GMing a plotline - Dumpshock Forums

GMing a plotline, Structure, or railroading?

Independent of terminology, is plot structure a desirable thing for playing Shadowrun?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 120
Guests cannot vote

hahnsoo

Sep 16 2005, 11:31 AM

Post #26

Mr. Johnson

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,587
Joined: 25-January 05
From: Berkeley, CA
Member No.: 7,014

QUOTE (Conskill @ Sep 16 2005, 06:06 AM)

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.

It is not in the "nature of the medium", it is simply your particular point of view as to how an RPG should be played and what "roleplaying" is. You see it as the GM having all the cards and having absolute power. This is effectively the thrust of "Rule Zero". When such a conflict between player autonomy and GM autonomy exists in such an environment, then indeed, the only way to resolve such conflicts is someone walking away from the game, which is the main disadvantage of using Rule Zero and absolutes in general.

I see roleplaying games, especially in my gaming group, as a group effort, a consensus between consenting players in the group (all of whom fill the role of GM in our games, based on a weekly rotation). We use the medium of the game mechanic to resolve challenges and conflicts in-game (how do you determine whether or not a player's or NPC's action succeeds? You roll the dice), and negotiation and discussion when dealing with conflicts out-of-character (how do you deal with someone being upset at a result? You talk about it). It's not a better or worse game, but it certainly rides more on the mechanics of the system (since we don't fudge dice rolls... something that can be frought with peril given the vagarities of dice-rolling) while at the same time sidestepping most of the power issues that come up between player and GM conflicts (since everyone has an equal say in the discussion).

Consent is the important aspect of this, because players and GMs both consent to playing a certain type of game. Players will only consent to play the game if they know they are going to have fun, whether consenting to the GM being the primary storyteller or consenting to work collaboratively or consenting to just roll dice and have fun hacking and slashing, and GMs consent to playing/providing a certain type of game. If a player wants to roleplay a sex scene, and the GM does not want to, there is clearly a miscommunication as to what sort of game both parties are consenting to. While such things aren't typically laid out in writing and absolutes, most folks come together in a gaming group to play a particular kind of game, with certain mechanics (we're playing SR4), certain social customs (who's buying the pizza), and certain expectations (sex scenes are verboten).

Sicarius View Member Profile	Sep 16 2005, 11:34 AM Post #27
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 908 Joined: 31-March 05 From: Georgia Member No.: 7,270	My style is to set the table, and let the characters eat at it. fill it with interesting and exciting NPCs, and let the characters interact as they will. They'll get job offers, but they don't have to take them. If they want to spend their time going to the cafe, and drinking soy-latte and filling out crossword puzzles in 2063, than I'll let them. My enjoyment comes from seeing what they do in the world i've presented them. But then, i have players who are used to a free form style. so they provide alot of their own motivations.

Mercer View Member Profile	Sep 16 2005, 11:47 AM Post #28
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,326 Joined: 15-April 02 Member No.: 2,600	Sic reminded me of another point. If you have unmotivated or unimaginative players, its not so much about railroading them as dragging them along. Creative players, on the other hand, tend to provide their own steam, and as a gm the challenge there is to keep up. Like anything, its a two-way street. If a gm rewards player creativity (not so much by handing out goodies for it, but by making the decisions they make matter in the story) then it makes the players more interested in being creative, and so on.

Fox1

Sep 16 2005, 01:12 PM

Post #29

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 7,660

QUOTE (hahnsoo)

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.

Best post on this subject in this thread so far.

I'm going to pass on voting in the poll, I just don't think the question relates to the subject we're talking about.

nezumi View Member Profile	Sep 16 2005, 01:55 PM Post #30
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760	As long as the GM is willing to throw (or more precisely, willing to let the players throw) the plot out the window, you can run a plot without railroading. Kinda a bummer, I think if that 'provision' was stated in the original survey, we'd get much clearer results. 'Yes with provisions', 'No with provisions' and 'sometimes' probably have an awful lot of crossover.

