3 hours ago, Moon of Dalo said:

IDK, if a player is new to the group, sure you might not know what they will do. I don't buy into that, gamers typically choose only a handful of ways

For me "Oh, yes, my brilliant plot anticipated where your choices would take us all along!" is true, to an extant.

I've been gaming since the mid 80s, players are not nearly as inventive as they think they are. Just like GMs are not nearly as mysterious as they think they are.

Honestly, I don't care whether you buy into it or not.

I was writing in "general terms" for "usual cases."

And, I've been gaming since 1977 so appeals to experience aren't going to impress me.

Sure, if you've had a stable group for a while you start to know how everyone's minds work.At that point an intuitive game-master can often predict what players will do and tailor their scenarios and scenes accordingly.

By that same token, intuitive players with a sense of good citizenship will ken what the game-master is up to and play to the story.

Not everyone has that stable group. Hence "general terms."

However, for all that, its often the subtle rather than radical departures from the expected that can throw your plans out of whack.

You take each session as it comes and you roll with it.

7 hours ago, Moon of Dalo said:

Often player agency can end up looking like a railroad. I think that gets lost in the endless debating about this.

I'm not following - in my mind, railroading is the lack of player agency, or the defiance of it. I can't find a situation in which they would look the same, I'm hoping you can provide an example. Perhaps our definitions of railroading to not align, but that seems preposterous. I too have been gaming a long time - the late 70's in fact - but I have yet to find another definition of these terms. Clearly I am confused!

I look at the spectrum from linear to sandbox. For me, "railroading" is when the players are chafing against the boundaries of a linear game, or when the GM's efforts to keep the players "on track" are obvious and heavy-handed. Linear games aren't intrinsically bad, since the players might not even notice if they naturally follow the path, or if you keep your efforts subtle enough.

Video game counterparts:

Obvious Railroading: invisible walls, insurmountable waist-high fences, But Thou Must .

Better methods: Illuminating the path, trail of coins, Morton's Fork (multiple choices, mostly the same result).

In the last case, a tabletop campaign isn't going to be replayed like a branching path video game, so you don't have to worry about them finding out that you pulled off the trick.

23 hours ago, Vondy said:

Honestly, I don't care whether you buy into it or not.

I was writing in "general terms" for "usual cases."

And, I've been gaming since 1977 so appeals to experience aren't going to impress me.

Sure, if you've had a stable group for a while you start to know how everyone's minds work.At that point an intuitive game-master can often predict what players will do and tailor their scenarios and scenes accordingly.

By that same token, intuitive players with a sense of good citizenship will ken what the game-master is up to and play to the story.

Not everyone has that stable group. Hence "general terms."

However, for all that, its often the subtle rather than radical departures from the expected that can throw your plans out of whack.

You take each session as it comes and you roll with it.

Sorry fella there was zero indication of writing in "general terms" for "usual cases.", you tossed out a bunch of statements.

I realize now not to respond to your posts.

19 hours ago, themensch said:

I'm not following - in my mind, railroading is the lack of player agency, or the defiance of it. I can't find a situation in which they would look the same, I'm hoping you can provide an example. Perhaps our definitions of railroading to not align, but that seems preposterous. I too have been gaming a long time - the late 70's in fact - but I have yet to find another definition of these terms. Clearly I am confused!

Because you forgot the other part to my post

On 12/16/2017 at 11:14 AM, Moon of Dalo said:

Often player agency can end up looking like a railroad. I think that gets lost in the endless debating about this.

People(players) often forget that choice comes with consequences . It is often just a series of logical outcomes to player agency. That choice you as a group made 4 sessions reverberated throughout the area.

Yeah?

But what of absolutist dichotomies!

Any rate. Interesting discussion. I'm getting ready to cower behind . . . . I meant assume station behind the GM's screen again and so I find my thoughts turning to how to give my players sufficient leash to allow them to make meaningful decisions that drive the plot in different directions, yet to provide sufficient output and direction so that the players stay engaged.

