 Player Actions and Consequences, ...or, when characters do stupid things |
  |
 Sep 14 2005, 08:34 PM
Post
#101
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760  |
Err... Perhaps something like: Player A loves to flip out and kill people. That's it. He doesn't like the 'shadow' or 'run' part of the game. GM puts him in a situation where he can either escape quietly through the back door, or face 200 Lone Star officers with guns drawn through the front door. Player A will automatically say 'boy, 200 officers? That's a LOT of people I'd get to kill.' The GM will respond, 'most likely, they will kill you very, very quickly'. I daresay, this is a valid situation for the GM to create. The PC now has to decide, 'do I continue what has worked before, or do I try something new?' I see no reason why challenging a player to try something new or different is 'railroading'. I for one don't enjoy 'RepetitiousBoredomRun'. Now if Player A signed up solely because he likes killing things, there's a problem! The GM and player need to figure out the best answer to this together. But the problem is NOT railroading. As I said in the example given, the situation had many, many possible solutions he did not take. If the GM choose to 'arrest' Dante solely because Dante didn't do what the GM wanted, THAT is railroading. I would assume, however, that the GM did so out of a misunderstanding of the interactions between DW and LS. Dante chose poorly, and no one any where forced him to do so. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Sep 14 2005, 08:36 PM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 7-September 05 Member No.: 7,699 |
After all this conversation (which believe me, was NOT my intention), the player accepted that he screwed up. My main question was "did I overreact?" He and I have talked about it, and he realizes that it wasn't the smartest thing to do by far. I was curious to know what other people would have done in my situation; whether or not I had gone too far, not far enough, or just right. I also wanted to know what other people thought in the situation. There never was a question of railroading. He and I both realize that sometimes things just happen. And honestly, he's satisfied that he's racking up a huge lawyer fee and having some stuff confiscated (satisfied, not happy; big difference). I didn't mean for this to evolve/ de-evolve into people battling out on a forum.
Agree to disagree, whatever. I just wanted opinions if I'd over stepped the "crap on player for poor decision" and what, if anything, can be done to remedy it. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 08:39 PM
Post
#103
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Well, that comes back to the question of "do you have a legitimate reason for DocWagon to have turned the character over"?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 08:40 PM
Post
#104
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
As you go on to note, railroading is not the proper course of action when dealing with such a player. Talking to him OOC and reaching an agreement to change his approach in game, or removing him from the game is. Killing his characters only soils the campaign by making it "I, GM am master of all, and I will strike thee down with great hurtings, or at least many death characters". Not impressive. Almost childish in fact. Like breaking the toy instead of finding a way to share it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 14 2005, 09:31 PM
Post
#105
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,326 Joined: 15-April 02 Member No.: 2,600 |
I don't think anyone is advocating not making pc's make hard decisions, or saying pc's shouldn't be put into situations where they are generally screwed or damned-if-they-do-or-don't. PC's excel at getting themselves into such situations, and my main job as a gm is to make sure they have ample access to all the rope they need to hang themselves. The problem with railroading-- as I see it-- is when the GM has already decided what the pcs should do, and attempts to force that upon them at the exclusion of anything else. If the pc's are ambushed, they can fight, flee, surrender or whatever. The gm may have an outcome in mind, but when the dice are rolling anything is possible. PC's may shoot their way out of a capture, or may flub a combat they should easily win. It's only railroading if the gm alters the scenario or the rules to force the outcome he has already decided upon. Below are some examples that I have put in spoiler tags to preserve space. [ Spoiler ] (Edit) hyz: Thanx for quoting my mom. She'd be thrilled if she only understood gaming, computers, forums or why I thought that quote was funny in the first place. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 14 2005, 11:11 PM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 7-September 05 Member No.: 7,699 |
My reason for having DocWagon turn him in: They didn't.
They took him to a public hospital (the campaign is set 2053, so no Valkyrie system for triage) and a random die roll to see if a doc wagon or public hospital was closer. I honestly thought that they would take him to the closest hospital due to his massive wounds. (this tidbit of info was taken from Neo Anarchist's Guide to Real Life) He absolutely refused to part with the grenade launcher. So I had the hospital staff make a procedures roll at target 6 to see if they would notice that. And they also called the Star as he had a valid SIN and was brought in with multiple gunshot wounds. in turn, he can blame the people who saved his life. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 07:04 AM
Post
#107
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
That would be a mistake on the part of DocWagon, then.
