Actually the "blatant disconnect" can be relatively easy to deal with. When there's a big and obvious problem, you can't ignore it, and it's often easy to know what to do.

It's those subtle problems defying easy explanation which are the real bastards. Sometimes you get just this faint sense of unease or dissatisfaction - what do you about that? Like the player I quoted, "it's not a crap game, it just feels a little futile sometimes." That's a classic sort of thing for people to say about their hobbies, jobs, relationships - and what can you do?

That sort of subtle discomfort is a very destructive thing. If you've got some flatmate or co-worker, and they say or do something to piss you off - you mention it to someone else, and they agree it's annoying. From time to time you find yourself discussing this other person, and you start looking for reasons to be pissed off with them. The same sort of thing can happen in game groups, unfortunately.

And then with the communication, sometimes it doesn't work out - you share your discomfort or desires, and people get pissed off with you for rocking the boat.
"You're unhappy with me?"
"No, just the way the game is -"
"Unhappy with me, eh? Well, I'm not so happy with you!"

A blatant "what the fuck?!" disconnect can be so much easier to deal with in comparison.

I still often think a GM needs a degree in psychology to be able to run a game group really well. Alternately, to be really ruthless in player selection... :cool:

J.Arcane the "you" in your post wasn't refering to me, right ? :raise:

JimBob, trust you to pick apart my dodgy sentence :brood:

You're right about the subtle problems, but by blatant I meant gamers who disliked railroading.

Also for someone who has no problem communicating you sure mix with folks who have trouble expressing themselves :rimshot:

One more thing, I know by saying this a whole lot of you are going dogpile me like a group of Spartans descending upon a gay pride parade but IME this whole issue of railroading comes down to the fact, that there is no wrong way to play a game but rather there are wrong players to play the game with.

Regards,
David R

QuoteJ.Arcane the "you" in your post wasn't refering to me, right ?

It was more of a generic you, but aimed more at Elliot and the rest of the local GM Paranoia Brigade.  

It really does seem like some of the folks here couldn't possibly actually play the damn games, because their personal hangups would clash with basically every functioning group on the planet.

I seem to recall going round & round with both of you on similar topics.

As I've said, I think railroading is a subjective phenomenon. But the existence of covert motivated improvisation (basically, switching things around behind the scenes, and stage-managing to modulate tension and steer the course of events in a particular direction) is pretty objective. Recognize that, and we don't have a problem. I do have a problem when people deny that behind the scenes manipulation is going on, because there's a stigma attached, or when they say you've gotta do it just because you don't see how someone can enjoy a game without it.

Here, you want evidence: 101 Days of AD&D 1e. Very little fudging or manipulation, except for fairly transparent stuff--steering players to the next adventure. Within adventures, practically none, if any.

Personally, if the game is going to be stage-managed, I can have fun, but I'm going to take a very different attitude to the game. I'm less inclined to worry about the consequences of anything I do; I'm also not really going to spend much effort on preparation, tactics, deduction, or puzzle-solving. Also, the GM needs to be careful about managing scenes. He wants a scene with the PCs rallying the villagers against the bandits? Well, if I'm not very keen on that sort of thing, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to waste much time on it when I know that my efforts don't really matter to the outcome. On the other hand if I like action scenes I'm happy to jump around and slice & dice, knowing that I can do cool shit without sweating the logic of it all too carefully.

Quote from: David RAlso for someone who has no problem communicating you sure mix with folks who have trouble expressing themselves :rimshot:

When communicating on a forum I'm merely discussing, and I don't have to get along with anyone - we just have to tolerate each-other. That's not really very hard. If I post something which makes someone think I'm a cocksmock, they will still come and read what I have to say tomorrow.

When communicating with people in a game group, I'm discussing, but trying to put my point of view across, discover their point of view, and reconcile the two - we have to get along, and get along very well - far more than tolerate, we have to befriend one another. That's much harder. If I say something which makes someone think I'm a cocksmock, they'll leave the group!

It's like the difference between your work life, and your family life. It's easier to deal with people at work because there's a certain distance and indifference; it's harder to deal with your family because they matter so much more. Communication's just a part of that.

The real issue is that communicating clearly is only the first step to make a game group run well together. Once everyone's said what they wanted, you have to try to make it all fit together. For example, suppose the GM said, "I'm gonna railroad your arses!" - they've communicated clearly, will the players automatically be happy about the railroading now? Sometimes, things are just not going to fit together, other times, it's easy. Looking at each little difference and seeing which is which takes time and requires imagination.

Most of the gamers I've known have been quite good at communicating what they want in a game - once they figured it out, and once they knew someone was listening. Fitting all those different wants together, that's a harder thing.

I claim to be able to express myself pretty clearly, and to listen to others. I don't claim to be good at fitting those different wants together and making a game group go well. I've had some great successes in this, and some dismal failures - sometimes with the same group of players, as many on this forum will know.

JimBob, I was joking...obviously I need to learn when to use smilies.

Elliot, I understand where you're coming from. I going to show my crew this particular post. It will be interesting (for me) to hear their responses....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenPersonally, if the game is going to be stage-managed, I can have fun, but I'm going to take a very different attitude to the game. I'm less inclined to worry about the consequences of anything I do; I'm also not really going to spend much effort on preparation, tactics, deduction, or puzzle-solving.

Oh, yeah. Also, if the GM is going to run things this way, then I also begin to question the need for complex rules. At least, their purpose gets turned around, IMO. As a player I don't really have to comprehend the rules and use them to achieve whatever I want. Instead I can just ignore the rules for the most part, and rely on the GM to pull the chestnuts from the fire if the rules/dice work against me.

