 Player Actions and Consequences, ...or, when characters do stupid things |
  |
 Sep 15 2005, 06:23 PM
Post
#126
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660  |
I agree. They were wanting to play one type of game (anti-heroes) and you were trying to play another (perhaps we'll call it shadowly heroes, I'm sure you could make a better name). SR as a world itself could easily be played either way and still be canon. So what happened was that your version of SR reacted as it would to people such as the players were running, with negative results seen as railroading by the players. In a real sense they *were correct*, their view of the world and the decisions based upon that view was being overturned by the GM. The problem is that they were unaware or unwilling to be aware of your view of the SR world. If they had agreed to it up front, your actions couldn't be viewed as railroading- it was after all the conditions under which they agreed to play. In a very real sense, the group decision on what the game should be like is a shared railroading. Works great, but things fall apart when people start lying tracking going in different directions. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Sep 15 2005, 06:38 PM
Post
#127
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 2-April 03 From: PHX Member No.: 4,367 |
A good deal of what has been said here surprises me. To begin, I don't believe that railroading is a problem, at least not the way I do it. If you know your players well enough (IC: a fixer knows his clients very well) then you know what type of runs they are into. Give them what they want and there won't be a problem with them taking the job for the most part.
It also surprised me to hear that some GM's rip apart the written adventures instead of just running them as is and using the space between scenes to integrate the run into their own campaigns. It feels like a waste to buy an adventure you aren't going to use. Do you just incorporate the characters or the maps or what? I think Shadowrun has to be an organic game. A run is only a small portion of what transpires. Most of my game sessions are planning, meeting contacts, and characters living their own lives, oh and of course trying to get paid... The actual run is a relatively short process when done correctly. If done wrong, players understand the consequences of their actions. This brings me to the earlier point of a runner who wanted to geek 200 cops. You can't let that happen. Forget GM as God, this is an issue of Player as Stupid. If you don't let the player make the stupid choice then you are, in essence, railroading the player to do "whats best for them and the team." Oftentimes the player isn't going to make the proper choice and they should be allowed to do that. They should be allowed to fail gloriously. When the character faces off against 200 cops the character is saying "It's time for me to die." So I'll let what happens happen and not intervene. If the other players want to stop him (because women are rarely that dumb) then they can intervene. You have to maintain a level of "realism" (for lack of a better word) in a campaign. Once you forgive nonsense then nonsense becomes the norm. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 06:49 PM
Post
#128
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
This is of course the common method (or so I would think) and one that I use. If however I screwed up and the players decided against the job, they decided against the job and I'll have to come up with something else. Not normally a problem for me.
I use the Maps and varying degress of elements of the characters and plots. The as-published adventures are wonderful as springboards for me, but I have my own meta-plots that I've adjusted SR for. I also use HERO System for the main rules instead of the SR, so character stats aren't that useful. Sometimes the tone of the adventure doesn't match the tone I've selected for my campaign. Other times the difficultly level is too low. Other times I want something more complex. All in all, I do major changes. Typically the more I do, the more the players like the result.
Sure you can. If that's the type of campaign you're wanting to run. If it's not, the player doesn't belong in your campaign. The issue frankly shouldn't come up. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sep 15 2005, 07:22 PM
Post
#129
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Putting down 200 cops is a perfectly workable life goal for a character.
As for that particular example, the GM has already thrown sense out the window by having 200 cops out front, so why not start killing them? More importantly, the GM has butchered, cooked, and eaten sense by having 200 cops out front and none out back. Frankly, the proper case in that circumstance is slapping the GM silly. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 08:21 PM
Post
#130
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 470 Joined: 2-January 05 From: Quebec Member No.: 6,924 |
That's because the front of the building has a Donut Shop.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 09:47 PM
Post
#131
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 54 Joined: 29-May 05 Member No.: 7,419 |
I find this discussion strange because, to my mind, the goal of a GM is to role play all of the NPC's (and from now on I'm just going to talk about the villians of the campaign) as intelligently as they actually are.
