PDA

View Full Version : Railroading: a misunderstood term



Pages : [1] 2

Jay R
2015-04-24, 07:25 AM
Everybody hates railroading. But we often mean very different things when we say it. For instance:

No Railroading: an entire world is defined. Go anywhere, do anything, and we’ll simulate the results.

Railroading, level 1: I’ve designed a continent. Please don’t try to plane shift or sail away.

Railroading, level 2: There’s a tyrant who is the big bad evil guy. He’s oppressing your people. Try anything you like, but he’s the real enemy.

Railroading, level 3: You've been hired to take out the BBEG. There’s a town here to interact with, and a forest with many paths you could take on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG

Railroading, level 4: There’s a town here to interact with, followed by a road north through five designed encounters on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG.

Railroading, level 5: You must equip yourselves, leave town, follow the road north to the castle, and defeat the BBEG. You cannot buy a sword without locating the blacksmith. You cannot leave town without paying the gate tax. You cannot get past the goblins except by combat. You cannot get past the gnolls without a sleep spell. You cannot find the castle without a compass. You cannot enter the castle gate without a Knock spell. You cannot go down the first corridor without pulling the red lever. You cannot open the door at the end of the corridor without standing on the right flagstone. You cannot …

You could easily invent many more levels.

But the point is that the game with no railroading doesn't really exist, and would most likely be dull. How would we find the adventurous parts?

The original objections IO heard about railroading were objection to level 5 - traps with only one escape, puzzles with only one solution.

The best games I've been in have all been pretty far up the railroading scale - levels 3 or 4 out of 5, as defined above.

So we should probably be careful when describing something as "railroading". Very often we are objecting to the actual adventure.

NichG
2015-04-24, 07:56 AM
IMO, the best type of railroading is the behind-the-scenes, dynamically responsive sort. Its sort of like recognizing that this player is the type to randomly planeshift away, designing an optional extraplanar adventure with the expectation that he will do so, and which ties in to the main plot in a way that naturally leads him back to the continent because of his own desires - all without him noticing anything forced.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-24, 08:01 AM
This scale seems oddly calibrated to me. There isn't a great deal of distinction between levels 2-4 and then a huge jump to 5 in terms of restrictiveness.

In any case my games usually start on the more restrictive end of the "2-4" range, and once the ball has gotten rolling relaxes to lower end of that scale. The first few sessions will be written with a lot of assumptions and narrow plot hooks to introduce key elements and get thrust of the campaign in the right direction. Then I usually imagine a couple branching paths to the next big twist (I usually don't have idea what that twist is), and then start running things entirely off the cuff.

Once you've got a good 2-3 months of play in I find that the world, characters and the stakes are all well defined enough there isn't really a need for a ton of planning. If I've done things right the characters are already invested in the premise I set up and are going to follow it along a reasonable path organically rather than going off to conquer the elemental plane of Combos Pretzel Snacks or something.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-24, 08:02 AM
I look at railroading as forcing a goal on the PC's. It's not a nice thing to do, but sometimes it's necessary when they don't have any particular goals on their own, acting like idle teenagers who only want to drink, wench, and murderhobo.

Fiction is full of railroading:

The unskilled little hobbit Frodo and his mentally-challenged gardener had to carry the One Ring to Rivendell, because Gandalf, the immortal superpowerful wizard specifically put on the world to defeat evil, had to go camping.

Luke, a poor dirt farmer, had to become a Jedi Master in order to bring down an Empire. When he waffled, the GM Stormtroopered his aunt and uncle (motivation!)

The most extreme example I can think of is the movie Escape from New York. The government injects explosives into Snake Plissken's neck and will only neutralize them if he rescues the President. Somebody should've slapped the GM in that game.

Anonymouswizard
2015-04-24, 08:08 AM
In my mind level 2 is the ideal, being structured without limiting, and generally where the best games I've played in have been that level (although one almost dropped to level 0 when the party nearly decided to visit Las Vegas instead of Rome, but we decided that LV was probably a successful demon trap).

DigoDragon
2015-04-24, 08:09 AM
IMO, the best type of railroading is the behind-the-scenes, dynamically responsive sort. Its sort of like recognizing that this player is the type to randomly planeshift away, designing an optional extraplanar adventure with the expectation that he will do so, and which ties in to the main plot in a way that naturally leads him back to the continent because of his own desires - all without him noticing anything forced.

Yes, I agree with this. When you GM for a group of people for a while, you can pick up on their habits and motivations. Then you tailor the campaign to play on those desires so they move in a general direction that makes the story advance. In one game I'm a part of, the GM knows that my character likes to hang out with this one NPC. So he'll have the NPC show up on occasion where he'd like my character to be in order to advance the plot. I have the choice of going there or not, but more often I'd chose to go because the NPC is there. It works out.

Comet
2015-04-24, 08:10 AM
I'm around level 1 when I'm running D&D. The game is defined by challenges (Dungeons and, well, Dragons) so letting the players choose their own motivation and how much they want to be challenged seems fair. Also, there's no need for me to guide the players anywhere besides pointing out where treasure and XP can be obtained. The story creates itself.

Other games can be very different. But you're definitely right, sitting down at the table with no idea what you're going to be doing is pretty silly.

Kane0
2015-04-24, 08:38 AM
I really only use the word to describe the act of forcing players to act in a way that removes their agency (by means not given in game such as a geas or curse, although doing so for no reason can itself be an act of railroading). This can range from an assumption on the DMs part to enforcing a plot event in a manner similar to a cutscene, but not cases where reasonable consequences are given as a result of a stupid or unforseen action nor decisions that branch then return to the plot in a way that makes sense.

That said, every game needs a little bit of railroading now and then. Especially at the beginning, getting a group of adventurers together and working towards the one (or more) thing can he hard without a little intervention. I like to rely on it only as a last resort to keep the flow of the game going and avoid incidents at the table.

To me, what you are describing is more of a scale between 'linear' and 'sandbox' playstyles.

lytokk
2015-04-24, 08:40 AM
I prefer to think of my method of less railroading and more interstating. The road is there, and it can lead you to your destination, the main goal of the campaign. Every once in a while there's construction (I failed to make plans due to something else) and there's a detour thats going to take you off the interstate for a little while before you can get back on. Sometimes you see an attraction up the road that you want to stop off at (sidequests) but you could ignore it if you want. Occasionally you have to stop to refuel or stretch your legs (plot point). You could also decide to take an alternate route by hopping on a smaller highway or even a bypass (either by bad or excellent planning respectively) but the end destination is what you're always going to end up moving towards.

Also, you could always plan on leaving the road and 4-wheel through the countryside, but its going to be rocky and could easily disable your vehicle.

Eisenheim
2015-04-24, 08:55 AM
The first couple of levels don't sound like railroading at all, as long as you're upfront about them. That's really just agreeing with your players beforehand about what the game you're playing is about, which you should always do.

Bad railroading, which is generally how I make use of the term, means that some choices lead to success and the next step in the adventure and some lead to brick walls. As long as nothing leads to a simple shutdown of player agency, there's nothing wrong with all roads leading to the villain you actually statted out.

Nerd-o-rama
2015-04-24, 09:10 AM
I think the important distinction, to me, is the fact that your fifth level is phrased as "you cannot X without Y", which can be good for one in-universe puzzle in an entire adventure, but should otherwise not be a phrase that exists in tabletop RPG. That's just pointlessly stifling and will result in nothing but pissed-off players, especially if you don't tell them. On your scale, I think I usually end up somewhere between 2 and 4 depending on how prepared I am.

The one thing I do that I worry about is saying "your characters do this" - what's called godmoding in other forms of RP - in order to set up an adventure. I know that's a kludge way to do things, but sometimes, I want to just jump into a session or scenario in media res without worrying about persuading people to do the thing. On the other hand, my face to face players, at least, don't really mind as long as I do it maybe once every couple of sessions, and they're pretty good at following plothooks (because I only give them one or two at a time, hence my 2-4 range).

1337 b4k4
2015-04-24, 09:28 AM
IMO, the best type of railroading is the behind-the-scenes, dynamically responsive sort. Its sort of like recognizing that this player is the type to randomly planeshift away, designing an optional extraplanar adventure with the expectation that he will do so, and which ties in to the main plot in a way that naturally leads him back to the continent because of his own desires - all without him noticing anything forced.

The trick with this is making sure you don't "Quantum Ogre" your players. What I mean by this is you don't want to make it a "3 paths through the forest, no matter what path they take, there are bandits" type scenario. That is just illusion of choice and invalidating your players agency. Nothing wrong with giving paths back to "the plot" where you players go, but making every path return the plot regardless of actions is just a sneaky railroad.

obryn
2015-04-24, 09:40 AM
Uhm.... most of those aren't 'railroading' at all.

The term 'Railroading' has been vastly overused in recent years. Historically, it's most similar to what you call 'level 5' where the DM has a pre-determined solution to all problems and won't accept other solutions. But even more than that, it's punishing players for violating that carefully laid plot.

Simply preparing your game ahead of time or agreeing with your players on the theme of a game isn't railroading of any sort.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-24, 09:43 AM
The trick with this is making sure you don't "Quantum Ogre" your players. What I mean by this is you don't want to make it a "3 paths through the forest, no matter what path they take, there are bandits" type scenario. That is just illusion of choice and invalidating your players agency. Nothing wrong with giving paths back to "the plot" where you players go, but making every path return the plot regardless of actions is just a sneaky railroad.

To play devil's advocate here: Does it matter?

To take your bandits example:

There are 6 paths in the forest. The players have made some rolls an determined there is bandit activity in the area and they're moving around a lot. There is probably a 50/50 chance that the bandits are on any one path but the tracks don't really indicate which they're mostly likely on now.

Let's assume EDIT: 5 ways of proceeding ahead.

A) You choose which paths the bandits are on:

Path 1: Bandits
Path 2: Bandits
Path 3: No Bandits
Path 4: No Bandits
Path 5: Bandits
Path 6: No Bandits

An encounter with the bandits happens they go down one of the bandit paths.

B) The players choose a path, and then you roll a d6. If it matches the number of the path they chose, bandits!
C) The players choose a path, you roll a % die with a 50/50 chance of a bandit encounter.
D) The players get attack by bandits no matter what.
E) The players don't get attacked by bandits no matter.

Is there any meaningful difference between any of these when examined strictly from the perspective of the players, who cannot see or be aware of the back-end workings?

obryn
2015-04-24, 09:47 AM
The trick with this is making sure you don't "Quantum Ogre" your players. What I mean by this is you don't want to make it a "3 paths through the forest, no matter what path they take, there are bandits" type scenario. That is just illusion of choice and invalidating your players agency. Nothing wrong with giving paths back to "the plot" where you players go, but making every path return the plot regardless of actions is just a sneaky railroad.
I'll posit that - all things being equal - unless you've laid down rumors ahead of time, or clues as to which paths are safe, it's not really all that relevant if you use a random ogre or bandit encounter regardless of path. A drag-n-drop plot-irrelevant fight is little different from all three paths sharing the same random encounter table.

With that said, yep, the players' choices must have meaning, and hopefully you - as the DM - have given them something to base their choice on.

1337 b4k4
2015-04-24, 09:48 AM
To play devil's advocate here: Does it matter?

To take your bandits example:

There are 6 paths in the forest. The players have made some rolls an determined there is bandit activity in the area and they're moving around a lot. There is probably a 50/50 chance that the bandits are on any one path but the tracks don't really indicate which they're mostly likely on now.

Let's assume 4 ways of proceeding ahead.

A) You choose which paths the bandits are on:

Path 1: Bandits
Path 2: Bandits
Path 3: No Bandits
Path 4: No Bandits
Path 5: Bandits
Path 6: No Bandits

An encounter with the bandits happens they go down one of the bandit paths.

B) The players choose a path, and then you roll a d6. On a 1,2 or 5 bandits. On a 3,4, or 6 no bandits.
C) The players get attack by bandits no matter what choice they make.
D) The players don't get attacked by bandits no matter what choice they make.

Is there any meaningful difference between any of these approaches from a player perspective?

There's not. That doesn't make it a good thing. If the choices you present your players don't matter, don't present them with choices. But beyond that, if your players don't have and can not obtain information sufficient to make a meaningful choice when presented with a choice, don't present them with that choice either. That is to say, unless there is some way for your players to gain more information in scenario 1, it's just as much of a false choice as the remaining options. Now if your players choose not to do any further investigation, that's a choice they make (and has a meaningful consequence, that being putting the encounter chances at 50/50 rather than stacking the deck in their favor).


I'll posit that - all things being equal - unless you've laid down rumors ahead of time, or clues as to which paths are safe, it's not really all that relevant if you use a random ogre or bandit encounter regardless of path. A drag-n-drop plot-irrelevant fight is little different from all three paths sharing the same random encounter table.

With that said, yep, the players' choices must have meaning, and hopefully you - as the DM - have given them something to base their choice on.

Sure, that's kind of my point though. If the choice of path doesn't matter, then presenting that choice at all is pointless. It gives the illusion of choice without actually giving the players a choice. Since it doesn't matter what path the player take through the forest, then you shouldn't be wasting game time having the players make that choice.

obryn
2015-04-24, 09:53 AM
There's not. That doesn't make it a good thing. If the choices you present your players don't matter, don't present them with choices. But beyond that, if your players don't have and can not obtain information sufficient to make a meaningful choice when presented with a choice, don't present them with that choice either. That is to say, unless there is some way for your players to gain more information in scenario 1, it's just as much of a false choice as the remaining options. Now if your players choose not to do any further investigation, that's a choice they make (and has a meaningful consequence, that being putting the encounter chances at 50/50 rather than stacking the deck in their favor).
OK, I think we're in basic agreement - don't present your players with meaningless choices. It's ridiculous to just say, "Here's 3 paths, you can know nothing about them, pick 1." Because then it's not a quantum ogre - it's a whole quantum forest.

On the other hand, if the players have done their research and learned that the left-hand path is 100% guaranteed ogre-free with maybe a bit of a kobold problem, it'd be dirty pool to just throw a meaningless ogre fight at them instead of a kobold encounter. (...unless there's an interesting story as to why the misplaced ogre is there...)

Mr.Moron
2015-04-24, 09:54 AM
There's not. That doesn't make it a good thing. If the choices you present your players don't matter, don't present them with choices. But beyond that, if your players don't have and can not obtain information sufficient to make a meaningful choice when presented with a choice, don't present them with that choice either. That is to say, unless there is some way for your players to gain more information in scenario 1, it's just as much of a false choice as the remaining options. Now if your players choose not to do any further investigation, that's a choice they make (and has a meaningful consequence, that being putting the encounter chances at 50/50 rather than stacking the deck in their favor).

Let's change this up. Let's assume they are capable of and do get more information from the situation. They are able to learn:

Path 1: 50% Chance of few Bandits. 30% Chance of Many Bandits. 20% Chance No Bandits.
Path 2: 90% Chance of few Bandits 10% Chance of Many Bandits. 0% Chance no Bandits.
Path 3: 0% Chance of few Bandits, 50% Chance of Many Bandits. 50% chance of no bandits.

Assume the method for determining the actual encounter is not public, and the GM has a decent poker face.

Is there a meaningful difference in terms of player experience between making the determination honestly, and simply having a "Many Bandits" encounter no matter what?

There IS clearly a difference between giving the information and opportunity for choice, and simply saying "There are many bandits" and never taking any input.

EDIT:
Put another way: If the "Illusion of Choice" is indiscernible from real choice, is there any real difference between the illusion of choice and actually having choice for the individual(s) making it?

(though, this is why I always roll everything publicly and generally announce DCs as and often success/failure outcomes before rolls are made. it brings the "Real"ness of the choice into sharp focus.)

BRC
2015-04-24, 10:18 AM
Let's change this up. Let's assume they are capable of and do get more information from the situation. They are able to learn:

Path 1: 50% Chance of few Bandits. 30% Chance of Many Bandits. 20% Chance No Bandits.
Path 2: 90% Chance of few Bandits 10% Chance of Many Bandits. 0% Chance no Bandits.
Path 3: 0% Chance of few Bandits, 50% Chance of Many Bandits. 50% chance of no bandits.

Assume the method for determining the actual encounter is not public. and the GM has a decent poker face.

Is there a meaningful difference in terms of player experience between making the determination honestly, and simply having a "Many Bandits" encounter no matter what?

There IS clearly a difference between giving the information choice, and having an outcome choice and simply saying "You get attacked by bandits.".

EDIT:
Put another way: If the "Illusion of Choice" is indiscernible from real choice, is there any real difference between the illusion of choice and actually having choice for the individual(s) making it?

Well, the end result is Player Enjoyment, so the Illusion of Choice is still good. It dosn't matter if the Bandits are quantum or not, if the PC's THINK they chose the Bandits, it's okay.
The problem with the Quantum Bandits scenario is when the players THINK they chose one thing, only to later find out that they had no real choice.
"You could take the old road, which is full of bandits, or the longer route which is regularly patrolled by the army, and is much safer"
"We take the longer route!"
"You encounter Bandits!"
"No Fair! We specifically took the longer route to AVOID bandits! Why give us the choice if we were going to fight Bandits regardless!"


Personally, I think the key is to first decide what you want to do (Give the PCs an encounter on the road), then let the Players have some influence over the nature of said encounter.

"There are three roads, one goes through the Southern Woods, where Bandits are active. The Shore road is normally safe, but Orcish Pirates have been coming in from the sea recently and attacking travelers. You could also take the north road through the Woods up past the old logging camp. That should be be clear of Bandits, they've stayed away from the Camp ever since something wiped out all the lumberjacks a few months back."

So, Regardless they're going to get an encounter, they just need to choose if they want to fight Bandits, Pirates, or an insane Druid who killed all the lumberjacks.

From the DM's perspective, the Players are going to have an encounter on the road. From the Player's perspective, they're choosing who they get to fight. Even if they don't get exactly the encounter they think they're signing up for, if their choice had some impact, they still feel like they have agency. The Shore road could mean giant crabs instead of Pirates. The Woods could mean Wolves instead of Bandits, and the old Mill could mean Lumberjack Zombies instead of an insane druid.

Yora
2015-04-24, 10:29 AM
Railroading is when the GM invalidates the players decisions. When the players decide they want to leave a place, and suddenly all doors are magically sealed. Or the players decide not to take an NPCs offer to help, but suddenly their boss orders them to do so. When they decide to execute the unconscious villain and his minion appears to teleport him to safety just before the blade hits.
Railroading is when the players have a choice and the GM makes the choice for them. When there never was a choice, that's just weak adventure design.

1337 b4k4
2015-04-24, 10:33 AM
Let's change this up. Let's assume they are capable of and do get more information from the situation. They are able to learn:

Path 1: 50% Chance of few Bandits. 30% Chance of Many Bandits. 20% Chance No Bandits.
Path 2: 90% Chance of few Bandits 10% Chance of Many Bandits. 0% Chance no Bandits.
Path 3: 0% Chance of few Bandits, 50% Chance of Many Bandits. 50% chance of no bandits.

Assume the method for determining the actual encounter is not public, and the GM has a decent poker face.

Is there a meaningful difference in terms of player experience between making the determination honestly, and simply having a "Many Bandits" encounter no matter what?

There IS clearly a difference between giving the information and opportunity for choice, and simply saying "There are many bandits" and never taking any input.

EDIT:
Put another way: If the "Illusion of Choice" is indiscernible from real choice, is there any real difference between the illusion of choice and actually having choice for the individual(s) making it?

(though, this is why I always roll everything publicly and generally announce DCs as and often success/failure outcomes before rolls are made. it brings the "Real"ness of the choice into sharp focus.)

To answer your question, the answer is "yes" and "no". For the individual encounter in question, the answer is "no" there is no meaningful difference for the players since the method for determination is unknown and each path has a chance, so a "Many Bandits" encounter is valid. However, if you engage in a pattern of this behavior, it is likely your players will catch on, at which point all future and past encounters become tainted. Like most things that you can "get away with" as a DM, it's ultimately about fostering trust in you from your players. I constantly say that players should not play with a DM that they can't trust, and a DM who offers false choices and then proceeds with their own plans (whether that's a quantum encounter or fixing the results and eliminating the given random chances) is a DM the players can't trust. So "yes" there's a meaningful difference over the long term and it's meaningful in that your players can't trust you to be honest and fair with them. Whether they know that now or not, you've violated the trust that a DM requests of their players to run the world in a fair and impartial manner.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-24, 10:37 AM
Railroading is when the GM invalidates the players decisions. When the players decide they want to leave a place, and suddenly all doors are magically sealed. Or the players decide not to take an NPCs offer to help, but suddenly their boss orders them to do so. When they decide to execute the unconscious villain and his minion appears to teleport him to safety just before the blade hits.
Railroading is when the players have a choice and the GM makes the choice for them. When there never was a choice, that's just weak adventure design.

Well said.

Camman1984
2015-04-24, 10:41 AM
I think the first few levels are just "providing the players with something to do" i have had dm's plonk us in a tavern and just say, what do you do? while hugely open and sandboxy, it usually ends with us aimlessly wasting a session until the DM crowbars in his plot which he had hoped we we accidently stumble on to.

The worst level 5 kind was a particular dm i had for a while. His games were stories in his head rather than adventures and if you deviated even slightly he would get arsey about it. His favourite thing to do was add things to the world which arbitrarily prevented us doing anything other than following his plan.

This is an example that sticks in the mind

We approached a delapidated castle where we knew a BBEG was hiding. The castle had a big heavy metal door (probably made of the same adamantium that turned to worthless lead when removed from its hinges that our DM liked)

I, being a wizard cast detact magic and was told the only magic aura was a strong necromantic one around the handle and locking mechanism, makes sense, he was a liche after all. We asked a few questions about the castle and our monk decided it was an easy climb to the first floor window to avoid nasty traps. As soon as he started to climb the previously unmagical walls became "unnatural smooth and glistened with oil" so the monk fell and took damage and was now too frightened (godmodded) to try again. As a high level circle wizard of thay this previously unknown magic intriuged me so i tried to contact my circle. No answer, anti-magic field. We walked back to the village we had camped in, still no answer (this antimagic field was crazy). Our bard decided he would find a street urchin and charm (mundane) him, seems simple enough at our level, and the only request is "come with us, do us a favour and be rewarded". The urchin was not at all convinced and even said "i'm not going near that castle!" we never mentioned a castle.

This went back and forth until one of our players eventually gave in and touched the handle (he failed to disarm the trap obviously). Low and behold one of our players was killed instanltly and risen as a deathknight serving the liche. At this point we packed up and went home.

NichG
2015-04-24, 10:45 AM
The trick with this is making sure you don't "Quantum Ogre" your players. What I mean by this is you don't want to make it a "3 paths through the forest, no matter what path they take, there are bandits" type scenario. That is just illusion of choice and invalidating your players agency. Nothing wrong with giving paths back to "the plot" where you players go, but making every path return the plot regardless of actions is just a sneaky railroad.

A sneaky railroad is fine, as is the illusion of choice. What you must not do is to ever dispel that illusion or give enough information that the illusion can be figured out. That's the bigger issue with the three paths in the forest scenario - it's a pretty bad illusion. Its pretty obvious that 'left, right, or center' with no other information isn't really a choice, just a proxy for rolling a 1d3 and making the person who ended up choosing feel responsible for the outcome. Even if the DM honestly had three separate outcomes listed on three cards hidden behind the screen a year in advance, that doesn't make it any more of a real choice.

Furthermore, something like 'here are the options you have, pick one' is already too up-front - its saying to the players' faces 'no, you cannot decide to bushwhack your way through the forest, or turn back, or hire a zeppelin'. So what happens is that DMs who think they're being clever and hiding the railroad here get completely flummoxed when the players fly over the forest and ignore the obvious trick. It's the feeling of being thwarted - both for the DM and for the players - that creates all the ill will surrounding the idea of railroading: 'I want to do this and there's no good reason I shouldn't be able to but I am not being permitted to'.

Better would be to pick your constants more carefully. So, lets say you stat out a particular encounter for today - that's a big chunk of time and it took a lot of preparation. Then the players fly over the forest. They don't fight that encounter today - the flight goes without a hitch and they get to their destination and rightfully bask in the feeling of avoiding senseless danger. But the next time they go into a dungeon, the reskinned version of that fight is at the top of the queue and you don't have to prep another encounter for that week. The constant is 'I am not going to spend a lot of prep time on something that doesn't get used', not 'the PCs must fight this encounter in this forest in exactly this way'. It's still a quantum ogre, but it doesn't have the same problems of the DM shutting down 'given three options, pick the fourth path' type ideas.

Similarly, this is why the right way to stat out a fight is in the abstract first, then add detail. So the fight isn't 'kobolds in the caves', its 'trap-users in an asymmetric mobility environment'. That could be kobolds in caves, giant spiders in webs, thieves in a hideout filled with secret doors, burrowers in a sandy canyon, etc.

Yora
2015-04-24, 10:46 AM
Put another way: If the "Illusion of Choice" is indiscernible from real choice, is there any real difference between the illusion of choice and actually having choice for the individual(s) making it?

The illusion of choice is indistinguishable from an actual choice, but in practice that only applies to a singular choice. But the players are observing and interacting with the GM and over time they will get a feeling for the correlation of their choices, the GMs reactions, and the outcome of their choices.
Which is why I strongly advocate having the players have their lucky dice rolls and lucky blind guesses, even when it's inopportune to you. If you realize the players outsmarted or outgambled you, accept that you've been bested and let the players have their reward, even if it was pure dumb luck against all odds.
If the outcome is really problematic for the game, then lessen the impact without negating the result. If the villain absolutely can not die in this scene, then don't let him escape unharmed. Let him barely get away severely crippled for the rest of the campaign. You still have your big boss fight at the end, but it will be much easier. Or if a player tries a suicidal jump to catch a fleeing assassin and fails, don't let him succeed anyway. Let him fall into the chasm with only 1 hit point left and the assassin getting away. It's still total failure, but the character doesn not need to be dead.

CursedRhubarb
2015-04-24, 10:53 AM
I would think that you would wantto adjust the level of railroading as you play and depending on the scenario. While out and about and not on any specific quest more freedom of choice is likely better, when starting a quest tighen things up a bit as a reminder of "hey remember that thing you're supposed to be doing?" Then different types of "dungeons" I would give different levels of railroading strictness. Caves and caverns and the like would be a lot more open to explore and freely solve. Something like raiding the evil city would have a few more rules and then the evil lair or castle would be the most strict. Like trying to solve Dracula's castle in Castlevania. You have freedom to explore but specific things will be required to go certain ways.

1337 b4k4
2015-04-24, 11:41 AM
A sneaky railroad is fine, as is the illusion of choice. What you must not do is to ever dispel that illusion or give enough information that the illusion can be figured out.

I have to disagree. It's not fine. As a DM you need your players to be able to trust you and lying to them about things that you shouldn't be lying to them about is abusing that trust and does nothing but breed resentment. Don't lie to your players, if you're giving them a choice, then give them a real choice with real consequences that really matter and give them the information they need to weigh the options for the choice.



Better would be to pick your constants more carefully. So, lets say you stat out a particular encounter for today - that's a big chunk of time and it took a lot of preparation. Then the players fly over the forest. They don't fight that encounter today - the flight goes without a hitch and they get to their destination and rightfully bask in the feeling of avoiding senseless danger. But the next time they go into a dungeon, the reskinned version of that fight is at the top of the queue and you don't have to prep another encounter for that week. The constant is 'I am not going to spend a lot of prep time on something that doesn't get used', not 'the PCs must fight this encounter in this forest in exactly this way'. It's still a quantum ogre, but it doesn't have the same problems of the DM shutting down 'given three options, pick the fourth path' type ideas.

Similarly, this is why the right way to stat out a fight is in the abstract first, then add detail. So the fight isn't 'kobolds in the caves', its 'trap-users in an asymmetric mobility environment'. That could be kobolds in caves, giant spiders in webs, thieves in a hideout filled with secret doors, burrowers in a sandy canyon, etc.

The problem as you point out is that the DM in question has invested far too much time into creating specific encounters (and then getting attached to those encounters) rather than running the world. I agree with your last paragraph that DMs should in general map out the abstract and let the details come as they may, but I disagree with moving things from point A to point B because your players bypassed them and thus negated some of your work. Leave the things you put at point A at point A, and do something else (that makes sense) for point B. Anything less is putting your own vanity and pride as a DM ahead of running a fair and neutral world for your players.

Now at the same time, in order to facilitate this for players, they can not expect of you as the DM to always have everything mapped out 100% ahead of time. They have to absolutely be OK with giving you 5-10 minutes to work up something when the players go somewhere that you didn't expect or plan for yet. Players who gripe at your reactions to out of the box actions being less invigorating than your planned encounters, or at the time spent at the table stating up new things, should be reminded that you aren't clairvoyant and if they want the absolute best your hours of prep work can provide, then they need to agree to stay in the box and engage the prepared material.

And none of this is to say that you can't have prepared monsters and encounters already drawn up and ready to slot into an appropriate spot. Having quick access resources is perfectly fine. What isn't fine is having done prep work and placed certain encounters in certain places, and then moving them to force your players into those encounters when your players make the choice to avoid them.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-24, 11:53 AM
Leave the things you put at point A at point A, and do something else (that makes sense) for point B. Anything less is putting your own vanity and pride as a DM ahead of running a fair and neutral world for your players.


What are you talking about? Unless the players know about the existence of an encounter and specifically take steps to avoid it, how would they ever know that you moved your Ogre Fortress from the Dismal Swamp to the Wailing Road?

It's not pride and vanity to move an encounter where it will actually, you know, get encountered. It's good time management. The amount of work it takes to build an entire sandbox of a world is incredible. It only makes sense to use what you've got on hand.

Camman1984
2015-04-24, 11:57 AM
Or you could do what i did an lazily moved an underground encounter to above ground when the party decided not to take a tunnel. My vampire was NOT happy when players reminded him of his issues with sunlight.

I usually have a few 'emergency encounters' of an appropriate level but different environments to throw at the party just in case. I used to have a player who was an alternative DM and a few times i got him to DM an emergency encounter, for example, after the party accidently teleported themselves to the wrong part world and the wizard didnt have any more teleport scrolls. He was good enough to play his own character whilst playing the monsters to the best of their ability.

Yora
2015-04-24, 11:59 AM
I actually wrote an article on just this last week. Which I am posting here (http://spriggans-den.com/?p=1482) for vanity.

Cluedrew
2015-04-24, 12:11 PM
A sneaky railroad is fine, as is the illusion of choice.

Nope, nope, nope. OK maybe, but not how that came across to me, if I'm not reading you correctly I apologize.

Concerning the sneaky railroad, I agree with the definition of railroading some people have presented in this thread which is that railroading is forcing certain choices on people. Especially in a table-top role-playing game, choices are being implicitly being offered all the time. If you say there is a zeppelin port you are implicitly offering the party the opportunity to use zeppelins. Then when you take that choice away when they try to make it, you are railroading. I could go on but that is enough to differentiate it from what people where taking about with "sneaky railroading", the act of making a certain path more appealing to traverse.

Concerning the illusion of choice, there should be no illusion between members of the role-playing group. That is not to say that all information has to be shared, but there is a critical difference between not knowing and being deceived. Unfortunately the difference is hard to define, even in the limited context of role-playing, but I would say it is fine to hide information, but never hide that you're hiding it. On a similar note, re-using encounters is fine, but not to get the encounter used, wait for a time where you need an encounter similar to that one the party missed. Or even one the party already encountered, is it so odd that there are two groups of bandits in the world?

Related to railroading in general: I remember a campaign where the party was tasked with stopping an end-of-the-world scenario. One of the players decided instead of heading south to the library to get information as the king had suggested we would head north to a town some indeterminate distance away to sell a jewelled sword he had. Ignoring the fact we had just left a good sized city. The DM, in a move I didn't give him enough credit for at the time, threw out the campaign and the campaign setting which was of his own design and I know he put hours into. Threw it out, plane shifted the party to a new one and ran a new campaign for the rest of the summer. No one complained because we as a party were just not enjoying the campaign. That was a gutsy move and it worked, more or less.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-04-24, 12:23 PM
RE: illusionism, I am totally not okay with it. If you're going to railroad your players, do it honestly and to their face, not sneakily and behind their backs. I feel like if you have to disguise your at-the-table behavior as something else, that should be a red flag that you're doing something wrong.

RE: railroading, I feel like it's not really a spectrum thing--the term traditionally refers to when heavy GM guidance puts the players into an RPG theme park, except that they don't have a lot of latitude when it comes to the order of visiting attractions (or whether to go to an attraction at all).

On the other hand, I tend to find myself surprised by game events as well, even when I run games. I revel in that. I don't feel the need to control the narrative of the RPG, because I'm not the author of the story; the players are.

LadyFoxfire
2015-04-24, 12:29 PM
In the game my dad's running for me and my sister, we accidentally skipped a huge plot point because of a lucky die roll. We had been looking for a fabled treasure hoard inside a volcano, and had made a deal with the witch who ruled the area for safe passage and salvage rights in exchange for 15% of whatever treasure we found. Unbeknownst to us, the witch's daughters were planning on ambushing us as we left the volcano to steal the treasure from us. We would have to fight and probably kill them, earning us the enmity of the witch.

Well, we found the treasure, rolled up the magic items, and got a scroll of teleport. No point in walking out, braving the lava flows, bugbears, cave slugs, and fairies again when we can just pop back to town, is there? So we teleported back to the city we started out in, on the edge of the witch's domain, put most of the treasure in a bank, and took the witch her cut. Dad was kind of bummed, but we dodged them fair and square, so he let us have our victory.

NichG
2015-04-24, 12:48 PM
I have to disagree. It's not fine. As a DM you need your players to be able to trust you and lying to them about things that you shouldn't be lying to them about is abusing that trust and does nothing but breed resentment. Don't lie to your players, if you're giving them a choice, then give them a real choice with real consequences that really matter and give them the information they need to weigh the options for the choice.

There are the choices which you give the players even if the choices don't matter, and then there are the real choices. Both are important. The former are necessary for the player to be able to express their character, and the latter should generally be high-tension points with a lot of build up. The choices that don't matter are important because it means that there's no consequences for choosing the way you think best expresses your character - the color you pick for your armor won't determine if you live or die, and so you're free to pick the color that fits your mental image rather than the objectively 'best' color.

And of course everything is fluid - a fun thing to do is to take an irrelevant choice and ascend it to something relevant over the course of the campaign. Doing so often benefits from a lie. Yeah, the DM and player both know that really the fact that the PC chose to have red armor wasn't originally going to be a plot point, but the DM can notice that the player keeps making a big deal about their red armor and is really into it and can nudge the world a little bit and make it so that a particular orders of knights has similar armor, and suddenly that irrelevant choice becomes a cool important detail later on. But of course, if the player had chosen to have blue armor and kept going on about it, maybe the knights would have had blue armor instead.

The DM didn't steal the player's agency there by cheating at their game of invisible go-fish, they worked with the player to elevate something that the player was interested in but which otherwise would have remained irrelevant. The reality is that almost everything that someone decides at the start of a campaign is going to be irrelevant, because the DM doesn't have the ability to give a fantasy world the same level of detail that the real world has (not to mention, most things like the color of your clothing you wore on the third Tuesday of May 10 years ago really are going to be just irrelevant choices in the long run). So that kind of 'lie' can be very useful to keep the density of relevancy high during game.

There are all sorts of lies like that one which make the game run smoother and better for all involved. Its similar to the 'lies' that a magician tells the audience when performing a magic trick, or the 'lies' that an artist tells when they use optical illusions to suggest 3d structure in patterns on a 2d surface. The key point is that they shouldn't be lies of malice or lies to try to lord things over the players.


The problem as you point out is that the DM in question has invested far too much time into creating specific encounters (and then getting attached to those encounters) rather than running the world. I agree with your last paragraph that DMs should in general map out the abstract and let the details come as they may, but I disagree with moving things from point A to point B because your players bypassed them and thus negated some of your work. Leave the things you put at point A at point A, and do something else (that makes sense) for point B. Anything less is putting your own vanity and pride as a DM ahead of running a fair and neutral world for your players.

Arguably, refusing to use polished content that the players never saw because it would somehow be cheating is also a form of the DM putting their own vanity and pride ahead of running a rich and well-crafted world. If the content has never come up and has never been hinted at, then from the players' point of view it never existed. So tracking it as if it had is just the DM playing a sort of metagame solitaire with themselves at the cost of the actual game.



And none of this is to say that you can't have prepared monsters and encounters already drawn up and ready to slot into an appropriate spot. Having quick access resources is perfectly fine. What isn't fine is having done prep work and placed certain encounters in certain places, and then moving them to force your players into those encounters when your players make the choice to avoid them.

The point is that 'placing certain encounters in certain places' is an invisible act to the players. The only difference between doing that and just doing everything on the fly lives in the DM's mind alone. If you just chose not to write the last sentence 'and this encounter is in room 12' in your notes, but instead just used it the next time the players got into an encounter, it's identical to noting that it was in room 12 and then changing it.


Concerning the illusion of choice, there should be no illusion between members of the role-playing group. That is not to say that all information has to be shared, but there is a critical difference between not knowing and being deceived. Unfortunately the difference is hard to define, even in the limited context of role-playing, but I would say it is fine to hide information, but never hide that you're hiding it.

I can't really agree with this. There are a lot of very effective DM tools that rely on suspension of disbelief. For example, if you're running a mystery campaign, one really essential tool is that when the players come up with something better than what you had in mind, then you should incorporate elements of that into the story rather than just sticking with your thing. If you come out and say 'that's better than what I had, so we're rewriting reality' then it feels fake and gamey. If it just turns out that the brilliant thing one player muttered but which everyone just pshawed and moved on was actually spot on, that's a moment of awesome.

The key thing is skill. A DM who is bad at keeping secrets shouldn't use these techniques, because they're going to spill the beans one way or another and when the illusions are dispelled it always feels like a letdown. A DM who is clumsy at manipulation shouldn't expect that their manipulations will succeed. The instinct when subterfuge starts going wrong is to take control, and that's exactly the wrong thing to do - that's what makes things feel forced and tyrannical.

But if the DM is actually skilled at it, then it can really be an incredible experience. The right level of deception and illusion makes the world of the game feel that much more real, because it seems as if there's more to it going on than the human limitations of the DM should be able to allow. It's all a trick in the end - that prophecy that links something that happened in session #3 and finally comes true in session #113 was DM artifice, not god-like foresight. But as long as the DM doesn't come out and say 'yeah, I just wrote the prophecy to have things that were likely to come up, and when they did I made them spontaneously become plotty', then it can feel like you're interacting with the real thing.

Yora
2015-04-24, 03:21 PM
I think the impportant point is really that the GM should not invalidate descisions players have made based on concrete information they had.

Take path A, B, or C is not an informed descision but a random pick. If the players will encounter an NPC no matter which one they pick, it does not invalidate their descisions. If the players come up with a plan to take a shortcut so they can overtake an enemy and reach his destination before he gets there, then the players have done work to get a specific outcome: Get to the place before the NPC. Then deciding that the NPC actually has a friend with a flying carpet who picks him up, or making the players discover that the bridge they wanted to use as a shortcut is destroyed, that would be invalidating the players work and planning.
And that's really railroading is the most strictest sense, and also its most annoying form.

If you give players a choice to take path A, B, or C, you could still have them encounter a specific NPC regardless of which path they pick, because their choice was not made with the intention "let's avoid meeting the NPC we don't know about yet". But when they chose to take the road through the spider forest, a boat on piranha river, or fly giant eagles over the wyvern mountains, make their pick matter in regard to what monster they are running into in addition to meeting the NPC.
Of course you can move things around, but when you offer the players different options to pick from, their pick should make some kind of difference.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-24, 03:42 PM
In my mind level 2 is the ideal, being structured without limiting, and generally where the best games I've played in have been that level (although one almost dropped to level 0 when the party nearly decided to visit Las Vegas instead of Rome, but we decided that LV was probably a successful demon trap).

Yeah, the one campaign I ever ran was Level 2. It was also one involving the Lich King in World of Warcraft, sure there were a bunch of side villains along the way but the primary villain was the Lich King.

thats why I always define the BBEG of the campaign as well as the various side enemies, but don't impose any structure more than that.

But I do agree with the people who said that the term of Railroading has gotten overused for everything and by now, if you don't want to "railroad" you end up being completely sandbox, which I am horrible at doing on both sides of the equation- Player or GM.

draken50
2015-04-24, 03:51 PM
Personally I consider choice to be incredibly important, and I think illusion of choice is a very very useful tool in the DM/GM toolbox, especially near the beginning of the game.

While I as the GM am still working to discover the player, and their characters motivations and strategies. I often put out a few different plot hooks each of which.. initially leads to the same initial encounters, with some minor turn-able changes to fit whatever plot hook the players decided to pursue.

I will also regularly have branching paths that converge with only minor differences between them. Have three choices of ships to hire to go down the river? You're still going to encounter the same empty ship filled with passengers who all seemed to have collapsed and died suddenly, the only difference is going to be the loyalties and motivations of the crew you sailed with.

Ultimately, many of the choices are "illusions" as I will work to have the plot of the game advance, consequences of the characters actions adding some measure of advantage or disadvantage to their overall goals.

The thing is, I am the GM, and if you I decide that an NPC would actually work really well as an agent of a secret society, I can decide to implement and retcon that change without player knowledge whenever the heck I want. You may have met Bill the accounting magician four times, and during those times I may not have thought of him as a secret agent, but if his actions fit that mold and serve the story. Well, he is now, and always was a secret agent.

The fact is, in any game, you do not have the agency you seem to think you deserve, and you never will. Because no GM is ever going to prepare every encounter you can possibly have for every choice and will use work they've already done for the next step on whatever path you "choose."

Cope.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-24, 03:52 PM
I think the impportant point is really that the GM should not invalidate descisions players have made based on concrete information they had.

Take path A, B, or C is not an informed descision but a random pick. If the players will encounter an NPC no matter which one they pick, it does not invalidate their descisions. If the players come up with a plan to take a shortcut so they can overtake an enemy and reach his destination before he gets there, then the players have done work to get a specific outcome: Get to the place before the NPC. Then deciding that the NPC actually has a friend with a flying carpet who picks him up, or making the players discover that the bridge they wanted to use as a shortcut is destroyed, that would be invalidating the players work and planning.
And that's really railroading is the most strictest sense, and also its most annoying form..

If the players come up with the idea "Take a Shortcut" is there any series of events or conditions that might lead to that plan failing, the shortcut being unavailable, creating additional challenges?

Suppose I have a villain Moustache McTwist. Due to lack of foresight, time constraints on prep, me needing to make something on the fly, or him simply not being important before Moustache McTwist's capabilties are only vaguely defined, even to me. I don't have any stats for him and at this point both me an the players know exactly the same amount of information about him:


He burned down an orphanage because their pet puppy growled at him, he killed the puppy and stole all their candy.
He is known as a clever and is probably(?) a spell caster of some kind.
He was last seen fleeing through the northern gate of the city and somebody heard he was going to the next city over.



This is 100% of the information that I've generated on Moustache McTwist and the players have all of it. Nothing else about him exists, even in my head.

The session moves faster than I expected and the players wind up chasing him. Off the top of my head I say it looks like he's had 5 day head start and the city is generally 10 days away by foot. His departure time is a total-ass pull by the way I had no idea when he actually left and just rolled a d10 for the number of days.

I already have the map of the area and I can resolve their actions objectively and according to the pre-defined properties it has by the RAW. The players make good time and arrive in 5 days. How do I determine if they've arrived before, after or roughly at the same time as Moustache McTwist? Their goal is clearly to cut him off at the pass, should this be successful? What goes into this determination. Maybe he really can fly? Maybe he has a super fast horse? I certainly didn't know at the time and it's relevant now.


The position you take here seems to imply that any any plan the players come up that you did not explicitly pre-write a set of resolutions for: Must work and do so without any chance of complication, hindrance, or failure.

The Evil DM
2015-04-24, 04:42 PM
I run a campaign that is between the 1 and 2 on Jay R's scale. My campaign universe is a complete sandbox. A poster above mentioned that it takes an inordinate amount of time to build a sandbox campaign and it is absolutely true, it also only appeals to a few types of players.

My campaign world started in 1992. D&D second ed. I transformed it to 3.x in the early 2000's to take advantage of OGL so I could reference existing publishable work within context of the campaign materials and I have been continuously running games in this campaign world since 1999. I have also shared the campaign world with five other GMs and PC parties have run in different areas of the world (RL and In Game) simultaneously.

I have learned a few things relevant to this conversation.

Illusion of choice is a tool and it needs to be used, it helps to cut down prep. In Mr Moron's post he mentioned he might only have created three bullet points of information about an encounter. I do the same. Economy of preparation and using the illusion of choice to allow the players to have fun is key to having it also be fun for the GM.

But - Illusion of choice must not be the only choice. As mentioned it is a tool, and one of many tools. At other times the players must have clear choices that are critical and do matter. These choices help reinforce the whole game. If all you ever offer is illusions then of course the game is bull****.

Then obvious railroading is also a tool. The party receives a geas or quest as a punishment or curse. I do use this as well. But sparingly, for my current group it has happened once in 5 years of play. And yes, they hate it. But it also drove a certain part of the story for them. It advanced the bigger picture of the campaign world in an oblique manner but it gave them an enemy to hate. One they eventually came back to and defeated.

The problem with most arguments on forums like this is everyone argues an all or nothing position. Yes, 100% railroading is bad, as is 100% illusion and as I have discovered 100% sandbox with no provided goals.

When providing an open campaign world the most risky thing you can do at the beginning is say, "What do you do?" 90% of players I have encountered do not have the initiative to just begin acting. My sample size is small of course, only about 200 players over the last two decades but most people need something to hook onto.

I have structured the campaign world such that the players can literally do or achieve anything. In this regard I find newer players are hard to integrate because they want goals handed to them. So a small amount of illusion and railroading is required to get players started. Often I structure the first adventures of a party as a go fetch mission for some powerful lord or religious patron. Someone gives them a task that is clear and simple then see where they go after the task is complete. Most of the time, the return to the patron looking for another task.

It is not a bad thing that players need some guidance. Its human nature. I look at being the GM as being a teacher. As a GM I am there to teach the players about the setting and its nuances. If I see players struggling I railroad them a little. If I see players taking initiative, setting their own goals and building their own stories I back off and let them go where they will. It just requires balance.

Most newer, younger GMs don't have the advantage of a well defined setting and I think heavy handed railroading can be part of the learning experience that all GMs go through. Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's I went through the Killer DM phase, the Monty Haul DM phase and so on. It wasn't until I made a concerted effort to build a setting and use it repeatedly that things started to even out.

Cluedrew
2015-04-24, 07:25 PM
I can't really agree with this.Yeah, your right, I expressed the point that I was trying to get at rather badly. I suppose the problem is not illusion, but deceit. The only way I can really think to differentiate them in this context is player buy in. Using tricks to make the world seem more complex, vibrant and alive than it is in reality is a good thing, insisting there are no tricks (especially when the players notice them) is probably a bad thing. The exact line may vary.Also thanks for replying NichG. By chance you where the first person I saw involved in an intelligent debate when I stumbled across the forum months ago, so your reply means a lot to me.

So, is railroading the act of providing a path for the players to follow, or the act of forcing them to follow it? Usually I see it as the latter, but here it seems to also mean the former.

NichG
2015-04-24, 08:43 PM
Yeah, your right, I expressed the point that I was trying to get at rather badly. I suppose the problem is not illusion, but deceit. The only way I can really think to differentiate them in this context is player buy in. Using tricks to make the world seem more complex, vibrant and alive than it is in reality is a good thing, insisting there are no tricks (especially when the players notice them) is probably a bad thing. The exact line may vary.Also thanks for replying NichG. By chance you where the first person I saw involved in an intelligent debate when I stumbled across the forum months ago, so your reply means a lot to me.

Yeah, in those terms I'd agree. By the time the players are calling you on it, outright denial is not doing anyone any good and it's kind of insulting the intelligence of the players who managed to notice the flaw in the illusion. Saying 'no, no, this is totally legit' isn't going to restore the illusion once it's been broken. So at that point it really would just be about the DM's pride and not wanting to admit mistakes.



So, is railroading the act of providing a path for the players to follow, or the act of forcing them to follow it? Usually I see it as the latter, but here it seems to also mean the former.

I think teasing apart those details is a big part of the original post's hierarchy. Different players react negatively to different things, so there's a sort of spectrum of railroading in that regard. I think that 'forcing them to follow it' is probably more true to the original ideas (a railroad isn't just a path, its a path you can't leave), but then those ideas got extended to related things like 'sneaky railroads' (paths you don't realize exist, so you can't leave them because you can't tell that you're on them) and so on.

Its sort of a question about what qualifies as 'forcing' I suppose. Is providing strongly asymmetric incentives 'forcing' (the CRs of encounters down branch Y are +3 compared to branch X)? Is quantum ogre stuff 'forcing', because there's some particular constant that the players cannot make a choice to change? Or is it only when you outright forbid an action that should otherwise be possible, e.g. 'your character doesn't do that' or somesuch?

The Evil DM
2015-04-24, 09:21 PM
Yeah, in those terms I'd agree. [...]

I think teasing apart those details is a big part of the original post's hierarchy. Different players react negatively to different things, so there's a sort of spectrum of railroading in that regard. I think that 'forcing them to follow it' is probably more true to the original ideas (a railroad isn't just a path, its a path you can't leave), but then those ideas got extended to related things like 'sneaky railroads' (paths you don't realize exist, so you can't leave them because you can't tell that you're on them) and so on.

Its sort of a question about what qualifies as 'forcing' I suppose. Is providing strongly asymmetric incentives 'forcing' (the CRs of encounters down branch Y are +3 compared to branch X)? Is quantum ogre stuff 'forcing', because there's some particular constant that the players cannot make a choice to change? Or is it only when you outright forbid an action that should otherwise be possible, e.g. 'your character doesn't do that' or somesuch?

Agreed - the hypothesis is the term "Railroading" is misunderstood and teasing out the various aspects is part of the debate. Hyperbole aside, if the GM telling the players what they must do is too much. As Yora said - taking away the agency.

I also hold to my added hypothesis that its part of GM skills development. All GMs at some point in their GM career will behave in a railroad fashion. If you don't experience it, learn to recognize it, and hopefully learn when it can be used to an advantage you leave a tool out of the GM toolbox.

