4 minutes ago, Concise Locket said:

I don't know if I would call it railroading but it's definitely removing player agency.

That's a strawman argument. What's liberating is, rather than planning out every eventuality and plot point, flexing your game to match player choice and player action. Clutching fast to secrets that cannot be revealed until the appropriate time isn't narrative gaming; that's a plot "dungeon crawl" where the PCs have to check the plot boxes in order to get the full story.

If I was "clutching fast to secrets," I wouldn't be rolling at all, I'd be doing what mensch suggested and sticking the NPC in the bushes an undetectable amount of distance away.

The player agency in the case of the stealth check came in when the player decided to drop XP into more ranks in Perception exactly so they could spot ambushes and spies better. Why would I diminish their agency by making those ranks worthless when I always alert the players to every ambush anyways?

1 minute ago, Benjan Meruna said:

To me, it's just the opposite: just like in those cartoons, you're creating a light patch to railroad the players: "Hey, look at this! This is important! Pay attention!"

Obviously, some spoilers are unavoidable. I wish I could run a game where the players were unaware of that connection, it would make the eventual reveal that much more impactful. But I can't, so I don't worry about it. On the other hand, I CAN prevent further spoilers.

And that's NOT railroading?!

The PCs detecting the NPC isn't a problem, here. A problem is the players finding out before (or instead of) the characters.

So let's back up - railroading is forcing the players to act a certain way to achieve the GM's desired results. Having an NPC, of which I have many, do things outside the PC's purview is certainly not railroading. My "clockwork sandbox" operates as if alive, and things often happen that the PCs don't know about but would influence or be influenced by them. Another example would be a Star Destroyer arriving in orbit of the planet PCs are on. Would they roll to notice it? Maybe. Probably not. Will it have a radical effect on their future plans? Maybe!

What you call a "light patch" is often referred to as "Chekhov's Gun" in literary terms, and is certainly a valid tool to draw a player's attention. However, not every flowery description has to be this way.

p.s. Man, I wish I could edit the source and break quotes up into chunks like we used to be able to, it helps the continuity of the conversation.

9 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

If I was "clutching fast to secrets," I wouldn't be rolling at all, I'd be doing what mensch suggested and sticking the NPC in the bushes an undetectable amount of distance away.

The player agency in the case of the stealth check came in when the player decided to drop XP into more ranks in Perception exactly so they could spot ambushes and spies better. Why would I diminish their agency by making those ranks worthless when I always alert the players to every ambush anyways?

Well, if rolling is going to ruin your story, why roll at all? It seems we can't have it both ways here. Pre-rolling at the beginning of a session could work, but it would render Talents and gear moot as Setback and Boost dice would be difficult to determine ahead of time.

In your example, isn't your ambush ruined the instant you call for an initiative roll? This system doesn't really account for free combat actions outside structured time. If a player was hoping to avoid ambushes, it seems like Vigilance is the better skill to invest in.

8 minutes ago, themensch said:

So let's back up - railroading is forcing the players to act a certain way to achieve the GM's desired results.

It doesn't have to be forcing: it can be as simple as giving them nothing to do but follow whatever lead you're dangling in front of them at the time. Using OOC methods to highlight certain actors in the game world over and beyond what the PCs can perceive is most certainly railroading.

And I'm not saying that nothing can ever happen "behind the scenes," though I do prefer to always make it so that the players have a chance to pick up on things going on around them.

Quote

Well, if rolling is going to ruin your story, why roll at all?

First off, I don't run stories, I run campaigns . There are things happening in these campaigns, and the way the player characters interact with these happenings creates a story. I'm just a facilitator, I'm not writing a book.

Second off, where did I ever suggest that rolling would be a bad thing? I want them to have chances to pick up on things, but I also want chances for them to fail. Both will change what happens down the line, and both will (if I'm doing my job as GM right) make for a good story.

Having something happen outside of the players purview is not railroading, but altering something specifically and for the sole purpose of keeping the information hidden is a bit... fishy. Is the eavesdropper a government spy? Then listening in with fancy equipment from the other side of the street is 100% legit. Is it a rival gang member thug? It's a little weird. And the point here isn't to hide the eavesdropper, it's to make finding the eavesdropper a rewarding challenge.

"Roll perception... you think no one is listening."

"...I go patrol the rooms around us."

That's not challenging. Or... you could mix things up. Make the roll silent so the player still gets the benefit of their XP. Or get in the habit of making false flag perception rolls. That's the idea, not just making the information impossible to discover.

