Roleplaying Linear Storytelling Vs. Railroading [Archive] - Page 2

neonchameleon

2015-12-24, 08:55 AM

But is not ''situation gets worse'' a plot? If you, the DM have a linear story running along, that makes a plot. And if thing A happens and B happens and C happens....that is a plot.

Or are you saying the plot must somehow directly involve the PCs?

I find it so odd that so many are frantic to say they don't use plot or stories in their game and that ''stuff just sort of happens''. It sounds great, I guess?

OK. There's a bit of history here. But first off, if there's an inciting incident and the PCs get to choose what to do about it, that's not plot so much as an inciting incident. It crosses the line to plot when the plan says how the PCs are meant to handle it.

But first we're going to go into Metaplot - the curse of RPGs in the 90s. With a metaplot heavy RPG (*cough*White Wolf*cough* although 2e wasn't immune) the adventures mostly involve following teh Awesum NPCs around as the NPCs do all the big stuff. Because that way the PCs can't derail the plot for the book-after-next. Or when the PCs do do the work you have things like the Dragonlance Obscure Death Rule where the PCs literally can't die because that would spoil the pre-scripted events.

(It's normally slightly subtler than that - but not a lot. And there are plenty of examples where the metaplot description is dead on).

The first actually good pre-plotted RPG was My Life With Master (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Life_with_Master) (winner of the 2004 Diana Jones Award). In MLWM the plot is always the same - and that's where all the mechanics lead. The Master (portrayed by the GM) mistreats the minions (the PCs) until one of them snaps and attacks the Master. And then that minion and the Master fight to the death - either the minion pushed beyond reason and self preservation heroically triumphs against overwhelming odds, or the minion dies tragically, the Master stands triumphant, and then the mob with pitchforks and torches turn up and drive master and minions out of town. Standard plot ending as either a tragedy or a fairly standard Hero's Journey.

But the methods are all up to the players including what makes the minion snap. And so it's a lot freer than any adventure path. (And not worth playing more than half a dozen times, but with such simple rules that doesn't matter).

One thing that trad RPGs don't do well is that moment of decision. That moment when you can't go back and aren't on the same path you were before. There's no actual act break whereas MLWM genuinely changes the rules for the protagonist between acts 2 and 4. (See Film Crit Hulk for more on plotting and structuring (https://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/hulk-presents-the-myth-of-3-act-structure/).)

ImNotTrevor

2015-12-24, 01:52 PM

Well, it is a plot. Sure you can say it is your own special unique plot.....but that is still a plot. Your saying that if the game is following plot A, and suddenly switches to plot B, then your game is not following a plot?

You previous lack of respect without any form of apology or even so much as an "oops" and continuous cherrypicking of posts and borderline troll behaviot will no longer be tolerated. I will not be engaging with you in discussion, and will discourage others from doing so as well.

I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

Darth Ultron

2015-12-24, 03:50 PM

You previous lack of respect without any form of apology or even so much as an "oops" and continuous cherrypicking of posts and borderline troll behaviot will no longer be tolerated. I will not be engaging with you in discussion, and will discourage others from doing so as well.

Ok.

I'll try some complex examples: With the basic adventure of Save the kidnapped princess.

Tyrant DM: This DM makes up the full adventure and all details. He makes a very straight and narrow plot, with events exactly the way he likes them. He might take in the players desires into account, of course, and give them at least somethings they say they want in the game. However, the plot only has one way to go. So Act 1 is the bar fight. No matter what the Pc's do, they will be arrested for brawling. So the Pc's are free to 'bar fight' all they want, but they can't get out of the tavern and will be arrested. Act 2 has the Pc's in jail, that they can not escape from no matter what. And the king will come to them and offer the deal of freedom in exchange for saving his daughter. The Pc's must accept the deal. And so on.

Classic DM: This DM makes up the full adventure and most of details, major ones at least. The DM has a vague and wide plot, but as aggressively arranged for things in the game to likely go only one way...but it is not set in stone. The DM generally has at least two outcomes planned for any encounter or action, and lots of half plots to fill in any holes as needed. All, while staying on the single plot. So Act 1 Still starts with the bar fight. The DM expects and hopes that the game play will lead to the Pc's getting captured, but it is not absurdly necessary. If the Pc's can escape, they can. And they will simply meet the king and get the offer in some other way. In Act 2 the Pc's can escape from jail, and if they do they will simply meet the king another way. The Pc's can only avoid meeting the king by extreme things like fleeing the country or killing the king. And it's possible that the Pc's might go really off the rails, but it won't effect the plot much as some NPC somewhere, somehow, will still offer the Pc's the job. It might be the evil queen from the next kingdom over, who wants the princess found and killed, by the Pc's will still need to rescue her first.

A sub type of the classic DM is the passive DM, a type that seems to be common at least on the boards. The classic DM aggressively arranges for things to most likely go one way. The passive DM does not. they keep things random and never put any influence on the game. So even though they create the encounter, they do so randomly or based on whatever rule they somehow find in a book that tells them what to do. The big difference between the aggressive Dm and the passive one is the time factor. The classic aggressive DM moves the plot along every quickly, while the passive DM can take hours, weeks, and forever to move along any plot. The classic aggressive DM will have the Pc's get the deal from the king(or another npc) in the first half hour of game play. The passive DM might take the whole game session, the next game session, several game sessions, or until 2017 to ever get to the plot as he just lets things develop without doing anything.

Now, railroading can be done by all types of DM's. The tyrant DM is often very crude with railroading, often to the point of being unfair. In the bar fight above, a classic DM might say have some thugs or guards at the back door the Pc's attempt to sneak out of...both perfectly reasonable in the game reality. The tyrant DM might just go for the easy way and have the backdoor impossible to open.

And players will complain whenever anything happens they don't like. So if the Pc's escape the bar fight, the king still finds them later at the inn they are staying in and still ''arrests(frames) the Pc's for the bar fight''. And the players could still scream railroading, even though it is very reasonable in the game world reailty for the king to be able to track down the Pc's and do that.

A lot of railroading cries are based around what the players think the game reality might be, at least to them. So, thugs in the back alley of the tavern if into their personal idea of game reality, so they won't call that railroading.

And a lot of railroading depends on how clever the DM is about the game world. For example, the king might have arranged to whole bar fight. So he might of had guards, or thugs, ready both at and near the tavern ready to act. And most intelligent players would agree this would be reasonable.

Though some players can be jerks and cry 'railroad' no matter what.

plllizzz

2015-12-25, 02:57 AM

It surprises me that noone noted that Darth's arguing style is extremely similar to Jedipotter's and that may as well be the same person.

which in result means all discussion with him is pretty pointless regardless.

did people just faze the man out of their memories? :D

neonchameleon

2015-12-25, 08:59 AM

Ok.

I'll try some complex examples: With the basic adventure of Save the kidnapped princess.
...
Tyrant DM:
...
Classic DM: This DM makes up the full adventure and most of details, major ones at least. The DM has a vague and wide plot, but as aggressively arranged for things in the game to likely go only one way...but it is not set in stone. The DM generally has at least two outcomes planned for any encounter or action, and lots of half plots to fill in any holes as needed. All, while staying on the single plot. So Act 1 Still starts with the bar fight. The DM expects and hopes that the game play will lead to the Pc's getting captured, but it is not absurdly necessary. If the Pc's can escape, they can. And they will simply meet the king and get the offer in some other way. In Act 2 the Pc's can escape from jail, and if they do they will simply meet the king another way. The Pc's can only avoid meeting the king by extreme things like fleeing the country or killing the king. And it's possible that the Pc's might go really off the rails, but it won't effect the plot much as some NPC somewhere, somehow, will still offer the Pc's the job. It might be the evil queen from the next kingdom over, who wants the princess found and killed, by the Pc's will still need to rescue her first.
...
A sub type of the classic DM is the passive DM
...
Now, railroading can be done by all types of DM's.

Well, yes. If you narrow the types down to the types you have, all with pre-plotted adventures. What you call the "Classic DM" is anything but classic - it's a product of the late 80s and the 90s and comes very close to the Illusionist DM (i.e. the DM with Quantum Ogres that are behind whichever door the PCs pick). All three of your DM types at least buy a ticket for the railroad with the same choice - having the DM write the plot of the adventure.

There are however two other approaches.

The Old School DM: The Old School DM writes a situation and says "Come at me, Bro." This is the mode of play of most old-school dungeons and even hexcrawls. The DM knows what is going on in the setting (and a large dungeon like Undermountain is a mini-setting in its own right) - but the PCs start out as an outside context problem, coming into the dungeon and either exploring or trashing it to obtain loot. The enemy army is due to invade - but the plans set up for it are entirely independent of the PCs and the GM responds to what the PCs do about it.

The Old School DM is how Arneson and Gygax ran their games. And the old 1GP = 1XP rule from oD&D, BECMI, and 1E is very desirable for a Classic DM to work properly whether running dungeon crawls or sandboxes as it encourages proactivity from the players and the players to not simply kill everything in sight (when a troll's loot is worth an average of three times the XP of killing the troll then not fighting it when you can burgle it instead is the smart move).

The No-Myth DM: Not only not having a plot that's built round the PCs, the No Myth DM doesn't even have much of a setting until after character creation. Just a couple of very basic pointers, but the setting is built round the PCs character creation. And once the setting has been created, the plot is built up round the players' choices. All good examples of this genre I can think of have narrative complications coming out of the PCs choices - and the good ones all have systems built for it. The at least semi-mainstream games in this genre are the Fate family (Fate, Dresden Files, Spirit of the Century, etc.), the Cortex Plus family (Smallville, Leverage, Firefly, and to an extent Marvel Heroic Roleplaying), and the Apocalypse World family (Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, Urban Shadows, and to an extent Dungeon World). All of them have rules designed to add non-linear narrative complications in the course of play, and to focus on the characters' weaknesses, meaning they enable the GM to grow the backstory up round the PCs. (You can run no myth in any system, but it's much much easier in one with good tools).

Darth Ultron

2015-12-26, 01:47 PM

There are however two other approaches.

Your two other ones are no plot ones...

The No-Myth DM: The at least semi-mainstream games in this genre

Right, I never said that there were not other games that have no plots or myths or whatever. I'm only talking about games like D&D.

And lets say you do the No Myth and No Plot style in D&D. So the DM has no pre-made thoughts or ideas and just comes to the game with a blank sheet of paper and a pen. And the whole game world is blank too, except for the ten foot square where the Pc's are standing.

After a couple minutes of the Pc's ''doing nothing'' and the players ''choosing what to do'' however, there comes the point where the DM must decide to have a plot or not. And that takes us back to how will the DM railroad the plot.

Misery Esquire

2015-12-26, 04:25 PM

First off, that's rather wilful misunderstanding of neonchameleon's statements, Darth Ultron.

But, anyway.

The difference between story-telling styles, to me, is best related via the following metaphor that will be familiar to people who have seen the Programming Languages joke ;

In Freeform you pass a handgun to the player(s) and ask them not to shoot you in the head. They shoot you in the foot.
In Linear you pass a handgun to the player(s) and ask them to shoot themselves in the foot to proceed.
In Railroading you shoot the player(s) in the foot and inform them that they chose to be shot in the foot.

There are of course, more ways to disguise the various steps, such as giving the gun to the players, then asking them to shoot themselves in the foot, and if they instead come up with a devious plan to shoot you in the foot you can either let them away with it (Free), or shoot them in the foot yourself (Rails). Then if you are attempting to maintain the linear line, no matter which result they get, you ask them to shoot themselves in the foot for the next step.

So, Freedom and Rails can graphed along Linear, but you can also slide from Linear to Freedom as well. The Rails Freedom line has been closed for permanent maintenance.

Apricot

2015-12-26, 04:53 PM

Darth Ultron

2015-12-26, 07:18 PM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but isn't the entire issue of railroading and player agency just about meaningful choice? That is, about choice that's meaningful to them, the players? From the players' perspective, I don't think they can tell the difference between the DM perfectly predicting everything that they want to do so that they can do it and the DM coming up with things on the fly to account for their desires. If it's indistinguishable, why is it such a big deal to say that there's a true form of this agency and a false form? The only potential issue is when things go wrong and the DM ends up showing human fallibility.

Some are saying they run games full of player choice and agency, where the players are the ones driving and controlling things and the DM is just sitting back and watching and doing only tiny little things. So the DM is not railroading as 'they'' don't have a plot.

I say any DM that is using a plot to tell a story must railroad. Railroading is a good and needed thing. And everyone disagrees.

In the case of the DM planning everything out, though, a mistake could take the form of the DM not preparing for a player choice or the players deciding that their actions aren't meaningful. In the first case, the DM is left flat-footed and either outright rejects a player's action or lets everything grind to a halt. In the second, the players lose their attachment to the game. This is why I feel that the Quantum Ogre style of DMing is limited: because it relies on the DM being a perfect human, when that's an oxymoron.

Sure, inexperienced DM's can be caught flat footed and grind the game to a halt. That does not happen with experienced DM's.

The Reverse Railroading(I hate quantum ogre) is unlimited. The DM does not need to be perfect, they only need to fool the players after all.

I don't mean to say that a DM has to be all one or all the other. In reality, the two mix. Still, thinking of player agency this way seems like it will lend a lot more to enjoyable roleplay. And what's more, there's thinking of things from the DM's perspective as well. I don't know what any DM would gain from a game with no player agency. They might as well just be playing out every character themselves, which seems boring. Isn't the fun of the game in seeing what the other people at the table throw out at you, whether they're players or the DM?

The player agency is a myth, a very strong myth that many believe, but still a myth. At least in any normal D&D game.

Take the most basic example. The DM has a big boos fight, that can go either way...the Pc's win or loose. So the players, think they have some sort of great and powerful agency to change the game world here.

If they forget:

1)The DM creates everything in the world, including the encounter...other then the Pcs
2)The DM controls everything in the game world. npcs and the laws of reality and everything in-between.
3)The DM controls the actions in the game world.

So first, the DM can create an easy, medium or hard encounter. Second, the DM can run an easy or medium or hard encounter. And lastly, no matter what happens, the DM is the only one who gets to say what happens.

For example: Lets take the evil cult trying to take over the city slowly through evil politics and such. The players come up with the crazy idea to attack and destroy the cults temple. The players are hoping to destroy the whole cult as if every cult member will just fade away if the temple is destroyed. Now, first of all. The DM is the one that makes the temple. And they can make it easy, medium or hard. And when the Pc's attack, the DM is in control if it will be easy, medium or hard. And finally, even if the Pc's do destroy the temple, the DM can just say ''oh, well, the 30 or so cultist that where not at the temple get a new high cleric and make a new temple''.

Now a lot of people say the DM does not control anything, yet somehow the DM creates, runs and describes the outcome of encounters. They try to say that some DM's are pure and fair and have no bias. In short they are saying there are perfect DM's out there.

I say that is impossible.

Misery Esquire

2015-12-26, 08:05 PM

I say any DM that is using a plot to tell a story must railroad. Railroading is a good and needed thing. And everyone disagrees.

A linear path (Story) does not need to equate to a railroad, though.

To go directly to the simple tried-and-tired dungeon-crawl style ;

Linear - A demon has kidnapped the king, and lives at the bottom of a 99 level dungeon. In order to be rewarded, the players have to bring the king back alive. The stage is set, the DM has told the players what they will be doing if they want to play what he has prepared for the week. The players can now attack the dungeon in any way they care to. Some of the ways they select will be defended against to prevent negation of the story, but that's not a railroad just a logical defence (ie ; Forbiddance/Weirdstoned against them Teleporting to the bottom). But they can still surprise the DM by choosing to dig through some of the floors, or coming up with ingenious solutions to puzzles rather than solving them. (ie ; Legend of Zelda's block moving puzzles. The PCs could simply Fabricate new blocks instead of moving them through the necessary steps.) And so on.

Railroad - A demon has kidnapped the king, and lives at the bottom of a 99 level dungeon. In order to be rewarded, the players have to bring back the king alive. As above, if the players want to play quickly, this is what the DM has. The difference being, the DM instead of just stopping things such as Teleport to the bottom, instead blocks every attempt to avoid any encounter in all 99 levels, no alternate solutions, no cheesing their way through. They think of a crazy way to avoid having to do a puzzle? NOPE! The players HAVE to do the puzzle as intended. They try to dig? Adamantine/Forcewall/Rivine Floors! They try to summon an outsider to deal with simple traps? NOPE! You have to have the Rogue Trapfind!

Linear only implies that there is a progression to the events taking place. (You move through the Dungeon levels 1 - 99.)
Railroading means that there is no choice but for those events to take place exactly as planned. (You HAVE to play levels 1 - 99 ONLY in the way the DM intended.)

If you think the Dungeon-Crawler is a bad example, provide any other scenario/story and I'll whip up the two opposing blocks.

goto124

2015-12-26, 10:51 PM

This is why I feel that the Quantum Ogre style of DMing is limited: because it relies on the DM being a perfect human, when that's an oxymoron.

I do not understand this part. Isn't the QO meant to help with the GM's inability to read minds?

Heck, the QO can be refluffed to fit the environment if required.

Apricot

2015-12-27, 01:24 AM

So you have three doors, say, and the Quantum Ogre will be behind whichever one you end up choosing, right? So the PCs decide to drill through the floor instead. Is the Quantum Ogre there? They summon Pazuzu and open a portal to the Lower Planes. Is the Quantum Ogre there? They turn around and go back the way they came. Is the Quantum Ogre there? The Quantum Ogre only stands as a solution for choices which the DM already had in mind from the start. People have a nasty habit of coming up with clever little ideas that one doesn't initially consider. This is the limit of the Quantum Ogre style of DMing: you need to have a set of encounters in mind which make sense for all the options which you think that the players can choose between. If someone picks a choice that you didn't have in mind and the Quantum Ogre doesn't work as a result of that choice, you're left flat-footed. Plus, people tend to be clever in all the worst ways. No matter how sly you think you're being, sooner or later someone's going to succeed on the proverbial Sense Motive check and realize what you're doing, or you're going to mess up and put the Quantum Ogre in a ridiculous place. That's why it assumes the DM to be perfect: it assumes they always have a perfect, pre-planned answer to suit whatever the players will decide to do. A more reasonable style is to be prepared to sacrifice some of your vaunted control to the players.

goto124

2015-12-27, 02:11 AM

Thanks for the explanation! Your argument makes more sense now.

"So the PCs decide to drill through the floor instead [snip] They summon Pazuzu and open a portal to the Lower Planes"

Where did the PCs get the drill from? The GM could say it attracts unwanted attention from nearby monsters. The GM could also say "drilling would take about 24 hours, and many monsters are sure to interrupt you in the meantime".

To what extent can the GM put a foot down and say the players are being inconsiderate for going outside what the game was meant for? "You summon Pazuzu? We agreed this game was about getting through the dungeon to get to the lair and defeating the evil creature there, not some shenanigans involving the Lower Planes."

Some of the ways they select will be defended against to prevent negation of the story, but that's not a railroad just a logical defence (ie ; Forbiddance/Weirdstoned against them Teleporting to the bottom).

But they can still surprise the DM by choosing to dig through some of the floors, or coming up with ingenious solutions to puzzles rather than solving them. (ie ; Legend of Zelda's block moving puzzles. The PCs could simply Fabricate new blocks instead of moving them through the necessary steps.) And so on.

Railroad - the DM instead of just stopping things such as Teleport to the bottom, instead blocks every attempt to avoid any encounter in all 99 levels, no alternate solutions, no cheesing their way through. They think of a crazy way to avoid having to do a puzzle? NOPE! The players HAVE to do the puzzle as intended. They try to dig? Adamantine/Forcewall/Rivine Floors! They try to summon an outsider to deal with simple traps? NOPE! You have to have the Rogue Trapfind!

Could the GM ban Fabricate? State that "Fireball" means "you deliver heat energy straight at an enemy and concussion damage at nearby enemies, it cannot start fires"? Say that outsiders can only attack and do nothing else?

It gets more stretched the more spells we look at. Admittingly, we haven't even looked at non-DnD spells, which probably works in a rather different manner.

But where do we draw the line?

Milo v3

2015-12-27, 02:16 AM

To what extent can the GM put a foot down and say the players are being inconsiderate for going outside what the game was meant for?
It's perfectly within the rights of any player or GM to argue against other players or GM's going outside the bounds of the discussed game.

Quertus

2015-12-27, 02:31 AM

1)The DM creates everything in the world, including the encounter...other then the Pcs
2)The DM controls everything in the game world. npcs and the laws of reality and everything in-between.
3)The DM controls the actions in the game world.

So first, the DM can create an easy, medium or hard encounter. Second, the DM can run an easy or medium or hard encounter. And lastly, no matter what happens, the DM is the only one who gets to say what happens.

For example: Lets take the evil cult trying to take over the city slowly through evil politics and such. The players come up with the crazy idea to attack and destroy the cults temple. The players are hoping to destroy the whole cult as if every cult member will just fade away if the temple is destroyed. Now, first of all. The DM is the one that makes the temple. And they can make it easy, medium or hard. And when the Pc's attack, the DM is in control if it will be easy, medium or hard. And finally, even if the Pc's do destroy the temple, the DM can just say ''oh, well, the 30 or so cultist that where not at the temple get a new high cleric and make a new temple''.

Now a lot of people say the DM does not control anything, yet somehow the DM creates, runs and describes the outcome of encounters. They try to say that some DM's are pure and fair and have no bias. In short they are saying there are perfect DM's out there.

I say that is impossible.

I've had several DMs who so hated D&D combat, that they would stat out encounters, place the minis on the board, then just throw the pile of stats at the players and walk away. The players would handle the combat, and inform the DM when it was done, and what the outcome was.

