Freedom / player's choice vs storyline

[The Vigilante]

As a player, how much of your freedom and choice are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of the GM's story ? Inversely, how much of the GM's story are you willing to lose in favor of the player's ability to influence the world ? Obviously, as a GM you have a story to tell, which involves some events happening no matter what, and as a player if you feel you have absolutely zero impact on the game world, it's pretty damn boring. But how much railroading is too much?

I have two extreme examples in my gaming group. The first guy, let's call him Larry, he's got some amazing stories to tell and it's quite fun to play in his games, as long as you don't try to swim too much against the current. If you try and kill someone who's not meant to die, something's gonna come up that prevents you to do so. If you have an in-game project, say you want to start an organization of some kind, time-consuming events will happen and throw a monkey wrench in your plans.

On the other hand, there's, hum, let's say Maurice, and Maurice is very much sandbox-y in his GMing style. He'll come to the gaming session with almost zero preparation, throw us a ball and let us play with it. The feeling of your impact on the gaming universe is quite nice and you really have a lot of viable options since he is quite quick on his feet and will come up with something no matter what curveball you throw him. However, sometimes the freedom is kind of overwhelming and you feel somewhat lost and without purpose as you have no idea where you should go, who you should talk to and, indeed what you should do, like at all.

Where do you draw the line ? I want to be a better GM, I want to tell a story but I also want my players to participate and have an impact on its world, how can I balance the two factors ?

[Avoraciopoctules]

If players feel lost in a sea of possibilities, I find the best way to deal with it is to offer 3 or so specific options.

For example, I'm working on a Skies of Arcadia inspired game where there's a bunch of flying islands in a sea of winds, and airships are used to travel between them. The PCs are part of the Imperial postal service, and they will be given 5 possible destinations at the beginning of the game. Once they arrive at their destination, some kind of complication or opportunity will arise, and 3 possible ways to deal with it will be suggested ().

The trick is to reuse stuff that the PCs avoided and only flesh things out if you know the PCs are interacting with them. So each of the 5 destinations offered at the start of the game is at most a couple paragraphs until the PCs decide to go there. I picked the floating island approach to make it less likely for me to need to worry about generating interesting terrain if the PCs strike off into the wilderness at random.

[TheFlatline]

The amount of freedom players want is inversely proportional generally to how engaging the GM's story is.

Sandbox games are *extremely* difficult to run and maintain in the long term. You need highly motivated players who are willing to go out and *create* stories, get into trouble, and make enemies. Otherwise, nothing happens in a sandbox game.

On the other end of the spectrum you have essentially every published adventure ever which is basically Pirates of the Carribean. You're on rails, there's a bunch of pretty set dressing, and it's all pre-programmed. With an excellent story you can get away with this for a short period of time.

Generally, as a GM, I aim for the middle. The plot is generally written, and I'll give problems and tasks to the players, and it's up to them to figure out a way to resolve the issue. If they're having trouble, I'll throw some hints out. However, in a situation where I'm relying on player creativity, I'm very hesitant to say "no" to anything the players come up with. I don't want to enforce my thought pattern on them. I'd rather make things more difficult than just say "no".

Occasionally, if I can think of a linchpin that could change the story significantly, I'll present players with the option. Sometimes they go for it, sometimes they don't.

As a result, while I have a general plot worked out in advance, I don't have more than one or two sessions detailed out ahead of where the players are, because what I intend and where they get are usually very, very different.

[PoliteNewb]

The amount of freedom players want is inversely proportional generally to how engaging the GM's story is.

I agree with this. I would add a secondary, though: the amount of freedom players want is related to the amount of freedom they THINK they have.

I've seen this time and again...if players feel like their choices are meaningful (and as long as at least some of them actually are), they're good. It doesn't matter if the plot is on rails as long as the rails are invisible and they never have to have their face rubbed in the fact that the DM is telling the story and they're largely reacting to it. In fact, many people actually like that.

