Quote from: jibbajibba;379808See I would say that Railroading is where the players' decisions make no difference. They go left or right and they still end up in a hall full of Giant lizard statues which come to life if you attempt to prize any of the gems out of the walls. Or the Crime boss will round up the PCs and bring them for a chat at his Italian restaurant.

That is why I like to GM this way. I like to make character choices matter. Sometimes the boss might want to round up the players and chat with them at the Italian restaurant. But whether they do, and how things go down, is entirely up to them. NPCs do have objectives and will try to achieve them, but that doesn't mean you are railroading the players anywhere.

That said, there are some basic realities that need to be reflected. In my campaign the players are associates trying to become made men in the mafia. There is a hierarchy in place. So the boss needs to give them occassional assignments, since that is the way it works. Sometimes they will be specific ("I need you guys to take out Joey Zito"), sometimes they will be vage ("I want you guys to figure out ways to improve the family's cash flow"). But I never have series of events planned in either case, and the players have their own goals that they are trying to follow (in some cases that includes becoming boss themselves one day). What I do, is present the problem, and see how they react. Once they've set things in motion, I try to figure out how their actions impact the goals and designs of the NPCs and groups in play.

Right, just to echo Jibbajibba's post, I tend to forget that a lot of people make a distinction between hard-railroading and more soft-touch-illusionism. That is, between the GM obviously forcing the players to do something, and the GM moving things around secretly to get the PCs to the next planned scene, while trying to make them think their decisions and actions are what's driving the course of events.

For my purposes they're pretty much the same, and both are the opposite of a sandbox.

QuoteWhile you may have a crime boss who wants to take over the north side of town, how the players' deal with that is totally up to them. They could ignore it completely, they could ally with the crime boss, they could gather up a coalition of street gangs and take the north side for themselves. If the players have so much freedom, how can that be railroading?

In this example, the players may have total freedom, but there are many ways the GM can arbitrarily undermine their actions.

The GM can make the options functionally identical. For example: if the players ally with the crime boss, then they get to play out a series of balanced combats vs. the police and other gangs. Ah, but if the players choose to oppose the crime boss, they get to play out a series of balanced combats against the boss's gang.

Or the GM can make the options strategically equivalent, a sort of superset of the above. For example: if the players ally with the crime boss, then there's no more or less risk than if they oppose him. In short, the PCs can do no wrong. Ignoring the crime boss has no real consequences, either.

Quote from: Benoist;379768So, how do you think that relates to what you were just saying, here? Still trying to wrap my mind around it. Thanks.

It doesn't relate in any way at all. I was a wargamer myself, *long* before i was a roleplayer. By saying opposing the players vs opposing the player characters, I was referring to the GM trying to stop the players' ultimate goal, which is to have fun, vs trying to stop the player characters' various goals, which is totally cool.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;379817It doesn't relate in any way at all. I was a wargamer myself, *long* before i was a roleplayer. By saying opposing the players vs opposing the player characters, I was referring to the GM trying to stop the players' ultimate goal, which is to have fun, vs trying to stop the player characters' various goals, which is totally cool.

-clash

Alright.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379816The GM can make the options functionally identical. For example: if the players ally with the crime boss, then they get to play out a series of balanced combats vs. the police and other gangs. Ah, but if the players choose to oppose the crime boss, they get to play out a series of balanced combats against the boss's gang.

Or the GM can make the options strategically equivalent, a sort of superset of the above. For example: if the players ally with the crime boss, then there's no more or less risk than if they oppose him. In short, the PCs can do no wrong. Ignoring the crime boss has no real consequences, either.

Sure, GMs can always railroad when they chose to. But the point is, if your aim is to go more free form, knowing the motivations of the NPCs, will help you avoid eying some scene you want the players to hit. And consequences is a big part of the mix. Ignoring the crime boss in this scenario should result in the crime boss doing what he can to thwart or destroy the PCs. Like life, every choice has its pros and its cons. The crime boss is probably the safer, more predictable path. But if the players take initiative and set out on their own, they can be in a position to rule the criminal underworld or at least shape it. The choices matter because they lead to different places.