This extreme example exemplifies most people's experience: that while the DM creates the encounter, the *rules* run the encounter, and anyone can describe the encounter. Heck, describing the encounter is pretty much the bard's job description.

Florian

2015-12-27, 03:54 AM

@goto124:

Take a look at some other systems, too. That can be very inspirational. For example, you'll notice that D&D 3E is one of the few systems where the rules are placed above gm judgement and players feel so entitled to do what the naked rules would allow them to do. That's why most groups will need some kind of gentlements agreement to not break the intended game.

Misery Esquire

2015-12-27, 03:56 AM

Could the GM ban Fabricate? State that "Fireball" means "you deliver heat energy straight at an enemy and concussion damage at nearby enemies, it cannot start fires"? Say that outsiders can only attack and do nothing else?

It gets more stretched the more spells we look at. Admittingly, we haven't even looked at non-DnD spells, which probably works in a rather different manner.

But where do we draw the line?

Those examples were more the players still interacting with the situation at all (And because D&D comes quickest to mind, for me. It could be a material wizard from WoD:M, or an Earthbender if someone were to make an Avatar RPG)*, just not in the fashion one would intend. They could have Stonecarving and make their own blocks to fit into place instead, or lift the blocks off the floor, or any number of ideas that allow them to ignore the Push Blocks Through The Proper Sequence Into Their Spots part of the puzzle. Heck, if the puzzle is to unlock a door with the shenanigans in a pure LoZ-style, they could just bash in the door and shout Skip!

In terms of "What should you stop the players from doing?", in which you are stopping them from taking oblique solutions, you should be taking the smallest possible steps. As long as they have accepted the premise, you shouldn't have to do much. Ie ; "Don't teleport to the bottom." Or, better than simply castigating options away from them, give them something to suggest that they should go through it with at least a semblance of proper pathing. "There's a Spike of Demon's Bane in the Archbishops' Tombs on the 43rd level that should wound the beast voraciously. It has also been said that it can kill demons permanently, as well. Oh, and the Deacon lost a key to its case on the 21st level."

It is up to the canniness of the players to see what they can avoid having to do on their way through. They don't need the key or the spike in the example above, but they might go for convenience's sake. If there is something you want them not to do, you should provide a reasonable explanation to them, or include reasons not to do these things in the original premise. Such as not stopping for a night's sleep after each encounter, because the demon's going to sacrifice the king under the Dark Constellations on the next Waning Crescent of the moon. And it's already moving past the half-moon.

It is a matter of providing reasons, and allowing the players to choose their own actions to resolve the scenario at hand. Maybe they'll ignore your warning that they're short on time, and live with the consequences. King dies. No reward. (Possibly whatever the demon has if they kill 'em anyway.) Go to next adventure. Maybe they don't go for the hooks you laid out on the floors going down to 99, so you include contingency plot points later in their story (The demon returns from his apparent death!). It'd be Rails Ahoy!, again, if you just force them to make it by stopping them from choosing any action aside from Progress, Progress, Progress. (Continuous interruption of sleep regardless of security measures taken, DMPC pushing them on, you MUST HAVE the spike, etc.)

Which is the difference between Linear and Railroads to me. The DM provides reason for them to do things, they go for the adventure, and then the players choose their results. Instead of the DM telling them that they're doing something, driving them through the adventure, and enforcing a result.

Stairs versus escalator. Taking the stairs, you might still only have one way to continue with the crowd, but you can slow down, or stop to stare out over the food court. If you get on the escalator it will SEND you in one direction (Going up the down escalator is great fun, but not relevant to the metaphor!) without change, stops, or fail.

...I think I got carried away with my explanation, and expounded my point a bit too much. C'est la vie!

*But yes, I should have been more general in my example, as D&D has a lot of ways to ignore a
dungeon crawl past the earlier levels.

Apricot

2015-12-27, 10:05 PM

To what extent can the GM put a foot down and say the players are being inconsiderate for going outside what the game was meant for? "You summon Pazuzu? We agreed this game was about getting through the dungeon to get to the lair and defeating the evil creature there, not some shenanigans involving the Lower Planes."

I think your question there is key, and the most important part of it is "what the game was meant for." Who's doing the meaning, in this scenario, and why? What part of it is the players, and what part of it is the DM? If the DM's desire for their own intent and planning totally supersedes the players', then it turns into a railroad. Quantum Ogres elevate the value of the DM's intent massively, by making it impossible for any type of intent from the players to change the planning of the DM. But that's only a problem if you've already decided that balancing out intent is what's valuable, so I won't pretend I've solved everything with that. The problem then is with efficacy. If a DM relies heavily on Quantum Ogres, they're sooner or later going to find themselves in situations where their previously planned Quantum Ogre won't work. Sometimes that's as simple as the players using Stone to Mud (kinda drilling? I'm using the term loosely), sometimes it's Pazuzu. Sometimes OOC pleading or DM fiat will work to solve it, but that's really a matter of last resort. The more Quantum Ogres are relied upon, the more that you'll have to either plead or end up using an encounter that obviously doesn't fit. Either way, it breaks immersion.

The kind of fixed, predetermined result that you see from Quantum Ogres is the kind of thing that you'd expect to see from CRPGs. CRPGs are great, but one of the reasons that I at least play TRPGs over them is that my actions aren't limited by what the designers thought of ahead of time. I can, so to speak, use Firaga to cook my evening meal. So why, when you as the DM have the kind of human ingenuity and flexibility to allow for an unlimited array of choices, would you instead choose to make them all boil down to the same encounters you planned ahead of time? It just seems strange on so many levels.

Darth Ultron

2015-12-27, 10:19 PM

A linear path (Story) does not need to equate to a railroad, though.

Your saying that railroading is only a tyrant jerk DM that does so very crudely. One of the ones I mentioned. So say the players want to have the characters do something:

The normal DM does the ''player thing'' of looking something up in the rules and tossing it up in the players faces. Like ''see page 102 says this, so what your doing does not work.'' And the players are happy as it is the ''rules'' not the Dm telling them they can't do something. It nicely gives the players the illusion the DM is playing the game by the same rules as the players. This is not railroading

The tyrant jerk DM is all crude and just says ''that does not work'' with no game rule reason.

So that is what your saying is railroading.

So you have three doors, say, and the Quantum Ogre will be behind whichever one you end up choosing, right? So the PCs decide to drill through the floor instead. Is the Quantum Ogre there? They summon Pazuzu and open a portal to the Lower Planes. Is the Quantum Ogre there? They turn around and go back the way they came. Is the Quantum Ogre there? The Quantum Ogre only stands as a solution for choices which the DM already had in mind from the start. People have a nasty habit of coming up with clever little ideas that one doesn't initially consider. This is the limit of the Quantum Ogre style of DMing:

A good DM can Reverse Railroad (''ogre'') anything, anywhere, anytime, anyway. Is the ogre under the floor...yes. Back in town...yes. In the Abyss...yes. The Pc's can never, ever, ever get away from the plot.

And Reverse Railroading does not need to have the DM have a set plot made before hand. After all, no matter what the Pc's do they stay on the plot. And the DM can just make it up as the game moves along.

that while the DM creates the encounter, the *rules* run the encounter, and anyone can describe the encounter. Heck, describing the encounter is pretty much the bard's job description.

The rules do ''run'' the encounter...but only by what is put into the encounter. And see that is the big trick: the DM can make anything anything. Then when you take the anything and ''run'' it, you will get the expected result.

Misery Esquire

2015-12-27, 10:29 PM

Your saying that railroading is only a tyrant jerk DM that does so very crudely. One of the ones I mentioned. So say the players want to have the characters do something:

The normal DM does the ''player thing'' of looking something up in the rules and tossing it up in the players faces. Like ''see page 102 says this, so what your doing does not work.'' And the players are happy as it is the ''rules'' not the Dm telling them they can't do something. It nicely gives the players the illusion the DM is playing the game by the same rules as the players. This is not railroading

The tyrant jerk DM is all crude and just says ''that does not work'' with no game rule reason.

So that is what your saying is railroading.

:smallconfused:

I don't understand what you are trying to point out here.

You agree that if the rules prevent something then the DM does not have to, therefore the DM is not Railroading, and that the DM just declaring NOPE! without a rules reason is Railroading.

Both of these things are true, but not what I addressed.

Darth Ultron

2015-12-27, 10:50 PM

:smallconfused:

I don't understand what you are trying to point out here.

You agree that if the rules prevent something then the DM does not have to, therefore the DM is not Railroading, and that the DM just declaring NOPE! without a rules reason is Railroading.

Both of these things are true, but not what I addressed.

Ok, so your saying with a ''lineal story'' also known as a plot where the DM lets the players have the illusion of changing things and only prevents them from doing things behind the smokescreen of the rules needs no railroading.

I say it does. Any plot. Any ''lineal series of events'' needs a railroad.

You seem to be saying railroading is only when the DM is a tyrant and a jerk.

Or, ok, what were you addressing?

Misery Esquire

2015-12-27, 11:03 PM

Ok, so your saying with a ''lineal story'' also known as a plot where the DM lets the players have the illusion of changing things and only prevents them from doing things behind the smokescreen of the rules needs no railroading.

I say it does. Any plot. Any ''lineal series of events'' needs a railroad.

You seem to be saying railroading is only when the DM is a tyrant and a jerk.

Or, ok, what were you addressing?

Alright, prove it. How do you need to force people to participate in the story in order to get them to follow the story? What sort of story requires it?

The only stories that need the DM to railroad the players along it, are ones that are inflexible ; They WILL and MUST complete #1 before #2, before #3. Or worse, that the players are irrelevant to, because the characters are going to progress along the path no matter what the player tries to decide.

Darth Ultron

2015-12-27, 11:46 PM

Alright, prove it. How do you need to force people to participate in the story in order to get them to follow the story? What sort of story requires it?

The only stories that need the DM to railroad the players along it, are ones that are inflexible ; They WILL and MUST complete #1 before #2, before #3. Or worse, that the players are irrelevant to, because the characters are going to progress along the path no matter what the player tries to decide.

Ok. So the story starts with the princess being kidnapped. The king wants her back, of course, but wants to do it ''off the record'' so he does not start a war. So the king gets the plot of blackmailing some Pc's to do it.

So the plot starts with the Pc's will go to a tavern, get in a bar fight and get arrested. It is all a set up by the king who has stocked the bar with thugs and guards are nearby.

So the first bit of railroading is: The Pc's must go to a bar. No matter what. This is normaly not so hard as most players love to have their characters ''pretend to drink''. The Dm might try to lure the Pc's to a set tavern or the DM might just reverse railroad and have the encounter at any tavern the Pc's enter.

Next is the Pc's must get into the bar fight. Another easy one as most players love to ''pretend to bar fight''. The DM will have the NPC's target the Pcs no matter what, but he can add lots of details to railroad the players into acting. For example, having a dwarf attack an elf Pc is sure to get a reaction out of the elf player, assuming they are the role playing type and role play the old elves don't like dwarves.

Next, the Pc's must get arrested. The players will naturaly move heaven and Earth to prevent this, so the DM will need to railroad. So the Pc's might come up with a ''clever'' plan to escape out the back door, but they will just run into the guards there. And the guards will be very well equipped to catch the Pcs. The sneaky DM might even let the players get out of the tavern, only to get them arrested later elsewhere.

Next, the Pc's are thrown in jail. That they can not escape from. Though, again, the DM could let them escape....and add escape to their growing list of crimes....and have them be caught and arrested again later.

Next, the Pc's meet the king, who offers them a clean slate if they will just do this one little job for him.

Now the players might try and do something like sleep in a field outside of the city. So no tavern or bar fight or arrests. But this does not even matter as no matter what the king will get to the Pc's. He might send his guards out to arrest them for trespassing or poaching and that keeps the plot moving in the same direction, with just some ''new'' details.

And even if the Pc's are pure saints, the king can still get to them. In one of a dozen ways. The way does not matter, as the end result is to be the Pc's ''agree'' to try and save the princess. The Pc's might even go all out and try and flee the kingdom, but that is unlikely to work as the king is ready for that. But even if the DM let it work, the king could still track the Pc's down. Though, yes, it is possible that if the players go super, super hard core crazy to not do this plot the DM might say ''ok, we will do plot B'', and then the DM starts to railroad them from the start of that plot.

Now a good Dm will railroad the players, and they won't even know it. Everything that is done can be hidden by the smokescreen of ''the rules'' or ''common sense'' or ''consequences'' or ''world building'' or any other word the DM wants to trick the players into using and believing. But it is all railroading.

AMFV

2015-12-27, 11:57 PM

I want to congratulate Darth Ultron on presenting literally the best example of bad railroading we've seen yet. That isn't a linear story that's a railroad. I think I've seen enough to establish the difference. A railroad is one where there is literally only one action that can lead to a given result (or a handful) like in the above "blackmail" example.

The only way IMHO to make that example work is if it's pre-written, ergo you say "this is the lead-in to the campaign" otherwise you're going to have to start suspending disbelief. Why wouldn't the king just hire them under the table? Why wouldn't he send agents to meet with them? Why would he continue trying to arrest them after they escaped and then probably flee the country.

A linear story is a chain of events that can be quite modular:

Princess is Captured - This one is easy, since it happens before the campaign and the players don't have any knowledge of it or the Princess (probably), this is fairly easy to push through.

King Obtains the Player's Clandestine Help - This is basically the most open-ended section. Maybe the king tries to blackmail them and it doesn't work, but it gets their attention, maybe he successfully blackmails them, maybe he sends agents to hire them. Here you can dangle many hooks without forcing the players into a net, once they've caught one, the story proceeds. Hell, you could probably just start a rumor about the princess being captured and many PCs would start investigating without ANY prompting.

Players Rescue Princess - This is the success condition for the campaign. What happens after (they ransom her, marry her, give her back) is open ended again, but you can guarantee that they'll work towards this as best they can, unless the odds are such that they need to temporarily retreat.

See, not a railroad, but the story does have a linear progression, just not a strict linear progression.

plllizzz

2015-12-28, 12:00 AM

or, the same king that has access to all bars in the country, a network of agents, absolutely unescapable prison and other fun things can just... offer the job to the PCs, knowing they are a group of specialists? and if they decline and go to do something else, couple weeks later they learn they weren't the only party visiting the kingdom at the moment, and someone else took the fame and glory, while they did their own thing, probably pretty generic cleanup as improvised events tend to strafe in that direction [which they may've enjoyed less or more, depends on player type]

man, jedi, you make so many assumptions about what 'must' happen that you never seems to consider what 'can' happen. tho that's probably just for the sake of bad trolling :smallbiggrin:

Misery Esquire

2015-12-28, 12:08 AM

Ok. So the story starts with the princess being kidnapped. The king wants her back, of course, but wants to do it ''off the record'' so he does not start a war. So the king gets the plot of blackmailing some Pc's to do it...
~Story~

I want to congratulate Darth Ultron on presenting literally the best example of bad railroading we've seen yet. That isn't a linear story that's a railroad. I think I've seen enough to establish the difference. A railroad is one where there is literally only one action that can lead to a given result (or a handful) like in the above "blackmail" example

Pretty much this. AMFV even provided how to Linear-ize it.

(Thanks.)

goto124

2015-12-28, 12:09 AM

The only way IMHO to make that example work is if it's pre-written, ergo you say "this is the lead-in to the campaign" otherwise you're going to have to start suspending disbelief. [snip]

King Obtains the Player's Clandestine Help

Before the game starts (or while pitching the game to recruit players), the GM would've told the players "okay your characters will go to meet the king to get the job of saving the princess, here's some setting material, explain why your characters meet up and decide to pick the job. We'll discuss further at Session 0".

Darth Ultron

2015-12-28, 12:18 AM

A linear story is a chain of events that can be quite modular:

See, not a railroad, but the story does have a linear progression, just not a strict linear progression.

The ''linear progression'' is the story plot. They are the same thing.

I said ''the king can get the Pc's to go save the princess in any of dozens of ways'' and you said ''the king can get the Pc's to go save the princess in any of dozens of ways''.

Yet, my way is bad railroading and your way is something different and special?

or, the same king that has access to all bars in the country, a network of agents, absolutely unescapable prison and other fun things can just... offer the job to the PCs, knowing they are a group of specialists? and if they decline and go to do something else, couple weeks later they learn they weren't the only party visiting the kingdom at the moment, and someone else took the fame and glory, while they did their own thing, probably pretty generic cleanup as improvised events tend to strafe in that direction [which they may've enjoyed less or more, depends on player type]

man, jedi, you make so many assumptions about what 'must' happen that you never seems to consider what 'can' happen. tho that's probably just for the sake of bad trolling :smallbiggrin:

Your just talking about plot B(or C or D). I did mention that.

Ok, lets take plot B as ''the king will ask the expert Pc's for help.'' Ok, the king asks and the players say yes. Now the king knows who kidnapped her, but does not know where she is in the other kingdom. The Pc's must find her to rescue her.

And so starts the railroad to having the Pc's find the princess. The Dm might, for example, make clues for the Pc's to find. And then railroad the Pc's into finding the clues. The Dm might do the more obvious railroad things like have an easy trail for the Pc's to follow. The princess might be at ''spot X'' or she might be ''at whatever spot in the other country the Pc's happen to go too''. Both use railroading to get the Pc's to the spot. The end goal, that nothing the Pc's do will alter is: they must find the princess to advance the plot. And even if the players are the worst fake detectives ever, the DM can railroad them with something obvious like ''oh look princess buttercup ripped bits off her dress and left a trail''.

If there is a plot, there is a railroad.

AMFV

2015-12-28, 12:29 AM

The ''linear progression'' is the story plot. They are the same thing.

I said ''the king can get the Pc's to go save the princess in any of dozens of ways'' and you said ''the king can get the Pc's to go save the princess in any of dozens of ways''.

Yet, my way is bad railroading and your way is something different and special?

Your way has no ability to adapt or change course. Like a railroad, it only works the one way. Basically you're trying to keep the players from jumping the tracks, everything you do is reactive to force them onto the rails again, if they start slipping.

My method is to adapt, the same linear progression occurs, the same story events occur, but are more modular. Rather than a railroad that the players are forced onto, it's a road, they may detour, but in the end they should get to the same spot. (Unless the turn off completely or turn around, in which case I need to evaluate to make sure they're into the plot and I don't need to come up with a new one).

So yours is non-modular, mine is modular. Why does the king need to blackmail the PCs? Wouldn't they simply be interested in helping their kingdom? I know many people in real life who would be interested in that sort of thing, so I extrapolate that many fantasy heroes would. So again I'd order the hooks in detail of enticingness from a simple lure to actual bait (and maybe bringing out the net), I know I' m mixing metaphors here, but there's no real avoiding that.

So my hooks would be as follows:

A.) The old standard, drop a rumor that the PCs overhear about the princesses' kidnapping. This is the least baited hook, it's testing the waters of their interest. If the players are interested at this point, then I don't need to do anything else, they'll start investigating, and potentially be contacted by agents of the king. This is pretty much the least railroading option and the easiest.

B.) The more direct - At this point, let's say the players don't follow that hook, or they become lost or distracted. This would basically involve them being contacted by somebody and offered a job, or somebody the know would call in a favor, or they'd be blackmailed (provided that they had done something worth being blackmailed for). I would tailor this one to the players past and their interests.

C.) The Hammer - I would have somebody else get kidnapped, somebody the players care about. I might cause them to come into direct conflict with the kidnappers (after all criminals have many schemes). This is one that needs careful thought, if they are ignoring the other hooks after all there's likely a reason. Basically this way the princess rescue bit can go through, but it isn't necessarily the main focus (at this point we're salvaging what we can)

D.) Go Nuclear - Talk directly to the players, ask them why they aren't interested in this, see what they say. And adjust fire as necessary.

If there is a plot, there is a railroad.

Not so. I think I've fairly handily disproved that sir.

Darth Ultron

2015-12-28, 12:49 AM

Not so. I think I've fairly handily disproved that sir.

No, you have not.

I say there is an infinite number of ways to start the Save the Princess plot. Infinite. My blackmail example is just plot A. There are more.

Your four examples are how to hook the players. Ok, but once they are hooked.....that is when the railroading along the plot starts.

I say a plot must go from event A to event B, you say plot must go from event A to event B. And again your saying your way is different somehow?

I have an infinite number of adaptive modular ways to advance the plot, you have an infinite number of adaptive modular ways to advance the plot. And again your saying your way is different somehow?

AMFV

2015-12-28, 12:53 AM

No, you have not.

I say there is an infinite number of ways to start the Save the Princess plot. Infinite. My blackmail example is just plot A. There are more.

Your four examples are how to hook the players. Ok, but once they are hooked.....that is when the railroading along the plot starts.

The start of the plot is part of the plot bud. And yours was a railroad, plain and simple, no two ways about it. The reason I only addressed that bit, is because that's where you had the railroad.

I say a plot must go from event A to event B, you say plot must go from event A to event B. And again your saying your way is different somehow?

I have an infinite number of adaptive modular ways to advance the plot, you have an infinite number of adaptive modular ways to advance the plot. And again your saying your way is different somehow?

If there is an infinite number of modular adaptive ways to advance the plot, how is it a railroad? A railroad by definition cannot travel an infinite number of modular adaptive ways, it's a fixed track, and can only travel the one way. Same is true of the game term "railroad", a railroad cannot by definition contain an infinite number of modular pathways, unless you are completely ignoring the meaning of words (which is certainly possible)

Misery Esquire

2015-12-28, 01:18 AM

Florian

2015-12-28, 04:20 AM

Suddenly, I´m very glad that my whole prep time always comes down to "The Princess has been kidnapped by some cultists" or "there´s been a murder down by the lake". Plot enough.