So this whole thread was entertaining for me as it gave voice to some of my recent considerations and questions. (Thanks! Even to all you detractors).

One of my concerns stems from the fact that I've recently been subject to a very narrow visioned railroad engineer and I definitely don't want to quash my players creativity the way this module bound GM had done to me. <Suppresses urge to insert painful and real examples . . . >

But as I prepare my campaign, I find myself setting up a series of Train Stations . . .

But is that bad? We're going to be running an AoR campaign and the para-military campaigns tend to start with a mission briefing which points you to a single mission, "We've recently acquired plans the the Empire's latest weapon, which is en route to our base RIGHT now, but we think we've found a weakness that could be exploited by a snub nosed fighter. (like a Y-Wing). We're highly doubtful that a long nosed fighter flown by a rookie farm boy will be useful for the mission, but we'll let you fly cover . . ."

Okay, that last example was a bit long winded but I got carried away.

I love the vast and well defined Star Wars galaxy and I'm looking forward to spending hours on Wookiepedia trying to learn as much as I can about the various worlds that my players may visit shortly.

Wish me luck. Session Zero is Tuesday! (With maybe some session zero point five if we wrap up character creation early).

5 hours ago, Moon of Dalo said:

Because you forgot the other part to my post

The "actions have consequences" part? I didn't miss that. I just don't agree that they're related in the way you're implying, but it seems like I've received the answer I needed, if not the one I wanted.

On 12/17/2017 at 7:46 PM, themensch said:

The "actions have consequences" part? I didn't miss that. I just don't agree that they're related in the way you're implying, but it seems like I've received the answer I needed, if not the one I wanted.

No the choice comes with consequences part.

Railroad vs Sandbox vs Player Agency.

Can you have meaningful Player Agency if the agency of "choice" does not come with consequences?

3 minutes ago, Moon of Dalo said:

No the choice comes with consequences part.

Railroad vs Sandbox vs Player Agency.

Can you have meaningful Player Agency if the agency of "choice" does not come with consequences?

I’d say the answer to that would be dependent upon the actions and the consequences.

Are the consequences natural to the actions? Or are they designed to browbeat the players into making the choices that the GM wants?

4 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

I’d say the answer to that would be dependent upon the actions and the consequences.

Are the consequences natural to the actions? Or are they designed to browbeat the players into making the choices that the GM wants?

The problem with your questions is two-fold.

1. The consequences can be natural to the actions while also steering players towards certain choices. One does not exclude the other.

2. The hyperbole isn't needed.

Just now, Moon of Dalo said:

The problem with your questions is two-fold.

1. The consequences can be natural to the actions while also steering players towards certain choices. One does not exclude the other.

2. The hyperbole isn't needed.

Didn’t say consequences can’t be natural and also steer the narrative. It’s a honest distinction, because...

There’s no hyperbole present. There’s been a recent example on these very boards of a GM hitting his players with penalties for making RP choices about their characters that he didn’t like.

All choices have consequences. Failure to act is in fact an act in and of itself.

However, the topic had waned to discussing player agency looking like railroading, and if that is the context I would encourage a reexamination the concept of player agency. Railroading, insofar as it's always been described where I've seen it, is the outright removal of player agency.

17 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Didn’t say consequences can’t be natural and also steer the narrative. It’s a honest distinction, because...

There’s no hyperbole present. There’s been a recent example on these very boards of a GM hitting his players with penalties for making RP choices about their characters that he didn’t like.

You didn't? You phrased the 2 questions as either one or the other. "Are the consequences natural to the actions? Or are they designed to browbeat the players into making the choices that the GM wants?"

A link would be nice. However something to think about, if Player One describes their character as an apple, yet the first 4 sessions the self described apple is an orange, pear, blueberry, and pomegranate. I, as Gm, will take issue with that. I will question during the orange and pear sessions, by blueberry? You better believe I am hitting with penalties for making RP choices about their characters that do not coincide with being an apple.

12 hours ago, themensch said:

All choices have consequences. Failure to act is in fact an act in and of itself.

