Motivational Events and GMs Leading the Story

[Ayrizale]

Hello,

    I've been thinking about some things recently and I wanted to get some other opinions and points of view about something.  I have been considering the Gamemaster's job of keeping things moving, framing scenes, and cutting when the scene has accomplished its goal.  Having never actually played in a proper Narritivist game (though hoping to run something resembling one in the near future) I would like to get some other points of view about one specific aspect of this job.

    My question is this; how do you, as GMs, have your Bangs (to use the term from Sorcerer) ready for use without having those events be leading and thus take away from the choices of the players?  My understanding is that a Narritivist game is supposed to be authored primarily by the players, but if the GM is to keep the events relevant to the players, doesn't that, almost out of necessity, force the GM introduced events to "lead" the players in a certain direction?

    How do you balance the need for a story relevant motivational event with the need for provding the players with as much choice as possible?  Do you plan more than one Bang before the session starts?  Do you plan branching Bangs to acount for the wider range of options an event gives the players?  Or do you plan only the first event and then "wing" the rest?

    I suspect that the answer to most of these questions will be that the ability to balance the various needs comes only with experience, but I'm hoping that some of you can provide me with good starting points.

Thanks,

Lael

[Paul Czege]

Hey Lael,

Check out http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=383&">this thread.

Paul

[jburneko]

Hello,

I'm glad Paul pointed to that old thread.  It was refreshing to read that again.  By the way, I'm still coming to terms with how to start a game without player authored kickers.  If anyone has new insights into that I'd like to here them.

As to how to GM without introducing big red arrows that say, "go this way," that turns out to be a lot easier than one thinks.  The key is to think up elements that are a) independent of time and space and b) (roughly) independent of order.  If you don't try and second guess the players actions then the situations you put before them won't require them to try and second guess you.

My Werewolf game is currently being run off a 100% bang driven basis and my notes consist of nothing but a list of interesting elements and situations I want to include but they aren't dependent on anything particular happening.

For example, one of the things I have written down is:

Selestra's mother is pregnant.  

Selestra's player has specifically stated in her character description that she has issues with her parents.  When she discovered she was a werewolf, she left without any word to her parents who are obviously very worried about her.  Anyway, I know that this little fact will provoke SOME kind of emotional reaction from Selestra's player.  I don't know what it will be and I don't know when it will come up.

I have this as a follow up note: Possible choice between killing mother/(unborn?) sibbling and forsaking werewolf obligations?

Basically, I've jotted this down as being a conflict the player might be interested in exploring assuming her mother's pregnancy takes a promenant role in her story.  If the mother's preganancy doesn't interest the player this element will be dropped.  I also won't force this conflict to come into existence.  I've merely jotted it down as a reminded to look for a potential opening to insert this conflict.  If that opportunity does not present itself, then it will be dropped in favor of something more important.

Oh a, REAL easy trap to fall into with bang style planning is the Yes/No conflict.  It's the presentation of a problem that requires the players to choose between only two options.  These kinds of problems are okay, especially for quest style stories but you have to make sure that BOTH choices are exceptable choices for the players to make.  For example, I have this written in my werewolf notes:

Creepy wilderness dwelling hermit wants coporate logging exec assissinated.

Basically, assuming the players come to this wilderness dwelling hermit for help of some kind (again, if it doesn't come up it will be dropped) the hermit will ask the players to assissinate this logging exec who's threatening his home in exchange for his help.  This is coming dangerously close to what has been called the Bobby-G scenario.  I avoid this by being prepared for the players to say, 'No WAY.  This isn't worth it.'  The game won't come to a screetching halt if the player's refuse to aid the old man in his bitter murderous endeavors.

Hope this helps.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

What Jesse said.

A straightforward solution is to provide the players with Bangs that have more than one reasonable outcome, but still require action:

Bang: there is a horde of evil creatures that are likely to destroy the character's hometown tomorrow.
Railroady: there is a horde of evil creatures that are here now, and attacking you.

Bang: your girlfriend has disappeared under circumstances that mean that she is likely dead.
Railroady: your girlfriend has disappeared, and you are the only one who can save her.

Bang: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down over uncharted waters.
Railroady: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down in a lake in New Jersey within swimming distance of shore.

Bang: the temple has nominated you as a candidate for the opening in the High Priest position, which entails many privileges and duties if elected.
Railroady: the temple has elected you High Priest in your absence, which entails many privileges and duties.