AMFV

2015-12-28, 09:09 AM

Suddenly, I´m very glad that my whole prep time always comes down to "The Princess has been kidnapped by some cultists" or "there´s been a murder down by the lake". Plot enough.

But see the beauty of being reactive is that you don't have to prep things. You just develop as things go, you can develop more things as necessary if you're having difficulties. But modular things have the advantage of applying in many situations.

Apricot

2015-12-28, 09:27 AM

Thinking about the princess-kidnapping example: probably the best way to make that storyline work, regardless of what the PCs decide to do, is to figure out who all the important NPCs are and how they operate ahead of time, so that you can reasonably work out on the spot what is going to happen if the PCs do something crazy. Say, the king is a doting and devoted father to the point where he'll pay any ransom (even a regime-destroying one) to see her back, so that if the PCs decide not to go, they get to be put in the position of creating order/chaos in a kingdom that's on the ropes and about to fall while the kidnappers are busily continuing whatever scheme. The plot events don't have to be the same, and maybe it doesn't ever make sense for them to be the same, but because the characters are, you can effectively plan things in advance.

Maybe the solution to most DMing problems is just good worldbuilding, and maybe linear storytelling is nothing more than a sign that the DM and the players are hugely aligned on what they want to do.

goto124

2015-12-28, 11:09 AM

Why doesn't the king send his own warriors?

DireSickFish

2015-12-28, 11:09 AM

AMFV

2015-12-28, 11:34 AM

I think another item to consider is that not every situation lends itself to a good linear story. Trying to take an open world investigation of finding a lost princess and cramming it into a linear structure is most likely going to end up with someone railroading. If you have a gladiator game where the is either locked up or willingly in servitude you can have them brought from scene to scene and can set up your linear story of them becoming the most famous gladiator team. The scene's don't need to be fights either, front men could come to them to promote, other teams could offer to take a fall in the next fight for a pay cut ect.

I would argue that the open world investigation is a linear story. It goes from point A to point B. So while it may detour off there, the end and beginning are still known points. That's pretty linear, although not as linear as something like that. I do agree that there are certain scenarios that make plot hooks easier (military campaigns would be a big one, or any campaign where somebody is part of an organization), and some that make plot hooks harder (investigating a nebulous Cthulu cult that's always hiding and the players are not aware of it's existence), but the ease or difficulty of a plot hook isn't directly correlated to the linear outcome of the story.

A nonlinear story would be one where the end is not predetermined. For example one where the princess could be killed rather than rescued. That would be a non-linear story (with two possible endings), or one where the princess joins the bad guys, is killed, or is rescued. The non-linear story would look the same from the player's perspective, but from the DMs it's quite different.

Why doesn't the king send his own warriors?

He doesn't want to risk a war. After all that very same scenario caused the Trojan war, the Kingdom is too fragile to handle a war economically and sustain the monarchy, so he needs outside agents. (There are other possibilities, but that's a quick down and dirty one)

Thinking about the princess-kidnapping example: probably the best way to make that storyline work, regardless of what the PCs decide to do, is to figure out who all the important NPCs are and how they operate ahead of time, so that you can reasonably work out on the spot what is going to happen if the PCs do something crazy. Say, the king is a doting and devoted father to the point where he'll pay any ransom (even a regime-destroying one) to see her back, so that if the PCs decide not to go, they get to be put in the position of creating order/chaos in a kingdom that's on the ropes and about to fall while the kidnappers are busily continuing whatever scheme. The plot events don't have to be the same, and maybe it doesn't ever make sense for them to be the same, but because the characters are, you can effectively plan things in advance.

Maybe the solution to most DMing problems is just good worldbuilding, and maybe linear storytelling is nothing more than a sign that the DM and the players are hugely aligned on what they want to do.

QFT

DireSickFish

2015-12-28, 12:05 PM

I would argue that the open world investigation is a linear story. It goes from point A to point B. So while it may detour off there, the end and beginning are still known points. That's pretty linear, although not as linear as something like that. I do agree that there are certain scenarios that make plot hooks easier (military campaigns would be a big one, or any campaign where somebody is part of an organization), and some that make plot hooks harder (investigating a nebulous Cthulu cult that's always hiding and the players are not aware of it's existence), but the ease or difficulty of a plot hook isn't directly correlated to the linear outcome of the story.

We are very different on our definition of linear then. I think a linear adventure is one in which each scene leads into the next and there is no -planned- way to skip scene's or take alternate paths. The outcome sin each scene can change how future scene's play out but the scene wills till happen. For example because you didn't succeed your investigation check when left alone in the arena owners office you didn't find the blackmail that could be used in a future scene when she wants threatens to make your regular weapons unavailable for the next fight. The next fight, and the scene with her threatening you still happen in a set order you just don't have an advantage you could have if you had succeeded in a previous scene.

What you're describing seems either like a branching story, or an open world story that has a linear beginning and a linear end. An entire adventure need not have the same structure.

A nonlinear story would be one where the end is not predetermined. For example one where the princess could be killed rather than rescued. That would be a non-linear story (with two possible endings), or one where the princess joins the bad guys, is killed, or is rescued. The non-linear story would look the same from the player's perspective, but from the DMs it's quite different.

A nonlinear story to me is just one that each scene doesn't lead into the next for sure. If the goal of the adventure is to save the princess and when you meet her she can kill herself/turn bad/be saved/fall in love with a PC based off what the PC's did beforehand is not indicative of a linear, branching or open world story.

If you can either fight/sneak by/diplomicize with the dragon capturing her OR you can go convince the eagles to drop you off at the top of the tower (completely bypassing the dragon scene and instead having the scene with the eagles) that's a branching story.

If instead of either of those you have a map of the castle she's being held in with walls/windows as entry points and various types of guards besides the dragon that can be interacted with in a number of different ways that's an open world.

Regardless all of these could end with a scene with the princess in her tower.

AMFV

2015-12-28, 12:17 PM

We are very different on our definition of linear then. I think a linear adventure is one in which each scene leads into the next and there is no -planned- way to skip scene's or take alternate paths. The outcome sin each scene can change how future scene's play out but the scene wills till happen. For example because you didn't succeed your investigation check when left alone in the arena owners office you didn't find the blackmail that could be used in a future scene when she wants threatens to make your regular weapons unavailable for the next fight. The next fight, and the scene with her threatening you still happen in a set order you just don't have an advantage you could have if you had succeeded in a previous scene.

Then functionally as you see it, there would be no real difference between a linear story and a railroad, no?

Although I'm talking about the same sort of thing. The scenes lead to the next, but not always in the same way. Instead of a line, think of the events as a chain... of events. You can substitute different links in the chain as needed, but the events are always leading the same direction. That would be linear modular.

What you're describing seems either like a branching story, or an open world story that has a linear beginning and a linear end. An entire adventure need not have the same structure.

I would argue not, a branching story has a set beginning point and no set end point. Something with a linear beginning and a linear end is by definition a linear progression of events. It ends the way it's intended to, and begins the way it's intended to, having a modular middle section (and my examples weren't terribly modular, just a teensy bit so), doesn't really impact t

A nonlinear story to me is just one that each scene doesn't lead into the next for sure. If the goal of the adventure is to save the princess and when you meet her she can kill herself/turn bad/be saved/fall in love with a PC based off what the PC's did beforehand is not indicative of a linear, branching or open world story.

If you can either fight/sneak by/diplomicize with the dragon capturing her OR you can go convince the eagles to drop you off at the top of the tower (completely bypassing the dragon scene and instead having the scene with the eagles) that's a branching story.

If instead of either of those you have a map of the castle she's being held in with walls/windows as entry points and various types of guards besides the dragon that can be interacted with in a number of different ways that's an open world.

Regardless all of these could end with a scene with the princess in her tower.

All of those are linear stories. Because they go from a set of fairly predetermined scenes, some of the ones you present have alternate linear routes. A non-linear story is one where the players can wander off and ignore the princess, the princess could die before the players even get to her, the princess could not even, like, exist man. A nonlinear story has no set outcome, the linearity comes from having specific scenes that are set. Sometimes the outcome and beginning are the only set scenes, sometimes there are a few scenes in the middle that are "set" which lots of modular options in the middle (how I run it)

DireSickFish

2015-12-28, 12:46 PM

Then functionally as you see it, there would be no real difference between a linear story and a railroad, no?

Functionally there would be no difference, but railroading has such a negative connotation with it it's basically "linear story but the DM is being an ass about it".

Although I'm talking about the same sort of thing. The scenes lead to the next, but not always in the same way. Instead of a line, think of the events as a chain... of events. You can substitute different links in the chain as needed, but the events are always leading the same direction. That would be linear modular.

I'm just using the princess story as an example of one story run different ways. If the players screw off and don't -do- the princess story then you are doing a different story which can be linear, branching, or open world. I think we just have a difference of scale which is fine. So as long as any of the same events happen it's a linear story?

I would argue not, a branching story has a set beginning point and no set end point. Something with a linear beginning and a linear end is by definition a linear progression of events. It ends the way it's intended to, and begins the way it's intended to, having a modular middle section (and my examples weren't terribly modular, just a teensy bit so), doesn't really impact t

Yeah it would be a branching story coming back together to a linear end but I don't think branching necessarily means that where you end up is completely different all the time. Just that you can take the options a/b/c/d/ect. to transition to different scenes. In a big branching adventure you'd have more than 1 branch at 1 point int he story I agree, but that goes beyond my scope what I'm willing to write for examples.

All of those are linear stories. Because they go from a set of fairly predetermined scenes, some of the ones you present have alternate linear routes. A non-linear story is one where the players can wander off and ignore the princess, the princess could die before the players even get to her, the princess could not even, like, exist man. A nonlinear story has no set outcome, the linearity comes from having specific scenes that are set. Sometimes the outcome and beginning are the only set scenes, sometimes there are a few scenes in the middle that are "set" which lots of modular options in the middle (how I run it)

It is open world to go off and ignore the princess but that doesn't make this adventure not also open world for having a wide range of ways to approach it that aren't all planed out from scene to scene.

I'm setting up the story of the princess as the 3 types which I think is possible. To have an open world story wouldn't even involve the princess. She'd be part of the world and captured and the PC's might maybe stumble across her, but what's the difference between that and having the same open world and letting them know the princess is captured? Any time they chose not to do a story is either going to be them going open world or backtracking down a branch of a branching story.

From my definitions I'd say you run branching stories and not linear ones despite the same scene's making up the beginning and end.

AMFV

2015-12-28, 12:51 PM

Functionally there would be no difference, but railroading has such a negative connotation with it it's basically "linear story but the DM is being an ass about it".

Not exactly, there's a spectrum here. As long as it's a series of preplanned scenes, it's linear, regardless of the degree of variation in the scenes, you also don't have to have the scenes lead directly into each other.

I'm just using the princess story as an example of one story run different ways. If the players screw off and don't -do- the princess story then you are doing a different story which can be linear, branching, or open world. I think we just have a difference of scale which is fine. So as long as any of the same events happen it's a linear story?

As long as the beginning and end are predetermined it's a linear story, it may be a more varied or a more shifting story. But if it goes from Point A to Point B, it's linear, regardless of the exact route.

Yeah it would be a branching story coming back together to a linear end but I don't think branching necessarily means that where you end up is completely different all the time. Just that you can take the options a/b/c/d/ect. to transition to different scenes. In a big branching adventure you'd have more than 1 branch at 1 point int he story I agree, but that goes beyond my scope what I'm willing to write for examples.

I would argue a true branching adventure would be able to have as many ends as there are possible branches.

It is open world to go off and ignore the princess but that doesn't make this adventure not also open world for having a wide range of ways to approach it that aren't all planed out from scene to scene.

I'm setting up the story of the princess as the 3 types which I think is possible. To have an open world story wouldn't even involve the princess. She'd be part of the world and captured and the PC's might maybe stumble across her, but what's the difference between that and having the same open world and letting them know the princess is captured? Any time they chose not to do a story is either going to be them going open world or backtracking down a branch of a branching story.

From my definitions I'd say you run branching stories and not linear ones despite the same scene's making up the beginning and end.

Mine are certainly linear, they have many scenes that are mandatory, not just the beginning and the end. Just because I use modular stuff to get to them, doesn't make them any less linear. Look back to the chain example, I have specific plans and specific events, but I vary them, based on the players.

DireSickFish

2015-12-28, 01:07 PM

I'm pulling my definitions wholesale from TheAngry DM in his long meandering article here: http://theangrygm.com/the-shape-of-adventure/

The definition of linear you are using lets a lot more adventures be linear than mine. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on what a linear adventure is but you've been perceptive enough to see where I'm coming from and how I'm defining it. And I see what you mean by linear adventures even if I don't agree.

Using your definition of linear then Railroading to me would be taking your adventure structure, chopping off bits to fit my definition of linear (so there is only one path) and then flat out refusing to transition to an open world or branching style despite player actions to do so. Which is most likely going to result in some awkward or downright impossible transitions from scene to scene (ie the oft mentioned lvl15 guards forcing you along).

AMFV

2015-12-28, 01:29 PM

I'm pulling my definitions wholesale from TheAngry DM in his long meandering article here: http://theangrygm.com/the-shape-of-adventure/

As a sidenote, I loathe the Angry DM, and I would not count him as a source even if he were an official source of any kind.

The definition of linear you are using lets a lot more adventures be linear than mine. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on what a linear adventure is but you've been perceptive enough to see where I'm coming from and how I'm defining it. And I see what you mean by linear adventures even if I don't agree.

Most adventures are linear. I view it as a strict dichotomy, either an adventure is linear (with preplanned points) or it is a sandbox, without any preplanned points.

The problem I have with your definition is that it basically removes nuance, and instead tracks multiple things along the same axis. Modularity and linearity aren't exactly the same thing. One could (theoretically) have a sandboxy adventure that doesn't allow for a lot of variance (due to lack of world building, or a smaller world) or a linear adventure that does.

Using your definition of linear then Railroading to me would be taking your adventure structure, chopping off bits to fit my definition of linear (so there is only one path) and then flat out refusing to transition to an open world or branching style despite player actions to do so. Which is most likely going to result in some awkward or downright impossible transitions from scene to scene (ie the oft mentioned lvl15 guards forcing you along).

Well I don't think there's a hard and fast point where railroading starts, it's too group dependent. I think railroading isn't caused by poor behavior on the part of the DM, but rather by not correctly maintaining verisimilitude and realism.

BRC

2015-12-28, 02:25 PM

As a sidenote, I loathe the Angry DM, and I would not count him as a source even if he were an official source of any kind.

Most adventures are linear. I view it as a strict dichotomy, either an adventure is linear (with preplanned points) or it is a sandbox, without any preplanned points.

The problem I have with your definition is that it basically removes nuance, and instead tracks multiple things along the same axis. Modularity and linearity aren't exactly the same thing. One could (theoretically) have a sandboxy adventure that doesn't allow for a lot of variance (due to lack of world building, or a smaller world) or a linear adventure that does.

Well I don't think there's a hard and fast point where railroading starts, it's too group dependent. I think railroading isn't caused by poor behavior on the part of the DM, but rather by not correctly maintaining verisimilitude and realism.
How are you defining Sandbox?

In my mind, I have five rough categories. All are assuming that the PC's achieve their primary goal.

Linear: The DM has one pre-set path for the players to take. The PC's goals, methods, and the Outcome are predetermined.
Example: "Assuming they win all combat encounters, The PC's will storm the Castle Gates, Slay the Undead Knight, climb the Necromancer's Tower, and slay the necromancer"

Modular: The GM has pre-determined the Character's Goals and Outcome, but has provided them with several Methods they can use, all of which lead to the same Outcome.
Example: "The PC's can storm the Castle Gates and Slay the Knight, OR they can scale the Tower and attack the Necromancer directly".

Branching: The GM has pre-determined the Goals, but has provided several Methods, which can have different Outcomes. There may be secondary goals that the PC's may or may not achieve.
Example: "The PC's need to steal the Necromancer's Spellbook to learn how to reverse the curse placed on the duke. They Could slay the necromancer and take his spellbook, OR, by singing a song he shared with his wife when he was alive, the PC's can break the Necromancer's control over the Undead Knight, who can steal the Spellbook for them before fleeing the Castle, gaining the PC's a skilled ally, but leaving the Necromancer alive"

Open-Ended/Technical Sandbox: The GM has pre-determined the PC's goals, but approaches the Adventure with no clear outcome in mind, relying either on obsessive preparation, or improvisation to handle whatever method the PC's use.
Example: "The Duke has been cursed. The Cleric believes that the Necromancer's Spellbook contains the secret of curing the Duke. The Necromancer lives in an old castle guarded by undead minions. What's more, he has raised the body of a once-noble Knight to serve as his champion"

True Sandbox: The GM has created a world, but does not prompt or provide the PC's with any goal. They rely on obsessive preparation, or improvisation to handle whatever the PC's do.
Example: "The Local Duke has been cursed. The necromancer that did it resides in an old castle full of undead minions. He has raised a once-noble knight to serve as his Champion. "
The difference between Modular and Branching is whether or not the outcome is pre-determined, assuming the PC's succeed at their primary goal (getting the Book).
The difference between Branching and Open-Ended is largely one of Preparation/Presentation. Does the DM have a few specific methods that he plans for (Storming the gate vs scaling the tower), or does he present the situation with the expectation that he may have to improvise based on the Player's decisions. The line between Branching and Open Ended is the most significant, because it is the part where the GM moves from planing STORIES, to preparing SCENARIOS.

I refer to Open Ended as a "Technical Sandbox" because, technically speaking, it is a Sandbox. The same DM mindset that allows the players to, say, tunnel underneath the wall, theoretically also allows the PC's to just walk away, abandoning the entire quest.

The difference between a Technical Sandbox and a True Sandbox is Presentation. In an open ended/technical sandbox, the DM has created a specific scenario they intend to run (Getting the book). They provide the PC's with a goal, and while the PC's may walk away from that goal, there is an understanding that they will not. in a True Sandbox, the GM is not attempting to drive the Players towards any particular scenario. Theoretically, in a true sandbox game the Players determine their goals without and prompting or plot hooks from the GM.

It's the difference between "The Duke is Cursed" and "The Duke has asked you to figure out how to remove the Curse"

Goals
Methods
Outcome

Linear
X
X
X

Modular
X

X

Branching
X

Open
X

Sandbox

OldTrees1

2015-12-28, 02:52 PM

How are you defining Sandbox?

In my mind, I have five rough categories. All are assuming that the PC's achieve their primary goal.

I think you are missing something in your good explanation. What about a campaign where the DM decides the conflict but the players decide the goals and methods (with the outcome being whatever results)? This sounds like a sandbox but is more restrictive in my opinion.

BRC

2015-12-28, 02:56 PM

I think you are missing something in your good explanation. What about a campaign where the DM decides the conflict but the players decide the goals and methods (with the outcome being whatever results)? This sounds like a sandbox but is more restrictive in my opinion.
My method above is an adventure-by-adventure basis. Over the course of a Campaign, a DM could use many methods.

What you describe I would consider a Pure Sandbox. the Conflict is part of the Setting, and thus up to the GM to establish. If it is the Player's choice whether or not to partake in it, it is Pure Sandbox. If the Players are pressured or forced to partake in it (For example, if the conflict threatens to destroy the world, so ignoring it would be completely irrational), it would be an Open/Technical Sandbox.

Misery Esquire

2015-12-28, 03:41 PM

In my mind, I have five rough categories. All are assuming that the PC's achieve their primary goal.

Linear: The DM has one pre-set path for the players to take. The PC's goals, methods, and the Outcome are predetermined.
Example: "Assuming they win all combat encounters, The PC's will storm the Castle Gates, Slay the Undead Knight, climb the Necromancer's Tower, and slay the necromancer"

Modular: The GM has pre-determined the Character's Goals and Outcome, but has provided them with several Methods they can use, all of which lead to the same Outcome.
Example: "The PC's can storm the Castle Gates and Slay the Knight, OR they can scale the Tower and attack the Necromancer directly".

I think these two are essentially the same ; the players have accepted your premise/hook, and are now progressing along the path to your end. They've accepted that they're going to the tower, and that they are getting to the top somehow to fight the necromancer. Methodology doesn't need to be predetermined in order for it to be linear.

But, I will accept that my view may be lacking in granularity compared to your own. /shrug

BRC

2015-12-28, 03:53 PM

I think these two are essentially the same ; the players have accepted your premise/hook, and are now progressing along the path to your end. They've accepted that they're going to the tower, and that they are getting to the top somehow to fight the necromancer. Methodology doesn't need to be predetermined in order for it to be linear.

But, I will accept that my view of the differences may be lacking in granularity compared to your own. /shrug

I differentiate the two because the substance of the session, and the mindset of the DM, differ greatly between the two.

In what I call a Linear game, the DM has a very specific story they want to tell for that session. They believe that it is the GM's Role to craft the story for each individual session, and don't see that it is the player's role to roll dice and follow the story the GM wants to tell.

In a Modular game, while the GM maintains their prerogative to have sole control over the flow of the Campaign (By pre-determining the outcome of each session), they recognize that the players do have/deserve a role in crafting the story.

The Story of "The Heroes who stormed the castle gates" is very different than the story of "The Heroes who scaled the tower and surprised the Necromancer". A Linear DM usually sees themselves as the sole author of the Story, and so rejects letting the Players control it.

This is normally out of ignorance, rather than malice. These GM's usually approach a session by thinking it is their job to determine how the Session is going to go. The archtypical "Linear Dungeon Crawl"-style adventure leads to this mindset.

