Quote from: CRKrueger;966075... just have the balls to run the railroad to get what you want from the players instead of doing a Pavlov number on them.

It isn't about railroading. And it isn't like the players don't know what is going on. They understand the reward system that is in place. It is about creating a fairly consistent style of campaign. Players can go wherever they want, but if you reward certain behavior, that behavior is likely to come up. If that sort of thing bothers you, then certainly don't play those kinds of games (or ignore that kind of XP system in games you do like) but for me, I am fine with this with certain games as either a player or a GM, and I think it can help a campaign get a certain feel.

Again, if you don't like it, that is fine. But plenty of people enjoy it man.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;966076I simply tell players "This is what the campaign will be about.  If you don't like it, don't play."  "This," in my case, is "exploration and adventure."

That can work too. My point is there is room for all kinds of approaches and reward systems here.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966078That can work too. My point is there is room for all kinds of approaches and reward systems here.

Well, sure.  The "right" one is "the one that maximizes fun for your particular group at your particular table."

Quote from: CRKrueger;966070Premise? Sure.  Theme?  Now you're by definition in OOC territory if the players have their characters act Heroically because they know "Heroism" is what this campaign is "about".  If the GM wants to address themes, he should do it through the world, not by what path he allows the PCs to advance on.

I've played and ran just about every game without regard to "GM-set play goals".  This guy's worth X exp. Defeat him by sneaking past him and escaping, killing him, getting him to surrender, setting him up and getting him arrested and out of the way, embarrass him in a war of words in front of the King...you defeated him, collect X.

Awards for doing something should be static and binary, you either get them or you don't.  Whether the GM thought you should do it, wanted you to do it, or planned for you to do it shouldn't matter.

You're rewarding "defeating the guy" with XP. You've incentivised this behaviour with the XP reward.  Clearly your game is about overcoming challenges to gain XP.

As far as I can tell, you do it the exact same way I do, but it's not the goal-less game you seem to think it is. You necessarily decide what is a challenge worth XP and award accordingly. As soon as you start making that decision you are not merely doing "The Players roleplay their characters. You create then roleplay the rest of the world, and adjudicate rules if necessary".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;966082Well, sure.  The "right" one is "the one that maximizes fun for your particular group at your particular table."

That is what I am trying to say. Also, what works for your table can vary over time or by the game you play. I think if we only have a limited number of acceptable XP progression methods, that really limits the conversation to what a handful of posters have decided is the perfect way to play.

Not saying those choices don't have both upsides and downsides. Incentives do have downsides, they also can be fun and encourage behavior that makes the game better for the group. If the point of the game is exploration and adventure, I can enjoy being rewarded with XP when I successfully pursue that premise.

To me that is hardly a railroad. It certainly narrows the scope and encourages me to go into dungeons. Which can help keep a game on track and sustain it over time. Doesn't mean I have to go on the adventure the GM has in mind that night, and it doesn't mean I always have to play according to my desire for more XP. Again, not the only way to do it.

Quote from: S'mon;966115You're rewarding "defeating the guy" with XP. You've incentivised this behaviour with the XP reward.  Clearly your game is about overcoming challenges to gain XP.

As far as I can tell, you do it the exact same way I do, but it's not the goal-less game you seem to think it is. You necessarily decide what is a challenge worth XP and award accordingly. As soon as you start making that decision you are not merely doing "The Players roleplay their characters. You create then roleplay the rest of the world, and adjudicate rules if necessary".

Good try, but no.

In dealing with versions of D&D, the game gives the XP amounts you get.  Most RPGs give guidelines based on how their system works for XP advancement.

Here's a quick test.  Do you give your PCs experience for killing only certain NPCs but not others or not other PCs in PvP?  If not, then you're attempting to control their behavior through XP Awards.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966116To me that is hardly a railroad. It certainly narrows the scope and encourages me to go into dungeons. Which can help keep a game on track and sustain it over time. Doesn't mean I have to go on the adventure the GM has in mind that night, and it doesn't mean I always have to play according to my desire for more XP. Again, not the only way to do it.