Bang: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been found hung out front of the grange hall one morning.
Railroady: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been shot by Black Bob who is now shooting other townsfolk down the street.

Bang: the florist has delivered orchids instead of the previously ordered roses to the wedding at the apparent behest of your mother-in-law.
Railroady: your mother-in-law dies at the wedding of a sudden aneurism.

Bang: you see a nurse who you know putting somthing in Fred's IV, and looking about nervously as she does it.
Railroady: you see some nurse putting something in Fred's IV which has a skull and crossbones on it.

These are all out of context, but the idea is, as Jesse pointed out, that in each case the characters involved should have options as to what direction to take. Even if it's just to shut up, that's a valid player decision if it means possible repercussions later. As in the case of the nurse. If the player says nothing, and something bad happens, that creates a thematic element.

The Railroady examples all are similar in that there is really only one course to take after the event has occurred.

Take the flowers example. The player can have her character Lisa get all upset about her meddling mother-in-law, or she can bottle up her rage, and unleash later on her new husband, or she can accept her mother-in-law's help as though well-intended. Or any of a number of reactions.

If the mother-in-law just dies, the characters can only sit and look shocked as the ambulance takes her away, and then grieve. Effectively you've introduced a similar plot element; the MiL has interrupted the wedding day, somehow. But in the Railroady case, the player doesn't get to choose a rout for their character to address the issue. Not good.

Really good bangs will not allow just a shrug. The bang should be designed to set the characters in motion with regards to it. Whatever motion the player is interested in examining.

Not the easiest thing to do right, but works with a little effort.

Mike

[Ayrizale]

The link that Paul posted is very helpful and the other comments have really given me a much better idea what I need to be looking for.  Thanks to Mike and Jesse for the insights, they are very helpful and give me much to think about.

My thanks again,

Lael

[Daredevil]

Excellent topic -- just what I needed.

I want to dig into a few statements. First, something that was presented as a kicker in the thread recommended by Paul:

"You wake up to find a dead body in you living room."

Is this a proper kicker in both of the following circumstances: A) the GM knows how the body got there and who did it, ie. everything B) the GM does not know how the body got there and is just throwing it as a hook.

That may sound like an odd question, but it's a very important one for my peace of mind.

Then onto the examples by Mike, and even if I may sound nit-picky, my interest is genuine in understanding these better:

Bang: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down over uncharted waters.
Railroady: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down in a lake in New Jersey within swimming distance of shore.

What is the difference between these? If one of the first things the player/character will find out on leaving the plane is that its in a lake, within swimming distance of the shore, what is the difference? Or is the idea of being in a lake in New Jersey, within swimming distance of the shore repulsive? I don't understand this one.

How does the first one give the players more options than the latter? I can understand it if player have director power in their hands. If they don't, I don't get it.

Bang: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been found hung out front of the grange hall one morning.
Railroady: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been shot by Black Bob who is now shooting other townsfolk down the street.

I have pretty much the same issue here. I don't see how Black Bob being out on town shooting people is railroady. The characters can still react in any number of ways and both things are equally forced on the characters : Black Bob shooting or the Sheriff being hung.

These questions of mine outline something that I don't quite understand in the thinking presented in this thread. In fact, it's always bugged me, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Directions, anyone?

(Edited to fix typos -- and to add this comment: I'd really love to see more examples of bangs in use. Jesse's examples are pretty much how I run 50% of the content in my games.)

[Ayrizale]

Excellent topic -- just what I needed.

I want to dig into a few statements. First, something that was presented as a kicker in the thread recommended by Paul:

"You wake up to find a dead body in you living room."

Is this a proper kicker in both of the following circumstances: A) the GM knows how the body got there and who did it, ie. everything B) the GM does not know how the body got there and is just throwing it as a hook.

That may sound like an odd question, but it's a very important one for my peace of mind.

Good question.  I'd like to see what others think as well.  My own opinion is that it is a proper Kicker in both cases.  Just because the GM knows the details behind a kicker doesn't invalidate the kicker.  The player can still react in any way that he chooses.

Then onto the examples by Mike, and even if I may sound nit-picky, my interest is genuine in understanding these better:

Bang: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down over uncharted waters.
Railroady: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down in a lake in New Jersey within swimming distance of shore.

What is the difference between these? If one of the first things the player/character will find out on leaving the plane is that its in a lake, within swimming distance of the shore, what is the difference? Or is the idea of being in a lake in New Jersey, within swimming distance of the shore repulsive? I don't understand this one.