Yes, exactly. It's just that the phrase "adapting to player actions" can cover both railroady and sandbox-y/situational GMing.

What's important is the principles that guide how you adapt.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379789Well, Clash, I haven't read the side thread that's sprung up, but the problem here is that "Situational GMing" isn't well-defined, at least in my mind.

It isn't well defined in anyone's mind. It all came about because of a discussion I had with Marco Chacon almost a decade ago, where he and I realized we  were using the same style of GMing, or at least moderately congruent, and realized there were probably more of us out there. One or the other of us came up with the situational moniker - I think it was me, but it equally could have been Marco - and anything that's been written on the subject is probably by one or the other of us.

It's not a movement, or a defined technique. There is no manifesto, and I doubt there ever will be. It's just a hodgepodge collection of techniques and an underlying philosophy. When I refer to anything resembling a 'standard' process, it's just something I know both of us do. I know a lot of people use these techniques - some have developed them on their own, and some have had them handed down from others, but when I talk about it, a lot of people say "Hey! I do that!" and more and more people call themselves Situational GMs on first meeting, so they heard the name someplace.

So yeah, there's a lot of confusion about it, and no central source to consult. It surely isn't me - I don't do that crap. I answer questions, but I'm not the bible. Eventually someone is bound to do it.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;379825It isn't well defined in anyone's mind. It all came about because of a discussion I had with Marco Chacon almost a decade ago, where he and I realized we  were using the same style of GMing, or at least moderately congruent, and realized there were probably more of us out there. One or the other of us came up with the situational moniker - I think it was me, but it equally could have been Marco - and anything that's been written on the subject is probably by one or the other of us.

It's not a movement, or a defined technique. There is no manifesto, and I doubt there ever will be. It's just a hodgepodge collection of techniques and an underlying philosophy. When I refer to anything resembling a 'standard' process, it's just something I know both of us do. I know a lot of people use these techniques - some have developed them on their own, and some have had them handed down from others, but when I talk about it, a lot of people say "Hey! I do that!" and more and more people call themselves Situational GMs on first meeting, so they heard the name someplace.

So yeah, there's a lot of confusion about it, and no central source to consult. It surely isn't me - I don't do that crap. I answer questions, but I'm not the bible. Eventually someone is bound to do it.

-clash

I've always kind of lumped it together with sandbox (and just thought of sandbox having its own continuum with more free form on one end and less on the other), but I can see the distinction you make in this thread.
I'd say back in the early 90s is when I first experienced this kind of play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;379812That is why I like to GM this way. I like to make character choices matter. Sometimes the boss might want to round up the players and chat with them at the Italian restaurant. But whether they do, and how things go down, is entirely up to them. NPCs do have objectives and will try to achieve them, but that doesn't mean you are railroading the players anywhere.

That said, there are some basic realities that need to be reflected. In my campaign the players are associates trying to become made men in the mafia. There is a hierarchy in place. So the boss needs to give them occassional assignments, since that is the way it works. Sometimes they will be specific ("I need you guys to take out Joey Zito"), sometimes they will be vage ("I want you guys to figure out ways to improve the family's cash flow"). But I never have series of events planned in either case, and the players have their own goals that they are trying to follow (in some cases that includes becoming boss themselves one day). What I do, is present the problem, and see how they react. Once they've set things in motion, I try to figure out how their actions impact the goals and designs of the NPCs and groups in play.

This.

-clash

Where do your campaigns usually fall on this assumed continuum?
Five

How do you map your adventures? Outlines, timelines, no lines?
I use a Matrix approach. It has outlines, timelines, and NPC motives/assets.

Why do you choose to run campaigns in this fashion?
Flexibility for me and a spotlight on player's choices.

Does the system influence your style and, if so, what system?
Not really. I've used my Matrix approach for everything from Coyote Trail to Top Secret SI. It makes D&D sing though.

Quote from: PaladinCA;379831I use a Matrix approach. It has outlines, timelines, and NPC motives/assets.

Interesting that you should mention this now.  What is being described as Situational GMing reminded of the Power Matrix model described in the Complete Book of Villains, so I dusted that off and read it earlier today.