Quote from: CRKrueger;966162The 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.

It does bother me. Because it isn't railroading, and because it seems like you are just doing it to shame people from playing a particular way.

You keep moving the goal posts here. First its railroading. Then it is a kind of railroading. Now it is GM steering (whatever that is). I don't know. All I know it is pretty common, lots of people seem to like it. Suddenly it feels like we aren't allowed to anymore because Krueger decided it is OOC and Railroady.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966162Ahhh, badwrongfun, that old "I don't like what you're saying about my playstyle, so I'll defend it by dismissing your rationale." argument.
.

First, I think I did address some of your rationale. I engaged you on the point about railroads. I also pointed where I am not interested in addressing your rationale (OOC isn't something I am too worried about here for example). But I also think it is worth mentioning badwrongfun when a poster seems to be suggesting if we don't play his particular way, we are playing wrong (or being manipulated by a railroady GM).

Quote from: Baulderstone;966163By 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.

Which, btw, is why I'm starting to use that method more and more.

When we play AD&D, we're all sitting down knowing the rules, knowing the assumptions, knowing how the game works.  We're all buying in to the idea of "Playing AD&D" in which experience is given out for defeating things and gaining gold.

Is that then incentivizing those actions?.  In a way, it's just as OOC as a Genre, Theme, or Premise we all agree to address.  However, the assumptions come from the game and it is the players who determine how they get that gold, or who they kill for exp.  They can gain exp while playing in any Genre, addressing any Premise, following any Theme, while being Heroes, Scoundrels, or Blackguards.  See the difference?  The GM isn't saying "XP is like AD&D standard, except you don't get any XP for killing PCs or L/G NPCs." or "XP is gained for doing Heroic actions (the unspoken inference being of course what the GM thinks is Heroic)."

That's the trap people frequently fall into, they assume that because AD&D gives XP for killing and looting and not studying or exploring, then the game is about murderhobos because it incentivizes being a murderhobo.  The thing people miss about the "Gold and Kill" method of XP is, like a lot of AD&D rules, is meant to be an abstract shorthand.  Could Gary have placed in the DMG 64 pages of charts and tables listing every action that each class could do to get "Supplemental Experience Awards" as well as the time and cost involved.  Yeah, just like he could have made a more detailed HP system, a more detailed armor system, etc.

I don't run AD&D anymore, but when I ran other games that are based on Goal Awards,  I don't base exp on what I decide the goals are.  I base exp on what the players decide their goals are.  They don't get exp for saving the princess because I wanted them to.  They get exp for saving the princess because they succeeded in what THEY wanted to do.  If the PCs are secretly working for Jafar the Vizier and while being hired by the King to save his daughter, they let her die because that was their true mission, they get the exp for that.  If they fail in their goal to let her die and actually save her, they get the in-characetr awards from the King, and any exp that comes from skill use depending on system, but they don't get the "Goal Award" because they failed.  If they had planned beforehand to betray Jafar and make it seem like they were actually going to let the princess die, yet make it seem like they barely saved her so Jafar isn't suspicious, then they probably get a bonus because the characters set a goal for themselves that was especially difficult and managed to pull it off.

These days it's usually set amount based on how long we play with a bonus if they accomplish personal goals.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966166It does bother me. Because it isn't railroading, and because it seems like you are just doing it to shame people from playing a particular way.

You keep moving the goal posts here. First its railroading. Then it is a kind of railroading. Now it is GM steering (whatever that is). I don't know. All I know it is pretty common, lots of people seem to like it. Suddenly it feels like we aren't allowed to anymore because Krueger decided it is OOC and Railroady.

Lets go back to the post that torqued you off.  Here's what I actually said.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966075Lots of people always "roleplay" with one foot firmly OOC thinking about Genre, style, theme, whatever.  Nothing wrong with it, I'll play a one-shot or short story arc like that myself and enjoy it.  It just won't replace IC roleplaying for me.  However, no matter how OOC the game is, the GM steering behavior through XP rewards, just have the balls to run the railroad to get what you want from the players instead of doing a Pavlov number on them.

