I'm sure this will vary considerably from one player and/or group to the next, but how do people handle cooperating with the plot?

What I mean by that is, how much do you try to figure out what the GM "wants" your characters to do and then try to do it? In a sense, this is a bit like asking, how much do you try to railroad your own character, but that sounded harsh. I'm not sure the way I put it in line one entirely does the question justice either, so I'll try to expand on it a bit.

Often times in a book, or movie, or what-have-you, something will happen "for the sake of the plot." This isn't necessarily a bad thing. For instance, Obi happened to find Luke in a canyon when he was be attacked by Sand People despite the fact that there wasn't much reason for him to be in the canyon, especially at that particular moment. This happened "for the sake of the plot," though someone I'm sure will be quick to mumble something about the Force despite that being a somewhat lame cover for lazy storytelling. Anyway, it's not a big deal especially since it's a fairly small detail that allows the larger, more important narrative of the story to move forward and whatever contrivance is used to justify it happening (or even with no justification being given) its probably fine.

So, in a role playing game, this sort of thing tends to happen too. Again, that's fine in and of itself, but in actual execution, I can't help be feel the need for there to be some justification inside the narrative. In other words, I'm fine with the GM presenting a character or a circumstance and doing something to make it clear how they expect the player characters should react to it. Not necessarily by saying "here's what you think about such and such" but more, "you get the general impression that..." possibly after a Cool or Vigilance roll or something. So far so good?

Here's where that becomes a bit of a stumbling block though: it seems to preclude lateral problem solving.

As an example: The GM says, "You need to recover the McGuffin from an Imperial guy in a place. That place is on a planet protected by a fleet of Imperial picket ships and an occupation force of stormtroopers. It doesn't look like you'll be able to make it to the surface (the red door). But you do know of a band of smugglers who could help (the red key) if you do this laundry list of chores for them." Instead of doing the laundry list, you decide to research the guy with the McGuffin, discover that he has a child enrolled in an academy off-planet, wait until they get let out for holiday, and ambush their transport enroute to the planet. You then arrange to ransom the child for the McGuffin, forcing the Imperial guy to meet you somewhere other than the planet (bypassing the key, door, and everything past it entirely). That's obviously not what the GM had planned, but it's just as sensible a thing for your character to do as the smuggler's laundry list. Arguably, it's just as interesting a story as going about it the other way and it's probably more interesting to you as the player because you're more invested an idea that you came up with. In other words, you're expressing more agency than you would have if you followed the GM's breadcrumbs. On the other hand, the GM may have put a lot of time into making the smugglers, their items of laundry, the planet, locations on it, and tied plot points critical to the advancement of their planned narrative into any of the aforementioned elements.

Is this good or bad or neither for the game? What's the accepted etiquette here? Other thoughts?

I don't know the etiquette, in the end I think it's just going to depend. Some gms will be able to take the smugglers and laundry list of things to do and put them in a notebook to use as modular encounters at a later date. Some gms would need a lot of time to set up a kidnapping/ransom adventure for you, and would rather stick to what they've got planned because it's going to be really good and involves surprise revelations about some pcs backstories. Neither scenario I think is better than the other, it just involves being able to talk to each other without anyone feeling attacked or belittled or ignored (also not an easy thing in many circumstances). Personally, I would be really excited if my pcs came up with some off the wall plot to get what they want - this is partly because I don't do a lot of prep work for campaigns, but the downside is I'm really bad at creating memorable, recurring npcs that the players can invest in. I'm working on it, but it's one of several definite shortfalls.

So, fortunately or no, I think talking is the answer.

It is an unwritten rule that all gamers must follow. This is best summed up by a quote from The Great Escape:

Colonel Von Luger, it is the sworn duty of all officers to try to escape. If they cannot escape, then it is their sworn duty to cause the enemy to use an inordinate number of troops to guard them, and their sworn duty to harass the enemy to the best of their ability.

No plan survives first contact with the enemy... I mean players... A GM should be flexible, regardless of how much time they spend planning a session. A GM is there to create a world for the players to interact with. You can come up with a cool plot and story for them to follow, but they're probably not going to follow it. If your players are having fun doing what they do (within reason and preset conditions of course) in your world, then your job isn't to force them back onto some mythical, unseen rails. Your job is to keep creating content for your players to enjoy. I know if my players have fun, I usually have fun as well. Yeah, there are times when my players do things I hadn't intended them to do or ignore something cool I put in front of them (a Force-forged ancient sword that could reflect blaster fire and parry lightsabers with proper Talents and committed Force die), but I take a breath and push on.