How does the first one give the players more options than the latter? I can understand it if player have director power in their hands. If they don't, I don't get it.

I believe it is more a matter of subtleties.  In the first the players are going down in uncharted waters.  If they have directorial power then they could choose to come down near an island or simply a reef or sandbar.  The hull of the plane could survive the impact in such a condition that it would make a serviceable boat.  Or they might choose to try to summon a demon that would save them (in Sorcerer).

In the second case, the players are not likely to try anything of that sort.  There aren't going to be islands, reefs, or sandbars.  They don't need the plane to float and the shore is within swimming distance so they don't need to summon a demon.

This one may not represent direct leading on the part of the GM, but it is certainly implying that there is only one smart and easy course of action.

Bang: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been found hung out front of the grange hall one morning.
Railroady: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been shot by Black Bob who is now shooting other townsfolk down the street.

I have pretty much the same issue here. I don't see how Black Bob being out on town shooting people is railroady. The characters can still react in any number of ways and both things are equally forced on the characters : Black Bob shooting or the Sheriff being hung.

These questions of mine outline something that I don't quite understand in the thinking presented in this thread. In fact, it's always bugged me, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Directions, anyone?

Again, I believe that this is less a matter of the GM directly telling the players what to do than a matter of the players being given a very strong clue what their next course of action should be.  If they find the sherif hung, then they can choose to investigate normally, they can leave and let someone else make the discovery, they can frame someone that they don't like for the murder and then "investigate" it so that it leads to that person.

In the second instance, the culprit is established, his location is established, and the players are really only given two options, fight him to save the town or run away.  Now certainly there are other options that they could do, but those two are probably the ones that will jump to mindmore often than not (depending on setting and system).

But that's just how I see it.  I'm sure that others will have their own opinions about the differences, and I'd like to hear them to see this from other points of view.

Lael

[Le Joueur]

Bang: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down over uncharted waters.
Railroady: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down in a lake in New Jersey within swimming distance of shore.

What is the difference between these? If one of the first things the player/character will find out on leaving the plane is that its in a lake, within swimming distance of the shore, what is the difference? Or is the idea of being in a lake in New Jersey, within swimming distance of the shore repulsive? I don't understand this one.

How does the first one give the players more options than the latter? I can understand it if player have director power in their hands. If they don't, I don't get it.

I believe it is more a matter of subtleties.  In the first the players are going down in uncharted waters.  If they have directorial power then they could choose to come down near an island or simply a reef or sandbar.  The hull of the plane could survive the impact in such a condition that it would make a serviceable boat.  Or they might choose to try to summon a demon that would save them (in Sorcerer).

In the second case, the players are not likely to try anything of that sort.  There aren't going to be islands, reefs, or sandbars.  They don't need the plane to float and the shore is within swimming distance so they don't need to summon a demon.

This one may not represent direct leading on the part of the GM, but it is certainly implying that there is only one smart and easy course of action.

Bang: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been found hung out front of the grange hall one morning.
Railroady: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been shot by Black Bob who is now shooting other townsfolk down the street.

I have pretty much the same issue here. I don't see how Black Bob being out on town shooting people is railroady. The characters can still react in any number of ways and both things are equally forced on the characters : Black Bob shooting or the Sheriff being hung.

Again, I believe that this is less a matter of the GM directly telling the players what to do than a matter of the players being given a very strong clue what their next course of action should be.  If they find the sherif hung, then they can choose to investigate normally, they can leave and let someone else make the discovery, they can frame someone that they don't like for the murder and then "investigate" it so that it leads to that person.

In the second instance, the culprit is established, his location is established, and the players are really only given two options, fight him to save the town or run away.  Now certainly there are other options that they could do, but those two are probably the ones that will jump to mindmore often than not (depending on setting and system).

But that's just how I see it.  I'm sure that others will have their own opinions about the differences, and I'd like to hear them to see this from other points of view.

I think you're more on track with the second than the first.  As I read them, it's more about what you can expect (railroading/not).  The reason going down in the lake is railroady is because 'you know who' will be forced, by railroading, to satisfy the crisis.  Over the ocean, it may be a crisis, but the solution is not necessarily based on terrorism versus justice.

In the second example, I could just hear the gamemaster expecting the players to 'answer the call.'  And if they don't want to?  Railroading.  There are many ways to approach finding a mysterious hung man, but the gamemaster will only let you sort out Black Bob, making it railroading.