I use the motto - Time is the game balancer. If a player wants to do something anything goes. But the cost will always be measured in time. I have invested many hours researching various game aspects like digging time, or time to chop trees etc etc. Players in my world can literally dig their way into a dungeon if they want to. But I will say, where do you dig, what tools do you use and how do your ability score provide for time before fatigue.

When I tell a player who wants to dig their way in that it will take x days to accomplish the task and there is risk that they might get discovered (I will generate a probability of encounter based on dungeon occupant habits) this is where some players have complained of railroading - simply because their view is based on instant gratification for their plan.

I will agree with the player that the cost of the decision does provide strong incentive for them to choose a different course of action and the incentive itself could potentially be a form of railroading but - they are free to dig if they want to - and if they disagree with my numbers for digging rates, I have a large back yard they can go measure for themselves what digging rates are.

Note: Some of my smarter players will cast a divination - if we dig for 4 days is our probability of being discovered greater than 50%. Which gives them a clue to the intelligence of dungeon occupants. I also like it when players do something like dig in the vicinity of a dungeon because I might have only determined that


Dungeon = small cave complex used as goblin outpost for tribe several miles away and it contains a small contingent and patrols come and go on a basis of one in every four days. (25% any particular day)

While the players dig I can draw the players a map as they discover the nearby terrain, place the map and generate more info as they discover it and in the end the overall encounter gets more rich as they interact with the "Dungeon on a large scale.

All throughout the process there are varying degrees of decision making, illusory decisions, and railroading.

Yora
2015-04-25, 03:45 AM
The position you take here seems to imply that any any plan the players come up that you did not explicitly pre-write a set of resolutions for: Must work and do so without any chance of complication, hindrance, or failure.

No. I think the important part is that you don't invalidate player descision that would have worked by changing already existing details of the world:
The players have an idea that is stupid, so the plan fails.
The players have an idea based on a guess, which actually is false, so the plan fails.
But if the players have an idea based on information they have and that is correct and the plan should work, then the GM should have it work.

There is the special case in which the players make a plan made on a guess, which unknown to the players, is actually true. Since the players don't know yet if the guess is correct or not, the GM could hypothetically change things so that their guess is now wrong and the plan no longer works. Theoretically they would not know the distance. But in practice they sit at the same table with the GM, who usually is someone they know quite well, and who has to adjust his prepared material on the fly. They will see how you feel about the plan they just announced and if you are trying to patch up something on the fly. You could try to fool them, but you almost certainly will fail.
Your "congratulations, you came up with a really good idea" face is going to look completely different from your "Oh... um... okay, so you have this idea. Well, let me check my notes for a minute" face.

Though that does not mean that you always have to go along with it if the players get an idea you didn't anticipate, and there are two ways to make adjustments with minimal damage:
1. Use it very sparingly and only when you think you really have to: Every time you do it, the player will become more and more aware of the hints that clue them in that you are reworking things to steer the game into a specific direction. The less often you do it, the less familiar the players will be with it. If it happens very infrequently, the players also would be worrying less about it. If it happens once or twice, it doesn't really interfere with them. If it happens regularly, it feels restrictive.
2. Make a change but also give the players a reward for a good plan and have them suffer the consequences of a bad plan. If they are able to kill an enemy NPC you really need to be alive later on, then keep the NPC alive but still let the players have a big victory. If the players do something really terrible then save the life of the PCs or an NPC they need to protect, but still have them suffer other bad consequences. Or in other words, "fix things" only to the degree you absolutely have to.
Instead of just saying "No" better say "95% yes". Their descisions and planning still makes a big impact on the game, but you don't negate it entirely.

NichG
2015-04-25, 04:48 AM
There is the special case in which the players make a plan made on a guess, which unknown to the players, is actually true. Since the players don't know yet if the guess is correct or not, the GM could hypothetically change things so that their guess is now wrong and the plan no longer works. Theoretically they would not know the distance. But in practice they sit at the same table with the GM, who usually is someone they know quite well, and who has to adjust his prepared material on the fly. They will see how you feel about the plan they just announced and if you are trying to patch up something on the fly. You could try to fool them, but you almost certainly will fail.
Your "congratulations, you came up with a really good idea" face is going to look completely different from your "Oh... um... okay, so you have this idea. Well, let me check my notes for a minute" face.


The problem is not that you change things, its that you're thwarting things. Consider the opposite case: the players have been fumbling around for the last 2 hours trying to follow all the wrong leads - things that really aren't relevant. So you say 'hmm, let me check my notes', and they discover a clue where there wasn't one before.

Players will look for a reason to object when things go in a boring or frustrating direction. Even if their plan was never going to work by your notes, they'll (rightfully) blame you for making the adventure into a guessing game, or for something completely different, if you keep telling them 'it doesn't work' even if that's the legitimate consequence of your hidden information. But when things go in a more exciting direction than expected, the attention is going to be focused on the exciting thing rather than trying to figure out if the DM is trying to shut them down.

Even if your goal is to change things to make some particular thing not happen, you can apply this - make something else that is also exciting happen, but have it be the something else that doesn't cause the particular problem you're trying to avoid.

Seto
2015-04-25, 04:54 AM
(Did not read all the previous comments)

It appears we indeed mean different things by "railroading". There's a sliding scale between sandbox and railroading. Your level 1 is more or less 85% sandbox, 15% railroad, so I'd hardly call it "railroading". That's a sandbox world. What I'd call "railroading" are games with a strong railroading component, that's to say 65% railroad or more, 35% sandbox or less.
Besides, your "level 5" isn't inherently bad. It's very video-gamey, and it probably works for some groups. I know when I'm playing a Zelda game, I quite enjoy hack'n'slashing my way through the dungeon, and finding the specific and only solution to a puzzle / the only weakness of a boss, because the games are well-made and give me enough clues that I'll figure it out. If your group is okay with that, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it in a tabletop rpg.

Railroads are often nice. They support a plot, for example. But what people mostly call "railroading" and mean it in a bad way, is when the players try to go off the rails, and the DM slaps them back on the rails without even considering the possibility. In your "level 5" example, the players might go "we cast Fly and escape high over the goblin camp". If the DM's response is not "huh, okay, gimme 5 to plan this" but "ok well then the goblins have mages too and they fly and they capture you and drop you back IN FRONT OF THE DUNGEON YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FINISH", that's bad railroading. (an overdone example admittedly, but some DMs really do similar things)

Yora
2015-04-25, 05:20 AM
Linear elements are not railroading and offering options is not a sandbox.

There are linear elements the GM prepared and degrees of freedom in almost any game. Railroading and sandboxes are the extreme cases, where one of these elements is almost excluding anything else.

Seto
2015-04-25, 06:08 AM
Linear elements are not railroading and offering options is not a sandbox.

There are linear elements the GM prepared and degrees of freedom in almost any game. Railroading and sandboxes are the extreme cases, where one of these elements is almost excluding anything else.

I agree with you on what you said besides terminology. I'm just used to calling "sandbox elements" degrees of freedom and "railroading elements" linear elements, and use those terms in the context of a sliding scale to characterize a game, rather than in a vacuum.

Eisenheim
2015-04-25, 10:58 AM
I think one of things going on here is that a primary example, choosing the different paths through the wood, is not a good example of meaningful choice in many, if not most games.

I do not run sandbox games. I run relatively tightly plotted adventures: meaning I don't stat up encounters that there isn't a good chance of the PCs running into.

In a game like that, I might have an encounter planned if people go through the woods, which is the simplest solution to going where the plot is going to aim them. If they come up with a way to avoid the woods, the encounter there is illogical, so it doesn't happen.

If they make a point of carefully scouting or gathering intelligence and then going through the woods, maybe they get the drop on that encounter, or even have chance to sneak carefully past, if that's their style.

The important thing is no to offer players choices that the level of detail you've built into the setting and adventure don't make meaningful. For example, I recently ran an adventure where I planned a surprise attack on my players. There really wasn't a choice they could make where the villains weren't going to try the attack: the players were mixed up in things and the villains wanted them removed. I don't see that as railroading. It's the GM's job to provide challenges, and they don't all have to be cleverly avoidable.

The choices I did offer the players were ones that effected where and when the surprise attack happened. They got jumped on the streets because it looked they were going straight to tell the authorities what was going on. If they had headed back to their base instead, the ambush would have happened later with the enemies having more chance to prepare, but also with the PCs having a chance to do whatever they wanted in the intervening time.

Technically the players could have walked away from the entire adventure before anything happened, but that's not a railroading issue one way or another, that's an issue of not agreeing as a group what game you're playing.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-25, 03:47 PM
There is the special case in which the players make a plan made on a guess, which unknown to the players, is actually true. Since the players don't know yet if the guess is correct or not, the GM could hypothetically change things so that their guess is now wrong and the plan no longer works. Theoretically they would not know the distance. But in practice they sit at the same table with the GM, who usually is someone they know quite well, and who has to adjust his prepared material on the fly. They will see how you feel about the plan they just announced and if you are trying to patch up something on the fly. You could try to fool them, but you almost certainly will fail.
Your "congratulations, you came up with a really good idea" face is going to look completely different from your "Oh... um... okay, so you have this idea. Well, let me check my notes for a minute" face.

Though that does not mean that you always have to go along with it if the players get an idea you didn't anticipate, and there are two ways to make adjustments with minimal damage:
1. Use it very sparingly and only when you think you really have to: Every time you do it, the player will become more and more aware of the hints that clue them in that you are reworking things to steer the game into a specific direction. The less often you do it, the less familiar the players will be with it. If it happens very infrequently, the players also would be worrying less about it. If it happens once or twice, it doesn't really interfere with them. If it happens regularly, it feels restrictive.
2. Make a change but also give the players a reward for a good plan and have them suffer the consequences of a bad plan. If they are able to kill an enemy NPC you really need to be alive later on, then keep the NPC alive but still let the players have a big victory. If the players do something really terrible then save the life of the PCs or an NPC they need to protect, but still have them suffer other bad consequences. Or in other words, "fix things" only to the degree you absolutely have to.
Instead of just saying "No" better say "95% yes". Their descisions and planning still makes a big impact on the game, but you don't negate it entirely.

I don't understand why someone would put so much effort into adapting a game to make it more linear, as opposed to putting the same amount of effort into adapting it to make it more flexible. The one value of linearity is that it takes less effort - once you're outside of the rails (or the prepared events, if you're defining "rails" more strictly), why spend effort putting the players back in line that you could spend doing what they actually want you to do?

Mr.Moron
2015-04-25, 04:36 PM
I don't understand why someone would put so much effort into adapting a game to make it more linear, as opposed to putting the same amount of effort into adapting it to make it more flexible. The one value of linearity is that it takes less effort - once you're outside of the rails (or the prepared events, if you're defining "rails" more strictly), why spend effort putting the players back in line that you could spend doing what they actually want you to do?

The GM isn't a damned servant. They aren't there to do "what the players want them to do", for pete's sake we're people with limited free time and our own preferences too. We're the ones giving up more free time to make the game happen than anyone else, putting your characters and your actions in the spotlight.

If a GM wants to have fun by creating a limited space and inviting people to play in it, fully aware it's limited space that's their right. I'm hardly the rail-roadiest GM in the world but I am going to try and guide the game to match my tastes at least somewhat.

Just as much as anyone else I'm at the table to enjoy things I like, not just facilitate playing out someone's preferred form of power fantasy.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-25, 04:53 PM
The GM isn't a damned servant. They aren't there to do "what the players want them to do", for pete's sake we're people with limited free time and our own preferences too, and we're the one using more time away from the table to make the table time happen than anyone else. Putting your characters, and your actions in the spotlight.

If a GM wants to have fun by creating a limited space and inviting people to play it, fully aware it's limited space that's their right. I'm hardly the rail-roadiest GM in the world but I am going to try and guide the game to match my tastes at least somewhat.

Just as much as anyone else I'm at the table to enjoy things I like, not just facilitate playing out someone's preferred form of power fantasy.

Whoah, hey. Take it easy. I'm not saying play to the power fantasies; that's no fun for anyone except the fantasizer. I'm not saying don't not put things you want in your game. I'm just asking what the logic behind manipulating circumstances to produce the desired conclusion as if that would have happened all along is, relative to rolling with the consequences of player actions. Especially if you're going to go to the effort of pretending you changed nothing, and whatever happened would have happened all along.

Cluedrew
2015-04-25, 05:38 PM
I don't understand why someone would put so much effort into adapting a game to make it more linear, as opposed to putting the same amount of effort into adapting it to make it more flexible.

Hypothetical scenario, let's say Theo the theoretical Game Master has created a scenario that has three major outcomes. Among other options he could spend an hour adding flexibility so he has five major outcomes or added linearity so that the three major outcomes become variants of each other. Both are fine but Theo decides to make it more linear. Then the hour after that can be spent on the events that follow the one major outcome.

You could call it being lazy but Theo, and most real GMs, only has so many hours to invest in preparing for his campaign. So even by paying an upfront cost to make a path the players want to stay on (which might be a type of railroading depending) he can then use the savings to make the path more interesting. Which in turn will mean the players are more likely to follow it.

Now this is not some superior method and there is the issue of what to if the players leave the path anyways, but it is a legitimate choice.

BootStrapTommy
2015-04-25, 06:24 PM
I railroad my players. But they do not know this. Because they are dumb.

JAL_1138
2015-04-25, 07:27 PM
As a player, to me, a little bit of RailSchröding (the "I have an encounter, so something you do is going to trigger it") thing can help get the campaign going without it feeling like "Here are the rails, follow them, because this is what we're doing d***it." I've DM'ed some so I know what's going on to a degree, but at least I'm not being hammered back on to the one exact path we must take or the game crashes. It can go too far, easily, but I'd rather have it used on me--sparingly--than straight-up being forced to follow The Plot and being unable to do anything of any importance besides go where we're "supposed" to. Sometimes even the semblance of choice is enough.

SimonMoon6
2015-04-25, 08:31 PM
Everybody hates railroading. But we often mean very different things when we say it. For instance:

No Railroading: an entire world is defined. Go anywhere, do anything, and we’ll simulate the results.

But the point is that the game with no railroading doesn't really exist, and would most likely be dull. How would we find the adventurous parts?


I have run a game with what you define as "No Railroading". It was set in a multiverse, where the PCs knew much about the various universes and could go have adventures wherever they wanted (to the point that making sure to have a steady source of dimension traveling seemed to be a priority for each character). You want to go adventure in the Dreamlands? Fine. You want to go team up with Superman? Fine. You want to go dungeon-crawling in "generic D&D universe"? Fine. Anything can happen.

But, yes, some players (once the PCs split up to go their own ways) had trouble finding the adventures, at least the good ones. Trying to visit "The City Not Well To Enter" was a recipe for disaster. And even gathering an army of zombies to attack another player's city didn't work well (to anyone with superpowers, mere generic non-contagious zombies are no threat).

Nonetheless, my players considered this to be their favorite campaign ever.

My second best campaign was fairly railroad-free as well. (Maybe level 1 or 2 by your criteria?) The players had enemies to deal with, who would try to track down the PCs and kill them, but the PCs had a head start and could explore a little bit, though the areas of the world where the PCs were most powerful were also the places where the enemies were most likely to find them (and be equally extra-powerful). They had freedom to explore where they wanted to, with constant options for adventures to find the items that would empower the PCs (necessary since the PCs started off far weaker than the enemies that were hunting them).

runeghost
2015-04-25, 09:04 PM
I really only use the word to describe the act of forcing players to act in a way that removes their agency (by means not given in game such as a geas or curse, although doing so for no reason can itself be an act of railroading). This can range from an assumption on the DMs part to enforcing a plot event in a manner similar to a cutscene, but not cases where reasonable consequences are given as a result of a stupid or unforseen action nor decisions that branch then return to the plot in a way that makes sense.

That said, every game needs a little bit of railroading now and then. Especially at the beginning, getting a group of adventurers together and working towards the one (or more) thing can he hard without a little intervention. I like to rely on it only as a last resort to keep the flow of the game going and avoid incidents at the table.

To me, what you are describing is more of a scale between 'linear' and 'sandbox' playstyles.

About how I see it. Linear play isn't a big problem as long as the players know that's the kind of game they're getting into.
In my years of gaming, railroading's a pejorative, and used to refer to a game "on the tracks" and where the tracks are obvious, and the GM is ham-handed in making the players stay on them.

runeghost
2015-04-25, 09:19 PM
To play devil's advocate here: Does it matter?

To take your bandits example:

There are 6 paths in the forest. The players have made some rolls an determined there is bandit activity in the area and they're moving around a lot. There is probably a 50/50 chance that the bandits are on any one path but the tracks don't really indicate which they're mostly likely on now.

Let's assume EDIT: 5 ways of proceeding ahead.

A) You choose which paths the bandits are on:

Path 1: Bandits
Path 2: Bandits
Path 3: No Bandits
Path 4: No Bandits
Path 5: Bandits
Path 6: No Bandits

An encounter with the bandits happens they go down one of the bandit paths.

B) The players choose a path, and then you roll a d6. If it matches the number of the path they chose, bandits!
C) The players choose a path, you roll a % die with a 50/50 chance of a bandit encounter.
D) The players get attack by bandits no matter what.
E) The players don't get attacked by bandits no matter.

Is there any meaningful difference between any of these when examined strictly from the perspective of the players, who cannot see or be aware of the back-end workings?

Player agency is the difference. Whether or not that matters in the context of a trip through the woods depends on the game you are playing. The bandits are likely small potatoes, and the encounter isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, so "cheating" by taking player agency out isn't necessarily bad. There are some times when I'd run it that way myself.

But more of the time, when I want my players to feel that their decisions matter, I'll figure out which trails have bandits before the players set foot on them. The PCs have a chance, via tracking, spells, interpreting clues in the game, maybe even rumors back in town, to have a good idea of which routes have bandits. That puts the choice in their hands: negotiate, scout or spy, sneak around, counter-ambush, take a different route, and so forth. All of which I think makes for a better game overall.

In general though, I like to avoid "fake" choices - if the bandit encounter is going to happen, or even if its random, why mess around with the multiple paths at all? Just describe the forest path and let the encounters happen as you roll or intend them.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-25, 10:08 PM
Railroading is very much in the eye of the beholder and even more so in the shady view of a problem player. The truth is that any plot needs a railroad. You simply can not advance a plot randomly. Plots don't work that way.

NichG
2015-04-25, 10:22 PM
For the bandit thing, an un-informed decision already doesn't really have agency because there's no way to link the arbitrary part of the decision (out of six integers, which is your favorite?) to the state that the player wishes the universe to take. In the un-informed case, if the player specifically wants to fight bandits or to not fight bandits, they can't increase the chance of their chosen outcome by picking in a certain way.

Once information gathering enters the picture, then of course that's no longer true.

But that's why its important to be constantly aware of what information the players have, what things have been hinted at, and what things are completely unknowable. You can change the unknowable things and it doesn't matter, but you have to be really careful when you change the hinted-at things. That's why its also important to stay aware of the players' reasoning, so if you do make a change, you can evaluate whether that change is going to feel incoherent to them or if it will actually make things make more sense.

For example, lets say we have the bandit/forest path thing going on and for some reason you pre-determined 'there will be bandits on paths 1,4, and 5'. However, the players know that there are bandits in the woods and are talking about the decision of which path to follow. One player says 'hey, I bet if we start rumors in town that a big merchant caravan will be going through path 6, we can draw all the bandits to it and then avoid them by taking path 1 which is on the opposite side of the forest'. The other players agree implement the plan, then go down path 1. I'd argue that the players have more agency in that case when you change the predetermined facts to fit the player reasoning, versus if you just stay committed to an arbitrary decision you made beforehand.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-25, 10:27 PM
Player agency is the difference. Whether or not that matters in the context of a trip through the woods depends on the game you are playing. The bandits are likely small potatoes, and the encounter isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, so "cheating" by taking player agency out isn't necessarily bad. There are some times when I'd run it that way myself.

But more of the time, when I want my players to feel that their decisions matter, I'll figure out which trails have bandits before the players set foot on them. The PCs have a chance, via tracking, spells, interpreting clues in the game, maybe even rumors back in town, to have a good idea of which routes have bandits. That puts the choice in their hands: negotiate, scout or spy, sneak around, counter-ambush, take a different route, and so forth. All of which I think makes for a better game overall.

In general though, I like to avoid "fake" choices - if the bandit encounter is going to happen, or even if its random, why mess around with the multiple paths at all? Just describe the forest path and let the encounters happen as you roll or intend them.

Right. This was a poor example on my part, I later put forward an example where players had information that would be meaningful if rolled honestly but would be indistinguishable from a fudged/dishonest result.

Remmirath
2015-04-25, 11:03 PM
I think the main thing to consider is whether the rails are in character or out of character. If they're in character, as in there is realistically only one thing that the characters might possibly do because it's the only thing that makes any sense at all in their current situation, I do not see that as a problem. If it's out of character, and there are many things that the players might like to do but only one thing that the GM will allow them to try to do, that's the problem.

I do tend to believe that the most important thing is how the game feels to the players. If they feel as though they have choices, then they will probably be happy; if they feel as though they (artificially) have no choices, they won't be. It takes a good deal more time to plan a campaign where the players are actually able to do anything that they want, and not everybody has that kind of time. It's reasonable enough to come up with one or two different scenarios and ensure that the players run into one or another of them, so long as you have a deft enough touch to ensure that it doesn't feel like they're being pushed towards one specific path.

I generally go as much towards sandbox mode as I can when planning campaigns, although there will usually be a few points of interest that I'm hoping they will eventually come to and some clues to lead them towards those points, but I have a good deal of time to plan my campaigns. If I'm playing in somebody else's game, all I'm going to ask is that my characters are able to make choices, and I'm not going to examine too closely how many different outcomes were possible.

LuisDantas
2015-04-26, 12:24 AM
In my mind level 2 is the ideal, being structured without limiting, and generally where the best games I've played in have been that level (although one almost dropped to level 0 when the party nearly decided to visit Las Vegas instead of Rome, but we decided that LV was probably a successful demon trap).

"Arriving in Vegas, you learn that there was a recent influx of Italian immigrants due to the weather last year. Some of them had huge families and lots of money. It happened at least a year since you last checked the news of the place, so the city is considerably changed. One of the main hotels has been bought by the Catholic Church and converted into a place of worship. The Cardinal can often be met there."

Knaight
2015-04-26, 12:25 AM
Railroading is very much in the eye of the beholder and even more so in the shady view of a problem player. The truth is that any plot needs a railroad. You simply can not advance a plot randomly. Plots don't work that way.

There's a whole lot of room between railroad and random, and that's before getting into how there are a lot of ways for a plot to come about beyond being predefined and then advanced along. The plot can be an emergent story from the actions of the characters, and while that usually involves a good heavy GM push or three, and absolutely requires a situation set up that is unstable enough to get moving, it doesn't require any actual railroading.

kyoryu
2015-04-26, 12:32 AM
There's a whole lot of room between railroad and random, and that's before getting into how there are a lot of ways for a plot to come about beyond being predefined and then advanced along. The plot can be an emergent story from the actions of the characters, and while that usually involves a good heavy GM push or three, and absolutely requires a situation set up that is unstable enough to get moving, it doesn't require any actual railroading.

Pretty much this. This idea that if you want anything apart from a featureless or random sandbox, if you want any kind of events or story that it has to be pre-written is odd.

I prefer to set up a situation, and a few factions. I'll know what they're going to do if not interfered with, and through buy-in or character description I'll try to make it something engaging enough that the players want to deal with the situation.

Then, it's a matter of letting the players do something, and the other factions react. I don't go into most sessions with anything except the most rudimentary ideas of what might be happening. And even though that's the case, my players are usually surprised when I tell them that things weren't pre-planned.

The biggest technique I use is what I call "plot grenades". They're things that the players pretty much *have* to respond to, but that don't require a *specific* response. The goal is to get the players moving, but not to enforce a particular direction.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-26, 01:12 AM
There's a whole lot of room between railroad and random, and that's before getting into how there are a lot of ways for a plot to come about beyond being predefined and then advanced along. The plot can be an emergent story from the actions of the characters, and while that usually involves a good heavy GM push or three, and absolutely requires a situation set up that is unstable enough to get moving, it doesn't require any actual railroading.

Well, what your saying is just railroading while not calling it railroading as you like or agree with it. You can have all the random ''emergent'' story you want and make every single player feel special and that their character is the center of the whole game world, but your plot will go nowhere without railroading. After all, the best railroading is done with great stealth, so most players don't even know it's happening. And even the rare savvy player will ''turn off their brain''. Most players only notice railroading when it is very heavy handed and obvious. Otherwise they are happy to ride the train.

The whole player agency thing is just so much smoke and mirrors. A trick to make the players think they are somehow altering the game reality like they were gods. But often what they do is meaningless. But a good DM won't let the players know that.

At the most basic an RPG is a set adventure with a beginning, middle and end. And in order to go through the adventure the players need to stay on the railroad tracks. If they don't follow the tracks, they don't complete the adventure.

NichG
2015-04-26, 04:59 AM
For myself, I tend to think of railroading as a more micro tool than a macro tool. The 'world pushes you around' type of railroading is basically for the situation where the PCs are mired and need to get unstuck. They could be mired because they're fixating on something irrelevant, can't decide what to do, keep cycling through internal conflicts until they reach a standoff where no one can progress their goals, etc. In that situation, the world comes in and says 'if you don't deal with X, you all lose' as a way to break the deadlock. I suppose there's a bit of macro here if you want the deadlock that is being broken to be 'the players have run out of stuff to do and the campaign needs to come to a conclusion'.

The 'quantum ogre' type of railroading is a method of efficiently using content, dynamically balancing the game, and responding to ideas that were better than what you'd originally come up with. It lets you have a higher ratio of used content to prepared content, and also means that you can keep the game from being too trivial or too frustrating by reading how the players are feeling and adapting to that.

But for the big picture stuff, that's actually where the real choices are, so thats where I want to give the players as much leeway as possible. Because if I give them leeway, their mistakes will generate a lot of plot down the road, whereas if it's very straightforward then things tend to close off too neatly and it's harder to have things connect from one adventure to the next. That doesn't mean that the players just get to decide everything about the game and the world, but it basically means that the structure of the big-picture stuff is that the world asks an open-ended question of the players and then sees how they respond; e.g. 'how do you treat a defeated enemy?', 'if you gain the chance to lead, how do you make use of it?', 'if you had the opportunity to influence the interpretation of a fundamental concept of the cosmos, what do you do?', etc.

Yora
2015-04-26, 05:32 AM
You can have all the random ''emergent'' story you want and make every single player feel special and that their character is the center of the whole game world, but your plot will go nowhere without railroading.

The whole player agency thing is just so much smoke and mirrors. A trick to make the players think they are somehow altering the game reality like they were gods. But often what they do is meaningless. But a good DM won't let the players know that.

At the most basic an RPG is a set adventure with a beginning, middle and end. And in order to go through the adventure the players need to stay on the railroad tracks. If they don't follow the tracks, they don't complete the adventure.
That is only the case if you are running plots. And there is a strong movement among GMs to not run plots at all. Campaigns in which the progress does not have to get to any specific point, where player agency is actually real and their actions have meaning. Playing RPGs without a beginning, middle, and end. These campaigns are not completed at any point.

Knaight
2015-04-26, 10:09 AM
At the most basic an RPG is a set adventure with a beginning, middle and end. And in order to go through the adventure the players need to stay on the railroad tracks. If they don't follow the tracks, they don't complete the adventure.

This is one style. There's a whole bunch of other styles that don't handle this at all. I've GMed several games which didn't have a set adventure to go through, but were instead set up as a situation the PCs were in, which changed throughout the game due to a combination of their actions, responses by various setting elements, and actions by NPCs. It didn't start with a story to progress along, but it did end with one.

Eisenheim
2015-04-26, 10:33 AM
That is only the case if you are running plots. And there is a strong movement among GMs to not run plots at all. Campaigns in which the progress does not have to get to any specific point, where player agency is actually real and their actions have meaning. Playing RPGs without a beginning, middle, and end. These campaigns are not completed at any point.

I really would like to say that, a movement away from running plots aside, running a game that has a plot in such a way as to keep the adventure on that plot should not be considered roleplaying. It seems to me that many cases of what gets described as railroading is more a failure of the group to agree before play about the type of game to be played. If the GM is going to run a plotted adventure, which I really want to stress is not weird or somehow less good, and is indeed all the roleplaying I have ever done, then it's bad player behavior to try and do something entirely unrelated to that plot and it can force a less-adept GM into heavy handed responses.

If we agree to a game about a party of knights defending the kingdom from enemies external and internal and someone tries to hop on a boat and go to a different continent in the first session, it might feel like stonewalling for me to refuse, but it was inappropriate of them to try and leave the game I designed. If we didn't agree beforehand about what the game was going to be, that's a mutual default and railroading is a symptom not the core issue.

It seems wrong to me to take complete sandbox as the default when discussing railroading and treat any kind of prepared narrative as a kind of railroading. I've never run or played a sandbox game, and my players biggest complaint in games that don't go well is that they don't know what to do next, not that they have insufficient freedom.

Knaight
2015-04-26, 12:12 PM
If we agree to a game about a party of knights defending the kingdom from enemies external and internal and someone tries to hop on a boat and go to a different continent in the first session, it might feel like stonewalling for me to refuse, but it was inappropriate of them to try and leave the game I designed. If we didn't agree beforehand about what the game was going to be, that's a mutual default and railroading is a symptom not the core issue.

This is just a setting that is only a subset of the world, which is an entirely different thing than an actual pre-existing plot. Railroading is more along the lines of having a scripted series of particular events that the PCs have to do, and pushing them through that. Your party of knights defending the kingdom in a freer game could easily do something like mistakenly root out the wrong person as a traitor and possibly kill them, even if the GM had some idea of them maybe being pretty major as an ally later. Preventing that because they're needed as an ally for later plot is railroading, as it's not like the action is at all outside the scope of the game. Similarly, forcing that to happen when the players and PCs don't actually distrust them is railroading.

Thrudd
2015-04-26, 12:22 PM
It seems to me that many cases of what gets described as railroading is more a failure of the group to agree before play about the type of game to be played. If the GM is going to run a plotted adventure, which I really want to stress is not weird or somehow less good, and is indeed all the roleplaying I have ever done, then it's bad player behavior to try and do something entirely unrelated to that plot and it can force a less-adept GM into heavy handed responses.

If we didn't agree beforehand about what the game was going to be, that's a mutual default and railroading is a symptom not the core issue.


I agree. Complaints of railroading from players will be more likely if expectations for the game are not established beforehand.
Too often you see the DM letting players create/bring any sort of character they want to the game, players not coordinating with each other how they will fit together as a party, and then trying to force fit them into a plot that was written before the characters were even known.
The players have the expectation that they should be role playing this character they invented and pursuing their own personal goals, and rarely does that completely intersect with the DM's plot. It is completely mismatched expectations for what the game is about, and no communication. The best thing this DM can do is to implement some clever illusionism techniques to hopefully fool the players into believing their choices are guiding the narrative.

Ideally, for a plot driven game, the characters all have strong motives to participate. If the players are role playing and the plot designed to grab at those characters' motives, there should be little need to force anything. The players would also know this is a narrative game, not a sandbox, and will be aware of staying "in-bounds".

All games have bounds and parameters that need to be understood, even sandboxes. It will go better for everyone to know what those are.

erikun
2015-04-26, 07:21 PM
I must admit, I don't understand some of the situations presented in this thread.

I mean, for the example of the "Quantum Ogre": if the party flies over a forest and avoids the ogre encounter, then why just move the ogre into the goblin cave they visit next? It seems to me that, if I wanted to involve the ogre that much, then I would just have it be an unusually territorial ogre who sees the party fly overhead, and so follows them into the goblin cave as a result. Boom, instant ogre! Plus, it has the advantage of suddenly making the goblin cave much more interesting - the ogre isn't likely to be friendly with the goblins any more than the party, so there will be a lot of potential interactions that the party can take advantage of with an ogre running around than just a standard raid-the-goblins situation.

Other times, an encounter can simply be re-used at a later time. Did the party flying over the forest avoid a goblin ambush? Well, when they're loaded down with a cart full of treasure and on their way back, they're sure to run into it that time. Even better, if the leader goblin managed to escape, that would be a great point to bring them back. It would be nice to work out how the party is getting their treasure back to town - and when they decide upon hauling it by wagon, I get to start next session with a smile and an "Everybody, roll Spot." :smallbiggrin:

There are a lot of "multiple paths through the forest" examples, which bring up the obvious question of why are you offering multiple paths through a forest?! After all, if the multiple paths don't matter, then it seems strange to present them as different. It would matter if, say, there was one path up along the cliffs with another through the swampy marshlands - but in that case, all the encounters along the different paths would be different. Even if there is a Schrödinger Encounter at the end if the trek, the situation would still be different because of the cliffs/marsh setting. Or more likely, I would just put the encounter after the trails merge together, making the choice one that determines the encounters the party runs into along the way.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-26, 07:38 PM
That is only the case if you are running plots. And there is a strong movement among GMs to not run plots at all. Campaigns in which the progress does not have to get to any specific point, where player agency is actually real and their actions have meaning. Playing RPGs without a beginning, middle, and end. These campaigns are not completed at any point.

There is a place for such light fluff games, sure. But if you want meat and potatoes, you need a plot. I random, pointless, directionless game is only fun for a short time.


This is one style. There's a whole bunch of other styles that don't handle this at all. I've GMed several games which didn't have a set adventure to go through, but were instead set up as a situation the PCs were in, which changed throughout the game due to a combination of their actions, responses by various setting elements, and actions by NPCs. It didn't start with a story to progress along, but it did end with one.

This sounds more like just switching words around and not naming something. Sure, you can start the game out with nothing. And sure you can just randomly build something up. But once you get to the point of the player characters doing something with any type of real focus, your going to need the railroad.

Ok, say your doing the unplanned random style. The players can have fun for a couple hours doing random, pointless little things that have no meaning. For example, the PC's can ''adventure'' all over a town and discover dozens of plot hooks. But as soon as the players say ''Oh, we will go raid the Black Tower'', then the tracks are laid. The DM will need to railroad the PC's to the Black Tower. After all, if the PC's just wander aimlessly, they will never get anywhere.

NichG
2015-04-26, 09:18 PM
I must admit, I don't understand some of the situations presented in this thread.

I mean, for the example of the "Quantum Ogre": if the party flies over a forest and avoids the ogre encounter, then why just move the ogre into the goblin cave they visit next? It seems to me that, if I wanted to involve the ogre that much, then I would just have it be an unusually territorial ogre who sees the party fly overhead, and so follows them into the goblin cave as a result. Boom, instant ogre! Plus, it has the advantage of suddenly making the goblin cave much more interesting - the ogre isn't likely to be friendly with the goblins any more than the party, so there will be a lot of potential interactions that the party can take advantage of with an ogre running around than just a standard raid-the-goblins situation.


It has to do with how the causal relationships are perceived by the players. If the DM says 'the ogre you avoided is very territorial and sees you in the sky, so decides to hunt you down' then you're specifically telling the players 'I am making you fight this ogre even though you had a valid plan to avoid it' - you're directly telling them that their plan failed or that you're thwarting it.

On the other hand, compare to: 'There's a forest between you and the Cave of Mystery, what do you do? Fly over it? Okay, that works! Now, you arrive at the Cave of Mystery, what do you do? Okay, as you're scouting the cave, you find an ogre living in the first chamber...'. In this case, you aren't giving any signal that there 'was' an ogre in the forest, so when the ogre appears in the cave it isn't a message that the players failed, its just an ogre in a cave.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-26, 10:07 PM
There is a place for such light fluff games, sure. But if you want meat and potatoes, you need a plot. I random, pointless, directionless game is only fun for a short time.



This sounds more like just switching words around and not naming something. Sure, you can start the game out with nothing. And sure you can just randomly build something up. But once you get to the point of the player characters doing something with any type of real focus, your going to need the railroad.

Ok, say your doing the unplanned random style. The players can have fun for a couple hours doing random, pointless little things that have no meaning. For example, the PC's can ''adventure'' all over a town and discover dozens of plot hooks. But as soon as the players say ''Oh, we will go raid the Black Tower'', then the tracks are laid. The DM will need to railroad the PC's to the Black Tower. After all, if the PC's just wander aimlessly, they will never get anywhere.

"Unplanned" doesn't mean "random" or "pointless;" it means you didn't set it up in advance. There's such a thing as improvisation; it works really well for some people, myself included.

Also, in your last paragraph, it sounds like you're using "railroading" to defer to a GM doing anything at all.

Amphetryon
2015-04-26, 10:21 PM
That is only the case if you are running plots. And there is a strong movement among GMs to not run plots at all. Campaigns in which the progress does not have to get to any specific point, where player agency is actually real and their actions have meaning. Playing RPGs without a beginning, middle, and end. These campaigns are not completed at any point.

How do you have an adventure, or a story at all, that happens without any plot at all? The things that happen in the game constitute the plot; how do you remove things from happening while still maintaining a roleplaying game? Events that are entirely driven by Player agency must still encounter a world outside that particular Player's absolute control, in any game that I know of that includes a GM. . . and the Player agency-driven events are plot even in some corner scenario where the GM (whom you indicate exists, above) has no input on the reaction of the rest of the world.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-26, 10:42 PM
"Unplanned" doesn't mean "random" or "pointless;" it means you didn't set it up in advance. There's such a thing as improvisation; it works really well for some people, myself included.

Also, in your last paragraph, it sounds like you're using "railroading" to defer to a GM doing anything at all.

So your making the distinction between 1) DM that sets up a plot in advance and 2) DM improves a plot from scratch ? Ok, but either way you will need to railroad to go anywhere.

Well, as a said, ''bad'' railroading is just a complaint by players for something they don't like...so, yes, that is the DM doing anything the players don't like. Plenty of players will cry railroading if their character encounters so much as a locked door.

Lets take the basic: The players just improvise and decide they want to attack and loot the Black Tower. Now, there are twelve ways they can do that, but only two are remotely practical...and one is a good idea and one is a bad idea. I good DM will railroad the players to the good idea, and everyone has fun. After all the bad idea will end baddy and the other ten will just waste time.

Yora
2015-04-27, 02:53 AM
I really wouldn't support the claim that a good GM railroads players to pick the good idea. A good GM would let them do what they want and roll with it.


There is a place for such light fluff games, sure. But if you want meat and potatoes, you need a plot. I random, pointless, directionless game is only fun for a short time.
Plot means deciding in advance who does what in which order. Planning what NPCs are most likely to do and want to do is good and necessary, unless you do a pure dungeoncrawl exploration game. But you shouldn't plan what the players are doing and how they react to things, because then your precious plot can only progress if the players do exactly what they are supposed to do or the GM rewriting the plot on the fly so that things still turn out in the way that they were planned despite the players deciding to do other things. The first case is a rather weak adventure where the PCs don't really have any options to affect the outcome, the second case is plain and simple railroading.

NichG
2015-04-27, 04:08 AM
How do you have an adventure, or a story at all, that happens without any plot at all? The things that happen in the game constitute the plot; how do you remove things from happening while still maintaining a roleplaying game? Events that are entirely driven by Player agency must still encounter a world outside that particular Player's absolute control, in any game that I know of that includes a GM. . . and the Player agency-driven events are plot even in some corner scenario where the GM (whom you indicate exists, above) has no input on the reaction of the rest of the world.

I think the key word is 'run', not 'plot'. Plots can happen, but 'running' a plot means picking something and making that specific thing happen.

Yora
2015-04-27, 04:18 AM
The word "plot" already includes (often forgotten) element of being planned. It's a word used in statistics and engineering and even in the context of narratives it means the sequence of causally linked events. A then B then C then D. And when talking about plots in literature and plays, it's about structure and pacing. Historic events don't have a plot. Books and stage plays have a plot.
Plot, when we use it as a distinct term and don't use it as a synonym to story or narrative, basically equals railroading.

Amphetryon
2015-04-27, 05:39 AM
The word "plot" already includes (often forgotten) element of being planned. It's a word used in statistics and engineering and even in the context of narratives it means the sequence of causally linked events. A then B then C then D. And when talking about plots in literature and plays, it's about structure and pacing. Historic events don't have a plot. Books and stage plays have a plot.
Plot, when we use it as a distinct term and don't use it as a synonym to story or narrative, basically equals railroading.

So. you're saying when you use a specific - and previously unspecified - definition of the term you chose, rather than the generally understood denotation and connotation of the term, you can argue that you're technically correct. Got it.

Lorsa
2015-04-27, 06:19 AM
Before I reply to some more recent points, I will make a quick reply to the Original Poster.


Everybody hates railroading. But we often mean very different things when we say it. For instance:

No Railroading: an entire world is defined. Go anywhere, do anything, and we’ll simulate the results.

Railroading, level 1: I’ve designed a continent. Please don’t try to plane shift or sail away.

Railroading, level 2: There’s a tyrant who is the big bad evil guy. He’s oppressing your people. Try anything you like, but he’s the real enemy.

Railroading, level 3: You've been hired to take out the BBEG. There’s a town here to interact with, and a forest with many paths you could take on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG

Railroading, level 4: There’s a town here to interact with, followed by a road north through five designed encounters on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG.

Railroading, level 5: You must equip yourselves, leave town, follow the road north to the castle, and defeat the BBEG. You cannot buy a sword without locating the blacksmith. You cannot leave town without paying the gate tax. You cannot get past the goblins except by combat. You cannot get past the gnolls without a sleep spell. You cannot find the castle without a compass. You cannot enter the castle gate without a Knock spell. You cannot go down the first corridor without pulling the red lever. You cannot open the door at the end of the corridor without standing on the right flagstone. You cannot …

You could easily invent many more levels.

But the point is that the game with no railroading doesn't really exist, and would most likely be dull. How would we find the adventurous parts?

The original objections IO heard about railroading were objection to level 5 - traps with only one escape, puzzles with only one solution.

The best games I've been in have all been pretty far up the railroading scale - levels 3 or 4 out of 5, as defined above.

So we should probably be careful when describing something as "railroading". Very often we are objecting to the actual adventure.

You are quite right that everyone mean different things with "railroading". I remember there once was a thread that tried to define railroading in the playground, with very little success. This is why it is important to define the term for the purpose of a post or a thread rather than assume everyone understands exactly what you mean when you say "railroading, good or bad" (for example). Same with many other terms.

To me, railroading is a verb (it does end with -ing). It is an action the DM takes to invalidate a choice or action taken by the players, most often to force the progression of a linear adventure. Since I believe that invalidating choices or actions taken by players to be almost exclusively bad, I generally dislike railroading.

However, by my definition, even the level 5 description does not really constitute railroading. It is merely an extremely linear adventure with very narrow success margins. I dislike those too, but for different reasons. Railroading is what happens if you replace all cannot in the definition with will. A DM with the attitude of "you WILL take the road north to the tower, you WILL solve the puzzle to get through the door, you WILL..." is one that is going to railroad players. This will work the same if you insert the word "will" into the other definitions too. For example "I've designed a continent, you WILL not plane shift or sail away".

Designing a dungeon does not equal railroading. Having a set up where a BBEG is oppressing the people is not railroading. That is simply world design, something the DM is expected to do.



Pretty much this. This idea that if you want anything apart from a featureless or random sandbox, if you want any kind of events or story that it has to be pre-written is odd.

I prefer to set up a situation, and a few factions. I'll know what they're going to do if not interfered with, and through buy-in or character description I'll try to make it something engaging enough that the players want to deal with the situation.

Then, it's a matter of letting the players do something, and the other factions react. I don't go into most sessions with anything except the most rudimentary ideas of what might be happening. And even though that's the case, my players are usually surprised when I tell them that things weren't pre-planned.

The biggest technique I use is what I call "plot grenades". They're things that the players pretty much *have* to respond to, but that don't require a *specific* response. The goal is to get the players moving, but not to enforce a particular direction.

I also believe this is the best way to design adventures. You have a situation, an event or whatever, something that happens to the player characters, and then you let them solve it. Unless you have a habit of creating impossible-to-beat situations, there is usually little reason to figure out ways in which it can be solved. Leave that to the players.

Yes, this works for dungeons too. And yes, some doors have specific mechanisms meant to open them, this is part of protecting a treasury, but players are creative, they might just buy a scroll of "Obliterate Annoying Door" in town instead of looking for the [thing meant to open door].


Ok, say your doing the unplanned random style. The players can have fun for a couple hours doing random, pointless little things that have no meaning. For example, the PC's can ''adventure'' all over a town and discover dozens of plot hooks. But as soon as the players say ''Oh, we will go raid the Black Tower'', then the tracks are laid. The DM will need to railroad the PC's to the Black Tower. After all, if the PC's just wander aimlessly, they will never get anywhere.

I'm sorry, but how does that mean "the tracks are laid"? And how does the existence of a railroad equal railroading? If the players choose, by themselves, to go to the Black Tower, the DM needn't railroad them at all? They can simply go there? If they have chosen a direction, a goal or a task, why on earth would they wander aimlessly? You just stated that they HAVE an aim? The only problem I can see is if they don't know where the Black Tower is. But that is an adventure in and of itself, to find directions to your desired goal.

If the players don't want those sort of problems in their game, and would prefer the DM to magically teleport them to the BT, that is something they can discuss beforehand. "All we want from the game is to fool around in taverns and fight monsters in dungeons" is a perfectly okay desire. I have yet to meet someone for whom that is true, but you should never be ashamed of your preference. In this case however, it is not railroading, at least not according to my definition, since it is the players' choice to let the DM magically take them to their desired location.


How do you have an adventure, or a story at all, that happens without any plot at all? The things that happen in the game constitute the plot; how do you remove things from happening while still maintaining a roleplaying game? Events that are entirely driven by Player agency must still encounter a world outside that particular Player's absolute control, in any game that I know of that includes a GM. . . and the Player agency-driven events are plot even in some corner scenario where the GM (whom you indicate exists, above) has no input on the reaction of the rest of the world.

I believe there is a problem with the word "plot" and how people use it. Many people refer to "plot" as a pre-determined sequence of events. Such as "the PCs will be captured by slavers, taken to work at the mines belonging to the BBEG, find a magical relic, learn about his plans from a fellow slave that used to work for the BBEG, escape from the mines to defeat the BBEG with the magic relic right before he is about to complete a ritual that would grant him immeasurable powers". The problem with this set-up is that it will never happen unless the DM forces certain events to happen regardless of what the players do, i.e. railroading.

For example; what if the players defeat the slavers in the beginning? Maybe they throw away the relic thinking it is useless (or selling it for some extra food)? Maybe they are anti-social and never talk with the fellow slaves? What if they do not escape from the mines because they think that your conveniently unlocked door is a trap by the jailers? There are an infinite number of ways in which this plot can malfunction if left to the devices of player choice. In order to protect "the Plot", the DM then has to Railroad.

A better way (in my opinion), would be to simply have a situation "the characters gets attacked by slavers" and then see what happens. That is an encounter. Then you could have "there is an evil guy who wants to complete an evil ritual to gain immeasurable powers". That could become an adventure, if the characters somehow get in contact with it. Since realistically there could be more than one way to hear about this evil guy (they tend to make noise), there is no reason to define a plot that requires to characters to perform certain actions.

If you ever find yourself writing an adventure that, save for some minor editing, could be written as a book even before the players have entered the mix, then you have a plot. When you have a plot, you need to ask your players if they are okay with experiencing said plot through a roleplaying medium. If they are not, you could still write the book. They might even enjoy it.

1337 b4k4
2015-04-27, 07:20 AM
So. you're saying when you use a specific - and previously unspecified - definition of the term you chose, rather than the generally understood denotation and connotation of the term, you can argue that you're technically correct. Got it.

It seemed pretty clear from context that Yora was using that definition of plot (which at least to me is the more generally understood connotation) rather than the more broad "any form of story at all that emerges from the game play".


So your making the distinction between 1) DM that sets up a plot in advance and 2) DM improves a plot from scratch ? Ok, but either way you will need to railroad to go anywhere.

Well, as a said, ''bad'' railroading is just a complaint by players for something they don't like...so, yes, that is the DM doing anything the players don't like. Plenty of players will cry railroading if their character encounters so much as a locked door.

Lets take the basic: The players just improvise and decide they want to attack and loot the Black Tower. Now, there are twelve ways they can do that, but only two are remotely practical...and one is a good idea and one is a bad idea. I good DM will railroad the players to the good idea, and everyone has fun. After all the bad idea will end baddy and the other ten will just waste time.

There's a difference between having a road, and having a rail road. The key aspect of rail roads (and what makes them so terrible for TTRPGs) is the rails part. The rails that prevents you from leaving the path in front of you no matter what you do short of de-railing the entire game. Simply having and presenting a path for your players to follow is not railroading. Having a path and then refusing to allow your players to do anything other than follow that path to its inevitable conclusion is.

Cluedrew
2015-04-27, 07:26 AM
I have been trying to figure out how to explain why I feel railroading is not the same as linear campaign design. So far the best reason is that railroading uses artificial means to keep players on a particular course (such as too strong NPCs) while a linear campaign can also use natural means (such as the players wanting to follow the story). To better complete the definition I should figure out exactly what the difference is between natural and artificial means here, right now I only have a gut instinct to go off of.

So a linear campaign is a type of campaign, while railroading is a(n unpopular) tool in creating and running said campaigns. Like other tools is can be used well or badly. Here that generally means how noticeable it is.

Similarly, I have always though the plot as the sequence of events in a story that happen. Not the sequence of events that could happen. In the context of a role-playing game this means there is no plot until the PCs do something, GM exposition also counts. Now this is my personal definition, I didn't get it from a dictionary.

obryn
2015-04-27, 09:01 AM
Railroading is controlling the path, not just the destination.

Yora
2015-04-27, 09:03 AM
Railroading is controlling the path, not just the destination.

Here, have a cookie and an internet.

Thrudd
2015-04-27, 09:22 AM
I have been trying to figure out how to explain why I feel railroading is not the same as linear campaign design. So far the best reason is that railroading uses artificial means to keep players on a particular course (such as too strong NPCs) while a linear campaign can also use natural means (such as the players wanting to follow the story). To better complete the definition I should figure out exactly what the difference is between natural and artificial means here, right now I only have a gut instinct to go off of.