Dawnshadow View Member Profile	Sep 16 2005, 02:22 PM Post #31
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086	Mercer has a really good explanation for what I think the overall plot would be like -- a little incomplete, to my mind, but a very good explanation. Any plot I come up with is typically three parts. 1) This is what I think Mercer is missing in his. A bunch of events that PCs can do which have consequences that could alter the results. (If it were to be Shadowrun, these would be the runs). These are in no particular order and can be avoided or done.. although there IS a time element to some. If something is going to happen at x location, y time, and the players want to be there for it.. they have to set their schedules, because I won't force it. If they want to add to the list, they can and it will be factored in. Success or failure at any point will have appropriate (determined at time of completion) results in the other plotline. It doesn't even have to be used, although it can be. I find it a good exercise just because it gets the mind working and gives you a bunch of adventures, twists, or monkey wrenches to throw in events -- if they make sense. Having the bad guys show up while the PCs are trying to liberate a particular item.. because the other side wanted the item too? As long as it's not an overused trick, much more fun. 2) A bunch of NPCs, as rich as I can make them. Some good, some bad, some innocent, some not. All with their own motivations, all growing and developing over the course of the game. 3) A plotline that interacts with the plot the players are writing. It proceeds at it's own pace, independent except for any intersections with player actions. Never had an NPC plotline conclude when the PCs decided not to be there.. but that comes down to motivation. The seeds always include enough PC backstory to make the players really motivated. This particular plotline could be anything from one single massive plot to a three or four plots that are all interwoven and look like one single massive plot. Or more, although that starts making my head hurt if they're all long-running. As for railroading: any time the players are expected to choose to do something that they have no motivation to, because that's the only way the plot can advance-- railroading. Any time the players are given a BIG chunk of motivation to do one thing, and no motivation (or motivation not) to do something, that is not railroading. That's something that just happens. Sometimes there is one really obviously good choice. "Do I take the boat that's sitting right there with no leaks and a paddle, swim across the river that's got a bunch of little fish, slightly reddish water, and thigh bones on the banks, turn around and fight the 50 spirit-demons?, or try and climb the trees that have no branches closer than 6 metres/20 feet"

PlainWhiteSocks

Sep 16 2005, 03:53 PM

Post #32

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 24-August 05
From: Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Member No.: 7,611

QUOTE (Dawnshadow)

As for railroading: any time the players are expected to choose to do something that they have no motivation to, because that's the only way the plot can advance-- railroading. Any time the players are given a BIG chunk of motivation to do one thing, and no motivation (or motivation not) to do something, that is not railroading. That's something that just happens. Sometimes there is one really obviously good choice. "Do I take the boat that's sitting right there with no leaks and a paddle, swim across the river that's got a bunch of little fish, slightly reddish water, and thigh bones on the banks, turn around and fight the 50 spirit-demons?, or try and climb the trees that have no branches closer than 6 metres/20 feet"

I've seen brilliant examples of this employed at a convention. In fact I’m of the opinion that circumstances at a convention dictate this kind of motivation/plot structure. The GM doesn’t know the players or the characters, and usually has a set-in-stone time limit for the game. Likewise the players might not know each other or the GM. Plot painting with broad strokes with little player control becomes the order for the day at the beginning of the game to get everyone working together, and move the storyline along. After the initial setup is pitched then the players are (in a well run game) basically free to do as the see fit.

For me it’s like contrasting a short story and a novel. I find plenty of truly great examples of superior stories in both mediums, although the structure and base assumptions are sometimes radically different in scope.

Jrayjoker View Member Profile	Sep 16 2005, 03:57 PM Post #33
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675	Voted "Yes, with provisions." I like to have events that will occur, NPCs that will be used, and goals lined up in my head, but how the characters get from A to Z is their own business. My job is to provide them with the clues and information that lead them to the events and people I need to drive the plot. If they go another direction entirely, it is my job to make that part of the story as well.

Fox1

Sep 16 2005, 04:12 PM

Post #34

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 7,660

QUOTE (PlainWhiteSocks)

For me it’s like contrasting a short story and a novel. I find plenty of truly great examples of superior stories in both mediums, although the structure and base assumptions are sometimes radically different in scope.

Railroading is not necessary a bad thing in and of itself.

toturi

Sep 16 2005, 04:14 PM

Post #35

Canon Companion

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187

QUOTE (Fox1)

Railroading is not necessary a bad thing in and of itself.

No, it isn't. But if railroading detracts from the fun of the game, then it does.

Kagetenshi

Sep 16 2005, 04:33 PM

Post #36

Manus Celer Dei

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 16,898
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802

QUOTE (Fox1 @ Sep 16 2005, 11:12 AM)

Railroading is not necessary a bad thing in and of itself.

Yes, yes it is. It may be a bad thing that can result in an overall good situation on occasions, but never lose sight of the fact that it is a bad thing.

~J

Fox1

Sep 16 2005, 04:44 PM

Post #37

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 7,660

QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 16 2005, 11:33 AM)

QUOTE (Fox1 @ Sep 16 2005, 11:12 AM)

Railroading is not necessary a bad thing in and of itself.

Yes, yes it is. It may be a bad thing that can result in an overall good situation on occasions, but never lose sight of the fact that it is a bad thing.

~J

I'm going to have to stay with my statement.

Railroading is like that which it takes its name from, it is a tool. A tool used to get from point A to point B in a predetermined and efficent manner.

