So there was this nun, a woodsman and a petty criminal. It sounds like the setup for a joke, but is in fact my current party. I think I'd better tell you a little about the setup before I go on with my tale.

Living With The Talent is set in a low-fantasy world. There are no non-human races, although there are (probably) magical beings. There is a psionic-like ability that some humans possess called the Talent. The Talent is actively supressed by the Braedect Empire (think Roman-esque), with a strange and terrifying group called the Seekers hunting down and burning anyone who possesses it. The characters all have the Talent to one degree or another. In addition to The Talent there a (very) few individuals who wield the True Magic, most notably the Fire Mage who's lands border close to where the players are, and the Necromancer who's lands lie far to the south.

The first few sessions went well, the characters met up in a not-too-contrived way after being forced from their usual places by the coming seekers. An early encounter ended with them killing a Seeker, this wasn't entirely according to plan, since it removed some of their mystery, but it did give the game extra impetous so I wasn't too put out. They travelled onwards and game to Invillius, a Braedect villa and nearby village, where they discovered strange happening - the servants seemed zombie-like and rude, the peasants weren't tending the fields, the one peasant they did see turned out to be farming the same spot all day. On further inspection they discovered some kind of camp within the village, but fled when they discovered they were being watched by about twenty cats arranged in a semi-circle around them.

I was dead pleased, the players were getting well into character, and talking to one another in character, I'd established some interesting going ons, created some worthwhile plot hooks and got the characters' spooked.

And then it started going wrong. They decided to head back to the nearby fort and tell them of the problem rather than investigate further. Then they decided that they needed to continue running, and headed off east along the border road, and away from everything I had set up... As they approached the next fort along the border road, they saw signal fires being lit behind them and then troops being sent back along the way they came.

I'm at something of a loss now, I don't want to railroad them back towards the things I've setup and I don't want to break my cardinal rule of roleplaying:

The Plot Is What The Characters Do

But I also don't want to abandon the events I've set in motion. Or just run a game where they're just running from village to village (it gets old fast). Any and all advice, comments and analysis welcome.

Hi Mr Jack,

Mr Jack wrote: The Plot Is What The Characters Do

But I also don't want to abandon the events I've set in motion.

Who's to say that the fort (or someone thereabouts) is not somehow in on this strangeness? Or even behind it all?

Not to railroad them or anything, but if your game were approached from a cinematic standpoint there's no way that the people in the fort wouldn't somehow be involved.

When players give you chicken...
Make chicken pot pie.

Work the Seekers back in. There is a Seeker at the fort, asking questions about the murdered Seeker (remember, the one the PC's killed?)

This should complicate things nicely.

Then, start having strange things happen at the fort, like being followed by cats, and more peasants "farming the same spot".

They can't run from their problems for long. If they do, the problems just get worse.

Maybe I'm misreading, but they've already been to AND LEFT the fort, so that Seeker arxhon just suggested putting at the fort is still one or two steps behind the PCs. Or do you mean at fort #2? Hrm.

Right now, it seems as though they're fleeing Invillius, where the weirdness was first discovered, and are also fleeing the fort, thinking they're not far enough away from the danger. By the time they reach fort #2, troops are being sent back along the way they came.

The weirdness can still be here. You can have it happen without even railroading. What is your reason behind fort #2 sending troops down towards fort #1? Or do you not yet have a meaning behind that image?

arxhon wrote: Work the Seekers back in. There is a Seeker at the fort, asking questions about the murdered Seeker (remember, the one the PC's killed?)

This should complicate things nicely.

Then, start having strange things happen at the fort, like being followed by cats, and more peasants "farming the same spot".

They can't run from their problems for long. If they do, the problems just get worse.

Hi Jack,

Personally, my approach would be to give the PCs more power and more information.

John is exactly right. Here's how I'd do it. I'd get the events with the players to a tense moment...and I'd cut from the scene. Then I'd frame one of the players into a scene back at the villa, as an NPC. Maybe as a centurion who's about to discover something horrible. Maybe as someone with the Talent, who's overhearing a conversation in a public place. Give them some real drama in these scenes...violence breaks out during a discussion of politics...a bizarre creature attacks. You can do whatever you want, because these NPCs aren't the player characters and it doesn't matter if they die. And I'd cut suspensefully from some of these scenes before wounded characters are firmly established as being dead. I'd do individual scenes like this with each player...maybe twice around the room like this, boldly revealing information about the situation in each scene, before ultimately getting back to the player character group and their own tense moment. If you do it right, the players will return to Invillius...because that's where they'll envision their heroism happening.