Misery Esquire

2015-12-28, 04:36 PM

I differentiate the two because the substance of the session, and the mindset of the DM, differ greatly between the two.

In what I call a Linear game, the DM has a very specific story they want to tell for that session. They believe that it is the GM's Role to craft the story for each individual session, and don't see that the Players, it is the player's role to roll dice and follow the story the GM wants to tell.

In a Modular game, while the GM maintains their prerogative to have sole control over the flow of the Campaign (By pre-determining the outcome of each session), they recognize that the players do have/deserve a role in crafting the story.

The Story of "The Heroes who stormed the castle gates" is very different than the story of "The Heroes who scaled the tower and surprised the Necromancer". A Linear DM usually sees themselves as the sole author of the Story, and so rejects letting the Players control it.

:smallbiggrin: But that's the original premise of the thread!

And, I have to disagree that any DM that sits down with a linear story (ie ; a list of progressive events) is going to force the players into only following the exact path the DM intended. It remains a Linear game if the players are going from one to five, but manage to skip three, being required to hit each point along the way without choice is a Railroad.

Hm. Maybe it is not a difference in the details, but each of your sections is one step behind (or ahead of, depending on how you look at it) mine.

You have ;
Linear, Modular, Branching, Technical Open, and True Open

While I would say ;
Railroad, Linear, Modular, Branching, Sandbox

The modular in mine is wherein you present the players a premise - Remove Curse placed upon Duke by Necromancer - which means that if they set out to un-curse the duke they have accepted the beginning and the goal, the modularity enters when they don't accept the additional premise of what they have to do to achieve this end. Maybe they'll lure the necromancer out of his tower rather than going there at all, or they'll look into the history of the Skeletal Knight to see if he has some sort of mythical past or personal history they can apply to the situation, or they steal the source of the curse (grimoire, amulet, ???) from the necromancer rather than engaging him personally at all.

They've not rejected any part of the story, but they have swapped their path to completion completely away from the initial presentation of "Go to the tower and deal with the necromancer." Keeping the linear path of going to the Tower could still include ; climb the exterior to the top, fight their way through everything, sneak past all conflicts, or fire a catapult into the tower and enter that way rather than the front gate. I'm not sure what I would call firing the catapult into the top of the tower to try and kill him. Potentially hilarious?

I do agree, however, that someone setting out with a linear premise can, and may very well do so, slide into Railroading more easily than someone telling the players what is in the world and to go wild.

BRC

2015-12-28, 05:18 PM

:smallbiggrin: But that's the original premise of the thread!

And, I have to disagree that any DM that sits down with a linear story (ie ; a list of progressive events) is going to force the players into only following the exact path the DM intended. It remains a Linear game if the players are going from one to five, but manage to skip three, being required to hit each point along the way without choice is a Railroad.

Hm. Maybe it is not a difference in the details, but each of your sections is one step behind (or ahead of, depending on how you look at it) mine.

You have ;
Linear, Modular, Branching, Technical Open, and True Open

While I would say ;
Railroad, Linear, Modular, Branching, Sandbox

The modular in mine is wherein you present the players a premise - Remove Curse placed upon Duke by Necromancer - which means that if they set out to un-curse the duke they have accepted the beginning and the goal, the modularity enters when they don't accept the additional premise of what they have to do to achieve this end. Maybe they'll lure the necromancer out of his tower rather than going there at all, or they'll look into the history of the Skeletal Knight to see if he has some sort of mythical past or personal history they can apply to the situation, or they steal the source of the curse (grimoire, amulet, ???) from the necromancer rather than engaging him personally at all.

They've not rejected any part of the story, but they have swapped their path to completion completely away from the initial presentation of "Go to the tower and deal with the necromancer." Keeping the linear path of going to the Tower could still include ; climb the exterior to the top, fight their way through everything, sneak past all conflicts, or fire a catapult into the tower and enter that way rather than the front gate. I'm not sure what I would call firing the catapult into the top of the tower to try and kill him. Potentially hilarious?

I do agree, however, that someone setting out with a linear premise can, and may very well do so, slide into Railroading more easily than someone telling the players what is in the world and to go wild.

The issue is one of Outcome.
In my version of Modular, the DM is still pre-determining the outcome of the session (Assuming the PC's succeed in their primary goal), as it affects later sessions down the line. The DM's plans for the campaign have no room for a necromancer stomping about seeking revenge, so he assumes that the PC's will kill the Necromancer.

I call mine "Modular" because, while the beginning and end are pre-determined, the DM has prepared multiple different paths (Or "Modules") that the story could follow (Storming the gate is one module, scaling the wall is another). The Players get to pick from the Modules the DM has made in order to construct the story.
What you call "Modular", I call Open. To Me "Modular" implies the existence of some pre-built components that the players are choosing between. In an Open session, the DM is either doing some improvising to handle whatever the Players decide, built a few modules with plans to improvise if the PC's did something different, or obsessively planned and prepared for every possible option. By far the easiest way to do an Open session, is to be prepared to improvise.

Of course, being prepared to improvise based on what the players decide means that you cannot guarantee the outcome of the session (Is the Necromancer alive? Is the undead knight still around?).

Even if you try to control the Outcome (The Necromancer MUST be killed to release the curse), you cannot guarantee that the player's decisions will have no significant outcomes later on. If they convince the Duke's troops to help them launch and assault, and many of the soldiers die, then the Duke's armies are weakened, which should affect the story down the line. You cannot guarantee control over the outcome of the session if the players are not following your pre-determined paths.

It should be noted that no plan survives contact with the Enemy. My system is based purely on how the DM approaches the table, not how the session itself actually goes. A DM could approach the table assuming that the players will follow the "Obvious" course (The one they have planned for), but still react flexibly when the PC's try something different.

If you go by "What CAN the players do", all games are true sandboxes unless the DM starts mind controlling people to the point that the PC's are essentially NPCs. The Players always have the option to say "We ignore the plot and go to the beach".

Even something like the Prison Escape scenario could be met with a "We wait out our sentences".

I don't distinguish between "Linear" and "Railroading", because as I discussed a long time ago in this thread, you can't put "Railroading" on a map. Railroading is anywhere the PC's expectations of freedom run up against the GM's, and the GM reacts poorly.

Apricot

2015-12-28, 05:35 PM

BRC

2015-12-28, 05:41 PM

To what extent are all these frameworks necessary, though? Presumably, the easiest way to solve all these difficulties is to create things that will "survive contact with the enemy," such as people, places, and so on and so forth. If the PCs decide to not use one of those things as you intended, the things themselves will still be there and can be put to new purposes. So the PCs decide to climb up the walls of the big bad's castle instead of going in through the sewers? Okay, that's fine, because you can toss together some mooks for encounters and you can spawn in a friendly janitor to tell them about the sewers if they need an escape route. The place is still there and the people are still there, so there's no problem. So the PCs accidentally assassinated your big bad, the evil vizier, because you screwed up and forgot the Paladin will Detect Evil on anything? You already made his second-in-command for another fight later on, so all you need is a little restatting and some fancy footwork with the plot and things can work okay. Most if not all of this seems to be solved by making a world that exists independent of the PCs and doing some mild tinkering if something goes massively wrong. Of course, the difficult part of this is creating a set of characters and locations that remain interesting in many situations.

And that's what I call "Open-Ended" gameplay, which is my personal favorite style. Create a Scenario, then work with the players to craft a story. Building distinct "Modules" of play is pointless since you can't guarantee what the PC's are going to do. Once you have accepted the inevitability of improvisation, it is far easier to simply prepare the scenario without investing in any particular course of events.

But, some GMs want more control. Some player groups get bogged down if not presented with clear options. They either go into endless rounds of Analysis paralysis, debating for days in hopes of finding some theoretically optimal solution, Or they are overly cautious, unwilling to move forward unless they have been reassured that they are following the path they are "Supposed" to take (This one can happen if people's primary exposure to RPGs has been through video games, where there is often a single path you are Supposed to take to progress the story forwards).
Or, some GM's simply don't know better. They think that it is their job to craft the story, and have a page of notes ready to go for every possible situation. The idea of the players not following the path they lay out simply never occurs to them until it's too late.

Sometimes they react well, improvising and adapting. Other times they react poorly, trying to force the PC's back onto their pre-determined path.

Misery Esquire

2015-12-28, 05:47 PM

It should be noted that no plan survives contact with the Enemy. My system is based purely on how the DM approaches the table, not how the session itself actually goes. A DM could approach the table assuming that the players will follow the "Obvious" course (The one they have planned for), but still react well when the PC's try something different.

Ah. I look more at what happens when you play than what the DM is writing in advance, for games that have a story involving the players. Sandbox games that allow the players to create their own story have their own schema. Everyone* would love their players to follow their (hopefully) well-crafted story where they can show off how solidly built it is, and how they can get the players to develop roleplaying dynamics with their challenges. Where I draw the lines is how the DM-Player dynamic goes during play.

If you go by "What CAN the players do", all games are true sandboxes unless the DM starts mind controlling people to the point that the PC's are essentially NPCs. The Players always have the option to say "We ignore the plot and go to the beach".

Even something like the Prison Escape scenario could be met with a "We wait out our sentences".

Going to the beach instead of taking the Cursèd Duke hook, (or any other Adventure! hook) is rejecting the DMs premise for the beginning, which has to be dealt with by ; opening into a sandbox adventure/world, the DM to providing additional in-character reasons to take the hook (bribes, in-character threats, etc), or an out of character inquiry where the DM has to (or should for politeness sake, at least) find out why the players/characters are uninterested in the prepared materiel.

The same can go for the characters starting in prison, and you're offering Prison Escape! as your plot and the players turn it down. You can provide character motivation (torture, dickish guards, other prisoners having something interesting going on), you can roll with it and present a Life In Prison scenario(s) for them to deal with, tell them that they waited it out, or ask them out of character why they don't want their characters out of the pit thirty years early.

* I presume. I don't think anyone really wants to present a shoddily scripted story to the players, or that they don't care what the players think of their story. DMing is for the appreciation, yes?

Darth Ultron

2015-12-28, 05:47 PM

If there is an infinite number of modular adaptive ways to advance the plot, how is it a railroad? A railroad by definition cannot travel an infinite number of modular adaptive ways, it's a fixed track, and can only travel the one way. Same is true of the game term "railroad", a railroad cannot by definition contain an infinite number of modular pathways, unless you are completely ignoring the meaning of words (which is certainly possible)

It is still a railroad as the destination is the same.

Difference ; there is no point that the King's Heavy Squad shows up to PUSH them into the adventure. You don't HAVE to have them unavoidably arrested in order to start. A DM provides social pressure to follow along, but never drops a brick wall into their exits from the plot.

So your taking the side that it is only railroading if it is crude and obvious?

I don't think railroad is a stand alone type. As I have said, if your game has a plot, the DM must railroad the players along it.

Misery Esquire

2015-12-28, 06:07 PM

So your taking the side that it is only railroading if it is crude and obvious?

No. It is a railroad if you use reactionary ways to prevent the players from doing anything other than exactly what you want. All of your examples were the players being forced to take the actions you wanted them to, "You get in a bar fight! You try to avoid the fight? The guards arrest you, anyway! You try not to get arrested? The guards track you down! You try to escape? The king has guards bring you back, no matter how hard you try!". In addition, it (and some other forms of railroad) lacks internal logic which will crumble away at the suspension of disbelief ; if the heroes are struggling that hard not to save the princess for him, why should the king trust them to actually do it, even if he does manage to force them all the way into the secret cultist hideout (or where ever)?

The story presented (Rescue Princess!) doesn't require you to force (Railroad) the players into anything. You are doing that yourself.

You can have the King Gets You To Rescue Princess On The Sly without it.

I don't think railroad is a stand alone type. As I have said, if your game has a plot, the DM must railroad the players along it.

You have failed to provide a convincing argument or proof to this regard, but are still presenting it as fact. Please advise, or rephrase.

Apricot

2015-12-28, 07:07 PM

And that's what I call "Open-Ended" gameplay, which is my personal favorite style. Create a Scenario, then work with the players to craft a story. Building distinct "Modules" of play is pointless since you can't guarantee what the PC's are going to do. Once you have accepted the inevitability of improvisation, it is far easier to simply prepare the scenario without investing in any particular course of events.

But, some GMs want more control. Some player groups get bogged down if not presented with clear options. They either go into endless rounds of Analysis paralysis, debating for days in hopes of finding some theoretically optimal solution, Or they are overly cautious, unwilling to move forward unless they have been reassured that they are following the path they are "Supposed" to take (This one can happen if people's primary exposure to RPGs has been through video games, where there is often a single path you are Supposed to take to progress the story forwards).
Or, some GM's simply don't know better. They think that it is their job to craft the story, and have a page of notes ready to go for every possible situation. The idea of the players not following the path they lay out simply never occurs to them until it's too late.

Sometimes they react well, improvising and adapting. Other times they react poorly, trying to force the PC's back onto their pre-determined path.

Well, as for the DMs who want more "control," I tend to not understand what they really want out of the game, if it's just the ability to rule over other gamers or something (there are much better and completely consensual power trips out there). The clear options thing, on the other hand... I don't see why that needs to come up as a restriction. Isn't that just the DM giving the players a set of things they can choose from, without any indication either tacit or explicit that they're exhaustive? I completely understand the "supposed to take" part, but it seems like it can be handled through trust between players and DM. CRPGs are definitely a pain with their nitpicky requirements, especially for the cool stuff you really want to see. DM ignorance is another fair point, but if they're only doing it because they're inexperienced, it seems like the option isn't an option as much as it's a sign that they're novices (like allowing Pun-Pun, which is something one can do but which is not a remotely good idea).

But maybe here I'm pushing too hard on the idea of viable and reasonable options when all you're doing is trying to label things which already exist. I'm leaning towards the side of prescriptive, while you're just being descriptive. If that's the case, I've been talking with a whole different goal in mind the whole time.

Amphetryon

2015-12-28, 07:13 PM

BRC

2015-12-28, 07:33 PM

But maybe here I'm pushing too hard on the idea of viable and reasonable options when all you're doing is trying to label things which already exist. I'm leaning towards the side of prescriptive, while you're just being descriptive. If that's the case, I've been talking with a whole different goal in mind the whole time.

Yeah, I'm just classifying things.

In my opinion, the best method is to run an Open-Ended game, unless your group specifically wants a Sandbox, in which case run that. Linear, Modular, and Branching games are either lots of uneccessary planning, and likely to break down sooner or later once your players go off the rails.

Talakeal

2015-12-28, 08:20 PM

Well, as for the DMs who want more "control," I tend to not understand what they really want out of the game, if it's just the ability to rule over other gamers or something (there are much better and completely consensual power trips out there). The clear options thing, on the other hand... I don't see why that needs to come up as a restriction. Isn't that just the DM giving the players a set of things they can choose from, without any indication either tacit or explicit that they're exhaustive? I completely understand the "supposed to take" part, but it seems like it can be handled through trust between players and DM. CRPGs are definitely a pain with their nitpicky requirements, especially for the cool stuff you really want to see. DM ignorance is another fair point, but if they're only doing it because they're inexperienced, it seems like the option isn't an option as much as it's a sign that they're novices (like allowing Pun-Pun, which is something one can do but which is not a remotely good idea).

But maybe here I'm pushing too hard on the idea of viable and reasonable options when all you're doing is trying to label things which already exist. I'm leaning towards the side of prescriptive, while you're just being descriptive. If that's the case, I've been talking with a whole different goal in mind the whole time.

I can say with certainty that yes, some people really do DM for the power trip.

My ex-DM was pretty blatant about only DMing because he likes to control other people. He railroads in the extreme, bosses his players around at the table and criticisizes them relentlessly, and constantly ignores dice rolls or alters the rules on a whim.
When he is a PC (something he has sworn he will never do again as he doesnt like the lack of control) he declares himself party leader and bosses the other PCs around.
When we play board games he is extremely rules lawyery (althoug he refuses to let anyone but himself Look at the rulebook) and is incredibly pedantic about things like turn order, properly declaring actions, and not allowing take backs.
When we played Warhammer one time he actually made up a story about being the official Games Workshop representative for the area and that he had the final authority on all rules disputes and that his authority trumped the printed rules, and he forces us to play by his (extremely restrictive) house rules, even when he isnt actually playing in the game.

I have had conversation with him trying to talk it over before I gave up on him entirely, and he basically says that his primary drive in gaming is to achieve a sense of power and control, although he phrased it in a way that makes everyone else sound like the bad guy.

Apricot

2015-12-28, 08:23 PM

I mean, I believe it. I also think that people like that, uh, shouldn't be encouraged.

I'm glad you don't have to deal with that person any longer.

Earthwalker

2015-12-29, 06:39 AM

I have been reading this thread and been trying to work out my thoughts on the various issued raised. First of all here is what I think linear storytelling and railroading are in terms of TTRPGs.

Linear Story telling: Running a RPG with a set story or plot in mind. This is either using an adventure path (pathfinder) or a story the GM has made up himself. The story will have a predetermined series of events that happen.

Railroading: The tools used by GMs to keep the players moving towards a predetermined event or events.

From my definition to railroad you must have a predetermined goal to railroad to. I also do not call railroading good or bad, I believe it can be both. More on that later. From my definition you do not need to use railroading to with linear storytelling. If the players are already bought in and are moving down the story then you don’t need tools to make them stay on story. This does seem very unlikely but possible.

Now a lot of people do not like the idea of having a predetermined story. As this form of role playing is not fun for them, they are always going to see railroading as bad. This also means their definition of railroading is… the bad thing bad GMs do. I can understand this. Personally I can go either way with role playing. I can enjoy what freedom there is when a GM runs an adventure path, a lot of it is to do with the skill of the GM.

I also enjoy running fate (not had a chance to play it yet)
A game that is designed in a much more free form manner. When running the game I never had any idea where the players were going to end up or where the story would go. I had a few locations in mind but even these just got swapped and changed around. After session 0 I knew what kind of game I was running but the story, start to finish was controlled by the whole group not just me.

Bad Railroading

Players expect a lot from GMs and the games they run. They want some level of agency. They want some level of vermisitude from the game world. They want some level of consistency from the game rules. I think bad railroading is where the GM is limiting the other expected factors to keep the players on the story.

Take for example the rescue the princess idea that has been used. The King is going to blackmail the players into rescuing the princess.

When the GM starts having thugs at the back door to the inn to capture the PCs, these thugs are as capable as the PCs. It begins to stretch vermisitude to breaking point for some. They ask, why doesn’t the king just send the thugs. After all they managed to beat the PC?

If the players just think forget this and teleport away. For the GM to say no your teleport doesn’t work. The GM is messing with the consistency of the rules. Teleport has always worked before. Again this can be more that players are willing to take.

Every time it’s bad railroading it’s because it changing other expectations the players had about the game.

AMFV

2015-12-29, 09:19 AM

It is still a railroad as the destination is the same.

Negative, Ghostrider, railroads do not work that way. Those are roads. A railroad has not only the same destination but the same track. If you have alternative ways to get to the same point, it's not a railroad.

OldTrees1

2015-12-29, 10:10 AM

Standard Model
Can do otherwise
Can't do otherwise

Did do otherwise
Player Agency
*ignore me*

Didn't do otherwise
Player Agency
Railroad

If for the same DM actions, the Players could have done otherwise than they did, then the Players have some degree of Agency (since they had the choice between doing what they did and doing otherwise).

Railroading(verb) is when the DM does not grant Player Agency in some area. This could be by saying the outcome(short term, long term, or in between)* will be the same regardless of what the PCs choose to do. Or this could be by saying the PCs can choose any action they want as long as it is the action the DM chose for them(short term, long term, or in between)**.

*Predetermining the PCs will be spotted regardless of their actions(Short term) vs The ending of the campaign was written before the first session(Long term).
**The PC will charge on their turn(Short term) vs The PCs will start a rebellion to siege the BBEG(Long term)

So for some definitions of Plot, Darth Ultron is correct that predetermined endings mean there will be some railroading. However if the plot requires neither a predetermined ending nor predetermined methods, then the plot does not require railroading.

An example for Darth Ultron:
I recently ran a campaign where the players started in a dojo in the frontier watching their mentor leaving to move on to other things. In this same world there were 5 objects of power that when activated/disturbed would beckon to Elder Evils. Before the beginning of the campaign 2 of these objects were disturbed. I wanted the plot of "PCs go out, gain/create and then rise through social positions, find out about the Elder Evils, and finally deal with the elder evils situation as they will". However from that point out I only calculated outcomes from what actions the players chose to do.

This ended with a new sensei running their own school, an impersonated captain of the city guard, a storm mage with a handful of new towers, and a local hero all deactivating the beacons and slaying the Avatars of the 3(not 2) Elder Evils that were beckoned.

However they could have done otherwise. They could have decided not to craft/gain positions for themselves(lesser note: they could have created different positions than they did create). They could have decided to leave for the legendary city(following their mentor). They could have used the Elder Evils. There are many things they could have done otherwise(and by doing otherwise the outcome could/would have changed) and I would not have stopped them and yet the plot happened.

Apricot

2015-12-29, 03:41 PM

Also important to note: inevitability of events is not the same thing as inevitability of outcomes. For example, the ancient evil necromancer's super-delayed epic-level spell will summon an army of undead five years from now, but it is not inevitable that they will ravage the lands (and it's not inevitable that the heroes will defeat them, either, or decide to defeat them, or discover the spell was cast, or any number of things). A railroad is when the outcome of every event is inevitable and set in stone. Example being: if the heroes manage to bargain with outsiders to allow some homebrewed planeshift-style spell to smother the undead summoning area in positive energy when the ritual completes in order to crush them all at once, and the DM reveals that the ancient evil necromancer also cast a super secret spell that negates that effect because there was a whole battle scene set up and he really wanted to use it. That's a particularly egregious example of railroading. It's fine if the ritual goes off anyway, but if there's no way to change the results of the ritual going off, it's railroading.