Re: the ambush being ruined at the initiative call

...isn't the call to roll initiative the reveal? That's the springing of the trap...

I mean... if you're saying "okay... roll initiative... okay, you're ambushed!" It isn't. But why would you when you can say, "You step through the door and see your initiative roll mwahahaha!"

Way more fun.

5 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Re: the ambush being ruined at the initiative call

...isn't the call to roll initiative the reveal? That's the springing of the trap...

I mean... if you're saying "okay... roll initiative... okay, you're ambushed!" It isn't. But why would you when you can say, "You step through the door and see your initiative roll mwahahaha!"

Way more fun.

That's why we have Cool-based and Vigilance-based initiative checks. Perception isn't normally a factor.

Just now, themensch said:

That's why we have Cool-based and Vigilance-based initiative checks. Perception isn't normally a factor.

Perception is the difference between those two check, actually.

There's a Stealthing group of enemies ahead, make silent Perception check. Did they succeed? The see the enemies, and if they choose to engage them, it's a Cool initiative check. Did they fail? Then if they walk into the ambush, it's a Vigilance initiative check.

3 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I agree that the only thing succeeding vs. an opposed Deception check gives you is that they're lying. It takes Advantage or Triumphs to get hints about the truth. That's actually the primary reason I hide deception checks in the first place: the base information you receive on success ("This person is lying") is instantly handed to the player success OR fail when you openly tell them the NPC is making a Deception check. And at that point, why not just tell them whenever every NPC lies, ever?

This is why I don't roll for Deception with my NPCs. If the group or individual players suspect deception, they are welcome to roll Discipline against the target's Deception, something I made very clear I will not call for and is up to them to do, to see if they can tell there was lies. From there they would have to keep the conversation going to see what exactly was a lie.

Really? At all? You don't use perception to realize that the building you're moving through is suspiciously quiet for a tenement? Or to hear that the birds have gone quiet? I like to give a chance to use perception. If they fail, roll vigilance for initiative. If they succeed? They get to roll cool. For some characters, cool could be a much better option, or vis versa.

2 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

This is why I don't roll for Deception with my NPCs. If the group or individual players suspect deception, they are welcome to roll Discipline against the target's Deception, something I made very clear I will not call for and is up to them to do, to see if they can tell there was lies. From there they would have to keep the conversation going to see what exactly was a lie.

I think that's definitely a valid way of going about it. It puts more initiative in the hands of the players. What do you do with stealth checks, though? I found that making them have to announce when they're using perception all the time results in a loooooooot of rolls.

Just now, Benjan Meruna said:

I think that's definitely a valid way of going about it.

I started using that method after every time I rolled Deception the players would still act with that knowledge and be suspicious when I got a super good roll. The ball's in their court now and everyone likes it being suspenseful that way.

12 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I think that's definitely a valid way of going about it. It puts more initiative in the hands of the players. What do you do with stealth checks, though? I found that making them have to announce when they're using perception all the time results in a loooooooot of rolls.

I approach GMing in a way that puts the majority of choice on the players and let them drive the story along by their actions.

It's really only been Deception checks that they metagamed with (not on purpose as far as I can tell) and it wasn't localized to a single group. Putting the responsibility on them solved that issue.

For something like Perception, there are times that I call for them to make checks but it's seldom, usually when I have a surprise in place. If I have an NPC making a Stealth check I simply grab dice & roll them. When they ask what it's for I just tell them they will find out... if they already had eyesight on the NPC then I would describe they disappeared out of the party's sight.

*EDIT* Generally they know what it's for though, when I ask what is the group's best Perception.

9 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

It doesn't have to be forcing: it can be as simple as giving them nothing to do but follow whatever lead you're dangling in front of them at the time. Using OOC methods to highlight certain actors in the game world over and beyond what the PCs can perceive is most certainly railroading.

And I'm not saying that nothing can ever happen "behind the scenes," though I do prefer to always make it so that the players have a chance to pick up on things going on around them.

First off, I don't run stories, I run campaigns . There are things happening in these campaigns, and the way the player characters interact with these happenings creates a story. I'm just a facilitator, I'm not writing a book.

Second off, where did I ever suggest that rolling would be a bad thing? I want them to have chances to pick up on things, but I also want chances for them to fail. Both will change what happens down the line, and both will (if I'm doing my job as GM right) make for a good story.

I see a difference between providing leads for characters to follow versus forcing them down a path. You're certainly welcome to differ. Your description of "story vs campaign" certainly sounds akin to how I run my games as well.

