[Twilight Time] Influencing vs. Scripting: The Fine Line of Free Will

[Heather Grove]

May 5, 2004 -- Influencing vs. Scripting: The Fine Line of Free Will
Volume 5, Issue 3

This is the Twilight Time zine, copyright 2004 by Burning Void 
Publishing and Heather Grove, except where noted otherwise. You may 
forward via email to other people, but only in its entirety - do not 
alter the contents. This copyright notice must go with it. Do not 
repost or reprint without direct permission.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, change your options, or view the archives:
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/twilighttime


Good morning!

I have a couple of things to mention today. One is that Richard Dansky, 
who used to develop "Wraith" for White Wolf, has a new chapbook out 
(called "Shadows in Green") from Yard Dog Press: 
http://www.yarddogpress.com/shadows.htm

Another is that I discovered a great website yesterday from horror 
author Michael Arnzen, called Gorelets: http://www.gorelets.com/

It's great for the horror/poetry/writing fans out there. It includes 
twisted little writing prompts for horror writers, as well as a fun and 
amusing email newsletter that I highly recommend.

By the way, if you are a recent subscriber and thus unfamiliar with the 
free will articles on the web site, you might want to read those before 
reading today's article: http://www.burningvoid.com/rpg/gmfreewill.php

Since this is a long article today, I'll dispense with the rambling and 
jump right in. Have a great day!

Heather



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Influencing vs. Scripting: The Fine Line of Free Will

Copyright 2004 by Heather Grove and Jeffrey Howard


Those of you who've been around the site for a while know that free 
will in roleplaying is one of our soapbox issues. There's been one 
thing, however, that has been difficult to put into words, and that has 
left a gap in the free will articles so far. In an article we called 
"Shameless Manipulation," we made the following point:


"For all that I tell GMs not to script the ending of a story, you often 
do need to plan things out to a certain extent. After all, you're 
trying to come up with an exciting story for your players. Because of 
this sometimes you do want to steer the story in a certain direction. 
There are acceptable ways to do this.

"If you created a world that didn't have any influence at all on the 
PCs' choices - well, there really wouldn't be anything going on in that 
world, now would there? You can't help but shape the game to a certain 
extent. Accept that how you shape the world will guide the PCs' 
choices, and use that to make the game fun - not to push your own 
agendas or your own idea of what makes a good game."


However, although there's a strong boundary between 
influence/manipulation and railroading, it's a fine line and there are 
a lot of people who aren't quite sure where it lies. Unfortunately that 
fine line is something we've always had trouble putting into concrete 
words. There are some good guidelines in that other article, but the 
line itself never quite got defined.


The Threefold Key to Free Will

The key to defining free will in roleplaying is threefold:

*   Player characters (PCs) and players must get to make their own 
choices.
*   PCs must get to take their own actions.
*   Those choices and actions must have a real and substantive impact 
on the outcome of the plot, for good or ill.

Everything else in this article is pretty much a clarification or 
example to help you understand exactly what I mean by those statements, 
and how they affect your game.

It's all right for things within the game world to influence those 
choices and actions. This is unavoidable, as mentioned above, and 
desirable as well (it's how the GM makes the game fun for the players). 
But as long as those choices are freely made, those actions are freely 
taken, and they have a real impact on the plot, that's all right.

It's that third point that makes things so sticky. GMs tell themselves 
that they can set things up so that no matter what, things come out the 
way they want. They may even be right about that; if the players/PCs 
make just the right set of choices, they won't notice that their 
choices don't ultimately matter. But... well, perhaps an example would 
help.

Some years ago we read an adventure that shall remain nameless. At the 
end of act one, things were set up such that the PCs would most likely 
make a certain choice and take a certain action. However, the author 
put in a contingency plan. If the PCs failed to do the right thing, an 
NPC would step in and do it. If they made the author-defined proper 
choice it *seemed* as though their actions determined the outcome of 
the plot, but if the PCs didn't take that action, it became clear that 
their actions didn't matter--regardless of what happened, things would 
come out a certain way.