So a linear campaign is a type of campaign, while railroading is a(n unpopular) tool in creating and running said campaigns. Like other tools is can be used well or badly. Here that generally means how noticeable it is.

Similarly, I have always though the plot as the sequence of events in a story that happen. Not the sequence of events that could happen. In the context of a role-playing game this means there is no plot until the PCs do something, GM exposition also counts. Now this is my personal definition, I didn't get it from a dictionary.

I would say that to have a good linear story game, it requires player buy-in in the form of appropriate characters and motives (as well as the desire/ability to role play those characters). A well designed story needs to be centered around the characters, so their participation is totally natural and without forcing.

Railroading happens when the DM is trying to run a linear narrative/plot, but the players haven't explicitly bought into that idea. They probably have varying characters that aren't all suitable for the plot, and role playing those characters according to the players' conception of them may even put them at odds with the intended plot.


A sandbox style game does not mean completely random, and the level of randomness does not equate to pointless. The point, in a true sandbox game, is for the characters to pursue their motives by whatever means they see fit (within the rules of the game), by interacting with the prepared game world. The DM creates environments and scenarios in which the players can pursue those motives, and introduces complications and challenges. It only becomes "pointless" if the players don't want to play anymore, or their characters no longer want anything or have anything to do (at which point they could make new characters and start again).
Without a preestablished plot, the story emerges as the players take actions to pursue their goals, the DM adjusts the world in reaction to their actions or introduces new elements to complicate things, they react to those reactions, and it progresses naturally.

Eisenheim
2015-04-27, 10:12 AM
Railroading happens when the DM is trying to run a linear narrative/plot, but the players haven't explicitly bought into that idea. They probably have varying characters that aren't all suitable for the plot, and role playing those characters according to the players' conception of them may even put them at odds with the intended plot.


So much this. As I have been saying, and as thrudd says, linear plots =/= railroading, because when the players are on board they follow the plot without needing to be forced. I would also add that some systems, notably fate, have ways of prodding players along your desired plotline that are much more palatable than simply stonewalling other options. Sometimes the GM needs to send the characters down a particular path because that's where the game is, and it's that or the session is over, and it's not a GM's obligation to have something ready for every path or be ready to improvise a whole night of game.

CombatBunny
2015-04-27, 12:32 PM
After reading most of the posts, there is not very much that I can add, so I’ll just vent myself by posting a couple examples of the kind of railroading that I hate most; the one that happens when GMs haven’t understood that preparing a RPG session is far too different from writing a novel or a movie script.

(I’ll use D&D system for the examples)



PC: I’m following the lead to an evil cult so I guess that I’ll begin with gather information.

GM: It’s a very secretive cult, so unless you roll 21 on a d20, you find nothing.

PC: Well, I’ll go to the tavern to see what I can get.

GM: You find nothing.

PC: Ok, maybe on the library?

GM: Nothing.

PC: The Cathedral?

GM: Nothing, Nothing, Nothing. Make an intelligence roll.

PC: Damn! I just rolled 3 counting my stats. Guess I’m stuck.

GM: No, no, that’s high enough for me. Your character realizes that the house of the sheriff has a loose tile on the floor of the wine cellar that leads to a hidden passage, but it’s locked. Roll once again.

PC: A mediocre 7

GM: Your roll also lets you know that the key is actually one of the earrings of her daughter that works at the bakery two streets ahead. Quite probably you will find her there in this very moment.

PC: Ooookay… I guess I’ll do exactly that and go to the bakery.

GM: Good.






GM: The stone walled room was actually a trap, the door behinds you shuts close; the ceiling is suddenly covered with spikes and begins to go down slowly.

PC: I use mist, dimensional door, meld into stone and every spell I know.

GM: I’m sorry; the entire room is an anti-magic field.

PC: I try to find its mechanism to stop it

GM: Okay, you need 3 successful rolls, the first one is difficulty 80 not to enter in panic, second is difficulty 95 to find it and 77 to disable it. That of course, given that you have the proper tools that are insanely specialized. You have a -10 penalty to any roll, due to the pressure you are under.

PC: I try to break the walls with my sword.

GM: Oops! The walls were fortified with wall of force waterproofing.

PC: But you said that it was an anti-magic field?

GM: Yeah, it’s a very special AMF that works for everything except for the walls of force of the trap.

PC: I’m doomed.

GM: Not everything is lost, roll search.

PC: But I’ve already…

GM: Roll it I say!

PC: I rolled a 4, goodbye to my PC.

GM: No that's cool, that’s a good roll for me. You palpate the wall and find a loose stone, you manage to take it out and just one second before the wall crushes you, you manage to slip through the hole and emerge victoriously to the other side.

BRC
2015-04-27, 01:32 PM
After reading most of the posts, there is not very much that I can add, so I’ll just vent myself by posting a couple examples of the kind of railroading that I hate most; the one that happens when GMs haven’t understood that preparing a RPG session is far too different from writing a novel or a movie script.

(I’ll use D&D system for the examples)



PC: I’m following the lead to an evil cult so I guess that I’ll begin with gather information.

GM: It’s a very secretive cult, so unless you roll 21 on a d20, you find nothing.

PC: Well, I’ll go to the tavern to see what I can get.

GM: You find nothing.

PC: Ok, maybe on the library?

GM: Nothing.

PC: The Cathedral?

GM: Nothing, Nothing, Nothing. Make an intelligence roll.

PC: Damn! I just rolled 3 counting my stats. Guess I’m stuck.

GM: No, no, that’s high enough for me. Your character realizes that the house of the sheriff has a loose tile on the floor of the wine cellar that leads to a hidden passage, but it’s locked. Roll once again.

PC: A mediocre 7

GM: Your roll also lets you know that the key is actually one of the earrings of her daughter that works at the bakery two streets ahead. Quite probably you will find her there in this very moment.

PC: Ooookay… I guess I’ll do exactly that and go to the bakery.

GM: Good.






GM: The stone walled room was actually a trap, the door behinds you shuts close; the ceiling is suddenly covered with spikes and begins to go down slowly.

PC: I use mist, dimensional door, meld into stone and every spell I know.

GM: I’m sorry; the entire room is an anti-magic field.

PC: I try to find its mechanism to stop it

GM: Okay, you need 3 successful rolls, the first one is difficulty 80 not to enter in panic, second is difficulty 95 to find it and 77 to disable it. That of course, given that you have the proper tools that are insanely specialized. You have a -10 penalty to any roll, due to the pressure you are under.

PC: I try to break the walls with my sword.

GM: Oops! The walls were fortified with wall of force waterproofing.

PC: But you said that it was an anti-magic field?

GM: Yeah, it’s a very special AMF that works for everything except for the walls of force of the trap.

PC: I’m doomed.

GM: Not everything is lost, roll search.

PC: But I’ve already…

GM: Roll it I say!

PC: I rolled a 4, goodbye to my PC.

GM: No that's cool, that’s a good roll for me. You palpate the wall and find a loose stone, you manage to take it out and just one second before the wall crushes you, you manage to slip through the hole and emerge victoriously to the other side.



What we have here is a classic example of railroading at it's worst.

Or, at the very least, railroading at it's ALMOST worst.

In this case, the DM has just decided what's going to happen and shuts down any alternate approaches. But at the very least they're letting the story progress.

Railroading at it's worst is basically this, but without the "Yeah, a 4 is good enough for me" thing. The DM just sits there, shutting down everything, waiting for the PCs to inspect the Sheriff's house for loose tiles. If the PC's never think to look for loose tiles in the Sheriff's wine cellar, then nothing happens. The Players just get frustrated.

This can come about when the DM is taking inspiration from other things (Books, movies, or video games) without considering the unique nature of RPGs. In, say, a video game, the Sheriff's house may be one of three buildings you can enter. A player is therefore likely to explore it, and the associated wine cellar, exhaustively, using their metagame knowledge that, since it is one of a few open buildings, there MUST be something there.

Similarly, in a book, the Author can guide the characters down to the Sheriff's wine cellar, where they find the loose tile.

A tabletop game isn't like that. The Players have no way of knowing that the Sheriff's house is special, and even if they do, the characters don't, so making a point of searching the Sheriff's house is metagaming.
Plus, what might seem "Obvious" to the DM could be anything but to the players. The players have not necessarily read the same books or played the same games, if they don't think to search the wine cellar, it goes unsearched. Even if they DO Search it, they might roll poorly.

The Railroading DM is one who not only fails to plan for multiple routes to success, they ALSO refuse to ALLOW alternate routes to success. Spontaneously appearing anti-magic fields, indestructible doors/walls, and vast numbers of suddenly appearing high level guards are the favored tools of such DMs.

CombatBunny
2015-04-27, 01:47 PM
What we have here is a classic example of railroading at it's worst.

Or, at the very least, railroading at it's ALMOST worst.

In this case, the DM has just decided what's going to happen and shuts down any alternate approaches. But at the very least they're letting the story progress.

Railroading at it's worst is basically this, but without the "Yeah, a 4 is good enough for me" thing. The DM just sits there, shutting down everything, waiting for the PCs to inspect the Sheriff's house for loose tiles. If the PC's never think to look for loose tiles in the Sheriff's wine cellar, then nothing happens. The Players just get frustrated.



Ugh! I had forgotten that kind of GMing. The railroading that you talk about is so horrible, so traumatic and so poisonous that my subconscious blocked it from my mind to keep me sane.

Yes, that totally beats my previous examples, although in my examples it seems as if everything happens right away. The reality is that the "Yeah, a 4 is good enough for me" happens after a couple of hours, once all of the players are about to leave the table out of frustration LOL

kyoryu
2015-04-27, 06:38 PM
Personally I view railroading as any situation where there's a predetermined set of events that *will* occur in the specified order. Encounters A, B, and C will happen, regardless of player input. *

Railroading isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just a style of game. It's not my preferred style, but there are some advantages.

There's two types of railroading - ones where the players are "in on it" and know what's happening (sometimes called participationism) and one where players aren't explicitly told that it's happening (often called illusionism, because they're given the "illusion" of choice).

Illusionism and railroading are often conflated, but not all railroading is illusionism.

While I'm not a huge fan of railroading, I do think you're better off being honest about it.

* a situation where encounters A, B, and C can happen, but not necessarily in that order, is an interesting edge case that I'd still call railroading, but there's probably more room for debate on that one.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-27, 10:28 PM
I really wouldn't support the claim that a good GM railroads players to pick the good idea. A good GM would let them do what they want and roll with it.

I understand everyone wants to say they never ever railroad. And everyone wants to say the players can just do whatever they want. But, unless your just doing a fluff game, or a random game, you have to lead the players from point A to B to C.



Plot means deciding in advance who does what in which order. Planning what NPCs are most likely to do and want to do is good and necessary, unless you do a pure dungeoncrawl exploration game. But you shouldn't plan what the players are doing and how they react to things, because then your precious plot can only progress if the players do exactly what they are supposed to do or the GM rewriting the plot on the fly so that things still turn out in the way that they were planned despite the players deciding to do other things. The first case is a rather weak adventure where the PCs don't really have any options to affect the outcome, the second case is plain and simple railroading.

In an RPG a plot is adaptive, and things do change by the players actions. But it is more the ripples in a river then diverting the river. Major plot points will still happen, though maybe altered. And lots of minor things can be changed entirely. But things still will happen.


I'm sorry, but how does that mean "the tracks are laid"? And how does the existence of a railroad equal railroading? If the players choose, by themselves, to go to the Black Tower, the DM needn't railroad them at all? They can simply go there? If they have chosen a direction, a goal or a task, why on earth would they wander aimlessly? You just stated that they HAVE an aim? The only problem I can see is if they don't know where the Black Tower is. But that is an adventure in and of itself, to find directions to your desired goal.

It is very easy to get side tracked in an RPG. And that is a big job of the DM: to keep the players on the track. A good example would be all the players say ''lets go raid the Black Tower''. Then five minutes later player three says ''I want to go find the secret ninja order and get some training''. So this is where the DM railroading comes in and the character say can't find the ninjas, or finds the whole order dead or something to stop the players wacky attempt at a solo game. And a clever DM will even amazingly draw the Black Tower into it....''each of the dead ninja bodies has a black tower burned into their forehead'' and, oh look, the DM just railroaded player three to go to the Black Tower.


There's a difference between having a road, and having a rail road. The key aspect of rail roads (and what makes them so terrible for TTRPGs) is the rails part. The rails that prevents you from leaving the path in front of you no matter what you do short of de-railing the entire game. Simply having and presenting a path for your players to follow is not railroading. Having a path and then refusing to allow your players to do anything other than follow that path to its inevitable conclusion is.

I guess you could say a DM keeps the players on the road or path......but that is exactly the same as being on the railroad.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-27, 10:46 PM
And a clever DM will even amazingly draw the Black Tower into it....''each of the dead ninja bodies has a black tower burned into their forehead'' and, oh look, the DM just railroaded player three to go to the Black Tower.

That doesn't sound like railroading to me at all. Perhaps the title of this thread should be "Railroading: a poorly-defined term."

jaydubs
2015-04-27, 11:21 PM
I understand everyone wants to say they never ever railroad. And everyone wants to say the players can just do whatever they want. But, unless your just doing a fluff game, or a random game, you have to lead the players from point A to B to C.

In an RPG a plot is adaptive, and things do change by the players actions. But it is more the ripples in a river then diverting the river. Major plot points will still happen, though maybe altered. And lots of minor things can be changed entirely. But things still will happen.

I don't see why that has to be the case, unless the DM is running something like an adventure path.

To give an example, let's say I have a campaign in mind. And I do have a general plot planned out. Something generic, like:

1. PCs are hired to do a job, which introduces them to BBEG.
2. PCs discover BBEG wants to get a MacGuffin, and try to take over the world with it.
3. PCs race BBEG to MacGuffin, and manage to get to it first.
4. PCs go on a quest to destroy the MacGuffin.
5. PCs get to the special place to destroy the MacGuffin, have an epic battle with BBEG, and save the world.

But instead of doing step 4, the PCs decide they want to take over the world instead. And so the planned plot changes:

3. PCs race BBEG to the MacGuffin, and manage to get to it first.
4. PCs go on a quest to figure out how to use the MacGuffin.
5. After unlocking their new powers, they easily defeat BBEG to show how powerful they now are. Maybe he becomes a minion, and they adopt his world domination scheme.
6. PCs build an evil army.
7. PCs destroy the good kingdom originally designed to be their allies.
8. Campaign ends with them as evil dictators.

You still have a plot - basically a plan on what happens if they follow the outlined directions. And you do expect the PCs to generally stay true to the theme of the campaign (not suddenly becoming bakers or something). But that plot is malleable. It can be altered. If the players want, they have the option to radically shift the course of world events.

That's how I personally try to run things. I'm not saying I always succeed, or that it's the only way to do things. But it's an option. And as an added benefit, I find it makes DMing a lot more interesting. Since I don't know what the players will do, I often end up just as surprised as they are. It can feel like reading a novel, or watching a movie. Even though I know a lot of what's going on in the story, the main characters can do something completely unexpected. And that makes campaigns incredibly exciting, even when I nominally know what's "supposed" to happen.

Lorsa
2015-04-28, 03:40 AM
I understand everyone wants to say they never ever railroad. And everyone wants to say the players can just do whatever they want. But, unless your just doing a fluff game, or a random game, you have to lead the players from point A to B to C.

I still don't understand this sentiment. First of all, why do they necessarily have to get to B and C? If the players are not interested in those points (being points in space or points in plot), why force them there? And if they indeed are interested, why assume they are incapable of going there themselves?

Also, I must have missed it earlier, but what is a "fluff" game?


In an RPG a plot is adaptive, and things do change by the players actions. But it is more the ripples in a river then diverting the river. Major plot points will still happen, though maybe altered. And lots of minor things can be changed entirely. But things still will happen.

Why? For what reason do you play games where the characters are so weak that they can impossibly affect the larger story? If that is the case, why are they involved with it at all? Wouldn't it be better to go for a story/adventure where they can meaningfully change the outcome?

To better explain what I mean, if say the game is about the characters being soldiers in a large army during a war, and them trying their best to accomplish small objectives and survive, then they probably couldn't stop the war. At least not right away. Maybe their actions make things a little better and slowly alter the outcome. But here the game isn't about the characters stopping the invasion of an evil overlord or whatever. The invasion "plot" is largely irrelevant to the game.

However, if the game is about a few characters who are the heroes of the land, and they gather at the call of the king to try and fight the invasion of the evil overlord; the characters should definitely be able to change the outcome of the war.

My point is that a roleplaying game is a story about the characters. Any "plot" defined is related to that story, or it is irrelevant. If the characters are thus forced into a specific plot by the DM, it means they are not in control of their own story. Many players find that frustrating, as the freedom of an RPG is the only place where such control could occur. You won't find it in videogames, or books, or movies, theater etc. Only RPGs can offer such control, so to remove it seems very strange to me.


It is very easy to get side tracked in an RPG. And that is a big job of the DM: to keep the players on the track. A good example would be all the players say ''lets go raid the Black Tower''. Then five minutes later player three says ''I want to go find the secret ninja order and get some training''. So this is where the DM railroading comes in and the character say can't find the ninjas, or finds the whole order dead or something to stop the players wacky attempt at a solo game. And a clever DM will even amazingly draw the Black Tower into it....''each of the dead ninja bodies has a black tower burned into their forehead'' and, oh look, the DM just railroaded player three to go to the Black Tower.

This is not how I would deal with the situation. I would let the other characters convice the third of why it is more important to go to the BT now rather than search for the secret ninja order. This can have three outcomes; either they do, and they all head to the BT together, or the third characters convinces the rest that the BT is really dangerous and they need the secret training in order to be successfull and they all start looking for the ninjas. Option three is that they split up, most of them go to the BT while one character stays behind to look for the ninjas.

In the third case, I would continue to play with the larger group, occassionly taking small brakes to play wtih the lone character and see how their ninja order search progresses. The time spent on them would be approximately 1/N, where N is the number of players, possible alterered if the other players seem invested in the search as well.

If one player are continually off doing their own stuff and refuse to go with the group, I would simply drop them from the game completely. If one person is disruptive to the overall game, there is no reason to have them there.



I guess you could say a DM keeps the players on the road or path......but that is exactly the same as being on the railroad.

I would say a DM keeps the players focused and interested in the game (as oppossed to tickling each other or whatever), but the players keep themselves on the road or path. They are the ones that know where they want to go after all.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-28, 06:50 AM
I don't see why that has to be the case, unless the DM is running something like an adventure path.

To give an example, let's say I have a campaign in mind. And I do have a general plot planned out. Something generic, like:

1. PCs are hired to do a job, which introduces them to BBEG.
2. PCs discover BBEG wants to get a MacGuffin, and try to take over the world with it.
3. PCs race BBEG to MacGuffin, and manage to get to it first.
4. PCs go on a quest to destroy the MacGuffin.
5. PCs get to the special place to destroy the MacGuffin, have an epic battle with BBEG, and save the world.

But instead of doing step 4, the PCs decide they want to take over the world instead. And so the planned plot changes:

3. PCs race BBEG to the MacGuffin, and manage to get to it first.
4. PCs go on a quest to figure out how to use the MacGuffin.
5. After unlocking their new powers, they easily defeat BBEG to show how powerful they now are. Maybe he becomes a minion, and they adopt his world domination scheme.
6. PCs build an evil army.
7. PCs destroy the good kingdom originally designed to be their allies.
8. Campaign ends with them as evil dictators.

You still have a plot - basically a plan on what happens if they follow the outlined directions. And you do expect the PCs to generally stay true to the theme of the campaign (not suddenly becoming bakers or something). But that plot is malleable. It can be altered. If the players want, they have the option to radically shift the course of world events.

That's how I personally try to run things. I'm not saying I always succeed, or that it's the only way to do things. But it's an option. And as an added benefit, I find it makes DMing a lot more interesting. Since I don't know what the players will do, I often end up just as surprised as they are. It can feel like reading a novel, or watching a movie. Even though I know a lot of what's going on in the story, the main characters can do something completely unexpected. And that makes campaigns incredibly exciting, even when I nominally know what's "supposed" to happen.

The thing thing is some people might find the idea of running a game about taking over the world to be distasteful. If I have to run a game about villainous conquers, I'm going to be actively miserable the whole time. When we first started this game I put forward "Hey this game is going to be about killing a bad guy" and the players (more likely a single player who can browbeat the others) decide "Nope. Wanna be evil", it's unfair to me.

At that point I stop running the game for them and will seriously reconsider playing with them again. They took the time an energy I was putting into something I was enjoying and turned it into something else. My time and energy has been wasted because the game that is left is one I'd hate showing up to every week, and the characters are ones I'd hate running a story for.

Hawkstar
2015-04-28, 08:12 AM
Railroading is actually a two-step process - once in adventure design, and once in enforcement of that adventure design. A limited campaign scope is not railroading (1-4 on the JayR's improperly calibrated scale).

The guy who plunks player characters into a world with only one plot hook in mind and forces them to meander ineffectively until they find it is just as railroady as someone who forces them onto the path - The railroad's there, the players are just stuck in the station until they find the metaphorical train that rides it.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-04-28, 08:21 AM
I still don't understand this sentiment. First of all, why do they necessarily have to get to B and C? If the players are not interested in those points (being points in space or points in plot), why force them there? And if they indeed are interested, why assume they are incapable of going there themselves?

And I don't even view it as a journey between points--I tend to run my games in a very particular manner influenced by Apocalypse World. I present the players with a situation, ask* them what they do about it, and justly show the consequences of that. Then I ask the players what they do about their new situation, and so on, and so on. Often, their actions tie into mechanics and those mechanics provide particular consequences that send the game careening off in unexpected directions.


*and by "ask", it's more like "So the goblin is screaming at you in a strange language, what are you doing?"

I had a fantastic campaign arc finish off with a very poignant moment that was entirely unplanned. I set up a group of paladins that descended on a village because the PCs' paladin had drawn the attention of the Hells to the village. They set up to do a cleansing ritual that would obliterate the village and a number of its residents. And that's the situation I presented to the players.

Each of them dealt with the situation differently--the Fighter brute-forced his way through the magical barrier surrounding the village, just in time to save the town militia who'd been locked inside; the Ranger hung around, trying to support the Paladin; the Paladin engaged some of the paladins surrounding the village, and brutally died...and in that death, he came to terms with his priorly bloody and fanatic ways. It was awesome, and it couldn't have happened under a traditional model. None of us saw it coming.

And it ultimately ended with the village going up in flames. We all just stood there for a moment, like "whoa". And if they'd found a way to stop it (I think it may have been possible), that would've been another ending altogether.

erikun
2015-04-28, 08:32 AM
It has to do with how the causal relationships are perceived by the players. If the DM says 'the ogre you avoided is very territorial and sees you in the sky, so decides to hunt you down' then you're specifically telling the players 'I am making you fight this ogre even though you had a valid plan to avoid it' - you're directly telling them that their plan failed or that you're thwarting it.

On the other hand, compare to: 'There's a forest between you and the Cave of Mystery, what do you do? Fly over it? Okay, that works! Now, you arrive at the Cave of Mystery, what do you do? Okay, as you're scouting the cave, you find an ogre living in the first chamber...'. In this case, you aren't giving any signal that there 'was' an ogre in the forest, so when the ogre appears in the cave it isn't a message that the players failed, its just an ogre in a cave.
Actually, saying that the ogre is territorial and will hunt the party down does not tell my players that I am making them fight it. If anything, it tells my players that they are likely to encounter it, but how they deal with that is up to them. Heck, given that they have time to prep for the encounter, it could be far different than just being ambushed in the forest.

And more realistically, I am not going to outright state that there is a territorial ogre which is going to follow the party. Why would I? They didn't see the ogre. I do find it strange that someone would take their ogre-encounter out of the forest and move it into the cave, as a way to force the ogre encounter onto the players, but changing the ogre-encounter from an ambush into it following the party is somehow off limits. To use the example against itself, if the players didn't know that there wasn't an ogre attack planned to happen shortly after they go into the goblin caves, then how would they know I've changed anything.

As for just putting the ogre in the first cavern chamber: I think the players will notice something strange when, after every time they fly over an obstacle, the location they are going to just happens to be the den of some large nasty monster that probably took awhile for the DM to stat out.

1337 b4k4
2015-04-28, 08:46 AM
I understand everyone wants to say they never ever railroad.

Hopefully not. Every DM should acknowledge two things:

1) Railroading is a tool in the DM's toolkit, it is neither in and of itself good or bad
2) You will sometimes railroad your players. Intentionally or not, it is inevitable.

For example, I like to run my games as absolutely open world as possible. But the start of the very first game for my group, in order to get everyone acclimated to a new system, I dropped all the players into a mine as slaves. Didn't even give them any starting gear or equipment and then had a disaster/riot strike. The entire dungeon was to introduce them piece meal to the features of the game and their characters over the course of play. But by its nature (the only way out is forward, and it's a freaking mine) the path was pretty much fixed and the the progression predefined. There is no way for the players in this case to not engage with the mine and the creatures therein. The path is set, the destination is chosen and choice is limited to some basic options within the confines of the mine. This is a railroad, all aboard and the next stop is freedom, but you must ride the train. The railroad is narrow in scope, and explicitly designed for the purpose of gradually introducing a new system to the players and getting them familiar with things before letting them loose in the world, but none the less it is a railroad.

Any DM who fancies themselves as never have and never will railroad their players is fooling themselves at best, and actively ignoring a tool in their toolbox at worst because they're afraid of lopping off a limb with its sharp edges.



It is very easy to get side tracked in an RPG. And that is a big job of the DM: to keep the players on the track.

My job as the GM is not to keep the players on my track, but to make their characters lives interesting and dangerous. If the players get bored exploring something, it's not my job to make it more interesting or force them back into it.


I guess you could say a DM keeps the players on the road or path......but that is exactly the same as being on the railroad.

Except I don't say a DM keeps the players on the road or path. I lay out paths and let the players follow them or not as they will. And if they don't follow the paths provided, I'll make more paths. Players are not stupid. They're there to game and have fun just as much as you are and they will make their own adventures out of things if you as a DM simply seek to make things interesting for them.


The thing thing is some people might find the idea of running a game about taking over the world to be distasteful. If I have to run a game about villainous conquers, I'm going to be actively miserable the whole time. When we first started this game I put forward "Hey this game is going to be about killing a bad guy" and the players (more likely a single player who can browbeat the others) decide "Nope. Wanna be evil", it's unfair to me.

At that point I stop running the game for them and will seriously reconsider playing with them again. They took the time an energy I was putting into something I was enjoying and turned it into something else. My time and energy has been wasted because the game that is left is one I'd hate showing up to every week, and the characters are ones I'd hate running a story for.

Agreeing on a narrow scope game is not railroading though. If we agree upfront that the game we're about to play is heroes vs BBEG and the players decide they don't want to do that any more, that isn't railroading for you to say "Hey guys, we agreed not to watch the world burn this time" and it's just as reasonable for you to decide you don't want to run that any more as it would be for you to decide the same when you sit down at the table with your D&D DMG and the players break out the WEG Ghostbusters PHB.

But if you sit down and make up a grand adventure about taking down an evil wizard in a tower and your players find the local corrupt mayor and his thugs ruling with an iron fist over the country side to be more of a danger and a threat, it's not unfair to you that they decide their BBEG is really the mayor and not the wizard you locked in a tower. Even if you spent days and weeks lovingly crafting the wizard tower and maze, you presented the PCs with another challenge as well and that's the one they're interested in exploring. So you didn't prepare. That's fine. Ask for a few minutes to whip something up, and set aside your tower and wizard until your players decide to go there. Just because they haven't now doesn't mean you can't keep dropping hints. And it doesn't mean you can't tie things together either if it makes sense. It just means of the things you presented to your players to interact with, they chose something you didn't think they would.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-28, 09:00 AM
But if you sit down and make up a grand adventure about taking down an evil wizard in a tower and your players find the local corrupt mayor and his thugs ruling with an iron fist over the country side to be more of a danger and a threat, it's not unfair to you that they decide their BBEG is really the mayor and not the wizard you locked in a tower. Even if you spent days and weeks lovingly crafting the wizard tower and maze, you presented the PCs with another challenge as well and that's the one they're interested in exploring. So you didn't prepare. That's fine. Ask for a few minutes to whip something up, and set aside your tower and wizard until your players decide to go there. Just because they haven't now doesn't mean you can't keep dropping hints. And it doesn't mean you can't tie things together either if it makes sense. It just means of the things you presented to your players to interact with, they chose something you didn't think they would.

If I've got a big powerful wizard I want to be the BBEG, why is a small time mayor even strong enough player to withstand the PC hostilities for more than session or two? Presumably if they're the types with the power to storm the tower of a world-bending magic user and end him, some puffed-up aristocrat and the handful of small-time guards won't be an issue.

If I intended the mayor to be a small-timer, what's wrong with him being a small timer? Just because they decide they think he's the big bad doesn't mean I can't make him the whimpering dog he is when they go to take him down.

Hawkstar
2015-04-28, 09:03 AM
If I've got a big powerful wizard I want to be the BBEG, why is a small time mayor even strong enough player to withstand the PC hostilities for more than session or two? Presumably if they're the types with the power to storm the tower of a world-bending magic user and end him, some puffed-up aristocrat and the handful of small-time guards won't be an issue.

If I intended the mayor to be a small-timer, what's wrong with him being a small timer? Just because they decide they think he's the big bad doesn't mean I can't make him the whimpering dog he is when they go to take him down.... which works if the players and DM don't feel that all challenges must be appropriate for their power level.

However... I think the larger point was "Let them deal with the mayor instead of forcing them to chase down the BBEG". (But what do you do if the Mayor is actually more powerful than the Evil Wizard in a Tower, and the encounter is level/scope-inappropriate in the opposite direction?)

NichG
2015-04-28, 09:07 AM
Actually, saying that the ogre is territorial and will hunt the party down does not tell my players that I am making them fight it. If anything, it tells my players that they are likely to encounter it, but how they deal with that is up to them. Heck, given that they have time to prep for the encounter, it could be far different than just being ambushed in the forest.

And more realistically, I am not going to outright state that there is a territorial ogre which is going to follow the party. Why would I? They didn't see the ogre. I do find it strange that someone would take their ogre-encounter out of the forest and move it into the cave, as a way to force the ogre encounter onto the players, but changing the ogre-encounter from an ambush into it following the party is somehow off limits. To use the example against itself, if the players didn't know that there wasn't an ogre attack planned to happen shortly after they go into the goblin caves, then how would they know I've changed anything.

It really does come down to subtleties of presentation. If you say 'there's an ogre!' then that's different than saying 'it seems that an ogre has followed your airship from the forest!'. The result is the same, but we're really operating in the depths of player perception here so how it's presented is critical.


As for just putting the ogre in the first cavern chamber: I think the players will notice something strange when, after every time they fly over an obstacle, the location they are going to just happens to be the den of some large nasty monster that probably took awhile for the DM to stat out.

The idea is, before the players skipped the forest, there was still going to be some kind of encounter in the cave, but perhaps a different one. Since the players skip the forest-ogre, the encounter just becomes a cave-ogre, thus preventing the DM from having to prep encounters that never get run.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-04-28, 09:11 AM
Hopefully not. Every DM should acknowledge two things:

1) Railroading is a tool in the DM's toolkit, it is neither in and of itself good or bad
2) You will sometimes railroad your players. Intentionally or not, it is inevitable.

For example, I like to run my games as absolutely open world as possible. But the start of the very first game for my group, in order to get everyone acclimated to a new system, I dropped all the players into a mine as slaves. Didn't even give them any starting gear or equipment and then had a disaster/riot strike. The entire dungeon was to introduce them piece meal to the features of the game and their characters over the course of play. But by its nature (the only way out is forward, and it's a freaking mine) the path was pretty much fixed and the the progression predefined. There is no way for the players in this case to not engage with the mine and the creatures therein. The path is set, the destination is chosen and choice is limited to some basic options within the confines of the mine. This is a railroad, all aboard and the next stop is freedom, but you must ride the train. The railroad is narrow in scope, and explicitly designed for the purpose of gradually introducing a new system to the players and getting them familiar with things before letting them loose in the world, but none the less it is a railroad.

Any DM who fancies themselves as never have and never will railroad their players is fooling themselves at best, and actively ignoring a tool in their toolbox at worst because they're afraid of lopping off a limb with its sharp edges.

<raises hand> Sorry, I'm a counterexample to that claim. Well, sorta. I mean, I have engaged in railroads, very back in the beginning when I didn't really know what I was doing and hadn't thought about what the implications of railroads are.

But I never will railroad, now. Well, with a caveat I'll get to. I don't feel a need to drop players into a tutorial level to get a grip for the game; it's not a video game, I'm not bound by those limits. I can teach the players how the game works either with pre-game explanations or on-the-fly explanation. I've run convention one-shots for total strangers with nary a whiff of railroading, and they work.

I have the suspicion that most people who see railroads as necessary are doing so because it's tautological for them--they see railroads as necessary because in their mindset they see railroads as necessary. Because they've not seen ways to handle it otherwise. But those ways do exist. They require a bit of shift in mentality, but they do exist.

Railroading is not a tool for me, and I've not lost anything by it, save the ability to run extensively pre-scripted adventures of my own devising. And I'm okay doing without that. If I want to tell stories, I'll write a book.

(My caveat: there's a rare game or two that does restrict players heavily, like Becoming (http://becomingrpg.com/) or Witch: the Road to Lindisfarne (http://www.ukroleplayers.com/witch/). But that's irrelevant to this discussion, because these games are ludicrously removed from traditional RPGs in their approach. They're also very specifically written as such.)

Mr.Moron
2015-04-28, 09:13 AM
... which works if the players and DM don't feel that all challenges must be appropriate for their power level.

Then you wind up in a very a strange world indeed. Where once you decide to pick a fight in the bar, suddenly Lenny the town drunk pings 10 levels and has enchanted weapons & armor fly from the sky into his hands.

Suddenly the bandits accosting you on the road are are all half-dragons with more than handful of PC levels.

This works I suppose in a vaguely Oblivion-esque way, and if that's your thing more power to you. I'll agree keeping players focused on specific challenges poses a special problem if every encounter (and therefore the whole world), must always be operating on their level. At least when you're going for the "Big heros stop big evil" thing as the specific challenge.



However... I think the larger point was "Let them deal with the mayor instead of forcing them to chase down the BBEG". (But what do you do if the Mayor is actually more powerful than the Evil Wizard in a Tower, and the encounter is level/scope-inappropriate in the opposite direction?)

How does this happen though? At least outside the "Everything must be on par with the PCs, therefore everything is roughly equal in power"

I'm (The GM) the one statting these things. Making the corrupt mayor more powerful than the big evil wizard is nonsensical! If do that, I'm putting my adventure together in a way that's contrary to my design goals. At this point the problem isn't railroading, it's just a basic failure to understand how to structure things.

Hawkstar
2015-04-28, 09:48 AM
Then you wind up in a very a strange world indeed. Where once you decide to pick a fight in the bar, suddenly Lenny the town drunk pings 10 levels and has enchanted weapons & armor fly from the sky into his hands.

Suddenly the bandits accosting you on the road are are all half-dragons with more than handful of PC levels.

This works I suppose in a vaguely Oblivion-esque way, and if that's your thing more power to you. I'll agree keeping players focused on specific challenges poses a special problem if every encounter (and therefore the whole world), must always be operating on their level. At least when you're going for the "Big heros stop big evil" thing as the specific challenge. It's something I see pop up - some groups/dms/players feel that all encounters must be a challenge or else it's just a waste of time - Sure, near-meaningless encounters sandbox can be used effectively in a PC game - but that's because it's just one player playing at their own pace. With a D&D group, this full 'sandbox' approach doesn't always work, because sessions are only so long, meet so many times, have actions take so long to resolve, etc... If you're spending 20+ man-hours on a hobby, you want them to feel worthwhile. A big problem, at least in my own groups, though, seems to be more time spent rolling/deciding initiative and keeping turn-order straight.

It's usually not as blatant as what you describe - but that belligerent drunk ends up actually being an off-duty high-ranking assassin to make the fight worth rolling initiative for, and the Bandits do end up being high-level raiders of some sort to justify the break in the narrative.


How does this happen though? At least outside the "Everything must be on par with the PCs, therefore everything is roughly equal in power"

I'm (The GM) the one statting these things. Making the corrupt mayor more powerful than the big evil wizard is nonsensical! If do that, I'm putting my adventure together in a way that's contrary to my design goals. At this point the problem isn't railroading, it's just a basic failure to understand how to structure things.The corrupt mayor may supposed to be something of a window-dressing for the setting's adventure, or a threat to be handled at a later time (Or by someone else in a later campaign). In a low-level game (level 1-3), the town may be large enough that the mayor needs a mid-level (Level 5-7) party to solve, while the low-level characters are tasked with getting rid of a nuisance hermit wizard in a mysterious madhouse a few miles from town.

1337 b4k4
2015-04-28, 10:28 AM
If I've got a big powerful wizard I want to be the BBEG, why is a small time mayor even strong enough player to withstand the PC hostilities for more than session or two? Presumably if they're the types with the power to storm the tower of a world-bending magic user and end him, some puffed-up aristocrat and the handful of small-time guards won't be an issue.

If I intended the mayor to be a small-timer, what's wrong with him being a small timer? Just because they decide they think he's the big bad doesn't mean I can't make him the whimpering dog he is when they go to take him down.

You're right it doesn't. What it does mean is that you don't have to force the PCs back onto the rails to the wizard tower just because it's what you prepared for them. That is, the mayor doesn't have to be always just out of reach every time the PCs want to engage. But it also may mean that you adventure might take another path entirely. Ok so they took down the mayor, who was a snivling coward once his entourage was defeated. Great. Now what does that mean for your world? Does the wizard in the tower respond to these events? Does he care? What about the town itself? Are the players viewed as heroes or usurpers? What about the local politically connected? The end of the mayor's corrupt reign has surely upset a few other apple carts. My larger point is, the players have decided to engage with a part of your world that you didn't originally anticipate. Provided that this isn't outside the scope of the agreed upon game, its now up to you to make that part of the world a reality too. And it may mean sacrificing some work that you did elsewhere for the time being. The wizard tower is still there. It may even become a stronger player or force in the world, you don't have to trash it. Just acknowledge that your anticipated story isn't the one that's going to be told and be ok with that.


<raises hand> Sorry, I'm a counterexample to that claim. Well, sorta. I mean, I have engaged in railroads, very back in the beginning when I didn't really know what I was doing and hadn't thought about what the implications of railroads are.

So then, you aren't really a counter example? :smallbiggrin:

Just because it's a tool doesn't imply you have to use it. Random encounter charts are tools, some DMs refuse to use them. Fudging rolls are tools, some DMs refuse to do that. Wounds and the spiral of suck is a tool and plenty of DMs refuse to use those as well. These tools are not good or bad in and of themselves. Some may be more dangerous and require more careful touch than others but they are tools none the less. Whether you do or don't use them as a regular course of action (or ever) is your own decision but almost every GM I've ever encountered has used some if not all of them at some point or another because they are effective for their purpose. It's just a matter of whether that purpose is important to you as a GM. Advice on whether or not to ever use these tools should not be viewed as a proscription against using them, but as a recommendation that if you want to reach as broad a player base as possible, you probably shouldn't without some explicit buy in. But if you sit down with your group and say "Hey, we're going to run Dragon Lance" and they agree, then keeping them on the rails isn't a bad thing. It's a necessary element to accomplish the goal. If they get bored with Dragon Lance, then maybe the goal needs to shift and the railroad needs to go back into the toolbox.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-28, 10:38 AM
Now what does that mean for your world?

The people in the town are now free of the evil mayor, and decide to hold fair elections assuming mayors are appointed by some higher-up. in which case they appoint a new mayor, appropriately apologetic for the dishonorable actions of their subordinate.



Does the wizard in the tower respond to these events?

Maybe. If the wizard is really important to me, and the players are super-fixated on the mayor or assume he's part of some larger conspiracy I'll probably drop glaringly obvious hints the wizard is behind it.

He might even start sending indirect backup, to underline the point. A couple low-level summoned demons or the like.


Does he care?

See above. He cares if he it seems like it's relevant for him to care, if he's going to get on screen without him caring he might care if it seems cool.


What about the town itself?

It's doing great!


Are the players viewed as heroes or usurpers?

Heroes! Unless they like killed a bunch of townsfolk in doing so. Though they'd probably have to go out of their way to do this.



What about the local politically connected?

"That guy was a total douche anyway. Glad to be rid of him".

erikun
2015-04-28, 10:43 AM
The idea is, before the players skipped the forest, there was still going to be some kind of encounter in the cave, but perhaps a different one. Since the players skip the forest-ogre, the encounter just becomes a cave-ogre, thus preventing the DM from having to prep encounters that never get run.
Then what happened to the encounters prepped for the cave?

The assumption behind "quantum ogreing" or moving an encounter to another location is the desire to use the ogre encounter, not a sudden lack of encounters for the cave. The players were going to encounter something in the cave, after all. But it wasn't going to be the ogre until the PCs avoided the ogre fight completely, at which point it then became the ogre fight.

And as I mentioned earlier, the PCs are probably going to catch on if, every time they avoid a forest or barrier leading up to the cave, that they then get some big nasty encounter right as they enter it.


That said: thinking about it some more, I can see the reason why someone would want to use a quantum encounter. Having a NPC or an event that just-so-happens to be nearby the PCs allows for easier encounters, rather than just an "Oops, didn't roll the right numbers for that to occur!" It can be quite annoying to try to come up with a NPC personality on the spot, as opposed to the PCs just running into a friendly shopkeeping wandering around town (rather than at their shop). I guess I just don't get the point of the quantum combat encounter, as if a GM was planning on the PCs running through a cavern, then the cavern encounters would already be planned out. There isn't really any time saved in shoving the ogre into the cavern encounters in that case, because it's just replacing one existing encounter with another.

BRC
2015-04-28, 10:50 AM
Then what happened to the encounters prepped for the cave?

The assumption behind "quantum ogreing" or moving an encounter to another location is the desire to use the ogre encounter, not a sudden lack of encounters for the cave. The players were going to encounter something in the cave, after all. But it wasn't going to be the ogre until the PCs avoided the ogre fight completely, at which point it then became the ogre fight.

And as I mentioned earlier, the PCs are probably going to catch on if, every time they avoid a forest or barrier leading up to the cave, that they then get some big nasty encounter right as they enter it.


That said: thinking about it some more, I can see the reason why someone would want to use a quantum encounter. Having a NPC or an event that just-so-happens to be nearby the PCs allows for easier encounters, rather than just an "Oops, didn't roll the right numbers for that to occur!" It can be quite annoying to try to come up with a NPC personality on the spot, as opposed to the PCs just running into a friendly shopkeeping wandering around town (rather than at their shop). I guess I just don't get the point of the quantum combat encounter, as if a GM was planning on the PCs running through a cavern, then the cavern encounters would already be planned out. There isn't really any time saved in shoving the ogre into the cavern encounters in that case, because it's just replacing one existing encounter with another.

The idea of the Quantum Ogre is usually because the DM didn't have an existing encounter planned.

DM: "Your path takes you through the deep forest! Where-"
Player: "Hold on a second, didn't we establish that there is a dwarven tunnel that cuts through the mountains? We can take that instead!"
DM: "Your path takes you through the tunnel cutting through the mountains, where YOU ENCOUNTER AN OGRE!"

Or, the DM is just giving the illusion of choice. If the PC's go through the woods, there is an ogre in the woods. If they go through the cave, there is an ogre in the cave.

erikun
2015-04-28, 10:58 AM
The idea of the Quantum Ogre is usually because the DM didn't have an existing encounter planned.

DM: "Your path takes you through the deep forest! Where-"
Player: "Hold on a second, didn't we establish that there is a dwarven tunnel that cuts through the mountains? We can take that instead!"
DM: "Your path takes you through the tunnel cutting through the mountains, where YOU ENCOUNTER AN OGRE!"

Or, the DM is just giving the illusion of choice. If the PC's go through the woods, there is an ogre in the woods. If they go through the cave, there is an ogre in the cave.
Well, if the PCs go somewhere unplanned, then yes, I can see that being fine. It's generally not a problem either, because most players realize that the game would otherwise grind to a halt. I think that if the PCs decide to NOT go through the forest to the goblin bandit stronghold, and instead decide to explore that haunted house they've been ignoring for two months, then the GM needs to pull his encounters out of somewhere.

And if those encounters just happen to be phantom goblins, wolves, and a phantom ogre, well...

jaydubs
2015-04-28, 11:34 AM
The thing thing is some people might find the idea of running a game about taking over the world to be distasteful. If I have to run a game about villainous conquers, I'm going to be actively miserable the whole time. When we first started this game I put forward "Hey this game is going to be about killing a bad guy" and the players (more likely a single player who can browbeat the others) decide "Nope. Wanna be evil", it's unfair to me.

At that point I stop running the game for them and will seriously reconsider playing with them again. They took the time an energy I was putting into something I was enjoying and turned it into something else. My time and energy has been wasted because the game that is left is one I'd hate showing up to every week, and the characters are ones I'd hate running a story for.

I can understand drawing boundaries before the game. The point was simply that it's possible to run a game with a plot, without pre-determining the outcome of the story. Non-villainous examples of divergent choices:

-PCs try to use the MacGuffin (for good).
-PCs try to hide the MacGuffin. For example, in another plane, turning into a planar adventure.
-PCs decide to pass on the MacGuffin information to allies and let them handle it, because they want to fight the BBEG directly.
-PCs think up another way to try to destroy it.
-PCs turn over the MacGuffin to a deity they trust.
-PCs decide to quest for some other magical item to counter the MacGuffin, rather than race for it.
-PCs go on a quest to find (or become) an entity to counter BBEG.

All of those choices are going to vastly change the direction of the original planned storyline. They're non-villainous. And they could potentially make sense in character.

In any case, remember the original position I'm countering, which was along the lines of "if you're not doing a random story, players have to go through pre-determined story points, and they can't significantly change the outcome of the story." I'm saying that's not true. A DM can still say before the campaign starts that's how he/she will be DMing. But there are other ways to DM.

BRC
2015-04-28, 11:40 AM
Well, if the PCs go somewhere unplanned, then yes, I can see that being fine. It's generally not a problem either, because most players realize that the game would otherwise grind to a halt. I think that if the PCs decide to NOT go through the forest to the goblin bandit stronghold, and instead decide to explore that haunted house they've been ignoring for two months, then the GM needs to pull his encounters out of somewhere.

And if those encounters just happen to be phantom goblins, wolves, and a phantom ogre, well...
The problem comes when the Quantum Ogre ends up cheapening the story by robbing the PC's of any agency.

If you take the road? Ogre, if you take the tunnels? Ogre. If you go investigate the haunted house? Ogre. If you catch a ship? Ogre Pirates. If you hire a bunch of mercenary bodyguards? Two Ogres. If you say "Screw this" and start playing Star Wars instead? Space Ogre. If you explore some ancient ruins? Indiana Jogre and the temple of doom...

You get my point.

And the "You fight an Ogre" is a fairly harmless use of it.

Replace "You fight an ogre" with "You are dragged before the king in chains"

"The king sends guards to find you"
If they flee the city, they are caught and dragged before the king in chains. If they try to hide, they are caught and dragged before the king in chains. If they fight or talk their way past the guards, more guards show up, they are caught and dragged before the king in chains. If they try to flee through the sewers? They are caught by the elite Sewer Guard, and dragged before the king in very smelly chains. It dosn't matter how ingenious the players are, how well they roll, or what choices they make, they are STILL dragged before the king in chains.

It may SEEM like they are inhabiting a vast, open world full of choices, but any decision they make leads them to the exact same point, because regardless what the PC's decide to do, the DM decides that it "Just so happens" that their choice was the one that HAPPENED to lead to an Ogre/A bunch of guards/whatever.

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-04-28, 11:46 AM
Just because it's a tool doesn't imply you have to use it. Random encounter charts are tools, some DMs refuse to use them. Fudging rolls are tools, some DMs refuse to do that. Wounds and the spiral of suck is a tool and plenty of DMs refuse to use those as well. These tools are not good or bad in and of themselves. Some may be more dangerous and require more careful touch than others but they are tools none the less. Whether you do or don't use them as a regular course of action (or ever) is your own decision but almost every GM I've ever encountered has used some if not all of them at some point or another because they are effective for their purpose. It's just a matter of whether that purpose is important to you as a GM. Advice on whether or not to ever use these tools should not be viewed as a proscription against using them, but as a recommendation that if you want to reach as broad a player base as possible, you probably shouldn't without some explicit buy in. But if you sit down with your group and say "Hey, we're going to run Dragon Lance" and they agree, then keeping them on the rails isn't a bad thing. It's a necessary element to accomplish the goal. If they get bored with Dragon Lance, then maybe the goal needs to shift and the railroad needs to go back into the toolbox.
It's not a tool in my toolbox, though, so I can't really ignore it, can I? :smallbiggrin: I can't ignore what's not there. And it's not in my toolbox because it's incompatible with the way I approach games.

Hawkstar
2015-04-28, 12:58 PM
The problem comes when the Quantum Ogre ends up cheapening the story by robbing the PC's of any agency.

If you take the road? Ogre, if you take the tunnels? Ogre. If you go investigate the haunted house? Ogre. If you catch a ship? Ogre Pirates. If you hire a bunch of mercenary bodyguards? Two Ogres. If you say "Screw this" and start playing Star Wars instead? Space Ogre. If you explore some ancient ruins? Indiana Jogre and the temple of doom...

You get my point.

And the "You fight an Ogre" is a fairly harmless use of it.

Replace "You fight an ogre" with "You are dragged before the king in chains"

"The king sends guards to find you"
If they flee the city, they are caught and dragged before the king in chains. If they try to hide, they are caught and dragged before the king in chains. If they fight or talk their way past the guards, more guards show up, they are caught and dragged before the king in chains. If they try to flee through the sewers? They are caught by the elite Sewer Guard, and dragged before the king in very smelly chains. It dosn't matter how ingenious the players are, how well they roll, or what choices they make, they are STILL dragged before the king in chains.