Ironic that you claim it's hardly a railroad, yet in the next sentence want to keep the campaign literally "on track".  On what track exactly.  If the PC are following their goals, and doing what the characters want, then how could the campaign possibly be off track?  The only way it could possibly be off track is if from the beginning you had decided there was a direction to go in, a focus, a goal, a path.  Someone, by definition, cannot get off track, if there is no track.

I understand lots of people like having direction, focus, certain OOC themes and assumptions we all agree on at the Player level. I understand a lot of GMs decide to passively enforce this through XP awards as a way to get Genre or Theme into the game without explicit Genre or Theme mechanics.  I understand exactly what they're doing, and why.  I also understand that it is the GM choosing an OOC method to influence PC behavior.  Do you?

Gronan talks about "exploration and adventure" but he means that in the most broad manner possible, because if his PCs want to fortify the old fort they've discovered and start moving into a "castle and king building" phase, is he going to tell them no, because they're not done dungeoneering yet?  I kind of doubt it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966149Ironic that you claim it's hardly a railroad, yet in the next sentence want to keep the campaign literally "on track".  On what track exactly.  If the PC are following their goals, and doing what the characters want, then how could the campaign possibly be off track?  The only way it could possibly be off track is if from the beginning you had decided there was a direction to go in, a focus, a goal, a path.  Someone, by definition, cannot get off track, if there is no track.

I think it is pretty obvious I didn't mean a railroad track. I was just talking about the campaign having momentum and the players have some sense of direction (or just sticking to some kind of a premise). If giving people XP for things like going into dungeons or taking gold is railroading, then you've expanded the term so much it hardly has any real meaning. You don't have to like this approach, you can think it is stupid. None of that makes it a railroad. The players have absolute freedom to do what they want, they just get rewarded if they choose to the kinds of things that the campaign is supposed to be about.

QuoteI understand lots of people like having direction, focus, certain OOC themes and assumptions we all agree on at the Player level. I understand a lot of GMs decide to passively enforce this through XP awards as a way to get Genre or Theme into the game without explicit Genre or Theme mechanics.  I understand exactly what they're doing, and why.  I also understand that it is the GM choosing an OOC method to influence PC behavior.  Do you?

I don't really care if it is out of character. All I care about is it works, is fun and some groups seem to like it. Like I said, I enjoy this for certain games myself as a player. But I am not interested in where this falls on the IC versus OOC, line.

QuoteGronan talks about "exploration and adventure" but he means that in the most broad manner possible, because if his PCs want to fortify the old fort they've discovered and start moving into a "castle and king building" phase, is he going to tell them no, because they're not done dungeoneering yet?  I kind of doubt it.

That is is totally fine. That kind of campaign can be a lot of fun and I run them myself. But a campaign that is more focused can also be fun. And using XP as a way to maintain the focus isn't bad-wrong-fun or some big evil.

Do what you want man. The approaches to XP you've mentioned are ones I quite like. But they are not the only ones that work and I am not going to change my play style or avoid certain games because you think it is OOC or because you have a weird new definition of railroad. I am not asking you to like these things though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966149because if his PCs want to fortify the old fort they've discovered and start moving into a "castle and king building" phase, is he going to tell them no, because they're not done dungeoneering yet?  I kind of doubt it.

As a side note, I think I'd die from sheer joy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966150The approaches to XP you've mentioned are ones I quite like. But they are not the only ones that work and I am not going to change my play style or avoid certain games because you think it is OOC or because you have a weird new definition of railroad. I am not asking you to like these things though.

I'm not asking you to dislike them.  If you want to pretend they're not OOC though, for some reason, go right ahead.

As for definition of railroad...of course the general definition of railroad is much more limiting and heavy handed.  But...in the end...it's the GM influencing or limiting character behavior to obtain a desired result, yes?  It's a difference in degree, not in kind.

You're steering.  Gently, but your hand is there. Period.  They may not want to play any other way.  That doesn't mean you are not steering.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966155I'm not asking you to dislike them.  If you want to pretend they're not OOC though, for some reason, go right ahead.
.