THAT is railroading.*

[*Special note that applies to everything in this article: Pretty much 
anything we can define as railroading you could turn into a reasonable 
plot. The trick is to make that lack of choice into an interesting 
in-game plot, rather than an out-of-game contrivance meant to 
orchestrate events to the GM's satisfaction. We don't recommend doing 
this, however, without some experience and a group of players that 
trust you.]


The NPC Influence Example

A GM we spoke with worried that he had unintentionally railroaded his 
group into doing what he wanted them to do. He'd determined ahead of 
time that the NPCs had certain personalities and pieces of information. 
Some NPCs lied, or came to a mistaken conclusion about the evidence and 
passed on their mistaken theory as truth, based on those personalities 
and pieces of information. Some of these mistakes or lies led the PCs 
in a particular direction.

We don't see this as scripting--in fact, in some ways it can be the 
opposite of scripting. NPCs shouldn't be utterly reliable sources of 
information. One of the best tricks for making sure that PCs can't 
overly rely on friendly NPCs is making sure that, like anyone else, 
NPCs make mistakes. Sometimes they draw the right conclusions from 
evidence. Sometimes they draw the wrong conclusions. (If you know how 
your NPCs think, it's easy to do this realistically.) If your players 
understand that the world is in fact that realistic, then you end up 
railroading players *less.*

If players believe that an NPC is always right and truthful, then that 
NPC can become too great an out-of-game influence on the party. It can 
get to the point where the *players* believe that if an NPC says 
something, they should heed those words as though they came from the 
GM. The NPCs (and through them, the GM) start to override the party. 
Making the NPCs every bit as unreliable and prone to mistakes as the 
PCs forces the party to evaluate NPC statements, use their own 
judgment, and come to their own decisions--it *reinforces* free will.

The only time this isn't the case is when players believe they're 
working with the kind of GM who uses the ever-truthful-and-right NPC to 
push his players into doing what he wants. In this case, they'll 
probably believe they've been misled when they find out otherwise. But 
as long as the players understand that NPCs are human, and every bit as 
capable of lies, misdirection, and mistakes as everyone else, then 
using that reinforces free will.

This is one reason why GM and players should sit down and discuss 
issues of game-play before they start up their gaming run together. The 
reliability of NPCs (and their tendency to stand in for the GM) varies 
greatly from group to group. Making these things clear up front helps 
to avoid misunderstandings.


What Scripting Isn't

We spoke with someone who worried that he was scripting because he had 
worked out ahead of time what the NPCs were planning to do, what they 
knew, and what would happen if the players/PCs didn't get involved at 
all, including a timeline. However, unless you're planning out what the 
PCs (the "main characters") will or should do, or you've decided that 
no matter what they do your timelined events will come out as planned, 
you aren't scripting--you're just detailing the world, characters, and 
background that will act and react along with the PCs. Consider it 
setting the stage and lining up the secondary characters. You just need 
to be willing to allow PC actions and choices to impact that timeline.


The Dangers of Defining Railroading Too Broadly

You'd think it would be players who'd define railroading too broadly. 
But in our experience, it's GMs who tend to define any sort of 
influence on a game as railroading. The GMs who do this generally have 
one of two reactions, then, to railroading:

"Railroading is necessary. If I don't influence the plot, I can't make 
sure the players have fun."

Or, "I can't plan out anything or I'll be railroading my characters!"

Neither has to be the case. If you stop to realize that railroading 
isn't simply having an influence, but rather pushing the PCs along a 
SINGLE pre-defined, straight track (hence the term, 'railroading'), 
then it becomes much easier to see where that fine line rests.

It's okay to influence and manipulate the plot. It's okay to plan 
events and sketch out what you'd like to see happen. You cross that 
line when you start making choices for the PCs as well as the NPCs. You 
cross that line when you force the PCs to take a certain action rather 
than allowing them to decide for themselves. You cross that line when 
you don't allow these choices and actions to impact the outcome of the 
plot.


The Winning & Losing Misunderstanding

Some people believe that a plot in which doing one thing will cause the 
PCs to succeed and doing another thing will cause the PCs to die or 
fail in their task is inherently scripting and railroading, because the 
PCs *must* pick the winning choice.