I think this system is more forgiving of improvisation than some other systems (having the Adversary Decks helps). I find it really exciting when the players and GM are working together to make a really cool story, blending plot hooks and encounters with improvisation and "lateral thinking." That sort of gameplay is memorable and rewarding.

To answer your question more specifically, I think it really depends on your group. Some GMs aren't great at improv and/or don't have much time for prep. In those instances, it's probably better for everyone to keep things more-or-less on the rails but this should be made clear at the start of the adventure or campaign. I think the etiquette is just to ask (communication being the key to avoiding hurt), perhaps a question like "I've got a great idea for how to handle this situation, but it's going to be a little off-the-wall. Is it OK if we approach this from a different angle?" I think that will go a long way toward smoothing things out.

I've roleplayed for a long time, through a lot of different systems and iterations of systems, and a lot of that has been running games (DM/GM/Storyteller/etc.). When I design an encounter I try to wargame through it and figure out a couple of probable outcomes, build in plausible reactions for the actors, and try to make it as realistic as possible within the context of the setting. Despite lots of preparation, I still get parties that throw me an unexpected curve ball. It took a long time for me to be willing to say "Woah, I wasn't expecting that. You guys go grab some snacks and give me a few minutes to think through this."

Does any of that help?

As a player, I do generally try to figure out if the GM has a particular plan in mind, either in general or specifically for my character. And if there are obvious things that my character might do which I think might help the situation, then I’m usually happy to do them. I don’t mind sticking to rails that may be apparent, if they seem to be likely to help.

OTOH, I do sometimes get a wild hair, and go completely sideways. And I am a natural contrarian, so if I feel like I’m being forced in one direction or another, then I will be strongly inclined to resist that.

As a contrarian, I have gotten really good at detecting attempts to use reverse psychology on me, and under those circumstances I will naturally do whatever appears most likely to screw up the plan as much as possible.

It all depends on how the GM structures things and manages the presentation to us, and what kind of mood I’m in.

One of the best ways for GMs to do things is present problems. Do not even consider what the solution is. That is not your job. Just be honest in your evaluation of whether the solution the Players come up with would work. Create goals for your bad guys and have them work on those goals whether the PCs get involved or not. And those bad guys should find out about the players when they screw up their plans and they should act accordingly to deal with the problems the players present.

If you plan for events 1 through 10 as a Gm, the players find routes 11 through 20. A fellow GM tokd me that and I find its true. The only eay not to do that is to have the players walk through a dungeon 80s dnd style where its just a series of fized path hack n slash.

So the general sense of what I'm getting from these responses, particularly from downlobot and SFC Snuffy, is that players should essentially ask permission to do things that the GM may not have planned for. Also, the GM should make an effort not to be committed to a particular outcome and remain flexible. At least in cases where it seems that the GM has a particular approach and/or outcome in mind. Is that about right?

I've had roleplaying games described to me as collaborative storytelling, but in execution that rarely seems like the case. That's largely where my original question comes from. How do people compromise the player's desire to creatively affect a story with the GM's desire to creatively affect the story? Also, how are the practical necessities of having most of the group determine the actions of a single character and one group member determine the entire rest of the universe handled? I'm sure there isn't one hard and fast rule, but I am interested in learning how other people and their groups handle that question.

So the general sense of what I'm getting from these responses, particularly from downlobot and SFC Snuffy, is that players should essentially ask permission to do things that the GM may not have planned for. Also, the GM should make an effort not to be committed to a particular outcome and remain flexible. At least in cases where it seems that the GM has a particular approach and/or outcome in mind. Is that about right?

I've had roleplaying games described to me as collaborative storytelling, but in execution that rarely seems like the case. That's largely where my original question comes from. How do people compromise the player's desire to creatively affect a story with the GM's desire to creatively affect the story? Also, how are the practical necessities of having most of the group determine the actions of a single character and one group member determine the entire rest of the universe handled? I'm sure there isn't one hard and fast rule, but I am interested in learning how other people and their groups handle that question.

Part of the issue is that this game has a (moderate) narrative element. The stronger the narrative element, the more collaboration will be required between the GM and the players. In more simulationist systems, the GM must be more prepared for when players--or more specifically their characters--want to go "off script" because the script is far less detailed. In narrative games, it's less about what "the character would do" and more about what "fits the narrative" so the play experience is different. Again, this game straddles the line.