As for rolling being a bad thing, you stated that by rolling, you're ruining the surprise for your players. I interpreted that as a suboptimal solution per your statements on the matter, hence I denoted it as "bad." My apologies for the misunderstanding.

36 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Perception is the difference between those two check, actually.

There's a Stealthing group of enemies ahead, make silent Perception check. Did they succeed? The see the enemies, and if they choose to engage them, it's a Cool initiative check. Did they fail? Then if they walk into the ambush, it's a Vigilance initiative check.

You absolutely can run it this way. I would argue that so much depends on the narrative that I wouldn't say this is applicable in all or even many situations.

It's been so long since I've played in a non-tight-knit group that I am forced, after this discussion, to reevaluate some of my GMing techniques. To say I'm spoiled with good players goes without saying. I reckon that building a new group in my new locale is going to present some of the challenges here.

Good discussion, even if we often disagree!

43 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

This is why I don't roll for Deception with my NPCs. If the group or individual players suspect deception, they are welcome to roll Discipline against the target's Deception, something I made very clear I will not call for and is up to them to do, to see if they can tell there was lies. From there they would have to keep the conversation going to see what exactly was a lie.

This is pretty much how I try to do things, it was mostly inexperience on my part of how to deal with them succeeding at the check - which I'd rather hoped they wouldn't - and honestly I was reluctant to give them too much solid information on EV while they were passing around lots of entertaining theories of pirates and unseen forces.

40 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I think that's definitely a valid way of going about it. It puts more initiative in the hands of the players. What do you do with stealth checks, though? I found that making them have to announce when they're using perception all the time results in a loooooooot of rolls.

Yes, in our group the established norm (regardless of GM) is now that at least 50% of all rolls are Perception as the PCs constantly look for things that they want or to check if they are being followed...

8 minutes ago, kaisergav said:

This is pretty much how I try to do things, it was mostly inexperience on my part of how to deal with them succeeding at the check - which I'd rather hoped they wouldn't - and honestly I was reluctant to give them too much solid information on EV while they were passing around lots of entertaining theories of pirates and unseen forces.

Yes, in our group the established norm (regardless of GM) is now that at least 50% of all rolls are Perception as the PCs constantly look for things that they want or to check if they are being followed...

That's why threat is so much fun.

"You're sure you're not being tailed by that thin zabrak with a long, jagged scar and a broken horn. He seems utterly uninterested in your group... in fact, he's quickly walking in the other direction..."

On a more serious note... if you don't know how you rolled on perception... the draw fades. I did that a lot at first (different system, to be fair) and after the hundredth one I couldn't verify I realized that it was just making me paranoid. SOME characters I play like that, so it 100% works, but some I don't. In the end, it balanced out.

So, I like to try to maintain player agency as much as possible. Therefore, they are making most of the rolls.

When it comes to the NPCs lying to the PCs, I will tell the players the truth about what their PCs feel or perceive about the event based on the rolls, but then it’s up to the players to decide how their PCs act on that information. I try very hard to separate my roleplaying of the NPCs (and lying, etc…) from my duties as the GM.

When it comes to NPCs stealthing against the PCs or something like that where having them make the rolls might give away the game, then I might use GM perogative to decide how the NPCs do, or I might decide to roll myself against the players, or let the players roll. I’ll make that decision when I come to it. In part, that decision will be based on how I feel the player is likely to metagame the result.

But I try very hard to create a game where everybody can be rolling openly about everything, and to fully integrate the players into the storytelling and worldbuilding process, so that everyone at the table can be having fun in the game.

This is a great topic as I will be running Debts to Pay here in a few months when we wrap up our D&D campaign.

I haven’t read all of Debts to Pay yet so I'm not terribly familiar with this particular scenario, but here's what I was thinking as I'm reading the responses:

What if the GM were to narrate reasons for the die that are being rolled by the BBG, even if it’s a bunch of BS? For example:

Player wants to initiate a discipline check against the NPC, he gathers his die pool, GM gathers a 'simple' die pool based on a simple NPC, maybe 3 difficulty? Sets them in front of the player, but then says stuff like:

"You don’t know this guy very well, you’ve just met him and don’t know him from adam, so reading his facial queues may be a bit difficult" - Swap a purple die for a red one

"And you're down in a dingy mine, its low light down here, it's cold, its muggy, it stinks, whatever..." - Swap another purple for red

"Blah, blah, blah, BS BS BS..." - Swap another die, or add a setback die

You get the point. Narratively giving reasons why his die pool is so much better than a normal NPC, but placing the blame on other circumstances, basically giving BS reasons, but at least it hides the fact that he is a BGG.

