GM Knowledge Repository

Hello everyone! What I'm trying to start here is a database of helpful rules, tips, and ideas for Gamemasters to use. I hope GM's, myself included, can use this as both a checklist of things they should do throughout their campaign and as a way to get good GM info without sorting through tens of GM related topics on the forum. I'm gonna organize these in various fields, including but not limited to: my own personal rules (that are not widely agreed upon as being good or bad), consensus rules, and Dark Heresy specific rules (my game, I'll extend this and give other RPG's their own sections once people start suggesting things). Disclaimer: Nothing anyone ever says about how YOU should GM should ever, ever, be taken as gospel. Being a good GM is a very subjective thing, this is just a place to get started and get new ideas. My Personal Rules/Tips: (A few to start with) -Listen to your players, you may have the final say on an outcome, but if they want to argue let them. -When picking players (because you probably have more offers than you know what to do with) pick the ones who know the lore best, even if they don't know the game rules. -Know the game rules as best you can, if necessary you need to know them for your players as well, don't expect them to help with rules, that's your job. -Be creative with a plot, but let them screw it up... and they will. -It all starts in a bar. Why? Good hub for quests, good way for characters to get to know each other, and a good opportunity for a barfight. -Give a tutorial, minus the tutorial. Easy opponents that don't pose much of a threat, fast to kill, helpful for noobs, hopefully fun for veterans to stomp on (for a short amount of time). -Watch how players deal with your enemies, if they get out of an event unscathed, throw 2x as many people at them next time with better armor. Don't kill them, but make them fear that it could happen. -Combat is necessary, but honestly the most boring part of the game. Focus on the roleplaying and interaction between your characters. -Don't just be a observer, be their friend. If they do something badass tell them, if they look like a fool poke a bit of fun at them. Play on the team jokes. -Maps are nice, but don't use too many of them, it slows down gameplay and can wall in player choice. I only draw maps for hubs and combat areas and even then don't pretend that they're complete (perception checks are good). - Give them bait, not everyone acting weird is gonna be of their concern, but they'll shake down the event photographer if you tell them he nods to a merchant. If they make a bad decision from time to time it feels less linear and like their choices matter. -If you can, always be 5-10 minutes early to a session, your players may already be there. -Get to know your players out of character, it helps you know what they're gonna want from the game. Just try and keep the OOC banter limited to before and after the play starts. Matters for Debate: -Trap Plots: instead of creating a simple linear plot that encourages the players to let you lead them, its the opposite creating a plot where they are met with disaster if they don't think on their own. Probably too heavy handed, and a terrible idea, but its something I thought up that might encourage players to improvise more. -Luck rolls: These are semi-secret 1d10 rolls that I use whenever I want to directly intervene with the plot. The way they work is on a roll of 1-4 something good will happen for the players, on a roll of 5 nothing happens, and on a roll of 6-10 something bad happens, the closer to 5 rolls are the lesser the severity. I love this idea and always use it because it means that its almost impossible for me as a GM to railroad the story and it adds enough uncertainty so that players are kept on their toes. I may want to save players from a tough predicament with a deus ex machina solution, but I'm held back by the fact that if I roll on it I run the risk of the situation getting worse instead. - Spoilers for players, not characters : I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand it lessens the need for the GM to guide the players, on the other I think it railroads the plot and makes the players more likely to metagame the easiest solution. Consensus Rules/Tips: -Name everything and keep a list of the names. (Thank you Jason L.) -When players are looking for information, don't just say no, say yes, but at a price, )or give them other useful info they won't looking for -- my personal slant). (All credit to Headhunter's Context is Key topic) - Session 0's are possibly the most essential concept to keep with you. Unless you're playing with people you know well and you know are veterans always anticipate having to walk one player through character creation. Even if you don't need to its important for providing setting, finding plot preferences, the best times for sessions, and all manner of OOC things. (Thanks Headhunter for the link, I can't believe I forgot to mention this). Dark Heresy Specific : -Make sure they know what is heresy, be one of the most loyal Imperial in the Empire, or at least give players the slant on Imperial doctrine that they personally want (within reason; unless you have a heretek a tech-priest should have a *certain* view on imperial life). -Try and stay in lore; if they're playing DH they probably quite like Warhammer 40k lore. - Throw in a bit of moral ambiguity. -If they live to tell the tale, they've won the mission....sort of. They may crush a rebellion in its infancy and be praised, they may fail to stop a rebellion but escape to warn the Inquisition and be praised (but then have to live with the Exterminatus their failure caused), they may flat out join the rebellion, but as the GM its your job to say you "won" until the next mission. Just make sure if they mess up that its a Pyrrhic victory. Its not your job to make sure they fail, but to make it hard for them to succeed the way they want. Additional Reading: Dealing wish players who Blame you for their deaths Common GM myths, courtesy of Phisto Roboto Headhunter Jones' Tips on Roleplaying A GM peer review courtesy of Headhunter Jones New GM tips courtesy of Headhunter Jones Some Links from Dickie: The Alexandrian » The Art of Pacing The Alexandrian » Three Clue Rule The Alexandrian » Don’t Prep Plots 11 ways to be a better roleplayer - LOOK, ROBOT Stanislavski vs Brecht in tabletop roleplaying - LOOK, ROBOT The Alexandrian » Thought of the Day: Prep Tips for the Beginning DM The Alexandrian » Node-Based Scenario Design – Part 1: The Plotted Approach The Alexandrian » Advanced Node-Based Design – Part 1: Moving Between Nodes Some More Links from Headhunter: Session Zero Structure First, Story Last Collaborative Roleplay 10 Ways to Be a Better Online Gamer "Yes, and..." Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything Front/Danger design