It just happens to be tool that is easily abused.

Used in small sections it can be fun for both the players and the GM. Allowing the GM to show off if desired, or bring important background points to the front. The players meanwhile can have a bit of an out of control thrill, like riding a rollercoaster.

The most key question up front is can the player decide to take the train or not without damage to their own concept and world view. Generally problems arise when the answer to this is no, and a good time is to be hand when the answer is yes.

Clyde View Member Profile	Sep 16 2005, 04:48 PM Post #38
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 458 Joined: 12-April 04 From: Lacey, Washington Member No.: 6,237	You're wrong on that one Kage. Railroading is bad only when the devices used are objectionable to the players. Different people have different tolerances for this. Some players want an incredibly freeform game, where they can interact with interesting NPCs, lay down their own schemes and plot their own runs. They don't want the least little bit of GM interference. Others might be more interested in just going along and resolving any little puzzles and fights that come in their way - maybe especially if everybody's pretty tired and not up to a lot of investigation and decision making. Ultimately, I think most players are a bit in between. They want the freedom to make choices, but they don't want to have to make every choice and they don't want a game world that will let them get away with taking over Ares if that's what somebody wants that night.

booklord View Member Profile	Sep 16 2005, 05:42 PM Post #39
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Detroit, Michigan Member No.: 4,583	Three types of railroading..... 1) Capturing the characters or setting up an event they are present for but have no power to prevent. The worst example I can think of is in the Arcology adventure [ Spoiler ] when the characters are captured and forcibly hooked up to the arcology matrix IMHO these situations should be avoided if possible. The adventure becomes like a roller coaster ride. The players lose the ability to deviate from the pre-defined path. In such cases I as a GM often feel uncomfortable putting characters in real danger. Players get a lot more resentful over character deaths if they happened during this sort of railroading. 2) You grab something of value to the characters and hold it hostage or do something to the runners which would force them to do something. ( ritual magical links or cranial cortex bombs are big for this ) This is a touchy one, and it often backfires. Players often believe that an NPC underhanded enough to blackmail them into cooperation isn't trustworthy enough to let go of their influence once the job is complete. I ran an adventure once where Karl Brackhaven of the Seattle humanist Policlub hired the runners and then betrayed and blackmailed them. When the smoke cleared ( the players used explosives ) Karl was dead along with much of the Seattle Humanist Policlub leadership, A major race riot was raging in Seattle, and Kenneth Brackhaven and the humanist policlub was a major enemy of every character. At the end of the next session the players had to leave Seattle because the price on their heads was too high. 3) There is only one good option. This is in my mind the least troublesome. If the Johnson tells the runners that there will a security lapse at such and such time then the players are essentially railroaded into performing the run at that time. They've still got free will though and they could choose another path.

Mercer

Sep 16 2005, 10:31 PM

Post #40

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,326
Joined: 15-April 02
Member No.: 2,600

QUOTE (Dawnshadow @ Sep 16 2005, 02:22 PM)

1) This is what I think Mercer is missing in his. A bunch of events that PCs can do which have consequences that could alter the results. (If it were to be Shadowrun, these would be the runs).

This is true for designing campaigns, where the game is going to be run more long term and will incorporate various plotlines and stories. I tend to run mini-series style games, like action-adventure movies with 4-5 sessions and a reasonably well-defined start and end point (i.e. the run begins with a phone call and ends with a pc being handed a credstick). So these are basically single run adventures; or single, related or linked run adventures, of a defined scope.

To me, the central point in the term "railroading" is that its one track. Trains don't have the luxury of taking backroads. When a gm railroads, he's pretty much taking the pc's from Point A to Point B the way he's decided, and they don't get a vote. For me as a gm, the fun is seeing how players decide to do things, and then seeing if those things succeed or fail. Generally players have fun succeeding or failing (at least, this has been my experience with my group) as long as the proceedings are fair and interesting. When a gm is trying to crowbar a scenario to a specific outcome and the players are resisting, thats when a lot of frustration builds up which is less fun for everybody.

Edit for grammar. and sppeling.

Snow_Fox View Member Profile	Sep 17 2005, 01:52 AM Post #41
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221	It is usually how i run an adventure when I GM. I set up a place and a serries of events and drop the players in it. It is NOT set in stone but if the player's do not affect it, then at time A, so and so will happen. at time B such and such will happen etc. If the players stall for getting ideas it keeps things moving. Of course if they will try to sit back and let things move along then they lose the initiative and the opposition WILL get heavier. Wait too long and you miss the target, or if your are protecting something, you may lose that!