This doesn't have to be the case, although it sometimes is.

If you run your game in such a manner that "losing" or "failing" is 
considered wrong and there's only one choice that will lead to victory, 
then yes, you may well be scripting (if there's only one choice that 
leads to victory and the players feel they aren't supposed to fail, 
they'll feel they *must* choose that one path). However, in many games 
it's considered okay for characters to fail at something, and there 
isn't always a right vs. wrong answer to a problem. In these cases, it 
isn't scripting to have the plot come down to a hard decision. In fact, 
some players love dramatic stories where their character makes the 
"wrong" choice due to personality.

Therefore, a prohibition against railroading does not prevent you from 
creating such difficult plots and choices--as long as your gaming group 
won't *feel* that such a choice is forcing them to do a certain thing. 
This is one of the many reasons why it can be a good thing to run games 
where character failure isn't punished, laughed at, or seen as 
wrong--you're left with many more plot options that don't step on 
players' toes.


Inevitable Consequences

One remaining gray area is that of the seemingly inevitable 
consequence. Let's say that the PCs kill a law enforcement officer, and 
the local law enforcement knows they did it. It should be pretty much 
inevitable that the law will inexorably hunt them down and either kill 
them or take them into custody. This is a direct result of the free 
choices of the characters, and it's a natural consequence of their own 
actions, but it can still *feel* frustrating, particularly if the PCs 
felt that killing was the best or only option open to them. (One 
person's inevitable consequence can be someone else's trap.) So, here 
are a few things to consider when you believe that there are inevitable 
and difficult consequences to actions the PCs have taken.

First, are they really inevitable, or is that simply an excuse to get 
the plot to where you want it to be? Yes, some consequences might be 
inevitable; just make sure that yours truly are. Second, is the 
inevitable scene the cause or consequence? If it's meant to drive the 
characters to an end, it's cause. If it's the result of character 
choice or action, then it's consequence. Third, did you (intentionally 
or unintentionally) set up or push the PCs to commit the act that has 
such consequences?

Sometimes harsh consequences are a good thing--GMs might use them to 
remind players that their characters should behave as real people, and 
that their characters' actions have consequences. For players who have 
trouble grasping the concept, a more visceral demonstration sometimes 
helps. Sometimes, however, consequences are a result of poor world 
design. Some game worlds include opposition to the PCs that is 
expansive and powerful enough that the moment the PCs make headway 
against them, they should swat the PCs down. That isn't much fun for 
anyone.

If you believe that the inevitable consequence might be a bad thing, 
then try to find a way to make it less inevitable. Put another way, 
take it as a given that absolutely nothing in this world is *ever* 
inevitable, and simply think about what, in this particular case, could 
cause that to be so.

Sit down and write out the chain of cause and effect that led to this 
point. Write out the resources the enemies have, and the way in which 
they plan to crush the PC(s). Then list out several potential events, 
circumstances or plans that might change things. Someone who wants to 
help the PCs might warn them. The enemy might want something out of the 
PCs, thus keeping them alive and perhaps setting the stage for an 
escape or rescue. The enemies might have restrictions on them that keep 
them from doing certain things, or flaws that can be exploited. The PCs 
might get their hands on something that makes the enemy's plans less 
effective or certain. For more ideas, we have an old article on 
defeating villains: 
http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/twilighttime/2002/000005.html

I am NOT saying that you should save the PCs--you only have to make 
sure that choices and openings exist, even if they're difficult or 
non-obvious and have only a very small chance of success. And as 
always, keep an open mind with respect to player creativity. Don't 
declare that something won't work simply because you think an event 
should be "inevitable."


Absolutes are Plot Holes in Disguise

This is something I've mentioned elsewhere. Any absolute (never, 
always, must, only, can't) is a potential plot hole. It's also a very 
good signal that you may be stepping on free will.