An odd exception can be drawn for things far beyond human power, like some Lovecraftian stories, but even in those, the players get to choose the way in which they succumb to the overpowering might of whichever one of those rascally ancient, incomprehensible beings is busy being naughty this time.

OldTrees1

2015-12-29, 04:34 PM

Also important to note: inevitability of events is not the same thing as inevitability of outcomes. For example, the ancient evil necromancer's super-delayed epic-level spell will summon an army of undead five years from now, but it is not inevitable that they will ravage the lands (and it's not inevitable that the heroes will defeat them, either, or decide to defeat them, or discover the spell was cast, or any number of things).

I started to write up that point, but quickly noticed that an inevitable event is a time shifted inevitable outcome.

Take your delayed epic level spell example, the PCs have 5 years worth of actions they can take. Now you considered actions the PCs could do to effect what happens to the army that is summoned. But an Antimagic Field (1d20+20 vs 11+epic cl) could stop the army from being summoned in the first place(depending on the epic caster's level). I have no doubt that some player out there might even figure out a way to cancel the delayed spell before the 5 year mark without resorting to time travel or temporal distortion(increasing/decreasing the effective delay by increasing/decreasing the time rate it experiences).

Now this does highlight another point(one I think you were making). If I made that a 30th level caster then the spell would be pretty close to inevitable. This isn't that different from just using fiat to make it inevitable. The occasional inevitable outcome(after 5 years the spell is cast) amidst a sea of mutable outcomes(what happens to the undead) is not inherently a bad thing. It is the excess of DM predetermination and insufficient amount of Player agency that becomes a bad thing(as normal is the case when qualifiers like excess and insufficient are used :P).

Apricot

2015-12-29, 08:46 PM

That's a very good point. I think what the distinction there boils down to isn't so much player agency as character ability. Like, let's say we have the same general premise, but the ritual goes off tomorrow and all the players are level 1. There's no way in hell they're stopping that, apart from some kind of incredible abuse of mechanics that is to a healthy campaign as the full nelson is to wrestling. It's definitely something of the DM's doing, but it's an obvious restriction that everyone was aware of ahead of time (such as the restriction on making Pun-Puns) and as such isn't the kind of gut-wrenching turnabout that railroading pulls.

Looking at it this way, perhaps the issue is better framed in terms of world consistency. If new things keep appearing and vanishing for the sole purpose of keeping the plot underway, it's jarring to the players' immersion. They don't feel like they're actually playing as characters in this world, because the world doesn't really exist. It's the exact same issue as crops up in sloppily-written fiction, which seems to indicate that it really isn't about linear storytelling at all, but perhaps something more fundamental about how we as humans interact with stories. Maybe it isn't the effect of the railroading so much as what one has to do in order to get it to work. If that's the case, then it implies that any properly-written "inevitable outcome" can still interest players, so long as it's done in such a way as does not cause inconsistency or break immersion. That would mean that one could create an excellent campaign setting, presided over by a prophecy that the players can see from the very beginning, and so long as no Matrix-overwrites took place in the middle of the campaign, the DM could guide events to a massive degree. It reminds me of old Greek myths, or the Belgariad series (a charming read despite its, uh, cultural worldview).

Darth Ultron

2015-12-29, 09:48 PM

No. It is a railroad if you use reactionary ways to prevent the players from doing anything other than exactly what you want.

So it is only a railroad if it is reactionary?

Negative, Ghostrider, railroads do not work that way. Those are roads. A railroad has not only the same destination but the same track. If you have alternative ways to get to the same point, it's not a railroad.

Well, Goose, I think your being too narrow with your definition of Railroad. Your saying it is only a railroad if there is just one way to get to a point. And that many ways to the same point is not a railroad. Though the end result is the same: the Pc's get to the point.

You have failed to provide a convincing argument or proof to this regard, but are still presenting it as fact. Please advise, or rephrase.

A fictional plot requires lots of artificial things to move it along such as amazing coincidences. This is because a fictional plot has a time limit. You can't take forever to move a fictional plot along. In the case of a game like D&D, you only have a couple hours. The average D&D game only has five hours of play time. The plot needs to be moved along so the game can be full of interesting fun things.

And the DM is the one in charge of the pace of the game and is the one that is in control of moving the plot along.

themaque

2015-12-30, 07:44 AM

A fictional plot requires lots of artificial things to move it along such as amazing coincidences. This is because a fictional plot has a time limit. You can't take forever to move a fictional plot along. In the case of a game like D&D, you only have a couple hours. The average D&D game only has five hours of play time. The plot needs to be moved along so the game can be full of interesting fun things.

And the DM is the one in charge of the pace of the game and is the one that is in control of moving the plot along.

This is your experience, but it's not the only one. It might not even be the standard. You have as long or as little as you and your group desire to give the game.

Now if you only get a chance to game once every few months, then yes you may want to keep yourself on task. If this is a weekly event then you have plenty of time to just enjoy each others company and continue next week.

neonchameleon

2015-12-30, 01:31 PM

Your two other ones are no plot ones...

Nope. Especially not the Old School case.

Right, I never said that there were not other games that have no plots or myths or whatever. I'm only talking about games like D&D.

i.e. explicitly including the old school case.

And lets say you do the No Myth and No Plot style in D&D. So the DM has no pre-made thoughts or ideas and just comes to the game with a blank sheet of paper and a pen.

I.e. you're pretending the old school case doesn't exist...

And D&D isn't very good for pure no-myth, although it can be done.

After a couple minutes of the Pc's ''doing nothing'' and the players ''choosing what to do'' however, there comes the point where the DM must decide to have a plot or not. And that takes us back to how will the DM railroad the plot.

More strawmen.

What's needed for no-myth play is either a system and method of producing complications (the old D&D random encounter tables helped a lot and modern systems are better) or proactive players.

If your PCs have all the initiative of a plate of wet spaghetti then you are going to need to throw things at them. If you're running a group of oD&D players with an intentional incentive to find XP then you actually don't need to because they don't tend to sit round like lemons.

When I throw thieves carrying assassins' guild tokens at PCs I expect the PCs to deal with it. I expect them to win the fight and then take the fight to the assassins guild. I have no idea whether they are going to try to find out who's set the contract and have it cancelled, whether they are going to try to destroy the guild (or even to fake their own deaths and claim the bounty on their own heads). I'm throwing an inciting event not a plot at them.

Darth Ultron

2015-12-30, 08:17 PM

This is your experience, but it's not the only one. It might not even be the standard. You have as long or as little as you and your group desire to give the game.

Now if you only get a chance to game once every few months, then yes you may want to keep yourself on task. If this is a weekly event then you have plenty of time to just enjoy each others company and continue next week.

I understand some DM's do the style of not doing anything to advance the game play and they just sit back and let the players do whatever. And, I'll admit there are some really zealous that are so obsessed with the idea that the DM must do noting to advance or influences or even effect the game in any way, that they hardly even do anything.

But I think that type is extremely rare. I think most of the DM's of that type are just saying they run games of that style. I think most DM's will railroad, even if they don't want to call it that and will run around and rationalize it in some other way.

When I throw thieves carrying assassins' guild tokens at PCs I expect the PCs to deal with it. I expect them to win the fight and then take the fight to the assassins guild. I have no idea whether they are going to try to find out who's set the contract and have it cancelled, whether they are going to try to destroy the guild (or even to fake their own deaths and claim the bounty on their own heads). I'm throwing an inciting event not a plot at them.

Games like D&D don't have rules for such card toss artificial reality altering events. One of the big draws for D&D is the feel that the game is a reality simulation. So there is no cosmic card that makes assassin just pop out of nowhere in D&D. You could have assassins come out of nowhere, as far as the Pc's are concerned, but most D&D games will have reason, backstory, fluff , a plot and a story that goes along with the sudden assassins.

And I'd note your ''the Pc's are targeted by a group of assassins hired by X for X reason(s)'' is a plot.

Milo v3

2015-12-30, 08:54 PM

I understand some DM's do the style of not doing anything to advance the game play and they just sit back and let the players do whatever. And, I'll admit there are some really zealous that are so obsessed with the idea that the DM must do noting to advance or influences or even effect the game in any way, that they hardly even do anything.

But I think that type is extremely rare. I think most of the DM's of that type are just saying they run games of that style. I think most DM's will railroad, even if they don't want to call it that and will run around and rationalize it in some other way.
Alternatively there are people in the middle ground....

Games like D&D don't have rules for such card toss artificial reality altering events. One of the big draws for D&D is the feel that the game is a reality simulation. So there is no cosmic card that makes assassin just pop out of nowhere in D&D. You could have assassins come out of nowhere, as far as the Pc's are concerned, but most D&D games will have reason, backstory, fluff , a plot and a story that goes along with the sudden assassins.
Nothing in what you were replying to was tossing in a reality altering event..... But yes it will probably have a reason for the assassins, but luckly have no idea what the players will do as a result of the event or if they will even find out that reason. Also, there are actually tables for you to roll that get things like "Assassins attack the group".

neonchameleon

2015-12-31, 05:36 AM

I think most DM's will railroad,

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. More to the point no one else in this thread thinks it means what you think it means so far as I can tell.

Games like D&D don't have rules for such card toss artificial reality altering events. One of the big draws for D&D is the feel that the game is a reality simulation. So there is no cosmic card that makes assassin just pop out of nowhere in D&D.

So wandering monster tables do not and have never existed in D&D. OK then...

And as for D&D being a reality simulation, as far as I know there are precisely three versions of D&D for which this is the case - 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder, and even then only a small subset of groups played it that way. Not even 5e attempts to be a reality simulation. And if taken literally 3.X makes for a very weird world with things like hit points (don't make me dig up Gygax on how they are not primarily physical) and the way the level progression curve works.

So. Now we've established that your definition of D&D excludes anything written by E. Gary Gygax and is restricted almost exclusively to one subset of D&D 3.X, we've made some progress. And I really would recommend you drop in on The Gaming Den - they see D&D the way you do I think.

Quertus

2015-12-31, 06:10 AM

Well, Goose, I think your being too narrow with your definition of Railroad. Your saying it is only a railroad if there is just one way to get to a point. And that many ways to the same point is not a railroad. Though the end result is the same: the Pc's get to the point

Suppose you travel from point A to point B. In one case, you get into a car, and drive, using whatever route you choose. In another, you are chopped into pieces, and your limbs and torso are shipped in separate containers to the destination.

I think most people will agree that ending up in the same place is hardly the most important, let alone the only, consideration when looking at these two methods of travel. Yes, both have the same destination, albeit with somewhat different end results, but the experience is very different. It is that experience, that particular technique or toolset being used, that is being defined as railroading.

Aotrs Commander

2015-12-31, 10:06 AM

Having read throiugh the thread, I shall now stick my own unwanted oar in... I will not address to debate on terminology, since I don't think that's very productive, but to answer the OPs quedtion, my boundaries are fairly simple. I am a prep-heavy DM (pretty much on the exact opposite end of the spectrum from ImNotTrevor, by the sounds of things), so even when I write my own quests, it is effectively like running a module or adventure path. So, the expectation for the players is that they will be playing along the module and that they won't decide to go off down to the Bay of Dancing Dolphins or something; they need to meet me at the very least half-way.

To be fair, I don't actually ask the players, but instead generally say "I'm going to be running this next;" but generally, as there are basically only two of us that can do weekly DMing (plus the occasional short session from someone else) the players are quite happy to go along with me (or the other DM). I do occasionally ask if we're doing something out of the ordinary - though we havem't ever got that far, I did ask the players (as we'd had some newer ones in) whewther they would be happy doing and evil adventure path and again, with the most recent day-quest party - Liches in the Aotrs - I did ask, and one player politely declined. But mostly in our group its a pretty tacit agreement, but this is okay, since we are all on the same page. If I was in a position where that was not true, I would, of course, make more of a point of asking whether they wanted the game I was planning.

(As mean as it sounds, I am never likely to ask the players what sort of game they want to play, only if they want to play the game I'm prepared to run. That is, as they say, my price for doing the DMing; I am am to sink the (often tens or scores) or hours into DMing, it will be for a game I particularly want to run.)

Fortunately, I am blessed with a crowd of players - some of whom I've been playing with for twenty-five years - who are of a pretty similar mindset, and by-and-large, even when we've had new players come in, we've been lucky not to get anyone whose playstyle too virulently conflicts enough with ours. (We have had a couple of bumps in the road with a couple of people who no longer play with us, but nothing remotely to the level of some folks.) In fact, generally attempts to have the players determine the game (as ImNotTrevor's games appear to run) went down rather like a lead balloon...! "What does the party want to do next" is often met by tumbleweed and crickets chirpping, even when considering Everyone's Favourite Characters that we've been playing for nearly twenty years...!

So, when I am running, if the PCs do decide to go off in a completely random direction, the players do have to live with the fact that while (as I proved the one occasion it actually happened seriously) I can improvise (apparently convincingly enough for them not to notice) to some extent, they very likely won't be getting any combats (aside from random monster encounters or whatnot, which with the level of typical player optimisaiton will mean nothing that will provide a challenge) and they will be prodded back onto the right track, preferably before the entire adventure will ground to a halt when the DM says "right, that's it lads, session's got to end here, 'cos I need to prep something now."

(The one particular time this happened was during an adaption of Dragon Mountain where the PCs got the wrong end of the stick from an NPC the module had obtusely put in as a red herring and decided they they needed to cross the sea to this other land. So I had to improvise an entire country (fortunately having just played Jade Empire), which the PCs bumbled around (noncombat roleplaying) for a session or two in a foreign city, trying to find "the Dragon" and "the Mountain" by various means. They finally got hold of someone who had a bit of a giggle at them (like the DM had) and explained that "the Dragon" and "the Mountain" were something like two criminal leaders that one NPC had been on the run from and nothing whatsoever to do with Dragon Mountain1 and they'd come all the way across the sea for no reason other than their own misunderstanding and, slightly sheepish, they went back to the actual plot.)

If I had players that were really determined enough to go off and not do said adventure, the result would have to be "whelp, that's it for this campaign, then, chaps; you don't wanna play this one, and I don't have any time to write a whole new adventure for next week, so that's ya lot, until I have chance to write up an new adventure path/quest/whatever in however many months it takes me down the line to modify the next one1; who's DMing next week, then?"

(For day quests, I would - not that I ever really need to, because my players are like me, quite happy to play the "module" as it were - if necessary moderately railroad the PCs slightly harder back to the plot if they strayed too far, since sometimes I have less material to work with there, depending on specific setting.)

Conversely, as a player, I am quite happy to play (within reason) whatever adventure the DM is playing - especially as it means I'm not DMing for a bit! (Though my enthusisam can be a bit more lukewarm for things like wild west games or something, generas I'm not particularly into, but that means I'll likely be more passive and more likely to give my DM the same sort of problems I get from my players when I ask what they want to do next...!)

1In the PC's sort of defence, the module had put in this particular dude as a red herring, so it wasn't 100% unreasonable for them to have completely got the wrong end of the stick. The module just supposed the PCs would have not completely misinterpreted him saying "the Dragon and the Mountain will never take me alive" or whatever it was he said.

1Since I don't have time, much as I would like to, to simply write my own any more, aside from day quests.

LnGrrrR

2015-12-31, 01:26 PM

I think it is telling that Darth's example used "blackmailing the PCs" as the story they would all agree to.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-01, 12:48 PM

Alternatively there are people in the middle ground....

There is not a middle ground for everything. Like the wise man says ''do or not, there is no try''. For example, did you eat some cake, yes or no? It is very clear. You can't eat just half a piece of cake and then say you had no cake.

Same way you can't have a plot and story without railroading.

Nothing in what you were replying to was tossing in a reality altering event..... But yes it will probably have a reason for the assassins, but luckly have no idea what the players will do as a result of the event or if they will even find out that reason. Also, there are actually tables for you to roll that get things like "Assassins attack the group".

There are? In D&D? And even if there are, the game would get very boring if a DM just randomly rolled on a table for things. Even a table with 100 choices would get used up fast and you'd start repeating. And you'd only get the results that someone somewhere put on the table. The DM wants to use a thoul, sorry it's not on the table.

Suppose you travel from point A to point B. In one case, you get into a car, and drive, using whatever route you choose. In another, you are chopped into pieces, and your limbs and torso are shipped in separate containers to the destination.

I think most people will agree that ending up in the same place is hardly the most important, let alone the only, consideration when looking at these two methods of travel. Yes, both have the same destination, albeit with somewhat different end results, but the experience is very different. It is that experience, that particular technique or toolset being used, that is being defined as railroading.

Lets try:

Normal Railroading DM: The group sets out with a goal of doing X. So everything they experience and encounter is related to them getting to that goal. If they say on track it is fine, but should they attempt a move off the tracks, then the DM places them back on the tracks. He can do this the crude way (''the Pc's go north to the castle and that is final''), he can do it normal (''We found a bit of red fabric at the site...and the knights of order have red cloaks...mumm'' or (''the first door is locked, but the second door is open'') or he can reverse railroad ("So you guys head north...and find an old elf along the road, he waves you over and asks if you'd like to hear a tale''). After a bit of adventure the Pc's get to the climax and may or may not get to the goal.

The Other DM: The group sets out with a goal of doing X. So random things happen randomly in no set order or sense. The PCs are free to wander aimlessly forever, mostly doing nothing. And the DM does nothing at all, no events or encounters happen, except random ones, so nothing moves the plot along. The game is just a bunch of random nothings not even linked together. Eventually the real time limit of the game ends and nothing happens as the Pcs are not even remotely close to the goal.

The anti railroad DM:The group sets out with a goal of doing X. So random things happen randomly in no set order or sense. Except some of the random things advance the plot as the DM railroads it that way. But the DM has a soft hand, almost not even there as he makes the railroading more like a suggestion. And the DM will let the players, most of the time, ignore the rails if the players want too. Still, eventually, eiter the players will willing follow the DMs suggested lead or the DM will railroad...just a little bit....and the Pcs will get to the climax and may or may not get to the goal.

I think it is telling that Darth's example used "blackmailing the PCs" as the story they would all agree to.

Why is that? Do you disagree that the ''unwanted forced adventure plot'' is not a valid plot? What is wrong with fictional game world events forcing actions?

neonchameleon

2016-01-01, 02:07 PM

There is not a middle ground for everything. Like the wise man says ''do or not, there is no try''.

Yoda makes his fellow muppets Kermit and even Elmo look wise. He's probably slightly wiser than Animal, Beaker, and the Swedish Chef just as he's better at jokes than Fozzie.

Same way you can't have a plot and story without railroading.

The story is the compiling of events after they have happened. Every open world sandbox RPG I've played has ended up with a story. For that matter every Necromunda campaign I've played in has generated story even without a GM. I don't care what pound store platitudes you come up with to justify your claim that there's no story without railroading. It's simply wrong.

Now you can't write the story in advance without railroading.

There are? In D&D? And even if there are, the game would get very boring if a DM just randomly rolled on a table for things. Even a table with 100 choices would get used up fast and you'd start repeating. And you'd only get the results that someone somewhere put on the table. The DM wants to use a thoul, sorry it's not on the table.

From this I get two possibilities:
1: You are ignorant of just about everything Gygax did when he developed D&D and despite your knowledge of D&D extending no further back than 3.0 you feel this empowers you to talk authoritatively about what D&D is and isn't.
2: You are retroactively declaring that nothing Gygax and Arneson produced was part of D&D. And feel that this deliberate retcon empowers you to talk authoritatively about what D&D is and isn't.

Which of these is true? Because from your surprise at the concept of wandering monster tables it is very clear that you are ignorant of anything published in the 1970s and indeed most of the 80s and much of the 90s.

Oh, and:

Normal Railroading DM:...but should they attempt a move off the tracks, then the DM places them back on the tracks.

Is a railroading jackass the second they reach this half sentence. A good DM will possibly mark the journey for the road trip - but if the players decide to take a detour or even change destination will be cool with that. Now they might leave roadsigns lying around - but it's still a roadtrip with the PCs behind the wheel of the car.

The Other DM: The group sets out with a goal of doing X. ... The PCs are free to wander aimlessly forever, mostly doing nothing.

But the PCs are not aimless. If the group set out with the goal of doing X then if the PCs are wandering aimlessly it's because the players no longer want to do X. Therefore the group no longer wants to do X.

Why do you think the PCs will want to do nothing? Especially when the group supposedly set out with the goal of doing X?

The anti railroad DM:

Is a strawman.

So. Let's try three types of GM here. And have each of them planning a holiday for friends backpacking across Europe.

The Railroad DM: The Railroad DM quite naturally plans the trip using railroads. They buy each of the backpackers a collection of non-exchangable first class train tickets, and books every hotel in advance, paid in advance. They then pick out a collection of sights and book tours. And book some good stuff - but if someone even misses a train they are in trouble. And then they book the galleries and walks the PCs are meant to go on, certainly to the day and probably to the hour. (Yes, the Railroad DM books like a helicopter parent).

The Road Trip DM: The Road Trip DM is normal. THe first thing they do is hire a car for the PCs - and then marks what they think would make a good road trip on the map. They book some motels for layovers but only provisionally; if the PCs are going to use them they need to confirm a day in advance. They also know where some of the expected detours are - but where the PCs actually go is up to them.

The Sandbox DM: The Sandbox DM books the flights to Europe on open returns. They then book three major events the PCs want and tells the PCs to work out how to be at the right place on the right day.

