Railroading and Choice: Thoughts on scenerio design

[BrilliantRain]

So, this isn't necessarily a specifically Exalted thread, but I think it's highly relevant to Exalted, given that few games give you the same breadth of character options and focus as much on the fallout of your actions as they do on the actions themselves.

Anyway, the other day I watched the following series of videos all dealing with choice in video games and it made me think about applying the lessons to RPGs. Before I get to that, here's the links:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-feeling-of-agency

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-illusion-of-choice

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/how-much-agency-do-games-need

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/negative-possibility-space

Now, on the one hand, Tabletop Games have a huge advantage over Video Games in that increasing the number of options available to the players is relatively easy. As long as the rules can even vaguely support it, a good ST can probably find a way to roll with whatever it is that the PCs try to do. In fact, I kinda consider that the mark of a good ST, how much they can improvise on the spot. So, the videos might not seem to apply to our hobby.

That said, even the best improv STs tend to need some kind of backing and scenario help at some point. And the rules of the game similarly have some limits on what they allow ("No you cannot play an Abyssal." "Why not?!?" "We're playing Mage."). Thus, practically speaking, the player's actions aren't limitless. And, generally, I'd say that even the most die hard anti-railroading player would probably prefer to spend the evening fighting the Abyssal who's been abducting people from the village instead of being lost in the woods for three hours.

Which makes these videos at least somewhat relevant. Specifically, if my ST is planning to make my best theory about who committed the murder true, I'm not entirely sure I want to know about it. In Fate, it would be sorta ok, because the meta-level is pretty important to play there, so I'd probably be trying to put a "This guy did it" Aspect on someone anyway. But, for Exalted, I don't think I want it to be obvious that the ST is using a Magician's Force on me. But, ya know, I still wanna solve the mystery and/or beat up the bad guy, so I don't really mind the railroading as long as it's not obvious.

Admittedly, it also depends on what the ST is forcing. If the ST has decided that, no matter which corridor I go down, I'm going to spring the Fiendish Poison Marmot Trap, that could be a problem (though it's not that different from just putting the same trap in every corridor, which seems ok somehow). But, if they've decided that every corridor leads to the big bad ...well, fighting him is the whole reason I'm here, right?

Also, some players just prefer having a clear direction and objective while others want to set their own. I think some amount of railroading is necessary for the first group (when STing for those kind of players I like to run with the premise that they're government agents or something, so I can send them on missions with clear objectives, but they get to decide how to accomplish them), while the second group will probably want less railroading.

What do you guys think? Do you prefer more rails or more sandbox? What do you do when players do something unexpected? What do you do when the ST presents you with a tough situation and you're not sure what to do? Does your ST use the Magicians Force and have you ever caught them at it? Are you ok with that sort of thing or does it feel like cheating?

[Wise Old Guru]

I ST a whole lot more than I act as a player, and let me tell you, I use this "Magician's Force" all the time. I usually just call it "cheating." The goal is for everyone at my table to have fun. If the fight is taking too long and I can see the players get bored? Maybe a villain goes down easier than the stats I came up with earlier say he ought to have, to get the fight finished quicker (I expect to have to do this SO much less often in 3E). If a villain looks like he's about to go down too easy for the victory to be satisfying to the players, I add complications (moving scenery, enemy reinforcements, the implication he's intentionally distracting them from something else going on, etc). If the PCs are haring off after a red herring, I'll sometimes turn it into a real clue that leads back towards the answer to the mystery, if the red herring doesn't lead anywhere interesting.

I don't like "railroading." That's where you try to force the players to play out a story you've got in your head. My personal rule is that I only "cheat" to make the game more fun than the rules might otherwise allow. It's all about gauging the mood and player desires. The players still have all the agency, and their decisions still matter: the thing that makes me better than a computer game is my ability to improvise so that any course of action they choose to undertake can be played out, and they often surprise me and take the plot in unexpected directions I have to roll with. I see it as my job as a Storyteller to keep up with them and to ensure that whatever they decide to do ends up being fun and interesting.

I don't want to create the impression that my PCs can't die, or that I make things intentionally easy on them. The can, and I don't. I understand that delayed gratification is often sweeter, and that something you have to work hard for feels more satisfying. Generally my PCs are interested in storytelling rather than escapist power fantasy (generally! Not always!), so sometimes they'll die...but that death will always be significant and moving, even if it happened largely by accident, because I'll cheat to make it significant.

So...dunno if that's "rails or sandbox." I guess it's more sandboxy. I think of myself a little bit more like the guys running the control room in the Hunger Games, though: sure, the choices the players make matter...but it's my job to keep things ENTERTAINING.

[SuperG]

So, this isn't necessarily a specifically Exalted thread, but I think it's highly relevant to Exalted, given that few games give you the same breadth of character options and focus as much on the fallout of your actions as they do on the actions themselves.