You'll please reread and note several things.
1. I admit nothing is wrong with it.
2. I admit I can play that way and enjoy it on occasion.
3. I start with the term GM steering first.
4. I then say if you are going to steer, you may as well then go to the railroad.  So.
a. I started with GM steering, I am not shifting goalposts.
b. By saying you may as well go to the railroad, it is clear what I am talking about is not a railroad, it is a similar thing, both are GM steering.  Difference of degree, ie. level of steering.  

I have not changed my position, or shifted my goalposts, the text is clear on that point, and I would appreciate it if you didn't mischaracterize what I'm typing because you're getting a little upset.

I'm sorry I don't much like something you do.  I guess I shouldn't be able to express an opinion on it?  Are you really doing the "subjectively criticize equals objective judgement" number here?

For a long-term, enjoyable roleplaying campaign, the players should have as much freedom as possible in playing their characters.  360 degrees of motion lets call it.  Declaring a Theme, Genre, or Premise, for that particular campaign just made that less than 360 degrees.  The more the GM steers, the less degrees of motion the characters will have.

This idea to focus (ie. limit) PC action through XP rewards the GM sets is the GM influencing character behavior through player knowledge.  If I know I will not gain exp for doing X yet will gain exp for doing Y, then conveniently my character will end up doing more Y than X.  The character's actions are determined by factors known only to the player.  It's the oldest and most subtle OOC metagaming mechanic.

I guess it's a personal pet peeve that people who will haul out the pitchforks and torches against the evil railroaders for steering players through Plot, think nothing of steering players through Theme.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966171Lets go back to the post that torqued you off.  Here's what I actually said.


You'll please reread and note several things.
1. I admit nothing is wrong with it.

Yes, right before you say people who use XP incentive should "just have the balls to run the railroad to get what you want from the players instead of doing a Pavlov number on them."

I am sorry, but that doesn't sound like you think there is nothing wrong with it.

Quote3. I start with the term GM steering first.

Fair enough, I missed that usage. But you are still trying to equate it with railroading. I mean I get that you prefer a campaign where players have total freedom to do whatever they want, and are not incentivized for anything but their own goals. That is fine. But suggesting anything to the left of that extreme is on the railroad end of the spectrum is a BS argument.

Quote4. I then say if you are going to steer, you may as well then go to the railroad.  So.
a. I started with GM steering, I am not shifting goalposts.
b. By saying you may as well go to the railroad, it is clear what I am talking about is not a railroad, it is a similar thing, both are GM steering.  Difference of degree, ie. level of steering.  

I think we could be here all day parsing this. To me it sounds like you are trying to fold XP incentives into railroading by suggesting it is on the spectrum of it. If so, I guess, okay, but so what? Why does it even matter then?

Quote from: CRKrueger;966171For a long-term, enjoyable roleplaying campaign, the players should have as much freedom as possible in playing their characters.  360 degrees of motion lets call it.  Declaring a Theme, Genre, or Premise, for that particular campaign just made that less than 360 degrees.  The more the GM steers, the less degrees of motion the characters will have.
.

This I simply don't agree with. I mean it is a fine way to structure a campaign. I think it is fun, I do it myself sometimes, but it isn't the only way to have a long term successful campaign. A game where you reward people XP for sticking with some kind of focus can still be long term. And a game with total freedom can just as easily go off the rails if the players are not into it. I am not advocating making players do things they don't want. It is a matter of fitting things to your group and GM style. If you don't  want genre or theme, that is cool. That is super okay. Does it limit things to try to stick more with genre? I suppose, but then even in a 360 degree full freedom campaign, you are limiting things with the setting details themselves (and genre is often little more than setting detail and physics of the setting). Sometimes setting focus is simply a matter of giving the GM a sense of direction. For example deciding to have a campaign that occurs within the parameters of a single city.

I guess I just don't see the big deal here.Sometimes I might want that 360 degrees, sometimes I might want gentle nudging through the reward system. Other time I might want actual genre mechanics. I don't think that has a big impact on the long term viability of the campaign.

Anyone who has players showing up every week, is by definition, doing it right, because...they have players showing up every week.

But, Grove could be GMing 16 hours a day, 7 days a weeks with 4 groups a day, and he still wouldn't be running a sandbox campaign.  He has a very heavy hand on the steering wheel and his players have less degree of motion than, say Tenbones' players do.