This is especially true of the megacorportations/dragons/IE's. They have so much power and information that, on the level of most players, they can pretty much do anything. If AZT gets angry enough at you, they can *literally* send an army after you. In practice, this often leads to large, overarching, shadowy, and very often completely invisible to the PC's plots against them that are managed entirely by the GM. This, to me, is the hallmark of the Shadowrun game: you can't compete with the rulers of the world, no matter how long you play, or how good you are. At best you can stave off death for another day. This is not to say that the PC's are entirely helpless or unable to learn. One of my group's favorite moments was when we discovered and shattered a long-running and not-yet-completed AZT plot to first discredit and then destroy us, because we had damaged them four years previous. One of the characters is a refugee from a ninja clan, and her relatives keep popping up at the most inopportune times. They've already killed one character. In short, Shadowrun is a brutal world where the clocks ticking down to the characters' deaths are so ticking so loud, the *characters* can hear them. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 10:56 PM
Post
#132
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
No, apparently it isn't, at least not in strict canon games ;) I'd been thinking about sparing Faenor and moving the railroading discussion to a different thread so as to make it clear this part of the discussion is distinct from the personal application, but it seems perfectly happy where it is. That being said, I'll add another question to the ongoing argument over definition: but that one I will move to a different thread. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 16 2005, 02:35 PM
Post
#133
|
|||||||||||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
If you use a different definition, you're certainly welcome to it. But please be kind enough to identify that ahead of time. This is care of the RPG Cliche List and was posted previously. Do you disagree with it?
I think the important question, as I stated earlier, is was the PC punished for deviating from the set options, or because he did something STUPID? As I said before, I was assuming the latter, the PC did something stupid (and the GM didn't understand how DW worked.) IF I accept that the GM arrested the PC solely because the PC didn't choose one of those three options, then yes, I'd agree it was railroading (and you seem to agree with me on that later).
I would see THAT as railroading even worse than in game railroading!! If I try to do something unusual or different, not only am I punished in that my idea fails, but I'm not even given a chance to try something else!! At least in the original case, the player could roll up a new character and try to step more carefully in the future. I have never, ever, once in my life suggested a player leave a game because of an in-character suggestion EVER. Maybe I've been lucky. But I would consider that one of the worst offenses a GM can make, because that sounds like railroading taken to the highest degree (you play my way, or you don't play at all). |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Sep 16 2005, 03:59 PM
Post
#134
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
Quick question: If I am running the game, and I have set it up so that a certain piece of information is held by only one NPC, but the characters need it, and I give them hints and clues during legwork to find that person, is it railroading?
No, you say? Well then it is all a matter of degree then isn't it? Meh! |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 03:59 PM
Post
#135
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Nezumi, that's not railroading. Railroading can only occur in-game.
That's asshattery in the first degree. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:01 PM
Post
#136
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
It's a short definition that leaves out most of the real life meaning. Just like most complex things from any common dictionary. A real exploration of the subject would need a few thousand words. One doesn't disagree with it as much as one understands that it's incomplete and shallow. As for giving my version up front, I don't have time to do the few thousand words that it would require, nor am I certain that there is truly any interest that I do so. Instead I would think those interested could gather my meaning by means of questions on those points they don't understand. Your strong reaction for example certainly indicates that you're getting some of the major points already. You just don't like them.
His actions would not have been judged stupid in many campaigns I have either played in or heard of. A James Bond like campaign for example may see the PC fire AV rockets from his car grill during a high speed chase out front of the main Lone Star office in hostile nation with no ill effects. Stupid is in the individual eyes of the GM and what he sees as the campaign's genre, tone, and background setting. These factors vary from campaign to compagn and it's the GM's job to make them plain to the players up front. The players then *must* either agree or disagree with them. When a player's vision of those factors differ from the GM, conflict arises. When the GM insists on punishing PCs for those conflicts of vision instead of dealing with it OOC, he's railroading- i.e. forcing in-game his view of how things should happen over that of the players who disagree with that viewpoint.