Anyway, the other day I watched the following series of videos all dealing with choice in video games and it made me think about applying the lessons to RPGs. Before I get to that, here's the links:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-feeling-of-agency

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-illusion-of-choice

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/how-much-agency-do-games-need

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/negative-possibility-space

Now, on the one hand, Tabletop Games have a huge advantage over Video Games in that increasing the number of options available to the players is relatively easy. As long as the rules can even vaguely support it, a good ST can probably find a way to roll with whatever it is that the PCs try to do. In fact, I kinda consider that the mark of a good ST, how much they can improvise on the spot. So, the videos might not seem to apply to our hobby.

That said, even the best improv STs tend to need some kind of backing and scenario help at some point. And the rules of the game similarly have some limits on what they allow ("No you cannot play an Abyssal." "Why not?!?" "We're playing Mage."). Thus, practically speaking, the player's actions aren't limitless. And, generally, I'd say that even the most die hard anti-railroading player would probably prefer to spend the evening fighting the Abyssal who's been abducting people from the village instead of being lost in the woods for three hours.

Which makes these videos at least somewhat relevant. Specifically, if my ST is planning to make my best theory about who committed the murder true, I'm not entirely sure I want to know about it. In Fate, it would be sorta ok, because the meta-level is pretty important to play there, so I'd probably be trying to put a "This guy did it" Aspect on someone anyway. But, for Exalted, I don't think I want it to be obvious that the ST is using a Magician's Force on me. But, ya know, I still wanna solve the mystery and/or beat up the bad guy, so I don't really mind the railroading as long as it's not obvious.

Admittedly, it also depends on what the ST is forcing. If the ST has decided that, no matter which corridor I go down, I'm going to spring the Fiendish Poison Marmot Trap, that could be a problem (though it's not that different from just putting the same trap in every corridor, which seems ok somehow). But, if they've decided that every corridor leads to the big bad ...well, fighting him is the whole reason I'm here, right?

Also, some players just prefer having a clear direction and objective while others want to set their own. I think some amount of railroading is necessary for the first group (when STing for those kind of players I like to run with the premise that they're government agents or something, so I can send them on missions with clear objectives, but they get to decide how to accomplish them), while the second group will probably want less railroading.

What do you guys think? Do you prefer more rails or more sandbox? What do you do when players do something unexpected? What do you do when the ST presents you with a tough situation and you're not sure what to do? Does your ST use the Magicians Force and have you ever caught them at it? Are you ok with that sort of thing or does it feel like cheating?

I'd rather not spend three real life hours lost in the woods, no. This is where one of the advantages of a tabletop game over a video game comes in: you can skip over the boring walk. "You get lost in the woods." "I head north, following the lichen on trees." "You end up..." [checks map] "...here."

Boom. About a minute, maybe two if the map is elsewhere (if there's no map, might need to improvise a bit more).


If we're chasing the Abyssal and our decisions indicate we won't find him? Fine. Fast-forward to the point where something interesting happens. We don't play out breakfast, more ablutions, or every slow, plodding step taken to get from point A to point B either.


In a video game, if you fail it's because you lost the fight / control mastery was insufficient. In an RPG, the reason for a setback is much more likely to be a decision you made, and that's okay, because there's no guide and well-roleplayed failure is fun.


If the ST is planning to make my best theory about the murder true, I want to know about it - so I can leave now, rather than wait until I figure out that I'd be experiencing more challenge playing a video game (which do actually let you fail, which makes your successes have some little trace meaningfulness).


Anyway. Having a clear directi and objective given to the players IC is NOT the same as railroading; railroading is about the adventure being on tracks (and illusionism - the 'Magician's Choice' is arguably not the same thing but disliked by some of the same people for the same reason) they don't like railroading), which means having control over how you get where you're going makes it not-railroading.

You don't need to have a completely open sandbox to not railroad someone. Railroading is about deciding outcomes independent of player input. It is a "never" food.

[MrInsecure]

I think one of the most important lessons to take from those videos is that massive amounts of choice isn't always a good thing, nor is railroading always a bad thing. It's all a matter of the game in question- or, more appropriately, the group in question. Some people do great with open world sandboxes, while others need some more guidance (up to and including full-on railroading) to be able to function. And a good ST does their best to make sure to balance the right level of control vs. freedom for their group.

[light-hero]

I like the illusion of choice video penny arcade presents. It reminds me how important the poker face is to the ST.

[Ithle]

As a GM I consider 'the illusion of choice' to be pretty much bullshit. Not that I don't use it, because I certainly do, but when I do I'm not going to pretend how clever I am that I 'tricked' my players into buying into it. And all told I'm more than willing to just drop things and go in a different direction if that's what evolves out of the game.

I also once threw out three carefully planned dungeons that I specifically tailored for the players because they decided their characters would rather kill themselves than put up with the bare minimum amount of rail-roading to get involved. I consider myself to blame for that one. The rail-roading in question could be summarized as 'you guys were complete assholes when you were alive, but now that you're dead I'll give you a chance to redeem yourselves in the after-life'. They choose to remain assholes.