When you put an absolute into a plot, you'll tend to create plot 
details that depend on that absolute. Any PC creativity could then 
wreak havoc on those dependencies, which can lead you to feel that you 
must railroad the PCs into fulfilling the absolute. For example:

Absolute: the PCs can only get into the ruined castle via the servants' 
entrance. Dependency: a special item is in the room right by the 
servants' entrance, and they'll need it later on. Creativity: a PC 
comes up with some weird way to tunnel through some other part of the 
ruins. Havoc: now they won't have the item when they need it. 
Railroading: in order to make sure they have to enter via the servants' 
entrance, you have a wandering monster wreck an item they need for 
their new plan. Bad feelings: now the players feel as though it's 
useless to try to be creative, because you'll just make them do things 
your way regardless.


Testing Your Plots and Game

If you ever aren't sure whether or not you're scripting and/or 
railroading, take a look at your adventure and ask yourself these 
questions:

*   Are the PCs being allowed to make their own choices, or am I 
forcing them to make only the choices I want them to?
*   Do their choices have appropriate repercussions given the context 
of the game world, or am I simply punishing and rewarding the choices I 
dislike and prefer?
*   Are the PCs being allowed to take their own actions, or am I 
forcing them to take only certain actions and not others?
*   Do those actions have reasonable repercussions, or am I punishing 
and rewarding in order to herd the PCs through the "proper" plot path?
*   Have I given my players the message, intentionally or not, that 
they must choose the path that leads to victory?
*   Are there any absolutes in my plot? If so, what dependencies are 
there? How can I remove or change these dependencies and absolutes to 
leave room for player creativity?
*   Does any of my preparatory material assume or dictate certain 
actions or choices on the part of the PCs? Can I/am I willing to handle 
it if the PCs do something different? What other things might they try, 
and how would it impact the plot?
*   Do my NPCs have too great an influence over the decisions the PCs 
make? Are they always right? Do the players know that NPCs will behave 
as realistic people, and thus can lie and make mistakes?
*   Am I allowing the PCs to have a real impact on the outcome of the 
plot, or is the outcome predetermined?
*   Am I treating any events as inevitable? If so, under what 
circumstances might that inevitability come into question? Am I using 
"inevitability" as an excuse to put the PCs into a no-win situation?


Ultimately, it still comes down to these three things: choices, 
actions, and impact. While you can influence and manipulate them, you 
cannot dictate them. If you keep this firmly in mind then you should be 
able to find that thin line, wherever it may lie.


What's Your Opinion?:

Comments on this issue's topic? Suggestions? Tips? Special topic 
requests? Drop me a line. If I pass any of your suggestions on (either 
through the newsletter or the RPG resources page), I'll attribute them 
to you. Be sure to tell me if you don't want me to use your name and/or 
comments!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SITE UPDATE:

http://www.burningvoid.com/write/2002/critlearn.php

This is a revised and expanded version of our old article, "criticism 
and learning to write."


Since Jeffrey and I recently started playing AEG's "Stargate SG-1" RPG 
(lots of fun!), we've been checking out military research books. We 
added a bunch to the research section of the bookstore: 
http://www.burningvoid.com/bookstore/wrresearch.php#mil

The various guides for officers and such are great for getting a feel 
for the culture and traditions involved in various branches of the 
armed forces. Some of the other books might help GMs who have trouble 
coming up with non-combat plots for military parties (like "Guide to 
Military Operations Other than War").


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RATINGS:

You can give the Twilight Time Zine a rating on the RPG Gateway to let 
us know how we're doing:
http://www.rpggateway.com/cgi-bin/wyrm/rate.cgi?ID=5288

The same goes for the Burning Void RPG resources page:
http://www.rpggateway.com/cgi-bin/wyrm/rate.cgi?ID=1392


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Privacy Policy:
	We do not sell or give out your information, barring a legal 
requirement to do so.

Missing Issues:
	If you have subscribed to the zine and do not receive an issue: Make 
sure any spam filter you may be using has been told that the zine is 
not spam. Make sure there's room in your account for the email--every 
month we get bounces from accounts that are over-quota. If your account 
bounces two or more issues in a row, we reserve the right to 
unsubscribe you from the list.

Subscriptions:
	The Twilight Time is entirely voluntary and opt-in ONLY. If you are 
receiving this directly from us and you did not sign up for this 
newsletter then something is wrong. Please use the unsubscribe 
instructions below. If that does not work, let us know right away.