OldTrees1

2016-01-01, 02:08 PM

@Darth Ultron

I believe your definition of "Plot" differs from how the others in this thread interpret that word. This is pretty important to understanding your assertion that "A Plot demands a minimum of some railroading".

Does a Plot require a predetermined ending or does it merely require player engagement until an ending occurs?

Does a Plot require predetermined scenes happening in a specific order?
Example: Setup(King blackmails PCs) -> Escalation(The kidnappers capture a relative of the PCs as a deterrent) -> Climax(PCs infiltrate the enemy base) -> Resolution(Hostages are rescued)

I ask since I think you do have some points(for instance while a Roadmap campaign is not a Railroad campaign, it does involve the DM using some railroading) but it is getting muddles by the differing definitions people have.

LnGrrrR

2016-01-01, 08:01 PM

Darth, the point is that your "everyone accepts" storyline still involves characters who seemingly don't want to be heroes. Rather than players who want to be heroes. DnD isn't really well set up for unwilling protagonists.

And didn't you say earlier that old school, no plot DnD is a valid way to play? Just fighting random monsters in a formless limbo? Doesn't that contradict your idea that you will eventually get bored with tables, as they have finite options available? Does not the same hold true with just facing various monsters?

Telok

2016-01-01, 10:48 PM

Ya know, I have a little Java program that implements the random dungeon generator in the AD&D DMG. It's not complete of course, being an off time hobby project. That might meet the requirement of a lol-random-no-plot game that's being called non-railroad.

Of course at that point you just have a room-monster-repeat computer game with humans doing the math.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-02, 12:18 AM

I believe your definition of "Plot" differs from how the others in this thread interpret that word. This is pretty important to understanding your assertion that "A Plot demands a minimum of some railroading".

Does a Plot require a predetermined ending or does it merely require player engagement until an ending occurs?

Does a Plot require predetermined scenes happening in a specific order?

I ask since I think you do have some points(for instance while a Roadmap campaign is not a Railroad campaign, it does involve the DM using some railroading) but it is getting muddles by the differing definitions people have.

A plot has to have a number of set details to be a plot. The vast majority of the details must stay set, but some are fluid and can change, but mostly this covers only minor points. Assuming, by default, that the plot is taking place in a world with a lot in common with the real world. For example, a human male aged 30 could only have a couple kids age 15 or so. It is possible for him to have triplet kids, and there is a possibility for things like clones or time travel, but for the most part you have to stick with 1-2 teenaged kids.

A lot like the river of time for time travel, the Pc's can effect changes in some details, but can't overly change the flow of the plot. If for example the bad guys from a big crime family try to kidnap the princess on Monday and the Pc's stop them, some agents will likely try again later in the week. Though, the plot can be abandoned, or changed too. But the game will still have a plot, no matter.

For example, a major plot point, the PC's need to learn the location of X. The DM makes a map to X, not the Pc's must get that map, not matter what for the map plot point to happen. Now, yes, the DM could make a billion billion other ways to get the information about location X to the Pc's but the basic idea is: The Pc's must learn the location of X for the plot to continue.

Darth, the point is that your "everyone accepts" storyline still involves characters who seemingly don't want to be heroes. Rather than players who want to be heroes. DnD isn't really well set up for unwilling protagonists.

And didn't you say earlier that old school, no plot DnD is a valid way to play? Just fighting random monsters in a formless limbo? Doesn't that contradict your idea that you will eventually get bored with tables, as they have finite options available? Does not the same hold true with just facing various monsters?

Old school, default D&D does assume the PC's will be good willing heroes.

Random monsters in limbo is a valid way to play, but it is still dull and boring.

YossarianLives

2016-01-02, 12:22 AM

There is not a middle ground for everything. Like the wise man says ''do or not, there is no try''. For example, did you eat some cake, yes or no? It is very clear. You can't eat just half a piece of cake and then say you had no cake.
I take issue with this and plead nonsense. You can eat cake and say that you didn't have any cake. You would be lying, but it would totally be within your power to say it. That's pretty much how I run TTRPGs.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-02, 12:27 AM

I take issue with this and plead nonsense. You can eat cake and say that you didn't have any cake. You would be lying, but it would totally be within your power to say it. That's pretty much how I run TTRPGs.

Right, the same way some DM's are saying they are so ''something'' that they never, ever railroad.....and they do...and then they just lie about doing it.

But telling a lie does not change the truth.

Quertus

2016-01-02, 01:16 AM

. Assuming, by default, that the plot is taking place in a world with a lot in common with the real world. For example, a human male aged 30 could only have a couple kids age 15 or so. It is possible for him to have triplet kids, and there is a possibility for things like clones or time travel, but for the most part you have to stick with 1-2 teenaged kids.

Not sure where you were going with this, but a human male age 30 could potentially have hundreds if not thousands of teen kids. A human female, however, is more likely to have 0-2.

Segev

2016-01-02, 02:06 AM

Not sure where you were going with this, but a human male age 30 could potentially have hundreds if not thousands of teen kids. A human female, however, is more likely to have 0-2.

Eh, assuming she's willing or able to pawn them off on others to raise, even giving her a year off between pregnancies, a woman of age 30 could easily have 8 or so kids.

But yes, human males do have a much easier time spreading their genes around, assuming they can find partners; they are largely limited by their number of potential partners more than any of their own physical limitations. (That's not to say the latter don't exist, but that they're usually not the limiting factor when it comes to efficient procreation.) Men can parallelize the incubation of their children more easily than can women.

...I admit I skipped to the last page. What is the context that brought this up in this thread?

On to railroading vs. linear storytelling...

If you need to ensure that the party is going to do certain things, it's usually easiest to a) make it the players' responsibility to determine why their characters would be involved in your plot, b) tell them the specific roles they will play (e.g. "You're all part of a caravan of colonists seeking to settle in the now-empty lands of a formerly war-torn region wherein all the old inhabitants have moved out or died"), and c) combine the above with pre-game fiat accompli to get the railroading done before their agency takes over (e.g. "Tell me why your character is in a dungeon cell in Fort Laustendawuds" or "Tell me how your character wound up a prisoner on a slave ship that is being attacked by pirates as the game begins").

As to the other interesting question I saw come up: you can plan for events that require the PCs to fail without railroading. But you have to be flexible. Plan not a specific manner of failure, but rather plan a lot of potential MacGuffins and red herrings and the like. Plan your "required failure" so it is a plot hook you can spring when an opportunity presents itself. What you're looking for is any of the many times PCs will, inevitably, wind up failing on their own, fully "naturally" due to their own choices or just plain bad luck (i.e. treacherous dice).

If you need the PCs to be captured after the game has already been going on, keep the plot wherein this is necessary on standby, and wait for some chance when the PCs are, in fact, losing a fight and in danger of, if not a TPK, then at least something close to one. Turn the "death" into mere "defeat" by grace of this band of NPCs actually being, it turns out, working for or with whoever it is you needed to capture the PCs.

It doesn't matter if it is the orc band you specifically sent after them in hopes they'd get captured, or the bunch of scraggly urchins you thought would be pushovers that they decided to attack because one pissed off the snooty sorcerer, but who turned out to just trounce the PCs for reasons you cannot fathom: they choose to keep the PCs alive and hand them to your plot-based prisoner-holders, for money or out of loyalties that you made up on the spot.

A lot of "I need my PCs to die so I can make them have this cool afterlife quest" plots can be made more palatable by having them on the backburner, just waiting for a TPK that you aren't deliberately orchestrating. You may pull fewer punches, but if the TPK happens naturally, now you have opportunity to use that plot without having to railroad.

In short, a lot of it is managing expectations and awaiting opportunity. Have your plot hooks be flexible enough to hide in any number of baits, and to be set even when you weren't expecting them. Be ready to take advantage of things that inevitably happen on their own, and you need never directly railroad a hook into place.

OldTrees1

2016-01-02, 02:11 AM

A plot has to have a number of set details to be a plot. The vast majority of the details must stay set, but some are fluid and can change, but mostly this covers only minor points. Assuming, by default, that the plot is taking place in a world with a lot in common with the real world. For example, a human male aged 30 could only have a couple kids age 15 or so. It is possible for him to have triplet kids, and there is a possibility for things like clones or time travel, but for the most part you have to stick with 1-2 teenaged kids.

A lot like the river of time for time travel, the Pc's can effect changes in some details, but can't overly change the flow of the plot. If for example the bad guys from a big crime family try to kidnap the princess on Monday and the Pc's stop them, some agents will likely try again later in the week. Though, the plot can be abandoned, or changed too. But the game will still have a plot, no matter.

For example, a major plot point, the PC's need to learn the location of X. The DM makes a map to X, not the Pc's must get that map, not matter what for the map plot point to happen. Now, yes, the DM could make a billion billion other ways to get the information about location X to the Pc's but the basic idea is: The Pc's must learn the location of X for the plot to continue.

Yes, for this definition of Plot the DM will need to railroad in specific events even if the DM does not need to constantly railroad.

Your definition of plot has 2 major components.
1) The plot is big enough that individuals cannot change the flow, only the details.
2) The plot contains waypoints("PCs learn of location X", or "Princess gets captured"). The plot has to reach a waypoint in order for the plot to continue.

Now, others in this thread have a looser definition of plot(see my example of "Elder Evils are being beckoned, what do the PCs do?" as an extreme example). The looser the predetermined parts of the story being played, the less railroading the DM needs to do to meet all the predetermined parts of the story.

neonchameleon

2016-01-02, 09:26 AM

A plot has to have a number of set details to be a plot. The vast majority of the details must stay set, but some are fluid and can change, but mostly this covers only minor points.

Nope.

Let's take the plot of a game of My Life With Master. "The PCs play minions of an evil Master. Master mistreats minions. One minion gets too pissed off with Master and tries to kill said Master. They fight to the death." That's all the plot a game of My Life With Master has or requires. After the establishing shots of who the Master and Minions are literally everything else develops in play. This is in no sense a railroad.

A lot like the river of time for time travel, the Pc's can effect changes in some details, but can't overly change the flow of the plot. If for example the bad guys from a big crime family try to kidnap the princess on Monday and the Pc's stop them, some agents will likely try again later in the week. Though, the plot can be abandoned, or changed too. But the game will still have a plot, no matter.

And if the PCs decided to paint themselves purple and take up mime artistry in the town square utterly ignoring the princess the game would still have a plot. It just would have little to do with anything from the DM's plans.

For example, a major plot point, the PC's need to learn the location of X. The DM makes a map to X, not the Pc's must get that map, not matter what for the map plot point to happen. Now, yes, the DM could make a billion billion other ways to get the information about location X to the Pc's but the basic idea is: The Pc's must learn the location of X for the plot to continue.

You're confusing establishing event with plot with railroading.

Establishing event: The PCs are told via an unimpechable source that if the Gem of McGuffin is not brought to the Temple of Light and placed on the altar on the night of the Vernal Equinox then the Dark Lord shall Rise.

Railroading: And to reach the Gem of McGuffin the PCs need to get the map to X from The Scrawny Old Man by solving his problems via fetch quest. Which allows them to follow the path, kill the designated monsters, get the gem, and get it to the altar.

Plot: Whatever actually happened, starring the PCs. This could be the tale of the good adventurers who followed the path of niceness, the murderhobos who murdered the scrawny old man, the investigative team who pulled everyone together and managed to create a pilgramage to retrieve the gem (getting a third of the town killed in the process and levelling everyone else up) or even the jokers who pissed around and did nothing useful despite knowing the Dark Lord would rise.

Old school, default D&D does assume the PC's will be good willing heroes.

It also sets up reasons for them to be so - XP for GP goes a long way, as do these dungeon things.

But telling a lie does not change the truth.

Redefining words like "Plot" and "Railroad" doesn't make them mean what you are claiming they do. Or do you, like Humpty Dumpty pay words extra to mean what you want them to?

Darth Ultron

2016-01-02, 10:53 AM

And if the PCs decided to paint themselves purple and take up mime artistry in the town square utterly ignoring the princess the game would still have a plot. It just would have little to do with anything from the DM's plans.

The flaw your making is your assuming the plot is a bad thing made by a jerk DM to force the players to act out things according to the DMs set plan.

Any players can decide to be jerks, not follow any plots and just sit around.

You're confusing establishing event with plot with railroading.

Establishing event: The PCs are told via an unimpechable source that if the Gem of McGuffin is not brought to the Temple of Light and placed on the altar on the night of the Vernal Equinox then the Dark Lord shall Rise.

Railroading: And to reach the Gem of McGuffin the PCs need to get the map to X from The Scrawny Old Man by solving his problems via fetch quest. Which allows them to follow the path, kill the designated monsters, get the gem, and get it to the altar.

Plot: Whatever actually happened, starring the PCs. This could be the tale of the good adventurers who followed the path of niceness, the murderhobos who murdered the scrawny old man, the investigative team who pulled everyone together and managed to create a pilgramage to retrieve the gem (getting a third of the town killed in the process and levelling everyone else up) or even the jokers who pissed around and did nothing useful despite knowing the Dark Lord would rise.

Your ''plot'' here is just Reverse Railroading: the DM lays down the tracks right in front of the characters as they move along. It does give the players a beautiful feeling of illusion they they are controlling the plot and telling a story that they are creating.

Most of your ''plot'' examples are just of jerk players wasting time.

The metaplot is ''the dark overlord will rise''. Assuming the players even want to play the game, they must have their characters stop him. Now a nice DM will give the players a direct way to stop the evil (the gem), not so nice DM's will just sit there and say ''ok, what do your characters do?"

Now the nice game has the game starting at 6 pm, and the adventure starting at 6:10 as the characters go looking for the gem. The not nice game...well...flounders. With nothing set to do, the players must think of something on their own. And this can take hours, maybe the whole game. And keep in mind that no McGuffins or any other type of plot helpers exist in the not nice game. But eventually the players might come up with something to do, and the DM will railroad them along the plot they choose.

OldTrees1

2016-01-02, 11:43 AM

You're confusing establishing event with plot with railroading.

That event was in the middle of the adventure not at the beginning. It being a predetermined outcome of the first part of the adventure regardless of PC action to the contrary makes it railroading. While the PCs have freedom between these "establishing events", the predetermined nature of these events act as waypoints forcing the PCs back onto a bit of track before they are allowed to roam again.

As an extreme example, what if a campaign is only establishing shots? We would call that a severe railroad since the players can't do anything and even if they could they couldn't affect anything. This is the textbook example of extreme railroading. Replacing some establishing shots with player agency scenes reduces the railroading in proportion to how many replacements are made.

Thus while it is true that plot can be made without a series of establishing shots, each establishing shot in a series of establishing shots would be railroading.

The metaplot is ''the dark overlord will rise''. Assuming the players even want to play the game, they must have their characters stop him. Now a nice DM will give the players a direct way to stop the evil (the gem), not so nice DM's will just sit there and say ''ok, what do your characters do?"

Now the nice game has the game starting at 6 pm, and the adventure starting at 6:10 as the characters go looking for the gem. The not nice game...well...flounders. With nothing set to do, the players must think of something on their own. And this can take hours, maybe the whole game. And keep in mind that no McGuffins or any other type of plot helpers exist in the not nice game. But eventually the players might come up with something to do, and the DM will railroad them along the plot they choose.

This depends on the players.

With my first group all I needed to do was make a world with someone the players would dislike. As a result the players escaped a prison(establishing scene), unified some tribes, helped a kingdom use its army to defend itself from invasion, pushed forward and cut off the head of the opposition, and stitched the world back together(desired ending).

My second group did not know what to do with that much agency(they would start something and then not know how to continue) and thus needed some DM direction in the form of NPCs giving information.

My third group I described earlier but it was like the first.

So it isn't "all players are unmotivated and thus nice games require DM direction". It is "different players need different amounts of direction and freedom". So know your players, but recognize that not all players are like them.

neonchameleon

2016-01-02, 12:43 PM

The flaw your making is your assuming the plot is a bad thing made by a jerk DM to force the players to act out things according to the DMs set plan.

No. The DM doesn't become a jerk when they try making a plot. And it's not a railroad at that point. The DM becomes a jerk when they force the players back onto the preset rails. See the road trip illustration for details.

Your ''plot'' here is just Reverse Railroading: the DM lays down the tracks right in front of the characters as they move along. It does give the players a beautiful feeling of illusion they they are controlling the plot and telling a story that they are creating.

That depends how the surrounding universe works. If the DM gives the players full control over all NPCs involved and never rolls any dice then yes that might be reverse railroading.

Most of your ''plot'' examples are just of jerk players wasting time.

When we get down to it all tabletop roleplaying is is wasting time while having fun and exploring imaginary worlds and facing artificial challenges. "Wasting time" is a pointless complaint as long as people are enjoying it.

The metaplot is ''the dark overlord will rise''. Assuming the players even want to play the game, they must have their characters stop him.

Nope. Their characters should start out on the road of wanting to stop the Dark Overlord. This doesn't mean that things have to unfold that way. It could be that one or all of the PCs decide that the current system needs smashing. Or one of the PCs gets bribed or otherwise turns. And they may fail.

They should set out wanting to stop the Dark Overlord. That is all.

and the DM will railroad them along the plot they choose.

Why do you insist on inenting new meanings to words? Tell me, is it that you don't understand the old ones? Or is it merely that you dislike the old ones and want to define them into meaninglessness.

And you are aware of the difference between driving and following a train timetable using tickets booked weeks in advance? For that matter are you aware of what train tracks are?

As an extreme example, what if a campaign is only establishing shots? We would call that a severe railroad since the players can't do anything and even if they could they couldn't affect anything.

We'd call that performance theatre with the players as the audience.

Thus while it is true that plot can be made without a series of establishing shots, each establishing shot in a series of establishing shots would be railroading.

As long as the establishing shots weren't a response to the PCs at all. (In which case how do the PCs see them?)

So it isn't "all players are unmotivated and thus nice games require DM direction". It is "different players need different amounts of direction and freedom". So know your players, but recognize that not all players are like them.

Yup. Definitely. There is nothing wrong with giving direction to players who want it.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-02, 02:06 PM

With my first group all I needed to do was make a world with someone the players would dislike. As a result the players escaped a prison(establishing scene), unified some tribes, helped a kingdom use its army to defend itself from invasion, pushed forward and cut off the head of the opposition, and stitched the world back together(desired ending).

I'd point out that such a complicated plot must of had railroading to get done. You don't give any details, of course. Like, for example, how did the characters escape from prison?

So it isn't "all players are unmotivated and thus nice games require DM direction". It is "different players need different amounts of direction and freedom". So know your players, but recognize that not all players are like them.

True.

No. The DM doesn't become a jerk when they try making a plot. And it's not a railroad at that point. The DM becomes a jerk when they force the players back onto the preset rails. See the road trip illustration for details.

It think your stuck on Railroad is A-to-B-to-C. And the other way is A-to-billions and billions and billions of ways ''B''- to-C.

So Group A follows a nice set of reasonable laid out plot points to a goal, that is railroading. But Group B does the billion and billion and billion of others things and eventually, maybe, sort of, gets to the G, that is not railroading.

That depends how the surrounding universe works. If the DM gives the players full control over all NPCs involved and never rolls any dice then yes that might be reverse railroading.

At the extreme, this type of weak DM just does whatever the players tell them to do. The players say ''over in the barn are 100 sacks of gold'' and the DM says ''you find 100 sacks of gold in the barn.''

When we get down to it all tabletop roleplaying is is wasting time while having fun and exploring imaginary worlds and facing artificial challenges. "Wasting time" is a pointless complaint as long as people are enjoying it.

This is true, there are tons of people that like a game about nothing. They just like the distraction of fun for a couple hours.

Nope. Their characters should start out on the road of wanting to stop the Dark Overlord. This doesn't mean that things have to unfold that way. It could be that one or all of the PCs decide that the current system needs smashing. Or one of the PCs gets bribed or otherwise turns. And they may fail.

Like I said, this is where the jerk players come in and ruin the game.

GAAD

2016-01-02, 04:13 PM

I'd point out that such a complicated plot must of had railroading to get done. You don't give any details, of course. Like, for example, how did the characters escape from prison?

It think your stuck on Railroad is A-to-B-to-C. And the other way is A-to-billions and billions and billions of ways ''B''- to-C.

So Group A follows a nice set of reasonable laid out plot points to a goal, that is railroading. But Group B does the billion and billion and billion of others things and eventually, maybe, sort of, gets to the G, that is not railroading.

At the extreme, this type of weak DM just does whatever the players tell them to do. The players say ''over in the barn are 100 sacks of gold'' and the DM says ''you find 100 sacks of gold in the barn.''

This is true, there are tons of people that like a game about nothing. They just like the distraction of fun for a couple hours.

Like I said, this is where the jerk players come in and ruin the game.

So, according to Darth Ultron, "railroading" means "sticking to the premise of the game".

I think I can help clear up the confusion here.

According to the definition of railroading that a lot of us use, yes. It IS A to B to C.

According to you, as long as the players reach the ending, or Point C, and they followed the plot, then they must have been railroaded into those actions.

Let's take your example of the prison break. You say: this plot must have had railroading. How did the characters escape from prison?

NOTE: I haven't really been following this thread, so I'm assuming some things about this scenario that may not be accurate.

From what I understand, the premise is "the characters escape from prison". There are no details. You ask, how could they have done it without railroading?

Well, THAT IS UP TO THE PLAYERS.

The characters are in prison and wish to escape. There are obstacles of some sort in their path. And the players CHOOSE how to deal with them. Maybe they bribe the warden. Maybe they have some friends in low places smuggle them some weapons and they charge out guns blazing. Maybe they dig their way out with a plastic spoon. Maybe they have their lackeys hold some high power individuals hostage and secure their release as the ransom.