So the general sense of what I'm getting from these responses, particularly from downlobot and SFC Snuffy, is that players should essentially ask permission to do things that the GM may not have planned for. Also, the GM should make an effort not to be committed to a particular outcome and remain flexible. At least in cases where it seems that the GM has a particular approach and/or outcome in mind. Is that about right?

I've had roleplaying games described to me as collaborative storytelling, but in execution that rarely seems like the case. That's largely where my original question comes from. How do people compromise the player's desire to creatively affect a story with the GM's desire to creatively affect the story? Also, how are the practical necessities of having most of the group determine the actions of a single character and one group member determine the entire rest of the universe handled? I'm sure there isn't one hard and fast rule, but I am interested in learning how other people and their groups handle that question.

Oh, sugar. That sounds like what I wrote, but I don't think I said what I was hoping to say. Part of it is pushing boundaries, going down the path your character would want to go down. Part of it is gauging the gm's comfort level - make em sweat, sure, but they also get to have fun, and have their moments to shine a light on what they bring to the table. So no, I don't think you need to ask permission generally, but as the gm is (hopefully) trying to make sure you're having a good time, try to make sure they're in on the fun too. If you're creative inputs are pointing in two very different directions, work together to find out what's possible. I'm probably still not saying what I was hoping to say - be excellent to each other! That was close.

You have to find the balance between linear and open world. The GM has the biggest influence on this balance as some prefer open world (follow the PCs and referee their decisions) but other prefer linear (this is today's mission, here's your objectives).

I myself fall in the linear at first. I set up each session as an short complete adventure. Sometimes it's a detective story, but the villian is caught or found out by the end of the session. Othertimes it's a battle royal with space pirates, but at the end they got the girl and saved the whole planet. This is mostly as we have a rotating 4th and 5th chair and it's easier to get those characters in the story if they were there from the start of the mission.

Now all of this sounds linear but once everything is set up, pirates on board or the Empire started bombing the city, and the PCs are in the middle of the session, I switch over to full open world/improv. I am not a gotcha kinda of GM, I want the group to free the princess as much as they do (or at least their pockets do), but really it's because I got them into this weeks mess and for me to be like "oh sorry you didn't seal the hatch in time, everyone's frozen in the vacuum of space!" Is just off putting when it was I the GM who started tho whole thing.

This kind of linear setup, improv escape has worked well only because my PCs understand it's my play style. They don't expect to just fly their ship to any station to pick up bounty's or smuggling jobs. While a few new people have brought up "Why are we even doing this?" questions, it was the other players who encouraged them to understand that it was the norm but to roleplay the confusion.

I believe that a true "open world" kind of gameplay has to have limitations still. In "old" D&D games most players were stuck on a island or continent that the entire campaign took place. In these games most of the towns, NPCs, forest, ruins, and dungeons were fully made ahead of time so skipping towns or just wondering could work as there was always some material to go through.

With star wars and interplanetary travel, this limitation is broken and there is no restriction on what or where the PCs could go. Sure, a similar theme could be used, broken ship, stranded on a moon (I'm using that literal theme to keep a group of mine at one location until the story plays out), but unless ALL the material is created already most of the world would have to be made up on the spot.

From your OP I believe you are a player looking for more freedom? Is so it's (unfortunately) up to your GM to make those hard decisions of how the campaign is played out. I would try to work with them off-session to see if you and brain storm with them on ideas.

One thing to remember is if you keep the fluff light you can reskin a lot of stuff. For example you make up this great cantina in mos espa on Tatooine. But the players go to one on Alderaan...you can still use all thw stuff you prepped for the cantina. Unlike the real world the things you create can be put anywhere.

Typically you should spend 10% of your time planning and then 90% thinking of all the different contingencies ways for when the players will decide to do it entirely different so you have most of them covered.

It is a good idea to get together with your players before a campaign and discuss characters what kind of game it will be etc. Leads to less problems. Gets player buyin etc.

It is a good idea to get together with your players before a campaign and discuss characters what kind of game it will be etc. Leads to less problems. Gets player buyin etc.

Agreed. It's also important to decide if you're playing the right system as various types of systems work better or worse at varying aspects of play.

So the general sense of what I'm getting from these responses, particularly from downlobot and SFC Snuffy, is that players should essentially ask permission to do things that the GM may not have planned for.

I don't know about "permission", necessarily. We're in the midst of a TIE fighter heist in my campaign. If the players had decided to drop it and go rob a bank instead I'd probably blink a few times...then warn them they are entering unplanned territory, break out the story cubes, and run with it. Then afterwards I'd have a discussion about what kind of game they'd like to play and we'd figure out what was lacking about the TIE heist that made them want to do something different...because that kind of total break means there is something wrong in the campaign.