It may SEEM like they are inhabiting a vast, open world full of choices, but any decision they make leads them to the exact same point, because regardless what the PC's decide to do, the DM decides that it "Just so happens" that their choice was the one that HAPPENED to lead to an Ogre/A bunch of guards/whatever.Eh... It's not a serious problem if "Avoid Ogre" isn't the choice the party is making. It doesn't devalue player choice if they encounter an ogre on the road to Waterdeep that provides clues to a larger ongoing plot or if they encounter the same ogre with the same clue in the tunnels to Menzoberranzan - "End up in Waterdeep" is a much different outcome from "End up in Menzoberranzan". Nor does it matter if they encounter that ogre and plotline while sailing on the high seas in a pirate campaign, since the events surrounding the encounter are different.

Likewise, an encounter/plot that requires "Appear before the king" plays out differently and still respects player choice if they can end up being brought before the king in chains for... any number of crimes a band of murderhobos do during the campaign (Which also have different long-lasting repercussions in addition to the "dragged before the king in chains" - Being dragged before the king in chains for burning down half the city has a different impact on the campaign and players than for being dragged before the king in chains for being mistaken for a gang of bandits), or if they end up being presented to the king as heroes for saving the day - even if they all have the same immediate plot result (Get a new plot hook forced on you - in the former, it's as Civil Service to avoid execution/jail time, in the latter, it's a request for further aid).

Or, another take on the second situation - the "plot point" is "Dragged before an Authority Figure in chains" - if they don't end up being brought before the King of Town, a different set of choices they make could cause them to be brought before the Bullywug King of Muck in chains, or the mayor of a village, or the Sultan of Brass, or before The One-Eyed King, or the Platinum Dragon, or Orcus, and while they go through the motions of what the DM had planned, like the Ogre example, it's tweaked to adapt to the new setting and situation.

For example, in Darths+Droids, the DM was going to have a huge land battle with AT-ATs and infantry - but it was PLANNED to happen on Dagobah - instead, the party stayed on Hoth longer than anticipated, and the massive battle was held there instead.

Rad Mage
2015-04-28, 01:12 PM
I recall a time when my group's regular DM had spontaneously developed an extreme fear of railroading, which was weird because none of us ever called him on it or anything. This led to a long stretch of adventures that would take forever to start because we would have no idea what was supposed to be going on. We'd be in a town and we would ask around for rumors, but we'd get nothing. He would tell us to explore but we would have no idea where to start. No quest hooks, no rumors, just "the world" for us to explore. There would be dungeons for us to explore, but no reason to go looking for them. A noble would secretly be a necromancer and would be turning his servants into ghouls, but we would have no reason to interact with him let alone suspect him.

When we asked him why he was hiding the quest hooks he would say "I don't want to railroad you."

We started making elaborate backstories to cope. My rogue would be a treasure hunter, searching for a legendary treasure as his last big score. He would ask for rumors and hunt for leads. He would be told that nobody had heard of the "Lost Treasure of Kalakahn" or whatever.

When we asked him why our quests weren't panning out he would say, "I hadn't prepared anything for that".

So for a couple of months our adventurer's goals were to find the adventure.

BRC
2015-04-28, 01:23 PM
Eh... It's not a serious problem if "Avoid Ogre" isn't the choice the party is making. It doesn't devalue player choice if they encounter an ogre on the road to Waterdeep that provides clues to a larger ongoing plot or if they encounter the same ogre with the same clue in the tunnels to Menzoberranzan - "End up in Waterdeep" is a much different outcome from "End up in Menzoberranzan". Nor does it matter if they encounter that ogre and plotline while sailing on the high seas in a pirate campaign, since the events surrounding the encounter are different.

Likewise, an encounter/plot that requires "Appear before the king" plays out differently and still respects player choice if they can end up being brought before the king in chains for... any number of crimes a band of murderhobos do during the campaign (Which also have different long-lasting repercussions in addition to the "dragged before the king in chains" - Being dragged before the king in chains for burning down half the city has a different impact on the campaign and players than for being dragged before the king in chains for being mistaken for a gang of bandits), or if they end up being presented to the king as heroes for saving the day - even if they all have the same immediate plot result (Get a new plot hook forced on you - in the former, it's as Civil Service to avoid execution/jail time, in the latter, it's a request for further aid).

As I said, the Ogre is a fairly harmless example. It's mainly used because "Quantum Ogre" is a nice snappy name for the phenomenon.

As for the "Dragged before the King in Chains" Issue, the problem is that, the moment the DM decides that the Plot REQUIRES the PC's be dragged before the king in chains, the PC's lose agency. This is mainly a problem when suspension of disbelief is broken in order to fit the DM's goals.

The DM wants the PC's to be dragged before the King in chains, so he sends a reasonable amount of guards, which is to say, more guards than the PC's can probably handle. This is fine, A King has plenty of guards, if the PC's are well known to be dangerous, then the King would send many guards to find them. The Guards show up, the PC's could try to fight them (And probably lose), or go willingly.

The problem is, what happens if/when the PCs get away? How far is the DM going to go to bring them before the King?

The PC's have a scroll of Teleport and use it to flee the city! Only to find the Quantum Ogre blocking their path the whole city is in an anti-teleportation bubble that was never mentioned before now...and by trying to use the spell you've alerted the guards to your location! 40 Guards show up and drag you before the King..

The PC's have contacts among smugglers, and use said contacts to be snuck out of the city! Only to find the Quantum Ogre blocking their path that these Smugglers, who previously had a spotless record of loyalty, are willing to sell the PC's out.

The PC's use Invisibility to sneak out of the city! Only to find the Quantum Ogre blocking their path that all the guards are equipped with "See Invisibility" goggles.

The PC's plead their case to an influential, and very powerful, ally they have among the Nobility! Only to find the Quantum Ogre blocking their path that said nobleman, despite his previously established political clout, isn't able to get the King to reconsider.

The PCs go willingly before the King, they provide incontrovertible evidence of their innocence and roll natural 20's to plead their case! Only to find the Quantum Ogre blocking their path that the King (Previously established to be wise and good natured) still doesn't believe them, and wants them thrown in jail so they can meet some NPC.


The Quantum Ogre becomes a problem when the Players are clearly trying to avoid the Ogre, are taking reasonable steps/making all the correct rolls needed to avoid the Ogre, take the Anti-Ogre Road, blessed by ancient and powerful magics to repel all Ogres, buy a ring of Ogre Avoidance, which guarantees that they will never meet an Ogre, then travel back in time and erase Ogres from folklore, only to return and find the DM saying "As you cross this bridge, you are ambushed by an ogre!"

draken50
2015-04-28, 01:46 PM
Ultimately, as was said earlier "railroading" is not a very useful term.

It is seen applied to complete removal of player agency:

GM:The king presents a map to the den of bad guys.
Players:We don't want to go there yet.
GM:Too bad, the kings wizard teleports you into the entrance of the dungeon.
Players:We leave.
GM:The stone door behind you is sealed shut.
Players:We blow it up.
GM:The stone is plot-tanium, while it is valueless at any merchant in the land it cannot be defeated by magical or physical means.
Players:This is bull

Single solution based plots/puzzles:

GM:"The wall, which is impervious to all forms of damage gives way when you knock shave and a haircut upon the third image of the dying god from the right"
Players:This is bull

Player intent being foiled:

GM:You stand guard diligently through the night, the next morning however, despite your best efforts at security your ward has disappeared from the structure you specifically built to keep her from being stolen away.
Players:This is bull

The game having a structured plot.

GM:The four lords must be defeated, that their souls may be used to rekindle the first flame.
Players:What so we can't use like, any other souls... what if we kill like, everyone in the world.
GM:The lord souls are vastly more powerful than the souls of any mortals and the flame requires that power.
Players:This is bull

The GM using an encounter that was bypassed later in the game.

GM: After flying over Ogre mountain and venturing through the spider mines... where you stopped the bad guys from mining spiders, you take the eastern path home.. Early that morning the woods become oddly still and you become aware of a rhythmic thudding. Your nose picks up the stench of unwashed flesh and grime.
Players:It's an ogre isn't it? This is bull.

To the GM not creating an exciting encounter for every possible player action.

GM:There's the city of intrigue to the North, an ocean of pirates to the west, and a desert filled with the decayed ruins of dying civilizations to the south.
Players:What's to the east?
GM:Uninhabited mountains, frequented by the local hunters almost completely devoid of predators or adventure.
Players: We go up into the mountains.
GM:You find a rusted sword, the hilt has an eagle on it, it appears to have been of high quality before the ravages of time ground it down.
PlayersIs it magical?
GM:No
Players:We'll drop it and keep wandering
GM:You find deer poop
Players:Is it magical?No? Is it still warm? No? this is boring.
GM: Well you could stop wandering around the mountains.
Players:Stop railroading, this is bull.

So maybe we need some new terms, because at this point if your character wasn't put on a train and forced to watch a DMPC solve a Murder on the Orient Express style mystery then it's too effing general.

1337 b4k4
2015-04-28, 02:23 PM
Ultimately, as was said earlier "railroading" is not a very useful term.

It is seen applied to complete removal of player agency:



This is railroading



Single solution based plots/puzzles:


This may or may not be railroading, but is quite possibly a sign of bad DMing if the only way forward is blocked by this single solution puzzle.



Player intent being foiled:


This may or may not be railroading depending on the circumstances which caused player intent to be foiled. Foiled because the thief really is that good, not railroading. Foiled because the plot the DM wrote requires that the thief succeed in getting the item in question, railroading.



The game having a structured plot.


This is not railroading



The GM using an encounter that was bypassed later in the game.


This may or may not be railroading, depending on the severity, but it is Quantum Ogreing (which is not in and of itself a railroad)



To the GM not creating an exciting encounter for every possible player action.


This is not railroading, sometimes the room really is empty. It can become railroading if everything except what the GM prepares ahead of time is always 100% dull, boring and uninteresting and that way because the GM doesn't want to deal with that stuff and wants to players to specifically engage with the things the GM made.

That the term itself can be widely applied to things that aren't railroading and that some things may or may not be railroading depending on the specifics behind it doesn't make the term useless. It just means we need a more rigorous definition for the term.

Amphetryon
2015-04-28, 02:34 PM
It really does come down to subtleties of presentation. If you say 'there's an ogre!' then that's different than saying 'it seems that an ogre has followed your airship from the forest!'. The result is the same, but we're really operating in the depths of player perception here so how it's presented is critical.

I am honestly, truly confused as to why a given Player or group of Players would perceive one or the other of these presentations as more or less of a railroad than the other. Is it your contention that using more words, or adding 'seems' instead of 'is,' changes the perception of the railroad?

CarpeGuitarrem
2015-04-28, 02:42 PM
I think the best antidote to the silliness of the Quantum Ogre is honesty with your world and your prep. Look at what the PCs have done, look at what you've prepped for your world, and ask "okay, what would reasonably happen now?" Then do that thing. The end result is a more interesting world, especially if you're not planning particular encounters. So they go take an airship to this country. "Hmm, I wonder what sorts of creatures inhabit the skies? Might they encounter one?" Or they go hunt up some criminal contacts. "Hmm, I wonder what sorts of criminals they are, and what ties they have?"

It's a rather cool process, all-told. Try following the lead of your players here and there.

Knaight
2015-04-28, 02:55 PM
I understand everyone wants to say they never ever railroad. And everyone wants to say the players can just do whatever they want. But, unless your just doing a fluff game, or a random game, you have to lead the players from point A to B to C.

You can have a game that is neither fluff nor random where you don't have to lead the players from point A to B to C. You can just have point A, a situation that makes point A all sorts of unstable, and let the game play out, where what B and C even are are discovered in play and influenced by the players. They can sometimes be predicted even if you're not forcing them, but they can also emerge in an unpredicted fashion and be better for it.

Nightcanon
2015-04-28, 03:01 PM
I think it depends a lot on how you present these things. DMing takes a lot of preparation and in a sense it's like going round to a friends for a meal. If at the start of a session you arrive at an isolated village to find buildings burned, villagers dead, and survivors babbling about walking dead who couldn't be killed, which broke into the crypt within the church before retreating towards a previously abondoned tower in the forest, then it is clear that the dish of the day' is going to confront the necromancer who has set up in the tower. If you instead decide to press on to the big city, or teleport to another continent, it's possible that you're opting instead to have your host dig some chicken nuggets and curly fries out of the freezer instead and you spend the session dealing with generic random encounters rather than the cordon bleu adventure he's prepared. Expect orcs bandits to dog your steps through the forest for the rest of the session, allowing your DM to get through to his next prep time. Equally, if the tower has plot hooks or the necromancer is being set up as the BBEG, expect that on arriving in the city, the local lord asks/ commands/ coerces you into investigating a certain evil threat in the woods on the borders of his domain.
This isn't really railroading in my book- your PCs are free to do what they like, but they are doing it in a world and a country in which an evil power is arising and eventually they will (as the designated heroes) find themselves on the front line fighting it (or y'know, behind the enemy lines fighting it, given the 'special ops' nature of mid-high level adventurers).
The railroading described at level 5 is kind of dumb- of course you should be able to sneak over the walls to avoid paying gate-taxes (perhaps expect it might lead to consequences of some sort if you keep doing it), or use whatever resources available to you to beat an encounter. The whole, 'nope, you're only getting into the tower if you have the key that you took form the ogre in the forest clearing, and I'm gonna retcon antimagic fields and DC400 locks if you try anything else' is pretty dumb, but in my experience is a problem of new DMs who decide to start with mid-high level parties without having much appreciation of what such parties can do, and haven't yet understood they aren't directing a movie.
Travelling encounters I think depend what you doing with them. If it's important to plot that a diplomat passes something to a PC before being murdered on the Orient Express, then if the party takes a boat or and airship it's fine to have said diplomat take the same option. If you want to set up a fight for some new and recently levelled-up PCs to try out some new abilities in a on-off encounter, it's fine for all paths to lead to to the ambush in which the fighter can charge the enemy on horseback, the wizard can take out the concealed archers with his new Stinking Cloud spell, and the scout to spot it all first and skirmish the heck out of the bad guys. If you just want to get on with the plot, don't have travelling encounters at all, or do some colour piece about meeting someone on the road who they can swap stories and rumours with.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-28, 04:12 PM
That doesn't sound like railroading to me at all. Perhaps the title of this thread should be "Railroading: a poorly-defined term."

It's very Eye of the Beholder. Plenty of players will scream railroading if the DM sets things up that the players don't like.


I still don't understand this sentiment. First of all, why do they necessarily have to get to B and C? If the players are not interested in those points (being points in space or points in plot), why force them there? And if they indeed are interested, why assume they are incapable of going there themselves?

Also, I must have missed it earlier, but what is a "fluff" game?

A fluff game is just fun and easy and relaxing. It's for the pop and chips type gamers that just want to have fun for a couple hours.

To have a plot, you have to encounter plot points. Otherwise your just gaming randomly.



Why? For what reason do you play games where the characters are so weak that they can impossibly affect the larger story? If that is the case, why are they involved with it at all? Wouldn't it be better to go for a story/adventure where they can meaningfully change the outcome?

In most RPG's the character are simply not able to obliterate planets. They have limits on their power. A group of 3rd level characters in D&D simply can't stop an orc horde or slay a great wyrm dragon. Unless your in some very odd or fluff game where a character gets something like a sword +1000 vs dragons.



Except I don't say a DM keeps the players on the road or path. I lay out paths and let the players follow them or not as they will. And if they don't follow the paths provided, I'll make more paths. Players are not stupid. They're there to game and have fun just as much as you are and they will make their own adventures out of things if you as a DM simply seek to make things interesting for them.

If the players want to follow a path, the DM is the only one that can keep them on the path. Take a simple path: the players are looking to have thier characters loot the Treasure Tower. They find a map and head off. They get to a crossroads, misread the map and head the wrong direction. Now the DM can:

1.OOC say ''um guys the adventure is the other way''.
2.Railroad the characters back to the right path.
3.Do nothing and let the players go the wrong way.

draken50
2015-04-28, 05:19 PM
This is railroading...
This may or may not be railroading...
This may or may not be railroading...
This may or may not be railroading...
This is not railroading... It can become railroading

That the term itself can be widely applied to things that aren't railroading and that some things may or may not be railroading depending on the specifics behind it doesn't make the term useless. It just means we need a more rigorous definition for the term.

These were all completely different behaviors and examples.

Railroading is at this point a useless term for meaningful discussion. It works great as a slang for a lack of player agency and that's about it. It's all a matter of perception and feelings and all sorts of subjective icky stuff that can't be qualified to any useful degree.

It boils down to what the players and GM feels is "fair." which has no consistency of metric within a single session of a single game much less for the hobby as a whole.


It can become railroading if everything except what the GM prepares ahead of time is always 100% dull, boring and uninteresting and that way because the GM doesn't want to deal with that stuff and wants to players to specifically engage with the things the GM made.


As to this... exactly at what point do the players bear some responsibility for maintaining the forward motion of the game? What the are they bringing to the table?

1337 b4k4
2015-04-28, 06:05 PM
It's very Eye of the Beholder. Plenty of players will scream railroading if the DM sets things up that the players don't like.

And those players would be wrong. The misapplication of a term doesn't invalidate the term. I could call you an octopus and everyone else I disagree with an octopus. That doesn't make octopus a non useful term for describing certain animals.



To have a plot, you have to encounter plot points. Otherwise your just gaming randomly.


But you don't need those plot points to have been decided ahead of time n a particular order. Setting a world in motion and allowing the players to interact with and therefore alter the course of that world doesn't mean you're playing a random game.



If the players want to follow a path, the DM is the only one that can keep them on the path. Take a simple path: the players are looking to have thier characters loot the Treasure Tower. They find a map and head off. They get to a crossroads, misread the map and head the wrong direction. Now the DM can:

1.OOC say ''um guys the adventure is the other way''.
2.Railroad the characters back to the right path.
3.Do nothing and let the players go the wrong way.

Why should the DM do any of the above when they can do option 4 and create new and interesting things to do down the new path? If the players want to take a path, they are more than free to choose that path on their own. If they get lost along the way, it's no big deal, there's always something new to do.


These were all completely different behaviors and examples.

Yes they were. And your point is what? Typing, writing, talking, using sign language and protesting are all different behaviors but they can all also be called speech. A term can encompass more than one behavior and still be a valid term.



Railroading is at this point a useless term for meaningful discussion.


Seems to me like we've been having a decently meaningful discussion for the past few pages.



As to this... exactly at what point do the players bear some responsibility for maintaining the forward motion of the game? What the are they bringing to the table?

Every person at the table is responsible for their own fun. Players who constantly and repeatedly go off what the GM has obviously prepared and then complain that things are slow or boring only have themselves to blame for expecting their GM to prepare and cover every scenario ahead of time. Likewise, GMs who constantly try to drive players down a fixed set of rails who are clearly not interested in being forced into whatever story the GM wants to tell has only themselves to blame for not engaging their players. Everyone at the table is responsible for communicating what they want and what is or isn't working for them and either reaching a consensus, reaching a compromise or deciding whether or not they will live with not getting what they want. None of this is relevant to whether or not a GM should or shouldn't railroad in a given scenario except as much as it relates to accomplishing the aforementioned and agreed upon goals.

Beyond that, players bring themselves and their characters to the table. As a GM you create and set a world in motion and see how the players respond to that world and then how the world responds to the players. Without the players, you are nothing more than a frustrated author. Likewise, players without a GM to provide them a world (for games which require a GM) are nothing more than frustrated actors. GMs bring the world, players bring the life to the world and it is the responsibility of both groups to bring those to together in a way that leaves everyone happy with the experience.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-28, 06:09 PM
Railroading is at this point a useless term for meaningful discussion. It works great as a slang for a lack of player agency and that's about it. It's all a matter of perception and feelings and all sorts of subjective icky stuff that can't be qualified to any useful degree.

It boils down to what the players and GM feels is "fair." which has no consistency of metric within a single session of a single game much less for the hobby as a whole.

This.

At the end of the day, players don't like feeling like their decisions have been vetoed

Hawkstar
2015-04-28, 09:02 PM
The Quantum Ogre becomes a problem when the Players are clearly trying to avoid the Ogre, are taking reasonable steps/making all the correct rolls needed to avoid the Ogre, take the Anti-Ogre Road, blessed by ancient and powerful magics to repel all Ogres, buy a ring of Ogre Avoidance, which guarantees that they will never meet an Ogre, then travel back in time and erase Ogres from folklore, only to return and find the DM saying "As you cross this bridge, you are ambushed by an ogre!"

At which point it's no longer "Quantum Ogre"... or the DM use the ogre encounter in their quest to erase Ogres from folklore, so that what's supposed to be a cool-but-minor encounter with an ogre on the road becomes "The battle against the first and last ogre!" (The ring must be removed to find this last ogre - if they cannot encounter the ogre, they cannot purge it from history). If they simply wear the ring, the Ogre is replaced with a Giant Spider, or something similar that plays sort of like an ogre, but has a different effect on the plot.

Almost all cases of actual "Quantum Ogre" has the DM adapt the ogre to the player's choices.

Eisenheim
2015-04-28, 09:32 PM
Railroading is at this point a useless term for meaningful discussion. It works great as a slang for a lack of player agency and that's about it. It's all a matter of perception and feelings and all sorts of subjective icky stuff that can't be qualified to any useful degree.

It boils down to what the players and GM feels is "fair." which has no consistency of metric within a single session of a single game much less for the hobby as a whole.



As to this... exactly at what point do the players bear some responsibility for maintaining the forward motion of the game? What the are they bringing to the table?

I feel like we've gotten some meaningful discussion, as well as some shouting, out of just that ambiguity.

To you question: my view is that players have an obligation during character creation and play to play the game the group agreed to. However your group arrives at a game, whether the GM pitches and takes some feedback or it's entirely collaborative, everyone should agree and make a character that buys in to the game the GM will now be planning.

Once you're playing, the GM has a responsibility to deliver the agreed game, and the players have an obligation play that game and not try to turn it into something else. I've had a few character ideas at the Spirit of the Century table I play vetoed because they were too villainous to fit a game of pulp heroism. It would be a failure of my responsibility as a player to sneak something by the GM and the go evil during play, or to ignore opportunities for pulp heroism when they present themselves.

There was an example earlier about players deciding to ignore the wizard's tower and instead unset the corrupt mayor, whether or not that is players acting badly depends entirely on what you agree to as a framework for the game. I've said before, and I'll say again, a large amount of 'railroading', by which I mean unpleasant denial of player agency, stems from a failure to agree beforehand about what game is going to be played.

erikun
2015-04-28, 09:36 PM
At which point it's no longer "Quantum Ogre"... or the DM use the ogre encounter in their quest to erase Ogres from folklore, so that what's supposed to be a cool-but-minor encounter with an ogre on the road becomes "The battle against the first and last ogre!" (The ring must be removed to find this last ogre - if they cannot encounter the ogre, they cannot purge it from history). If they simply wear the ring, the Ogre is replaced with a Giant Spider, or something similar that plays sort of like an ogre, but has a different effect on the plot.

Almost all cases of actual "Quantum Ogre" has the DM adapt the ogre to the player's choices.
Replace "combat an ogre" with "get thrown into jail by the king" to see some of the problems with your example.

PCs: We want to avoid being thrown in jail. We travel back in time to destroy the jail, before it is built!
GM: The king captures you when you try, and throws you into jail.

The problem is that it is an incredibly ham-fisted way of running the game, forcing what can be an nonsensical situation onto the party for no reason other than the GM wishes the situation to happen. Now it isn't necessarily a bad thing of course. Some groups like the railroad, and would rather do interesting things on it over wandering around and searching for plot hooks. Sometimes the GM is unprepared, and so yanking out their plans from another section is better than attempting an ad-lib at an unexpected situation.

But when the PCs are making a deliberate effort to avoid a situation, throwing the PCs into the situation anyways is rather disingenuous. Changing the details around ("The king from the past throws you into the older dungeons, which are just like the new dungeons!") doesn't make it any worse.

NichG
2015-04-28, 10:08 PM
I am honestly, truly confused as to why a given Player or group of Players would perceive one or the other of these presentations as more or less of a railroad than the other. Is it your contention that using more words, or adding 'seems' instead of 'is,' changes the perception of the railroad?

In one case, by telling the players where the monster came from (the forest), you're saying that there was an encounter waiting for them in the forest which they skipped, so now the encounter is coming to find them. In the other case, you are simply stating the ogre's presence the same way you would state the presence of any monster. In the former case, the player can reason 'oh, he just didn't want us to skip the ogre' and can perceive the re-use, whereas in the latter case there isn't any information to tell them that they would have encountered the ogre in the forest if they had walked rather than flown.


Then what happened to the encounters prepped for the cave?

They don't need to be prepped now. Essentially, take your next session and where you'd normally have to prep an encounter, just replace that encounter with the one that didn't get used, thus saving time. Its not that suddenly there's an extra monster in the cave that wasn't there before, so there shouldn't be any particular signal to the players assuming you refluff appropriately.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-28, 10:10 PM
But you don't need those plot points to have been decided ahead of time n a particular order. Setting a world in motion and allowing the players to interact with and therefore alter the course of that world doesn't mean you're playing a random game.

Except you do need to have plot points decided ahead of time and encountered in a particular order. That is kinda plot 101.

Ok, you can call it a non-random game where the players just do random things to interact with the game world randomly. And this can be a fun and light and fluffy game for all. But to have drama and real meat, you have to have a plot. Set things must happen in set chronological order.




Why should the DM do any of the above when they can do option 4 and create new and interesting things to do down the new path? If the players want to take a path, they are more than free to choose that path on their own. If they get lost along the way, it's no big deal, there's always something new to do.

Sure, option 4 is great, but only if the players never want to really do anything of substance. It can be fun, randomly hopping around and tugging at the ends of plot threads...but never even coming close to playing through one to the middle or the end. If the players just want to hop on a new path every couple of minutes that is fine, but that path leads nowhere.


Railroading is at this point a useless term for meaningful discussion. It works great as a slang for a lack of player agency and that's about it. It's all a matter of perception and feelings and all sorts of subjective icky stuff that can't be qualified to any useful degree.

It boils down to what the players and GM feels is "fair." which has no consistency of metric within a single session of a single game much less for the hobby as a whole.

If a player does not like something in the game, they will just cry railroading. It's very basic.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-28, 10:23 PM
I've said before, and I'll say again, a large amount of 'railroading', by which I mean unpleasant denial of player agency, stems from a failure to agree beforehand about what game is going to be played.

I've come to the conclusion that it's a really good idea to have everyone sit down before play starts and explicitly work out what everyone's expectations for the game are. I haven't had the chance to implement that yet, but it seems like it would avoid a lot of problems. Difficulty, player death, plot (if non-sandbox), setting, characters... All the way down to "are you comfortable with [grimdark]?"


Ok, you can call it a non-random game where the players just do random things to interact with the game world randomly.
...
If a player does not like something in the game, they will just cry railroading. It's very basic.

So all player actions are random, and there's no chance that the player's complaint could be legitimate?

1337 b4k4
2015-04-28, 11:00 PM
At the end of the day, players don't like feeling like their decisions have been vetoed

To be more precise, players don't like feeling like their decisions have been unfairly vetoed. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of GMing requires your players investing trust in you, and you have to be careful with that trust. Sometimes as a GM you will make decisions that on the face of it looks just like a rail road, but has perfectly logical and fair reasons to occur that the players don't know yet. If your players trust you, they will 99% of the time give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you've made it a habit of invalidating their choices and especially invalidating them with railroads, you will be like the boy who cried wolf. This time when you really mean it, you won't be given the benefit of the doubt.


Except you do need to have plot points decided ahead of time and encountered in a particular order. That is kinda plot 101.

Only if you're reading a story. If you're playing a game this is not true. Heck, ask any number of authors how often their own characters have "taken" them somewhere unexpected. Good authors will note that you don't fight this and don't try to force your characters into the story you thought you were writing for the sake of hitting your plot points. And that's for imaginary people in one person's head. In a TTRPG, story is perfectly capable of emerging out of the gameplay itself and plot points emerge without the need of the GM to plan it all out ahead of time.



Ok, you can call it a non-random game where the players just do random things to interact with the game world randomly. And this can be a fun and light and fluffy game for all. But to have drama and real meat, you have to have a plot. Set things must happen in set chronological order.
...
Sure, option 4 is great, but only if the players never want to really do anything of substance. It can be fun, randomly hopping around and tugging at the ends of plot threads...but never even coming close to playing through one to the middle or the end. If the players just want to hop on a new path every couple of minutes that is fine, but that path leads nowhere.


Thousands of games around the world played every day and night disagree with you. Just because a game does not have pre planned mile stones and story arcs does not make it random any more than just because you haven't planned out your next 10 responses to me means that each of your responses is random.


If a player does not like something in the game, they will just cry railroading. It's very basic.

And that player will (in many cases) be wrong. Having a discussion on GM tactics and advise based on what certain hypothetical hard headed and wrong players will or won't do is what generates worthless discussion. It would be akin to giving general GM advice on the assumption that every player is like the player Talakeal posts about.

Excession
2015-04-28, 11:28 PM
Except you do need to have plot points decided ahead of time and encountered in a particular order. That is kinda plot 101.

What sort of "ahead of time" are we talking about here? When DMing I amend, update, or create from whole cloth the plan for a game in the week leading up to that session. I have some ideas of what might happen later in the game, sure, and the plans of possibly important NPCs, but nothing firm until the week before I run it. It does mean that really important PC choices ("we'll go investigate the abandoned mill" vs. "we'll confront the mayor, violently if necessary") are best made at the end of the session, but there's always the option of random-ish encounters to fill in time. Keeping a few recurring villains, B-plots, or mysterious assassins on hand helps for that. Working out who the assassin was hired by can then be one of my tasks for the next week.

The biggest problem I've found with this is the occasional week of writers' block destroying a session.


I've come to the conclusion that it's a really good idea to have everyone sit down before play starts and explicitly work out what everyone's expectations for the game are. I haven't had the chance to implement that yet, but it seems like it would avoid a lot of problems. Difficulty, player death, plot (if non-sandbox), setting, characters... All the way down to "are you comfortable with [grimdark]?"

The Same Page Tool (https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/) is a good start for this.

Hawkstar
2015-04-29, 07:37 AM
Replace "combat an ogre" with "get thrown into jail by the king" to see some of the problems with your example.

PCs: We want to avoid being thrown in jail. We travel back in time to destroy the jail, before it is built!
GM: The king captures you when you try, and throws you into jail.

The problem is that it is an incredibly ham-fisted way of running the game, forcing what can be an nonsensical situation onto the party for no reason other than the GM wishes the situation to happen. Now it isn't necessarily a bad thing of course. Some groups like the railroad, and would rather do interesting things on it over wandering around and searching for plot hooks. Sometimes the GM is unprepared, and so yanking out their plans from another section is better than attempting an ad-lib at an unexpected situation.

But when the PCs are making a deliberate effort to avoid a situation, throwing the PCs into the situation anyways is rather disingenuous. Changing the details around ("The king from the past throws you into the older dungeons, which are just like the new dungeons!") doesn't make it any worse.
If the PCs are in a situation where they can make deliberate efforts to avoid the situation you're trying to throw them in, the quantum waveform has collapsed (The players have observed the encounter enough to know it's coming), and you move beyond "Quantum Ogre" to actual railroading.

CombatBunny
2015-04-29, 09:34 AM
It's very Eye of the Beholder. Plenty of players will scream railroading if the DM sets things up that the players don't like.

I think that this user has put the finger right on the wound.

This is the reason that Railroading-phobia has grown so strong within RPG game masters (GMs).

I’ve read all of the posts of this thread, and I’ve concluded that railroading is a tool that some GMs use, some don’t, some use it a little, some use it a lot, it works for some, it doesn’t works for others. That’s cool, as long as your table is fully engaged and excited, no one will care if you are actually railroading or no. But the reason that so much debate has been raised, is because all of us (and I mean all without exception) have this railroading-phobia.

Before the first I-love-to-contradict-others user replies to me saying “I don’t have that phobia”, let me explain first that I’m not talking about railroading itself, but of being called a railroader.

Why?

Because no player in the world will call you a railroader, if they got fun in your table. No player will stand up and tell you:

“Wow! That was amazing! You are such a great railroader.”

That’s why even if a player doesn’t use the term properly, it’s still a valuable tool for any GM. It’s the way many players find to tell you “I’m not enjoying playing in this table for whatever reason”. So, don’t rest assured just because he doesn’t understands the term, because he is telling you that there is something wrong, and that quite probably you (the GM) are the reason for that.

So yes, the title of this thread is right in which railroading is a misunderstood term, but it doesn’t ads too much value to define it properly. Many of us would be better trying to analyse what are we doing wrong, that is leading our players to call us “railroaders”.

Knaight
2015-04-29, 10:23 AM
Ok, you can call it a non-random game where the players just do random things to interact with the game world randomly. And this can be a fun and light and fluffy game for all. But to have drama and real meat, you have to have a plot. Set things must happen in set chronological order.

You're still pretending that the only two options are a pre-built plot or complete randomness, and that is nonsense. As for the requirement to have a set plot for drama and real meat, there is a counter example in this very thread.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-29, 03:19 PM
Different question: if someone was running a game of [RPG] for the first time, never having GMed before, how much/what kind of railroading would you recommend that they do? Is it more important for them to experience getting players through a "plot" (here meaning a series of scenes, starting with a clear beginning and ending with a clear conclusion) to learn how to structure things, or to get used to improvising in response to players? In both cases, I'm assuming that the players know they're with an inexperienced GM, understand how linear/open the game's going to be, and aren't antagonistic sociopaths.

Eisenheim
2015-04-29, 03:23 PM
I would say a newbie GM should plan a fairly linear plot because it's easier, and that good, experienced players will chase the hooks and not force an inexperienced GM to push them along the rails a lot.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-29, 03:24 PM
Different question: if someone was running a game of [RPG] for the first time, never having GMed before, how much/what kind of railroading would you recommend that they do? Is it more important for them to experience getting players through a "plot" (here meaning a series of scenes, starting with a clear beginning and ending with a clear conclusion) to learn how to structure things, or to get used to improvising in response to players? In both cases, I'm assuming that the players know they're with an inexperienced GM, understand how linear/open the game's going to be, and aren't antagonistic sociopaths.

I'd probably just say run a published adventure path or barring that "As much as possible". If it's their first time being a GM they've got enough to learn just RPing for NPCs, making rulings, running complex encounters/scenes.

Knowing at least the major variables ahead of time is going to make that much easier. It also means they don't have to spend time/energy constantly generating new content.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-29, 04:07 PM
EDIT: Hang on, I just realized my questions were becoming new-thread-worthy. So I'm starting a new thread with them.

EDIT 2: Thread on that topic is now here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?412431-How-Should-a-New-GM-Learn).

Lorsa
2015-04-30, 08:38 AM
It's very Eye of the Beholder. Plenty of players will scream railroading if the DM sets things up that the players don't like.

Being able to give constructive criticism is very important in all parts of life, and especially in roleplaying. Just shouting "railroading"! is hardly constructive and those kind of players are ones you should probably avoid.


A fluff game is just fun and easy and relaxing. It's for the pop and chips type gamers that just want to have fun for a couple hours.

To have a plot, you have to encounter plot points. Otherwise your just gaming randomly.


Except you do need to have plot points decided ahead of time and encountered in a particular order. That is kinda plot 101.

Ok, you can call it a non-random game where the players just do random things to interact with the game world randomly. And this can be a fun and light and fluffy game for all. But to have drama and real meat, you have to have a plot. Set things must happen in set chronological order.

Alright, then I have a pretty good grasp of what you mean by fluff game. Those are not the games I prefer to play either, although it does happen occasionally when there is not enough time to start something more serious.

I also see that we share definition of a plot, that it refers to a pre-determined sequence of events. Perhaps I am slightly confused as to what constitutes a random game for you. To me, random mean just that. All encounters are taken from a random table, players flip a coin to decide what road to take etc.

I disagree with you that these are the only two ways to play. It seems to me that you are missing the third, in my preference best, way of playing. The one where you have meat and drama, but the outcome is not pre-determined. Actually, I would argue that real drama is impossible in games that have a plot. I will try my best to explain why.

When you have a plot, the actions you, as player, take are meaningless. As the outcome of the story is already decided, whatever you choose to do is irrelevant. You might as well sit on your arse and the same thing will happen regardless. This situation removes all emotional involvement, and you are better off sitting at home playing computer games while listening to the game over the internet. Without emotional involvement, you can't have drama. Thus plot and drama do not go together.



In most RPG's the character are simply not able to obliterate planets. They have limits on their power. A group of 3rd level characters in D&D simply can't stop an orc horde or slay a great wyrm dragon. Unless your in some very odd or fluff game where a character gets something like a sword +1000 vs dragons.

Of course there are limits to the characters' powers. I believe my post tried to talk about what sort of story you want, and that the characters should be able to affect it.

If you have a group of 3rd level characters in D&D, the story can't be to stop an orc horde or slay great wyrms. It can be a story about surviving in an army fighting an orc horde, and this story should change depending on the characters' actions. You could also have a story about a group of wannabe dragon-slayers who take up adventuring to learn skills and gain knowledge necessary to one day slay the great wyrm of legend that has plagued the nation for over a century.

At the beginning of a dragon-slayer story, it is quite obvious the characters could not affect the actions of the great wyrm. But they certainly should be able to change their own story. At this point, nobody in the game should know if they'll ever get to be powerful enough to slay the dragon.

My point is that any situation with a pre-determined outcome (those that have a plot) is usually completely pointless to play out. The real drama is in the unknown, and if the only unknown is the outcome of the last battle, then you are better off jumping directly to it. Everything you do up to that point is just backstory anyway.

Whenever I throw my players into a situation (adventure), I have no idea how it will play out. Quite often I am greatly surprised, which makes the game all the more fun for me as GM.



If the players want to follow a path, the DM is the only one that can keep them on the path. Take a simple path: the players are looking to have thier characters loot the Treasure Tower. They find a map and head off. They get to a crossroads, misread the map and head the wrong direction. Now the DM can:

1.OOC say ''um guys the adventure is the other way''.
2.Railroad the characters back to the right path.
3.Do nothing and let the players go the wrong way.

If the players chose to make characters that can not read maps, that is a decision they should live with. If you deliberately make such characters, you have told the GM "I want to have a story where I often get lost". Removing this choice from the players by railroading them to the destination seems unfair to me. I certainly believe you should let them go the wrong way. Eventually they will find out it was wrong and go back. How do you know that this story where they got lost will be any less fun than the one where they immediately went right?



Sure, option 4 is great, but only if the players never want to really do anything of substance. It can be fun, randomly hopping around and tugging at the ends of plot threads...but never even coming close to playing through one to the middle or the end. If the players just want to hop on a new path every couple of minutes that is fine, but that path leads nowhere.

Where does this idea come from that the GM has to force the players to the end or else they will never get there? My players usually reach the conclusion of all my adventures, all on their own. The path they take might not be the one I expected, but they get there. If the players want to do something of substance, they will head to substance all by themselves. And if they misread a map it is your job as a GM to make the story of them getting lost fun and interesting. I very very rarely hear from my players that they are bored and don't know what to do. Usually it is the opposite, that they feel there is too much fun and interesting stuff to do.

CombatBunny
2015-04-30, 11:00 AM
If the players chose to make characters that can not read maps, that is a decision they should live with. If you deliberately make such characters, you have told the GM "I want to have a story where I often get lost". Removing this choice from the players by railroading them to the destination seems unfair to me. I certainly believe you should let them go the wrong way. Eventually they will find out it was wrong and go back. How do you know that this story where they got lost will be any less fun than the one where they immediately went right?


I run my games similar to what you've said, although I believe there could be some improvement if you omit the "Eventually they will find out what is wrong and go back" part.

There’s no need to go back if you let the players build the adventure. Maybe if they are getting lost is because they are not interested in your hooks and they are more excited with “getting lost”, in which case you should be able to re-invent yourself and redefine your adventure from “Defeat the black lord” to be something like “Surviving the swamps of Nordahval” or something like that. And you should be wary to what the players are currently interested, so that if they get bored of surviving the swamps of Nordahval, you can make the adventure go wherever the players go.

To achieve that without running some random adventure and burning out yourself, I have developed the habit to prepare material just for the next session, so that I can reinvent things if players seem more interesting in other kind of adventures. Also, the material I prepare is not in the way of things that will happen on the next session, but things that might happen. I prepare possible encounters, I prepare NPC’s and antagonist intentions (not concrete actions), possible interesting locations, possible chain of events should the PCs simply do nothing.

NPCs, Locations, Plots, Surroundings and any other aspect of the game will grow in importance and detail as the players become interested in those things. I tend to throw three or four different adventure hooks on each session, and PCs are expected to take whichever they want or create their own if none of them seems interesting for them. Once the session is over, I evaluate what things got their attention, what things they seemed willing to explore further and which NPCs they interacted more and will possibly interact with them in the future, and then I start to work in more detail with those aspects and add more possible hooks, encounters, etc. that will move that story further, plus some others in case they lose interest, and I keep this process until eventually the players engage with an adventure strongly enough to take it to its own climax.

So basically I always have possible villains, situations and encounters, but in the end nor even I know what will happen, what the story will actually be about and who will be the ultimate villain, I just keep injecting energy to the same direction that the players are pointing.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-30, 02:46 PM
Except you do need to have plot points decided ahead of time and encountered in a particular order. That is kinda plot 101.

Ok, you can call it a non-random game where the players just do random things to interact with the game world randomly. And this can be a fun and light and fluffy game for all. But to have drama and real meat, you have to have a plot. Set things must happen in set chronological order.


Question: do you play a game where dice are used for conflict resolution?

If yes, you're playing a random game, and trying to force a set plot with set sequence of events on it is fighting against the rules you're using.

There is no need whatsoever for an RPG to have a plot in the sense you define. In fact, a sufficiently expansive random game can emulate any plot you could come up with. Don't believe me? Go play Dwarf Fortress or Unreal World on your computer and then get back to me.

Cluedrew
2015-04-30, 03:31 PM
Thus plot and drama do not go together.OK, something is wrong with either your definition of plot or drama, because movies and books often have both plot and drama. But those are non-interactive you exclaim. Well what about Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest then? Of the two I think it is the definition of plot your having trouble with. To make sure I'm not shouting non-sense I double checked with a dictionary.
a series of events that form the story in a novel, movie, etc.So the plot are the events, not the plans or the GM's intentions, the events that happen at the table. And even if the GM did have the plot figured out but didn't tell the players that still fits your definition of "unknown" for drama.

Also, I have forwarded my definition of railroading about artificial restrains rather than linear campaign design or pre-planning. But if you don't like it you don't have to use it.


Go play Dwarf Fortress or Unreal World on your computer and then get back to me. Playing Dwarf Fortress strikes me as a rather inefficient way to make an argument.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-30, 04:52 PM
Personally, I like my plots both emergent and collaborative.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-30, 05:19 PM
Playing Dwarf Fortress strikes me as a rather inefficient way to make an argument.

For the argument I'm making, it's one of the most efficient ones. You only really need to see the world history generation log, to be honest.

GrayGriffin
2015-04-30, 10:28 PM
Honestly, the weekly live game I'm in now could be considered a very railroady game. Our characters woke up one day to discover that they had been chosen by Professor Oak to stop incursions into their world by Pokemon, and each received a starter Pokemon as well. They also received watches that would alert them to breaches. Each breach event is basically a self-contained map, with, as far as we can tell, only one way to stop it, which is to defeat the boss at the end. You could say that this was railroading, but so far we've had a lot of fun simply exploring what the DM sets out for us, and slowly gathering clues about the bigger picture. Yes, our characters are pretty much forced to hurry to each breach event, but at the same time that is what they would do in the first place, because they're all good people.

Plus, we also have a few sessions between each breach event that consist of simply roleplaying and having the characters get to know each other. And the DM is also running side-sessions for each PC which let them accomplish whatever goals they are working towards right now.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-30, 11:36 PM
I think the best antidote to the silliness of the Quantum Ogre is honesty with your world and your prep. Look at what the PCs have done, look at what you've prepped for your world, and ask "okay, what would reasonably happen now?" Then do that thing.

Except some players will scream railroading if the DM does a thing. Say the players are looters and spend a couple hours breaking into places. The DM might then ''do the thing'', where the city adds extra security and hide behind the ''well that is logical and would happen.'' Still, many a player will cry railroading as the DM is ''preventing player agency'' and stoping them from playing the game they want of endless looting.


You can have a game that is neither fluff nor random where you don't have to lead the players from point A to B to C. You can just have point A, a situation that makes point A all sorts of unstable, and let the game play out, where what B and C even are are discovered in play and influenced by the players. They can sometimes be predicted even if you're not forcing them, but they can also emerge in an unpredicted fashion and be better for it.

I guess you can say a game is anything. But if you have a plot, things need to happen in set order. I know there is this strong idea that players who are free of the railroad some how just create great games in some way with no story or plot or drama. And that sounds like a fluff game or a random game.

Take a typical game: So the players waste hours doing nothing being all player agency and not random. But finally, just before midnight, they decide to follow one of the DM's plot strings. Plot: the local baron is worried something will happen to his young female ward and hires the PC's to protect her. So important plot point A is having the PC's meet the baron, his sons, the ward, and other NPC's at a big dinner. The PC's have to go to the dinner to pick up the plot. Otherwise they just play body guards. The one son is a half orc and is planning to have a tribe or orcs attack the barony so he can rule with the ward as his wife. But if the Players never meet all the NPC's that plot will go nowhere. Once the PC's figure out the half orc son is up to something, they then move to B: figuring out his plan and finding the location of the orc camp. And to C, stopping the attack and D exposing the son and E keeping the ward safe. And to get anything done, the PC's will need to be railroaded to each point. For example plot point B3 is the encounter with the wounded druid that ran into a could orc thugs...it's just a foot note, until the PC's combine it with B1 of the rumor that a tribe of orcs has been seen never the city in the last couple days.


So what is the counter? How do the other self called non-railroad DM's get the players to do anything in any set order to have anything happen in a game?

Grim Portent
2015-05-01, 12:46 AM
So what is the counter? How do the other self called non-railroad DM's get the players to do anything in any set order to have anything happen in a game?

Generally I encourage them to have goals they'd pursue on their own initiative rather than wait for NPCs to do things.

Good things that a PC can do to create plot on their own include usurping thrones, starting and leading expeditions, pursuing religious and/or political reforms and seeking justice/vengeance for a past event.

The essential idea is to shift it from 'GM acts, PCs react,' to the opposite. It helps to be good at improvisation and running a game with nothing beyond detailed setting notes, a broad outline of the general nature and politics of most major nations and NPCs and notes keeping track of what the players have been doing in prior sessions.

Earthwalker
2015-05-01, 04:34 AM
So what is the counter? How do the other self called non-railroad DM's get the players to do anything in any set order to have anything happen in a game?

Well we don't. There is no set order.
Of course just because there is no set order does not mean that a plot does not emerge.

Thats the point there is a plot but its a plot the players make and in some ways control.

One of my recent sessions.

I have a player character called Raquel with the following aspects (among other)

People deserve to be free.
I am tired of being the only self aware replicant.

So when visiting Gibbs Moon, Raquel wanted to talk to the saloon wentches that were replicants and see if there was any spark of self-awarness. She books a room and rents one of the girls, a replicant called Ruby for 30 mins. Giving her time to talk. In this time she tries to use her skills to get an idea what Ruby is "thinking". She uses the appropriate skill and succeeds well, so I ask the player what is she looking for. Turns out she is looking for anything to do with Ruby or the place where she works. The roll succeeded so I say yeah she finds out the Ruby has an aspect "Briggs hurts us if we dont do as we are told".
More talking goes on and it appears that the saloon girl is still hiding something from her. So we have another chance to roll this time to try to get Ruby to tell her story. The roll happens and Raquel uses the fact if Ruby isn't honest with her she will tell Briggs she is not happy. That is enough to get more information out of Ruby. It turns out Ruby's "sister" another replicant called Emerald is missing. She managed to get away from Briggs and is in hiding. Also Emerald has contacted Ruby and wants Ruby to run away too. Ruby doesnt seem to have the will to break her programming and leave, she needs help but doesnt know what to do.


Queue the rest of the sesssion being about getting Ruby and Sapphire away from Briggs and meeting up with Emerald, hoping that Emerald is indeed self-aware and not just being used as a puppet of some other owner.

Now none of this was planned before hand. All of it is plot. None of it is fluff (I really dislike my style of gaming being dismissed as fluff)

Also as a counter point to myself.

I do run a pathfinder game for a different group. That game does have a plot worked out before hand it was in a different system.

Before the game started I explained all the characters were going to be working for a new healing service provided by the temple of healing. I restricted the classes and alignments available to the players at the start of the game. To classes and alignments the Temple of Healing would hire.

Each session was the group handling medical emergencies working as an EMT service for a large city. 60% of the jobs were random healing needed around the city 10% were in to reveal an on going plot of a dragon trying to poison the water supply and take ofer the city. the other 30% were to mess with adventurers and tropes around them (Like lvl 2 healers getting a call to help with a bar room brawl in the adventure area. Where 2 lvl 5 barbairans and raging and smashing the place up, the players need to avoid the big guys and drag the wounded free and heal them. Normally when healed the fools were rushing back to the fight)

Now this game required my players to accept I was running it. They would be EMTs. They would be reacting when I said the alarm sounds get to X as quick as posible (with a nice chase routine on random cards to get across the city) then deal with the problem when you get there the best you can.

Of course even this only worked up to a point. Soon the PCs were wanting to do things on the time off, so then they got some control of what they wanted to follow up on.

Cazero
2015-05-01, 04:51 AM
Take a typical game: So the players waste hours doing nothing being all player agency and not random. But finally, just before midnight, they decide to follow one of the DM's plot strings. Plot: the local baron is worried something will happen to his young female ward and hires the PC's to protect her. So important plot point A is having the PC's meet the baron, his sons, the ward, and other NPC's at a big dinner. The PC's have to go to the dinner to pick up the plot. Otherwise they just play body guards. The one son is a half orc and is planning to have a tribe or orcs attack the barony so he can rule with the ward as his wife. But if the Players never meet all the NPC's that plot will go nowhere. Once the PC's figure out the half orc son is up to something, they then move to B: figuring out his plan and finding the location of the orc camp. And to C, stopping the attack and D exposing the son and E keeping the ward safe. And to get anything done, the PC's will need to be railroaded to each point. For example plot point B3 is the encounter with the wounded druid that ran into a could orc thugs...it's just a foot note, until the PC's combine it with B1 of the rumor that a tribe of orcs has been seen never the city in the last couple days.