The only way to really get some type of guaranteed experience from a roleplaying session is to limit degrees of motion.  Most players do this instinctively.  If we say we're doing a sandbox campaign in the Forgotten Realms North, the first thing the players do usually isn't hop the first boat to Kara-Tur.  They limit themselves just for the sake of sanity and to not be a dick to the GM.  That's most definitely an OOC decision, but it hardly impacts character freedom.

We say we're playing a "Heroic High Fantasy" campaign, we're limiting degree of motion, paying that price for more enjoyable Heroic High Fantasy.
We say we're doing "Investigative Noir in Greyhawk", we're limiting degree of motion, paying that price for more enjoyable Investigative Noir.
The shorter the campaign will be, the more you need to focus to get the payoff you're looking for, which is why one-shots and short campaigns tend to be quite focused with a stronger premise we all buy in to.

However, for a standard method of granting exp, in an open, long-term campaign, having the GM decide what does and doesn't give exp is different, especially if that changes based on what the GM wants to happen next.  For open, long-term sandbox gaming, degree of motion is more important than focus.  I know not all agree.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966174However, for a standard method of granting exp, in an open, long-term campaign, having the GM decide what does and doesn't give exp is different, especially if that changes based on what the GM wants to happen next.  For open, long-term sandbox gaming, degree of motion is more important than focus.  I know not all agree.

I think changing it mid campaign would be a bad idea (unless it is to reflect some decision by the group that whatever the GM was using as a metric before wasn't working, or that they wanted to focus on something different----like a shift from dungeon delving to intrigue). But I don't think having the GM lay out sensible XP goals based on some kind of campaign focus is harmful to long term play. I think the more important thing is what the focus happens to be, if people enjoy it, and whether the focus lends itself well to regular sessions. Something that rewards going into dungeons and taking gold, is a pretty easy focus to sustain (whereas a reward system that gives xp for things like interpersonal family drama would probably be a lot harder). For instance if someone was running a police focused game and gave us XP rewards for arrests or preventing crime, I think that would work just fine, provided there was sufficient player buy in to the premise (and I know I'd probably enjoy getting an XP reward for doing those things).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966172Yes, right before you say people who use XP incentive should "just have the balls to run the railroad to get what you want from the players instead of doing a Pavlov number on them."

I am sorry, but that doesn't sound like you think there is nothing wrong with it.

There's never anything wrong with it as long as all like it.  That's always true of gaming.  Ok, I tossed in some snark, I guess I see a little bit of hypocrisy in it from some, in that a lot of people in different threads I see lambasting railroaders are also those who see nothing wrong with steering things through more subtle methods.  It's like a guy screaming at people for putting a harness and leash on a dog because you can control them just fine through verbal commands.

BTW, I know you're not one of those people, you've said if people like the structured adventures and a more railroady, entertainment-like experience, good for them.  You don't really yell at anybody.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966172Fair enough, I missed that usage. But you are still trying to equate it with railroading. I mean I get that you prefer a campaign where players have total freedom to do whatever they want, and are not incentivized for anything but their own goals. That is fine. But suggesting anything to the left of that extreme is on the railroad end of the spectrum is a BS argument.

Look, I'll admit 5% steering is a far cry from 95% steering, and if you normally cruise at 5%-10%, you might consider 50% a completely different thing.  However, I hope you can agree that there is actually a difference between No Steering and Any.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966172If so, I guess, okay, but so what? Why does it even matter then?

It matters when you're expressing the opinion that it's possible to not be on that spectrum, and having to be somewhere on that spectrum, always, which is pretty much what Smon was implying, is incorrect.  Remember this side discussion didn't start with us, I was responding to Smon when you came in, that's where the train of thought started.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966177Look, I'll admit 5% steering is a far cry from 95% steering, and if you normally cruise at 5%-10%, you might consider 50% a completely different thing.  However, I hope you can agree that there is actually a difference between No Steering and Any.
.