In fact if a GM is consistent about this I think the game can be fun; but there will be problems if the GM, essentially, arbitrarily decides to be "nice" sometimes and "hardass" other times. Dude, I'm not really driving anyway, don't blame me if the car goes off the road.

EDIT: cross-posted with David.

Quote from: David RJimBob, I was joking...obviously I need to learn when to use smilies.

I know, but jokes can be worthy a serious response, sometimes. They can prompt further comments someone else may find interesting or useful.

I think the distinction between "saying what you want" and "getting what you want, when what you want is different to what others in the group want" is an important one, and goes to the heart of the OP's point about "railroaders in denial." It does us no good for me to say that I like X if everyone else hates it. The real issue is to work X in with Y and Z.

Gygax's afterword in the DMG comes to mind here -
   WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMATERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!
[Gygax's capitalisation]

Gygax thus said that the order of importance was: AD&D itself, then the campaign, then the players. He got it exactly backwards.

I don't mean to say that AD&D is the root of all gaming troubles, or even that more than a trivial number of DMs ever did things this way; obviously that's absurd. I simply point out that "people first", as obvious as it is, is not something we always keep in mind. And even if we do, it's often difficult. That's something that speaks to the OP's points, which is why I responded as I did to Davd R's joke.

Any definition of railroading that is fundamentally "okay" (but, you know, in moderation) doesn't work for me. Railroading, as a term, to me not only implies rails but comes from the usage of resented coercion (such as "I was railroaded into signing that paper!").

Whether or not the "Assault on Everest" game (where the players say "We want to roleplay going up the mountain!", the GM makes the scenario, and the players play through it) is railroading isn't all that interesting a question to me--and it's the question the original poster raises.

I say this because I think that the game is entirely functional and doesn't have the element of coercion that I associate with railroading. Neither does Dogs in the Vineyard.

However, there's an interesting point that I've seen on the Forge relative to this which (in my paraphrase) makes this point: Whether or not a game is coercive depends on a bunch of stuff surrounding the structure of the game. The better the group (I expect the Forge guys would say 'the game' or at least 'system'--which is at *best* misleading) defines some of this structure, the better you'll know if [railroading] is going on.

Take for instance Dogs in the Vineyard. It's (here) very few people's idea of a great game--but in terms of giving the GM license to screw with the characters it is very limiting. Pretty much the only thing (outside of hordes of villagers which, apparently, was missed by the author) that can screw with other PCs is ... another PC.

This is *similar* to (many versions) of D&D. If I go into the first room of a 3rd-level dungeon and find an ancient, hostile red dragon, I can be pretty sure the GM is screwing with us. Sure--the GM does get to put that there--it's not a rules-violation--but give a traditional linear dungeon (i.e. no clear way around) and normal 3rd level characters--and the dragon being aggressive--it's a blatant attempt to kill off the party. Anyone can see that: D&D makes it clear what sorts of monsters are appropriate for a stand-up fight.

In other games (or, say, D&D with a more open-appearing structure) it's less clear. In any other game with fewer guidelines (Dogs runs one type of scenario real well, D&D-in-the-dungeon is also pretty mathematically defined) we might presume that the princess is in whichever castle makes the most sense (and if the GM constantly moves things to increase tension then we might conclude, correctly that our choices on that scale, at least, don't matter).

So I think the takeaway for this would be:

1. Some people (me, at least) don't buy the "railroading isn't necessarily bad" construction because we see railroading as unwelcome coercion or influence by definition.

2. What constitutes 'railroading' will still vary a lot (many people don't use my definition)--but if you nail down your expectations early on you can usually get some pointers to help figure it out (this includes what the Players expect from the GM--i.e. if we pick the right castle, we expect to find the princess right off).

-Marco

To be fair I think Gary meant that individual participants in the game should not be allowed to take precedence over the enjoyment of the game as a whole.  There's lots of other places where he puts first priority on the players having fun.

RPGPundit

This whole "expectations" thing is both reasonable and problematic.

Some relationships will falter when one party insists on a detailed marriage contract.

Some gaming groups will falter when people (GM or players) bring a lengthy Are-We-Having-Fun-Yet checklist to the table.

Codification of fun is tricky. It can help raise the fun level, and it can suck the air out of the room.

I'm not advocating Viking Hat GMing instead. I despise that crap. I'm saying gaming is messy.

We're in this together. Let's not be jerks, obviously, but then let's not compare laundry lists of fun where that means scene-by-scene, he-said-she-said analysis. Let's agree on some parameters beforehand even as we're open to the fact that new paramters will arise we didn't think of when we signed the dotted line. After all, we're trying to create something new here.

Marco, yup.

Although I do see potential for the GM to screw with the players in DitV--because what constitutes messing with someone is, again, subjective. If the GM offers a conflict that doesn't interest the players, or they think it's not a serious situation that merits intervention, you have that disconnect between player interest and scenario prep/management that leads to feelings of railroading. Same goes if the GM offers a conflict that seems overly contrived--too "lose/lose", or just weird. That's at least part of what I didn't care for in the games I played.

About the princess in the castle thing, I think the problem is pretty easy to explain even from the perspective the story-folks. What you've got there is a disconnect on the level of dramatic expectations. The GM offers an adventure, you think you have a good sense of how it should play out, the tension ramps up, you anticipate a resolution--but no, "Thank you, Mario, but our princess is in another castle". Three more levels...sigh.

It's cheating the resolution. It's logrolling to pad out an evening. If the group is engaged on a story-narrative level, then it's pretty important to be sensitive to the everyone's perception of story. Instead of "princess is in another castle", far better to say, "yes, you rescued the princess, and now that leads to this entirely new complication".