At least that's what I saw.

Fang Langford

[Daredevil]

Ayrizale wrote:

If they have directorial power then they could choose to come down near an island or simply a reef or sandbar. The hull of the plane could survive the impact in such a condition that it would make a serviceable boat. Or they might choose to try to summon a demon that would save them (in Sorcerer).

In the second case, the players are not likely to try anything of that sort. There aren't going to be islands, reefs, or sandbars. They don't need the plane to float and the shore is within swimming distance so they don't need to summon a demon.

So, what if they don't have directorial power?

This one may not represent direct leading on the part of the GM, but it is certainly implying that there is only one smart and easy course of action.

Sometimes there just is an easy, smart course of action.

That still doesn't mean that the players couldn't go for an island or to summon a demon. Okay, so all options are probably not available as there can't be a coral reef in the lake, but that works both ways ; not all things found in a lake can be found in the ocean.

I don't see how deciding that the plane goes down is not railroading and that the shore is close by is not railroading. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true.


Le Joueur wrote:

The reason going down in the lake is railroady is because 'you know who' will be forced, by railroading, to satisfy the crisis.

and

There are many ways to approach finding a mysterious hung man, but the gamemaster will only let you sort out Black Bob, making it railroading.

This is I don't understand at all. How does telling the players that Black Bob is shooting folks down in the pub going to automatically make them go stop it, unless they have a vested interest in doing so?

How does presenting a situation equal railroading? It doesn't, unless the GM drives the play towards one solution or the situation is incredibly one-sided (but then sometimes an incredibly one-sided situation can be very likely, or dramatically appropiate).

[Le Joueur]

The reason going down in the lake is railroady is because 'you know who' will be forced, by railroading, to satisfy the crisis.

and

There are many ways to approach finding a mysterious hung man, but the gamemaster will only let you sort out Black Bob, making it railroading.

This is I don't understand at all. How does telling the players that Black Bob is shooting folks down in the pub going to automatically make them go stop it, unless they have a vested interest in doing so?

How does presenting a situation equal railroading? It doesn't, unless the GM drives the play towards one solution or the situation is incredibly one-sided (but then sometimes an incredibly one-sided situation can be very likely, or dramatically appropiate).

Have you ever heard of "Hobson's Choice?"  Y'see ole Hobson owned a stable where he rented out horses.  You had your choice of horses; you either pick to one by the door or you can shop somewhere else.  It's about a choice that isn't a choice.

When you tell the players that Black Bob is shooting folks, who do you think is going to stop him?  If the players avoid Bob, two things can happen; first, the 'story' (and probably Bob) can come looking for them (meaning they have no choice in dealing with Bob), or second, nothing else happens (is that a choice?).  See, Hobson's Choice in action, either you act on Black Bob or no choice.  The same is true for the terrorists.  In New Jersey, either you deal with them (as terrorists) or no choice.  That's railroading.

Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice?  Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices.  And over the ocean?  It doesn't have to be about Director Stance, you have many choices; you could team up with the terrorists just to survive, you could capture them and wait for rescue, you could force them to paddle you back to civilization, (and on the dark side) you could have a tense running battle until help arrives, they could capture you, or you could be on the run from them, really, the number of possibilities is infinite.  But none of this happens in New Jersey; if you don't 'fix the problem,' you don't get any play time (the authorities - read that non-player characters - get all the limelight) and that's 'no choice.'

Is that any clearer?

Fang Langford

[Ayrizale]

First, I'd like to say that, having just come off a certain mailing list, I may be a little over sensitive to the way people type.  But can we turn off the pilot lights on the flamethrowers and try to discuss this rather than argueing?  If my own posts prior to this set a bad tone for the discussion, then I apologize.  No such tone was intended.  Thanks.

I'd also like to say that I'm still learning this stuff too and have not yet had the chance to actually try it is play, so my thoughts are just that, my thoughts based on theory rather than actual play.

Now on to the replies.

So, what if they don't have directorial power?

Well, if they don't have directorial power, then they could still try to salvage a floating piece of wreckage or use some power that they have to resolve the situation.  Not having directorial power does seem to limit their options to sink or swim.  Though as Mike said, these are out of context, and the context may very well change the number of options a great deal.

Sometimes there just is an easy, smart course of action.