However, the topic had waned to discussing player agency looking like railroading, and if that is the context I would encourage a reexamination the concept of player agency. Railroading, insofar as it's always been described where I've seen it, is the outright removal of player agency.

The title of this thread and the first post have little in common.

Boil this down to it's base parts, without that person willing to sit behind the screen and have something for the other people to engage with means;

No Game.

Perhaps what you should think on is what player agency actually means. Is it player agency(choice) having actual weight or is it players doing whatever, whenever?

4 hours ago, Moon of Dalo said:

You didn't? You phrased the 2 questions as either one or the other. "Are the consequences natural to the actions? Or are they designed to browbeat the players into making the choices that the GM wants?"

I’ll cop to utilizing the two ends of the spectrum muddying what I was trying to say. I wasn’t trying to pose a binary scenario, but can see where that could be inferred from my phrasing.

4 hours ago, Moon of Dalo said:

A link would be nice. However something to think about, if Player One describes their character as an apple, yet the first 4 sessions the self described apple is an orange, pear, blueberry, and pomegranate. I, as Gm, will take issue with that. I will question during the orange and pear sessions, by blueberry? You better believe I am hitting with penalties for making RP choices about their characters that do not coincide with being an apple.

It’s its own entire thread.

Short version: Group consists of GM and three players. Player A’s character is - in the GM’s term - “a bully,” berating the other characters, etc. Players B & C chose for their characters not to take his bait...to ignore him and continue with the missions at hand. The GM felt that they should engage him, and invoked strain and other penalties until they chose to play their characters his way.

OKay, I just watched the video at the front and I found it really insightful. Good stuff.

We did session zero point five this week (Character creation & then jumped into the introductory story).

I have some unique circumstances in that I'm grabbing a couple of players with existing characters from a previous campaign and the other half of the group are all new to both Role-Playing & the Star Wars FFG.

On the one hand, I think that there are a ton of things that I'm doing wrong.

My current plot is pretty much on rails. The PC's are either stuck in a spaceship as passengers or stuck on a rebel base reacting to trouble.

I have a GMPC! (To which my normal reaction is to make that harsh hissing noise that only a pissed off house cat can make). My experience with GMPCs makes them anathema. But that GMPC was there to help 'guide' the characters from going too far astray. (To my defense I used a VERY light touch).

And I seemed to have WAY too many "cut scenes" where the PC's just watched NPC's talk. (Very VERY bad technique)!

And yet, in spite of doing everything "wrong" (IMHO) this may be the best RPG session I've ever run. And the Players all seem to have had a REALLY good time.

In think the only thing I did "right" was that when the PC's were in the spotlight, they had TOTAL control and I was reacting entirely to what they were deciding.

There were also a lot of social scenes where the players were able to organically get acclimated to the setting via NPC interactions, with each NPC providing insight based on their perspective.

It's an interesting exercise for me to struggle through and watch.

<Spoiler warning to my group>

I am planning on expanding on the players options to drive the story, especially once they get settled and more familiar with the rules and game mechanics.

That GMPC is getting transferred out next session.

I'm also planning on avoiding future cut scene sequences.

We'll see how this all works out in two weeks.

Okay, back to your regular brawl!

14 hours ago, Mark Caliber said:

And yet, in spite of doing everything "wrong" (IMHO) this may be the best RPG session I've ever run. And the Players all seem to have had a REALLY good time.

Bingo. The only real gauge for whether you're doing it "right". You're obviously in the wheelhouse of the type of game your players find fun, which is exactly what you should be aiming for. Keep doing that, along with focusing on the areas you've decided would be more engaging if you made some tweaks. If the group dynamic changes and they start finding other play styles fun, change it up and go that direction to keep them engaged. If your players are happy, you're doing it right, player agency be-damned.

7 hours ago, cdj0902 said:

Bingo. The only real gauge for whether you're doing it "right". You're obviously in the wheelhouse of the type of game your players find fun, which is exactly what you should be aiming for. Keep doing that, along with focusing on the areas you've decided would be more engaging if you made some tweaks. If the group dynamic changes and they start finding other play styles fun, change it up and go that direction to keep them engaged. If your players are happy, you're doing it right, player agency be-damned.