The DM expected them to escape via the sewers and has a whole scenario and encounters mapped out.

If the DM railroads, then ANY other plan by the PCs will fail, on principle, because it's not in the plan.
If any other plan by the players is accepted, if the warden is successfully bribed, or the weapons successfully smuggled, or the President's Daughter successfully ransomed, then even though the party is exactly where they would have been under the original sewer plan, it is not railroading, because the players decided HOW they got out of prison.

The non railroader says: the party escapes from prison
The railroader says: the party escapes from prison BY

Setting up a plot, even one with a desired or fixed end point, is not railroading. Deciding the details of that plot, and therefore player actions, in advance, is.

According to this post, you believe that if the PCs get to where the DM wanted them to be, and followed the plot, there must have been railroading involved. But there doesn't have to have been.

So, here's my understanding of what's going on.

According to DU, railroading is when the GM controls WHY the PCs adventure.

According to most people on this thread, railroading is when the GM controls HOW the PCs adventure.

In fact, let's make this situation easier: railroading is when, for whatever reason, the DM takes the players' turn for them.

OldTrees1

2016-01-02, 06:19 PM

I'd point out that such a complicated plot must of had railroading to get done. You don't give any details, of course. Like, for example, how did the characters escape from prison?
The PCs escaped by it being a work camp and they were powerful enough to figure out a way out*. Beyond that campaign intro, there was literally no railroading(complete sandbox campaign). The players created characters with internal motivations that resulted in the rest. Those events(unified tribes, help order troops, and cut off the heads) were not predetermined or even planned but rather the players thought of and enacted them.

*They used a riot to create enough of a commotion on the far side of the quarry that they could scale the side of the quarry while slaying any guards remaining in their way. Then they high tailed it as fast as possible in a random direction through the wasteland. They crossed into another country(across a mountain range) and started to explore.

A planned complicated plot takes railroading in proportion to the degree of complication.
An emergent complicated plot does not since it is merely what happened to happen. However it takes players that create PCs with internal motivations on the strategic scale.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-02, 08:54 PM

Well, THAT IS UP TO THE PLAYERS.

My point, as it has always been is that IT IS UP TO THE DM.

The characters are in prison and wish to escape. There are obstacles of some sort in their path. And the players CHOOSE how to deal with them. Maybe they bribe the warden. Maybe they have some friends in low places smuggle them some weapons and they charge out guns blazing. Maybe they dig their way out with a plastic spoon. Maybe they have their lackeys hold some high power individuals hostage and secure their release as the ransom.

See, the DM is the one creating the obstacles. The DM is the one that makes the ''maybes'' into somethings.

The DM expected them to escape via the sewers and has a whole scenario and encounters mapped out.

So, explain how for example the NPC friends in low places smuggle in the weapons to escape, when the DM is the one in control of the NPC's and he says that does not happen? See, the players can not alter the game reality in a normal game. They can't say ''our friends break the characters out'' any more then they can say ''our characters have a billion gold coins each''.

If the DM railroads, then ANY other plan by the PCs will fail, on principle, because it's not in the plan.
If any other plan by the players is accepted, if the warden is successfully bribed, or the weapons successfully smuggled, or the President's Daughter successfully ransomed, then even though the party is exactly where they would have been under the original sewer plan, it is not railroading, because the players decided HOW they got out of prison.

This is the false bit were your saying a railroad is only when the DM has a planned out plot, and it's the jerk players that go and ruin the game by going off the rails.

Your way has the blank idiot DM that just does that the players tell him to do. The players say ''we bribe the guy'' and the DM says ''Ok-day''.

According to DU, railroading is when the GM controls WHY the PCs adventure.

According to most people on this thread, railroading is when the GM controls HOW the PCs adventure.

In fact, let's make this situation easier: railroading is when, for whatever reason, the DM takes the players' turn for them.

With a fiction plot in something like a RPG like D&D, the DM will always ''take the turn'' for the players.

Everyone else is saying this impossible idea: The DM is a blank idiot that just randomly creates randomly unrelated people, places, things and events in the game world. Then the players come along, and randomly and impossibly make choices that create and control the plot of the game. And the DM, who is doing nothing, just sits back and says ''wow''.

I'm saying the DM creates plots and then railroads the players along them....any choice by the players is an illusion. Good players willing ignore this and just play the game.

Take the prison escape. The DM makes the prison, the guards and everything else in the world other then the Pcs. The DM controls everything in the world, other then the PCs. And the DM controls the whole game reality.

So the DM creates everything about the prison. The players listen to the DM's descriptions of everything, and then decide on a course of action. Now, in theory, a DM has no bais and is neutral, but no DM is perfect, so this is impossible. So, the DM can make things ''easy'', ''avarage'' or ''hard''. Are the guards humans level 2 warriors with ability scores of less then 10, or are they half orc warlock 1/fighter 1 with high strengths. When the prison break happens do the guards act like the Three Stooges and be useless, or do they have a hard core emergency response plan? Is the prison as secure as an open barn, or does it have a lock-down procedure?

See the DM decides all of that.

The PCs escaped by it being a work camp and they were powerful enough to figure out a way out*.

*They used a riot to create enough of a commotion on the far side of the quarry that they could scale the side of the quarry while slaying any guards remaining in their way. Then they high tailed it as fast as possible in a random direction through the wasteland. They crossed into another country(across a mountain range) and started to explore.

A planned complicated plot takes railroading in proportion to the degree of complication.
An emergent complicated plot does not since it is merely what happened to happen. However it takes players that create PCs with internal motivations on the strategic scale.

Ok, Perfect example. So the PC's started a riot. How did that work exactly? Did the players just get the idea and the DM just sat there and did nothing and watched that happen? Or did the DM control the riot, just like he controls everything else? So the PC's take some sort of action...and the DM says ''The riot starts just like you wanted it too.'' And did the DM say ''the riot distracts most of the guards''? And the Dm created the stats for the guards, right? So the DM made the guards ''easy low level mooks?'' And the DM is the one that made the prison have no contingency for escapes, and the DM did not have the prison take a head count, realize there was an escape and sent out a posse?

neonchameleon

2016-01-02, 11:03 PM

My point, as it has always been is that IT IS UP TO THE DM.

What the PCs do is not up to the DM. How likely it is to succeed and the expected costs are up to the DM - and that influences what the PCs do.

Your way has the blank idiot DM that just does that the players tell him to do. The players say ''we bribe the guy'' and the DM says ''Ok-day''.

You really love your strawmen, don't you? The players say "We try to bribe the guy" and the DM says "Let's find out whether that works". It might or it might not - which is partly under the control of the way the players approach it, partly under the control of the DM, and partly under the control of the dice.

I'm saying the DM creates plots and then railroads the players along them....any choice by the players is an illusion. Good players willing ignore this and just play the game.

If the DM creates the plots and railroads players along them THERE IS NO GAME. The players aren't playing a game, they are following scripted events. There's no risk of failure. There's no choice. Instead what you have is improv drama or even a readthrough (nothing wrong with either of those - I do both from time to time).

A railroad DM prevents the session from being a game.

So the DM creates everything about the prison. The players listen to the DM's descriptions of everything, and then decide on a course of action. Now, in theory, a DM has no bais and is neutral, but no DM is perfect, so this is impossible. So, the DM can make things ''easy'', ''avarage'' or ''hard''. Are the guards humans level 2 warriors with ability scores of less then 10, or are they half orc warlock 1/fighter 1 with high strengths. When the prison break happens do the guards act like the Three Stooges and be useless, or do they have a hard core emergency response plan? Is the prison as secure as an open barn, or does it have a lock-down procedure?

See the DM decides all of that.

And none of that is railroading.

If the PCs have the choice of methods and there is more than one that works that is not a railroad whether or not some are easier than others. If the PCs come up with something the DM didn;t think of and the DM works out how effective it is, that is not a railroad

A railroad is when the DM's choice is the only one that matters and there are no other routes. To claim anything else

GAAD

2016-01-03, 12:25 AM

My point, as it has always been is that IT IS UP TO THE DM.
Okay, so here's the entire exchange:
"The PCs escape from prison. How?"
"It is up to the DM".
That, right there, is railroading.

See, the DM is the one creating the obstacles. The DM is the one that makes the ''maybes'' into somethings.
I agree. That is, in fact, the job of the DM: To place and run the obstacles in the path that the PCs choose to take.

So, explain how for example the NPC friends in low places smuggle in the weapons to escape, when the DM is the one in control of the NPC's and he says that does not happen? See, the players can not alter the game reality in a normal game. They can't say ''our friends break the characters out'' any more then they can say ''our characters have a billion gold coins each''.
Well, that is a point. But remember, I had no details. Naturally, if the players HAVE no friends in low places to smuggle in the weapons, they can't use them. A Deus Ex Machina is a Deus Ex Machina, whether the DM or a player comes up with it. If the PCs do, in fact, have contacts in the underworld with a motive and means to help break them out, then they are fully justified in using them.
Now, at this point, you bring up: the DM is in control of the NPC's and he says that does not happen.
And THIS, may or may not be railroading. It all depends on WHY the NPC's can't help.
If there are no preexisting NPC's in the position to help the PCs, then absolutely the players cannot alter reality to say that they do. That would be a Deus Ex Machina, and that my children is frowned upon in most countries.
If there are preexisting NPC's that the PCs know, personally, and they have a reason and the ability to smuggle some equipment, and the DM says "no. No, that doesn't happen", then that is probably railroading. In this case, it's only NOT railroading if there's a plausible reason for the NPC to fail.

Oh, and I wasn't bringing up, in my "maybe"s, ways to quickly one-shot the problem. I was bringing up different adventures, based on the five words I was given as fact (the PCs escape from prison), that could conceivably happen. Or at least, ways for the PCs to reap benefits of their abilities and achievements that they had obtained or done earlier in the campaign.

This is the false bit were your saying a railroad is only when the DM has a planned out plot, and it's the jerk players that go and ruin the game by going off the rails.

...
oh.
Oh.
OH!

Darth Ultron, a preplanned plot is not railroading.
There is a reason we've all been using it as a verb.

If the DM has a plan, then it will not "survive contact with the enemy". Her players will try to do something that throws off part of how she wanted the plot to go. This may or may not be intentional on the part of the players. Now she can either allow this to happen, say "Yes", and move on from there, or she can say "No", and move on with her original plan.

That is railroading.
Not when the players follow the plot, but when the DM refuses to alter the plot to account for the actions of her players.

Your way has the blank idiot DM that just does that the players tell him to do. The players say ''we bribe the guy'' and the DM says ''Ok-day''.

Um, no.
The DM doesn't have to be a blank idiot. They can be. I've known a few, and some of their adventures were pretty good! And some were terrible.
But you are right. A DM that lets the players run roughshod over her is a terrible DM.
A good DM will give the players what they want. She will let them try to do what they want to do. If they fail, let them fail fairly. But a good DM never FORCES a player to make a decision. Remember: It is impossible to railroad in advance. Railroading is the act of saying "No, you can't do that".

With a fiction plot in something like a RPG like D&D, the DM will always ''take the turn'' for the players.

Wh-what?
Bu-
I-
Hu-
Wha?

Um, I'm sorry to tell you this, DU, but telling the players what they MUST do, and telling them "no, you can't" do what they wanted to do? That is railroading. Right there. It is essentially picking up the piece and moving it around for other people.
It is playing D&D with yourself, in front of the people who wanted to play it with you.
And that's no fun for anyone.

Everyone else is saying this impossible idea: The DM is a blank idiot that just randomly creates randomly unrelated people, places, things and events in the game world. Then the players come along, and randomly and impossibly make choices that create and control the plot of the game. And the DM, who is doing nothing, just sits back and says ''wow''.

Ah! So you're hung up on the idea of randomness, eh?
All right then...
But no. Neither the players, nor the DM, need to be random.
The DM has her agenda, and that agenda typically involves cool things she wants in her campaign. The people, places, things, and events in the game world can totally be related. Then the players come along and make choices, based on what kind of game they want to play and what kind of plot they want to run. And the DM, who is doing everything necessary to keep everything the players see consistent, just sits back and says "yes, and"

I'm saying the DM creates plots and then railroads the players along them....any choice by the players is an illusion. Good players willing ignore this and just play the game.

Take the prison escape. The DM makes the prison, the guards and everything else in the world other then the Pcs. The DM controls everything in the world, other then the PCs. And the DM controls the whole game reality.

Uh... ah.
Again, railroading cannot be done proactively.
Railroading is the act of saying "no, you can't do that" to one of your players. And you are right, sometimes it is necessary to say no. It is necessary to railroad, sometimes, to keep things consistent. But railroading requires the players to make some action, and then for the DM to say "no".
In a preplanned adventure where the DM is a perfect human and has thought of every possible action the players might take (in other words, the DM is a living, breathing videogame), and every action has an appropriate and preplanned reaction on a flowchart, then yes, any choice in this scenario is an illusion.
But even an illusionary choice that only changes some irrelevant details, is still a choice, that changed something. And that is not possible if you railroad.

But what if a jerk player (let's call him Lachlan, for no reason. No reason at all. :smallfurious:) decides to make an action that the DM hasn't thought of. What does she do then?
She has several choices. Either she can railroad, or not.
If she railroads, then she says "no, Lachlan. Dueling the princess a terrible idea. Shame on you and a pox on all of Scotland, where you are from. Not that you are from Scotland, Lachlan, because you are entirely hypothetical and most definitely not a person in GAAD's roleplaying group who likes giving me lots of brutal puzzles and refusing to give the other players any hints on solving them. What you ACTUALLY do, you pathetic waste of skin, is" and then she continues with her normal plan. Note: Railroading consists of, entirely, saying "you can't" or "you must" to a player.
If she does not railroad, then she says "Wow, Lachlan. That's a great idea. I didn't think of that. Shame on you and a pox on all of Scotland, where you are from, anyway. So after you challenge the princess to a swordfight TO THE DEATH RIGHT NOW, she cries "I accept, you pathetic waste of skin!"" and now the session has not been railroaded.

NOTE: If the players like the plot and follow the DM's plans to her satisfaction, then there is no railroading. Railroading is, when confronted by a player wishing to do something unexpected, the DM says "no".

So the DM creates everything about the prison. The players listen to the DM's descriptions of everything, and then decide on a course of action. Now, in theory, a DM has no bais and is neutral, but no DM is perfect, so this is impossible. So, the DM can make things ''easy'', ''avarage'' or ''hard''. Are the guards humans level 2 warriors with ability scores of less then 10, or are they half orc warlock 1/fighter 1 with high strengths. When the prison break happens do the guards act like the Three Stooges and be useless, or do they have a hard core emergency response plan? Is the prison as secure as an open barn, or does it have a lock-down procedure?

See the DM decides all of that.

Yes. Yes she does. That is the preparation ahead of time that the players discover within the game.
The DM may in fact create a scenario with what she believes to have only one solution. She can prepare ahead of time a wholly linear adventure with zero opportunity for branching paths.
But, until a player tries to do something other than what she originally planned, she has not railroaded.

Ok, Perfect example. So the PC's started a riot. How did that work exactly? Did the players just get the idea and the DM just sat there and did nothing and watched that happen? Or did the DM control the riot, just like he controls everything else? So the PC's take some sort of action...and the DM says ''The riot starts just like you wanted it too.'' And did the DM say ''the riot distracts most of the guards''? And the Dm created the stats for the guards, right? So the DM made the guards ''easy low level mooks?'' And the DM is the one that made the prison have no contingency for escapes, and the DM did not have the prison take a head count, realize there was an escape and sent out a posse?

Okay, I don't know, because I wasn't there.
But I assume that's what happened.
And that is most DEFINITELY NOT an example of railroading. The PCs took an action and the DM rolled with it and kept the world reactive and consistent.

So, for further use:
Railroading is when the DM, for whatever reason, in response to a player attempting to perform an action, says "no, you can't" or "you must". Again, sometimes this is necessary or reasonable, eg. "No, you can't just have had a million gp all along."
Bad railroading is when the DM, for whatever reason, sacrifices the consistency and integrity of the game world by saying "no, you can't" or "you must"

If it is anything other than that, it is not railroading.

OldTrees1

2016-01-03, 01:02 AM

Ok, Perfect example. So the PC's started a riot. How did that work exactly? Did the players just get the idea and the DM just sat there and did nothing and watched that happen? Or did the DM control the riot, just like he controls everything else? So the PC's take some sort of action...and the DM says ''The riot starts just like you wanted it too.'' And did the DM say ''the riot distracts most of the guards''? And the Dm created the stats for the guards, right? So the DM made the guards ''easy low level mooks?'' And the DM is the one that made the prison have no contingency for escapes, and the DM did not have the prison take a head count, realize there was an escape and sent out a posse?

I said(paraphrasing): We start off with you held prisoner in a work camp. You are equipped with pickaxes and shovels. The work camp is a 100ft diameter 200ft deep pit quarry. The guards come and go via a lift. There are 20 other prisoners of various ages and races. All the PCs know each other to some degree or another. Go.

The players discussed and gathered some more IC information by asking questions. I did nothing(other than answer questions and resolve checks) as the players arrived on the plan of causing a riot. Then they put their plan into action. Preparation like creating/hiding tools and talking to the other prisoners were handled by skill checks wherein the DM acted as a simulator rather than an author. Then how successful the plan was was also handled by dice rolling.

As the DM I did stat out the guards(designed around outclassing the average prisoners when holding the advantage) and designed their contingency plans which did include a headcount(unneeded since some of the guards noticed the PCs) and a multiple day posse(which they did escape).

So as far as railroading goes(which remember I did state that this campaign intro was the most railroady part of the campaign) there was:
1) The PCs start in the pit
2) I want the PCs out of the pit (even if that was later when moved to a different work camp)
3) I made the challenge of getting out of the pit a reasonable challenge for the above average PCs

From that point onwards I played the role of the simulator. So while the campaign intro might be your view of a perfect example, I consider the unifying the orc tribes to be another perfect example.

Somewhere in the campaign, the players had decided to head north towards the dense forest surrounding a gigantic plateau. As they traversed the terrain, their perception checks noticed an orc tribe living there. Some social skill checks later one of the PCs decided to unify the now fractured nation. Lots more social skill checks later the tribes were unified and marching under the PC's direction.

Thus via the players choosing their own path they encountered the part of the world that had already been there. Having encountered that part of the world they decided if/how they wanted to interact with it. Upon resolving (checking rolls vs DCs) how those interactions worked out, what happened happened.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-03, 02:37 PM

You really love your strawmen, don't you? The players say "We try to bribe the guy" and the DM says "Let's find out whether that works". It might or it might not - which is partly under the control of the way the players approach it, partly under the control of the DM, and partly under the control of the dice.

The thing is your going by the perfect DM who is neutral and has no bias, and that is impossible. You make it sound all good like the players and DM are ''compromising'' together to make a better game, and then randomly rolling dice too.

If the DM creates the plots and railroads players along them THERE IS NO GAME. The players aren't playing a game, they are following scripted events. There's no risk of failure. There's no choice. Instead what you have is improv drama or even a readthrough (nothing wrong with either of those - I do both from time to time).

A railroad DM prevents the session from being a game.

In a RPG like D&D, the railroad is the game.

And none of that is railroading.

Odd, I wonder why you'd say that. The DM is free to make the guards to any challenge level within the Pc's reach. So the DM is free to make the guards ''tough'' or ''wimps''.

Now, as part of the plot, the DM wants the Pc's to escape from the prison he makes the guards weak. This is very basic railroading as the DM is making it easy for the players to do exactly what the DM wants them to do. And on top of that the DM controls all the NPCs so they can act ''stupid'', ''normal'' or ''hardcore''. And again, as the DMs plot needs the PC's to escape, the guards are all ''stupid''. And the Pc's find it very easy to escape the weak stupid guards.

And sure the players get the illusion that they are the greatest players ever as they had their characters escape and think they have agency, control and all the power to control the plot. But, in reality, the DM let them escape and have them follow his plan.

Railroading....

If the PCs have the choice of methods and there is more than one that works that is not a railroad whether or not some are easier than others. If the PCs come up with something the DM didn;t think of and the DM works out how effective it is, that is not a railroad

A railroad is when the DM's choice is the only one that matters and there are no other routes. To claim anything else

I don't get the definition of not railroading as 1)The DM must come up with a single way that they want something done or to happen and 2) If the amazing awesome players come up with any idea other then the single one the DM thought up of and what done and to happen it is ''choice'' and ''free will''.

Like say the PC's are in prison, and the DM's railroaded set up is ''one of the stupid weak guards takes a nap, with his key ring on his belt, just a couple feet from the PCs cell.'' Now the DM expect and wants the PC's to figure out a way to get the keys and open the cell door and the DM can't think of anything else. Now the Pc's, on the other hand ignore the napping guard and make their own plan: they each steal a spoon and dig and escape tunnel. And the Dm is so ''shocked'' as he never thought of that.....for maybe two whole seconds. And then the DM creates everything about what every way the Pc's are gong and controls all of it...so it is just like normal again.

So, for further use:
Railroading is when the DM, for whatever reason, in response to a player attempting to perform an action, says "no, you can't" or "you must". Again, sometimes this is necessary or reasonable, eg. "No, you can't just have had a million gp all along."
Bad railroading is when the DM, for whatever reason, sacrifices the consistency and integrity of the game world by saying "no, you can't" or "you must"

If it is anything other than that, it is not railroading.