Name everything.... EVERYTHING... streets, buildings... cities and kingdoms not even in the game... random people on the street... have a list for ALL of them... trust me.

Yes, of course I can't believe I forgot. I'm adding it now

Shoot, Nick, you just need to scan most of Headhunter Jones' posts. The guy is pretty much Professor Roleplay around here from what I've seen. :P I'd love to see a compilation or wiki of his articles and other more scholarly posts. Anyone know of such a site?

Dickie said: Shoot, Nick, you just need to scan most of Headhunter Jones' posts. The guy is pretty much Professor Roleplay around here from what I've seen. :P I'd love to see a compilation or wiki of his articles and other more scholarly posts. Anyone know of such a site? +1 on this. Headhunter Jone's is Mr RPG!!!

My ears are burning! Thanks for the kind words, guys. Professor Roleplay is going to be the name of my next character now - so thanks for the idea! (I have no site that compiles my ramblings, sorry!)

Yeah, i was definitely hoping for some of his input, while I don't always agree with all of his ideas he is very helpful. He has so many separate single topic posts this is my attempt to unify them into one resource. When I get the chance I will definately incorporate Headhunters ideas to the list.

Sorry for the late post, any specific suggestions headhunter?

Nick B. said: When I get the chance I will defiantly incorporate Headhunters ideas to the list. I like the way that sounds. (Emphasis mine.) Learn and understand the core concepts of RPGs would be my single most important piece of advice. If you don't know what roleplaying actually is , for example, then everything you do that follows will be skewed and biased toward whatever you believe roleplaying is. If you don't know what illusionism is , then you may be running your game that way without even realizing it, making yourself the game rather than the game you are trying to play. If you don't know what story is and how that interacts with plot (or what plot is), then you may start putting the cart before the horse and telling stories instead of creating stories with your players, which is the whole point of RPGs. If you can get the core concepts down, the rest is just a matter of figuring out specific game rules or the like.

Also do you mind if I add some direct links to your longer posts, headhunter?

By all means. I'd just like to point out that while I'm a prolific poster, I'm not the foremost expert on everything - just a guy who's played and read about RPGs for a very long time. Where I deviate from discussing core concepts is when we start getting into preference, so anything that smells like opinion rather than definition should be taken in that context.

Update: I'm gonna be posting a "Matters for debate" category, adding to the "matters of consensus" category, and adding an "addition reading" category, when I get home, I've tried to edit the post twice on ipad and failed.

This topic might also shed some illumination on the subject. It certainly had many different styles of GM's posting info on it. And as always, there really is no concrete list of things that make a good GM. Different groups want different styles, so it is best to cater to your audience.

I'll add it to the helpful links. I'm glad everyone understands that any list of GM tips is gonna have to taken with a grain of salt, and that this is at most a list of helpful suggestions to pick and choice what you like.

Ok, the page is now up to date. Of course, I'll still add entries as I think of them or they are suggested.

Also does anyone have any system specific suggestions? My experience is limited to Dark Heresy.

