GMing a plotline, Structure, or railroading? Options

[Talia Invierno]

Carried over from the discussion over what constitutes railroading, add a new question:

Independent of terminology, is plot structure a desirable thing for playing Shadowrun? (Add also in here that if yes: what level of GM manipulation is acceptable to keep characters on-plot?)

[Kagetenshi]

Yes, and no level.

~J

[Taran]

Yes, and none.

[toturi]

Yes, and minimal GM manipulation within canon rules.

For example, if the plot calls for a gang to jump the team from ambush and capture them, but the GM knows that should the gang jump the team as written, the team is going to win instead. The GM could use the canon NPC rules to adjust the "level" of the gangers. While this rule really grates on my teeth, I can accept this level of GM manipulation.

[Dawnshadow]

Yes. GM manipulation? Shouldn't be required.

[Fox1]

You'd have to define plot structure for me before I can really answer the question.

[Talia Invierno]

Okay, ???? Please, someone, explain to me how the two answers everyone who has posted thus far (except for Fox1, whose post I didn't see before) don't completely contradict each other.

Edit: As to what is plot structure: what do you see it as being? How much structure do you see as necessary before plot ceases to exist?

[toturi]

A plotline is desirable, but it does not mean that you must stick with it. You can have a plot, but that plot can change with the players' decisions and actions.

[Dawnshadow]

A plot that gets top marks doesn't require GM manipululation to follow -- it's keyed properly to the players and their characters such that the GM doesn't need to manipulate events -- the two courses are the same. Of course, that's scoring something like 95% or better...

GM Manipulation, to my mind, is the GM retweaking stuff so that the courses of action chosen by players all leads back to the original plot. It's something I permit (even encourage), but don't think should be necessairy if the plot is good enough to begin with.



As for structure? I think we've discussed this before Talia. Except I can't seem to remember how I described it other than "web-based". Blast. I think it was in one of your threads about plot oriented or environment oriented.

[Slump]

In my personal opinion, a plotline consists of two things.

Events and Places.

Now, having events and places are a great thing, because if you don't have them, you just have some very heavily armed and armored people sitting around in a blank white room.

Requiring events at places, or requiring that certain events happen, and certain places must be visited, well ... that's railroading.

The difference between 'good plot' and 'railroading' is that one little word: required. If your plot won't work unless this happens in exactly a certain way, it's probably not a good plot for an RPG.

[hyzmarca]

The important thing about a major plot is that it should continue on its own even if the players choose not to follow it. When this is the case, the GM has many oppertunities to draw the players in without forcing any particular decision. Furthermore, the players should have the opportunity to do things that are not in the best interests of the metaplot.

If you are running Harlequin's Back and the players refuse to tak ethe job from Harly there is no reason why Darke can't offer them a job. If they refuse both offers it stands to reason that a few minor Horrors might appear in Seattle making the news and potentially inviting player curriosity. If they still refuse then let Harly hire some other runners to do his dirty work and have it all blow over without the ploayers knowing what is going on but make many of their job offers involve the minor Horrors that were able to break through because of their apathy for some time afterwards.

Or, the players could decided to side with the Horrors and destroy the world. There is no harm in that. The campaign would probably end righ tthere if they win but they should have the opportunity to do so.

[Talia Invierno]

Dawnshadow: "web-based" link

For everyone, let's try it a slightly different way. What do people understand by "GM manipulation"?

[Dawnshadow]

Many thanks for the link Talia.

[Sabosect]

[Glyph]

The difference between a plot and railroading is that a plot sets the characters into a story, where their actions can affect how the story unfolds. There's nothing wrong with that. Railroading is when the characters are put into the story without having any real choices, or any real opportunities to change how the story unfolds.

If you have the bad guys set up an ambush for the PCs, that's a plot. Maybe the PCs will be smart and avoid the ambush, or maybe they will get lucky and take out their attackers with minimal fuss. Or maybe they will get unlucky and wind up seriously hurt because of overconfidence or poor dice rolls.

If you have the bad guys ambush the PCs, and adjust the NPC stats on the fly or have others show up, because your story requires that the PCs be captured and taken to the bad guy fortress, then that's railroading. No matter how the characters plan or what they do, they will wind up being captured. Railroading is bad because the players trust in the GM as a fair arbiter is eroded, and they become less interested in the game when they realize that things are going to happen a certain way no matter what they do.

[Fortune]

Well said Glyph.

[eidolon]

Voted "yes, with provisions". And another kudos to Glyph.

[hahnsoo]

I think most people have to admit, though, that every GM railroads occasionally. There's a limit to the game-processing power that a GM can have, and sometimes the next logical step in the plot becomes the only step simply because we're all only human. Although this does remind me of the time when I was "literally" railroading the players because on this particular shadowrun, I put them on a monorail. They had no choice but to complete the run and wait until the monorail came to a full and complete stop. :)

[Supercilious]

Murder On the Downtown Express.

[Kagetenshi]

[coolgrafix]

[Conskill]

Part of this debate, I think, boils down to whether you as a GM have a strong bias towards the RP or the G. I see my job as a GM as mainly a story-teller. My opinion is biased toward that.