Such a event cannot be railroading because it happened outside the game. Railroading is a purely in-game event when GM and players disagree as to how certain events should play out. By removing a player with a seriously different view of how the game should operate from the group, I've rid myself of a player unsuited to my campaign and very likely intensely disliked by my other players for disruptive to that game. After all they'd rather be playing instead of watching me play whack-a-mole in-game with the offending player. Meanwhile that player is now able to go find another group more suited to his tastes. Such an action is to his gain as well. If you never done this you are either very lucky or have not seen very many players of different styles. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:03 PM
Post
#137
|
|||||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
That is disturbing to me. My players do a lot of dumb stuff, but we are there to have fun. If a player is purposefully disruptive and does so by insisting on doing dumb things, then you have an OOC issue that needs to be dealt with, not an IC issue. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:04 PM
Post
#138
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
And that ain't railroading, that is communication.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:06 PM
Post
#139
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
If find the concept of important objective information the players must gain being held by only one NPC to slightly unbelievable in most cases. But I'm sure you can come up with examples. Beyond that it would only be railroading if the GM insisted on a single way of gaining that information from said NPC. Such as requiring the cute female PC to seduce said NPC- a sadly too common type of raidroading that some people have had to deal with. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:06 PM
Post
#140
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Which is why all characters in any half-serious campaign should get the Common Sense edge automaticly and for free. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:08 PM
Post
#141
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
I took the example as someone being purposefully disruptive. And yes it is an OOC conflict, that's why I removed said player from the campaign. Such an action is OOC by definition. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:24 PM
Post
#142
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Depends. Do you have a good reason for that person to be the only path to the information? If not, do you have another path to the information? Do you avoid unrealistically severe consequences for failing/giving up on the job (total destruction of rep, death by thousand ninja, multiple crime rings plus UCAS government after team, every shaman in the group's totem abandoning them and leaving them mundane, etc.)? If either one is false, you're railroading. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:52 PM
Post
#143
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
Yeah, making them do it one way and only one way, sure that's railroading. And no fun IMO |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:58 PM
Post
#144
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
Since Iam the GM in this what-if: 1. Yes, an immaculate reason. 2. No other paths to the info are needed, I have the perfect reason (see #1) 2.1 There are many paths to the knowledge that the person has the information, but no one else has the information itself (a highly reasonable scenario (see #1)). 3. Yes, only realistic, severe consequences in my world, thank you very much. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 16 2005, 05:51 PM
Post
#145
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I should add to that that you need a good reason for this information to be vital.
That said, if those all stack up, you aren't railroading. The players can find the person, or they can arrange to flee the country with what portions of their resources they can keep in hand, or they can attempt to track down and kill their employer or whoever it is that will be enforcing the consequences in-game, or any of a number of options. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 06:15 PM
Post
#146
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
That is a very useless response. We have definitions of words so we can use them and communicate. If you cannot explain what a word you're using means, either use a different word, or stop talking, because it's a waste of your time and mine. Seriously. I can't talk with you if we can't agree what we're talking about (and THAT is what I don't like).
If you're running a James Bond game, that's something to state when you start the game (or put the example online). Otherwise, we have to assume you're running a canon game in the canon universe, which means the police will respond in under 8 minutes to the illegal detonation of high explosives in a crowded A-level residential area (as described in the Lone Star sourcebook, and other canon materials). Since he didn't specify the campaign as non-canon and the player was experienced with SR, I think it's fair to assume he was simply stupid in this case.
So if I enforce the natural consequences of a PCs actions, that's railroading? Or is it only railroading when they're detrimental? As has been stated, it was a canon game and the player was experienced with the system. There's no reason to assume he didn't know he didn't understand the game world (although several people jumped in immediately saying the GM should have OOC informed the PC that his actions were unreasonable, which is certainly fair! But that's being a good GM, not railroading.) If, in a game, I kick a Lone Star officer in the nuts, I should expect him to try and arrest me (and I should expect them to make extraordinary efforts to do it if I pull out my gun and start shooting). This is called 'natural consequences'. It's not railroading, it's the world reacting to my actions. Without it, we're just playing 'do whatever the PCs want.'
I stand corrected, it would not be railroading. However, other definitions were suggested which may be more apt. You continue making deep assumptions (that he was disliked, or had a different game view) to justify a knee-jerk response (kicking out a PC for a suggested action without getting more information on the circumstances surrounding that suggestion). I do think it interesting that you are suggesting the original problem was a disconnect between the PC and GM and should be resolved through OOC communication, but your response to a more unusual case isn't discussion, tolerance or any attempt at communication, but excommunication.