Here are several additional links I've collected after reading the good Professor's (and other's) posts: The Alexandrian » The Art of Pacing The Alexandrian » Three Clue Rule The Alexandrian » Don’t Prep Plots 11 ways to be a better roleplayer - LOOK, ROBOT Stanislavski vs Brecht in tabletop roleplaying - LOOK, ROBOT The Alexandrian » Thought of the Day: Prep Tips for the Beginning DM The Alexandrian » Node-Based Scenario Design – Part 1: The Plotted Approach The Alexandrian » Advanced Node-Based Design – Part 1: Moving Between Nodes I'd love to develop a site where these sorts of articles are collected. Love to have some recommended readings, etc. as well. I'm not a great GM by any stretch, so I'm always interested in new takes on the hobby and process.

Here are a few more: Session Zero Structure First, Story Last Collaborative Roleplay 10 Ways to Be a Better Online Gamer "Yes, and..." Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything Edit: Seriously, the preview feature on these forums is very annoying.

Boy do people flip out when you try to explain to them how having a spoiler "ruined" can be a good thing for your enjoyment of a story...

When they do, show them that article! I use it as advice for GMs who don't want to collaborate with their players on making their super-secret plot work. "But it'll ruin the surprise!" Actually, it'll likely make the surprise better and with a 100% chance of happening since everyone agreed it should. As opposed to potentially blocking and subverting choice to make the Big Reveal possible and then watching it fall flat when nobody gives a shit about it. DM: "And so it seems the quest-giver is actually... THE VILLAIN!" Player 1: "I don't see how." DM: "You guys don't remember that the spy got the code from the nursery rhyme the quest-giver sang to his daughter eight sessions ago?" Player 2: "Uh, no..." Player 3: "I wasn't even there that session." DM: "Dammit..." Like the punchline to a joke, if you have to explain it after you reveal it, then it wasn't very good. One way to avoid that by is bringing the players in on it. Remember, you're trying to surprise the characters , not the players . You are not your character . (And anyway if you're collaborating with the players using improvisational techniques, a ton of surprises happen all of the time as the group's declarations interact with each other. Surprises even for the GM. But that's a thread for another time!)

Headhunter Jones said: Edit: Seriously, the preview feature on these forums is very annoying. I agree completely.

What are peoples opinions on starting a campaign with 2 or more divergent starting missions that converge much later? aka: smuggling becomes a rebellion you have to deal with many sessions later if you deal with an assassination, while if you chose to deal with the smuggling the assassination becomes a coup. Then you could use failed inquiry tests throughout the game to give them background on the growing crisis that they are ignoring, that way when they have to deal with it they're prepared. I'm hoping this gives players choice over how they want a campaign to play out along with knowledge that their choices matter for better or worse.

Check out Front/Danger design from Dungeon World. It'll help you organize your threats in useful ways and build in timers to follow as your threats advance their agendas. This keeps the pressure high and the action tight. They offer ideas for how the forces of your setting interact and respond to the PCs' action... or inaction. Doing it this way means you don't have to use plots with contingencies which is often a lot of work for nothing.

Thanks, if you ever just happen to come upon useful sources like this, please send them to me.

I just bookmarked it for later reading. Thanks for the link. Got any more?

You're welcome - what are you looking for in particular?

Its not something I've ever had to deal with, but perhaps some articles on how to deal with players that are either disruptive to a degree, or just can't RP rather than just kicking them might be helpful for GM's who have trouble finding players. In that vain I'm gonna add the how to deal with a dead player thread to the additional reading.

Nothing in particular. Just reading material in general.

Here's your article on how to deal with players that are disruptive: "Don't play with them." :) Barring that, just have a direct, honest conversation with them about the problem, outside of the context of the game, and come to an agreement about how to move forward. Simple enough advice. No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be as effective as simply talking to your fellow players directly to solve your issues. If that agreement is not forthcoming or is not honored, then part ways. I've provided you with a link about the definition of roleplaying already. If people read that, they'll quickly realize that the thing they consider to be "roleplaying" is actually something else entirely and they'll be able to better communicate their desires to their fellow players. Oftentimes, people say "RP" but what they really mean is in-character interaction, dramatic acting, histrionics, impersonation or other forms of communicating the act of playing a role. "Roleplaying" is not in and of itself any of those things. It's just making a decision your character might also make, given the in-game context at that moment.