So what is the counter? How do the other self called non-railroad DM's get the players to do anything in any set order to have anything happen in a game?

First, there is no set order (ninja'ed). For a very good reason.
Single point of failure mistakes : the PCs need to attend to a dinner for the plot to start, the PCs need to figure that the half-orc is a villain to investigate, the PCs need to figure out the location of the orc camp to fight the orcs, the PCs need to expose the treachery of the half-orc to wrap-up things. That's 4 problems with your 5 point plot. All can be solved trivially with one simple correction.

Plot : the half-orc son of the local baron intend to take over the place, with the baron's ward as his wife. He hired a local orc tribe for his dirty work.

Here we go. Simply by switching the focus of your script to the real main initiator of action (who mostly works offscreen, wich translate into little to no effort of adaptation of the existing content), I allowed the plot to happen in almost any order. If you really want to be not railroady, you only have to improvise a bit on the unplanned actions that your players will inevitably take.

For example, the PCs might start by C : stumbling into an abduction attempt of the baron's ward, and intervene because they are heroic/they are promised riches. The baron then A : invite them to attend to a dinner, where they will hear about the baron's concern and meet NPCs. They can then B : investigate the half-orc because they're racist and/or backtrack the orc attackers to their camp, then maybe D : find evidence of the half-orc treachery and expose him.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-01, 08:51 AM
Except some players will scream railroading if the DM does a thing. Say the players are looters and spend a couple hours breaking into places. The DM might then ''do the thing'', where the city adds extra security and hide behind the ''well that is logical and would happen.'' Still, many a player will cry railroading as the DM is ''preventing player agency'' and stoping them from playing the game they want of endless looting.

And those players are wrong. Completely, utterly and objectively wrong. Why then would we ever design the things we do around them? Why design your game around people who make the game unfun?




The PC's have to go to the dinner to pick up the plot.

Why? Do the orcs not act until the PCs come to dinner? Does the world not continue to turn while the PCs are off looking at chickens? Why doesn't the "plot" advance with or without the PCs and thus change the dynamics completely? You're fixating on the plot being "PCs discover mystery being planned but not acted on -> PCs investigate mystery being planned but not acted on yet -> PCs solve mystery just in time to prevent being acted on -> PCs are "Big Damn Heroes (TM)" The problem is, that isn't your plot, it's how you want the plot to resolve. Your plot is that the half orc son of a local baron is planning a coup. That plot can happen and change the world the PCs are working in with or without the PCs discovering the mystery before it's set into motion. The coup could wind up in progress before the PCs really figure out what's going on. It could be over and suddenly the PCs find themselves trying to figure out how to deal with the unrest caused by the coup. The PCs could stumble upon the orc raiding party as things begin, or encounter them leaving as they abscond with the ward. Maybe they miss it entirely until the alarm goes out that the Baron is under attack (have to assume the Orcs plan on killing or capturing him, otherwise how do they rule?). Honestly a better question you should be asking is not "how do you get the PCs to engage the plot without railroading" but "why did you design a plot that only occurs if the PCs are in the right place at the right time and otherwise never happens?

Lorsa
2015-05-01, 09:30 AM
OK, something is wrong with either your definition of plot or drama, because movies and books often have both plot and drama. But those are non-interactive you exclaim. Well what about Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest then? Of the two I think it is the definition of plot your having trouble with. To make sure I'm not shouting non-sense I double checked with a dictionary.So the plot are the events, not the plans or the GM's intentions, the events that happen at the table. And even if the GM did have the plot figured out but didn't tell the players that still fits your definition of "unknown" for drama.

In a roleplaying discussion, many people use plot to refer to a pre-determined sequence of events by the GM. Probably it comes from the number of times GMs have exlaimed "So, I have this great plot where..." and then follows that up by a long range of events which clearly failed to take player actions into account.

It is true that movies and books often have both plot and drama. This is why my recommendation to GMs who feel the need to have a plot is to write a book instead. I feel the drama is lost in a roleplaying medium if the GM asks "so what do you do?", but has already decided it for us ahead of time. Let me read that story in my own time instead, I would enjoy it more that way.

Computer games also have a non-interactive, or very limited-interactive way of telling a story. It is possible you can alter it, but only within certain parameters. Yes, I agree that this way of story-telling can also include drama.

The problem is that roleplaying is a medium where agency is expected. This is why I enjoy it so much. By removing it, you also remove the drama for me. I love to read books too, but not at my roleplaying tables.

To summarize; it is my definition of plot that is "wrong", insofar that it is used differently than the dictionary. If you have a better word to describe a pre-determined sequence of events in roleplaying, then feel free to convince us to use that instead.



Except some players will scream railroading if the DM does a thing. Say the players are looters and spend a couple hours breaking into places. The DM might then ''do the thing'', where the city adds extra security and hide behind the ''well that is logical and would happen.'' Still, many a player will cry railroading as the DM is ''preventing player agency'' and stoping them from playing the game they want of endless looting.

These players clearly misunderstood the term (relevant to the thread). Is there some other point you are trying to make with this recurring argument?



I guess you can say a game is anything. But if you have a plot, things need to happen in set order. I know there is this strong idea that players who are free of the railroad some how just create great games in some way with no story or plot or drama. And that sounds like a fluff game or a random game.

You still clearly misunderstand. It works like this. Railroad = no. Story = yes. Plot (as defined by the pre-determination of events) = no. Drama = yes. I believe this combination equals the greatest game. You don't need a plot in order to make a story. But you do need a railroad in order to follow a plot.

Roleplaying is a medium is which story can emerge without plot. It may appear, in retrospect, as if there was a plot, and indeed two games, one with plot and one without, might be indistinguishable from each other when reading the story afterwards. That does not mean the experience the players have is equal though.


Take a typical game: So the players waste hours doing nothing being all player agency and not random. But finally, just before midnight, they decide to follow one of the DM's plot strings. Plot: the local baron is worried something will happen to his young female ward and hires the PC's to protect her. So important plot point A is having the PC's meet the baron, his sons, the ward, and other NPC's at a big dinner. The PC's have to go to the dinner to pick up the plot. Otherwise they just play body guards. The one son is a half orc and is planning to have a tribe or orcs attack the barony so he can rule with the ward as his wife. But if the Players never meet all the NPC's that plot will go nowhere. Once the PC's figure out the half orc son is up to something, they then move to B: figuring out his plan and finding the location of the orc camp. And to C, stopping the attack and D exposing the son and E keeping the ward safe. And to get anything done, the PC's will need to be railroaded to each point. For example plot point B3 is the encounter with the wounded druid that ran into a could orc thugs...it's just a foot note, until the PC's combine it with B1 of the rumor that a tribe of orcs has been seen never the city in the last couple days.

First of all, how is hours spent with player agency time wasted? I'm not sure what the goal of your games is, but mine is to have fun and enjoy my time. I haven't met a single player who did not enjoy to have their choices and actions be meaningful.

Secondly, why is this dinner an important plot point? But if they decided to take up the invitation of working for the baron, why would they decline his invitation for dinner? Seems very odd to me. And if they do refuse to go to dinner, they'll be bodyguards. What's wrong with that? How is that story a bad one?

Also, why is a dinner the only way to meat all the NPCs? If they act as bodyguards to the ward, wouldn't they meet the half-orc then? They might not meet all the NPCs at the same time, but rather one-by-one when following the ward around the castle, but isn't that better? I've found players have easier to remember NPCs they meet singularly, rather than many at once.

The information, because I would rather call it information than plot points, B1-B3 could be gathered or introduced in any number of ways. I'm not sure why you would limit yourself into one singular way in which it will be presented.

I see no reason why this adventure couldn't be played out satisfactory without railroading. Let the players solve (or fail to) in any way they see fit. Most players will have more fun that way.



So what is the counter? How do the other self called non-railroad DM's get the players to do anything in any set order to have anything happen in a game?

I don't get my players to do anything in a set order. But you don't need a set order for something to happen.



Well we don't. There is no set order.
Of course just because there is no set order does not mean that a plot does not emerge.

Thats the point there is a plot but its a plot the players make and in some ways control.

I would call that a story. Story emerges, plot is pre-defined. So the players make and control their story without a GM influenced plot.

draken50
2015-05-01, 11:38 AM
I think part of the problem here is that the concept of "Quantum Ogre-ing" is being brought up as a form of railroading.

As an example, for a game I was running where the players were in the wilderness I had created an encounter for when they left a tribal village. They elected to follow a guide down a tributary to the main river and a short way out of town they found what appeared to be a kind of offering before a grove of mangrove trees.

As it turns out some were carnivorous after a fashion, animate and able to use their roots to drown creatures and drag them beneath themselves for extra nutrients.

Here's the thing, regardless of which direction they went, this encounter was going to be used because until they were aware of it they have no ability to make a choice to avoid it.

The players ventured in to the knee deep water, were attacked, and retreated to safety. At which point they did some information gathering.(One character could speak to the spirits of plants) They then decided add extra time onto their trip to avoid the grove.

So Quantum Mangroving. Additionally it allowed a player as I expected to use a power they were excited about, and allowed my players to choose whether to fight in the hopes of finding loot off the decayed corpses beneath the tree, run like hell and try to make it to safety, or avoid the grove all together.

The players could not choose to avoid the encounter beforehand, because they had no knowledge of the encounter. The offering informed them that something strange and possibly dangerous was going on, but being the wonderful players they were they accepted the risk and pressed onward. The fact that I constructed the game in such a manner as for them to always encounter the strange situation in no way is a removal of player agency.

The GM's role in my mind is to create situations and obstacles for the players and by extension their characters to interact with and often overcome. Something that I try to clearly communicate to my players.

I have no problem if players create their own goals/intentions but I do make a point of explaining to them that the earlier I know about them, the better of situations, encounters, and meaning within the game world I will be able to create in relation to their actions and the goals they want to pursue. And if those goals change every single session... I'm going to get new players, because it's more fun to me to run a game of higher "quality" than it is to constantly having to scramble to give the players something to do.

NichG
2015-05-01, 12:41 PM
I guess you can say a game is anything. But if you have a plot, things need to happen in set order. I know there is this strong idea that players who are free of the railroad some how just create great games in some way with no story or plot or drama. And that sounds like a fluff game or a random game.

Take a typical game: So the players waste hours doing nothing being all player agency and not random. But finally, just before midnight, they decide to follow one of the DM's plot strings. Plot: the local baron is worried something will happen to his young female ward and hires the PC's to protect her. So important plot point A is having the PC's meet the baron, his sons, the ward, and other NPC's at a big dinner. The PC's have to go to the dinner to pick up the plot. Otherwise they just play body guards. The one son is a half orc and is planning to have a tribe or orcs attack the barony so he can rule with the ward as his wife. But if the Players never meet all the NPC's that plot will go nowhere. Once the PC's figure out the half orc son is up to something, they then move to B: figuring out his plan and finding the location of the orc camp. And to C, stopping the attack and D exposing the son and E keeping the ward safe. And to get anything done, the PC's will need to be railroaded to each point. For example plot point B3 is the encounter with the wounded druid that ran into a could orc thugs...it's just a foot note, until the PC's combine it with B1 of the rumor that a tribe of orcs has been seen never the city in the last couple days.

So what is the counter? How do the other self called non-railroad DM's get the players to do anything in any set order to have anything happen in a game?

One 'counter' is to imagine the scenario in reverse. What would you do if instead you were running a game where the PCs were the half-orc son and his cronies? Presumably, going from 'I'm related to the baron' to 'I now rule the ward' could be a reasonable adventure path with various challenges along the way. It wouldn't just be a single dinner party encounter with a victory condition "avoid the PCs' notice", it'd be a whole set of things that need to go right, with a number of possible fallback plans when some things fail, etc. Now, when you turn it back the other way, you have a lot of places where events could be exposed, change, etc. Essentially each of those challenge points and fallback points is a place where the PCs can jump in and become involved. They don't need to do so through the dinner party. Since the overall plan of the half-orc son has a certain structure, there are various bottlenecks where it can be thwarted efficiently and other places where even if it's thwarted, the son can come back and try something else. So the 'fallback points' for the half-orc correspond to the 'challenge points' for the PCs, and the challenge points for the half-orc correspond to the fallback points for the PCs.

Another 'counter' is to be pre-emptively quantum. Don't say 'A then B then C then D', say 'at this point, what is the set of all things that are interesting that could happen?' then at the next point do the same thing, and so on, and so on. Don't decide which thing it is ahead of time, because the decisions of the PCs will change what would be interesting and what would be a dead end. Instead, only decide at the very first instant where you need to say something that forces you to commit to a particular line of events. Did that dinner party contain a half-orc plotting to overthrow his father? The answer is not 'yes' or 'no' until the PCs decide if they want to talk to the son. Instead, you run a plot involving the people that they did choose to talk to, rather than trying to force a plot about the people they actively chose to avoid. By playing to the expressed interests of the PCs, you increase the chance that they're going to follow up in a coherent manner compared to trying to 'force' them to care.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-01, 12:55 PM
I think part of the problem here is that the concept of "Quantum Ogre-ing" is being brought up as a form of railroading.

This is true, and it's worth remembering that it isn't inherently a railroad (it can be, but doesn't have to be), as your example illustrates. If there's no way for the PCs to make a meaningful decision then the fact that their decision was worthless might be a Quantum Ogre scenario, but not a railroad as a railroad implies agency on the player's part that is being actively thwarted.



Here's the thing, regardless of which direction they went, this encounter was going to be used because until they were aware of it they have no ability to make a choice to avoid it.

The above said, why then did you bother giving your players a choice of direction? If the choice made no differences at all, and there was no meaningful way to know whether a choice did or did not have impact, why present the choice? If your outline was "if the players go into the woods, they will come across the grove" then why bother with giving the illusion that they had a choice, that had they taken the other path there would have been something different? Why not just say "you enter the forest and after some time travelling a winding path, you come across a grove"?



The GM's role in my mind is to create situations and obstacles for the players and by extension their characters to interact with and often overcome. Something that I try to clearly communicate to my players.

Absolutely, and to be clear, as I've said before the railroad (and by extension the quantum ogre) is a tool in your GM toolbox. Neither inherently good or evil. And ultimately if the tool is used in the service of accomplishing the goals of the table (and of course having fun) then it was a good application of the tool. But being aware of it and what it means and why you're using the tool is always important and can help improve your game.

Hawkstar
2015-05-01, 03:18 PM
The above said, why then did you bother giving your players a choice of direction? If the choice made no differences at all, and there was no meaningful way to know whether a choice did or did not have impact, why present the choice? If your outline was "if the players go into the woods, they will come across the grove" then why bother with giving the illusion that they had a choice, that had they taken the other path there would have been something different? Why not just say "you enter the forest and after some time travelling a winding path, you come across a grove"?
Just because the path didn't affect whether they'd find the mangrove doesn't mean it made no difference at all - That choice can be linked to other variaables as well. For example - one path leads to one (non-mangrove-reladed) objective, while the other lead's to another. And, at the very least, by having two paths, the mangrove is NOT on the other path, if future adventures have them returning to this forest's trails - they chose not only which path they wanted to go down, but also (unknowingly) which path has the Mangrove encounter. If they encounter it in the West the first time, if they come back, then it WON'T be in the South.

Let's use another Quantum Ogre example - As a DM, you have created a town with several threats facing it appropriate for a low-level party: Unusual noises are coming from the well, one of the abandoned houses on the outskirts of town has become haunted, and there are rumors of increased goblinoid activity in the area. All three are independent, one-shot adventures, but each one is modified by the ones before it, and the town changes as well in reaction to the order the tasks are performed in. These adventures are supposed to take the party from level 1 to level 4 (One level per adventure). However... the adventure at level 4+ is supposed to involve a sinister cult, foreshadowed by the second adventure the party completes.

No matter which adventure the party goes for, they are set to encounter an Ogre who's secretly a member of the cult (And is quite evidently so after they defeat him). If the party investigates the well second, the Ogre has been living down there and listening for quite some time, working clandestinely for the cult. If the party investigates the haunted house second, the basement of the house is the Ogre's base of operations, and he's been trapped by the haunting. If the party investigates the Goblin Menace second, the Ogre's the bodyguard for the new warlord - while reporting on both the town AND goblins to the cult.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-01, 04:08 PM
Just because the path didn't affect whether they'd find the mangrove doesn't mean it made no difference at all - That choice can be linked to other variaables as well. For example - one path leads to one (non-mangrove-reladed) objective, while the other lead's to another.

Ah this is a bit different then. Yes, it's still a Quantum encounter but on the scale of "railroad" to "two paths converging completely logically and naturally" it falls more towards the latter side. Giving players choices that matter doesn't have to mean that the implied goal of the choice is the actual choice, provided that the players are given information to make an informed choice and that choice truly matters in some way, then Quantum encounters become more acceptable.


And, at the very least, by having two paths, the mangrove is NOT on the other path, if future adventures have them returning to this forest's trails - they chose not only which path they wanted to go down, but also (unknowingly) which path has the Mangrove encounter. If they encounter it in the West the first time, if they come back, then it WON'T be in the South.

Sure, but the same could have been accomplished by you choosing to put the encounter in the West in the first place. Then had the players decided to go South, they would have avoided the encounter for now, but when they returned, they would have encountered it. Again, this isn't to say that Quantum encounters are always evil or wrong, but that my strong preference is to collapse the wave function before the game begins.



No matter which adventure the party goes for, they are set to encounter an Ogre who's secretly a member of the cult (And is quite evidently so after they defeat him). If the party investigates the well second, the Ogre has been living down there and listening for quite some time, working clandestinely for the cult. If the party investigates the haunted house second, the basement of the house is the Ogre's base of operations, and he's been trapped by the haunting. If the party investigates the Goblin Menace second, the Ogre's the bodyguard for the new warlord - while reporting on both the town AND goblins to the cult.

Again I find myself wondering why it's so very critical that they find this information in their second adventure? If they aren't able or supposed to tackle it until they're level 4+ what does it matter whether they encounter the evidence at Level 1, 2, 3 or 4?

The Evil DM
2015-05-01, 05:47 PM
I agree that the ideas presented, whether or not they are called railroading, illusion of choice, random, plotted or plotless or even quantum ogreing are all potential tools in the DM toolkit.

DMs who are one trick ponies in terms of GM style don't produce games with any depth or long lasting player base.

I alter the play style of the game to emphasize differences in regions and encounters.

In my campaign the current story arc is focused on retrieval of a ship a lost civilization scuttled and sent to the bottom of an ocean trench five miles deep. The PC nation is at war with a neighboring nation ruled by a dragon and its minions and the ship has magic and technology that could provide a strategic edge to the PC nation.

The PC nation has access to an ancient library and gods for divinations. After weeks (in game) of study, visions and auguries they learn many things. To keep this concise I will give several main bullets.

They learned where the ship is
They learned that they need the captains sabre to use its magic
With the captains sabre they can cause the ship to rise from the bottom
The captains sabre has been claimed by the Kraken and is in the treasure hoard of the Kraken.

In my world the Kraken is an immortal beast and an epic psion with particularly strong talents in mind affecting powers. So the PCs use their resources to learn what they can about the Kraken and learn that is lair is a massive multilayered spiral, built into a deep underwater cliff face in the same trench as the ship. They learn that the spiral is defended by layers of confusion magic, anti-teleportation fields, and anti scrying magic.

Specifically the Krakens lair is built as a network of small caverns connected with many tunnels. There are no dead ends just an apparently endless warren of tunnels.

The defenses on the place (for those familiar with D&D)

Antipathy wards to drive interlopers away from some directions
Sympathy wards to keep interlopers trapped in certain areas
Massive confusion effect from Guards and Wards - 50% chance of going direction other than the one you think you are going - no save
Damping field for Teleportation and Gate effects
All detect spells are misdirects, all scrying is blocked, all divinations attempted inside the lair are intercepted with false visions
Seamless dimensional portals randomly fold space within the lair to send people backwards through the labyrinth.

The whole place is designed, using existing content to railroad and randomly confuse the players. The Kraken itself exists to take decision making agency away from his victims and its lair is designed to take decision making agency away from the players.

Information they try and glean from divinations is corrupted, direction decisions become arbitrary because they have a 50% chance of thinking they have gone one way, when they actually went another. All in all the place just sucks.

No where else in the campaign world is player decision making so heavily destroyed. The players are here to attempt to sneak in and steal the sabre. We played last sat - apr 25th and they spent six game hours wandering in circles, trying detection spells, trying divinations, - "AUGURY, If I go this direction is it the correct direction" - YES it IS DM Thumbs Up

The frustration level is intense and intentionally so, because if I didn't make it this frustrating the Kraken simply wouldn't live up to its reputation as the top predator for mind affecting magic.

Now the players knew this was coming and were prepared to some degree. I think maybe it was more frustrating than they thought it would be but in the end, they learned that they could temporarily dispel the teleport field. They used this and they escaped before their spells to adapt them to deep water environment faded and they all drowned. So they GTFO and now they are on the game forums I set up for this working on how do we get through this hell hole.

draken50
2015-05-01, 07:00 PM
Sure, but the same could have been accomplished by you choosing to put the encounter in the West in the first place. Then had the players decided to go South, they would have avoided the encounter for now, but when they returned, they would have encountered it.

Okay, a couple things.

1)The decision to go West or south without knowledge of the potential for that encounter means that the players were not making any decision to encounter or avoid it, but was instead related to an entirely separate decision.

2)The players had no intention of returning, nor did I have any intention of having them return at any time.

So with that, I want you to answer this simple question.

How much of my time should I spend preparing encounters only for them to be missed because I force a location the players may not choose to pass through?

Exactly how much, of my personal time... do you think I should spend crafting content for my players that will never be seen or used, so that they or you specifically don't have a hissy-fit about railroading?

Answer that for me will ya?

The Evil DM
2015-05-01, 07:13 PM
How much of my time should I spend preparing encounters only for them to be missed because I force a location the players may not choose to pass through?

Exactly how much, of my personal time... do you think I should spend crafting content for my players that will never be seen or used, so that they or you specifically don't have a hissy-fit about railroading?

Time management as a GM is and always has been an issue. I solve the issue by creating patterns rather than discrete encounters. But sometimes I have a great idea for an encounter and I write it down. It may not include piece of a larger story or not and I insert the encounter on a series of event triggers I use to run the game in the background.

On average I spend an equal amount of time preparing for a game session as I do running a game session. But the preparation isn't always encounters. I include in this prep updates to NPCs, generating summaries of the game for my records, reviewing custom spells and abilities players are trying to develop and other such work. Maybe 10% of the time is spent on encounters.

Also my entire game is recorded in formats where the data is accumulated. After 20 year of running the campaign world I have piles of information. The world has a very consistent set of information and if a player asks, "What do I know about that dark forest over there" all I need to do is open the appropriate file from my archive.

The longer you play a campaign the more it will develop and the easier it will get.

As an addendum, because I am currently documenting my campaign universe into a format so my son can take over some GMing and play with his friends in my campaign world I am also spending disturbing amounts of time on the documentation process. Moving data into a searchable database is time consuming.

goto124
2015-05-01, 07:22 PM
You keep saying the Quantum Ogre is bad and evil etc. Let's say the DM keeps using it. What happens?

1337 b4k4
2015-05-01, 10:53 PM
How much of my time should I spend preparing encounters only for them to be missed because I force a location the players may not choose to pass through?

Exactly as much time as you feel is worth spending on encounters, as every encounter may be missed with the right set of circumstances. Ultimately the "I spent so much time on this" line of reasoning can be used to justify the GM invalidating everything the players do. The extreme example, you send your players into Ravenloft, having prepped an awesome epic battle of doom against Strahd for your players. And then one of them remembers they have a scroll of Dispel Evil (http://dreamsinthelichhouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/die-strahd-die.html). Boom, all of your work down the drain. Following the logic of "I spent so much time on this" the GM could say the scroll doesn't work, or that was a fake Strahd or have a Deus Ex Machina for Strahd that otherwise invalidates the scroll. They can, but that's lousy reasoning. Better reasoning is that the group finds it more fun to have big epic boss battles and not have their villains be so easily defeated. It's up to the GM and the players what sort of game they like to play and what sort of story they're telling. Is it fitting that the hero's can defeat Strahd like that? Or does the group prefer epic battles in the rain, leaping from gargoyle to rain slick precipice in the darkness?


Exactly how much, of my personal time... do you think I should spend crafting content for my players that will never be seen or used, so that they or you specifically don't have a hissy-fit about railroading?

Answer that for me will ya?

Relax my friend, I'm not attacking you or declaring your style of play bad wrong fun. I'm pointing out the questions that you can and should ask as a GM when deciding what tools you will use and how when and if you will use quantum encounters or even full on railroading.

How much time should you spend crafting content that your players will never see? As much as you want. It's your world, build it as complex or as simple as you want. But you probably shouldn't expect that your players will always see everything you design. No plan survives it's first contact with the players.

To avoid hissyfits from your players? You and your players should have communicated ahead of time and the degree and likelihood of forced or otherwise unavoidable encounters should have been part of that discussion, even if it's as simple as agreeing to run through a given module or run an adventure of taking on a god king, or declaring an open sandbox world. In general though, you shouldn't play with people who throw hissyfits. Unmet expectations and mismatches will happen from time to time. Everyone at the table should be adult enough to handle that, communicate and discuss if it's sufficiently bothersome and move on in an adult manner. Players who throw hissyfits because you threw in a few forced encounters when they were expecting sandboxes should be summarily ejected from the game until they can behave like adults.

To avoid upsetting me? For one, you're under the mistaken impression that I'm upset at all. For two, you shouldn't give two cp whether or not I'm upset by how you GM your games until and unless such time as I'm your player and we're discussing the game we're about to play. It's your table, it's your players, it's your rules and your fun. As I've repeatedly said, Quantum encounters and railroading as a whole is neither good nor evil in and of itself. My admonishments are limited to my own preferences (as both player and GM) and as observations about general trends (e.g. most players seem to prefer limited and light hands when forcing an encounter). If you're worried about what I think about how you and your group are having fun, you're worrying about the wrong things.


You keep saying the Quantum Ogre is bad and evil etc. Let's say the DM keeps using it. What happens?

Who says it's bad and evil? I've explicitly and multiple times in this same thread said the exact opposite.

Alberic Strein
2015-05-02, 01:03 AM
Exactly how much, of my personal time... do you think I should spend crafting content for my players that will never be seen or used, so that they or you specifically don't have a hissy-fit about railroading?

Answer that for me will ya?
The latest simulation points to three minutes and forty five seconds, according to factors determined by an undisclosed number of individuals. Trust me, nobody lies on the internet.

Seriously, if designing content for your players to explore and miss out on is such a chore that you need to limit your creative time and not "waste [your] personal time" then you might want to try another method.

Have you tried improvising heavily? Or taking a published module and have your characters stumble upon it from a weird angle?

My opinion is that stuff you create makes you better at creating stuff. Design a clever encounter against an ogre, if it is used, then great, it's been tested. It's not used? Well you know it was clever, maybe you could reuse the concept somewhere, sometime, maybe with another group or something. Maybe the heart, the "clever" part of your encounter is not the "ogre" bit and you can alter the concept to fit the situation, maybe adding or removing some things, or using something you just learned during the game.

Your players not triggering encounter X doesn't make encounter X useless. Relying on Quantum Ogres is all fine and dandy but it has a tendancy to invite lazyness. They will do whatever they want and then fight an ogre and that will be fine. No need to design choices or meaningful options for the players, to try and understand their behaviors, their quirks, their triggers and use that to make them catch on to the red string and follow the intrigue.

I am one of those one trick Dms who supposedly can't have a long lasting player base or even games with any depth period. My trick is designing a situation, make it complex enough for there to be a plurality of valid answers and not make them simple, and then improvise till the bell rings and the session is over. My content is created, I keep track of it and see it evolve with imput from the players, from which I just need to manage to pull some heartstrings so they get involved in the plot. If I fail and they decide to avoid my plot entirely? Well, they missed out on a wickedly good Ogre fight a few sessions back, didn't they?

NichG
2015-05-02, 01:29 AM
Improvisation and quantum ogres are largely the same thing. The only difference is whether you decided beforehand 'there is an X there' and then change it, versus just not deciding in the first place until the last possible moment.

Lorsa
2015-05-02, 04:04 AM
Okay, a couple things.

1)The decision to go West or south without knowledge of the potential for that encounter means that the players were not making any decision to encounter or avoid it, but was instead related to an entirely separate decision.

2)The players had no intention of returning, nor did I have any intention of having them return at any time.

So with that, I want you to answer this simple question.

How much of my time should I spend preparing encounters only for them to be missed because I force a location the players may not choose to pass through?

Exactly how much, of my personal time... do you think I should spend crafting content for my players that will never be seen or used, so that they or you specifically don't have a hissy-fit about railroading?

Answer that for me will ya?

It is true that if players decide to take road A or road B through the forest, that decision matters little unless they know about a difference between A and B.

But to answer your question of how much time should be spent, I can only say that I believe the best thing is to spend time preparing for events that can happen to the characters now. Where they currently are in the game. So if they decide to take the road through the forest, you can plan for something to happen there (possibly from your already pre-generated list of ideas for forest encounters).

Plannint for encounters three steps down the line often end up being a waste of time. You can have idea, but spending hours on details will just make you frustrated as the players will (most likely) do something to upset those plans.


Improvisation and quantum ogres are largely the same thing. The only difference is whether you decided beforehand 'there is an X there' and then change it, versus just not deciding in the first place until the last possible moment.

This is true. When my players make a decision of what road to travel, I will come up with some interesting things that could logically happen along the way. If the environment is suitable, it could be an ogre.

The real problem with the quantum ogre isn't that you changed its location, it's that you decided a location for it ahead of time. When you do, you decide on a plot "the players will choose road A and then meet an ogre", and when the players instead choose road B you become confused and instead of railroading them to road A you move the ogre.

It's always better to make your world reactive. The players choose road B. That's when you decide what happens along that path.

JAL_1138
2015-05-02, 04:56 AM
Why are all you dadgum whippersnappers arguing about where to put one measly ogre? Back in my day we just rolled on the random encounter tables and what the dice said happened. Now git off my lawn, dagnabbit.

goto124
2015-05-02, 07:00 AM
Road A has a male ogre, Road B has a female ogre.

:P

Dimers
2015-05-02, 08:44 AM
Road A has a male ogre, Road B has a female ogre.

:P

You could just as easily have said short ogre tall ogre, or fat ogre thin ogre, or old ogre young ogre, so ... I have to assume from your post that you expect your players to try having sex with the ogres ... ? :smalltongue: / :smallyuk:

Thrudd
2015-05-02, 08:57 AM
You could just as easily have said short ogre tall ogre, or fat ogre thin ogre, or old ogre young ogre, so ... I have to assume from your post that you expect your players to try having sex with the ogres ... ? :smalltongue: / :smallyuk:

This is a weird Dr. Seuss story.

One ogre, two ogre, red ogre, blue ogre. Will you bash them in the face? Will you bash them any place?

Alberic Strein
2015-05-02, 10:50 AM
Improvisation and quantum ogres are largely the same thing. The only difference is whether you decided beforehand 'there is an X there' and then change it, versus just not deciding in the first place until the last possible moment.
While there are definitely some similarities, I disagree. In one situation you're artificially forcing the game to flow according to your scenario: road>ogre>more road. It's a set situation, the ogre happens here because it has to, according to your scenario. It doesn't mean it's simplistic, you give a plot hook for city A and on the way they will meet an ogre. Should they decide to ignore the plot hook and go to city B, they will still meet the ogre they should have met on the way to city A. And if you've already come this far, why not actually make city B city A with some minor adjustments according to what players know of city B? That's what I dislike with quantum ogres, they invite quantum roads, quantum cities, quantum campaigns. Being able to discard your encounter, your work, your plan and adapt is important as a DM I think.

For argument's sake, in the other situation, you're trying to make your players follow your scenario and when that invariably fails, you adapt your game to your players: "You wish to disregard every single plot hook I throw your way to go to the capital of the far realm to sightsee and eat their specialties? Okay -keeps his awesome town intrigue for later- you're on the road>wait, this is boring! Something has to happen here... Ogre!>more road." One situation has you sticking to a plan, while another has you being much more fluid and flexible, even when they both end up bringing an ogre on the road.

I think that the intent and the reason for why things happen and you why make them happen is an important difference in tabletop gaming.

Hawkstar
2015-05-02, 11:17 AM
You could just as easily have said short ogre tall ogre, or fat ogre thin ogre, or old ogre young ogre, so ... I have to assume from your post that you expect your players to try having sex with the ogres ... ? :smalltongue: / :smallyuk:


This is a weird Dr. Seuss story.

One ogre, two ogre, red ogre, blue ogre. Will you bash them in the face? Will you bash them any place?

Okay, I can see where this is going (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAFD8mMqls)

Knaight
2015-05-02, 11:22 AM
Improvisation and quantum ogres are largely the same thing. The only difference is whether you decided beforehand 'there is an X there' and then change it, versus just not deciding in the first place until the last possible moment.

Not really. The quantum ogre situation involves having a specific plan, and shoehorning it in. Improvisation involves having a very short term plan that's about ten seconds ahead of the current situation and maintaining that, and as such isn't particularly susceptible to shoehorning.

Thrudd
2015-05-02, 11:22 AM
For argument's sake, in the other situation, you're trying to make your players follow your scenario and when that invariably fails, you adapt your game to your players: "You wish to disregard every single plot hook I throw your way to go to the capital of the far realm to sightsee and eat their specialties? Okay -keeps his awesome town intrigue for later- you're on the road>wait, this is boring! Something has to happen here... Ogre!>more road." One situation has you sticking to a plan, while another has you being much more fluid and flexible, even when they both end up bringing an ogre on the road.


this is what tables of wandering monsters/random encounters are for. It was joked about earlier, but it is true. Traveling a long ways in an unplanned direction? The game will still be full of action and surprises.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-02, 12:08 PM
Improvisation and quantum ogres are largely the same thing. The only difference is whether you decided beforehand 'there is an X there' and then change it, versus just not deciding in the first place until the last possible moment.

Improvization by definition means "deciding contemporarily, without preparation", where as the Quantum Ogre scenario is all about being prepared and sticking to it. Acting dismissive of that difference because it's the "only" one is extremely obtuse. It's like saying the only difference between hot and cold is that one increases molecular movement and the other slows it down. -___-

NichG
2015-05-02, 12:44 PM
While there are definitely some similarities, I disagree. In one situation you're artificially forcing the game to flow according to your scenario: road>ogre>more road. It's a set situation, the ogre happens here because it has to, according to your scenario. It doesn't mean it's simplistic, you give a plot hook for city A and on the way they will meet an ogre. Should they decide to ignore the plot hook and go to city B, they will still meet the ogre they should have met on the way to city A. And if you've already come this far, why not actually make city B city A with some minor adjustments according to what players know of city B? That's what I dislike with quantum ogres, they invite quantum roads, quantum cities, quantum campaigns. Being able to discard your encounter, your work, your plan and adapt is important as a DM I think.

The thing is, City A and City B don't actually exist until the players truly interact with them or their information. That's a false constraint that you're imposing upon yourself.

Quantum Ogre is saying 'I think I might need a city at some point in the future, so why don't I make up some good ideas to use for city-related stuff, then whenever the players next go to a city I can use that stuff'. Improvisation is saying 'Oh, the players have arrived at a city? I guess I'll make up some city-related stuff.' In neither case was there any 'true' reality of City A and City B before the first moment where the DM provided some concrete information about them to the players - that's the illusion of the game, and while its important to get the players to buy into that illusion, the DM shouldn't actually believe in it themselves.

Fundamentally what it comes down to is a more modular interpretation of the elements of the game world. Something like 'an ogre' isn't automatically and irreversibly tied into the context, ecosystem, and greater story. It's an element which can be connected to those things on the fly at need. The 'quantum ogre' thing is just recognizing that you haven't actually provided any information that pins down that module to a specific context yet, and so there's nothing stopping you from re-purposing it elsewhere because that doesn't actually change anything the players know. Improvisation, meanwhile, is recognizing that one doesn't have to pre-specify things at all and then uncover them as the players make decisions, but instead can see everything as modules from the very start and then just put those modules together on the fly.

That is to say, full-on improvisation is the natural end-point of mastering the truth underlying the quantum ogre, that nothing actually exists in the game world until it has been spoken of in some direct or indirect way by someone at the table. From this point of view, preparation isn't about pre-specifying the state of the game world, it's about creating complex internally connected sets of things which require a more mentally expensive self-consistency than can feasibly be performed on the fly. Everything about that design work is completely re-usable, the same way that you don't need to re-invent every stat of every monster every time you use one in game - you can go reference a Monster Manual where that work has already been pre-loaded into modular pieces. Then, all you have to do is form the connections that lead out of the module and which integrate it to the overall context of the game.

Hawkstar
2015-05-02, 12:54 PM
Not really. The quantum ogre situation involves having a specific plan, and shoehorning it in. Improvisation involves having a very short term plan that's about ten seconds ahead of the current situation and maintaining that, and as such isn't particularly susceptible to shoehorning.But is very susceptible to being underwhelming.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-02, 01:11 PM
While there are definitely some similarities, I disagree. In one situation you're artificially forcing the game to flow according to your scenario: road>ogre>more road. And in the other situation, you're trying to make your players follow your scenario and when that invariably fails, you adapt your game to your players.

I think that's an important difference.

So is the agreement that only a DM can railroad players with the DM's plot? So if a DM railroads the players with the players plot, it's ok? Take the simple ''the dragon lair is to the south''. So the DM railroads the players into going south with things that prevent them from going any other direction. So, now, if this is the DM's plot of saving the town from the dragon: that is railroading. But if the players want to kill a dragon and loot, it is not railroading?



Now none of this was planned before hand. All of it is plot. None of it is fluff (I really dislike my style of gaming being dismissed as fluff)

Your example is not fluff, but it is not railroad free. Sure the player can spend endless hours just doing fluffy things, but eventually most players want action/excitement/drama/adventure. In your example, it is all the talking to the NPCs. But then you get to the action part of saving the people. And the train tracks will need to be set out. Once the PC has a set goal, you don't want them wandering all over the world....you want them to have a chance of completing the goal.

Even if you come up with a plot out of nothing at all, you still need to railroad players to get the plot done. Except that if you make a plot from nothing it won't have much filling. Using your example, in a pre made plot game, the PC could have encountered a bounty hunter type at the bar and asked the PC if they had seen a girl. The PC would say ''no'' and move on....but later when talking to Ruby would go ''oh, hey, that is who that guy was looking for''. But you can't have a pay off, without a set up. The same way the PC could have encountered Biggs or at least his handy work, well before the talk with Ruby.



Generally I encourage them to have goals they'd pursue on their own initiative rather than wait for NPCs to do things.

Good things that a PC can do to create plot on their own include usurping thrones, starting and leading expeditions, pursuing religious and/or political reforms and seeking justice/vengeance for a past event.

The essential idea is to shift it from 'GM acts, PCs react,' to the opposite. It helps to be good at improvisation and running a game with nothing beyond detailed setting notes, a broad outline of the general nature and politics of most major nations and NPCs and notes keeping track of what the players have been doing in prior sessions.

Ok, this is all great to start a game.....but then what do you do after that?

So the PC wander for a bit directionless, then decide they will take vengeance on Count Cooko. Ok, so the players are all happy they are in control of the game. But then what? As soon as the DM makes up a single detail, he is railroading the plot. Say a player makes a roll and learns ''oh, count cooko is in debt to boss hog'', well welcome to the DM's count debt plot. Say a player does some real role playing and finds out the counts wife hates him, well welcome to DM's the wife hate plot. And even if the PC's just do something random like ''we charge over and attack the counts home!'', well welcome to the DM's ''the count lives in a fortified castle plot''.

So take the Boss Hog plot, well the DM makes him own/run the Gold Dice Hall. So if the PC's want to see him, they must go there(choo, choo). And Boss Hog refuses to help the PC's(choo, choo). But Boss Hog does tell his buddy the count about the PC's (choo, choo). And the PC's are then attacked if the go near anyplace owned by the boss or count(choo, choo). Look at all that railroading....

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-02, 01:18 PM
NichG, you're conflating Quantum Ogre with a random encounter.

The point behind the Quantum Ogre and similar scenarios is that all available choices lead to similar results. The ogre switching places isn't some interchangeable, modular piece of the game, it is the Ogre of Plot Exposition required by the vision of the GM. When the Quantum Ogre is in play, meeting the Ogre matters. Not meeting the Ogre is not an option. That's why it's railroading.

When you're making stuff up on the fly, or writing interchangeably modules for a random encounter list, that attitude is absent.

Thrudd
2015-05-02, 02:26 PM
So is the agreement that only a DM can railroad players with the DM's plot? So if a DM railroads the players with the players plot, it's ok? Take the simple ''the dragon lair is to the south''. So the DM railroads the players into going south with things that prevent them from going any other direction. So, now, if this is the DM's plot of saving the town from the dragon: that is railroading. But if the players want to kill a dragon and loot, it is not railroading?



Your example is not fluff, but it is not railroad free. Sure the player can spend endless hours just doing fluffy things, but eventually most players want action/excitement/drama/adventure. In your example, it is all the talking to the NPCs. But then you get to the action part of saving the people. And the train tracks will need to be set out. Once the PC has a set goal, you don't want them wandering all over the world....you want them to have a chance of completing the goal.

Even if you come up with a plot out of nothing at all, you still need to railroad players to get the plot done. Except that if you make a plot from nothing it won't have much filling. Using your example, in a pre made plot game, the PC could have encountered a bounty hunter type at the bar and asked the PC if they had seen a girl. The PC would say ''no'' and move on....but later when talking to Ruby would go ''oh, hey, that is who that guy was looking for''. But you can't have a pay off, without a set up. The same way the PC could have encountered Biggs or at least his handy work, well before the talk with Ruby.




Ok, this is all great to start a game.....but then what do you do after that?

So the PC wander for a bit directionless, then decide they will take vengeance on Count Cooko. Ok, so the players are all happy they are in control of the game. But then what? As soon as the DM makes up a single detail, he is railroading the plot. Say a player makes a roll and learns ''oh, count cooko is in debt to boss hog'', well welcome to the DM's count debt plot. Say a player does some real role playing and finds out the counts wife hates him, well welcome to DM's the wife hate plot. And even if the PC's just do something random like ''we charge over and attack the counts home!'', well welcome to the DM's ''the count lives in a fortified castle plot''.

So take the Boss Hog plot, well the DM makes him own/run the Gold Dice Hall. So if the PC's want to see him, they must go there(choo, choo). And Boss Hog refuses to help the PC's(choo, choo). But Boss Hog does tell his buddy the count about the PC's (choo, choo). And the PC's are then attacked if the go near anyplace owned by the boss or count(choo, choo). Look at all that railroading....

I don't think you're understanding The idea of a sandbox game, and using "railroading" inappropriately. If the players want to go somewhere, you aren't railroading them to get there, they are choosing it. If they hear about a dragon in the south and want to go fight it, you don't need to railroad them there. Saying the dragon is in the south, so the players need to go south to get to it, is not railroading. That is just common sense logic in a believable world. The players sure can wander all over the world if they want to. There will be things happening to them and around them all the time. The point is, the players have stuff they want to do. They want to get rich and powerful, so they look for dungeons with loot or offer their services to people offering rewards. Or they want to protect the realm, so when they hear about monsters and threats and plots, they want to get involved. Or they want magic and artifacts, so they seek rumors of those things.

A game where the players have decided their own goals and are pursuing them also implies the players can change their minds and pursue something else. So if they change their mind and decide not to go fight the dragon, that's ok. Still no railroading required, they don't need to go there. They can go wherever they want. They can start heading south, run into a village of lizard men, and get sidetracked and never end up reaching the dragon. Just as well. Still no railroading.

The point is, you don't know what the story is, exactly, until after the game. It's an ongoing, growing, living world, which has characters and events that might make good stories after the fact. The GM creates the world and decides what is where and who is who. The players decide what their characters do in that world. That the players aren't also creating the world and must obey it's rules and logic is not railroading.

The GM in this scenario has not planned for a series of events to happen, they have created a world and allows the players to interact with it in whatever way they want (within the limits of the game).

Having a game world with sensible and consistent logic is not railroading. It's not a "plot" to have a lord that lives in a castle that has a wife that doesn't like him. The players could meet the lord and become friends, they could try to sneak into his place to steal stuff, they could storm the castle with a catapult, or they could ignore the whole thing. It isn't "railroading" to say that attacking the castle means the lord will fight back, or that you need to go inside the castle if you want to meet with him. They could try to attack the castle, realize it is a bad idea, and run away. They are not trapped in a plot, they can do anything they want within the logic of the game world. If they Attack the castle and end up getting knocked out and captured, it was their choice to go there and their capture was a logical result of their actions. Not a railroad.

If the players really didn't want to go see boss hog in his hall, they could wait for him to come out, follow him, and approach him outside. Or just not see him at all. But it isn't railroading for NPCs to act logically and consistently according to their nature. Based on the rules of the game, there probably should be a chance that boss hogg will listen to the players and agree to help them, even if it is a very small chance.

It is not railroading if the players attempt a difficult task and fail. It makes sense if the boss is friends with the count that he would warn his friend about enemies, this is the world acting logically and consistently. The situation was perpetuated by the players' free will choices and subject to the game's mechanics where applicable. The players didn't need to do any of the things they did, nor to even have gotten involved with the count or boss.

It isn't railroading unless the GM is forcing them on a specific course of actions or invalidating their choices by pre-determining outcomes rather than allowing the dice or game mechanics to inform results.

If you are just giving the players a choice of a few different railroad plots to get on, that is not the open sandbox/plotless type game people are talking about, I think.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-02, 04:06 PM
Quantum Ogre is saying 'I think I might need a city at some point in the future, so why don't I make up some good ideas to use for city-related stuff, then whenever the players next go to a city I can use that stuff'. Improvisation is saying 'Oh, the players have arrived at a city? I guess I'll make up some city-related stuff.' In neither case was there any 'true' reality of City A and City B before the first moment where the DM provided some concrete information about them to the players - that's the illusion of the game, and while its important to get the players to buy into that illusion, the DM shouldn't actually believe in it themselves.

Not quite. Quantum Ogre either says the GM has made a decision ahead of time and then alters that decision because the players have avoided its outcome, or that the players never had a choice in the outcome in the first place.

So for scenario 1 it's something like this (and this is the more railroady form of the Quantum Ogre)

DM Before Game: Hmm, I'm building a world for my players, and from their village to the east is the great Kingdom of the East, where my players will find a king corrupted by his vizier and under threat from the barbarian goblins from the north. To the west there is a great desert with a tribe of dopplegangers that the vizier hails from that the PCs will be able to investigate after they've found the vizier's journal.

DM During Game: And that's the last of the rat theif's minions. The Sherif rewards you handsomely, and you head out of the city, which way do you go?

Players: To the west!

DM: You travel west and arrive at the great Kingdom of the East West were you find a kingdom under siege from barbarian goblins from the north and a king corrupted by his vizier.

In this case, no matter what choice the players made, the GM already made the choice of where they were going to go next. They didn't force them with heavy handed "there's a terrible impassible storm to the west, an imposing and impassible mountain range to the north and the only bridge south has been destroyed" but they forced the players none the less.


For scenario 2 it goes something like this:

GM: You see 3 chests in front of you, what do you do?

Group A: We open the first chest, then the third and then the second.

Group A': We open the third chest, then the second then the first.

Group A'': We open the second chest, then the thirst chest, then the first

GM: You trigger a needle trap, then you find a ring of protection and in the last chest there's an Ogre

In this case, no matter what order the players opened the chests, they were always going to trigger the needle trap first, always going to find a ring of protection second and the last chest would always have an Ogre. The players are given the illusion of their choices influencing what they experience but it's a false choice and nothing the players could do (short of walking away, but see above discussion RE: "I spent so much time on this") could change the outcome.



So is the agreement that only a DM can railroad players with the DM's plot? So if a DM railroads the players with the players plot, it's ok? Take the simple ''the dragon lair is to the south''. So the DM railroads the players into going south with things that prevent them from going any other direction. So, now, if this is the DM's plot of saving the town from the dragon: that is railroading. But if the players want to kill a dragon and loot, it is not railroading?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: If the GM takes actions that prevent the players from altering the course of the story and those actions don't naturally flow from the fiction (i.e. the players haven't entered a no windows hallway having just barely squeezed under the slowly closing door) then that is railroading, regardless of whether or not the players want to be on the railroad or not. This is also why again, railroading is not inherently good or evil. If the players want to be on the railroad, and everyone is having fun, then by definition the railroad can't be bad in this scenario. It may be unnecessary but that isn't the same as bad.



So the PC wander for a bit directionless, then decide they will take vengeance on Count Cooko. Ok, so the players are all happy they are in control of the game. But then what? As soon as the DM makes up a single detail, he is railroading the plot.

No. Just no. The GM adding detail and making the world come alive is not railroading. Railroading is specifically and explicitly about removing player choice and agency and preventing them (often in very ham handed ways) from altering the world from the particular path the GM has already laid out in advance. The term explicitly references the rails of a train, a train which is unable without the assistance of they who control the rails of ever altering course or going anywhere except where the rails will take it. Building roads and bridges and paths is not building a railroad, either in real life or in TTRPGs.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-02, 05:33 PM
I don't think you're understanding The idea of a sandbox game, and using "railroading" inappropriately. If the players want to go somewhere, you aren't railroading them to get there, they are choosing it.


True. And most good players just ride the train too. It's the bad apples that cause the problem by screaming ''railroading'' everything something they don't like happens in the game.



Short answer: No.

Long answer: If the GM takes actions that prevent the players from altering the course of the story and those actions don't naturally flow from the fiction (i.e. the players haven't entered a no windows hallway having just barely squeezed under the slowly closing door) then that is railroading, regardless of whether or not the players want to be on the railroad or not. This is also why again, railroading is not inherently good or evil. If the players want to be on the railroad, and everyone is having fun, then by definition the railroad can't be bad in this scenario. It may be unnecessary but that isn't the same as bad.

Well, you mention two tricky qualifiers: altering the story course and actions that don't flow naturally from the fiction. So who gets to decide if something qualifies? The players? So that takes us back to ''railroading is anything the players don't like''.