On 2/9/2017 at 0:20 PM, Dunefarble said:

Having something happen outside of the players purview is not railroading, but altering something specifically and for the sole purpose of keeping the information hidden is a bit... fishy.

Perhaps we could call that meta-GMing ; reacting to what the players will do out-of-character as a way to maintain a desired plot line rather than enforcing a strict anti-metagaming atmosphere.

1 hour ago, Concise Locket said:

Perhaps we could call that meta-GMing ; reacting to what the players will do out-of-character as a way to maintain a desired plot line rather than enforcing a strict anti-metagaming atmosphere.

Isn't that normal GMing? Adapting the story to keep the action rolling seems like a normal GM task to me. I guess the difference here is "to achieve a certain plot result" over "just keeping the story going" but to me that's a very fine line.

1 hour ago, gdotbat said:

This is a great topic as I will be running Debts to Pay here in a few months when we wrap up our D&D campaign.

I haven’t read all of Debts to Pay yet so I'm not terribly familiar with this particular scenario, but here's what I was thinking as I'm reading the responses:

What if the GM were to narrate reasons for the die that are being rolled by the BBG, even if it’s a bunch of BS? For example:

Player wants to initiate a discipline check against the NPC, he gathers his die pool, GM gathers a 'simple' die pool based on a simple NPC, maybe 3 difficulty? Sets them in front of the player, but then says stuff like:

"You don’t know this guy very well, you’ve just met him and don’t know him from adam, so reading his facial queues may be a bit difficult" - Swap a purple die for a red one

"And you're down in a dingy mine, its low light down here, it's cold, its muggy, it stinks, whatever..." - Swap another purple for red

"Blah, blah, blah, BS BS BS..." - Swap another die, or add a setback die

You get the point. Narratively giving reasons why his die pool is so much better than a normal NPC, but placing the blame on other circumstances, basically giving BS reasons, but at least it hides the fact that he is a BGG.

The problem I'd have with that is that the players would (rightfully) expect to get the same penalties against NPCs under similar circumstances. Explaining that it's a one-time thing would likely lead to some resentment, and it would also only work once: after that, the players would know what your BS reasons are just that, BS.

53 minutes ago, Concise Locket said:

Perhaps we could call that meta-GMing ; reacting to what the players will do out-of-character as a way to maintain a desired plot line rather than enforcing a strict anti-metagaming atmosphere.

Again, there is no "desired" plot line. If there was one, dice rolling would actually be a hindrance to it.

Overall, I see it as a dichotomy of player vs. GM trust. Give the players the OOC information that NPCs are taking covert action against them, and trust them not to metagame? Or don't, and trust the GM to run the game fairly?

I fall in the latter camp for a few reasons:

1. There isn't a reason for the player to have that information. It serve no purpose in or out of the game. At best, the players don't metagame consciously and are just unsurprised by any covert NPC action because the dice rolls gave away that something was going on. At worst, the players will use this information (consciously or unconsciously, as GroggyGolem pointed out) to do things like try and investigate 'suspect' NPCs that their characters have no reason to believe are suspect.

2. The GM has to be trusted for the game to run smoothly. The GM has complete power over the adversaries the PCs face off against: how many there are, what stats they have, what their gear is like, how organized and effective their leadership is, etc. The GM also has complete power of the entire game universe itself, Rule 0 granting them authority to change rules at any time no matter what the rulebooks say. If they can't be trusted to make a fair die roll behind a book... why is that a bridge too far? Why are you trusting them with all of the rest of it?

3. It encourages roleplay. Players who are instantly told OOC when enemies are trying to pose as civilians or friends are going to have far less of a surprised reaction (that then filters to their characters) than players who had no idea.

1 minute ago, themensch said:

Isn't that normal GMing? Adapting the story to keep the action rolling seems like a normal GM task to me. I guess the difference here is "to achieve a certain plot result" over "just keeping the story going" but to me that's a very fine line.

A GM shouldn't be "trying to achieve a certain plot result." That's railroading, full stop. You plan ahead for the possibilities, of course, and you try to be prepared for what comes next, but a GM should never try to "steer" the story that comes out of play. This is not a book, not even a "choose your own adventure." It's a set of journals, and the players are the ones writing in them.

If it's of interest - it was once explained to me as a reality/immersion thing. In real life, you don't know how you 'roll'. I might be certain that my keys are not anywhere in the house, but I don't know if that certainty is the result of a triumph or a dispair.