Kicking disruptive players on Roll20 is something I 100% agree with, my problem is any games I play outside of it I usually end up with the bare minimum I need to play. And if I have a disruptive player (which I haven't yet, you flat out can't kick them without ending the game). The issue then is how do you approach them tactfully enough so they stay, while still getting them to stop. EDIT: But I suppose that largely depends on the situation.

"[Name], I need your help with something. [A specific annoyance] you're doing when we play [game] is disruptive to [people affected]. [I/we] otherwise enjoy you being in the game and wonder if there's something we can do about that so as to make the game better. What do you think?" You can use the same line for any situation or problem. From a communication standpoint, using their name and asking for their help tends to put people in a receptive mode. Finishing with an open-ended question means they can't easily respond with "Yes" or "No."

Thanks :)

Nick B. said: -It all starts in a bar. Why? Good hub for quests, good way for characters to get to know each other, and a good opportunity for a barfight. Actually, in the fantasy game I run, I try as hard as possible to avoid that cliche. Instead, I try another way to start a new plot thread: Usually what I do is ask each player to give me a simple backstory and then I contrive a way for them all to get thrown together with the plot hook. I've started one thread by giving one player (Often a wizard or a cleric) who has just finished her apprenticeship or religious training the plot hook. The rogues, fighters and less scholarly types usually fall in line as all they're looking for is adventure and excitement. I make the characters experts in some governmental agency--not necessary the Army or Navy. For example, in my latest plot, I have all the characters working as troubleshooters for the Royal Postal Service. With the right plot hook, I can start them all in a public market. Perhaps they have to catch a theif or maybe they get hired to guard a caravan of trade goods. I've never tried this, but perhaps you shanghai and press gang the characters to work aboard a ship bound for another country? With a little thought to tie characters together into a plot hook, you can avoid the tired, "You're knocking back a brew at the public house when suddenly this mysterious man approaches you..." cliche.

I believe all campaigns and every session should begin with action - in media res . The first session should be a closed location like a dungeon the group can explore. Once you frame the opening action scene, ask the players how their characters got to that point, why it's important to them, how they relate to specific elements of the adventure (NPCs, locations, items, etc.) and (if it's a new party) how and why the characters know and trust each other. No quest-givers. No towns. No taverns. No awkward "gettin' ta know ya" scenes. Get to know the characters as they set about working together to resolve conflicts that are coming at them not while they're bumbling about making their introductions without any real context. You set the tone for your session in the first 15 minutes of the game. If you start slow, your whole game will generally be slow throughout. Start with compelling, exciting action and the rest of your game will generally be livelier with more engaged players. "Action," by the way, doesn't always mean "combat." It just means conflict of some kind, tension and a dramatic question that can be resolved through making decisions and using game mechanics.

I try and avoid making it as cliche a "mysterious man apporachs you," though I do rather like your suggestion of them all meeting up in the begining of the campaign, the problem I see with that though is a lot of player want the question "how many missions have you been on together" to be asked at the beggining of a campaign, and if they say more than one I can't really use that, at least not in my setting. I don't want to limit their backstories by just not asking the question. As for starting in media res, I do that kind of, but I also want to give players the choice of what the want to do. I don't want to stick them directly into combat, I want to stick them in a bar that has the potential to explode into a 16 person free for all at anytime. I like my adventures to be slower paced, with an underlying tone of urgency. ex. My players have just broken up a smuggling ring that was being blamed on the local merchant, they're all celebrating when a man approachs them with the same problem in a nearby city, an assasination happens on live tv (pict-feed) on the nearby orbital platform, and two bargoers start attacking each other. I know the bar thing is very cliche, but I still recommend it for first time GM's who just flat out don't know how to start. On the other hand if you know what you want to do with the story, fly right on ahead.

I suppose for beginning GMs the tavern or pub is the way to start but I was just offering some twists on that for the experienced GMs looking to change things up. Starting players right in the thick of it is a nice trick too but can be intimidating for new players I think and, if used in the wrong way, can fall into railroading. I don't really like railroading my players.