As has been said before, unless they like the idea of it being open season on ambulances and medics, they NEVER get one of their patients sent up the pipe. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 01:55 PM
Post
#108
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I am greatly amused by the fact that I killed the PC in this scenario, despite saying, quite clearly, 'if YOU do this, you WILL die. Here is one other option. There are many, many others.' After all, railroading is eliminating all options but one, isn't it? That is what I understood the definition to be. Hence, eliminating ONLY ONE (or only a few) options would not meet the definition of railroading. In the situation I gave, I did not specify there were no other options but leaving through the back door, only that shooting on 200 LS officers was a poor idea (eliminating that one option). In the original question, I saw one option as bad; firing a grenade launcher in a private building and sticking around for any amount of time; coincidentally, the one route Dante chose. Had Dante tried something else and the GM said, unreasonably, 'that won't work', then it turns to railroading. Until then, it's only one bad option. If you feel that my eliminating one option as bad (as the GM) is railroading, I would love to play in one of your games and say I want to drill through four feet of concrete by bashing my head against the wall, then complain if you say I can't do it because you're railroading me. Some options are simply dumb. The GM informing the PC beforehand, or enforcing the natural consequences of choosing those options isn't railroading, it's simply good GMing. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 15 2005, 02:15 PM
Post
#109
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
Then you definition is far too limited. Any adventure with intended option selection and certain punishment for not agreeing with those intended selections counts as railroading. The example given in this thread had three intended outcomes: 1. Surrender 2. Changing the player style 3. Requiring him to be save by his teammates. When the player pulled a GL to avoid these intended results, his character was punished. If those options where never an GM intended outcome, there would have been no railroading- only the pulling of a GL in an A Zone.
You'd never play again in my game if you even seriously suggested such a course. With such an different approach to the game, you wouldn't fit in with myself or the other players in the group. You'd be removed from that group and told never to return. Oddly enough, your character wouldn't be killed in game. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 15 2005, 02:41 PM
Post
#110
|
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
sadly, contray to it's name, i dont think railroading is a one track definition, generally, i think that if theres one SUCCESSFUL means of accomplishing a goal, the GM is most likely treading atleast near a set of tracks, meanwhile, if there's multiple directions all leading to the same intermediate step, then it may also be close to railroading. less so if each of those steps have other intermediates as well.
for example, lets say the characters are getting to step c from point A. if options 1, 2, and 3 all lead directly to step B, than it could be problematic (you walk, ride or peddle to the next location, nothing happens along the way..) but if theres obstacles to be oversome at each step, its not such a problem (one route proves to be easier because you detour around some osrt of accident on foot that you would've had to wait for id you drove) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 02:44 PM
Post
#111
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Has no one here ever run their group through a published module?
@ Taran: "Agreement" is certainly an option here, original tone notwithstanding. As is disagreement :) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 02:52 PM
Post
#112
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
Of course. However I yank the tracks off the module before doing so. Some have been almost unrecognizable as a result. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2005, 03:05 PM
Post
#113
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Beyond published: Do none of you get hired for specific tasks by persons created by the GM? Success: You do what you're paid to, and get paid. All paths lead to either that single successful resolution, or failure. That, by the views I'm seeing, is railroading -- so.. which GMs actually have runs, and which just let players do whatever they want in game, without going through the Johnson, fixer and pay stuff? In fact, the way it looks is that it's absolutely impossible to have any type of Run that is not entirely player driven without it being "Railroading" -- and nearly every twist is impossible to have occur without railroading. Note: Yes, this may very well be a misinterpretation of what people are saying.. but that's the way it looks when I read what people are saying on the subject of railroading. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2005, 03:09 PM
Post
#114
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
As long as the players are free to turn down the task without fear of being punished by the GM, there is no railroading to such a event. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2005, 03:18 PM
Post
#115
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Unless you have a GM that will come up with random runs at the drop of a hat when the group doesn't play the one he's planned, the game is off. Everyone "loses". And I don't know about other people, but game cancelled because the GM does good, planned runs and one wasn't accepted.. Most people aren't nearly as good at improvising an entire Run/Game/Session as they are with notes and plans. And personally, I consider not gaming because there's no accepted run to be quite a punishment -- especially on the in character view, where I don't get to advance, don't get money, and probably lose another month of lifestyle.