The thing DM Larry does where he says, "no, you can't do that, because I say so" is bullshit. But if the DM presents you with a plausible reason why you can't do that, the player is much more likely to accept it, even if it's a reason the DM pulled out of his ass so the player didn't ruin the story.

Some people are like Frank and Dr. House and need there to be an absolute truth, and that truth is that their choices matter, otherwise they're wasting their time. And that's a valid point of view. But I don't think it's one a majority of gamers hold. I think a lot of RPG people really do want the DM to tell them a story, as long as they can interact it with in some fashion and feel like a main character.

[PhoneLobster]

Both sandbox and railroading methodologies are viable styles.

If a railroady DM told a cool enough story that was actually fun and interesting for the other players it would be well worth exchanging any amount of player input and freedom as long as what you got in return was pure cool.

The problem is most railroady DMs aren't offering cool story's of interest to players. They are offering stories that are decidedly UNCOOL and of interest only to themselves and are just too dumb and pretentious to know the difference.

They will tell you that they are swapping your freedom for the uber cool when actually they are swapping it so they can wank over level 25 lich penis extensions bouncing you back and forth in between each other on a story of frustration and stupid that you neither follow nor care to follow because it is actually really poorly written, doesn't make sense and isn't even about your damn character in any meaningful way.

Because most of these railroady DMs with a cool idea for a cool railroad story are really shit at coming up with stories.

With sandbox player input type set up at least the players get a say, at least the story, however bad, will be about their actions and characters, and at least in the end if the story is crappy everyone can put their hand up and say "yes I too contributed to that ugly mess, it wasn't just Jeff the DM completely screwing us all up with a stupid one man train wreck. This it was very much OUR railroad to hell".

[hogarth]

I've reached the point where I now have zero tolerance for games where it feels like the GM is making shit up as he goes along. I've found that there's a high correlation between "I'm just winging the story" and "I'm just winging the rules, too".

[The Vigilante]

I've reached the point where I now have zero tolerance for games where it feels like the GM is making shit up as he goes along. I've found that there's a high correlation between "I'm just winging the story" and "I'm just winging the rules, too".

Just so we're clear, that's 100% not the case here, this is totally just about the story. If anything, "GM Maurice" has a better grasp on the rules than "GM Larry" in this case.

[PhoneLobster]

I find there is a high correlation between GMs who wank on endlessly about their unique narratives and GMs who don't know the rules and willingly and eagerly break the rules at every opportunity in order to screw you and serve their horrid poorly written little railroad story agenda.

And fair enough, from the view of their gaming philosophy of "this story MUST be told" rules that contradict their story ARE nothing but obstacles to be mercilessly crushed without a second thought.

Within a sandbox agenda establishing and following shared rules actually SUPPORTS that style of play as the rules give a strong frame work and guidance to events helping GMs fill in those blanks and helping generate the as yet formless story.

[hogarth]

I've reached the point where I now have zero tolerance for games where it feels like the GM is making shit up as he goes along. I've found that there's a high correlation between "I'm just winging the story" and "I'm just winging the rules, too".

Just so we're clear, that's 100% not the case here, this is totally just about the story. If anything, "GM Maurice" has a better grasp on the rules than "GM Larry" in this case.

So how does he handle combat stats for monsters when he doesn't have anything prepared? The last time I played with a "play it by ear" GM, it was painfully obvious that he was basically treating most of our enemies like 4E minions (i.e. one solid hit will kill them) and just kept throwing more at us until we started getting bored.

[The Vigilante]

I've reached the point where I now have zero tolerance for games where it feels like the GM is making shit up as he goes along. I've found that there's a high correlation between "I'm just winging the story" and "I'm just winging the rules, too".

Just so we're clear, that's 100% not the case here, this is totally just about the story. If anything, "GM Maurice" has a better grasp on the rules than "GM Larry" in this case.

So how does he handle combat stats for monsters when he doesn't have anything prepared? The last time I played with a "play it by ear" GM, it was painfully obvious that he was basically treating most of our enemies like 4E minions (i.e. one solid hit will kill them) and just kept throwing more at us until we started getting bored.