True, in real life there are often choices that are simple and easy.  But this is a Framed Scene.  It is supposed to be dramatic, and drama doesn't usually come from watching the easy choices being made.  (Yes, under the right circumstances it does, but not usually.)

I don't see how deciding that the plane goes down is not railroading and that the shore is close by is not railroading. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true.

That the shore is nearby does seem to be railroading to me.  That the plane goes down before the players have a chance to try anything also seems like railroading to me.  But if the plane has to go down, then placing it in "uncharted waters" rather than in a "lake in New Jersey with the shore in swimming distance" seems to present more options for the players.  But perhaps that's just me.

This is I don't understand at all. How does telling the players that Black Bob is shooting folks down in the pub going to automatically make them go stop it, unless they have a vested interest in doing so?

The scenario with Bob seems to be telling the players everything that has happened.  The sheriff was shot by Bob who is now just down the road killing more people.  The players have the choice of stopping Bob or not with the implication that stopping Bob is the idea since he is a clear and present threat to the town, if not to the players.

The scenario where they find the sheriff hung presents many options, both for the players as well as the GM.  Since the GM has not told the players exactly what happened, he is free to change the details if he likes what the players come up with better.

How does presenting a situation equal railroading? It doesn't, unless the GM drives the play towards one solution or the situation is incredibly one-sided (but then sometimes an incredibly one-sided situation can be very likely, or dramatically appropiate).

This is basically the distinction that I'm trying to figure out too.  It really is a very fine line between presenting a situation that the players can take ontrol of and presenting a situation that leads them towards your story.  I think that I'm starting to get a feel for it, but I'm going to need to try it in play to get a better handle on it.

Thanks,

Lael

[Ayrizale]

Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice?  Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices.  And over the ocean?  It doesn't have to be about Director Stance, you have many choices; you could team up with the terrorists just to survive, you could capture them and wait for rescue, you could force them to paddle you back to civilization, (and on the dark side) you could have a tense running battle until help arrives, they could capture you, or you could be on the run from them, really, the number of possibilities is infinite.  But none of this happens in New Jersey; if you don't 'fix the problem,' you don't get any play time (the authorities - read that non-player characters - get all the limelight) and that's 'no choice.'

Is that any clearer?

Fang Langford

Aaaahhhaaa!   That certainly helped me.  I completely missed some of those results from the downed plane.  Just didn't occur to me at the time of reading it.  Much clearer for me.  Thanks!

Lael

[Mike Holmes]

Cool. It was fun watching other people pick up on the subltleties. And, yes these are out of context, so placed in certain contexts they would make no sense, or even be reversed possibly.

The point is to look at the intention of the Bang. Did you design it so that the players can only really respond in a single way? Is your intent to have the characters ony have the fight-or-flight option which is what happens in the terrorist or Bob, or monsters attack scenario? Or is it to open up the players ability to express their character's stories?


BTW, the Bang that follows the plane going down in uncharted waters is to find a desert island nearby. Do they stay? Do they go? Who rules the island, and under what system? How is that determined? How many camps are there, and is there cooperation? Many more questions to be answered than just "do we fight or flee from the terrorists?"

Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice?  Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices.  

Notice that I mentioned that the sherrif was hun in front of the Grange building. That's probably a clue. The point is never just leave infinite possibilities. Just the fact that he was the sherrif is probably enough, but the fact of his location might be significant as well. In any case, the players should have some things to latch onto.

For example, if I was to just say that your character comes home one day to find an unidentifiable dead man in his appartment, the character is wide open as o what to do about it. But since the character isn't linked in any way, or there are no clues or anything, you don't know what to do.

You have to be careful with the clues thing. Too often a clue means that the only reasonable action is to track down the clue in a specific manner. This shouldn't be the case. I used the Grange example because it's supposed to be rather non-specific. You can go in the building, or ask people what the significance is, or just consider it unimportant and focus on the sherrif's enemies. It's a potential hook, but not a forced one.

Mike

[Daredevil]

Le Joueur wrote:

When you tell the players that Black Bob is shooting folks, who do you think is going to stop him? If the players avoid Bob, two things can happen; first, the 'story' (and probably Bob) can come looking for them (meaning they have no choice in dealing with Bob), or second, nothing else happens (is that a choice?). See, Hobson's Choice in action, either you act on Black Bob or no choice.