However, if in the middle of the TIE heist they decided to simply blow up every TIE in the hangar, that's a nuance I can live with. Maybe new ideas or information came to light, and it seemed to them like a better course of action given the campaign as a whole. This kind of thing happens with pretty good regularity and the players certainly don't have to ask permission for that kind of thing. If the GM was planning on the PCs having a TIE fighter for the next session, then it's the GM's job to go back to the drawing board. The GM might have presented the mission as "you need the TIE to get past security for the next job", but the players can help decide how to overcome that obstacle. And maybe that mission goes on the back burner or never happens at all, but that's not the player's problem.

Basically, if the players have bought into the campaign, then what they do in the context of the campaign is pretty much open-ended. You can tell if they have bought in because they will take actions in accordance with the goals their PCs have developed, they will respect necessary NPCs, etc. If they seem aimless, it's because they don't care about the campaign or the NPCs and you have to figure out why. And there are players who will never care, all their PC lives for is accumulating gear and power...but luckily I don't have anybody like that in my group.

There has to be a certain level of player buy-in for the plot - "We found a mysterious map to a lost treasure? Forget that, I wanna go hit that Sabbac tournament on Cloud City!" But how that plot actually unfolds? It's fair game!

One of the best solutions I’ve seen in this space is for the GM to give multiple different hooks to the party, and then ask them which way they want to go. You could re-use a lot of the set pieces in any of the stories — that Cantina in Mos Eisley could be used for most anything — but the particular story line that the players are following is of their own choice.

My current GM for my every-other-Monday Roll20 game is using this technique, and I’ve found that it works well.

So the general sense of what I'm getting from these responses, particularly from downlobot and SFC Snuffy, is that players should essentially ask permission to do things that the GM may not have planned for. Also, the GM should make an effort not to be committed to a particular outcome and remain flexible. At least in cases where it seems that the GM has a particular approach and/or outcome in mind. Is that about right?

I've had roleplaying games described to me as collaborative storytelling, but in execution that rarely seems like the case. That's largely where my original question comes from. How do people compromise the player's desire to creatively affect a story with the GM's desire to creatively affect the story? Also, how are the practical necessities of having most of the group determine the actions of a single character and one group member determine the entire rest of the universe handled? I'm sure there isn't one hard and fast rule, but I am interested in learning how other people and their groups handle that question.

I think you've got the gist of it, but the Devil's in the details... I have no problem pushing people a little out of their comfort zone, whether it's players (as a GM), the GM (as a player), or fellow players. If done well, individuals can learn from the experience and grow as role-players (and as people!).

On the other hand, if you blindside your GM and he or she spends half-an-hour flipping through books to try to salvage the prepared adventure and the party stumbles through another couple of hours of poorly-planned, poorly-executed "random encounters," then all you've managed to do is to ruin everyone's fun. Similarly, on the other side of the screen, the GM needs to communicate with the party the degree of improvisation that can be realistically accommodated. Setting limits like that can seem like a downer, but in my experience a more-polished story usually means more fun is had by all.

I always suggest that GMs and players starting a new campaign go over to the Begging For XP site and read their post on Session Zero. Even if your setting is only partially player-generated, the amount of buy-in and familiarity it generates will pay big dividends in the campaign. Contained in that linked page are "setting creation sheets" for you to do your own, as well as the setting they created for their own game. This ties into your additional questions, quoted above, but it is, of course, more complicated.

Personally, I've always viewed the GM as responsible for making sure that everyone's having fun. That means giving individuals opportunities to shine (or at least get some time in the limelight, irrespective of success), incorporating Duties and Obligations into the story, and occasionally poking and prodding the group dynamic. At the same time, players should be mindful that the GM wants to have fun, too. When players go out of their way to shaft the GM or take an overly-antagonistic stance toward the GM, those games tend not to last as long and may end up with real-life confrontations. A couple of people have mentioned episodic play, where each game session represents an episode of the story, much like a serial or TV show. That's ideal for groups that have part-time members or trouble meeting regularly. It also is a great way to get everyone time on both sides of the screen. I'm firmly of the opinion that every player should try running an adventure or two, just for the appreciation it will give them for the difficulties inherent therein.

for me this depends on a few factors. If the GM is new or unskilled then I will try to toe the story line, although if they don't improve over time I will concentrate on enjoying the character within that space than care about the story.

one GM we have (one of our longest established. Is a special case. he could be a phenomenal GM if he gave the players a little more head and stopped the Vs GM attitude. Last game for him we were on a planet trying to earn cash. 1 City lots of Dangerous Jungle. our group consists of 1 BH 1 Mechanic 1 Hired Gun. 1 Random player and a BH/Mechanic crossover. so planned/written was a swoop race to get the money, none of us had driving skills/talents. Mechs offered to spend time tuning up stuff for money, BHs and Hired gun ask local sheriff for bounties and random comes up with random stuff. all gets brushed aside and we HAVE to do the race (which we then get fudged by GM due to the fact we would have lost otherwise).