[James McMurray]

This is the start of the next adventure I'll be running. It'll probably look a little strange because it's a group of D&D characters who have chosen to dip into the world of Exalted for a little while, but the overall idea is how I design all of my adventures these days.

http://rpg-tools.org/dnd-epic-win/ad...-pool-of-time/

• Opportunities abound for the players to move the plot forward on their own.
• Every node has at least three ways to get to a different one.
• NPCs are all over the place who know what is happening or can help (albeit sometimes at a cost).
• If the characters fail or choose not to try, the consequences are known in advance (in this case its the entire destruction of the Exalted world, to be replaced with another incarnation of reality)

The basic idea is that I want to ensure that the characters can tell the story laid out in that adventure, if they want to. If they don't, they're free to do anything else they want instead, but the plots the bad guys start up don't stop just because the players chose to go another route. No railroading, just logical cause and effect chains.

In this case they're likely to go along with it, because this isn't their world and as far as they know the only way to get back home and get back to saving that reality is to do what needs to be done in this one. But if a group decides they want to take a 90 degree turn, I'll run with it. Once in a previous group a Scion game went from a simple "protect this person by holing up for a few days and putting up with her nonsense" mission to the PCs taking Paris Hilton to Africa so she could get more famous by teaching children to read (using Us, Style, and People magazines). It was a blast and the mission was accomplished, but not in any way I could have possibly foreseen.

[Deamion]

in my ST'ing experience I've found that neither one is necessarily a bad thing. It's more in how it is used (and how often), and how they are portrayed.

If my players decide to kill the king as soon as they walk into a new country, well... that's a bit odd. But perfectly within their rights to decide. If I had no plans at all for him, then sure, throw up some reasonable and likely challenges/obstacles and if they can get past them, congrats!

However, if that king happens to be an important figure in the story I'm laying the groundwork for, then unless another viable option is available a bit of railroading may just be needed. Turns out he's on a hunting trip for the next three days when the PC's arrive. And lo and behold, when he comes back he's in a stretcher because someone else tried to kill him on that trip. Now security is alot tighter, so on and so forth.

In then end, if a player really wants to kill the guy, they're gonna try. But I always tell my players at the start of any game: "I'll never tell you that you are not allowed to do something simply because I don't want you to. However, you need to keep an eye out for when I'll make such things really difficult.... because I don't want you to do it!"

And I'll go with any ST that does what Wise Old guru mentioned. Fell the flow of the fight and adjust accordingly. I people are getting bored, speed it up. If everyone seems to be really into the fight, drag it out a little more. Several of my players have told me one of the best combats they ever had was against a Flesh Golem I ran in an old D&D 3.5 game. They were astonished to learn (several years after that session) that they'd nearly killed it in 5 rounds due to very good damage and attack rolls. But I dragged it our for another 30 rounds because everyone was so afraid of the thing they were on the edge of their seats hoping it would die with each hit. One said he nearly had a coronary after the 16th hit seemed to have done the trick, but as I mimed the thing falling over, I suddenly sprang back up and roared at the group. In essence, I railroaded the players into a much longer/more difficult fight thatn it should have been. But when I looked around the table and saw everyone all tense and holding their breath, I knew it had to go bigger. That sort of improv is essential to ST'ing.

least that's my opinion.

[Dayen]

If a group cannot accept a bit of gaming-on-tracks now and again, they really ought to consider poker.

[James McMurray]

If a group cannot accept a bit of gaming-on-tracks now and again, they really ought to consider poker.

Why? x

[Dayen]

Why? x

Because group storytelling is an act of give-and-take. Poker is the sort of game where you can continue to take until it's over.

[Ithle]

Because group storytelling is an act of give-and-take. Poker is the sort of game where you can continue to take until it's over.

That's one interpretation of GMing, but there are others where that's not necessarily true. GM as arbitrator for example.

[SuperG]

A "trackless" GM still has enormous say in what happens in the game. They set the scene, they create the NPCs, they roleplay the NPCs.

I cannot fathom the mindset that says "yeah, but I need to control the way the other four-to-six characters in the setting I don't already control act too, otherwise it's just not fair".

[Robert Vance]

I find that I enjoy Storytelling the most when I lay down a bit of track, just to have some structure there, but then let the players go hog wild in deciding whether they're gonna stay on it or not and adapting to whatever crazy shit they do. Planning a big set piece and pulling it off can be really awesome, but some of the best moments in my games have come from players just doing completely unexpected things and me rolling with it—for example, a "jailbreak from Heaven" plot I had in mind ended up getting turned into a "courtroom drama presided over by the Unconquered Sun" plot, and it was awesome. My players seem to enjoy it, too, so I guess it's worked pretty well for us!

[James McMurray]

Because group storytelling is an act of give-and-take. Poker is the sort of game where you can continue to take until it's over.

Ah, so you think that "give and take" means "do what the GM says?"

And why is freeform storytelling as a group "taking until its over?" sounds to me like you might have had some bad experiences and are assumoing that nobody can make it work when you couldn't.