I do see the difference, but I think this is an odd way to frame it because it makes it sound like anything that isn't 100% free of any hint of steering is somehow on par with the GM making players go on a railroad adventure. I guess it is a spectrum but if something is only 5% on the spectrum, I'd classify it on the 'free' side, not on the 'railroad' side. It is the difference between a pinch of salt and a whole salt shaker. A modicum of salt in your food doesn't make it 'salty'.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966178I do see the difference, but I think this is an odd way to frame it because it makes it sound like anything that isn't 100% free of any hint of steering is somehow on par with the GM making players go on a railroad adventure. I guess it is a spectrum but if something is only 5% on the spectrum, I'd classify it on the 'free' side, not on the 'railroad' side. It is the difference between a pinch of salt and a whole salt shaker. A modicum of salt in your food doesn't make it 'salty'.

We're where we always get to on any discussion involving a spectrum.  In the end, everyone makes their own dividing line which just happens to be where their own comfort level is.  The argument always starts when someone (usually my dumb ass) points out you can, in fact, be off that spectrum just fine.  At which point the wheels come off the wagon.  Why some people (not necessarily you Brendan) refuse to accept that, I'll never figure out, but there it is.  These types of spectrum arguments, which usually start around an OOC spectrum or narrative spectrum, are like 95% of the classic rpgsite 4e and story wars of the 2009's-10s.

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.

Personally I give XP for overcoming any challenge, so that could include killing any NPC. I can imagine not giving XP for the degenerate case of "We only need 10 XP to level, let's murder those peasants" - but that doesn't normally happen in my games since players know I'll give some "just doing stuff" XP and I only award XP at end of session, so normally they'd level up at the end of the session either way.

But anyway, if you give XP for killing people you are incentivising killing people, AFAICS. If you don't then you are discouraging that activity. One of the few things I don't give XP for is players sitting around planning OOC, because I hate seeing sessions wasted (from my POV) on that stuff - I want to discourage endless planning. (I don't see how the game's own guidelines make any difference to this point - the game designers probably have listed XP awards for behaviour they want to encourage).

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.

I've never heard of an IC XP award. All XP awards are OOC. Even a Runequest style tick in a skill box is OOC.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966170I don't run AD&D anymore, but when I ran other games that are based on Goal Awards,  I don't base exp on what I decide the goals are.  I base exp on what the players decide their goals are.  They don't get exp for saving the princess because I wanted them to.  They get exp for saving the princess because they succeeded in what THEY wanted to do.  If the PCs are secretly working for Jafar the Vizier and while being hired by the King to save his daughter, they let her die because that was their true mission, they get the exp for that.  If they fail in their goal to let her die and actually save her, they get the in-characetr awards from the King, and any exp that comes from skill use depending on system, but they don't get the "Goal Award" because they failed.  If they had planned beforehand to betray Jafar and make it seem like they were actually going to let the princess die, yet make it seem like they barely saved her so Jafar isn't suspicious, then they probably get a bonus because the characters set a goal for themselves that was especially difficult and managed to pull it off.

These days it's usually set amount based on how long we play with a bonus if they accomplish personal goals.

I like this way to do it. That's pretty much what I tend to do too. If I don't want PCs being villainous I tell the players that, it's not something I address via XP awards. BUT I don't give XP for sitting around doing OOC planning, and I probably give reduced XP for stuff that bores me, like the minutiae of running a mundane business, & may give no XP for OOC shopping, number crunching & such. I might give decent XP for carousing in taverns, attending noble balls, and other stuff that gives opportunities for interesting (to me) character interaction. IC shopping & bargaining may be worth XP if it doesn't get tedious.

I guess "XP for not boring the GM" & "XP for not doing nothing" makes me a horrible railroader, but I don't care.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965441It's navel gazing on the part of the GM.  "What do I want my PCs to do...when I decide I'll incentivize it to direct play that way."  

Or just let the players roleplay their characters and do your fucking job.

Well, see, what I want to incentivize in my players in Dark Albion (and Lion & Dragon) is for them to:
a) show up
b) play their fucking characters without consideration to metagaming where they feel they have to bring home barrels of loot not because that's what their character would do, but because that's the only way they'll get to go up in level

So the  XP system I have is one where the Players don't have to think at all about "what do I have to do in the game to get my guy to level up", because the answer is "show up" and "roleplay".