Recognize though, that there's an implied contract in it. If you screw them over when they go back, they'll never trust you again.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: John is exactly right. Here's how I'd do it. I'd get the events with the players to a tense moment...

Paul Czege wrote: Recognize though, that there's an implied contract in it. If you screw them over when they go back, they'll never trust you again.

Wow. That's a lot of good replies, I'll try an answer as best I can.

Fabrice G

the players like what is happening but playing their character ( actor stance) decide that it's way to dangerous and that the only logical solution is to get the hell out of here

Remember that if you want that what your players want is what make the plot, you have to consider all your nifty ideas of what shoud happen/have happened as secondary at best.

Work the Seekers back in. There is a Seeker at the fort, asking questions about the murdered Seeker (remember, the one the PC's killed?)

What is your reason behind fort #2 sending troops down towards fort #1? Or do you not yet have a meaning behind that image?

What do a nun, a woodman, and a petty criminal have to do with what is going on with cats, zombie servants, and so forth?

Who are they? What are their issues, their motivations?

Personally, my approach would be to give the PCs more power and more information.

I'd get the events with the players to a tense moment...and I'd cut from the scene. Then I'd frame one of the players into a scene back at the villa, as an NPC.

Recognize though, that there's an implied contract in it. If you screw them over when they go back, they'll never trust you again.

Could I ask a question?

Did you design the plot details before or after character generation?

I don't really design plot details beforehand, I tend to pretty much wing it and see where it goes. The initial setting was designed before character generation, the players were told to create characters with the Talent, and the initial hook (run from the Seekers) was pre-designed. The later wierdness elements were produced later, following on from ideas I'd been mentally kicking around for a while. Nothing in my games is set in stone until it happens. Sure, right now, I think the events at Invilius are caused by a powerful group of Talent wielders led byb a unique and dangerous individual called Sirillion, but until the players find out something that reveals this bit of information it won't necessarily be true - although I don't currently have an alternate explanation that doesn't contradict past events or known world knowledge.

In the past I've found this method of running extremely succesful. I expect there is probably an accepted term for it here, but I've not yet got a solid grip on the Forge Terminology so I'll spare you my abuse of it. But this time? I'm not sure what to do next.

Here is some questions I have:
1)How aware are the players of their characthers abilities?
One possibly idea would be to give them an encounter with a smaller part of the weirdness, in order to show that they can actually affect it, make headway. Given what you described about
the setting, it sounds like it would be difficult for them to use their Talent and not be hunted down. This may contribute to their running away. (If I do anything heroic, the Seekers will investigate me) Another question would be, how do the common people view the Talent, i.e. if they do something and help someone, is that person going to report them anyway?

2)From the backgrounds you mentioned, none of them seems to have a vested interest in actually doning anything. One thing to do would be atually let them get to a place they like, maybe do a few side plots, and then have the weirdness start enroaching there. Since they have an attachment to their current situation or people therein, they are more likely to investegate.
This requires spending the time to build a real attachment, not just introducing an NPC and then having the NPC be kidnapped.

Hello Mr. Jack,

Here's something I'd add:

You write, "Plot is what the character do." Yes, sort of.

The truth is, a series of unconnected acts by the characters do not create "plot." Such a series of events might end up being the tale told by the five year old: "And then he went here... and then he did this... And then he saw that..." If we love the child, it might appeal for a few minutes, but one certainly would not use it as an outline for a film.

I'd offer an extension to your statement: "Plot is what the characters do toward somethig."

Luke will Rescue the Princess; Ripley accepts the challenge to face the aliens again; Frodo wants the Shire to be safe, for example.

Now, such an approach maybe not be thematically sound as executed as an RPG, lacking premise and all, but it would produce, at least, a "yarn" or a "tale." And there's nothing wrong with that.

Here's the direction of the storytelling I've heard so far: Three exceptional characters are threatened by people sent to kill them because of their exceptional abilities and flee. They investigate further, realize the the threat is greater and more mysterious than they thought, and flee further.

This last point is vital. The players are continuing to do what they were encouraged to do from the opening situation you presented to them. In other words, they're playing the story "correctly."

You chased the players' characters out of their lives. The characters have no goal to reach, no solution to a problem to strive for. They're willing, sans any other available and rational option, to let you have their characters continued to be chased by your characters.

My questions are: Where might the characters be trying to get to? What might they want to accomplish? Is there any actual choice in the game yet?

This last question requires explanation: They are chased out of their lives by a total mystery. What actual choice do they have but to run? Luke, for example, is chased out of his life when the stormtroopers kill his aunt and uncle. But he can choose to hide on Tatoonie, or join Obi Wan on his way to Alderan. Do the players have any actual decisions on the table before them?

For example: Is there a person they might kill, a fortress they might take, an political institution they might overthrow to free those with Talents from this murderous tyranny that the players and their characters know about? If not, consider this, or something along this line.

Is there a place they can try to reach where those with Talents are safe? Thus, you continue the "hunted" mode, as they PCs travel across this cool and strange land you've created, while still being chased.

But, again, it's got to be a choice. Off the top of my head, I'd offer up both these options and see what happens. Then they're on their way *toward* something. Then, as they make decisions as to what they'll do to get to their goal, you'll get your plot.

Take care,

Christopher

Mr Jack wrote: I don't really design plot details beforehand, I tend to pretty much wing it and see where it goes. The initial setting was designed before character generation, the players were told to create characters with the Talent, and the initial hook (run from the Seekers) was pre-designed.

continuing what Mr Jack wrote: In the past I've found this method of running extremely succesful. I expect there is probably an accepted term for it here, but I've not yet got a solid grip on the Forge Terminology so I'll spare you my abuse of it. But this time? I'm not sure what to do next.

In other words, they're playing the story "correctly."

Hi Mr. Jack,

Just so there's no misunderstanding...

My first point about playing "correctly" wasn't meant to imply that you had thought the players had done anything wrong. And, on the contrary, it sounds like a good group that picks up clues back and forth across the table and responds to them.

Second, I understand how you use the sentence to sum up story creation in RPGs, and counter bad habits from other experiences. I've used the same sentence myself. All I meant to do was stretch it out a little further. Like a nice porch added to a house. I think it will look nicer that way.

Christopher

I ran the next session last night. Things didn't get off to a great start with one of my players being almost an hour late, and another having apparently mysteriously vanished off the face of the earth.

When we did get going I began by explaining the new rules system (developed from these discussions: How good are you at mental arithmetic? and Qualitative Fortune ). Ant seemed rather unsure about the idea of the player sometimes narrating the action, and suggested that instead the other players should decide the outcome when a Joker is drawn. I found this really quite surprising, I'd assumed he would have relished the chance.

Anyway, as the session unfolded it seemed my former worries were unfounded, after discovering that the Fort has sent riders east for the Seekers they decided that the Wierdness was less terrifying than the Seekers, the Fire Mage or The Things That Lurk In The Depths Of The Uberwald and headed back West, keeping off the road so they wouldn't be spotted. Returning to Fort Ludranius they discovered the wierdness had spread there from Invilius.

And here came the only part of the session I really wasn't comfortable with. Without Robin present, I was playing the role of Sladimir. Hal suggested they go south towards Barflin Nook, and the place they killed the Seeker. I thought that Sladimir would be really uncomfortable with this (his biggest fear is the discovery of his Talent), and so had him oppose this. Now, this worked out well enough the party are now planning to kidnap someone from the Fort to help find out what's going on. But it feels to me like railroading for me to have a character controlled by me choose the parties direction. I asked the players afterwards and they seemed to think all was fine, Ant in fact said 'we need a push in the right direction every now and then or we'd just run away' - does this mean railroading can be good at time? How could that be so?. Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The new system worked out really well, and the players thought it was more fun than rolling dice. The only thing that didn't go so well was the Joker's self-narration effect, but I think that may just be the shock of the new so I'll stick with it a bit.

Hi Jack,


nice to know things went for the better.