I completely disagree that it has to be the players that stop Black Bob. It is a situation presented to them to which they can respond in any number of ways. They can ignore it, find out why Bob is doing it, stop this from happening, help him kill the demon infested citizens ... anything. There is no reason the story has to come looking for the players either. If they just ignore Black Bob, you can craft any number of subsequent bangs from that. How about the police surrounding Black Bob while he was breaking and entering a house -- the house of your soon to be wife -- resulting in a kidnapping situation? How about Black Bob fleeing entirely, disappearing and remaining a threat to everyone? Whatever fits.

Le Joueur wrote:

The same is true for the terrorists. In New Jersey, either you deal with them (as terrorists) or no choice. That's railroading.

This I can agree with somewhat, but I'd say the whole thing was pretty uninteresting ... until:

Mike Holmes wrote:

BTW, the Bang that follows the plane going down in uncharted waters is to find a desert island nearby. Do they stay? Do they go? Who rules the island, and under what system? How is that determined? How many camps are there, and is there cooperation? Many more questions to be answered than just "do we fight or flee from the terrorists?"

Now this is interesting, but I think the GM should frame directly into this, pretty much forgetting the previous bang.


Le Joueur wrote:

Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice? Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices.

Yes there is an obvious action to take : find out what happened. It all depends on how you look at it -- from what perspective -- and what the players find interesting. If this (finding out about the death) is interesting to the players, then it's all good. The same could be said if the players just want a combat scene with Black Bob out on town. Hey, there's lots of players like that out there.

Mike Holmes wrote:

The point is to look at the intention of the Bang. Did you design it so that the players can only really respond in a single way? Is your intent to have the characters ony have the fight-or-flight option which is what happens in the terrorist or Bob, or monsters attack scenario? Or is it to open up the players ability to express their character's stories?

This is pretty much the meat of the matter, I think. The examples above are a bit problematic because the surrounding situations are not known, so we don't know how the player's could react to them. I don't agree that Black Bob has to be seen as a simple fight/fight-not situation, though.

[Le Joueur]

When you tell the players that Black Bob is shooting folks, who do you think is going to stop him? If the players avoid Bob, two things can happen; first, the 'story' (and probably Bob) can come looking for them (meaning they have no choice in dealing with Bob), or second, nothing else happens (is that a choice?). See, Hobson's Choice in action, either you act on Black Bob or no choice.

I completely disagree that it has to be the players that stop Black Bob. It is a situation presented to them to which they can respond in any number of ways. They can ignore it, find out why Bob is doing it, stop this from happening, help him kill the demon infested citizens ... anything. There is no reason the story has to come looking for the players either. If they just ignore Black Bob, you can craft any number of subsequent bangs from that. How about the police surrounding Black Bob while he was breaking and entering a house -- the house of your soon to be wife -- resulting in a kidnapping situation? How about Black Bob fleeing entirely, disappearing and remaining a threat to everyone? Whatever fits.

If you abstract your alternatives, they become equivalent to mine (I never said they had to "fight" Bob).  "They can ignore it," that would pretty much be the same as "nothing else happens," when used badly.  "Find out why Bob is doing it, stop this from happening, help him kill the demon infested citizens" is mostly the same as the player are "going to stop him."

Crafting subsequent bangs on Bob assumes that the game is not railroady.  Any of Mike's examples can be done in a non-railroady game, the point here is not that this cannot avoid railroading, it is that the other option would be hard-pressed, by comparison, to be railroading (at least without additional information).  It is the comparison that matters here, not a specific item being compared.

Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice? Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices.

Yes there is an obvious action to take : find out what happened. It all depends on how you look at it -- from what perspective -- and what the players find interesting. If this (finding out about the death) is interesting to the players, then it's all good. The same could be said if the players just want a combat scene with Black Bob out on town. Hey, there's lots of players like that out there.

What makes this not 'the obvious action' is that a railroady game does not allow for "what the players find interesting" to lead the story.  Again, it is the comparison wherein lies the importance, not the specifics of either situation.  Having Black Bob shooting up the town is mostly like a railroady gamemaster 'making it your problem.'  (These aren't perfect examples, no such thing exists.)  On the other hand, a hanging sheriff does not require player action (the theory being, if you are in a town, and the townspeople are being shot at, you are being shot at, therefore it's your problem).

Exceptions exist to all such examples, I used the ones questioned to illustrate how a railroady gamemaster uses Hobson's Choice to attempt the illusion of choice on the part of the players, nothing more.

Fang Langford