Dog View Member Profile	Sep 17 2005, 03:39 AM Post #42
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 7-February 03 Member No.: 4,025	I agree with what Mercer said earlier about unimaginative players, and I'll throw in unexperienced as well. Sometimes they need to be shown the game world a little. My opinion is that a well-prepared plot is very useful for the purposes of creating a good story, which (I hope) will mean more fun for the players. However, a GM must anticipate a lot of choices and prepare for them. So if you want your characters to feel that they matter, you will actually have several "plots" branching from key events. Further to that, a good GM has to be ready to discard his plot ideas in a second if a player does something completely unanticipated. Sucks, yeah, but toss those pages into the "maybe I'll use them another time" pile. One should avoid that pesky GM pride that makes us say "I wrote a good story and by damn you're not going to screw it up!" So you need preperation and improvisation, I guess. I don't think you can realistically 'choose' one or the other. If a GM lacks one, he or she is a GM that's lacking. These days, my group tends to convene after games to discuss as a group: a) what the characters are likely to do next game, so the GM can prepare; and b) what the players think of the story and speculation about what's going on that the characters might not know.

M.A.L.E-man View Member Profile	Sep 17 2005, 04:56 AM Post #43
Target Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 3-September 05 Member No.: 7,676	No scenario, no matter how well planned, and despite all possibilities considered, has ever survived the initial collision with a group of well-intentioned, over-clever, thoughtful players.

Mercer View Member Profile	Sep 17 2005, 10:27 AM Post #44
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,326 Joined: 15-April 02 Member No.: 2,600	Or morons. They can straight screw up a scenario as fast as anybody. Generally its either end of the intelligence extreme thats impossible for a gm to plan for.

Snow_Fox View Member Profile	Sep 17 2005, 03:11 PM Post #45
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221	The planning of players or the lack of iut is what helps keep it moving.

Earthwalker View Member Profile	Sep 25 2005, 10:18 AM Post #46
Target Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 5-September 02 From: Everywhere and Nowhere Baby Member No.: 3,225	I use a plot stucture of how I exspect a run to go. I include a few other things and information I am giving certain players about whatever there particular interests are. Of course things dont often run to the plot and thats all well and good. I also think some GM manipulation is ok to get the players back onto the plot. Is this railroading ? I exspected the characters to run against corp Y for some information and they decided not to. All clues point to this corp but the players just dont want to risk it. Now after trying for a while to get the information another way and failing. The players pretty much give up and sit there going over there own self defeating plans. So after waiting and waiting I have a NPC contact of one of the PCs give part of the information that Corporation Y has, enuff to move the players on with the plot. Of course the Karma award is adjusted slightly.

toturi

Sep 25 2005, 12:10 PM

Post #47

Canon Companion

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187

QUOTE (Earthwalker)

Is this railroading ?

I exspected the characters to run against corp Y for some information and they decided not to. All clues point to this corp but the players just dont want to risk it. Now after trying for a while to get the information another way and failing. The players pretty much give up and sit there going over there own self defeating plans. So after waiting and waiting I have a NPC contact of one of the PCs give part of the information that Corporation Y has, enuff to move the players on with the plot. Of course the Karma award is adjusted slightly.

Hmmmm. Why would these plans be self-defeating? Unless these plans were conceived by the players to fail, I doubt any plan would be self-defeating. Unless the GM did not like them and decided that they were self defeating. In which case, the GM would be railroading. Of course, the GM does not get any karma anyway, so no game mechanic can stop him from cramming his pet plot down the players throats.

Earthwalker View Member Profile	Sep 25 2005, 12:40 PM Post #48
Target Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 5-September 02 From: Everywhere and Nowhere Baby Member No.: 3,225	By self defeating its the open forum of the planning session where one player comes up with a plan. And in turn the others say why it wont work. Then the next player states a plan and again the other players state why it wont work. This isnt always the case but it has happened with me and so I have about 2 hours of the players just defeating themselves. Until they get to a point where they think they cant succeed, no action by the GM. Which of course could be a problem in itself.

toturi View Member Profile	Sep 25 2005, 12:50 PM Post #49
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187	Then why didn't say that the contact that gave them the information was unreliable? Or why if they followed the information given they won't succeed?

Earthwalker View Member Profile	Sep 25 2005, 02:11 PM Post #50
Target Group: Members Posts: 70 Joined: 5-September 02 From: Everywhere and Nowhere Baby Member No.: 3,225	I guess it all depends. If the players got that stymied then I would call it a night and see if they do better the next week. After speaking to them ooc, if they are happy with what is going on. Of course it usually doesn’t get that bad. If they don’t take the information and try something else then we play whatever else they try. Of course if the information they need is only in a few places and they can’t come up with an idea of how to get it then, there isn’t much a GM can do.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »