Yes, we all wanted me (the GM) to be smart enough to convince you that there was no railroading, but since I wasn't, here's a prize for being good sports about my human failings".