No. Just no. The GM adding detail and making the world come alive is not railroading. Railroading is specifically and explicitly about removing player choice and agency and preventing them (often in very ham handed ways) from altering the world from the particular path the GM has already laid out in advance. The term explicitly references the rails of a train, a train which is unable without the assistance of they who control the rails of ever altering course or going anywhere except where the rails will take it. Building roads and bridges and paths is not building a railroad, either in real life or in TTRPGs.

So your defining railroading as only a DM forcing players to follow the train tracks to the DM's goal. So a DM forcing players to follow the train tracks for any other reason, like the players goals, is not railroading?

So lets say DM A makes up a powerful evil dragon with a weakness: a special sword made to slay it. And DM B just does the ''oh the players want to fight a dragon, then one is nearby''. Both groups attack the dragon, both groups fail, and both groups retreat. The dragon was just too tough for them. Now the group A players will whine and cry ''railroad'' as ''the only way to kill the dragon is with the DM's special sword''. And group B will be like ''darn that dragon was tough, lets get more powerful before we try again''. But that is only if they know all the details. All the unhappy, and clueless of the details, players will cry ''railroad'' as they could not slay the dragon.




A game where the players have decided their own goals and are pursuing them also implies the players can change their minds and pursue something else. So if they change their mind and decide not to go fight the dragon, that's ok. Still no railroading required, they don't need to go there. They can go wherever they want. They can start heading south, run into a village of lizard men, and get sidetracked and never end up reaching the dragon. Just as well. Still no railroading.

Even in a classic game where the DM makes and adventure and players go on the adventure, can have players that change their minds. It is called ''not playing''. A player can, at any time, just stop playing the game. They can look at the path the character has in front of them and say ''eh, no''.



The point is, you don't know what the story is, exactly, until after the game. It's an ongoing, growing, living world, which has characters and events that might make good stories after the fact. The GM creates the world and decides what is where and who is who. The players decide what their characters do in that world. That the players aren't also creating the world and must obey it's rules and logic is not railroading.

But what is the difference? You have a group that gets int sme trouble with magic and want to go find a wizard to help. How is ''the DM made up the fact that Bordertown only has two wizards living in it'' railroading and ''the DM made up Bordertown and the fact that Bordertown only has two wizards living in it'' a couple seconds after a player randomly said ''lets go to Bordertown".

And ok, at the start, the game can be all random and no one knows the story....right up to the part where everyone decides to stop being random and know and follow a story.



It isn't railroading unless the GM is forcing them on a specific course of actions or invalidating their choices by pre-determining outcomes rather than allowing the dice or game mechanics to inform results.

Again, this is just saying Railroading is anything the players don't like.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-02, 05:56 PM
It isn't railroading unless the GM is forcing them on a specific course of actions or invalidating their choices by pre-determining outcomes rather than allowing the dice or game mechanics to inform results.

Again, this is just saying Railroading is anything the players don't like.

Uh... no, it's not.

Obvious example is obvious: the game rules tells a player character could win or lose. When a GM has already decided the PC should win and only rolls the dice for show, that's railroading even if the player wants to win.

When a GM rolls the dice, and the dice show the PC loses, a non-railroading GM sticks with that, even if it's not what the player wants and even if it's not what the GM wants.

Whether players like or don't like the predetermined vision of the GM is of no consequence.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-02, 06:45 PM
Well, you mention two tricky qualifiers: altering the story course and actions that don't flow naturally from the fiction. So who gets to decide if something qualifies? The players? So that takes us back to ''railroading is anything the players don't like''.

The whole group. This is a cooperative game after all. But beyond that, what you're missing is that the players can be railroaded even into things the like (and they can even like the railroad). For example, if the players are taking inventory and discover their scroll of Dispel Evil and realize it will defeat Strahd in one go and the GM says "Hey guys, I put together a freaking awesome final dual for you guys tonight and that would totally ruin the whole thing, so I'm going to rule that Strahd is immune to Dispel Evil", even if the players are in 100% agreement, and really really really like huge epic battles and all agree that would be a cheap way for Strahd to die and therefore are 100% behind the new ruling, it would still be railroading.



So your defining railroading as only a DM forcing players to follow the train tracks to the DM's goal. So a DM forcing players to follow the train tracks for any other reason, like the players goals, is not railroading?

The DM forcing players at all is pretty much railroading, whether it's forcing them to the DM's goal or their own goal. It's the application of force and the removal of player agency that is at hand.



So lets say DM A makes up a powerful evil dragon with a weakness: a special sword made to slay it. And DM B just does the ''oh the players want to fight a dragon, then one is nearby''. Both groups attack the dragon, both groups fail, and both groups retreat. The dragon was just too tough for them. Now the group A players will whine and cry ''railroad'' as ''the only way to kill the dragon is with the DM's special sword''. And group B will be like ''darn that dragon was tough, lets get more powerful before we try again''. But that is only if they know all the details. All the unhappy, and clueless of the details, players will cry ''railroad'' as they could not slay the dragon.

A single weakness monster whose single weakness is a MacGuffin whose whereabouts or even existence is completely and utterly unknown to the players may be lousy GMing but it isn't railroading, so regardless of what group A players say, they're wrong. And this is something you also seem to be misunderstanding. Whether or not the players think something is or isn't railroading has no bearing on whether or not something is objectively railroading. You're players could also call you a horrible tentacled monster, it doesn't make it so (unless you're Cthulhu).


All your other quotes attributed to me were wrongly done so.



Even in a classic game where the DM makes and adventure and players go on the adventure, can have players that change their minds. It is called ''not playing''. A player can, at any time, just stop playing the game. They can look at the path the character has in front of them and say ''eh, no''.


Sure they can. And that tends to sort of end the game, which is why the advice is to generally avoid railroading and making things such that if your players change their minds, the only option is to stop playing entirely.

Thrudd
2015-05-02, 07:34 PM
Even in a classic game where the DM makes and adventure and players go on the adventure, can have players that change their minds. It is called ''not playing''. A player can, at any time, just stop playing the game. They can look at the path the character has in front of them and say ''eh, no''.


But what is the difference? You have a group that gets int sme trouble with magic and want to go find a wizard to help. How is ''the DM made up the fact that Bordertown only has two wizards living in it'' railroading and ''the DM made up Bordertown and the fact that Bordertown only has two wizards living in it'' a couple seconds after a player randomly said ''lets go to Bordertown".

And ok, at the start, the game can be all random and no one knows the story....right up to the part where everyone decides to stop being random and know and follow a story.

Again, this is just saying Railroading is anything the players don't like.

In the example of the players going on the adventure, that is called playing the game. Even an open sandbox has parameters, the players need to agree to the basic assumptions, such as being adventurers that want to go on adventures. If the DM is running a single adventure, as in a module, it could still be an open adventure or a railroad. The dragoonlance modules are mostly railroad plots. Keep on the borderlands, isle of dread, and village of hommlet/temple of elemental evil are open sandbox style.

There is no special order things need to happen in a sandbox adventure, there are locations, monsters, treasure, traps and npcs. The players go where they want and discover things that are there. There might be certain actions that trigger planned responses from different parties, like entering room B2 triggers an alarm that brings 10 orcs running from room B3. But there are no planned events like "when the party returns to town after chasing orcs into the forest, a dragon swoops down, sets the place on fire, and flies away before the party can attack it."
The railroad adventure plot has specific events that need to happen in a specific order, often requiring specific characters to be present. The adventure is defined by this, so the players' ability to make choices that will alter those events are limited to non-existent. They get to participate in the unfolding of the plot and maybe affect its outcome in the very end (ie they win or bad guy wins), but all the steps that get them to the end can't really be altered too much.

Players that cry "railroading" whenever something happens that they don't like probably don't know what railroading is, either. Unless you are, in fact, railroading them.

The DM making something up is not railroading. The DMs whole job is making things up, making up the whole world, in fact.
The railroading is when the DM decides what events must happen to what characters (rather than just what exists). Ie: The players have to go to border town after they find the clues, to meet the two wizards in their laboratory, where an experimental monster will break out if it's vat and attack, creating a set piece encounter with lab equipment and dangerous liquids everywhere. There is no way, in a railroad, that the players could have avoided this scene. In a non railroad, the lab and the monster and the wizards might be there, but the DM would not require this to happen. How the wizards react and if the monster attacks would be up to the players actions and the dice. The characters might not even need to go to the lab at all.

goto124
2015-05-02, 08:03 PM
Once, I had a situation where an NPC accidentally dropped an item into the sea. The PC, instead of jumping in, sent a mook to retrieve it. However, another NPC (let's call him A) jumped into the sea himself. It would've been in-character for A to jump (he's reckless, and the PC knows this from previous experience). But I can't help wondering if the player felt he was railroaded into jumping into the sea nevertheless.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-02, 08:31 PM
Uh... no, it's not.

Obvious example is obvious: the game rules tells a player character could win or lose. When a GM has already decided the PC should win and only rolls the dice for show, that's railroading even if the player wants to win.

When a GM rolls the dice, and the dice show the PC loses, a non-railroading GM sticks with that, even if it's not what the player wants and even if it's not what the GM wants.

Whether players like or don't like the predetermined vision of the GM is of no consequence.

So how does railroading work without rules then?


The whole group. This is a cooperative game after all. But beyond that, what you're missing is that the players can be railroaded even into things the like (and they can even like the railroad). For example, if the players are taking inventory and discover their scroll of Dispel Evil and realize it will defeat Strahd in one go and the GM says "Hey guys, I put together a freaking awesome final dual for you guys tonight and that would totally ruin the whole thing, so I'm going to rule that Strahd is immune to Dispel Evil", even if the players are in 100% agreement, and really really really like huge epic battles and all agree that would be a cheap way for Strahd to die and therefore are 100% behind the new ruling, it would still be railroading.

Yes, railroading is great! More games should use it. Though the Strad solution is much easier to just make Strad immune to the spell somehow.



The DM forcing players at all is pretty much railroading, whether it's forcing them to the DM's goal or their own goal. It's the application of force and the removal of player agency that is at hand.

See the supreme player agency delusion is the problem. The idea that players want to think they are DM's and that the characters are gods is what just ruins a game. And when the DM makes the players unhappy, even with just a locked door, the players will cry ''Railroad!"



Sure they can. And that tends to sort of end the game, which is why the advice is to generally avoid railroading and making things such that if your players change their minds, the only option is to stop playing entirely.

I'd say the only option is to railroad harder. Make the game ''you must do this to play''. Less choices equal more adventure, excitement and fun.



There is no special order things need to happen in a sandbox adventure, there are locations, monsters, treasure, traps and npcs. The players go where they want and discover things that are there. There might be certain actions that trigger planned responses from different parties, like entering room B2 triggers an alarm that brings 10 orcs running from room B3. But there are no planned events like "when the party returns to town after chasing orcs into the forest, a dragon swoops down, sets the place on fire, and flies away before the party can attack it."

This is just renaming things, and not calling a spade a spade. So if the DM writes down a week ago ''the dragon will attack as soon as they come to town'' that is different then the DM that says as the PC's enter town and just with one second of randomness says ''Oh, a dragon attacks!''.



The railroad adventure plot has specific events that need to happen in a specific order, often requiring specific characters to be present. The adventure is defined by this, so the players' ability to make choices that will alter those events are limited to non-existent. They get to participate in the unfolding of the plot and maybe affect its outcome in the very end (ie they win or bad guy wins), but all the steps that get them to the end can't really be altered too much.

This is called a normal game. And it is the way most RPG's are played. If you want to have a serious adventure full of drama and meaning, you must run a normal game.



The railroading is when the DM decides what events must happen to what characters (rather than just what exists). Ie: The players have to go to border town after they find the clues, to meet the two wizards in their laboratory, where an experimental monster will break out if it's vat and attack, creating a set piece encounter with lab equipment and dangerous liquids everywhere. There is no way, in a railroad, that the players could have avoided this scene. In a non railroad, the lab and the monster and the wizards might be there, but the DM would not require this to happen. How the wizards react and if the monster attacks would be up to the players actions and the dice. The characters might not even need to go to the lab at all.

Right. But in order to advance the game, events must happen. The PC's have to do things for events to happen. And things have to happen to the PC's for events to happen.

Lets take the lab liquid monster fight. The DM takes a whole week and creates the encounter. Writes up all the stats, draws a map, even buys special miniatures. The DM, knowing his players well, even adds in little special touches and things for each player character. So, of course, once the game starts the DM will make sure that no matter what, the players must have that encounter. This is classic RPG design and makes a normal game.

And take the lab example too for a plot point: the wizards were making a monster for the duke's army. This fits in with the whole plot and mystery of the duke building an army...for some reason. But the players won't get this plot point unless they go to the lab. Now, sure, the players can learn about the army plot point from any of a dozen or more pre made encounters the DM has planned out. Assuming the DM felt the need to make so many encounters for a single plot point. But, in the end, no matter what encounter it is...it has to happen to advance the plot. And if you don't advance the plot or even game with encounters, then your really playing a fluff game. Sure, the PC's can walk into town and two seconds later the DM can say ''you hear the duke is making an army'', but that would not be much of an RPG.

goto124
2015-05-02, 08:51 PM
By 'plot', did you mean 'pre-determined series of events, as per the DM'?


This is just renaming things, and not calling a spade a spade. So if the DM writes down a week ago ''the dragon will attack as soon as they come to town'' that is different then the DM that says as the PC's enter town and just with one second of randomness says ''Oh, a dragon attacks!''.

Which town? Must the PCs visit a specific town? What if they're low on resources and can't really fight off a dragon? Maybe the wizard is low on spell slots and needs sleep.

Someone suggested a modular approach, which combines improvisation with prepping. You prepare the stat blocks, and insert them when appropriate, with a little refluffing when needed. This is Quantum Ogre, and I'm not sure why some people seem to be against it.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-02, 09:12 PM
By 'plot', did you mean 'pre-determined series of events, as per the DM'?

I don't. I want to avoid mixing words and doing the word play that others do.

The DM does make the plot. Even in the so called sandbox games. And you simply can not have a plot without pre=determined events.

Like say your calling your game a sandbox game. So the DM just has a blank sheet of paper, but nothing planned. So the PC's interact with the world, but don't really do anything of substance or meaning or fun. Then the PC's randomly say ''lets rob a bank''. So now the DM steps in and creates the bank and all the details. And in doing so, the DM creates a plot and lots of plot threads. For example the DM just randomly creates ''the bank will be closed next Monday so they can install a new alarm system''. This, of course, is the perfect time to rob the bank. So how does the DM get this information to the players other then just saying ''guys rob the bank next Monday''? It is called having a plot.

For a simple one: The bank does have a sign hanging that says ''closed next Monday for alarm work''. But the PC's will only see the sign if they go to the bank. And the DM might need to railroad the PC's to get them to the bank. Some NPC's, like the desk clerks know the bank will be closed, but again a railroad might be needed to have the PC's meet them. If the PC's want to spend another hour ''searching for a secret tunnel into the bank'' the DM might have to railroad the group to one of the set encounters.

And sure, the players can ignore things. They can say ''we don't care about Monday...we are going to dig a tunnel!''. But then the DM just adds to the plot from there....

1337 b4k4
2015-05-02, 09:14 PM
Yes, railroading is great! More games should use it. Though the Strad solution is much easier to just make Strad immune to the spell somehow.

Railroading is a tool, it should be used in service of accomplishing the goals of the group. No more, no less.



See the supreme player agency delusion is the problem. The idea that players want to think they are DM's and that the characters are gods is what just ruins a game. And when the DM makes the players unhappy, even with just a locked door, the players will cry ''Railroad!"

And as I keep saying, those players are wrong and you shouldn't listen to them. Player Agency != Players Always Get What They Want. Player Agency is and always has been the idea that the player's choices matter. In the scenario 2 Quantum Ogre example above, player agency is removed because no matter what order the players open the chests, they will always encounter the items in the exact same order.

Players who are guarding a castle and fail to see the ninja assassin sneak in because the assassin rolled high enough to bypass the magical ward they put in place have agency. The choices they made mattered. Players who are guarding a castle and fail to see the ninja assassin sneak in because the GM worked super hard on the chase sequence that they really want to run have no agency because no matter what choices they made, the outcome was already pre-determined and nothing in all of the heavens could have prevented the outcome, even if the players had Unlimited Reliable and Non-Lawyer Speak Wish.

Players who walk into the dungeon and who choose to read the magical runes inscribed therein and awaken an old one and die horribly have agency because their choices matter. Players who walk into the dungeon and the GM says "you recognize the runes as runes of old one awakening and you don't read them because then you will die horribly" have no agency.

Players who are given the options of Path A and Path B, one of which leads to certain and inevitable doom, and after investigating the surroundings, consulting local lore and a bit of divination make an informed (but incorrect) choice for Path B and die certainly and inevitably had agency. Players who are given the option of Path A and Path B, one of which leads to certain and inevitable doom and no information with which to make and informed decision and no way to gather such information have no agency. With no way to make the choice intelligently, they might as well roll a die or have the GM choose for them.

Agency has nothing to do with the players being GMs. It has nothing to do with the players getting what they want. It has everything to do with presenting meaningful and informed choices to the players and then respecting the results of that choice, whatever it may be.



I'd say the only option is to railroad harder. Make the game ''you must do this to play''. Less choices equal more adventure, excitement and fun.

Given that you seem to have an incredible problem with players who cry "railroading" at every action you take, I would suggest the option is you cut back on the actual railroading you're doing and stop being so antagonistic. If your players are constantly accusing you of railroading, it's because you've consistently shown yourself to be untrustworthy and deny their agency repeatedly such that it is impossible for them to give you the benefit of the doubt that this impassible wall surrounded by impassible storms within a plot-tanium chamber of impassible floors is legit or just you forcing more things upon the players that they have no choice or control over.


And you simply can not have a plot without pre=determined events.

Plenty of professional authors and thousands of TTRPG games played before and ongoing prove you wrong.

NichG
2015-05-02, 09:38 PM
NichG, you're conflating Quantum Ogre with a random encounter.

The point behind the Quantum Ogre and similar scenarios is that all available choices lead to similar results. The ogre switching places isn't some interchangeable, modular piece of the game, it is the Ogre of Plot Exposition required by the vision of the GM. When the Quantum Ogre is in play, meeting the Ogre matters. Not meeting the Ogre is not an option. That's why it's railroading.

When you're making stuff up on the fly, or writing interchangeably modules for a random encounter list, that attitude is absent.

I think you're focusing on a particular mindset in the GM and requiring that mindset to be in place for it to count as 'Quantum Ogre', whereas I'm focusing on the actual action taken by the GM and saying that there's more than one mindset that can underly that choice and that it doesn't have to be the sort of rigid thinking that people associate with railroading. Basically, I think there's a mental image people have of 'the railroady GM' and whenever anything with a bit of railroady flavor enters the picture they fill in the rest of the image and assume that its a mandatory part of that situation. But that's not necessarily the case.

In Quantum Ogre, the specific actions taken are just 'there is something that would have been in place X, but because the players avoid place X, that thing is now in some new place Y'. That's the action taken. The feeling that 'meeting the ogre is required by the vision of the GM' is only one possible GM mindset that would lead to that action being taken.



Not quite. Quantum Ogre either says the GM has made a decision ahead of time and then alters that decision because the players have avoided its outcome, or that the players never had a choice in the outcome in the first place.


There are examples up-thread of interleaved choices, where there are some things the players do have an honest choice in, but other things which they do not. Similarly, there is discussion upthread about how a choice made in the absence of information is already not a real choice. Both of those things apply here.

If you just say 'do you pick chest 1 or chest 2' that already isn't a real choice. Nothing has been taken away from the players because they already didn't have anything to be taken away that wasn't illusion.

But lets take this scenario instead:


The players see two chests. Their rogue determines that on the first chest there is a fireball trap and on the second chest there is an earthquake trap that will collapse the dungeon. Otherwise, the chests appear identical.

Group A: Disarms and opens the first chest, then the second. The first chest contains the plot MacGuffin and the second contains a Ring of Protection.

Group A': Disarms and opens the second chest, then the first. The second chest contains the plot MacGuffin and the first contains a Ring of Protection.

Group A'': Fails to disarm the second chest when opening it. They end up with the plot MacGuffin but don't have time to open the other chest for the RoP.


There is an interleaved choice here - the players have real information about the chests (what traps are on them), but they have no information on the contents prior to opening them. Thus, one thing is immutable because the wavefunction has already collapsed, whereas the other is still mutable because no information exists in the game world concerning it yet. The real choice the players have is 'which traps do I risk/how do I deal with the traps?', but the players do not have the choice to get the RoP instead of the MacGuffin - much as they cannot decide that they'd prefer for the chest to contain a Belt of Magnificence instead.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-02, 09:51 PM
So how does railroading work without rules then?

Either it doesn't (you're playing freeform and the other player can reject whatever you say) or everything in the game is dictated by a single person.

@NichG: I'm focusing on a specific GM mindset because that's what the Quantum Ogre is supposed to illustrate. If you strip the titular Ogre of specific context and reduce it to its Monster Manual entry, it's no longer the Quantum Ogre, it's just a random encounter.

Also, as pertains to this thread, the relevant part isn't the Ogre changing places. It's the Ogre changing places so that it's inevitably encountered.

goto124
2015-05-02, 09:56 PM
What's the difference between the assassin having 99999 Ranks in stealth, and the DM deciding that the assassin automatically succeeds without rolls?

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-02, 10:03 PM
Typically none. They're both examples of a GM allowing just a single outcome in spite of the spirit of the game, despite technically being allowed.

NichG
2015-05-02, 10:30 PM
Either it doesn't (you're playing freeform and the other player can reject whatever you say) or everything in the game is dictated by a single person.

@NichG: I'm focusing on a specific GM mindset because that's what the Quantum Ogre is supposed to illustrate. If you strip the titular Ogre of specific context and reduce it to its Monster Manual entry, it's no longer the Quantum Ogre, it's just a random encounter.

Also, as pertains to this thread, the relevant part isn't the Ogre changing places. It's the Ogre changing places so that it's inevitably encountered.

The thing is, if you focus on the mindset, you automatically exclude the possibility of there being an actual sensible idea or purpose behind the behavior. You might as well just say 'being a bad GM is bad' or 'if you're a good GM and you railroad then it isn't called railroading anymore, its called something else'. So in that case I think it makes the discussion sort of pointless because all you can do is interpolate between the fixed examples which have been declared as definitional, rather than extrapolating into something that hasn't been explored fully. Part of that is drawing connections between things based on their similarities, to get an idea of the broader context in which they exist.

The 'classic' Quantum Ogre implies but doesn't state outright that the players know something about what they're deciding - they feel that they have agency over the decision 'do we encounter an Ogre?' specifically, in order to feel betrayed when they discover that that agency was false. But that's just incompetent GMing, treating the Ogre as quantum when it actually has already come into play and isn't actually quantum anymore. Once you've told the players 'there may be an Ogre, and you must choose correctly to avoid it' then the Ogre encounter has already started.

In my examples, the Ogre is also inevitably encountered, but it isn't inevitably encountered in any context which gives the impression that 'are you going to encounter an Ogre?' is a question which is being asked by the scenario, nor is there any pre-information about the Ogre being a possibility. And so there is no actual agency that is being lost.

And if you go a bit further, you can realize that from the players' point of view, this particular dynamic is completely indistinguishable from me simply improvising completely on the fly. The players do not possess the information to determine 'this is the same ogre we would have encountered if we had done X' because up until the ogre is in play (and seeing the consequences of the ogre's presence counts as it being in play) there was no such ogre.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-02, 11:28 PM
The thing is, if you focus on the mindset, you automatically exclude the possibility of there being an actual sensible idea or purpose behind the behavior. You might as well just say 'being a bad GM is bad' or 'if you're a good GM and you railroad then it isn't called railroading anymore, its called something else'.

If you want to argue for a sensible reason for a Quantum Ogre, argue it for the original idea first.


You might as well just say 'being a bad GM is bad' or 'if you're a good GM and you railroad then it isn't called railroading anymore, its called something else'.

This is as obtuse as Darth Ultron's "Railroading is anything the players don't like."

Railroading is when a GM makes it so that distinct actions lead to the same conclusion - in this case, meeting the Ogre inevitably, which you admit is still the case. Ergo, your argument is still for railroading.


So in that case I think it makes the discussion sort of pointless because all you can do is interpolate between the fixed examples which have been declared as definitional, rather than extrapolating into something that hasn't been explored fully. Part of that is drawing connections between things based on their similarities, to get an idea of the broader context in which they exist.

You don't seem to get why I keep referring to random encounters.

Events, devoid of predetermined context, which are designed to be modular and interchangeable so they can be spontaneously generated and placed in the game? That's what random encounters are, and they're one of the most explored facets of RPGs. The joke is that most of the time they come from almost the opposite gaming philosophy than the Quantum Ogre.


The 'classic' Quantum Ogre implies but doesn't state outright that the players know something about what they're deciding - they feel that they have agency over the decision 'do we encounter an Ogre?' specifically, in order to feel betrayed when they discover that that agency was false. But that's just incompetent GMing, treating the Ogre as quantum when it actually has already come into play and isn't actually quantum anymore. Once you've told the players 'there may be an Ogre, and you must choose correctly to avoid it' then the Ogre encounter has already started.

In my examples, the Ogre is also inevitably encountered, but it isn't inevitably encountered in any context which gives the impression that 'are you going to encounter an Ogre?' is a question which is being asked by the scenario, nor is there any pre-information about the Ogre being a possibility. And so there is no actual agency that is being lost.

Backpedaling on a decision is bad GMing, yes. But the implication of players knowing is a red herring as are any hypothetical feelings of betrayal. A lot of the time, players have to make their decisions on incomplete information. In any such case, their only hope of having agency is that the GM is playing fairly.

Imagine your friend asking you a simple question: "pick a hand". You don't know what's in either hand. For all you know, they might hold the same thing, or your friend might switch whatever thing to whichever hand you pick. Yet, they're still ostensibly presenting you a choice. In order for that choice to be in any way meaningful, your friend will have to be honest with themselves and not do that. It's not going to be an informed choice - it's essentially random - but if there's no difference at all, they're just screwing with you.


And if you go a bit further, you can realize that from the players' point of view, this particular dynamic is completely indistinguishable from me simply improvising completely on the fly. The players do not possess the information to determine 'this is the same ogre we would have encountered if we had done X' because up until the ogre is in play (and seeing the consequences of the ogre's presence counts as it being in play) there was no such ogre.

Sure, and if I cheat in poker well enough, it's indistinquishable from me winning honestly. "They could never tell" is not a particularly good justification, because you can. There are big philosophical and practical differences in scenario design based on where you fall on the linear vs. non-linear and scripted vs. improvized continuums, even if your players never examine your scenarios deep enough to notice them.

Let's goto124's Assassin. From the player's perspective, they can't distinquish between a succesful Stealth roll and dictated auto-success, even if the Assassin only had 5% chance of success. From the GM's and the game's perspective there's an immense difference. For that difference to count, the player have to be able to trust the GM is being honest with them, and most importantly, themselves.

Thrudd
2015-05-03, 12:41 AM
See the supreme player agency delusion is the problem. The idea that players want to think they are DM's and that the characters are gods is what just ruins a game. And when the DM makes the players unhappy, even with just a locked door, the players will cry ''Railroad!"

I don't know what kind of players you have, but this seems like a straw man/fringe example. People don't cry "railroad" at a locked door. They look for a key, or plot how to get through the door, or leave it for later and move on.

Players having agency and making meaningful choices does not mean they think they are gods. It means when they do something and the dice are rolled, the results stand. If they chop down a tree and get their strong guys to use it to batter down your locked door, you commend them on their resourcefulness and tell them what's inside the room. And send all the monsters in the area rushing at them because they just made an unholy racket bashing down the door.



This is just renaming things, and not calling a spade a spade. So if the DM writes down a week ago ''the dragon will attack as soon as they come to town'' that is different then the DM that says as the PC's enter town and just with one second of randomness says ''Oh, a dragon attacks!''.

The end result might look the same, but it isn't. Also, a random dragon Attack would not prevent the players from doing sonething about it. What if they found some way to take down the dragon before it got away? Random Attack, that's fine. Railroad plot where the dragon is a big bad guy for later? You can't allow them to kill it yet, no matter what they think of or what the dice say.
Random sandbox: dragon survives? It becomes a possible adventure for later if they want to go get revenge. Dragon dies? It was a fun thing that happened, and now the village sees the characters as heroes.

It doesn't matter when or how the DM decided what happens. What matters is whether the players actually get to affect the outcome of anything.



This is called a normal game. And it is the way most RPG's are played. If you want to have a serious adventure full of drama and meaning, you must run a normal game.

Right. But in order to advance the game, events must happen. The PC's have to do things for events to happen. And things have to happen to the PC's for events to happen.

Lets take the lab liquid monster fight. The DM takes a whole week and creates the encounter. Writes up all the stats, draws a map, even buys special miniatures. The DM, knowing his players well, even adds in little special touches and things for each player character. So, of course, once the game starts the DM will make sure that no matter what, the players must have that encounter. This is classic RPG design and makes a normal game.

And take the lab example too for a plot point: the wizards were making a monster for the duke's army. This fits in with the whole plot and mystery of the duke building an army...for some reason. But the players won't get this plot point unless they go to the lab. Now, sure, the players can learn about the army plot point from any of a dozen or more pre made encounters the DM has planned out. Assuming the DM felt the need to make so many encounters for a single plot point. But, in the end, no matter what encounter it is...it has to happen to advance the plot. And if you don't advance the plot or even game with encounters, then your really playing a fluff game. Sure, the PC's can walk into town and two seconds later the DM can say ''you hear the duke is making an army'', but that would not be much of an RPG.

not all games were always linear railroad plots. It wasn't always "normal", and having a sandbox style of play does not make it a "fluff" game. This is not "classic" rpg design. This is second gen and video game design.

You really have no idea, it is clear you aren't grasping how to run a game without railroaded plots. It is possible, it can be fun and meaningful and as dramatic as the DM and players want to make it.

"Events" happen when the players have their characters interact with the world. They are active parties in the game, not passive.

The players don't need to sit there waiting for you to make stuff happen to them or wandering around aimlessly, as you are implying. Ideally, they have characters that want things, and they take actions based on that. In D&D, they usually want treasure, magic, power and glory. They seek out places to get those things. And the DM provides them in the form of dungeons, quests, adventures.

Even if they wander around without a clear goal, there are random encounters and seeded adventure locations that will make life interesting for them and possibly lead them to find a purpose.

Drama and meaning comes from the challenges the characters encounter in the pursuit of their goals, and the players' ability to give the character personality and motivation.
It does not need to be contrived by the DM in the form of a clever story in which the players are your actors playing roles you have given them, or worse are just observers to your cast of NPCs that are the main movers of events.

NichG
2015-05-03, 01:17 AM
If you want to argue for a sensible reason for a Quantum Ogre, argue it for the original idea first.

What I want to argue for is fundamentally that 'recycling content that didn't get used because of player decisions' is a good GM tool. I don't particularly care what you want to call that, but I think its disingenuous to claim that 'oh, that's not the original meaning of Quantum Ogre, so its not relevant'. It's an example of behavior that people in this thread have referred to as railroading, so it's germane to the overall conversation.



Railroading is when a GM makes it so that distinct actions lead to the same conclusion - in this case, meeting the Ogre inevitably, which you admit is still the case. Ergo, your argument is still for railroading.


Yes, I am in fact "arguing for railroading". Specifically, I'm arguing that 'the negative experiences people usually ascribe to railroading have more to do with incompetency than railroading itself, and so railroading actually does have good applications in the hands of a GM who knows how to use it well'.



You don't seem to get why I keep referring to random encounters.

Events, devoid of predetermined context, which are designed to be modular and interchangeable so they can be spontaneously generated and placed in the game? That's what random encounters are, and they're one of the most explored facets of RPGs. The joke is that most of the time they come from almost the opposite gaming philosophy than the Quantum Ogre.


I also find that funny. But in a sort of sad way, because it means that many of the people who argue so vehemently against railroading are effectively asking for a different form of railroading to replace it. And that's because of a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to actually have agency - see the next paragraph.



Backpedaling on a decision is bad GMing, yes. But the implication of players knowing is a red herring as are any hypothetical feelings of betrayal. A lot of the time, players have to make their decisions on incomplete information. In any such case, their only hope of having agency is that the GM is playing fairly.

Imagine your friend asking you a simple question: "pick a hand". You don't know what's in either hand. For all you know, they might hold the same thing, or your friend might switch whatever thing to whichever hand you pick. Yet, they're still ostensibly presenting you a choice. In order for that choice to be in any way meaningful, your friend will have to be honest with themselves and not do that. It's not going to be an informed choice - it's essentially random - but if there's no difference at all, they're just screwing with you.

In this situation, I do not actually have a choice. That seems to be the sticking point and the real misunderstanding. A random choice is not actually a choice - I have no agency in this situation. Presenting the choice is a psychological trick to make me believe that I have agency when actually I do not. This friend is, in effect, already screwing with me even just by asking to pick in the absence of information - that's where the deception has occurred.

Empty choices do not contain any real agency. They serve a purpose - to allow for leeway to generate characterization and interactions that have no real consequences and thereby to expand the range of workable archetypes and personas that are available to the player (e.g. 'do you paint your armor red or blue?'). Sometimes, they can be used to diffuse blame in situations that would otherwise unfairly focus it (someone has to get the most valuable piece of loot, so you use a meaningless/random choice in order to evenly distribute the 'debt' incurred by being the one to receive it). But they have nothing to do with true player agency.



Sure, and if I cheat in poker well enough, it's indistinquishable from me winning honestly. "They could never tell" is not a particularly good justification, because you can. There are big philosophical and practical differences in scenario design based on where you fall on the linear vs. non-linear and scripted vs. improvized continuums, even if your players never examine your scenarios deep enough to notice them.

What matters at the end of the day is whether everyone enjoyed themselves. If you know that can make the game more enjoyable by cheating, then you should cheat. That is true for both the players and the GM. The issue that often comes up is that what one person thinks will be enjoyable turns out not to be - which is why it can be done well or poorly. But just because it can be done badly doesn't mean that it cannot be consistently done well: it's a skill like anything else, and doing it properly involves knowing how to read your players, how to understand their tastes, how to read the situation and forecast how the game will proceed, etc.


Let's goto124's Assassin. From the player's perspective, they can't distinquish between a succesful Stealth roll and dictated auto-success, even if the Assassin only had 5% chance of success. From the GM's and the game's perspective there's an immense difference. For that difference to count, the player have to be able to trust the GM is being honest with them, and most importantly, themselves.

Goto124's Assassin example has a different problem. The dice should not be used for making decisions, they should be for creating the concept of risk and for smoothing over binary outcomes. With the assassin, there is no choice that the players have made which determines whether or not to incur the risk that is modeled by the Assassin's stealth roll. Thus, from their point of view, either something happens or it doesn't, but it comes with no actual decision-making on their part. There is no meaningful concept of risk in this scenario, just two possible branches of the campaign living only in the DM's mind at that point, which the DM is then using an arbitrary and arcane ritual to decide between (generating skill point allocations and then rolling the dice).

On the other hand, once you've communicated information which allows the players to assess the risks - even incompletely - and make decisions based on that, then the situation is no longer quantum.

There's a whole other discussion on game design to be had here, because what this is really pointing out is that this kind of 'enemy chooses to stealth, party makes passive rolls to see if they detect them or not' dynamic has some deep problems with it.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-03, 01:33 AM
The dice should not be used for making decisions...

Uh huh.

Random chance is a decision-making tool. That's the primary reason why it exists in RPGs. If you think that's not what dice should be used for, you are in disagreement with core logic of pretty much all games which use them.

BayardSPSR
2015-05-03, 01:59 AM
But in a sort of sad way, because it means that many of the people who argue so vehemently against railroading are effectively asking for a different form of railroading to replace it.

That's because there's very little agreement in this thread as to what the word "railroading" means. Some of us appear to be using multiple definitions, and shifting between them without warning anyone.

In other words, I guess we can come to the conclusion that railroading is misunderstood by everyone else, according to everyone.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-03, 02:09 AM
Going back to this, because it's rather relevant.


In this situation, I do not actually have a choice. That seems to be the sticking point and the real misunderstanding. A random choice is not actually a choice - I have no agency in this situation. Presenting the choice is a psychological trick to make me believe that I have agency when actually I do not. This friend is, in effect, already screwing with me even just by asking to pick in the absence of information - that's where the deception has occurred.

Empty choices do not contain any real agency.

Wrong. The choice is not empty, it is of unknown value, and it is real if your friend is being honest. Replace your friend with a wall with two doors on it if you can't realize where the deception really occurs.

NichG
2015-05-03, 04:23 AM
Uh huh.

Random chance is a decision-making tool. That's the primary reason why it exists in RPGs. If you think that's not what dice should be used for, you are in disagreement with core logic of pretty much all games which use them.

It isn't really. There are lots of things that randomness is used for in RPGs - if you have binary outcomes, making it probabilistic and then iterating over many individual rolls allows for there to be a smooth range of variations in ability - instead of 'you can' or 'you can't', it's '70% of the time you can' versus '75% of the time you can'. Furthermore, adding randomness means that the game is non-deterministic and therefore you have to adapt your actions as things develop rather than pre-computing a chain of actions like you can do in something like chess. Furthermore, there's the psychology of random reward, which connects to how people respond to gambling and the like. In terms of the wargaming roots of things like D&D, those were probably the primary reasons.

In more modern analysis, there's the idea of using the dice to resolve conflict. Note that that's different than making decisions. This sort of usage is closer to the example I gave about dividing up a single piece of valuable loot when all participants have an equal claim. Any direct choice of who gets the loot creates a debt and risks feelings of favoritism, imbalance, etc. So using the dice in that case is a way of deciding not to decide - e.g. it absolves the participants of being responsible for the outcome. In terms of conflict resolution, this means that multiple players who have an equal right to agency allow a known balanced random factor to determine the outcome because that removes responsibility for 'picking' who ends up winning or losing.

But in terms of actually using the dice to make decisions, that's mostly limited to AD&D and retro-clones, though many games have remnants or bits and pieces of it. For example, nowadays the trend in most games with treasure is to recommend that rather than doing something like rolling for it, you should instead generate the treasure that makes sense for the context (or, in other games, to seed items which have been explicitly requested by the PCs; or, in yet other games, to have the PCs spend a metagame resource to influence the treasure). Similarly, 'wandering monster tables', 'randomly generated dungeons' and the like are most common in the sort of retro-clone class of games.

One reason that its problematic to 'use the dice to make decisions' is that the dice, on their own, don't actually specify outcomes. They have to be interpreted. Generally, that interpretation corresponds to a system which must be loaded with information about the particular situation or scenario with respect to the decision being made. All of those steps - loading in the information, creating the table of outcomes, specifying how the dice are to be interpreted, and then actually doing so - are where the decisions are actually being made. The roll itself is just a sleight of hand that obscure all of the intent that goes into actually crafting those lists and systems.

That is to say, when building an encounter table or something like that, when you place orcs on slots 1-3, an ogre on slots 4-5, and a giant on slot 6 on a d6 roll, you've already made the majority of the decisions as to what the party will face by not loading that list with different monsters or different probabilities. Adding the layer of randomness is just a way of blowing smoke to obscure that fact.


Going back to this, because it's rather relevant.

Wrong. The choice is not empty, it is of unknown value, and it is real if your friend is being honest. Replace your friend with a wall with two doors on it if you can't realize where the deception really occurs.

The doors are an equally empty choice, because I have no information to guide the decision nor any way of acquiring that information short of making the decision. In that situation, it doesn't matter how smart, intuitive, etc the chooser is - you can replace them with a coin flip and it doesn't change anything.

Lorsa
2015-05-03, 04:38 AM
At this point I have to ask.

Darth Ultron, are you trolling us?

Hawkstar
2015-05-03, 04:57 AM
NichG, you're conflating Quantum Ogre with a random encounter.

The point behind the Quantum Ogre and similar scenarios is that all available choices lead to similar results. The ogre switching places isn't some interchangeable, modular piece of the game, it is the Ogre of Plot Exposition required by the vision of the GM. When the Quantum Ogre is in play, meeting the Ogre matters. Not meeting the Ogre is not an option. That's why it's railroading.

When you're making stuff up on the fly, or writing interchangeably modules for a random encounter list, that attitude is absent.Except it's not.


Not quite. Quantum Ogre either says the GM has made a decision ahead of time and then alters that decision because the players have avoided its outcome, or that the players never had a choice in the outcome in the first place. Where are you getting the idea that the DM made a decision ahead of time, then alters it? And, making stuff up on the fly can be... underwhelming. Instead of an encounter that advances a relevant plot thread, you get a waste-of-time encounter.


So for scenario 1 it's something like this (and this is the more railroady form of the Quantum Ogre)

DM Before Game: Hmm, I'm building a world for my players, and from their village to the east is the great Kingdom of the East, where my players will find a king corrupted by his vizier and under threat from the barbarian goblins from the north. To the west there is a great desert with a tribe of dopplegangers that the vizier hails from that the PCs will be able to investigate after they've found the vizier's journal.

DM During Game: And that's the last of the rat theif's minions. The Sherif rewards you handsomely, and you head out of the city, which way do you go?

Players: To the west!

DM: You travel west and arrive at the great Kingdom of the East West were you find a kingdom under siege from barbarian goblins from the north and a king corrupted by his vizier.

In this case, no matter what choice the players made, the GM already made the choice of where they were going to go next. They didn't force them with heavy handed "there's a terrible impassible storm to the west, an imposing and impassible mountain range to the north and the only bridge south has been destroyed" but they forced the players none the less.
The players didn't choose where they were going to go next. They chose which direction they wanted to go next. Nobody gives a **** about the non-existent kingdom to the east that doesn't have problems because the players went west. The players are still west of where they started, as they wanted to be. Any information the party has gathered about what's West is still applicable, such as terrain, and political figures. Any information the party did not gather is absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you made that decision 10 days of 10 seconds ago. The kingdom did not exist until the players got there - there is no railroading.


For scenario 2 it goes something like this:

GM: You see 3 chests in front of you, what do you do?

Group A: We open the first chest, then the third and then the second.

Group A': We open the third chest, then the second then the first.

Group A'': We open the second chest, then the thirst chest, then the first

GM: You trigger a needle trap, then you find a ring of protection and in the last chest there's an Ogre

In this case, no matter what order the players opened the chests, they were always going to trigger the needle trap first, always going to find a ring of protection second and the last chest would always have an Ogre. The players are given the illusion of their choices influencing what they experience but it's a false choice and nothing the players could do (short of walking away, but see above discussion RE: "I spent so much time on this") could change the outcome.Unless the players took steps to identify which is in each chest, it doesn't matter - the party always opens the chest in the same order - "The chest we open first, the chest we open second, and the chest we open third".


Short answer: No.

Long answer: If the GM takes actions that prevent the players from altering the course of the story and those actions don't naturally flow from the fiction (i.e. the players haven't entered a no windows hallway having just barely squeezed under the slowly closing door) then that is railroading, regardless of whether or not the players want to be on the railroad or not. This is also why again, railroading is not inherently good or evil. If the players want to be on the railroad, and everyone is having fun, then by definition the railroad can't be bad in this scenario. It may be unnecessary but that isn't the same as bad.Except the actions DO flow from the fiction (At least as far as the players are concerned), and the DM isn't preventing the players from altering the course of the story in directions they're aware of. If the players have enough information on a situation to know that something is coming and they take steps to avoid, change, or prevent that, you lose the "quantum" part of "Quantum Ogre", and it stops being relevant.


No. Just no. The GM adding detail and making the world come alive is not railroading. Railroading is specifically and explicitly about removing player choice and agency and preventing them (often in very ham handed ways) from altering the world from the particular path the GM has already laid out in advance. The term explicitly references the rails of a train, a train which is unable without the assistance of they who control the rails of ever altering course or going anywhere except where the rails will take it. Building roads and bridges and paths is not building a railroad, either in real life or in TTRPGs.Player choice and agency aren't affected when they aren't affecting variables they don't have anything to do with.

Thrudd
2015-05-03, 11:16 AM
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/5785/roleplaying-games/so-you-want-to-write-a-railroad

This is what a railroad is.

We seem to be arguing over specific isolated scenarios, and some of my examples may not be totally clear.

The determination of railroad can't really be made in how or when the DM decides what to place in the game. It doesn't really matter if a random table was used during the game, or if everything was specifically placed weeks before. It is why it is placed in the context of the entire game, and how those things are handled once the players interact with them.

the railroad has only one path, only one course of events. Players can't be allowed to circumvent that path, even if they find ways their characters could achieve their goals differently, and the rules and dice would bear that out.

A railroad is like a video game adventure, you simply can't go outside the bounds of the programming. The school is full of monsters, and I've got a rocket launcher and a ton of dynamite? How about I sneak up, plant the dynamite, shoot some rockets down there from a distance and blow the place up. Then I can sit here in relative safety and pick off any survivors that come out of the explosion. I can't do that? My dynamite and rockets don't damage the building and the monsters don't come out? Because I need to go in there and creep around the halls so monsters can ambush me from different rooms, that's how they programmed it.

a TTRPG has so much more potential than this, which is why they are still relevant despite the existence of video games.

a railroad might happen because the DM thinks everything they have planned is reasonable and they have thought of every contingency in a given situation, only to find out that no, the players come up with reasonable and practical things that might negate large chunks of the adventure. This is when you need to decide to scrap your plans, your plot, and improvise, or go the other way and shut down their reasonable ideas with improbable barriers and hope they don't see through your illusion.

Ie: you thought the Magic locked door would force them to hunt the dungeon for the magic key to get in, resulting in various plot-relevant encounters. You forgot that one of the players has a wishing ring. Now, they decide its a good and safe use of a wish to open the door and spare them some dangerous exploring. Do you find some way to explain why the wish won't work? Divine intervention? It was really a fake ring, someone stole it and switched it for a fake without the players awareness? Put the dungeon on the other side of the door instead? Maybe this was only the first door, the real important door is the one behind the one they just opened, that they need to find the key for.
Or let them get in the door and skip the plot they were supposed to find in the dungeon.

Most of these options would justifiably be identified as "railroading" by the players, since they are clearly being cheated out of using an ability their characters possess in a reasonable manner because it is inconvenient to the plot.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-03, 01:15 PM
If you just say 'do you pick chest 1 or chest 2' that already isn't a real choice. Nothing has been taken away from the players because they already didn't have anything to be taken away that wasn't illusion.

But lets take this scenario instead:


The players see two chests. Their rogue determines that on the first chest there is a fireball trap and on the second chest there is an earthquake trap that will collapse the dungeon. Otherwise, the chests appear identical.

Group A: Disarms and opens the first chest, then the second. The first chest contains the plot MacGuffin and the second contains a Ring of Protection.

Group A': Disarms and opens the second chest, then the first. The second chest contains the plot MacGuffin and the first contains a Ring of Protection.

Group A'': Fails to disarm the second chest when opening it. They end up with the plot MacGuffin but don't have time to open the other chest for the RoP.


I'm confused, are you arguing that this isn't a Quantum Ogre scenario? No matter what chest they open the party will always get the MacGuffin first.


What's the difference between the assassin having 99999 Ranks in stealth, and the DM deciding that the assassin automatically succeeds without rolls?

There isn't, which is why understanding when and why you're railroading your players or using a Quantum Ogre on them is so important. And because there's ultimately no difference between the two, there will be no difference to your players. And its far too easy as a GM (more so for the inexperienced, but also for the experienced) to fall into the trap of thinking everything you've done is fine and OK and your players will think the same because it's all by the rules.


The thing is, if you focus on the mindset, you automatically exclude the possibility of there being an actual sensible idea or purpose behind the behavior. You might as well just say 'being a bad GM is bad' or 'if you're a good GM and you railroad then it isn't called railroading anymore, its called something else'.

Again, who is saying that you're a bad GM if your railroad or use a Quantum Ogre? As I have repeatedly said, it's neither good nor bad, just a tool in the GM toolbox to be used as appropriate. That I warn that the tool is dangerous and has sharp edges still doesn't make it a bad tool



The 'classic' Quantum Ogre implies but doesn't state outright that the players know something about what they're deciding - they feel that they have agency over the decision 'do we encounter an Ogre?'

No it doesn't. The original Quantum Ogre example (from which the name comes) specifically describes a scenario in which the players don't know what the outcome of the choice would be. The Quantum Ogre is specifically about altering the things that are behind door number 3 until the players open that door. Whether the players know what may or may not be behind the door has no bearing on whether you're using a Quantum Ogre.



And if you go a bit further, you can realize that from the players' point of view, this particular dynamic is completely indistinguishable from me simply improvising completely on the fly. The players do not possess the information to determine 'this is the same ogre we would have encountered if we had done X' because up until the ogre is in play (and seeing the consequences of the ogre's presence counts as it being in play) there was no such ogre.

You can also make everything up and never allow the players to beat a bad guy, never allow them to find the treasure and never allow them to break down doors. Probability being what it is, this is indistinguishable to your players from simply having bad rolls. That doesn't make it a good idea or something you should do. Whether or not the players can tell you lied to them, you lied none the less. And if your players ever catch you in a lie, each lie you previously told will weigh against you, even if you didn't tell the lie. Remember the players can't tell the difference cuts both ways. On your side of the spectrum, the players trust you to be fair, the lie is undetectable. Then there's Darth's side, where the lies have been told so often that the players assume every thing that looks like a lie is a lie. The reality is most GMs and groups will fall somewhere between those two and so it's important to know what you're doing as a GM and why.


In this situation, I do not actually have a choice. That seems to be the sticking point and the real misunderstanding. A random choice is not actually a choice - I have no agency in this situation. Presenting the choice is a psychological trick to make me believe that I have agency when actually I do not. This friend is, in effect, already screwing with me even just by asking to pick in the absence of information - that's where the deception has occurred.

You may not have agency, but the choice is can still be meaningful. This is the important thing. If your friend honestly gives you the consequences of the choice, then it was still a meaningful choice. It may have been a lousy decision to give you, but it was a real choice. Quantum Ogres takes that a step further and in addition to removing the informed part of the choice, also removes the meaning and as such, no matter which hand you chose, it would always be empty.




Where are you getting the idea that the DM made a decision ahead of time, then alters it?