Mr Jack wrote: But it feels to me like railroading for me to have a character controlled by me choose the parties direction. I asked the players afterwards and they seemed to think all was fine, Ant in fact said 'we need a push in the right direction every now and then or we'd just run away' - does this mean railroading can be good at time? How could that be so ?

Jack

There's only really elements of railroading if you chose to control Sladimir without giving the players a chance to - either singly or as a group. If the players opted for you to control Sladimir then there's a form of consent to input on group decisions. If you did decide to control the character without reference to the players then there's no difference between input from the PC and group decision input from an influential npc.

But here's the thing: there's nothing inherantly wrong with that. If the players are happy with GM having influence on the plot, that's great. There is nothing inherantly wrong with the GM writing all of the plot if the players are happy with that.

Player happiness is more important than theories and labels about what's going on.

There was a good thread on the term Railroading that you could search up. But it essentially comes down to this. Player's and GM's have power in games to make things happen. There is a contract that defines this distribution. If it's broken, then that's bad. If it's not broken, then it doesn't matter how the participant used their power, it's all good.

Take your typical power split from many games of D&D. The player's control the characters, and the GM controls everything else. The GM can use his power in such a way as to strip the player of his power to make decisions. Assuming such contract, that's a bad thing.

Now, lot's of different things get called railroading. So many that by certain definitions, and certain preferences, that wouldn't be bad. We like to think that, given the negative connotations typically associated with the word, that it ought to only be used in the cases where the contract is broken.

Thus, what you have described by our definition is not railroading. Apparently your contract is a little fuzzy, and that's where the worry comes in. But as long as it's truely satisfactory, you've just nailed down one more datapoint as to where that contract lies.

Keep in mind that in some play, what you did would be seen as very innocuous. Some who like radical scene framing would do much more in the way of using force.

Player: "It would be cool if Machius had a scene in which he got to use his magic."
GM: "Pan in on Machius standing before a giant monolith. Having thought about his situation, he went to the library, looked up what sort of power sources were available locally, and then packed up, left town, and found what he was looking for. Now the rock pillar he purveys glows with power beckoning him to attempt to manipulate it."

Now, for some contracts, this is raliroading of the most extreme kind. The GM has actually made a whole bunch of deccisions for the character by fiat. But for the player who actually wants what the one above does, and with the right contract, this is not only kosher, but coudl be excellent play on the GM's part.

Basically, it comes down to what the player's want to have control over. And the line will always be fuzzy, despite the supposed clarity of the "traditional" power split. For example:

Player: "Machius walks across the street."
GM: "Machius dodges a few carts and gets to the other side."

Now, a traditional player could say that the GM was imposing on his rights with the character. After all, what if he didn't want to dodge those carts? But assuming that the GM read the player's intentions correctly, there's no problem with him making these micro-decisions as a way to add color.

So its never quite cut and dried. You'll always be looking for what constitutes "proper". But you'll find that, with the exception of the "abused player", that you can push the line as GM quite far, often. All you have to do is ensure that you're leaving something interesting for the player to do (and then we get into GNS as for what they want to do).

The basic principle is this. As GM, use your powers expansively to get PCs to points that allow the player to make substantive and interesting decisions for the character. Assuming you're doing that, you'll get no cries of railroading.

Mike

The player's control the characters, and the GM controls everything else.

The "led around by NPC's" is a classic example, Jack. Sounds like railroading to me. Why were you having a "horribly tedious" time? Because you didn't get to make decisions you wanted to make, right? The force used in this case is probably oneof two things:

a. The NPCs in question can, and will kill your characters if you don't participate. Hence it's do what they want or you can't play. or

b. The NPCs are the only game in town. If you don't follow them, nothing happens. Hence it's do what they want or you can't play.

Now, theoretically, there may be players who are satisfied in play in the role of just making up the "window dressing" decisions. Those being stuff like chosing to sharpen swords before bed, and how the character says their lines. And if that's the case, this isn't railroading. Again, it's just leading to the points of decision that the player want's, and pushing the game forward where they don't.

But in your case, it sounds like your GM was railroading, figured it out, and dramtically changed the problem when he determined what it was. Good for him. Because apparently you have an interest in more than just "window dressing" decisions.

Pretty simple analysis, really. If you don't like it, it's probably railroading.

Mike