Now another GM we have is fairly new. They are running a fantasy anime setting. We decided to go completely off book for that one. Our goal was to find and recover a magic artifact (these are rare in the setting) from a group of raiders that have stole prices of it from several villages. My player a Mage decides "well actually I would like that item myself" so pays the others to help her find it, for a ridiculously low fee as all of em started out as chars with no concept of money (A monk, a child raised in captivity and a girl from another dimension). We chase down half the artifact for our own means and come across the mid point boss. In the posturing before hand we point out his lackies were crap and we were avaliable for hire!

Myself I run in an Hourglass method. get them to city x or planet y, tell them why they are there and open the plot. This is kind of like CotG.

I consider myself a GM who rolls with the players. I (now) seldom prepare more than a vague story outline and then let the players fill in the blanks.

This works particularly well with Motivations, Obligations, Duties, and Moralities. They shape the story, particularly if the players pay attention.

But wasting time on the finer details (and I do mean, in my case, wasting) means that I don't enjoy the game as much. An example of this occurred only recently, when my PCs fled a city newly-occupied by Imperial forces. They flew into a storm to escape the TIE patrol tailing them. We left the session there, on a cliff-hanger, and over the intervening week, I worked out that the storm would cut the power to the ship, cause them to have to use some fancy flying skills, and then weave in and out of the rocks to make good their escape.

Unfortunately, my planning came to naught, when the pilot realised the mortal danger they were in, left the (relative) safely of the storm for the open sky above. They then had to deal with the TIE patrol head on and escape "the hard way". Which they did. The story was not as I'd prepared -- it was better.

tl:dr version: the GM needs to have a goal in mind that will advance the story, and be cluey about the use of problems, tricks, traps and encounters to challenge the PCs in meeting the goal. The players need to be mindful that the GM is playing too and engage the story (unlike in Desslok's example previously). RPGing is collaborative, especially in this system.

I've been GMing for quite a while now, and it took me some time to get there, but these days those lateral thinking moments are some of my favourite parts of GMing.

My approach generally is to set the goals for the PCs, set the stakes, but then they've got to figure out how to accomplish them.

Generally I think my players accept that sometimes we'll try a crazy scheme it either works out (like the time they staged an opera to distract a visiting dignitary) or it doesn't (like the time they tried to blackmail an ISB agent). If things work out, then great. If things don't there will be consequences, and I'll do my best as GM to make sure those consequences fit the situation and are still entertaining.

Here is the long and short of it:

If it's a long campaign, then lateral thinking should be allowed to the maximum extent. After all, you have time for side plots and actions.

If the game is short, such as just a one off adventure, then the lateral thinking is reduced to a minimum because time is now a factor. This means railroading by the GM and a level of acceptance by the players because it's necessary to move the minuscule plot forward. However, a good GM will make the railroading within the boundaries of acceptable actions by the players given their characters.

OKay for our group and for this Star Wars Role Playing Game (SW RPG) campaign . . . we are in a huge sandbox. A galactic sized sandbox.

Our GM may lay out paths for us to follow but we as players do not necessarily follow those paths. We may get to the same route, but occasionally we go off road.

And we often just head off in a different route.

The problem that this causes is that we may run out of script of content for the GM to present. We have had sessions (occasionally) end with the GM saying, "I didn't see this coming and I'm not prepared for this series of events. Let's wrap up here."

I think what I would describe our campaign being like is an effort for the GM to try to anticipate the players reactions, so that he can prepare for the appropriate events.

In that vein, it's more important for us players to let the GM understand our plans and directions.

Also (for me only) the worst thing that you can do to me, when I'm playing an RPG, is to pull out a 'canned' adventure. And that's in part because of my training in lateral and critical thinking.

The only RPG etiquette that I know of covering this subject is:

"If the GM asks, 'Are you sure,' you need to reevaluate what you are thinking of doing!!!!"