I'd like to think I am very lucky, however I've dealt with quite a diverse player base. Any unusual response, or any case where I suspect a PC may be expecting a response other than what he would naturally earn, I warn him in advance that things may not turn out as he wanted and try to determine what he expected. I then explain the root of the problem and determine if there's any other useful information he should know before continuing on. If we run into the problem after the fact, with new players I allow undos. The only PCs I've kicked out are ones who've simply stopped coming (since I do stuff mostly online, it's pretty common). If, after explaining the likely result of a course of action and giving him at least one clear, OOC warning that an action he's choosing may be very, very dangerous, if he continues on that course, I play out the NPCs as well as I can and let the dice fall as they may (again, with a possible nudge for newbies, because I'm too much of a softie for my own good). I'll admit, how I play NPCs is necessariy subjective, but in any case where life is on the line, I try my darnedest to do things by the book to reduce any subjective bias. I don't care if my PCs throw themselves off cliffs. If they enjoy it, go for it. If the group expects non-canon results, I get a majority vote and shift the campaign as appropriate. Until then, I continue to simply provide events, jobs and NPCs in the world and enforce the rules. If they paint themselves into a corner, well, I guess then I railroad :P |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sep 16 2005, 10:23 PM
Post
#147
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
I'm sorry if discussions of this type are not to your taste. Perhaps it would be better to drop our exchanges. I have no wish to upset you, and no wish to continue something that is pointless.
I've already stated this a number of times in the thread.
I disagree. Any GM who feels the need to ask advice about their decision on a board such as this one is very likely the type of GM who makes his expectations unclear or likely completely unstated. No do I think one should decide who is stupid or not based upon a one-side presentation. Nor is it as clear cut as you seem to think. Some cases of canon material in fact even supports the player in this matter. SR canon is all over the place. Just note the number of posts here from people who express disagreement with the very idea that Doc Wagon would turn the PC over as evidence of this point. Even in a canon setting, it's apparent that different GMs would view this event in very different ways. You seem to think that simple short sentences define all that needs to be defined. You wave the word 'canon' around like it is immediately understood and agreed by all parties as to what its exact meaning and effects are. I assure you, this is not the case. I believe I have enough clues from our exchange as of now to know for a near certainly that you and I for example see canon as two very different styles.
As I've said before, it's only railroading when the GM is selecting events and outcomes based upon his personal desires. In this thread the desired outcome was to make the PC: 1. Surrender 2. Play in a style he didn't want to play in 3. Require the assistance of other players. The GM selected events to achive these goals. When the PC refused to be railroaded into those goals, the GM selected an alternate punishing outcome- arrest by Lone Star. He did so in typical fashion, with selected elements from the rules as backing to give an impression of objective resolution where the whole matter was driven by his subjective goals. None of the individual events were railroading. It was the intent (stated by the GM in question) behind those events that made it railroading.
The intents and result of intents that drive railroading don't have to be detrimental, they are only more likely to noticed and objected to by the player when they are.
I need make no assumptions. I was provided with the actions of a player and I was provided with the setting (i.e. my own personal campaign and playing group). Such an action in my campaign is irrational. I know how I and other players in that campaign react to people who insist on playing irrationally. From that, effect follows cause. It is no assumption that such a player would have to have a very different game view from us, no one I'm aware of thinks one can dig holes through such walls with their heads in my game. This is in fact seems to be why the specific example was picked, because few even outside my game would agree that it was a reasonable thing to do. Wait, there was one assumption in there. I assumed that this was their first game with my group. I made that assumption because none of my current players would ever even consider seriously making such a suggestion.
I make very quick judgements about new players. I used to be more forgiving, but over the years I've found that my first impressions (i.e. those at end of the first game) have always been correct. I no longer give additional chances as a result. If there is an indication that the style and expections of the new player would be disruptive to the group- they will not be asked to return. If not disruptive, but not really suitable for our style- they will be warned that they likely won't fit in. But they may continue to come until they realize that themselves.
In over twenty five years of gaming, I have had, and currently have excellent players for my groups. I will not have them sit on their hands at a game while I'm forced to take the time to resolve events for a disruptive player who insists on throwing himself off cliffs. There are far better and more constructive things to do with our gaming time. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th October 2025 - 05:00 AM |
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.