At the risk of being hopelessly cynical: PC freedom and the well-maintained illusion of PC freedom is perceived by the PC as the same thing. GM manipulation and railroading on any level, so long as it remains invisible, is peachy. If you do it right, the only one who's sleep it's going to trouble is yours; and if it does that, you really need to take a step back from the table.

As a matter of preferance, I prefer to give my players all the freedom in the world. I consider myself skilled in GMing by the seat of my pants and skilled at anticipating how my group is going to react. More times than not can work with anything they throw at me. However, I am certainly not above adjusting things on the fly if I feel the need is there. I won't deny myself the ability to hammer in some loose nails just because some GMs use the same tool to break their players' skulls.

I can certainly imagine that my opinion would be different if I came at SR from the opposite angle, running it mainly as a tactical wargame and crime simulator. Stories don't need to be strictly democratic, but games need to be fair.

[hahnsoo]

I don't think that it is polarized between "tactical combat/crime wargame" and "storytelling from a GM's perspective". I think it's more of a clash between GM autonomy and player autonomy, especially if you are building off a roleplaying model of "GM as storyteller". A GM can do whatever he/she likes, but is subject to the enjoyment of the players (after all, players who don't enjoy a game aren't going to play the game). A player can do whatever he/she likes, but it subject to the whim and rules given by the GM (who is given both the responsibility and the authority of portraying the setting and environment). The median ground is the game system, the consensus of rules that both parties choose to follow in order to provide both parties with an equal ground to negotiate.

The objection to "railroading" is not the fact that people want to play a tactical wargame... this is a conclusion that may be based off of personal bias toward one's own definition of roleplaying ("I can't imagine that roleplaying is something other than what we are playing right now, and everyone else who doesn't follow what our group does must not be roleplaying"). The fact is, "railroading" simply means that the GM is asserting control over the player's autonomy. It is an expression of the GM's power, and as power often goes, it can degrade the players' collective trust in the GM and the players' enjoyment of the game overall. This doesn't necessarily happen, but if such railroading occurs without consent, then someone is probably going to be disappointed.

Personally, I think of the "GM as a storyteller" paradigm as an incomplete picture. Roleplaying CAN be storytelling with a single prime narrator and mover (and indeed, many games are like this, and some RPG books encourage this), but it also CAN be collaborative storytelling, a tapestry from different threads woven by all the participating and consenting members (again, some RPG books encourage this POV as well). After all, if the players wanted to be passively entertained, they could watch TV or movies or read a book... roleplaying is an active affair, and many people play roleplaying games because it gives them an active and fluid role in the game dynamic. In our games, we never Rule Zero (though we are rarely in a position where Rule Zero would matter), all dice rolls are exposed to all players (with no opportunities to fudge dicerolls, but leeway given to the GM to interpret the results of dice rolls), and GM duties are rotated between the players in the group. I think we take the "group consensus" paradigm of roleplaying to an extreme (possibly unhealthy), but every group has their own comfort zone for the individual's autonomy. Moreso, there is no "wrong" way to roleplay (socially unacceptable, perhaps, and sometimes rather creepy), and the different ways to roleplay exist beyond the simple axis of "wargame vs. roleplaying" or "rollplaying vs. roleplaying".

[Conskill]

To be honest, I do have trouble seeing it as a player autonomy issue, because I have trouble thinking of player autonomy as something that truly exists, simply due to the nature of the medium.

What happens when GM autonomy and player autonomy clashes? Within the context of the session, it's not a contest. Since the GM is the one that is creating the environment, it's impossible to act outside the intent of the GM. However, a nice GM usually includes "modifing the chain of events to account for player actions" within his intent. Unless it's established within the group's structure, there is no constitution that gurantees that the GM will resolve any action the player wishes to accomplish, but it is a very common privilage for a GM to grant.

If there is a real clash between what the GM wants and the player wants (to use an exaggerated example: if the player wants to roleplay through a sex scene, but the GM considers that entirely outside the bounds of good taste), the only end I can see to that is one of them walks away from the game.

[Mercer]

When I design a game, the overall plot generally looks something like 1) Who are the npcs (opposition, allies, and other affected parties), 2) What do they want to accomplish, and 3) What other independent events will alter this?

If there were no players, it'd be a short story and I could plot it exactly how I wanted to, right down to who lives and who dies. But the players, their actions, decisions and dice, are going to monkey wrench just about everything. If the opposition is moving towards its stated goal and half its number gets wiped out by the pcs, thats going to change what they do from then on.

I can't plot a game that is set up for the pcs to be hired to protect the MacGuffin, have it stolen from them and they have to hit the people that stole it to steal it back. If I design those three encounters and those three only, what happens when the pc's kill off all the people coming in to steal it? What if they throw the MacGuffin in the back of their car and take off driving cross-country? What if they decide instead of recovering the lost item they'll simply burn the building down to hide the evidence of the theft? Or if instead of recovering it from the thieves they'll make a counterfeit and try to pass that off as the original?

My point is only that once the pc's start doing things, you start off the map. If you force them to go through the planned encounters (say, the item gets stolen no matter how well they protect it, and the only way to not get killed is to steal it back), then you take away the free will. All a player has is his character. And if what he decides that character will do doesn't have any effect on the course of the plot, then all he's really there for is combat, because thats all he can affect (unless combats are pre-decided, and then you might as well be telling a story and let the group save on a couple hundred bucks worth of game books and dice.)