You were the one who brought up OOC. I already said, I am not terribly concerned where it falls in that respect. If the approach itself bothers me, then I would wonder if there is too much OOC stuff going on. But if it isn't troubling me, I see no reason to dig into whether it is In Character or Out of Character (not saying I am particularly convinced it is, just I don't particularly care either).

Quote from: CRKrueger;966155As for definition of railroad...of course the general definition of railroad is much more limiting and heavy handed.  But...in the end...it's the GM influencing or limiting character behavior to obtain a desired result, yes?  It's a difference in degree, not in kind.

You're steering.  Gently, but your hand is there. Period.  They may not want to play any other way.  That doesn't mean you are not steering.

It is the GM positively rewarding playing into the premise. That still affords lots of options. Railroading is when you have an adventure and it is going to happen no matter what (Or when you simply don't permit certain courses of action by having the game world obstruct them until they do what you want). It is by definition heavy handed, not gentle. This is not railroading in any way shape or form. Your just saying it is Railroading and OOC because those are the two big bad things on this forum. But if we are now at the point that just rewarding PCs for doing things the game was meant to do is bad wrongfun, not sure what to say.

As to whether the players want to play that way, I never said you should be a jerk to the group. If they don't want to play that way, then we don't play that way. But the point you are missing is plenty of people like it this way. Like I said, I can quite enjoy it as a player.

But if you want to call it railroading and OOC, that is fine by me. My point is, I don't really care what you think. If I enjoy it, I am going to do it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160It is the GM positively rewarding playing into the premise. That still affords lots of options. Railroading is when you have an adventure and it is going to happen no matter what. It is by definition heavy handed, not gentle. This is not railroading in any way shape or form.

Railroading is a heavy-handed way for the GM to steer things to obtain a specific result he wants.
The GM positively rewarding playing into the premise is a light-handed way for the GM to steer things to obtain a general result he wants.

Degree, not kind. Simple fact, whether you like it or not.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160Your just saying it is Railroading and OOC because those are the two big bad things on this forum.

Now you're questioning my logic and motives.  You've been here for 8 years and this is what turns you into a forum warrior?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160But if we are now at the point that just rewarding PCs for doing things the game was meant to do is bad wrongfun, not sure what to say.

Ahhh, badwrongfun, that old "I don't like what you're saying about my playstyle, so I'll defend it by dismissing your rationale." argument.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160As to whether the players want to play that way, I never said you should be a jerk to the group. If they don't want to play that way, then we don't play that way. But the point you are missing is plenty of people like it this way. Like I said, I can quite enjoy it as a player.

I really don't think I'm missing that point since I've said I understand a lot of people like to play that way, oh about 4 times now.  Whether anyone likes to play that way or not does not change the definition of what they are doing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160But if you want to call it railroading and OOC, that is fine by me. My point is, I don't really care what you think. If I enjoy it, I am going to do it.

If you'll recall I did NOT say you were railroading.  I said since you are steering you might as well railroad, as it's similar, just a passive version.

The fact is Brendan, you just can't seem to stand that I am classifying what you like to do as being under the same umbrella heading as railroading.  GM steering is GM steering.  One may be heavy and active and the other light and passive, but they are both the GM attempting to obtain a result in player behavior, period.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966148Good try, but no.

In dealing with versions of D&D, the game gives the XP amounts you get.  Most RPGs give guidelines based on how their system works for XP advancement.

Here's a quick test.  Do you give your PCs experience for killing only certain NPCs but not others or not other PCs in PvP?  If not, then you're attempting to control their behavior through XP Awards.

By your argument, isn't having an XP price tag over the head of every NPC an incentive to kill them? Why does killing someone give you a reward but exploring hex 0835 or translating an old book doesn't? All RPGs that give XP for anything other than showing up are creating artificial incentives.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966162Now you're questioning my logic and motives.  You've been here for 8 years and this is what turns you into a forum warrior?
.

Questioning your logic or guessing at your reasons for posting something make me a forum warrior now? Someone disagreeing with you, or thinking you are using bad rhetoric, doesn't make them a forum warrior. You were the one questioning peoples motives by saying they should come out and have the balls to just run a railroad.

I disagree with you strongly on this topic. Nothing to have a meltdown over.