Well we mostly play Shadowrun or other "modern" type games where monsters are very rarely involved, if ever. Whipping out stats for a mook with 0 special powers or whatnot is very easy and believable.

When we use the SR-inspired medieval system, it's not that different... for example we once fought some kind of fallen/doomed paladin (and fled after losing), which was basically a very strong fighter with a spur of the moment special attack (don't remember what it was exactly) and regeneration. It's not like those things are written down in some official book somewhere so nobody really cares if he pulls them out of thin air. This other time we fought a monster of his invention, the mythical froglobster (which is exactly what it says on the can), he just put down stats that made sense and we fought the thing. It doesn't have to be more complicated than this. The rules are a framework and he works within them to create enemies on the spot.

[Zinegata]

There is no hard or fast rule. It will always depend on the people playing the game.

[hogarth]

When we use the SR-inspired medieval system, it's not that different... for example we once fought some kind of fallen/doomed paladin (and fled after losing), which was basically a very strong fighter with a spur of the moment special attack (don't remember what it was exactly) and regeneration. It's not like those things are written down in some official book somewhere so nobody really cares if he pulls them out of thin air.

See, making up "spur of the moment special attacks" is exactly what I mean by "winging the rules". Another example is bad guys who last exactly long enough to cause a problem for the PCs, at which point they suddenly keel over. I don't care for that sort of thing. To each his own, I suppose.

[The Vigilante]

When we use the SR-inspired medieval system, it's not that different... for example we once fought some kind of fallen/doomed paladin (and fled after losing), which was basically a very strong fighter with a spur of the moment special attack (don't remember what it was exactly) and regeneration. It's not like those things are written down in some official book somewhere so nobody really cares if he pulls them out of thin air.

See, making up "spur of the moment special attacks" is exactly what I mean by "winging the rules". Another example is bad guys who last exactly long enough to cause a problem for the PCs, at which point they suddenly keel over. I don't care for that sort of thing. To each his own, I suppose.

Well, it would be hard not to "wing the rules" by your standards, seeing as how nothing of this is official, and large parts are not even written (monsters for example) ; this is a homebrew system we're talking about.

Also, I don't know how familiar you are with SR4 rules, but pretty much everyone has the same amount of "HP" (condition monitor), or very small variations (a weakling might have something like 9 boxes, whereas a big troll would have maybe like 12-13 or so), nothing like 3.x D&D, so the combat duration point doesn't really apply here, especially since we know exactly when we hit and have a good idea of what kind of damage the enemy took since most GM rolls are in the open.

[fectin]

The real problem with railroading is that it's tautologically inevitable that it be crude and unpleasant. If the same MC were instead providing character/player specific story hooks (actually good ones, not "good because Mister Cavern says that this is what your character cares about"), no-one would call that "railroading" at all, even though it's exactly the same behavior, more skillfully applied. Not "has the same effect", exactly the same behavior. 

Of course, if following MC's story was more interesting than settling down to farm cabbage in the first place, no railroading would be necessary. 

It's like GTA: it would have sucked without a storyline, but the storyline was much, much more tolerable because you legitimately could just fuck off and ride bicycles (or whatever). In a tabletop, that's even better, because the MC has clear feedback on how his story is going. When players all decide to go ride bikes instead of working to defeat the puppy-kicking Evil Sir Lich-a-Lot, it's time to either pick a new (preferably bicycle-centric) plotline, or have ESLL get in your players' bicycle-riding stuff until they genuinely do care about him (steal their tires or whatever). 

[tzor]

As a player, how much of your freedom and choice are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of the GM's story ? Inversely, how much of the GM's story are you willing to lose in favor of the player's ability to influence the world ? Obviously, as a GM you have a story to tell, which involves some events happening no matter what, and as a player if you feel you have absolutely zero impact on the game world, it's pretty damn boring. But how much railroading is too much?