Because that's a required component of the Quantum Ogre (and for that matter, Railroad) scenario. The point is that the outcome of the choice is already pre-determined, removing the meaning from the choice in the first place. The rest of your post follows from the false premise you've established here.


That's because there's very little agreement in this thread as to what the word "railroading" means. Some of us appear to be using multiple definitions, and shifting between them without warning anyone.

In other words, I guess we can come to the conclusion that railroading is misunderstood by everyone else, according to everyone.

The big problem here is that we're discussing (and as you point out sometimes interchanging) multiple distinct things. Railroading, Quantum Ogres (which aren't always railroads), Player Agency and Player Perception.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-03, 02:22 PM
And as I keep saying, those players are wrong and you shouldn't listen to them. Player Agency != Players Always Get What They Want. Player Agency is and always has been the idea that the player's choices matter.

Too many players think they are DM and they create and direct and control the game, that is the big problem. The truth is that players really don't have much ''agency'' in a game. That is simply not how RPG's work. At best players can get an illusion of player agency, but that is it.



Players who are guarding a castle and fail to see the ninja assassin sneak in because the assassin rolled high enough to bypass the magical ward they put in place have agency. The choices they made mattered. Players who are guarding a castle and fail to see the ninja assassin sneak in because the GM worked super hard on the chase sequence that they really want to run have no agency because no matter what choices they made, the outcome was already pre-determined and nothing in all of the heavens could have prevented the outcome, even if the players had Unlimited Reliable and Non-Lawyer Speak Wish.

So if the DM makes a good sneaky assassin does that take away from the player agency? What about an optimized sneaky assassin? Does it matter if there is no optimized spotter character?



Agency has nothing to do with the players being GMs. It has nothing to do with the players getting what they want. It has everything to do with presenting meaningful and informed choices to the players and then respecting the results of that choice, whatever it may be.

Your two examples of players getting their characters killed is exactly one of the reasons railroading exists. It keeps the game going. Sure the DM can sit back ''let the players have agency'' and let the characters fly into a black hole and die. Game over. Or the DM can railroad the characters back on to the right track and keep the game going.



Plenty of professional authors and thousands of TTRPG games played before and ongoing prove you wrong.

I wonder what author you think has never used a plot? Same with an RPG?


What's the difference between the assassin having 99999 Ranks in stealth, and the DM deciding that the assassin automatically succeeds without rolls?

None




not all games were always linear railroad plots. It wasn't always "normal", and having a sandbox style of play does not make it a "fluff" game. This is not "classic" rpg design. This is second gen and video game design. You really have no idea, it is clear you aren't grasping how to run a game without railroaded plots. It is possible, it can be fun and meaningful and as dramatic as the DM and players want to make it.

Ok....can you give an example of game play with no linear railroad plots?



The players don't need to sit there waiting for you to make stuff happen to them or wandering around aimlessly, as you are implying. Ideally, they have characters that want things, and they take actions based on that. In D&D, they usually want treasure, magic, power and glory. They seek out places to get those things. And the DM provides them in the form of dungeons, quests, adventures.

And when the DM supplies a quest or adventure....does not he supply a plot?


At this point I have to ask.

Darth Ultron, are you trolling us?

I simply don't agree with what others are saying. Railroading is just as much part of an RPG as descriptions. Unless your in the lightest fluff pop and chips game.



the railroad has only one path, only one course of events. Players can't be allowed to circumvent that path, even if they find ways their characters could achieve their goals differently, and the rules and dice would bear that out.


This is where it gets tricky: A basic plot only has one path. That is why it's a plot. Players do get a little wiggle room to change some things, but not too much and not the big things. And in any game that is not epic in scope and power, the PC's can't change too much.

Lets take a Star Wars RPG playing out New Hope. The plot is all about destroying the Death Star. And the Death Star has only one weakness: the vent port. So, that is the only real option the players have to destroy the Death Star.

Now, sure, in the great grand tapestry of things there are others ways to Destroy the Death Star. For example the players could spend 100 Trillion trillion credits, hire a billion workers and wait 25 years and build a Super Death Star Destroyer. But as the characters are just a young jedi poor ex-farmer, a smuggler, some muscle, an aristocrat and two drioids....they simply can't build a Super Death Star Destroyer. Same way that if they blew up a sun that would destroy the Death Star(maybe), but they have no way of blowing up a sun.

draken50
2015-05-03, 02:32 PM
Honestly,

At this point I'm going to have to go with the definition of railroading, as the players are grousing about something.

As that is the only thing that fits this widely disparate explanations.

The players may be right in some cases to complain, but ultimately many of them I'm seeing really just seem to stem from a complete lack of understanding of how the game works, as well as time management.

So If you want a true "No railroad" experience. Your just going to have to step away from the gaming table and go live life, and hey, maybe you'll be a big deal... I mean... statistically you won't... but there you go. No railroading.

Alberic Strein
2015-05-03, 02:50 PM
So is the agreement that only a DM can railroad players with the DM's plot? So if a DM railroads the players with the players plot, it's ok? Take the simple ''the dragon lair is to the south''. So the DM railroads the players into going south with things that prevent them from going any other direction. So, now, if this is the DM's plot of saving the town from the dragon: that is railroading. But if the players want to kill a dragon and loot, it is not railroading?
I have no idea what you're going on about, but I'll go with yes: If the DM uses his rule 0 authority to force his scenario to happen the way he wants it to, then it's railroading. If the DM uses his rule 0 authority to allow players to do their own thing, then no it's not railroading. But that's a moot point because railroading is not about whose plan it is, but whether or not you are invalidating player choices.

Honestly,

At this point I'm going to have to go with the definition of railroading, as the players are grousing about something.

As that is the only thing that fits this widely disparate explanations.

The players may be right in some cases to complain, but ultimately many of them I'm seeing really just seem to stem from a complete lack of understanding of how the game works, as well as time management.

So If you want a true "No railroad" experience. Your just going to have to step away from the gaming table and go live life, and hey, maybe you'll be a big deal... I mean... statistically you won't... but there you go. No railroading.
Or alternatively we could all accept that we are using and discussing a term for which we don't agree on the definition and thus are unable to reach an agreement. And subsequently find a worthwile definition of the term.

For example, I would go with: Railroading is defined not by creating a "road" for the players, but a "railroad" with set tracks, course and embranchments, ultimately leaving players with only the choice of speed. Railroading is caracterised by invalidating player imput and the strict reliance on a preset plan and the refusal to amend or discard it.

Feel free to discuss and point the flaws of my definition.

Also, while I'm at it, Draken50 your personal assessment of players as mainly whiny idiots who don't understand anything about the game or your plight does not seem relevant to the conversation. I would add that unless my internet somehow connects me to the realm of the dead all of us go out and live a life, and that a "no railroading" experience is absolutely possible during a game. Last I remember, I was able to GM properly without putting my players on tracks and forgoing their imput.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-03, 03:00 PM
Honestly,

At this point I'm going to have to go with the definition of railroading, as the players are grousing about something.

As that is the only thing that fits this widely disparate explanations.

The players may be right in some cases to complain, but ultimately many of them I'm seeing really just seem to stem from a complete lack of understanding of how the game works, as well as time management.

So If you want a true "No railroad" experience. Your just going to have to step away from the gaming table and go live life, and hey, maybe you'll be a big deal... I mean... statistically you won't... but there you go. No railroading.

Agreed.

Lets look at the Alexandrian Examples:


The PCs decide to quickly check out another lead before abandoning it on the say-so of an NPC? They fail the entire mission.


Well, yes. Failure is an option in a RPG. The players can make a decision that ends the current quest, mission or even the game.


The PCs decide to attack a group of elves preparing to ambush them? They fail the entire mission.


This is still on the failure is an option.


The PCs decide not to hire a guide and trust to their own Survival skill? They die.


And still on failure is an option.


You can earn bonus points by issuing Failboat boarding passes on the basis of die rolls that the players have no control over!


Well, no one can control dice rolls...that is kinda the point of even having dice in an RPG. And again, this is failure is an option.


They fail a Diplomacy check to convince someone to help them? They fail the entire mission.


And again, failure is an option.


They fail an Intelligence check to remember a key piece of information? They fail the entire mission.


And yet, again failure is an option.


No trip by rail is complete unless the train has a casino car where the only game is craps and the penalty for a bad roll is a bullet to the back of the brain.


And finally, yet again, failure is an option.

So it would seem that per the Alexandrian, that railroading is letting the PC's fail. So, on the other hand, a non-railroading game is one where the PC's succeed at everything.

Thrudd
2015-05-03, 03:53 PM
Too many players think they are DM and they create and direct and control the game, that is the big problem. The truth is that players really don't have much ''agency'' in a game. That is simply not how RPG's work. At best players can get an illusion of player agency, but that is it.

This is completely wrong. Players can and should have real decision making agency. That doesn't mean they get to decide the outcome of their actions or anything else outside their characters' control, the GM and rules and dice do that. Players having agency means that they have meaningful impact on the game world through their characters, which also means there are meaningful stakes for their characters, ie they can lose or fail or die.
If they make a bad choice or take a risk and get unlucky and get killed in a black hole or eaten by a dragon, then they roll up more characters and start again. But that's another issue debated endlessly.




Ok....can you give an example of game play with no linear railroad plots?

And when the DM supplies a quest or adventure....does not he supply a plot?


Basic D&D module B2, Keep on the Borderlands.

Expert D&D module X1, Isle of Dread.

An adventure need only supply a "plot" in the broadest sense (meaning it isn't really a plot). There is a situation, a scenario. There are characters and monsters with motives, in a location. Something is happening, in general, in the world around the characters. The characters may get involved for any reason and in any manner they see fit. the only concession the players must make is to agree to provide characters that want to be there and participate in adventure (rather than just staying home and doing nothing).

Isle of Dread sees the characters shipwrecked on a mysterious island. The only "plot" is, explore the island and find a way to get off. There are a couple villages of different creatures, lairs of monsters, a couple dungeon-like areas. The players go wherever they want and whatever happens, happens. It is a limited sandbox, the event that led the players there is predetermined, but the adventure itself is completely open.

AD&D module T1 and T2, village of hommlet and temple of elemental evil, are another example. The "plot" is that there is an evil cult that wants to release an evil elder God from its prison in the temple of elemental evil. That's about it. The village has various NPCs, some are secretly cultists and others are former adventurers that might help the players. It is up to the players to uncover any information by interacting in the village. The only predetermined event in this adventure is that the player characters have come to the village seeking adventure, because it is known for being in an area with lots of adventure potential. Once that is established, they do whatever they want and the npc's and different factions react as appropriate to their natures.

only the barest semblance of a "plot", in the form of a location, situation, characters and their motives need be supplied. The events arise from the players involving themselves in the situation. The DM does not need to plan specifics, only know what is in the world, how it acts and why it is acting.



This is where it gets tricky: A basic plot only has one path. That is why it's a plot. Players do get a little wiggle room to change some things, but not too much and not the big things. And in any game that is not epic in scope and power, the PC's can't change too much.

Lets take a Star Wars RPG playing out New Hope. The plot is all about destroying the Death Star. And the Death Star has only one weakness: the vent port. So, that is the only real option the players have to destroy the Death Star.

Now, sure, in the great grand tapestry of things there are others ways to Destroy the Death Star. For example the players could spend 100 Trillion trillion credits, hire a billion workers and wait 25 years and build a Super Death Star Destroyer. But as the characters are just a young jedi poor ex-farmer, a smuggler, some muscle, an aristocrat and two drioids....they simply can't build a Super Death Star Destroyer. Same way that if they blew up a sun that would destroy the Death Star(maybe), but they have no way of blowing up a sun.
That's why you don't prep plots, you prep situations and locations. Only one path that can't be altered by the players' actions (what are they even there for?) does not sound like a very fun or interesting game for those players.

having only one practical way to accomplish something, alone, does not make the game a railroad. You need a magic weapon to hurt a demon, that's not railroading it's just a fact of the world. The Death Star's design is a limitation the players will need to work around in order to destroy it.

If you wanted to take the plot of Star Wars and turn it into a non railroad adventure for an RPG, you could do it, but the end result would almost definitely look nothing like the movie (that's actually the point, you're making your own story, not playing out someone else's).

There is the Death Star. That's basically the adventure location. The characters are rebel sympathizers who have learned Princess Leia has been captured. They need to get into the Death Star and get her out, return her to the rebel leadership. They can get into the Death Star anyway they can think of, sneak around or infiltrate or try to blast their way through.

Alternatively, the players are in possession of the Death Star plans. They must evade imperial pursuit and find the rebel leadership. The death star and main imperial fleet are on a timeline, destroying alderaan at a certain time. Given another certain amount of time, they will find the base on Yavin and Attack. All other events will be determined by how the players act and the decisions they make. Maybe they will run into the Death Star, maybe they won't. Maybe they will find the Rebels first, and lead a strike team to attack the Death Star before it blows up alderaan. Maybe they fail completely, yavin is wiped out, and they have to run away and regroup.


Addendum: you're missing the point of the Alexandrian article. On a railroad like the ridiculous example given, players have no real choices. Their only choice is "go forward in the manner the plot dictates" or "fail and end the adventure". Which is really no choice.

Your statement that "If a railroad lets you fail, then non-railroad means you succeed at everything" is just silly.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-03, 05:08 PM
Basic D&D module B2, Keep on the Borderlands.

Expert D&D module X1, Isle of Dread.

Two perfect examples of pure fluff adventures. They are both just ''randomly kill monsters''.



That's why you don't prep plots, you prep situations and locations. Only one path that can't be altered by the players' actions (what are they even there for?) does not sound like a very fun or interesting game for those players.

I think when your saying ''situations and locations'' your saying plot. Ok, so you don't make a big plot that says the characters must do X. But you do make dozens of little ''situations and locations''(aka plots) that say the characters must do X.




There is the Death Star. That's basically the adventure location. The characters are rebel sympathizers who have learned Princess Leia has been captured. They need to get into the Death Star and get her out, return her to the rebel leadership. They can get into the Death Star anyway they can think of, sneak around or infiltrate or try to blast their way through.

Alternatively, the players are in possession of the Death Star plans. They must evade imperial pursuit and find the rebel leadership. The death star and main imperial fleet are on a timeline, destroying alderaan at a certain time. Given another certain amount of time, they will find the base on Yavin and Attack. All other events will be determined by how the players act and the decisions they make. Maybe they will run into the Death Star, maybe they won't. Maybe they will find the Rebels first, and lead a strike team to attack the Death Star before it blows up alderaan. Maybe they fail completely, yavin is wiped out, and they have to run away and regroup.

Your kinda only describing the adventure overview. How does it work once game play starts? Just take ''finding the rebels''. Unless your doing a fluff game where the players just roll to find the rebels, your going to need a plot to find the rebels.



Addendum: you're missing the point of the Alexandrian article. On a railroad like the ridiculous example given, players have no real choices. Their only choice is "go forward in the manner the plot dictates" or "fail and end the adventure". Which is really no choice.

Your statement that "If a railroad lets you fail, then non-railroad means you succeed at everything" is just silly.

No, that is my point. Plots have set things, and if they are not done, it's failure. Again that is how plots work. A player can't just do whatever they want and succeed. Just take PC character Luke. He has to meet Obi-One to learn about the force. Period. So to make sure this happens the player is railroaded into meeting Obi-One by ''being knocked out and having Obi-One come out of nowhere for no reason''. And sure the meeting can happen lots of other ways....but it has to happen.




For example, I would go with: Railroading is defined not by creating a "road" for the players, but a "railroad" with set tracks, course and embranchments, ultimately leaving players with only the choice of speed. Railroading is caracterised by invalidating player imput and the strict reliance on a preset plan and the refusal to amend or discard it.


I think your definition is too vague, and has nothing to do with Railroading. Your describing more ''what a bad DM is''.

Mine:

Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do with in reason, they will experience certain events according to the plot. This is done to advance the plot, create drama, create linear encounters and over all have the game make sense.

Railroading is a tool the DM uses to keep the game moving and focused, very often on a pre made adventure. A classic RPG is made up of a group of set encounters, called an adventure.. The players have to run through the encounters, most of them in a set order. As a great many DM's can not make up an encounter, let alone a whole adventure in seconds. So they must keep the PC's on the rails of the adventure they are on at the moment.

Players enjoy things like plots, drama, mystery, revelations, surprises, plot twists, red hearings, clues and dozens of other things that one can have in a RPG. But a player does not have the whole picture of the story. Only the DM does. So the players, while hunting down a gem thief, see no reason to go to the Stumble Inn. But the Stumble Inn has a plot point, clue and twist(it's owned and run by the thief's wife)....but unless the PC's go there, they won't experience all that. And you can't just tell the players to go to spot X, that breaks immersion. The only option is to railroad them to the location.

It gets a bad rap from players that just like to be unhappy and complain.

Thrudd
2015-05-03, 05:47 PM
Two perfect examples of pure fluff adventures. They are both just ''randomly kill monsters''.



I think when your saying ''situations and locations'' your saying plot. Ok, so you don't make a big plot that says the characters must do X. But you do make dozens of little ''situations and locations''(aka plots) that say the characters must do X.




Your kinda only describing the adventure overview. How does it work once game play starts? Just take ''finding the rebels''. Unless your doing a fluff game where the players just roll to find the rebels, your going to need a plot to find the rebels.



No, that is my point. Plots have set things, and if they are not done, it's failure. Again that is how plots work. A player can't just do whatever they want and succeed. Just take PC character Luke. He has to meet Obi-One to learn about the force. Period. So to make sure this happens the player is railroaded into meeting Obi-One by ''being knocked out and having Obi-One come out of nowhere for no reason''. And sure the meeting can happen lots of other ways....but it has to happen.




I think your definition is too vague, and has nothing to do with Railroading. Your describing more ''what a bad DM is''.

Mine:

Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do with in reason, they will experience certain events according to the plot. This is done to advance the plot, create drama, create linear encounters and over all have the game make sense.

Railroading is a tool the DM uses to keep the game moving and focused, very often on a pre made adventure. A classic RPG is made up of a group of set encounters, called an adventure.. The players have to run through the encounters, most of them in a set order. As a great many DM's can not make up an encounter, let alone a whole adventure in seconds. So they must keep the PC's on the rails of the adventure they are on at the moment.

Players enjoy things like plots, drama, mystery, revelations, surprises, plot twists, red hearings, clues and dozens of other things that one can have in a RPG. But a player does not have the whole picture of the story. Only the DM does. So the players, while hunting down a gem thief, see no reason to go to the Stumble Inn. But the Stumble Inn has a plot point, clue and twist(it's owned and run by the thief's wife)....but unless the PC's go there, they won't experience all that. And you can't just tell the players to go to spot X, that breaks immersion. The only option is to railroad them to the location.

It gets a bad rap from players that just like to be unhappy and complain.

You don't say "the players must do x". You say "this stuff is happening unless the players act and make something else happen".

Ie: There is a vampire creating undead minions. Increasingly more zombies and skeletons are encountered in the area until/unless the players stop the vampire.
Bandit gang is getting stronger. If the players don't get involved, they start raiding villages and attacking bigger caravans. Eventually the king dispatches Knights to hunt them, and the area is under martial law. That will all change if the players decide to confront the bandit leader early on. Or maybe they join the bandits, or even take over the gang.

There is no plot, only a situation that can give rise to a variety of stories based on how the players choose to approach it and what their characters want.
The players can "fail", if their characters die. They can have unfavorable outcomes, they can allow the situation to get out of hand and make things harder for themselves. But the game never needs to end. If they fail at something, they can regroup and try something else. There is no "game over ", just changing conditions and different situations.

"Railroading", to me, is describing a practice used by inexperienced DMs and poorly designed adventures to force the players down a linear plot.

There is a way to design plot-based adventures which take into account various contingencies and allow for alternate paths and outcomes that does not require railroading. It is harder than an open game, because you need to prep a lot more ahead of time, but it is doable.

jaydubs
2015-05-03, 05:53 PM
No, that is my point. Plots have set things, and if they are not done, it's failure. Again that is how plots work. A player can't just do whatever they want and succeed. Just take PC character Luke. He has to meet Obi-One to learn about the force. Period. So to make sure this happens the player is railroaded into meeting Obi-One by ''being knocked out and having Obi-One come out of nowhere for no reason''. And sure the meeting can happen lots of other ways....but it has to happen.

Why does the result have to be failure if specific things aren't done? Even in your example, it's easy enough to come up with alternatives:

-Luke ends up meeting Yoda without meeting Obi-Wan.
-Luke finds holocrons and teaches himself to use the force.
-Luke never learns the traditional Jedi methods of using the force. He doesn't even realize he's using it, but takes to it naturally. The climatic battle against Vader/the Emperor involves him trying to overcome them without a lightsaber or force powers.
-Luke dies because he never learned how to use the force. Afterwards, it's Leia who ends up learning to use the force through whatever method, and she ends up the primary protagonist.
-Luke is eventually found by Vader, who recognizes him as his son. He's trained by Vader, but after some character development and after possibly meeting Leia, they turn against the Emperor and face him together.

Grim Portent
2015-05-03, 06:17 PM
Why does the result have to be failure if specific things aren't done? Even in your example, it's easy enough to come up with alternatives:

-Luke ends up meeting Yoda without meeting Obi-Wan.
-Luke finds holocrons and teaches himself to use the force.
-Luke never learns the traditional Jedi methods of using the force. He doesn't even realize he's using it, but takes to it naturally. The climatic battle against Vader/the Emperor involves him trying to overcome them without a lightsaber or force powers.
-Luke dies because he never learned how to use the force. Afterwards, it's Leia who ends up learning to use the force through whatever method, and she ends up the primary protagonist.
-Luke is eventually found by Vader, who recognizes him as his son. He's trained by Vader, but after some character development and after possibly meeting Leia, they turn against the Emperor and face him together.

Also possible that Luke betrays his father and sides with the Emperor in good old Sith fashion.

Amphetryon
2015-05-03, 06:20 PM
Why does the result have to be failure if specific things aren't done? Even in your example, it's easy enough to come up with alternatives:

-Luke ends up meeting Yoda without meeting Obi-Wan.
-Luke finds holocrons and teaches himself to use the force.
-Luke never learns the traditional Jedi methods of using the force. He doesn't even realize he's using it, but takes to it naturally. The climatic battle against Vader/the Emperor involves him trying to overcome them without a lightsaber or force powers.
-Luke dies because he never learned how to use the force. Afterwards, it's Leia who ends up learning to use the force through whatever method, and she ends up the primary protagonist.
-Luke is eventually found by Vader, who recognizes him as his son. He's trained by Vader, but after some character development and after possibly meeting Leia, they turn against the Emperor and face him together.

All of those look like plots to me.

Thrudd
2015-05-03, 06:34 PM
All of those look like plots to me.

Yes, but you didn't plan any of them ahead of time. Only when it is over can you say what the plot is, of this story you are telling after the events have happened.
During the game, presumably, Luke's player chose his own path and events turned out however they turned out. The DM had no determined plot, just a situation involving the relationship and motives of these different characters and the environment of the galactic war surrounding them.

Alberic Strein
2015-05-03, 07:05 PM
Two perfect examples of pure fluff adventures. They are both just ''randomly kill monsters''.
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

No, that is my point. Plots have set things, and if they are not done, it's failure. Again that is how plots work. A player can't just do whatever they want and succeed. Just take PC character Luke. He has to meet Obi-One to learn about the force. Period. So to make sure this happens the player is railroaded into meeting Obi-One by ''being knocked out and having Obi-One come out of nowhere for no reason''. And sure the meeting can happen lots of other ways....but it has to happen.
You're over-generalizing. Shadowrun is a game where you can say "nope" to the plot your GM throws at you and still win the session. Hell, you might even unknowingly save the plot while you're at it, if places where the supposed plot of the session and where the characters do their things happen to overlap. Failing at saving the world can be enjoyable, there is no definite absolute victory in tabletop gaming most of the time, just like there are almost no absolute defeats and failures. Opportunities. Opportunities everywhere.

I think your definition is too vague, and has nothing to do with Railroading. Your describing more ''what a bad DM is''.
So, to quote myself: A bad GM is defined not by creating "roads", but "railroads"[etc...]? Well, railroading being the definition of a bad GM is fine by me, but you might take exception to that, no?

You may want to be a little bit more expansive, your one-liner, while classy, does not help me see and understand your point of view.

Mine:

Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do with in reason, they will experience certain events according to the plot. This is done to advance the plot, create drama, create linear encounters and over all have the game make sense.
Now we're getting somewhere. I like calling it a GMing style, but why add "what the PCs do within reason"? I'm pretty sure that no matter what they do the plot will get back on track, no? PC1 does something stupid, gets arrested and now the group with him included get a mission to arrest a thief to get him out, the same that they would have if they had obediently went to the tavern, though for less pay. That's how railroading works, no? Or are you adding that to adress the possibility of players dying if they do something too stupid?

I would also reformulate the last sentence, you, or I, or anybody on the planet, do not know all the reasons why railroading is used, so to give it such a definitive reason of being used seems a bit wrong.

So up to here we are going with: "Railroading is a GMing style in which the DM will engineer events independently of the actions of the players so they experience a set number of predetermined events in accordance to the plot. Uses range from advancing the plot, creating drama, linear encounters and last but not least to making the game make sense."

My main grievances at this point would be that advancing the plot, making the game make sense and creating linear encounters don't need railroading and that in the case of drama, events dissociated from player imput are actually harmful. Players don't feel sad/happy/creeped out because you tell them to. They will find things in the game that will touch them, and drama relating to these elements will ellicit an emotional response from them. Just designing "and then the orphanage burns, making all the players very sad" is a mistake. Players may not find it sad, players may actually have the ability to prevent the fire and feel frustrated at being unable to prevent it because the next step of the plot needs them to be sad.

Example: Last Shadowrun game I had, my GM had my character's fixer kidnapped. I explicitely stated that my PC was very attached to his fixer, so it was a nice touch, and banking on that was very effective in getting me immersed. The rest of the team? They very seriously proposed letting the fixer in her troubles and gunning down my character to death. And it probably came pretty close from happening. Using one backstory to control the actions of a character is effective, controling the emotional response from a group of 3+ players is impossible.

Railroading is a tool the DM uses to keep the game moving and focused, very often on a pre made adventure. A classic RPG is made up of a group of set encounters, called an adventure. The players have to run through the encounters, most of them in a set order. As a great many DM's can not make up an encounter, let alone a whole adventure in seconds. So they must keep the PC's on the rails of the adventure they are on at the moment.
This sounds like an unapologetic justification. GMs have other tools to keep a game moving and focused without relying on a pre-established plot tailored for the session. I also dislike that you're adding a parcellar definition of adventure, relying on a succession of set encounters. Adventures don't need "set" (in number or form) encounters and lately, anything and there dog is an encounter. Making your boss give you the mission? Social encounter. Solving a riddle? Mental encounter. Etc... I think we would be better without that. Again I really take exception to "players have to run through the encounters" It is untrue for many games and for many groups. Cleverly bypassing encounters should be encouraged, not discouraged, as should out-of-the-box thinking be. A player creating a clever and complicated scheme to get NPC1 to give them the information they need without becoming his yes-man for two missions should be rewarded and not have his schemes fail "just because" and then proceed with the two delivery missions with obligatory ambushes on the road. You create your game with your players, it is a communication, not a client/server relationship. And again I disagree with the whole "well we can't very well improvise an encounter, or have our personal time be wasted by dastardly players who refuse to stay on track, we must railroad, railroading is a must for GMs."

No you mustn't. No it isn't. Games exist without railroading, games can be fun without railroading, GMs can improvise encounters or at the very least fall back on a random encounter table and if players don't wish to stay on track of your plot then maybe, just maybe, it doesn't interest them a whole lot -despite its obvious qualities- and you should change your approach. Railroading is a tool. I understand that it can be useful to people, but it is not a "must". And having to force your players to stay on track is the symptom of an underlying issue, not something that you should want.

Players enjoy things like plots, drama, mystery, revelations, surprises, plot twists, red hearings, clues and dozens of other things that one can have in a RPG. But a player does not have the whole picture of the story. Only the DM does. So the players, while hunting down a gem thief, see no reason to go to the Stumble Inn. But the Stumble Inn has a plot point, clue and twist(it's owned and run by the thief's wife)....but unless the PC's go there, they won't experience all that. And you can't just tell the players to go to spot X, that breaks immersion. The only option is to railroad them to the location.
Players enjoy lots of things, some of them alike, many different. Railroading is not an absolute necessity for "plots, drama, mystery, revelations, surprises, plot twists, red hearings, clues, etc..." and so it doesn't really have a whole lot to do with them. You seem intent on affiliating plot with railroading. In your Star Wars example, the plot is the fight between the Rebellion and the Empire, and it doesn't need to have Luke, who already wanted to become a pilot for the rebellion, to meet Obi-Wan on Tatooine and get in touch with the force. Forcing this to happen instead of letting it happen naturally (or not) does not add to the plot. In this example, the players don't need to go to the Stumble Inn to catch the chief, they don't need to learn on the moment that the owner is the thief's wife and they could naturally learn a few sessions later that the reasons adventurers go after them is that the inn's owner has something against them and, surprise, it's because she is the wife of the guy they arrested/killed a few sessions prior. Forcing events to happen in one particular way only enhances the experience if you are unable to pull a chevkov's gun(wo)-man-. Ergo, railroading is NOT the only option.

It gets a bad rap from players that just like to be unhappy and complain.
Meaningless bashing of players who dare express dissatisfaction with your choice of tools and/or gaming style. Unneeded. Unnecessary. And offensive to my intelligence.

Though I guess concluding on the bad rep railroading gets is good. So:

"Railroading is a GMing style in which the DM will engineer events independently of the actions of the players so they experience a set number of predetermined events in accordance to the plot. uses range from but are not limited by advancing the plot, creating drama, linear encounters and last but not least to making the game make sense. It should be noted that this tool has a bad reputation among some players and GM alike."

Well, we managed to agree for about a total of something like one sentence. Progress.

Amphetryon
2015-05-03, 07:22 PM
Yes, but you didn't plan any of them ahead of time. Only when it is over can you say what the plot is, of this story you are telling after the events have happened.
During the game, presumably, Luke's player chose his own path and events turned out however they turned out. The DM had no determined plot, just a situation involving the relationship and motives of these different characters and the environment of the galactic war surrounding them.

All well and good, but I've DMed for groups that believed vehemently that 'plot' and 'railroading' were synonymous, and been in a group (in an entirely different city and state) where this was also the majority view. Whether you, or I, or some hypothetical majority agree that this is an accurate characterization matters very little, other than theoretically; one does not DM for a theoretical group, and the DM must therefore adjust for the group that's actually in front of him or her. If the group says your railroading is a problem that's interfering with their fun, then it is, regardless of whether you think you're meeting the definition that GitP agrees on for the term.

Knaight
2015-05-03, 08:22 PM
Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do with in reason, they will experience certain events according to the plot. This is done to advance the plot, create drama, create linear encounters and over all have the game make sense.
The first half of this seems like a pretty solid definition. The issue is that you seem to be working under the assumption that there is no other way for the game to make sense, no other way for a story to emerge, no other way for drama to be there. That second assumption is nonsense.


So the players, while hunting down a gem thief, see no reason to go to the Stumble Inn. But the Stumble Inn has a plot point, clue and twist(it's owned and run by the thief's wife)....but unless the PC's go there, they won't experience all that. And you can't just tell the players to go to spot X, that breaks immersion. The only option is to railroad them to the location.
Nonsense. Yeah, the PCs won't have that information. The event where they go to Stumble Inn and discover that the woman working there who owns the place is married to the thief only happens if they go to the Stumble Inn. That leaves two options.
1) Railroad them there.
2) They don't go there.

Option 2 closes one door, but it opens up a lot more. For instance, the uncaught gem thief might steal another gem precisely because the PCs never got this information, and if the PCs are hunting them down in the first place there's a good chance that the gems being stolen are important, which gives something else to react to. The PCs might come up with another plan that also works, and the thief's wife might end up being an antagonist that emerges looking for revenge. All of these are entirely coherent, all have the potential for drama, all avoid a railroad.

Now, this does require some level of improvisation skill. I'd consider that a basic skill that every GM should have, at least to some extent.

NichG
2015-05-03, 09:13 PM
I'm confused, are you arguing that this isn't a Quantum Ogre scenario? No matter what chest they open the party will always get the MacGuffin first.

No, I'm not arguing that (although based on some of the terminology debate that's been going on someone might say so on a technicality). I'm arguing that there's an important difference between removing a real choice from the players and simply rearranging things that are still unknowable. Furthermore, if you were simply improvising rather than planning an adventure, then you could even wait until the moment the lid goes up on one of the chests to generate its contents. Some of the people on this thread who are arguing against Quantum Ogre are also arguing for that kind of improvisation, so I'm pointing out that actually 'improvisation' and 'Quantum Ogre' have a lot in common. The positive or negative aspects of them depend on how artfully they're used rather than the way in which they deny the players certain forms of agency (in the improvisation case, the players have no way to take into account information which has yet to be generated in their decision-making, which basically means that they have no ability to influence that yet-to-be information with their in-character decisions)



Again, who is saying that you're a bad GM if your railroad or use a Quantum Ogre? As I have repeatedly said, it's neither good nor bad, just a tool in the GM toolbox to be used as appropriate. That I warn that the tool is dangerous and has sharp edges still doesn't make it a bad tool

No it doesn't. The original Quantum Ogre example (from which the name comes) specifically describes a scenario in which the players don't know what the outcome of the choice would be. The Quantum Ogre is specifically about altering the things that are behind door number 3 until the players open that door. Whether the players know what may or may not be behind the door has no bearing on whether you're using a Quantum Ogre.


In this case, the particular poster I was responding to directly was Frozen_Feet, whose previous two posts suggested that it could only be Quantum Ogre if the GM was doing it with a certain (implicitly egotistical) mindset. Those were also the posts that provided the particular definition of 'classical Quantum Ogre' which I'm responding to here. I don't really have the ability to know what each poster has in their head for the historical 'classical' example of Quantum Ogre, so I have to debate based on what is provided for me. Personally I'd go with your definition.

I think there are at least three parallel debates going on here so it's hard to keep them straight.



You can also make everything up and never allow the players to beat a bad guy, never allow them to find the treasure and never allow them to break down doors. Probability being what it is, this is indistinguishable to your players from simply having bad rolls. That doesn't make it a good idea or something you should do. Whether or not the players can tell you lied to them, you lied none the less. And if your players ever catch you in a lie, each lie you previously told will weigh against you, even if you didn't tell the lie. Remember the players can't tell the difference cuts both ways. On your side of the spectrum, the players trust you to be fair, the lie is undetectable. Then there's Darth's side, where the lies have been told so often that the players assume every thing that looks like a lie is a lie. The reality is most GMs and groups will fall somewhere between those two and so it's important to know what you're doing as a GM and why.


Yes, this is why it comes down to using these tools well rather than just flailing around with them. The danger zone, IMO, is when you specifically take action in order to thwart the players. People will notice that they're constantly under-performing and furthermore they'll certainly resent that when they find out. Certainly its unlikely to make things more enjoyable for the person being thwarted. Beneficial fudging is safer but you still have to watch out: some players will get annoyed if they find out you've been fudging in their favor, but that attitude is generally rarer and you can tell who those players are going to be ahead of time pretty easily by seeing how they react to stress and tension.

But I think almost all players would in practice be okay with 'fudging to avoid the game being boring', such as adding a 4th clue that didn't exist before when the players are stuck on a mystery or things like that, even if they'd argue against it in a a philosophy-of-gaming debate such as this one.

Anyhow, for all these things, if you do it well then even when your players find out later they'll still be okay with it and even grateful for it.



You may not have agency, but the choice is can still be meaningful. This is the important thing. If your friend honestly gives you the consequences of the choice, then it was still a meaningful choice. It may have been a lousy decision to give you, but it was a real choice. Quantum Ogres takes that a step further and in addition to removing the informed part of the choice, also removes the meaning and as such, no matter which hand you chose, it would always be empty.


This is a logical fallacy. A choice with no ability to influence the outcome is not a choice, it's just an illusion - a lie your brain convinces itself of because it uses heuristics rather than statistical analysis for its decision-making processes. For humans, the null hypothesis is 'the actions I took influenced the outcome' because its easier to falsify that assumption later after you've acted upon it than if you start from the assumption 'my actions don't influence the outcomes' (since that assumption, in the face of a very large parameter space, is somewhat paralytic). With risk about this springing off into a 4th debate, this ties into things like superstitions about dice and luck.

You can literally replace 'you' in the choice-making process with any other random or deterministic process and doing so will not influence the probability of the outcomes in either case. When the chooser is irrelevant to the process, I wouldn't call that a 'meaningful' choice. But perhaps this is a terminology issue again, and I should just stick to saying it isn't real 'agency' rather than real 'choice'.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-03, 10:27 PM
There is no plot, only a situation that can give rise to a variety of stories based on how the players choose to approach it and what their characters want.

You seem to be stuck on the first ten seconds of game play. Ok, the players sit down and the DM says ''there is a vampire bandit making an undead army to raid all the lands.'' Ok, so this is ''no plot, just a situation''. But, at the elven second mark, when the players decide to do something....you need a plot.



"Railroading", to me, is describing a practice used by inexperienced DMs and poorly designed adventures to force the players down a linear plot.

That is the worst definition. It's like saying combat should be just rolling dice and game effects.



There is a way to design plot-based adventures which take into account various contingencies and allow for alternate paths and outcomes that does not require railroading. It is harder than an open game, because you need to prep a lot more ahead of time, but it is doable.

Even normal railroad games have room for alternative paths and outcomes. But it's not like every action the PC's take or don't take alters the whole story. It is hard to alter the story much, but the PC's can change or alter details. This is where you get a lot of cries from players where they think they should be able to do things like kill the king and take over the kingdom with no effort in like two rounds.


Why does the result have to be failure if specific things aren't done? Even in your example, it's easy enough to come up with alternatives:

Right. Now my example: Luke must meet Obi-One before the battle of Yavin and learn about the force so he can use the force to blow up the Death Star. My example is only for that set outcome.

Now your examples are each for other set outcomes, and each has failure if specific things are not done.
*If Yoda will teach Luke the force, then Luke must meet Yoda, Luke must find the hooked on the force tapes, etc. Each one is a whole other plot. And it's fine to take another plot, but there are only so many plots. You can't just have ''oh, there is yet another long lost hidden teacher of the Force on some far away backward planet'' each time the character fails. It just gets silly.


Yes, but you didn't plan any of them ahead of time. Only when it is over can you say what the plot is, of this story you are telling after the events have happened.

Well, they are only ''not plots'' until the DM takes a couple minutes/hours/days to make one a plot. Sure a couple DM's can make an amazing adventure and story and plot in like ten seconds, in a cave, with a box of scrap paper. Most DM's need a bit more time, like days. So if a player does say suddenly and randomly ''I want to do X'', the DM will have to respond with ''Ok, I'll make something up for the next game."


You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

I defined it a couple posts ago. A fluff game is a pop and chips type game where everyone just wants to have some quick, easy, simple and fast fun. The game is very light and strightforward, the players don't need to ''think'' to much. They can just sit back, relax, have fun and the adventure will come to them.



My main grievances at this point would be that advancing the plot, making the game make sense and creating linear encounters don't need railroading and that in the case of drama, events dissociated from player imput are actually harmful. Players don't feel sad/happy/creeped out because you tell them to.

Well, telling a player want their character feels would be a whole other thread. And that is not railroading anyway. If you want a player to maybe feel sad/happy/crepped out you need to lead them to encounters that have the potential to do that.



Example: Last Shadowrun game I had, my GM had my character's fixer kidnapped. I explicitely stated that my PC was very attached to his fixer, so it was a nice touch, and banking on that was very effective in getting me immersed.

Sounds like railroading. The GM starts with the idea of wanting the player to have the character display emotions of attachment. So the DM targets the fixer. And that is where the railroad comes in: she has to be kidnapped. Period. For the plot of ''Alberic's character shows emotion and wants to save her''. You can not have that plot unless the fixer is kidnapped. And the DM might need to railroad that happening. And that is a good thing as that kicks off the ''Alberic's character shows emotion and wants to save her'' plot. See, no railroad, no plot. The player has no choice, no ''agency'', no way to effect anything. The fixer must be kidnapped for the plot to start.



This sounds like an unapologetic justification. GMs have other tools to keep a game moving and focused without relying on a pre-established plot tailored for the session. I also dislike that you're adding a parcellar definition of adventure, relying on a succession of set encounters. Adventures don't need "set" (in number or form) encounters and lately, anything and there dog is an encounter.

Unless your adventure is ''randomly kill monsters, loot, repeat'' it does. And adventure is a succession of set encounters that advance the plot. There simply is no other way to do it.


Nonsense. Yeah, the PCs won't have that information. The event where they go to Stumble Inn and discover that the woman working there who owns the place is married to the thief only happens if they go to the Stumble Inn. That leaves two options.
1) Railroad them there.
2) They don't go there.

Option 2 closes one door, but it opens up a lot more. For instance, the uncaught gem thief might steal another gem precisely because the PCs never got this information, and if the PCs are hunting them down in the first place there's a good chance that the gems being stolen are important, which gives something else to react to. The PCs might come up with another plan that also works, and the thief's wife might end up being an antagonist that emerges looking for revenge. All of these are entirely coherent, all have the potential for drama, all avoid a railroad.

Now, this does require some level of improvisation skill. I'd consider that a basic skill that every GM should have, at least to some extent.

Right. But see your talking about different plots. And sure, at any time the players can give up, decide not to follow a plot and not play the game. But that is not much fun.

And if the DM choces to not railroad again, for plot #2, the players can again give up, decide not to follow a plot and not play the game. And that can happen with plot #3 and #4, until maybe by chance the players follow a plot.....or the DM railroads them.

goto124
2015-05-04, 01:08 AM
Bringing back the example of the East Kingdom that got shifted to the West.

If the party decided to go West, and you prepared nothing for the West (really, you can't prepare for everything), you could:

1) Say 'Giant wall blocks your way! Don't try going around/above/under/through it!'

2) Say 'Okay, it's all wilderness here. Roll Survival. Oh, you want to roll Search etc? Roll roll. After 3 days, you find... nothing remotely interesting. You have [low amount of resources] now.'
The party has to restock, and the only place to do so is the city.

3) Say 'As you travel west, you come across the East West Kingdom...'

4) Roll random encounters and improvise everything.

2 is a more long-winded version of 3. If 4 is the only acceptable solution, why prepare anything at all? GMing can be combination of prepping and improvisation, and is a much easier and more reasonable approach for many GMs than pure improvisation.

As for the wishing ring: 'Okay, you unlock the door. On the other side, are monsters whose CRs are meant for level 10 characters. They've been that way for weeks before we even started the campaign. You're still level 2 because you skipped the whole storyline to obtain the key, which would've given you the XP. I'm rolling the dice in the open, no fudging.'

This could possibly be considered 'not railroading' for multiple reasons. But is it really? Instead of the rails blocking you from leaving, they kill you for it.

If the discussion goes to XP for killing vs overcoming encounters: in the above example, the DM could easily say that since they spent very little effort to unlock the door, they get no XP for it. But what happens when the DM rules more and more 'smart plans by the PC' as gaining significantly reduced XP because the route was less difficult per say?

Earthwalker
2015-05-04, 05:39 AM
Ok....can you give an example of game play with no linear railroad plots?


I will try. Using a set up you described earlier in the thread. The players hate Lord Bob and want to destroy him. So the GM stats up Lord Bob. This is driven by the players choice to go after Lord Bob.

Lord Bob
Lord of Westmarch - (aspect based on who he is)
Hides in his fortress - (Provided information that he has a fortress, also that he is slightly paranoid)
Dotes on his wife - (Linked to the suggestion his wife hates him, also a route of attack for the PC)
People should pay what’s owed - (Taxes his people and think it is right to do so)

The GM also sorts out a number of skills for the Lord and we are done.

It’s now up to the PC to decide their attack. How are they going to go about destroying this lord who taxes his people so.
Player A plays - Jacamo (“Honest” merchant)
Player B plays – Gilly (Former Red Star Mercenary, Jacamos body guard)
Player C plays – Rat (A upstanding member of the Thieves Guild)

So the players have some discussion on what to do about Lord Bob. Jacamo decides that he will use his aspect “Its all about the money” and spends a fate point to declare that Lord Bob is in debt, he is taxing the people heavily to pay back the debts from building hi fortress. This seems to make sense and the GM allows it. The next question is who does he owe money to.

The group decides to create a new organization in the world for who holds the debt. Lord Bob has spread his money around but the largest creditor is The Bank of Lancaster.

The GM writes up a quick character card for the Bank and places it on the table.

Bank of Lancaster
Second best bank in the empire. (major aspect, what it is)
Second comes right after first (Rat added this aspect it shows they seem apathetic to moving up in the world)

The bank is now in play but how do the players use it. Rat steps up. Asking to see if his knows anyone in the bank who they can deal with. The GM calls for a contacts roll looking for a good result.
Rat has a good contacts skill but only manages a fair result. He spends a fate point and uses his aspect “Friends in low places” to add +2 to his roll taking it up to a good result. He ties so gets what he wants but also gets a mild complication (he would need to beat the roll to get what he wanted with no cost). Rat invoked the friends in low places, so it makes sense the contact in the Bank is working with the thieves guild laundering money. As for the complication well the thieves guild want a better return on the money that the bank launder. This is going to make the negotiations more difficult. A meeting is set up by the thieves guild.

We now have the first scene set.

Location - The Lancaster Bank
Question – Can the group convince the bank to call in Lord Bobs debts.

The GM will have to stat up the contact. (Again no more than a min or two to do) then the scene is run. Its role played out with the two sides using aspects and what they can to reach a deal. Dice will need to be rolled to see how well they do.

Lets assume they do well but not great. They decide that the debt is called in. The GM adds “Can’t afford the upkeep” onto Lord Bob as an aspect. He is looking in bad shape but still a threat. So the GM asks the players what they plan to do next.

Of course this could have completely failed. Which would leave them looking for something else to do, might even end out with them trying to placate the Thieves Guild for how badly they messed up. Moving the focus from Lord Bob onto the Thieves Guild. All decided by PC actions and dice rolls.

So they have weakened Lord Bob. Time for a knockout blow.

Rat decides that if he can’t get his tax money then Lord Bob will be in big trouble. Time to go after the Tax collectors. The group talk it over and it makes sense the tax collectors will be protected. Also the GM states it should take more than missing one payment to do real damage, the others agree.
So the group decides they will need to hit three collectors in the next week to effect Lord Bob. If they get all three they get the best possible result. With Lord Bob unable to pay his guards. Also as the collectors are hit they will get more security and finding them will get harder.

The first attempt, Gilly uses her contacts in the mercenaries to get news on the first collector, his guards are mercenaries after all. So we now have three upcoming scenes for robbery.

Rat “Time to be heroes, rob from the rich and give to the poor”
Jacamo “Only robbing you do, you keep the money”
Rat “Hey, I am poor”

… And the Adventure continues.

BayardSPSR
2015-05-04, 05:46 AM
Too many players think they are DM and they create and direct and control the game, that is the big problem. The truth is that players really don't have much ''agency'' in a game. That is simply not how RPG's work. At best players can get an illusion of player agency, but that is it.

Actually, based on the example of a friend, I've started trying to erase the player-GM barrier as much as possible. As in, "add any details to the world you see fit" (with GM-veto reserved but so far unused) and "hey, since your character isn't present, why don't you play this NPC?" And I'm actively looking for ways to go beyond that.

It has gone unbelievably well. Like, "I had no idea what I was missing, I will never go back," just-got-out-of-Plato's-cave well. It takes some adjusting to get used to, and it relies on a great deal of good faith between everyone at the table, but I've been lucky with my players - and most of them haven't even gone as far with it as they could have.

And I'm not saying we had a nice fun random fluff game, with no clear understanding of what was going to happen from session to session. We had the best, deepest, most-meaningful story of a game that I have ever had the privilege to participate in.

I'm prone to exaggerating, as is everyone in this non-place we call the internet, but I can promise you that I'm not inflating anything in this particular example. Trust me.

Lorsa
2015-05-04, 06:01 AM
I simply don't agree with what others are saying. Railroading is just as much part of an RPG as descriptions. Unless your in the lightest fluff pop and chips game.

Well, I had to ask, because while disagreeing is one thing, you seem to completely ignore some things said by others (like myself), who clearly have pointed out to you that your premise is wrong, and return to restate your original argument.

So, what I have tried to state is that I run games without railroading, and that those games are indeed NOT fluff pop and chips games, but rather full of meat and drama.

Since you seem to completely dismiss my 20-years of roleplaying experience (which is borderline insulting), there are only a few possible conclusions one can draw about this discussion.

1) Both me and my players are severly mistaken, and they are indeed being railroaded.

2) Your premise is wrong.

3) We disagree on the definition of some terms, such as railroading and plot.

It seemed to me as though we could exclude the third option, as indeed we did agree on the nature of plot and railroading.

But perhaps we need to explore this point further, so I will re-iterate how I define it, and let you decide whether or not you need me to elaborate.

Plot, in a roleplaying game, is something I define as a, by the GM, pre-determined sequence of events. Railroading is an action taken by the GM to override player agency in order to make the game follow the plot.

To elaborate this point a little:

If the players' actions naturally take them along the plot, there is no railroading. If the players ask the GM to bring them there, there is no railroading.

A sequence of events has to be more than one (this is why plot is defined as sequence, as opposed to a 'singular', one event "plot", which would be a situation).


Now, what I am saying is that you can have games without plot, without railroading, that still has mystery, drama and most definitely a story.

Frozen_Feet
2015-05-04, 08:56 AM
It isn't really. There are lots of things that randomness is used for in RPGs - if you have binary outcomes, making it probabilistic and then iterating over many individual rolls allows for there to be a smooth range of variations in ability - instead of 'you can' or 'you can't', it's '70% of the time you can' versus '75% of the time you can'. Furthermore, adding randomness means that the game is non-deterministic and therefore you have to adapt your actions as things develop rather than pre-computing a chain of actions like you can do in something like chess. Furthermore, there's the psychology of random reward, which connects to how people respond to gambling and the like. In terms of the wargaming roots of things like D&D, those were probably the primary reasons.