If you're a beginning GM and you're reading this: It's no harder to start with a compelling action scene than it is to start with a no-action tavern scene. In fact, you may find that the action scene is easier to run because it has tighter context and a goal which makes it easier for players to make meaningful choices. Tavern scenes frequently do not have enough context and tension that spurs action and that can lead to disengagement and disruption by the players when they get bored. Start with action. You won't regret it. (Again, action doesn't have to mean combat.) Let's be clear on what "railroading" is: Control of a player-character's decisions, or opportunities for decisions, by another person (not the player of the character) in any way which breaks the Social Contract for that group, in the eyes of the character's player. So, pacing and scene-framing techniques such as skipping empty time (the time between meaningful decision points) and getting to the action is not railroading, as long as the players agree it is something they want to do. Railroading is about subverting intent . If the players agree, you're not subverting their intent and thus not railroading. In this hobby, "railroading" is thrown around way too much. It has almost lost all meaning, much like "roleplaying" and "metagaming." Railroading is just this one thing above. To avoid actual railroading, just get the players' buy-in on a given premise. In an ongoing game, this buy-in ideally takes the form of player-stated goals that arise from the emergent fiction. For the first session, however, you'll want to base the opening location and action on agreements made during Session Zero.

I agree completely, assuming you get a situation out of session 0 that your players will buy into. However, if you don't I wouldn't drop them straight into a mission, but rather put them in a situation where they have multiple missions each of them immediately relevant and pressing to chose which they feel is most important.

I also agree railroading is thrown around too much, but it is a problem that a lot of us can struggle with.

Nick B. said: I agree completely, assuming you get a situation out of session 0 that your players will buy into. However, if you don't I wouldn't drop them straight into a mission, but rather put them in a situation where they have multiple missions each of them immediately relevant and pressing to chose which they feel is most important. If a GM conducts a Session Zero and the group doesn't arrive at a starting premise that the players can buy into, then the Session Zero was a failure. (Or, on the bright side, you discovered the group isn't compatible before you wasted your time playing with them.) Mind you, the starting premise can be "You're all in a tavern and I'll throw plot hooks at you until you find one you like." But again, in my opinion, you're setting yourself up for slow-paced play that can often be boring and contentious, especially if debates arise between which course of action to take first. This is exacerbated by lack of context about the world or characters to make meaningful decisions and made worse if the players aren't familiar with the rules for improvisation and what blocking means. That's all stuff that should be hashed out prior to actual play otherwise you eat up valuable session time with debates between players instead of meaningful decisions and forward progress. Remember a frustrated Milhouse's great line from an episode of The Simpsons : "When are they going to get to the fireworks factory?!" He's right to voice such an objection! If you are not conducting a Session Zero, say because you're running a one-off, then you offer the details of the premise in the thread (or whatever venue you're using). Anyone signing up is then giving their buy-in. If they decide to go do something else, they are violating the agreements they have made. Nick B. said: I also agree railroading is thrown around to much, but it is a problem that a lot of us can struggle with. Frequently, people use the words "roleplaying," "metagaming," or "railroading" (among many, many others) without any regard to their actual definitions. Instead these words seemed to be used in the context of "that thing you're doing that I don't like, whatever it is."

Fair enough, I think we've put forward enough arguments for our preferred styles of play that people can decide which they prefer (probably yours if they aren't daunted by the prospect of creating action from the very beginning).

Also, on a hopefully less contentious note, I'm considering starting an event, likely beginning this summer, with the purpose of showcasing different styles of GMing. (I'm not planning on posting the thread for a while) The idea is that for each set of games I'll gather a group of around 5 people who usually act predominantly as GM's, starting with the forum's most prominent among us, and if there's space, a few volunteers. Out of that group of 5 each one will host one group of sessions in his chosen game, with the other 4 as players, in a rotation (I'm thinking 3 sessions plus one session 0 per set). Once everyone has seen everybody's play styles we might even vote on a few awards regarding the way people play, not just flat out best GM, but most serious GM, funniest GM, most aggressive GM, that type of thing.

Headhunter Jones said: Railroading is about subverting intent . If the players agree, you're not subverting their intent and thus not railroading. For example, if players are just starting out and, would under ordinary circumstances, barely have anything in their possession anyway, it's probably cool to compound that wretchedness a bit. To say, "You all start off with nothing as bench-mates and galley slaves on a ship that is currently on fire. The overseer, in a surprising act of mercy, decides to strike off your chains before jumping into a lifeboat and rowing away himself. The tropical waters are full of sharks. What do you do?" is probably fine as players really haven't lost very much and at least they have reasonable level of options and choice. But we can imagine starting circumstances where players are deprived of a reasonable level of choice and that seems worthy of the label "railroading" if you ask me. But never mind, I'm not inclined to get into hairsplitting over it. .Jones' point stands.