It depends on the GM. If he or she is really interesting, I'm more inclined to go with his ideas. The ideal would be for both player and GM to feed off of each other, each one giving a "challenge" to the other in terms of the overall story line.

[VladtheLad]

See, making up "spur of the moment special attacks" is exactly what I mean by "winging the rules". Another example is bad guys who last exactly long enough to cause a problem for the PCs, at which point they suddenly keel over. I don't care for that sort of thing. To each his own, I suppose.

I agree so much with this.
We actually were followed by a shadow dragon (after dimension dooring away from him) in the city of the spider queen adventure who attacked us when we were resting and raped our faces. We actually lasted for 6 rounds after which it was crystal obvious we were all going to die.
-Dragon "Bah little insects I am bored with you, you are nothing." (Leaves).
-Us " "

Note that I don't have a problem with winging it. But when I do wing it with monsters I decide what the monsters powers and abilities are before the battle and I stick with them.

[TheFlatline]

I hate that "you're insignificant to me" bullshit.

A far better (yet still annoying) solution is to say "I've spared your lives, they belong to me now. You're working for me until I say otherwise".

[RobbyPants]

Note that I don't have a problem with winging it. But when I do wing it with monsters I decide what the monsters powers and abilities are before the battle and I stick with them.

The advantage of having pre-defined stats is that player input matters. If they make optimal tactical decisions, they tend to do better. If you pull the whole the-monster-fights-until-shit-gets-real-and-then-dies/leaves, then the players have no incentive to fight optimally.

I played in a game like that before and it was boring. I was running a barbarian-type, and once I realized that the monsters would stop hitting once my HP got low, I'd just rage and Power Attack away, not worrying about which would be more effective. I stopped prioritizing my attacks on the guys who were hitting the hardest. It was lame.

[fectin]

But that's why low level DnD sucks so hard: things kill you by accident. It's really expected to be in danger of dying against an evil dragon. It's still okay to be menaced by his evil pet dog. It's really not okay to be in danger of falling down some stairs and dying, and I am solidly for MC handwaving away lethal results of obstacles that were meant to be speedbumps. I'm also okay with there being consequences other than character death.

All the complaints here are that it's unpleasant when MC is obviously lowballing, which I think really means that its no fun when there's no sense of urgency. It would be bad in exactly the same way if every encounter were two CR too low, or the party were accompanied by Elminster (DnD tropes because they're easy; it applies to most other systems the same). Seems to me that doesn't mean disliking behind the screen tweaking, it means disliking when it's obvious. That is to say, this is a specific example of "we like subtlety and dislike ham-handed storytelling."

[RobbyPants]

But that's why low level DnD sucks so hard: things kill you by accident.

I wasn't low level. He'd just throw me up against stuff that should kill me. Like, I'd be level X, and he'd throw me up against an X level ogre barbarian; as in, X levels on top of his ogre HD and large size.

So, when statistics and probability kicked in and I started losing, this ogre would miraculously start missing all the time. I couldn't take that game seriously.

[tzor]

"You can always kill the green dragon." Words from the DM that would haunt us throughout the whole campaign. The party had been in the swamps to find and kill an annoying baby black dragon. In the process, the ranger blew her tracking skills and lead the party to an underwater lair. A short swim (minus my character because dwarves and swimming ... not a good idea) later they found the dragon, the large green dragon, sleeping. Bravely, they swam away.

Much later we decided to take the DM up on the offer. Better, stronger, and faster we felt we could easily take on the green dragon. We entered the lair, found the dragon still sleeping and started hacking away.

Two rounds later, the draco-liche had finally had all he could stand watching us idiots beat up on his old former skin and attacked with all his might. We won ... BARELY.

I think that is the gold standard for mis-matched encounters, the one that never happened but could have happened. That would have been a TPK back then. (Even for the dwarf because he would have probably killed himself just trying to get to his friends to help.)

[JonSetanta]

(minus my character because dwarves and swimming ... not a good idea)

What is this, LOTR? Not every dwarf is Gimli in full plate.