Shadowrun is Very Much a game where you either Play or don't play -- and so is "railroading". Any actual Run you either accept, or don't accept -- and unless your group has a whole load of other stuff on the go, if you don't accept, your session is over. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 03:32 PM
Post
#116
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
If... ... the GM comes to the gaming table with an Johnson who offers an unacceptable mission to the players, And ... doesn't have anything else to offer them that night, And ...is also unwilling to follow whatever other course that the players themselves may be interested in, Then You have a GM that needs to railroad in order to play at all. If you like that, you like GMs who railroad. Myself, I'd rather break out a deck of cards for the night than force my PC to do something he wouldn't. And everyone else who plays at my table agrees with me. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2005, 03:50 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Ok.. I'm going to bite..
So you're saying GM A, who isn't good at improvising but typically does exceptionally good runs, comes up with a good stealth run that would normally be acceptable, but since the majority of the characters have had an atrocious last few days .. (Player B got dumped, C had her mother get hit by a corp car, D and E got mugged in the Stuffer Shack.. all random events that were rolled for from pregenerated tables of events.. F and G got away clean, had good weeks) and the players have all had bad days and so feel like killing rather than sneaking, and turn down a typically acceptable (or even exceptional) run, but the GM can't do another... That the GM needs to railroad? Also: A run your character wouldn't touch normally, but the character doesn't even have money for rent, because it was sucked up on hospital bills? Hardly railroading, but it's very defined punishment for not taking the run. Something very intrinsic to the world, I would think. ... Likewise: I had said nothing about a run that wasn't acceptable. I said a run that the players didn't accept. There is a difference. Players can not accept for a multitude of reasons, including bad days and other, unpredictable events. Saying a GM who can't do totally different runs at the drop of a hat to account for this must railroad is doing yourself and the GM a disservice. If your group is happy with an overly broad definition of railroading, then that's fine. But that doesn't mean that the idea of railroading is that broad. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 04:16 PM
Post
#118
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
I don't understand the example. It seems to be exactly what I suggested, the players turn down the run and the GM offers something on the fly more to their taste for the evening. If the GM isn't willing to offer another adventure, I no doubt have things my character is interesting in doing on his own. If the GM isn't willing to do that, we can play cards. Btw: pre-generated random events... we certainly have different styles. I doubt we're going to see eye to eye on much.
My character has other options and he would explore them, up to and including lifestyle reduction if the mission was that objectable. That isn't punishment, that's playing my character. If however the GM has gangers attack me, cops arrest me, or another such event occur with the intent (by that GM) to force me into the planned adventure, that is punishment and thus railroading.
Why would a GM force players to play in a game of his that they are not for whatever reasons interested in? Indeed, he should be happy they pointed out their disagreement with the night's adventure so that it can be postponed until a better time or dropped in favor of a different option. Far better to do something else than have disgruntled players wreck your week.
I'm using the common meaning of the term. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 15 2005, 04:39 PM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Generally, getting the rent isen't that hard, if you're not trying to support an ultra-lux habit or something.
Just steal a Ford Americar, and have the group troll negotiate the sale to a chop shop. Or, have the Face do it. Then repeat until everyone has the rent money. Then go looking for the good. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 04:50 PM
Post
#120
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I have. I give you three guesses what happens if the characters go off the track of the adventure, and the first two don't count. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2005, 05:09 PM
Post
#121
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Fox1: I have said, repeatedly, that for these examples, the GM in question can't do runs on the fly. He or she is neither comfortable nor skilled at it.
What you said is that the run isn't acceptable, so they improv an entire run (which I'm discounting, that's vastly harder to do and not every GM is willing to do it), or do nothing. I added pregenerated random events so that you couldn't use that to call foul. It's a relatively painless way of actually making things happen in the world. "attempted mugging " and so on. Very easy, very general. Nothing about success, just that some incident happened. The entire purpose of that line was actually to give the characters a reason to just want to kill something, so that it's nicely coherent. Otherwise "not wanting to force my character to do something he wouldn't do" becomes "character forcing me to play a game I don't want to". Now.. as for the railroading: I really, really don't buy that the general usage of railroading is that any time the GM wants an event to occur and has bad consequences for some of the other alternatives is railroading. In fact, I think that definition is useless. It's NOT railroading if you want someone to get over a violent streak, so eventually he's got his face plastered on every 'star trid, and winds up with "sneak out the back" or "shoot it down with a 'star FRT". It's TO BE EXPECTED. You CANNOT accuse a GM of railroading because a allowing a characters style is a direct conflict with the way the shadowrun world works, by canon. You can politely ask people not to play that type of character, explain that it doesn't fit the world you are running, but unless you are going to say "Don't come back, I don't want to kill you as your character so richly deserves"... |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 05:27 PM
Post
#122
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
Such GMs do tend to railroad. They really have no choice, this doesn't mean they can't be fun- it just means on your their rails some of the time. In any case, I'm afraid that by just about anyone's definition requiring the players to run an pre-planned adventure is railroading. Nothing more needs to be said on the subject. Depending upon the individual group, this may be viewed as a good thing.