Would starting the group as castaways due to their ship being wrecked in a storm and leaving it up to them to scrounge up debris to use as a weapon, railroading?

Not if the players agreed to that premise. Buy-in (or lack thereof) is all that matters when determining whether or not something is railroading. It doesn't matter how linear your plot is or how it starts off or what conditions the PCs are in at inception... if they've agreed to it, then it's not railroading. If they didn't agree to it and you subvert their choices to favor your plot, then we're in railroading territory. A lot of people consider a plot a "railroad." That is not a correct use of the term. A plot is a plot; a railroad is when you subvert player agency in favor of that plot. If they give you their buy-in on the plot you have planned, then you are no longer railroading.

Headhunter Jones said: A lot of people consider a plot a "railroad." That is not a correct use of the term. A plot is a plot; a railroad is when you subvert player agency in favor of that plot. If they give you their buy-in on the plot you have planned, then you are no longer railroading. Glad to see someone else who "gets it" on this topic, I couldn't agree more. Reminds me of a quote I read on some blog, something like "Most players don't mind the railroad as long as they get to ride in the engine and blow the whistle."

It's amazing the clarity and perspective a GM can get if he looks into the actual definition of things and not just parrot how other people use the term with all the baggage that comes attached to it. GMing (and playing, really) are forms of oral tradition. We trust the ones we play with and learn from, generally speaking, and terms get bastardized according to how that group views it regardless of the actual meaning of the word. Then they go online and spread that particular slant on the term. It's unfortunate and in my view totally inexcusable given it takes very little effort to look this stuff up on the internet. I'm looking to you, People Who Don't Know What "Roleplaying" Is! (And a slight nit to pick with your quote, Brett: It's not a railroad if they agree to ride the train. It's just a train ride, nothing more.)

I think in the quote Brett used the term "railroading" was meant more so as an emphasis on the side of plots that are linear and thus follow a pre-defined route or track even. Which is merely a different definition of the term. While we can state that it is not the correct definition such an idea becomes conflicted as most languages (especially English) tend to create slang or colloquialisms frequently. As more and more of the populace use them they become a much broader term (i.e. gay, queer, guns, dough etc...). So it becomes hard to say that people use the terms or words incorrectly given that context can change so freely.

No, it doesn't become hard to say... if you know what the definitions for things are and use them accordingly. The quote, while amusing, is not an example of what railroading is which further obfuscates the concept and confuses the message. You can have the most linear plot in the whole universe but if your players buy into it, you're not railroading because it doesn't break your social contract. A lot of GMs use these words incorrectly and interchangeably ("plot" and "story" is another big one), then you get into the game and the play experience is just as disjointed, nonsensical, contentious, and boring. People who know what things actually mean and use those concepts to build and talk about their games are simply better GMs in my experience. They have a clearer view of things and they can achieve the goals of their creative agenda with less effort on the part of every person in the group. I, for one, don't like plot-based design - it's inherently more work for the GM and has a number of pitfalls that inexperienced GMs generally don't know how to avoid. But if I called a plot a railroad just like so many others do, I'd be dead wrong, even if I was using the word to express my bias against plot-based design. It is clearer to say "I don't like games designed with a predetermined plot" than "I don't like being railroaded." Yeah, no kidding, NOBODY likes to be railroaded. But some people do enjoy plot-based games.

PR - Language certainly is a living organism which is in a constant state of evolution, however, that is hardly an excuse for using incorrect definitions! Accuracy and structure are required for communication to succeed! HJ - It IS hard to say because words are themselves a social contract. We agree on the definitions of words as a society. If the majority of English speakers were to suddenly wake up tomorrow and declare that the word spelled B-O-O-K now means "A caffeinated beverage that is typically consumed in the morning," then you'll need to order a steaming cup of book tomorrow morning from Starbucks. Sorry for being a goof, I just love language and the whole idea behind it. Fascinating how well humans can collaborate on something so complex without being aware of it. :)

Headhunter Jones said: (And a slight nit to pick with your quote, Brett: It's not a railroad if they agree to ride the train. It's just a train ride, nothing more.) Well, to me, the metaphor is that by agreeing to climb into the train's engine car, the players have demonstrated their "buy in" to the plot. The railroad track is the plot, which they've agreed to follow. Being in the engine car and operating the controls symbolizes the freedom they still have to influence various details regarding how that plot unfolds. There will always be player actions which I cannot anticipate but which I am happy to integrate into the game.