[Bucket Head]

Most of the time I'd have to say that depends.

If the GM's story is really good, I'll go along with it to find things out and 'feed' him or her ideas along the way for my character(s) or other players' characters to go along with, like supplying him with extra names, extra NPCs he can use, extra places the characters have been or that might be relevant or that could flesh out the plot. Stuff that can tie their or my characters more closely to his or her setting, and then everyone wins.

If the GM's story isn't so good, usually I'll do the same, but I'll also try to take it in different directions myself. A good, skilled GM will adapt and incorporate the moves I make and roll with it, ad-libbing as needed and reconciling it with his own elements.

[RobbyPants]

(minus my character because dwarves and swimming ... not a good idea)

What is this, LOTR? Not every dwarf is Gimli in full plate.

If it's pre-3E, then it's close enough. As a dwarf, you had the option of being a:

Fighter
Thief
Cleric
Fighter/Thief
Fighter/Cleric

I know for sure fullplate wouldn't have hurt three of those options. I don't remember what happened to fighter/thieves in full plate back then.

[Judging__Eagle]

I've reached the point where I now have zero tolerance for games where it feels like the GM is making shit up as he goes along. I've found that there's a high correlation between "I'm just winging the story" and "I'm just winging the rules, too".

Just so we're clear, that's 100% not the case here, this is totally just about the story. If anything, "GM Maurice" has a better grasp on the rules than "GM Larry" in this case.

So how does he handle combat stats for monsters when he doesn't have anything prepared? The last time I played with a "play it by ear" GM, it was painfully obvious that he was basically treating most of our enemies like 4E minions (i.e. one solid hit will kill them) and just kept throwing more at us until we started getting bored.

This is how I do my 'random monster' picks:

Ask the players to give me some d% rolls. Then consult my master challenge rating chart for their level.

Sometimes I get 3+d4 CR [their level -3] Monsters; sometimes I get something that's their CR +2; or whatever the DMG tables says gets rolled up.

The trick is to not play it completely by ear. You have to give yourself hard guidelines for monster spawns. Sticking with only outsiders when you're on the planes is a smart move to maintain cohesion. Using only undead for a Tomb-crawl is an other type of smart move.

Honestly, the story of how the PCs went to a city in Hades; bribed the Hamatula sheriff for entry to town; met a Dretch trying to sell a Celestial Charger as a slave; bought the Celestial Unicorn's freedom (and nw NPC ally for adventure!) talked with the Nalfeshnee mayor; and got a job to take down, and bring back a malfunctioning Retriever; was generated on the fly.

The massive feast of garbage that the Awakened Raccoon Druid shared with the Mayor was not pre-scripted; but definitely fit. The Celestial Gargoyle Paladin (Kantian Paladin) was undestandablely upset with this "feast", but it wasn't like the adventure was planned to screw his RP options over. The Nalfeshnee was a random spawn, and I simply tried to keep its actions in line with it's MM write-up.

I personally enjoy sandbox games as a MC because if not I get bored.

I need random material to get my brain thinking of creative ways to mesh semi-related events and situations into being a cohesive part of the world they are a part of.

Sometimes the PCs get accosted by Nightmare brigands who charge 1 valuable item per traveller; which the PCs don't mind paying in minor magic items. [yeah, BoG actually allows more stories to be told; and PCs are more willing to hand over magic gear to further/speed their plot if the costs aren't exceedingly onerous and full of bookeeping; Minor Magic items, and Magic stat boosters items of the +2 category as "cheap as free" really helps with that]

Other times it's an insane Fey creature that invites them for a tea party in the middle of a hellwasp forest and gift exchanging, and the PCs decide it's tactically safer to play along (although, the fight was winnable the Players decided they'd rather RP for the centrepiece on the tea table; which looked exactly like their quest McGuffin).

Edit:
The trick is to keep a balance between "random" and "plot"; have the players choose a location (or random pick their quest location; and then keep generating from there).