Rule zero trumps all rules for a reason!

Yah, know probably necroing a thread that's 4 months old just to start slinging around insults is probably a terrible idea (especially coming from someone with just 5 posts to his name). Just sayin'.

So, off to the topic that I somehow missed the first go-round.

On 12/7/2017 at 9:02 AM, whafrog said:

Personally I tend to find sandboxes boring, the games seem less about character and end goals, and more about equipment and other bean counting.

I find that straddling the line for me works well. Unless I have something I want to Media Res the players with, I'll usually go with a "So what do you guys want to do" for the first couple of hours or so, because there's always some "It's been a week, I need to go to the beach" or "I need new shoes" or something. They want to talk to NPC X, call home or whatever. I'm fine with that - and often we'll manage to go the whole evening with just fun color and character business, never touching the dice.

I'll also often come up with an idea ("Break into this bank") and lay out the floorplans and surroundings and all the complications in the way and say "Okay, have at it. How are you going to break the bank?" So yeah - mission objective, but how it's executed is all up to them.

We just started a new game up last week, the characters are in a band and want to get rich and see the galaxy. So it'll probably be closer to sandbox than structured mission games. A lot of player self motivation and me coming up with interesting places to go to and colorful people to interact with.

2 hours ago, Mrmoto66 said:

YOU'RE KINDA A ****. MAYBE CHECK YOUR ATTITUDE AT THE DOOR AND NOT BE SO OBSTINATE TO OTHER PEOPLES IDEAS.

zzzzzz....another self absorbed holier than thou 'tell everyone else how they should be' ignore list.....buh bye....

I'd like to re-engage this thread but maybe in amore constructive manner. I think really there are two types of players/GMs in this thing. Some people are perfectly happy to be told a story with some dice added in to rough it up a bit, whereas others think that is about as much fun as a root canal. In contrast some folks who really like a static story feel like an emergent game is too chaotic or uneventful because it is driven by the player's choices. I think it's really about how much fun it is for you, and in finding out if all of you at the table agree on this to a degree where it won't disintegrate the group.

It's also important to not get so wrapped up in the characters and the game itself as to fight about it. There will be ups and downs in the game and in the interactions outside of the game with the others you play with, and none of that should supersede being cool with one another. The rules of the game, however applied or house-ruled are just the framework of the thing and not important enough to be angry about.

On 2018-03-17 at 4:58 PM, Desslok said:

Unless I have something I want to Media Res the players with, I'll usually go with a "So what do you guys want to do" for the first couple of hours or so, because there's always some "It's been a week, I need to go to the beach" or "I need new shoes" or something. They want to talk to NPC X, call home or whatever. I'm fine with that - and often we'll manage to go the whole evening with just fun color and character business, never touching the dice.

I know some people like the idea of "living" in an alternate universe and these mundane activities do allow for an immersion of sorts. Heck, back when we were young and had plenty of time we did that too...the Chivalry and Sorcery game had skills for eeeevvveeerrryyything, and you could roleplay the business owner of a patisserie if you wanted...oh the thrills of pleasing the duke with your baking! ...

But these days RPG time is at a premium, and I'm just not going to host a game where we sit around like the vultures in the Jungle Book

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZDo-udXmgQ

But I don't like shoe shopping even in real life, so for me it's story or nothing. Thankfully my players agree...or at least they are fine with it when I'm hosting. If they want something else, they can GM.

And when I say "story" it doesn't have to fit my original plot...in fact it rarely does. The plot is always a work-in-progress, that call/response between GM and player is one of the joys. But the session does have to have purpose, even if that purpose is simply mayhem.

29 minutes ago, whafrog said:

But these days RPG time is at a premium, and I'm just not going to host a game where we sit around like the vultures in the Jungle Book

Ja know what? I'm okay with this! I know, a reasonable accord over the internet - who would have thunk it?