Couldn't care less about how you use pregenerated random events. Only noted it in passing as another example of how very different we are in approaching the game.
I broke your sentence right there on purpose. Nothing more needs be said. "any time the GM wants an event to occur" = railroading. GMs who don't railroad don't care what event occurs or does not occur.
The "if you want" made it railroading.
If you're not willing to remove a player from the campaign, you have my sympathy. You have nothing a bad deal on hand and no way out that likely doesn't make things worse the longer they go on. However you're still railroading. Btw, why is this such a major point to you? I have my opinion, you have a different one. Isn't it time to let it drop? |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sep 15 2005, 05:52 PM
Post
#123
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
I'm stubborn (unfortunately) and I hate letting things go. Haven't figured out a good way to let go of anything, because I despise walking away from any type of debate (save the stupid ones, which this doesn't qualify as -- neither one of us has resorted to silly argument forms, although all we're ever arguing about is the definition of a term).
And actually.. I'm not the GM for anything SRish (not confident in my ability to run the setting -- even if I do love it to death). I think the major difference of opinion is actually philosophical with this one too.. I don't see intent as making a difference, because when I look at intent mattering, everything breaks down, because I don't see how a GM can NOT be railroading. At all. The GM either wants it to happen, or doesn't. Short of making everything random tables. The instant there's any plot other than purely inter-PC, it touches the world, and so the GM has to influence it. If the GM's intentions matter for railroading, then that means the instant he does anything, he's railroading. He literally has no options that are not railroading, because they all boil down to either helping or hindering -- both are railroading. That doesn't make sense though, because the GM's job is to help create the story and to run the world, so to my mind, logic screams "intentions are irrelevent to railroading". That leaves railroading as unreasonably restricting the choices of a PC (unlike 'no, you can't make a hole in your cell wall by banging your head against it'). That, I can't see any problems carrying to it's logical conclusion.. so appears to me to be the accurate answer. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 06:06 PM
Post
#124
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I don't really know if I agree with this statement or not. However, I do think that [for me] being completely apathetic about what happened in game would make the whole thing boring to me as a GM. I once ran a scenario with a new group, and halfway through I found out that they were all acting like one-dimensional combat monsters... Never take prisoners, kill all witnesses, always charge in 'guns-ablazing'. I enforced what I thought were valid, realistic consequences: they took a hit on their rep as incapable of subtlety, and one of the relatives of a murdered guard hired a bounty hunter to 'bring them to justice', forcing them to lay low for a couple weeks. The other players thought I was punishing them, and it detracted from their enjoyment of the game. I didn't prevent them from slaughtering orphans, but if they did then unpleasent things tended to happen (like them showing up on UCAS's Most Wanted.) I think my real failing here wasn't railroading; instead it was that I didn't properly set their expectations before we started, or at least get a decent idea of what kind of world they wanted to play in. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2005, 06:15 PM
Post
#125
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
Fair enough. However I bet we're boring people :)
I agree this is the major difference between us on this point. It's a bit of oil and water thing as I see the GM as completely uninterested in what does or does not happen. He merely presents the world as it logical should be given the setting and genre, the players make their decisions, and the chips fall where they may. The only time desires/wants matter under this viewpoint is in selection of setting, rules, genre, and desired player style. Random tables under this viewpoint may be no better at avoiding railroading than a living GM. One can view such tables as nothing more than an unthinking mechanic method of railroading- they aren't responding to player decisions after all, they are just random. Another way related break of rpg styles is between GM driven or PC driven worlds. Are the primary actors NPCs or are they the PCs? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th July 2026 - 03:14 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.