These are by-products and reasons for using random chance for decision-making. They do not change the fact that dice are, indeed, used for decision-making.


In more modern analysis, there's the idea of using the dice to resolve conflict. There is nothing "modern" about this, dice as conflict resolution was directly inherited from wargames.
Note that that's different than making decisions.

The conflict being resolved is "there are two or more things which could happen. Which does happen?"

Conflict resolution is hence identical to decision-making.


But in terms of actually using the dice to make decisions, that's mostly limited to AD&D and retro-clones, though many games have remnants or bits and pieces of it.

If a game has one instance of using dice to select between two or more outcomes, it is using dice for decision-making. How often it does is immaterial. With this in mind, restate your argument with a straight face.


That is to say, when building an encounter table or something like that, when you place orcs on slots 1-3, an ogre on slots 4-5, and a giant on slot 6 on a d6 roll, you've already made the majority of the decisions as to what the party will face by not loading that list with different monsters or different probabilities. Adding the layer of randomness is just a way of blowing smoke to obscure that fact.

It does not matter how many other selection procedures are being used or have been used when the roll of the dice still decides between outcomes. What you are saying is just blowing some smoke to obscure that fact.


Some of the people on this thread who are arguing against Quantum Ogre are also arguing for that kind of improvisation, so I'm pointing out that actually 'improvisation' and 'Quantum Ogre' have a lot in common.

... and as I pointed out two pages ago, you're doing so by ignoring the key thing making them different, hence making your argument obtuse.

With the Quantum Ogre, all choices made lead to a premade encounter. With improvization, they don't. That's the key difference, and that's also the key difference between railroading and not railroading, linear and non-linear, deterministic and non-deterministic. That's why people in this thread have been using the Quantum Ogre as an example of railroading.

Once you remove that element of determinism, you're no longer arguing for the Quantum Ogre. You're arguing for random encounters, which are non-deterministic as you yourself said: "Furthermore, adding randomness means that the game is non-deterministic and therefore you have to adapt your actions as things develop rather than pre-computing a chain of actions like you can do in something like chess."


You can literally replace 'you' in the choice-making process with any other random or deterministic process and doing so will not influence the probability of the outcomes in either case. When the chooser is irrelevant to the process, I wouldn't call that a 'meaningful' choice. But perhaps this is a terminology issue again, and I should just stick to saying it isn't real 'agency' rather than real 'choice'.

You can replace a person with a random selection procedure in all choice-making scenarios, completely regardless of whether said choice is meaningful. Hence arguing a person "could be replaced" is entirely immaterial to all arguments you are making.

The important part is "influencing the outcome", and here's the deal you are not getting about the "what's in my hand?" and "two doors" examples. It is logical to expect the choice does result in different outcomes, hence it is not an empty choice, but rather a choice with unknown outcome. It's only when using the Quantum Ogre as you described, when all choices converge in the same outcome, when the choice becomes empty.

If I, the man with things in my hands, actually have a different thing in each hand and are playing the game honestly, your choice does, in fact, lead to different outcomes.


I'm arguing that there's an important difference between removing a real choice from the players and simply rearranging things that are still unknowable.

And I completely agree there's a difference. Your argument is obtuse because you're making it via example which does both.


In the improvisation case, the players have no way to take into account information which has yet to be generated in their decision-making, which basically means that they have no ability to influence that yet-to-be information with their in-character decisions.

Incorrect. Let's go back to goto124's Assassin again.

The players and their characters do not know there's an Assassin. This does not stop one of them from suspecting there is an Assassin and preparing appropriately. When the GM decides there will, in fact, be an Assassin, the player's decisions will have influenced that encounter's outcome even before any real knowledge of the Assassin existed either way.

Once again, choice with unknown value is not empty.

CombatBunny
2015-05-04, 09:00 AM
This is just my opinion,

But for those who say that it’s impossible to play a game without railroading, I believe that it has to do with the fact they are thinking in terms of systems with a lot of crunch. In those kinds of games the rules are very robust and require from the DM a lot of study to prepare their encounters. Even if you plan to run your adventures in the snow or in the mountains, you will do right to study beforehand the systems for weather conditions.

I agree that those games are very hard to run without some railroading (not impossible, but exhaustingly hard), because there is no reason that you would dedicate that much time to draw maps, prepare air battle systems, prepare certain ecosystems encounter tables, prepare treasure, prepare powerful artefact with their respective subsystems, prepare economy systems. And take all of that to your brain RAM (or at least the things that most probably will come up), if it’s not going to be used. And how do you make sure that some of that will get used? With some degree of railroading; being consciously or not.

Raise the hand whoever has run a high-level D&D, Shadowrun, Exalted, Palladium, etc. game without any degree of railroading, using solid encounters (those that explode all of the enemie's abilities, descriptions, combat tactics and backgrounds) and all of the according rules (planar rules, special combat conditions, weather, ecosystem, fatigue, encumbrance, economics, diseases, business running, tank combat, robot combat, etc.), in a fluent, coherent and fun way.

But yes, there are other systems that are specifically aimed to make things on the fly and still tell a coherent story.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-04, 10:13 AM
GM: "You are in a tavern. There's a shady-looking halfling watching you from the corner."

Players: "What else is in the tavern?"

GM: "Nothing."

Players: "Is there anything in this town besides the tavern?"

GM: "No."

Players: "What about horses? Can we hire some horses to take us out of town, maybe to the next village?"

GM: "There are no horses."

Players: "What about that halfling then? We ask him if he has a horse we can rent."

GM: "As you approach the halfling, you feel a strange sense of dread come over you. Roll your initiative."

Players: "Wait, no, we don't approach him. I just yell across the bar."

GM: "You can't, it's too noisy."

Players: "I thought you said there was nothing else in the tavern."

GM: "Since you didn't roll initiative, you are caught flat-footed."

Players: "..."

Alberic Strein
2015-05-04, 10:21 AM
Well, I had to ask, because while disagreeing is one thing, you seem to completely ignore some things said by others (like myself), who clearly have pointed out to you that your premise is wrong, and return to restate your original argument.
At this point I am just going to assume he is trolling and delights in making us rip our hair out trying to explain him a different point of view.

NichG
2015-05-04, 11:23 AM
These are by-products and reasons for using random chance for decision-making. They do not change the fact that dice are, indeed, used for decision-making.
There is nothing "modern" about this, dice as conflict resolution was directly inherited from wargames.
The conflict being resolved is "there are two or more things which could happen. Which does happen?"
Conflict resolution is hence identical to decision-making.


I'm not sure if you're being ironic here, but the point of the 'modern' view is to interpret the participants in the game as entities which are endowed with agency. When that agency comes into conflict, you could either have an external judge to determine the outcome, a systematic rule for it, or a random process. But the reasoning there is very very different than the sort of reasoning behind wargames.

In the particular modern view I was referring to (which does not cover all games, but it's a more represented design viewpoint now than, say, 40 years ago) the randomness its about fairness to equal participants and breaking that tie in a symmetric way. In older wargames, its about constructing a model of the world - a soldier with a gun sometimes misses a target or hits, so in order to model that you needed non-deterministic elements.

A 'conflict' is something between two real people at the table, not just any unknown outcome. If you could decide that a bird might be a pigeon or a raven, you might choose to use the word 'conflict' for that situation but unless you're using it ironically or to indicate some deeper consequence of the choice, doing so is really diluting the term. There are other words that are more appropriate for that situation.



If a game has one instance of using dice to select between two or more outcomes, it is using dice for decision-making. How often it does is immaterial. With this in mind, restate your argument with a straight face.


Sure, no problem. There's nothing inconsistent about looking at the evolution of a game which has gradually and systematically removed a particular kind of thing from its structure and saying 'hey, maybe there's a good reason for that' even if it hasn't finished the job. Furthermore, even if every game used dice for all its decision-making, that would not intrinsically make it a good idea (although the barrier to explaining why it's a bad idea would be much higher in that case, since you'd have to explain away the fact that people are still playing those games and enjoying it).

So I maintain: the dice should not be used for decision-making.


It does not matter how many other selection procedures are being used or have been used when the roll of the dice still decides between outcomes. What you are saying is just blowing some smoke to obscure that fact.

I'll make it artificially simple to make it perfectly clear.

Encounter table (1d6):

1-3: Ogre wearing red leather armor
4-5: Ogre wearing green leather armor
6: Ogre wearing blue leather armor

If you don't believe that in this case I've made the choice that 'you will encounter an ogre' regardless of the random factor, then I don't know what to say.



... and as I pointed out two pages ago, you're doing so by ignoring the key thing making them different, hence making your argument obtuse.

With the Quantum Ogre, all choices made lead to a premade encounter. With improvization, they don't. That's the key difference, and that's also the key difference between railroading and not railroading, linear and non-linear, deterministic and non-deterministic. That's why people in this thread have been using the Quantum Ogre as an example of railroading.

Once you remove that element of determinism, you're no longer arguing for the Quantum Ogre. You're arguing for random encounters, which are non-deterministic as you yourself said: "Furthermore, adding randomness means that the game is non-deterministic and therefore you have to adapt your actions as things develop rather than pre-computing a chain of actions like you can do in something like chess."


With improvization, you may still have completely deterministic outcomes from all choices - it's just that they're obscured by being contained solely in the GM's brain. The GM may be thinking to themselves 'hey, the players attention is kind of scattered, maybe its time for a combat encounter' - so if you go left, right, fly in the sky, dive under the water, go to a bar, etc, you're going to end up in some situation the GM thinks will lead to combat. Or they might have just read a bunch of fiction with a particular idea, and so that idea is going to work itself in no matter what you do.

If we just call it 'improvization', that's such a wide sea that its really easy to obscure how deterministic things actually are. That doesn't make them any less deterministic, it just makes it harder to catch. It's a better lie.



You can replace a person with a random selection procedure in all choice-making scenarios, completely regardless of whether said choice is meaningful. Hence arguing a person "could be replaced" is entirely immaterial to all arguments you are making.

The important part is "influencing the outcome", and here's the deal you are not getting about the "what's in my hand?" and "two doors" examples. It is logical to expect the choice does result in different outcomes, hence it is not an empty choice, but rather a choice with unknown outcome. It's only when using the Quantum Ogre as you described, when all choices converge in the same outcome, when the choice becomes empty.

If I, the man with things in my hands, actually have a different thing in each hand and are playing the game honestly, your choice does, in fact, lead to different outcomes.

If the choice in question is, for example, where to open a new business, then a uniform random choice over the available property blocks within a city's limits will perform systematically worse than a choice made based on information about the neighborhoods, other businesses, demand, etc. In such a case, I can distinguish between the methods used to make the choice in the distribution of outcomes. This remains true when marginalizing over unknown/unknowable variables, because the information you do possess actually contains some predictive content about the outcomes even if it's incomplete. Therefore, who makes the decision is 'meaningful' in the sense that it makes a difference.

In the case of what I'm calling 'empty choices', the human and all other decision-making processes have an identical distribution of outcomes when marginalized over the unknown variables.



Incorrect. Let's go back to goto124's Assassin again.

The players and their characters do not know there's an Assassin. This does not stop one of them from suspecting there is an Assassin and preparing appropriately. When the GM decides there will, in fact, be an Assassin, the player's decisions will have influenced that encounter's outcome even before any real knowledge of the Assassin existed either way.

Once again, choice with unknown value is not empty.

This comes down to precisely defining the scenario. If the players truly have no pre-information about the assassin, then this introduces a second level of gameplay - essentially, it's playing the metagame rather than playing the game. The characters have no reason to suspect an assassin, but the players may have a reason to suspect an assassin on the basis of knowing their DM's tendencies or something along those lines. In that case, I think this isn't such a good example, because it's folding in what people feel about metagame play into an example about railroading, so it's combining two fairly contentious topics in a single debate.

If you introduce the metagame level of play though, you quickly start to have problems specifying precisely what is and isn't known, as well as what is and isn't fair game. It might, or might not be a protected form of agency for the players to use metagame information about the DM to try to plan ahead (e.g. if it's protected then the DM intentionally varying their style to invalidate the players' expectations could be considered foul game). Similarly, in such a case it's a comparable move for the DM to use their own experience with their players to bias the selection of encounters ('my players are always super-paranoid about perception, so I will simply not use stealth against them'). The metagame is potentially much richer than the game itself. So once you bring in the meta level this quickly becomes very complicated to reach a set of shared assumptions on.

Hawkstar
2015-05-04, 11:28 AM
Bringing back the example of the East Kingdom that got shifted to the West.

If the party decided to go West, and you prepared nothing for the West (really, you can't prepare for everything), you could:

1) Say 'Giant wall blocks your way! Don't try going around/above/under/through it!'

2) Say 'Okay, it's all wilderness here. Roll Survival. Oh, you want to roll Search etc? Roll roll. After 3 days, you find... nothing remotely interesting. You have [low amount of resources] now.'
The party has to restock, and the only place to do so is the city.

3) Say 'As you travel west, you come across the East West Kingdom...'

4) Roll random encounters and improvise everything.

2 is a more long-winded version of 3. If 4 is the only acceptable solution, why prepare anything at all? GMing can be combination of prepping and improvisation, and is a much easier and more reasonable approach for many GMs than pure improvisation.

As for the wishing ring: 'Okay, you unlock the door. On the other side, are monsters whose CRs are meant for level 10 characters. They've been that way for weeks before we even started the campaign. You're still level 2 because you skipped the whole storyline to obtain the key, which would've given you the XP. I'm rolling the dice in the open, no fudging.'

This could possibly be considered 'not railroading' for multiple reasons. But is it really? Instead of the rails blocking you from leaving, they kill you for it.

If the discussion goes to XP for killing vs overcoming encounters: in the above example, the DM could easily say that since they spent very little effort to unlock the door, they get no XP for it. But what happens when the DM rules more and more 'smart plans by the PC' as gaining significantly reduced XP because the route was less difficult per say?
Who said the city was in the west? If it's just the DM to himself in prep, it doesn't count.

Knaight
2015-05-04, 12:12 PM
You seem to be stuck on the first ten seconds of game play. Ok, the players sit down and the DM says ''there is a vampire bandit making an undead army to raid all the lands.'' Ok, so this is ''no plot, just a situation''. But, at the elven second mark, when the players decide to do something....you need a plot.
Unless you are defining literally any GM input into events as a plot (which is a terrible definition), this doesn't follow. It's also not much of a situation - what's going on around the PCs is unknown, their involvement is unknown, and there's nothing to work with. To use a different example, I started a game recently with the situation of the PCs being huddled behind cover which is rapidly being eroded by enemy fire, on a battlefield where their side is clearly losing. There are a lot of different decisions that can be made there, which then have other actors reacting to them in various ways. Some are really dumb - staying behind said rapidly eroding cover or making a charge pretty much ends in getting shot unless the dice really favor you, but they're there. The PCs then got out of that situation, and tried to make their way out of that battle. Again, there are a lot of ways to try that, some of which are pretty much doomed to end really poorly. They ended up shooting down an enemy transport, taking it, and getting it just stabilized enough to get the heck out of the battlefield. That wasn't planned, it wasn't part of some plot, it emerged from the actions thus far. It also led them immediately into the next situation, which was one of being stranded in enemy territory on a wrecked ship with minimal supplies, which then has its own accompanying course of actions that can follow.

This continues for a while, and there are plenty of places where drama emerges. There's the discovery of lists of the dead and an overthrow of their military. There's the chance meeting with a close friend of someone that the PCs killed - which would never have happened had they not decided to solve their food problems by heading to a town, and then subsequently by saying that they were survivors of that battle. There was the beginning of the involvement of the PCs in the criminal underworld, itself triggered by their attempts to get off planet before they were hunted down and killed. Every NPC in that was improvised, plenty have room to become more major players, and there's a story emerging from that already.


Unless your adventure is ''randomly kill monsters, loot, repeat'' it does. And adventure is a succession of set encounters that advance the plot. There simply is no other way to do it.
I'm pretty sure the overview above doesn't fit into "randomly kill monsters, loot, repeat". Yet the encounters weren't set, with the notable exception of the very first one that was the literal beginning of the game. The theft of the enemy drop ship for escape purposes? Not set. The flight of the stolen dropship and the attempt to keep that in the air? Not set. The conversation with the friend of the slain soldier, and the need to keep that particular detail hidden? Not set. Hiding from the new police forces and their psychics when trying to get to the space port? Not set. The conversation with two smugglers that detecting the psychic scans of one of the PCs and went to investigate if they were from said new police forces? Not set. There's an order to that, and the introduction of each of these events and the way they were handled created an emerging narrative, but there was never a succession of set encounters that advance the plot. There was a plot that emerged retroactively from encounters that emerged from the setting.


Right. But see your talking about different plots. And sure, at any time the players can give up, decide not to follow a plot and not play the game. But that is not much fun.

And if the DM choces to not railroad again, for plot #2, the players can again give up, decide not to follow a plot and not play the game. And that can happen with plot #3 and #4, until maybe by chance the players follow a plot.....or the DM railroads them.
I'm talking about emerging narratives, none of which are necessarily "followed". I'm talking about the players deciding to do things, and then the interactions between PCs and setting elements having an effect.

draken50
2015-05-04, 01:05 PM
Also, while I'm at it, Draken50 your personal assessment of players as mainly whiny idiots who don't understand anything about the game or your plight does not seem relevant to the conversation.

I never made that assessment, nor did I say that the players grousing was in anyway unearned. At this point however, the examples brought forth as railroading are so disparate between individual viewpoints that it is the only accurate definition to fit all of the parameters.


I would add that unless my internet somehow connects me to the realm of the dead all of us go out and live a life, and that a "no railroading" experience is absolutely possible during a game. Last I remember, I was able to GM properly without putting my players on tracks and forgoing their imput.

Right right, blah blah blah. Here's the thing buddy, now that you're nice and defensive about how players don't need to be railroaded ect. What I want you to do, is go ahead and read the thread and realize, that no matter how little you consider yourself a "railroader" someone on here thinks by the mere application of illusion of choice, or not constantly having the world predefined even outside of player knowledge that.. you are in fact railroading... all the time... by someones definition.

Not mine by the way. Just... someones.

So what you call "roading" instead of "railroading" someone will call "railroading" and so on and so forth.

So yes, railroading is players grousing about the game. Doesn't mean they don't have good reason. Doesn't mean they do either, and without clearer definitions, or specific examples is has no meaning.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-04, 01:13 PM
Too many players think they are DM and they create and direct and control the game, that is the big problem. The truth is that players really don't have much ''agency'' in a game. That is simply not how RPG's work. At best players can get an illusion of player agency, but that is it.

Players have plenty of agency in a game if the GM gives them that agency. That you've apparently never played or run a game with player agency doesn't change the fact that they exist.



So if the DM makes a good sneaky assassin does that take away from the player agency? What about an optimized sneaky assassin? Does it matter if there is no optimized spotter character?

If the GM does this specifically to force a predetermined outcome in response to the players doing something that otherwise prevents that outcome from happening, yes it does. Agency requires informed and meaningful choices. Remove either element and you've removed agency. In this case, creating a super assassin because the players would otherwise catch any other is removing the "meaningful" aspect from their choices.



Your two examples of players getting their characters killed is exactly one of the reasons railroading exists. It keeps the game going. Sure the DM can sit back ''let the players have agency'' and let the characters fly into a black hole and die. Game over. Or the DM can railroad the characters back on to the right track and keep the game going.

I'm sorry, why is it game over again? Does the story end when a player dies? I'll be sure to let Marget Weiss and Tracy Hickman know that the Dragon Lance series should have ended when Sturm died. I'll be sure to let my players know that the fact that none of them are currently playing with their original characters, that we need to start all over again because the story should have ended 6 months ago.

This is precisely why so many people have a dim view of railroading. It isn't because the tool itself is inherently bad it's because so many of the GMs who use it as a matter of course seem to believe (and you appear to be included in this group) that leaving the rails should result in an immediate and complete dead end.



I wonder what author you think has never used a plot? Same with an RPG?

Where plot is as you're defining it (a series of predetermined events that the characters must follow), I've heard a number of authors speak about how when they write books, the characters will sometimes take them in new and surprising directions that they did not plan. They also have gone on to say that quite often, if they try to force the characters back into the plot they had in mind, it usually doesn't work out so well. Yes, the end result has a plot, but it's the pre-determined part that you're so hung up on that doesn't happen.

As for RPGs, multiple people in this very thread have already told you their experiences. You can of course choose to ignore them and assume that you and only you are privy to the truth that happens at their tables, or you can acknowledge their experiences and consider that perhaps your (singular) view of running a TTRPG is not the only way of doing so.


This is where it gets tricky: A basic plot only has one path. That is why it's a plot. Players do get a little wiggle room to change some things, but not too much and not the big things. And in any game that is not epic in scope and power, the PC's can't change too much.

Lets take a Star Wars RPG playing out New Hope. The plot is all about destroying the Death Star. And the Death Star has only one weakness: the vent port. So, that is the only real option the players have to destroy the Death Star.

The problem here is that you're already starting from the premise that the outcome is determined. The rebel alliance wins and does so by destroying the death star. You've already come to the table knowing how the story ends. This is why the only option you have is to railroad.

Your alternative is to come to the table with a series of actors and levers and let the players loose and see what happens. They might just blow up the death star. Or maybe they will outrun the star destroyer and Luke will be bypassed entirely. Maybe they'll decide the empire is a better bet and trade sides, selling out the alliance. Maybe they'll get captured in cell block 1138. The point is that you don't know what will happen until you play the game. Yes, when you get to the end of the game, you will have created a plot. The key difference is whether you know who will go where, and when and how and what happens at the end before the dice are thrown.

If the only choices you have when you sit down at the table are "Specific Outcome A" or "Complete Utter and Abject Failure Usually Resulting in Certain Doom" then yes, you need a railroad (or extremely cooperative and lucky players) to get to Specific Outcome A. Or if it helps, look at it this way, history is full of drama, conflict and classic tales of heroism so compelling they become legends in their own right. But (barring your specific religious or philosophical beliefs which are not germane for the purposes of this argument), there was no grand GM moving characters and people as pawns to create this story. There was no railroad that inevitably and inexorably forced everyone into just the right spots to ensure this one outcome that is the present day. Instead all their were were independent actors moving and reacting as they do and creating a story out of nothing. So it is with TTRPGs, there's no need to have a grand plot with a predetermined outcome to generate drama and a good story.


Some of the people on this thread who are arguing against Quantum Ogre are also arguing for that kind of improvisation, so I'm pointing out that actually 'improvisation' and 'Quantum Ogre' have a lot in common.

Sure they have things in common. But they also have differences and those differences are what makes one thing a Quantum Ogre and another improvisation. You'll get no argument from me that 3 identical chests whose contents are determined by random roll once opened does not allow for player agency. But it also doesn't make it a Quantum Ogre either.

At the same time, a GM who has drawn up a world with a forest to the north and simply notes that dangerous things live in the forest, who then grabs a pre-built ogre encounter from their rolodex and slots it into the encounter when the players decide to enter the woods may or may not have taken away agency, but they haven't engaged in a Quantum Ogre either.


Yes, this is why it comes down to using these tools well rather than just flailing around with them. The danger zone, IMO, is when you specifically take action in order to thwart the players. People will notice that they're constantly under-performing and furthermore they'll certainly resent that when they find out. Certainly its unlikely to make things more enjoyable for the person being thwarted. Beneficial fudging is safer but you still have to watch out: some players will get annoyed if they find out you've been fudging in their favor, but that attitude is generally rarer and you can tell who those players are going to be ahead of time pretty easily by seeing how they react to stress and tension.

But I think almost all players would in practice be okay with 'fudging to avoid the game being boring', such as adding a 4th clue that didn't exist before when the players are stuck on a mystery or things like that, even if they'd argue against it in a a philosophy-of-gaming debate such as this one.

Anyhow, for all these things, if you do it well then even when your players find out later they'll still be okay with it and even grateful for it.

I think you and I are in violent agreement on this point. As I've repeatedly said, these are tools and neither good nor bad in and of themselves. But it is important for us to recognize the tools, recognize the patterns and further be able to articulate the reasons for using these tools in order to generate good fun for the group. As a GM your job is to use your tools to help make the game fun (just like players have a job to use their tools for the same). In the end, if the use of a Quantum Ogre, or a fudged roll, or a full on railroad serves to make the game more fun for the group, then it's a good thing. But before you can make the determination that it's being used in the interests of fun, you must be honest with yourself and the reasons you're using the tool. Chances are, if the only reason you can articulate to use of of these tools is "I spent so much time on this" or "there's no other way for the players to get to MY ending" then chances are you're not using it in the furtherance of group fun (although you may be, context after all is everything).


This is a logical fallacy. A choice with no ability to influence the outcome is not a choice, it's just an illusion - a lie your brain convinces itself of because it uses heuristics rather than statistical analysis for its decision-making processes.

...

You can literally replace 'you' in the choice-making process with any other random or deterministic process and doing so will not influence the probability of the outcomes in either case. When the chooser is irrelevant to the process, I wouldn't call that a 'meaningful' choice. But perhaps this is a terminology issue again, and I should just stick to saying it isn't real 'agency' rather than real 'choice'.

I think this is a terminology issue. As I said earlier, agency requires two components: The ability to make informed choices and the ability to make meaningful choices. Both must be present to have full agency. And please note to that the requirement is that the ability is there, not necessarily that the players have the information or the meaning right now. The more obvious form of agency removal is when you remove the "meaningful" aspect. No matter the choice made, the outcome is predestined or your choices are otherwise thwarted or invalidated. But choices without information can still be meaningful in that your choice has an impact in what happens, even if you had no way of making a determination of what that choice would entail. The obvious example is the one we've been using, but it could also be something like the Alice in Wonderland bottles, with nothing more than a tag that says "Drink Me". The players have no way of knowing what might or might not happen, but their choice to drink or not will certainly be meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

It's also worth noting that player agency is not necessarily a binary thing, players can have some agency, but not full agency. For example, imagine a scenario like the end of Ghostbusters, where the players must "choose the form of the destroyer". There's little ability to make an informed choice, and it's hardly meaningful from the standpoint of no matter what (fluffy, soft and marshmallowy) choice is made, the players will be bringing a city destroying monster to life. But it is meaningful in the sense that the choice they make can fundamentally alter the type of tactics they might need to use, and it can be an informed choice if the players know that fact (or can guess it) up front. So from one perspective, there is no agency, from the other there is.


You seem to be stuck on the first ten seconds of game play. Ok, the players sit down and the DM says ''there is a vampire bandit making an undead army to raid all the lands.'' Ok, so this is ''no plot, just a situation''. But, at the elven second mark, when the players decide to do something....you need a plot.

No, you need reactions. No plot necessary.



Most DM's need a bit more time, like days. So if a player does say suddenly and randomly ''I want to do X'', the DM will have to respond with ''Ok, I'll make something up for the next game."

How is that making a plot though? The players decide "I want to go into the forest". So the GM goes away, and comes back next week with a forest populated with various creatures, and artifacts. That still doesn't require a plot. Nothing about that process requires the GM to come up with a list of things the PCs must do or fail/die. Nothing about that requires the GM forcing the players down the left path first and then the right and then the middle. And nothing about that requires the GM to decide that the only way for the players to leave the forest is to find and defeat the guardian king, who can only be destroyed with the macguffin of doom, which they must quest through all the stated encounters in a very specific order to find.


Unless your adventure is ''randomly kill monsters, loot, repeat'' it does. And adventure is a succession of set encounters that advance the plot. There simply is no other way to do it.

You've been given multiple examples to the contrary in this thread alone. At this point, it seems like you're intentionally trying to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit with your world view.



Actually, based on the example of a friend, I've started trying to erase the player-GM barrier as much as possible. As in, "add any details to the world you see fit" (with GM-veto reserved but so far unused) and "hey, since your character isn't present, why don't you play this NPC?" And I'm actively looking for ways to go beyond that.

It has gone unbelievably well. Like, "I had no idea what I was missing, I will never go back," just-got-out-of-Plato's-cave well. It takes some adjusting to get used to, and it relies on a great deal of good faith between everyone at the table, but I've been lucky with my players - and most of them haven't even gone as far with it as they could have.

And I'm not saying we had a nice fun random fluff game, with no clear understanding of what was going to happen from session to session. We had the best, deepest, most-meaningful story of a game that I have ever had the privilege to participate in.

I'm prone to exaggerating, as is everyone in this non-place we call the internet, but I can promise you that I'm not inflating anything in this particular example. Trust me.

This is one of those lessons I really wish more TTRPGs had in the book. When you're stuck on something or just don't feel like making something up, or don't have something made up, asking your players can not only generate new and interesting things, but can also keep them actively engaged and more involved in the story being developed. I had a session where the players encountered a magical sword. I'll I had were some stats and a name, and once the players got it, they wanted to know more about it. I let the party bard go to town coming up with the tale of this magical sword and now we have a new piece of lore, but I also have 4 or 5 new quest hooks and leads to use and the party now wants to track down the rest of the armor that went with this sword (which didn't exist until the Bard declared it did). It's fun and honestly, takes a lot of pressure off the GM too.


I'm not sure if you're being ironic here, but the point of the 'modern' view is to interpret the participants in the game as entities which are endowed with agency. When that agency comes into conflict, you could either have an external judge to determine the outcome, a systematic rule for it, or a random process. But the reasoning there is very very different than the sort of reasoning behind wargames.

In the particular modern view I was referring to (which does not cover all games, but it's a more represented design viewpoint now than, say, 40 years ago) the randomness its about fairness to equal participants and breaking that tie in a symmetric way. In older wargames, its about constructing a model of the world - a soldier with a gun sometimes misses a target or hits, so in order to model that you needed non-deterministic elements.

This strikes me as a very arbitrary line you've drawn. In a wargame, the players have agency as well and the dice are used to resolve then that agency comes into conflict. The conflict in the agency comes from the desire to model the world but it's conflict none the less. It's still about fairness to equal participants.



Right right, blah blah blah. Here's the thing buddy, now that you're nice and defensive about how players don't need to be railroaded ect. What I want you to do, is go ahead and read the thread and realize, that no matter how little you consider yourself a "railroader" someone on here thinks by the mere application of illusion of choice, or not constantly having the world predefined even outside of player knowledge that.. you are in fact railroading... all the time... by someones definition.

Not mine by the way. Just... someones.

So what you call "roading" instead of "railroading" someone will call "railroading" and so on and so forth.

So yes, railroading is players grousing about the game. Doesn't mean they don't have good reason. Doesn't mean they do either, and without clearer definitions, or specific examples is has no meaning.

Your players could also grouse that you smell bad, look like you just got out of the shower and are personally planning on murdering them all in their sleep. That doesn't make it true. That's what this discussion is about, defining terms and what they mean for you as a GM so that you can be better at making your game. Caring about what people who are objectively wrong think about what you're doing is pointless and a waste of time.

That said, you seem to be getting awfully worked up over a disagreement about the definition of a descriptive term for a series of observable behaviors in a pretend magic elf game. It might be worth taking a step back and cooling off. No need to get mean.

CombatBunny
2015-05-04, 02:14 PM
Right right, blah blah blah. Here's the thing buddy, now that you're nice and defensive about how players don't need to be railroaded ect. What I want you to do, is go ahead and read the thread and realize, that no matter how little you consider yourself a "railroader" someone on here thinks by the mere application of illusion of choice, or not constantly having the world predefined even outside of player knowledge that.. you are in fact railroading... all the time... by someones definition.


Your players could also grouse that you smell bad, look like you just got out of the shower and are personally planning on murdering them all in their sleep. That doesn't make it true. That's what this discussion is about, defining terms and what they mean for you as a GM so that you can be better at making your game. Caring about what people who are objectively wrong think about what you're doing is pointless and a waste of time.

That said, you seem to be getting awfully worked up over a disagreement about the definition of a descriptive term for a series of observable behaviors in a pretend magic elf game. It might be worth taking a step back and cooling off. No need to get mean.

No, no, I think that even if Draken50 got a little bit irritate, he has a good point.

Digesting the posts once again (one of many), I perceive that almost everyone uses terms as “significant”, “meaningful”, “agency”, “limiting”, etc. to describe railroading. Sadly, all of those are subjective terms, so it pretty much depends on how much agency each of us enjoy, it’s a matter of personal taste.

I don’t want to get philosophic, but there is no thing as complete agency, not even in real life because decisions are being limited by our culture, family, nation, gender, species, knowledge, current mood, weather, stress, expectations, etc.

The problem is that everyone is trying to impose their personal tastes as an absolute definition: "From where I’m standing and beyond is not railroading, everything else is".

So yes, I personally believe that railroading is a pretty much misunderstood term, but it is no use to try to define it, just as it doesn’t makes any sense to try to get the perfect and universal definition for “good music”. Draken50 is right, you will be railroading from someone’s point of view and you won’t be railroading from another one.

The reason that all of us are giving that much importance to this thread, is that what the majority thinks about something, it does has the potential to make it true. That’s why dictionaries change and adapt to what the majority agrees with, even if it was originally considered “wrong”. If you suddenly were transported to a planet where the definition of “clean” would be to take a shower every 15 minutes, then yes, you would actually become a filthy person.

draken50
2015-05-04, 02:33 PM
Your players could also grouse that you smell bad, look like you just got out of the shower and are personally planning on murdering them all in their sleep. That doesn't make it true. .

Yeah, it doesn't make it false either.

Here's the thing. My players complaining that I smell, isn't anything worth discussing except between myself and my players.

And I do believe that discussion is overall quite useful. It helps as a GM to see player stories where they felt that the GM exercised to much control/power and termed it "railroading". I think it's worthwhile to discuss what was bothersome and why they felt that particular way.

The thing is, by discussing particular examples or behaviors, even in the case of the "Quantum Ogre" or "Illusion of choice" opinions can be had or shared, and players and GMs can actually get a better understanding of the mindsets they may encounter.

Trying to lump it all into some BS called "railroading" and arguing about who is or is not, and what is or is not "railroading" serves no purpose. Because it attempts to create into a binary/Boolean definition of good/bad railroading/not railroading.

Where the mindset that a term means the players are complaining was taken as "You think all the players are whiny jerks, and you don't value player input."

There is no A or B, or binary solution however you want. Here's a pleasant little song about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGErC6QQdoc

1337 b4k4
2015-05-04, 02:34 PM
No, no, I think that even if Draken50 got a little bit irritate, he has a good point.

Digesting the posts once again (one of many), I perceive that almost everyone uses terms as “significant”, “meaningful”, “agency”, “limiting”, etc. to describe railroading. Sadly, all of those are subjective terms, so it pretty much depends on how much agency each of us enjoy, it’s a matter of personal taste.

I don’t want to get philosophic, but there is no thing as complete agency, not even in real life because decisions are being limited by our culture, family, nation, gender, species, knowledge, current mood, weather, stress, expectations, etc.

The problem is that everyone is trying to impose their personal tastes as an absolute definition: "From where I’m standing and beyond is not railroading, everything else is".

So yes, I personally believe that railroading is a pretty much misunderstood term, but it is no use to try to define it, just as it doesn’t makes any sense to try to get the perfect and universal definition for “good music”. Draken50 is right, you will be railroading from someone’s point of view and you won’t be railroading from another one.

The reason that all of us are giving that much importance to this thread, is that what the majority thinks about something, it does has the potential to make it true. That’s why dictionaries change and adapt to what the majority agrees with, even if it was originally considered “wrong”. If you suddenly were transported to a planet where the definition of “clean” would be to take a shower every 15 minutes, then yes, you would actually become a filthy person.

Sure there are degrees of this. We've all acknowledged that. And likewise we've all acknowledged that an exact definition is difficult to pin down. But that isn't what Draken50 said. He used that as examples to reach his conclusion, but his ultimate conclusion was that "railroading is players grousing about the game [for whatever reason legitimate or not]" which is infact not what railroading is. Railroading as a definitive "what is" might be hard to pin down, but there are definitely things one can say that it isn't.

If a player takes a swing at another players character and rolls and misses because the other character has high AC, they might grouse about it, but it's not railroading.

If a player looks at the rules and realizes they can't build a wizard with 500 spell slots at level 1 who can wrestle with the fiercest of house cats and live to tell the tail, they might grouse about that, but it isn't railroading.

If a player opens the door marked "Beware the Leopard" and gets attacked by the leopard behind the door, they may grouse about that, but it isn't railroading.

If a player can't jedi mind trick jabba the hutt, they may grouse about that, but it isn't railroading

If a player has a string of bad luck, rolling 1s and 2s all night long, they may grouse about things being unfun but that isn't railroading.

So clearly, there are things which are players grousing about the game that are also not railroading. QED Railroading is not players grousing about the game.


Edit
---------------



Trying to lump it all into some BS called "railroading" and arguing about who is or is not, and what is or is not "railroading" serves no purpose. Because it attempts to create into a binary/Boolean definition of good/bad railroading/not railroading.

The only people in this thread that seem particularly interested in defining good or bad railroading is yourself and Darth. Most everyone else appears to agree that it's a tool in the GM's basket, one which has some dangers associated with it, but is a tool none the less. Some have expressed a preference for more or less uses of railroading, but "good" or "bad" has mostly not entered into it.

Futhermore, there is absolutely a value in grouping certain behaviors together into a single term because it allows us to have a discussion without having to specify "a series of behaviors associated with creating a predetermined series of outcomes, which are the only ones the players are allowed to achieve and the actions of thwarting player choice and actions to ensure those outcomes are reached and the further punishment of players who leave the designated plot path and the occasional (but not required) GM mindset that puts pride in the GMs work ahead of player ability to make informed and meaningful (for certain definitions of informed and meaningful) choices about their characters and the path those characters would or would not take within the context of the defined role playing world. With the caveat that sometimes players will wilfully and happily go along with these behaviors in the interests of fun or seeking out an obvious end to a particular story thread. And futher noting that not all cases of these behaviors imply bad actions on the part of the GM or ill intent and that these behaviors may be used in the successful increase of group fun."

Frankly, I'm much happier typing out "railroading" to refer to that, and then dealing with individual cases as they come up, rather than typing that mouthful every time we have this discussion.

draken50
2015-05-04, 02:48 PM
Sure there are degrees of this. We've all acknowledged that. And likewise we've all acknowledged that an exact definition is difficult to pin down. But that isn't what Draken50 said. He used that as examples to reach his conclusion, but his ultimate conclusion was that "railroading is players grousing about the game [for whatever reason legitimate or not]" which is infact not what railroading is. Railroading as a definitive "what is" might be hard to pin down, but there are definitely things one can say that it isn't.

You sure?



If a player takes a swing at another players character and rolls and misses because the other character has high AC, they might grouse about it, but it's not railroading.

"Why aren't you giving me a reasonable chance to do so? I think he should be flat footed, he's not expecting me to attack. Stop railroading just because you don't want him to be hit!"



If a player looks at the rules and realizes they can't build a wizard with 500 spell slots at level 1 who can wrestle with the fiercest of house cats and live to tell the tail, they might grouse about that, but it isn't railroading.


"Oh so I can't intimidate the old woman because she a house cat? Or investigate the barn, because they have a house cat? Or punch this kid because his cat will attack me? Or cast a spell that blinds all my enemies with light like Gandalf because you 'won't let me have it'? Stop Railroading!"



If a player opens the door marked "Beware the Leopard" and gets attacked by the leopard behind the door, they may grouse about that, but it isn't railroading.


"You made it so we had to open that door, and you wouldn't have put it there if you didn't want us to open it. Railroader"



If a player can't jedi mind trick jabba the hutt, they may grouse about that, but it isn't railroading


"You picked that enemy just because my ability wouldn't work on it... way to railroad."



If a player has a string of bad luck, rolling 1s and 2s all night long, they may grouse about things being unfun but that isn't railroading.


"I rolled a twenty when it went under the table but you made me re-roll it. You just don't want me to succeed. I bet even if I rolled high nothing would work, because you're so obviously a railroader."



So clearly, there are things which are players grousing about the game that are also not railroading. QED Railroading is not players grousing about the game.

And yet I called you a railroader in every example. It's almost like... the specific term the player uses when complaining isn't really that important is it?

kyoryu
2015-05-04, 03:13 PM
What you're describing is toxic player behavior there.

Toxic players exist, and will find any argument to get what they want when things don't go their way. They don't care about "railroading". They care about getting what they want.

The fact that toxic players will call things railroading if that lets them get their way is irrelevant. It really is. That's just a tool in their chest, and if a GM responds to it, great, and if the GM doesn't respond to it, they'll use something else. If we judge what is acceptable by this type of toxic player, then nothing is acceptable if the toxic player doesn't get what they want, and everything is acceptable if they do.

That also doesn't mean that railroading isn't a thing, that reasonable people might have opinions about. I'm sorry that you've seen it typically used as an excuse by such toxic players, and I can understand why you might associate the concept with such toxic players if that's the only place you've encountered it.

But that's why having a reasonable definition is useful, as well. Then we can talk about railroading, and the excuse of it as two separate things, instead of being forced to conflate them.

Alberic Strein
2015-05-04, 08:53 PM
Right right, blah blah blah. Here's the thing buddy, now that you're nice and defensive about how players don't need to be railroaded ect. What I want you to do, is go ahead and read the thread and realize, that no matter how little you consider yourself a "railroader" someone on here thinks by the mere application of illusion of choice, or not constantly having the world predefined even outside of player knowledge that.. you are in fact railroading... all the time... by someones definition.
Good for them. They're wrong.

And I can pretty much answer that for every single example you put through in your last post.

And why can I put forth that belief that those examples are wrong and unneeded and a way to shift the discussion away from what this discussion actually is?

We are either discussing "railroading", what it is on a theoritical level, what an objective definition of railroading today is, for rational and thought out reasons, and eventually reaching a definition we can all agree on. A constructive discussion. Or we're discussing how players can be so haunted by a thing they dislike that they see it everywhere and how that can makes DMing difficult. Why not. Or we're discussing how people in general and players in particular can be dishonest when things don't go their way and like to use a common scapegoat to avoid facing the consequence of their bad choices.

And there is nothing really to say about the latter.

Either they, in good faith, feel like you're railroading them and it irritates them and you need to amend your views (maybe create a thread discussing the best examples of railroading, or non-intrusive railroading, or how to achieve the results you seek with different ways?) or change players.

Or they just say "railroading" because it has a bad rep, due in no small part to the abusive uses this tool sees; And there no reason to masquerade this as actually discussing "railroading" when it's just a thread to discuss how players seem to enjoy shifting the blame away from them and onto the DM.

We can't discuss what every and any player calls railroading, first because we don't have every player here, or a survey on the subject or anything, and secondly because it may not be relevant. As people, even en masse, can be wrong too. But that's not even what you're putting forth in your examples. Your example are all about how a player can use fallacies, bad logic, and bad faith to call anything railroading, with no actual reasoning behind that besides "but I failed, it gotta be unfair!". There is nothing to discuss about that. There is no reason to care about what people will claim railroading to be, with no rhyme nor reason to their claims. Legitimate, logically sounds examples are something. Dishonest one-liners are nothing to care about in a discussion about the nature and uses of a term.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-04, 09:27 PM
You sure?

Yes I'm sure, again, calling a cat a dog doesn't make it so, no matter how loudly you do it.



And yet I called you a railroader in every example. It's almost like... the specific term the player uses when complaining isn't really that important is it?

Sure it's important. If you can't determine what specific behaviors your players are complaining about by connecting the words they use to behaviors you're engaging in, you can't improve.

Alternatively, if you can't determine that the words they're using don't mesh with the behaviors you're engaging in (or at least think you're engaging in) then you can't ask them for clarification.

We use language, and words and their definitions to facilitate communication. If we can't agree on the words and their general meanings (even if not their specifics) then we can't communicate. If we can't communicate then we can't game.

NichG
2015-05-04, 10:23 PM
I think you and I are in violent agreement on this point.

Yes, I think so as well.



I think this is a terminology issue. As I said earlier, agency requires two components: The ability to make informed choices and the ability to make meaningful choices. Both must be present to have full agency. And please note to that the requirement is that the ability is there, not necessarily that the players have the information or the meaning right now. The more obvious form of agency removal is when you remove the "meaningful" aspect. No matter the choice made, the outcome is predestined or your choices are otherwise thwarted or invalidated. But choices without information can still be meaningful in that your choice has an impact in what happens, even if you had no way of making a determination of what that choice would entail. The obvious example is the one we've been using, but it could also be something like the Alice in Wonderland bottles, with nothing more than a tag that says "Drink Me". The players have no way of knowing what might or might not happen, but their choice to drink or not will certainly be meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

It's also worth noting that player agency is not necessarily a binary thing, players can have some agency, but not full agency. For example, imagine a scenario like the end of Ghostbusters, where the players must "choose the form of the destroyer". There's little ability to make an informed choice, and it's hardly meaningful from the standpoint of no matter what (fluffy, soft and marshmallowy) choice is made, the players will be bringing a city destroying monster to life. But it is meaningful in the sense that the choice they make can fundamentally alter the type of tactics they might need to use, and it can be an informed choice if the players know that fact (or can guess it) up front. So from one perspective, there is no agency, from the other there is.


It may be a quibble, but I'd consider both cases both informed and meaningful. In the Alice case, the choice is between status quo and change. You don't know what the change will be (it's not complete information), but you do have some information that one choice will likely have an unknown effect on you whereas in the case of the other choice, nothing will happen. In the Ghostbusters case, as you say, the choice you make will influence the tactics available. That actually does translate to a meaningful choice because it can determine victory versus loss if you make it correctly.

Maybe its just so finely divided at this point that any real example isn't going to be a pure example?



This strikes me as a very arbitrary line you've drawn. In a wargame, the players have agency as well and the dice are used to resolve then that agency comes into conflict. The conflict in the agency comes from the desire to model the world but it's conflict none the less. It's still about fairness to equal participants.


I think you can interpret things in all sorts of ways, but I'm trying to recapture the mindset used when actually designing the games in the first place. Not 'how can this be interpreted', since we're all living in an age where ideas like player agency have been hashed out carefully and integrated into the game design, but rather 'what were Gygax & co thinking?' or even 'what were the designers of Chainmail thinking?'. Certainly its impossible for me to actually know now, but there's a body of writing on game analysis and game design to draw from to construct a picture of the history of ideas.

From my recollection, it was roughly in the late 90s/early 2000s that people started seriously talking about analyzing games in these ways (all the GNS stuff, The Forge, etc). Even if things have moved on quite a bit since then, that's kind of the watershed change in mindset in game design.

1337 b4k4
2015-05-04, 10:58 PM
Maybe its just so finely divided at this point that any real example isn't going to be a pure example?

Pretty much. Once you get down to Status Quo vs Change as an informed and meaningful choice, and choice that isn't 100% forced with no possibility of change no matter what you do is technically a choice with some agency. For the sake of this sort of discussion though, that level of theoretical hair splitting isn't very useful. But it's also why I say agency isn't a binary "on/off" thing. Most discussions about player agency are discussions on "how much" player agency rather than whether there is any at all.

As Darth pointed out, even in a complete straightjacket of railroad, where you are in a locked hallway with no windows, no door behind you and only one exit in front of you, the player can always choose to sit and not go anywhere, and that's certainly a meaningful (if not informed) choice. But it's also terribly boring and unfun. I find it's more useful to consider "meaningful" and "informed" within the context of the specific and immediate dangers or options being presented.



From my recollection, it was roughly in the late 90s/early 2000s that people started seriously talking about analyzing games in these ways (all the GNS stuff, The Forge, etc). Even if things have moved on quite a bit since then, that's kind of the watershed change in mindset in game design.

I think game analysis has always been a thing, it's just the late 90's and early 2000's brought those like minded people together in a way that hadn't been possible before.

goto124
2015-05-05, 03:04 AM
Who said the city was in the west? If it's just the DM to himself in prep, it doesn't count.

Which is why I believe the Quantum Ogre is alright:


Yes, this is why it comes down to using these tools well rather than just flailing around with them. The danger zone, IMO, is when you specifically take action in order to thwart the players. People will notice that they're constantly under-performing and furthermore they'll certainly resent that when they find out. Certainly its unlikely to make things more enjoyable for the person being thwarted. Beneficial fudging is safer but you still have to watch out: some players will get annoyed if they find out you've been fudging in their favor, but that attitude is generally rarer and you can tell who those players are going to be ahead of time pretty easily by seeing how they react to stress and tension.

But I think almost all players would in practice be okay with 'fudging to avoid the game being boring', such as adding a 4th clue that didn't exist before when the players are stuck on a mystery or things like that, even if they'd argue against it in a a philosophy-of-gaming debate such as this one.

Anyhow, for all these things, if you do it well then even when your players find out later they'll still be okay with it and even grateful for it.

The players can't tell you'd originally placed the kingdom in the West, instead of the East. From their view, the kingdom had always been in the East. This is what I call Quantum Ogre.

Now, if the players knew the kingdom was in the East, that is problematic at least. You could say their source of information was unreliable. But wrong information is still a different beast from lack of information.

kyoryu
2015-05-05, 12:55 PM
"Is it okay?" Well, that's an interesting question.

To me, the answer has to be answered by your group. So, if you told them about the quantum ogre, would they be okay with it? If so, it's okay. If not, it's not okay.

If it's okay as long as you don't get caught... well... I think that usually means things aren't okay. I mean, I think "if I told the person that might be upset, would they be upset?" is usually a pretty good indicator of whether or not something is okay. Maybe even the best.

I mean, people have argued that improvisation is railroading (which I don't understand, but whatever). I tell my groups I improvise. I tell them what this means (less huge set pieces, more agency). And even then, after the fact, they often don't realize that I've improvised as much as I have. But they're okay with it, so that makes it okay.

Yukitsu
2015-05-05, 01:02 PM
To me, the term rather loses all meaning if it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

It's called railroading because there isn't really much choice. There may be some splits on the track here or there, but you ultimately don't get to deviate at all from the rails. You're on the train to Canterbury, the only thing you're going to be doing is moving forward, the only things you're going to see are the countryside and stops along the way to Canterbury, and the only speed you'll be travelling at is the speed the train goes at.

Some of the ways you're looking a t railroading feel more like a car. Yeah sure, roads, but offroading is hypothetically possible. If I forgot my wallet I can pull a u-turn. If I feel like it, I can make the trip making all left turns. If I want, I can change my mind half way and stop at a sandwich shop. Doesn't matter that the driver still may end up in Canterbury, there's a pretty clear difference between the one that took the car and the one that took the rails.