Naw, I realize that our style of play is very - well, I wouldn't say unique, but it's very "us". I mean I just spent a week trying to figure out how to make a concert work for god's sake - being able to blow away everyone at the Hoth officer's lounge Karaoke Party isn't very mainstream Star Wars.

(Full disclosure: we do mainstream Star Wars too. I'm trying to figure out a game with oddles of racing and chases just for our driver, so it's not all shoes and beaches. Just sometimes.)

Wow, such strong opinions on this subject.

I generally categorize games into the following: GM-driven and Player-Driven games.

tl;dr: Players and GMs should discuss the style of the game to be run before anything in order to ensure all parties get the experience they are looking for in the game.

So what do I mean by GM-driven? GM-driven games are those where the GM provides a story for the players to engage with, and presents different options to the players as they progress. An easy example of this style can be found in most pre-published material. like *finder adventure paths. The characters are placed in a situation, and are given options on how to proceed. Note, just because an adventure is pre-published does not mean it has to be written in this style, or even if it is in this style, the GM can't convert it to be more open for player shenanigans. Basically, in my opinion, GM-driven games have the following characteristics:

1. Plays like more of a choose your own adventure, and less open to narrative influence by PC choices
2. Choices are heavily scripted, with interactions beyond this set of choices leaving the GM to come up with content on the fly.... OR shut down the interactions causing the derailment.
3. Adventures have a brisk tempo, with objectives clearly defined, and paths towards resolution relatively spelled out for players to choose from.
4. Player's don't need to have in depth backstory, as the backstory is largely irrelevant to the GM's plot. However a good GM, in a custom game, will use character backstory to help drive the plot.
5. This style, due to lack of flexibility in plot variation, typically involves a larger focus on game mechanics for conflict resolution. This works out well for certain types of players, and for mechanically oriented systems.

No obviously this is a broad generalization, and all of these things will vary on a variety of factors.

So that brings us to Player-Driven, or what most refer to as the sandbox. Player-driven games are those where the Players really drive the narrative, with the GM providing them plot hooks tailored to their character's history, motivations, morality, etc... The players choose how to interact with the game universe as a whole, and which plot lines are developed, and which are ignored. That isn't to say that the GM doesn't have a master plot, or an overarching story with which the players interact, but rather that the players set the pacing and kinds of interactions that occur through their own narrative choices. Some characteristics I think apply to this style are:

1. Other than an initial hook to get the party together and functioning as a group, the players are in a sandbox environment, and can pick and choose the narrative elements that they interact with.
2. Choices, especially those related to plot hooks, are entirely that of the players. The players pick out of the narrative hooks thrown out by the GM, OR develop ones of their own based on their backstory, motivations, etc...
3. Adventures can sometimes become mired in the "What do we do now?" phase where players have no clear direction, and the GM hasn't thrown out a hint or hook to move the story forward. This can sometimes become a source of frustration for groups not used to more free form styles of play.
4. Players MUST have well developed backstories which include items such as motivations, likes/dislikes, significant events/people, etc... as part of character creation. All of these facts about a player character become potential plot hooks for the GM to provide an entertaining and meaningful story.
5. Game mechanics become a vehicle by which Players explore the environment, and less a tool for the GM to prod characters along in the plot. Game mechanics are also typically used to provide indications of success based on character interactions, not dictate the interaction itself.

This by no means is an exhaustive list, and yes, many of these points can be used in tandem with those in the GM-driven game style, and vice-versa. I've found most groups in star wars games tend towards player-driven with elements of the gm-driven style mixed in depending on the individual GM. I, myself, prefer player-driven while in the GM seat.

So the point of this discussion in relation to the OP, is the entire idea of "telling the GM's plot" being a misconception varies widely based on the game style which is being implemented, and whether the players want to simply play the game while being entertained with a story, and are more interested in the game mechanics, or whether the players want to put in the effort to have a more immersive experience where they get to pilot their character's destinies and have a larger effect upon the narrative. It is, in my opinion, something the players and GM need to discuss ahead of time, and come to an agreement upon style and what overall experience the players are going after.