To set the Railroad bar so low as to say when ever the DM says ''no'' or ''you must'', goes back to the problem that makes everything railroading. Things the characters do will fail all the time, and every time they do it's railroading..

And the ''consistency and integrity'' of the game world is just the sort of thing bad players say to try and get their way. And in a normal game the players won't know the ''whys'' anyway.

Then how successful the plan was was also handled by dice rolling.

This is the big false part that invalidates your story. So your saying the Pc's used skill checks to influence NPC's to riot. Ok, that is a fine bit of roll playing. But here is the question: does that roll tell you how the NPC will act? Do you have a book that says ''how an NPC in a quarry prison will riot?'' OR is it the DM that decides that? Sure this is the odd case of the players railroading the DM and hiding behind the dice roll, but the DM still decides what happens even if they are wacky enough to feel forced to follow the the players demands and the ''dice''.

Thus via the players choosing their own path they encountered the part of the world that had already been there. Having encountered that part of the world they decided if/how they wanted to interact with it. Upon resolving (checking rolls vs DCs) how those interactions worked out, what happened happened.

So, as the DM you had no set ideas or plans or plots for the tribes. The PC's just surprised you out of left field when they suddenly decided to do that and you were in awe of their cleverness and their ability to see something you did not.

Ok...so that happens. I'd point out that only lasts for two seconds.

Round 1: Blank slate DM says ''there are trees and tribes'' and DM has no pre-made information on anything.
Round 2: Awesome Clever Player says "Guys, I got an idea, lets get all the tribes together!''
Round 3 Blank slate DM says "Wow! Gosh! That is something I never thought of! Wow!
The Two seconds pass
The DM then makes up all the needed information about the tribes.
And the normal game continues.

Segev

2016-01-03, 02:48 PM

OldTrees1

2016-01-03, 07:27 PM

This is the big false part that invalidates your story. So your saying the Pc's used skill checks to influence NPC's to riot. Ok, that is a fine bit of roll playing. But here is the question: does that roll tell you how the NPC will act? Do you have a book that says ''how an NPC in a quarry prison will riot?'' OR is it the DM that decides that? Sure this is the odd case of the players railroading the DM and hiding behind the dice roll, but the DM still decides what happens even if they are wacky enough to feel forced to follow the the players demands and the ''dice''.
D&D(and other RPGs) operates on a "state intended action, determine the DC for various outcomes*, use the RNG, compare the result to the DCs". I really hope you are not claiming that RNG based checks are railroading. If that is your claim then your definition of railroading has no practical usage.

*Yes the DM determines the DCs(even if it is out of scope of the written rules) based upon what is realistic(read as verisimilitude for pedantics). Such a determination is done independently of any narrative desires for specific outcomes(otherwise it would like unto railroading).

So, as the DM you had no set ideas or plans or plots for the tribes. The PC's just surprised you out of left field when they suddenly decided to do that and you were in awe of their cleverness and their ability to see something you did not.

Ok...so that happens. I'd point out that only lasts for two seconds.

Round 1: Blank slate DM says ''there are trees and tribes'' and DM has no pre-made information on anything.
Round 2: Awesome Clever Player says "Guys, I got an idea, lets get all the tribes together!''
Round 3 Blank slate DM says "Wow! Gosh! That is something I never thought of! Wow!
The Two seconds pass
The DM then makes up all the needed information about the tribes.
And the normal game continues.

You ignore the case of:
Pre-made information(names, places, characters, motivations, demographics, nations, etc) exists but predetermined events/outcomes are not. I knew everything I needed to about the tribes before the campaign. I did not have any set plans or plots for the PCs to interact with the tribes.

While it is possible for an improv DM to do nothing but a chain consisting of nothing but "two seconds" moments, a DM could also have already generated all the needed information.

napoleon_in_rag

2016-01-03, 10:35 PM

Thrudd

2016-01-03, 10:58 PM

In my experience, the "normal" way to DM would be to create a world map, populated with towns and lairs and cultures. Random encounter tables would be selected based on climate and landscape and demographics. A number of dungeons and lairs are mapped in detail and populated with monsters and treasure including wandering monster tables. Players have built-in motivation based on the gold for xp mechanic.
Towns would be populated with a number of NPCs who can be hired or consulted and seeded with rumors about the various locations and creatures in the world nearby.

Players begin in a town, and start looking for information about the surrounding area and sources of treasure/magic/xp. They choose Where they want to go, how to equip themselves, and start interacting with the world as they journey to whatever dungeon/adventure location they have chosen.

Reactions of monsters and npc's to player diplomacy is based partly on common sense/verisimilitude and partly on reaction rolls.
Anything the rules don't explicitly tell you how to resolve is usually solved by common sense or a roll of the dice by the DM.

In between sessions, the DM continues to expand the world with new locations, develop more detail, and create more difficult dungeons.

As the players develop their characters, they begin to have more influence in the world, and the DM will adjust things in a sensible way according to the character's growing power and infamy. people may ask them for help, they may have attracted powerful enemies, and they may become rulers of new or existing domains.

The DM does not exactly care what the players choose to do or whether or not they succeed. The DM makes sure the game world is immersive and hopefully exciting, representing it in a coherent and believable way and providing sufficient challenges for the players. If the players go to one dungeon, decide it's too hard and go somewhere else or take a month off to recuperate and hire some help before going back, that's fine. The DM does not need or want the characters to be any specific level at any time, their progress is entirely dependent on their choices and their luck.

The DM creates many potential sources of stories and drama, such as interesting fantasy cultures, NPCs who might rival the PCs, and dungeons full of magic and danger and mysteries to be uncovered. The players' decisions and reactions to these things determine what, if anything, develops. You only know the story after the game is over, and everyone says "remember when that happened?" or "let me tell you about what happened to our characters yesterday..."

GentlemanVoodoo

2016-01-03, 11:11 PM

My question is as follows: Where do you guys draw the line, at what point does something become railroading as opposed to linear storytelling?

OP, the line is drawn when the players have no say in the matter as to how to get to the end of the story. Or if their choices in game have no bearing on the story what-so-ever. For linear storytelling it is true this is a point A to B but it is in broad terms. If your story consist of players vs. bad guy, then the end result is the final confrontation between the two groups. That is the point A to B. How this is accomplished is up to the players by their actions, choices, or the consequences of both.

themaque

2016-01-04, 07:40 AM

Darth Ultron, am I reading your argument correctly?

Are you seriously claiming that the DM railroads if he so much as makes a decision as to what obstacles the PCs might encounter when they try something?

Yes, he has been arguing this point and/or trolling this thread since the beginning.

Darth Ultron is using a different definition of Railroading than the rest of us.

Several here argue that Railroading is GM'ing gone wrong. Forcing the players down a path no matter what they want.

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong sir, that he feels that any attempt to guide, influence, steer, or entice a player into an action is railroading. That if you peel back the veneer that the entire game works that way.

Since the GM controls the NPC's, relates to the players how their actions succeed or fail, influences the very physics of the world than anything other than them being in complete control is an illusion. A lie players tell themselves to get lost in the magic. You know the magician is using slight of hand, but it's fun to pretend for an hour magic could be real.

Even if the players try to "Derail" the plot, their actions are still ultimately only given agency by the will of the GM. They may not be headed in the same direction but they are still on rails. This directly ties into the debate we where having on a different thread about the reality of player agency or if the GM is even capable of cheating since he is the one making all the rules.

All GM'ing is railroading and calling it different is just a layer of illusion. He doesn't beat about the bush online and admits the whole thing is a railroad. The point it changes from linear storytelling to a railroad is completely subjective and dependent on if someone is having fun. Enjoying yourself it's storytelling. Upset at a call you where railroaded.

I disagree with him on a philosophical level while agree he has a technical point. This is where we are in disagreement and the ultimate point of this thread.

Where is the line that you go from one to the other? DA is simply on the extreme "There is no line, only varying skill in the GM". You obviously feel there is a line even if it is not so clearly marked.

I do believe he agreed with my summing up of his position.

a good 70% of this thread has been debating with DU who is using different definitions and goalposts than everyone else in the thread.

He has stated that the GM is god and controls everything. The players should just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride without thinking to much about it. Good players just go for the ride and if a player bucks the system they are just being a jerk.

Florian

2016-01-04, 08:17 AM

That's how I read it too.

Then you should broaden your horizon a bit on how many different styles of game are possible, even with D&D. Sandboxing or Sim, as basic examples.

But you said it yourself before: You want to present your players with a tight experience and only your way to do it seems to count.

Bias.

Thrudd

2016-01-04, 10:23 AM

To address the original topic again, in a way maybe AMFV was asking for:

As a player, I "feel" railroaded when I perceive that my choices of action have no impact on the outcome of the game.
I am not the kind of player that goes out of my way to push the boundaries and I give the GM a wide berth and the benefit of the doubt when things appear to be other than what I would expect. However, when it becomes clear that the game world has serious logical inconsistencies that are affecting/skewing the outcome of our actions toward an obvious result, I start to become skeptical. When reasonable courses of action seem to be denied for no logical reason, I get skeptical.

I expect the game world to behave in a logical and consistent manner, and for the players' choices to be meaningful to the outcome of the game. I expect any reasonable in-character action that is consistent with the reality of the game world to be allowed and to have some effect, at least to the extent that a roll is made to determine the result, and that result honored.

If the railroad is completely hidden behind verisimilitude in the game world, holds up to internally consistent logic, and never contradicts reasonable character goals and actions, then I probably wouldn't mind it (because I wouldn't know it was there). The more I notice the restrictions and can foresee the intended path of the game, the less invested I am in the game, because now I know that my decisions as a player are mostly meaningless.

I would prefer not to be railroaded at all, even if the illusion of choice is perfectly maintained. Only a perfect illusion is acceptable to me (aka, don't let me know there is a railroad) because I expect as a player to be actually playing and not just listening to a story.

A linear story works without railroading only in a very loose sense. The more detailed and elaborate you try to make the story, the less possible it becomes. For this reason, the best D&D adventures are very open-ended with relatively simple goals. There can be elaborate mechanisms within the adventure, such as multi-part puzzles and NPCs with various layers of motives and plans, but the players must be allowed to succeed or fail according to their actions and the mechanisms must act in a logical and natural way according to the reality of the game world. In no instance should "plot" dictate what happens. Dice, logic and verisimilitude dictate what happens.

BRC

2016-01-04, 12:52 PM

OldTrees1

2016-01-04, 01:20 PM

So, here's a question, what if the DM is improvising the story along the way. Building the setting and events as events unfold.

Which means that, while the PC's are free to take whatever action they want, their agency is hampered because their actions take place in a context that does not exist until after it's done.

For example,The PC's arrive in a province, they hear that the Duke needs mercenaries to augment his forces, so they sign up, and are tasked with eliminating a camp full of bandits. The PC's do so.

Later, the DM decides that the Duke is a tyrant, and that what he had called "Bandits" were actually noble rebels. The PC's now have a reputation as the Duke's cruel, foreign mercenary henchmen.

In-narrative, continuity is maintained. The PC's did not spend time investigating the Bandits, they did not capture and interrogate any Bandits, they did not look into the Duke's reign. They were unaware that they were taking orders from a cruel tyrant and attacking noble rebels.

But, HAD they looked, they wouldn't have found any evidence, because the Duke was not cruel until After they PC's had already killed the Bandits without investigating. Had they investigated, maybe they would have found that everything is as it seemed, the Duke was a kind ruler who lacked the troops needed to defend his people, the Bandits were pillaging villages to line their own pockets, ect.

The end result would be kind of a quantum-ogre situation, but instead of the PC's encountering the same situation no matter where they go, they're deprived of the ability to make their own story as the GM retroactively fills in anything that did not get established during the session.

Context: I will be using "Railroading(verb): The DM creating a moment of an illusion of choice(when the player choose the chosen)/the reality of no choice(when the player tries to choose otherwise)" and "Railroaded(adj): Contains enough railroading for it to be significant(subjective measurement dependent on the people involved)"

At first I thought you were going to ask about improve DMing in general since goes player intention, world generation, then resolution mechanic rather than world generation, player intention, then resolution mechanic. Due to the initial conditions being set after player intention it may be hard to separate out railroading from non railroading.

To this I was going to point out something I would call derivation improv which is characterized by having just enough world generation before player intention that the DM can derive any needed world generation as the player intention demands it but without needing to reference that player intention.

However instead you are asking about improvising potentially significant retroactive details. This can impact both the past and the present/future. If it changes the past in a manner that does not contradict past information, then it does not really change the past. If it changes the past in a manner that does contradict past information... well, avoid that for reasons beyond concerns about railroading. So what about the present/future? Improvising retroactive details can be used to change the present/future back to the DM chosen present(Quantum Ogre being the example) or it can be used without doing so(PCs decide to skip to the next town, quick make another different town).

I think the DM changing the Duke into a tyrant would not be railroading provided:
1) It does not contradict past information(aka the PCs did not investigate)
2) It does not squish player agency in the present/future(aka the PCs still have and have had free reign to act and impact)

Telok

2016-01-04, 01:49 PM

In a RPG like D&D, the railroad is the game

There's the opinion, playing the game equals being railroaded and there are no other options.

Everyone disagrees with that opinion but "RPG games = railroads" is a valid opinion. For me the difference between a linear adventure and a railroad is one of agency. As long as the player's decisions matter and they are free to leave the tracks if they wish to then they are not being railroaded.

BRC

2016-01-04, 02:02 PM

Context: I will be using "Railroading(verb): The DM creating a moment of an illusion of choice(when the player choose the chosen)/the reality of no choice(when the player tries to choose otherwise)" and "Railroaded(adj): Contains enough railroading for it to be significant(subjective measurement dependent on the people involved)"

At first I thought you were going to ask about improve DMing in general since goes player intention, world generation, then resolution mechanic rather than world generation, player intention, then resolution mechanic. Due to the initial conditions being set after player intention it may be hard to separate out railroading from non railroading.

To this I was going to point out something I would call derivation improv which is characterized by having just enough world generation before player intention that the DM can derive any needed world generation as the player intention demands it but without needing to reference that player intention.

However instead you are asking about improvising potentially significant retroactive details. This can impact both the past and the present/future. If it changes the past in a manner that does not contradict past information, then it does not really change the past. If it changes the past in a manner that does contradict past information... well, avoid that for reasons beyond concerns about railroading. So what about the present/future? Improvising retroactive details can be used to change the present/future back to the DM chosen present(Quantum Ogre being the example) or it can be used without doing so(PCs decide to skip to the next town, quick make another different town).

I think the DM changing the Duke into a tyrant would not be railroading provided:
1) It does not contradict past information(aka the PCs did not investigate)
2) It does not squish player agency in the present/future(aka the PCs still have and have had free reign to act and impact)

The issue is when you use this to "Railroad" the PC's towards something, based on consequences they had no reason to expect.

in-character actions should have in-character consequences. If the PC's break the law, it's not railroading to have the Police try to arrest them, it's a consequence of their actions.

Similarly, if the PC's take the Duke's money and kill the rebels, it's not railroading to have the Rebels be unwilling to work with them in the future.

What I want to discuss is the idea of DM's using retroactive worldbuilding to invoke the "Consequence Clause" and put the PC's down some path.

Earlier, we discussed the idea of Railroading and breaking suspension of disbelief.

For example, the DM wants the PC's to go to some lost temple. The Players don't want to.

So, the DM says "Oh, that ancient tomb you raided last month. Turns out there is a powerful curse that starts to take effect on the first full moon after you defile the tomb. Only the waters of the sacred well in the lost temple can save you!"

Now, the Curse is a "Consequence" of the Pc's actions, and the trip to the temple takes the form of dealing with that consequence. It's still a form of railroading. The Player's Agency is now "Go to the Temple" or "watch your character die from the curse".

Meanwhile, the Players have no way of knowing that this was a retcon, that they had no way of learning about or avoiding the Curse. So, in a way, suspension of disbelief is maintained. In addition, it's impossible to tell whether the DM retconned something like this, or if they had the curse planned from the start, and the PC's could have avoided the curse if they had asked the right questions or made the right rolls.

OldTrees1

2016-01-04, 02:50 PM

The issue is when you use this to "Railroad" the PC's towards something, based on consequences they had no reason to expect.
Yes

Meanwhile, the Players have no way of knowing that this was a retcon, that they had no way of learning about or avoiding the Curse. So, in a way, suspension of disbelief is maintained. In addition, it's impossible to tell whether the DM retconned something like this, or if they had the curse planned from the start, and the PC's could have avoided the curse if they had asked the right questions or made the right rolls.

This is why I define railroading to both include illusion of choice(what you are describing) and/or a reality of forced choice. Tests for railroading boil down to examining a counterfactual(If the PCs had tried to do otherwise, then ...).

Segev

2016-01-04, 03:07 PM

Generally speaking, even retroactive additions which become "revelations" of something previously hidden (due to the PCs not thinking to investigate that, and the GM therefore choosing that as where to insert the retroactive hidden element) are only railroading if they're used to force the players to a particular action or to a plot point they had put great effort into avoiding, overcoming, or circumventing.

Put another way, "It's only railroading if the players feel invalidated by it."

So it starts to feel like railroading if these retroactive changes are used to rob the savor of victory from every accomplishment. Or if it doesn't seem to matter what you do as a PC, because you always "overlook" something which turns out to make things go a particular way, so your actions were meaningless.

Linear storytelling is railroading if the line is rigid, and things must go a certain way. The NPC allies must be allies, the NPC enemies must be enemies, the village must be destroyed, one group of characters must die and another must live.

The more that NPCs and events and items relevant to the plot can be influenced to behave differently than they would if the PCs made different choices, the less railroading there is.

The more that PCs can choose how they participate in the story, the less railroading there is.

In one particular Iron Kingdoms campaign, it's pure railroad, with the PCs only having the choice of "do well enough to be allowed to be present to witness plot occurring" or "don't do that well, and miss what happened so you don't understand what's going on."

There comes a point where the PCs have a major MacGuffin in hand, and are presented with a choice to give it to one NPC or another. It turns out that the only difference the choice makes is whether the NPC that the plot says gets it hates them or likes them, which decides if they have ring-side seats for a later plot point, or if they have to make do with the nosebleed section. The designated NPC just kills the other NPC either way, taking the MacGuffin if the PCs gave it to the other NPC. No other choices are permitted (as the designated NPC - who is DMPC multilevels above the party's collective level - will just kill the PCs and take it if they try to do anything else).

In a non-railroading plot, the players might not be able to talk the villain out of being a villain, but they could at least shift priorities, make friends, make the choices more meaningful. They might be able to deny the designated NPC the MacGuffin, and in so doing change how the later plot points proceed. He might hate them, but is less powerful, vs. him liking them and thus going easier on them so his greater power makes them a lynchpin in defeating him, for example.

There have to be at least some branches possible, and the beauty of the tabletop RPG with a human GM is that a non-railroaded game can have MAJOR changes and unexpected branches. Even if the linear plot requires certain things to happen, the personalization of how they come to pass, or how something else replaces their role (but still enables whatever needed to be enabled), makes it FEEL like a non-railroad.

The more that the plot feels like it is unaffected by PC actions (other than "if you don't win this encounter, it's game over"), the more it's a railroad.

goto124

2016-01-05, 01:28 AM

Milo v3

2016-01-05, 03:34 AM

Also, how does one perform research anyway?

Well, there is magic like divination, going to places of knowledge, using Gather Information (diplomacy for Pathfinder), etc.

As for if they skip researching... my players used to never research anything (except for in the superhero game), but since games like Witcher and Shadow of Mordor they've been doing it more. In the times when they didn't research, things were harder than if they researched information on locations or targets, but "generally" things were not impossible.

neonchameleon

2016-01-05, 04:46 AM

There's the opinion, playing the game equals being railroaded and there are no other options.

Everyone disagrees with that opinion but "RPG games = railroads" is a valid opinion.

Out of curiosity do you also think "The moon is made of green cheese" is a valid opinion? And if not why the difference?

Telok

2016-01-05, 05:01 AM

Out of curiosity do you also think "The moon is made of green cheese" is a valid opinion? And if not why the difference?
Your quote is a statement about physical and provable subjects. His quote was about his idea that playing a roleplaying game is equal to the DM jamming a predetermined plot down the player's throats.

A statement of fact is not the same as a statement of belief or a statement of subjective value.

Frozen_Feet

2016-01-05, 08:10 AM

OldTrees1

2016-01-05, 09:50 AM

To start from the beginning: nearly all railroads are linear stories, and in RPGs nearly all linear stories are railroads.

The few exceptions are similar to videogames like Legend of Zelda: there's a number of events which must happen in a certain way, but the exact order can vary slightly and the players have a lot of optional stuff to do in between the set events.

Ultimately, each puzzle has to be solved in exactly one way, but this fact is obscured by the freedom to just loaf around or engage in unlimited trial and error.

What if we change the scope of our view? Zoom in(or out) and repeat your analysis of Legend of Zelda. If we scale in enough we see a puzzle with exactly one solution, or an outcome with only one possibility(depending on where you zoom in). So what does it mean if we consider Legend of Zelda not to be a railroad but can see it having many pieces that are railroads when judged alone?

Quertus

2016-01-05, 10:32 AM

To start from the beginning: nearly all railroads are linear stories, and in RPGs nearly all linear stories are railroads.

The few exceptions are similar to videogames like Legend of Zelda: there's a number of events which must happen in a certain way, but the exact order can vary slightly and the players have a lot of optional stuff to do in between the set events.

Ultimately, each puzzle has to be solved in exactly one way, but this fact is obscured by the freedom to just loaf around or engage in unlimited trial and error.

The obnoxious little fairy (from at least one version of that game) constantly screaming, "hey, there's a plot over here," reminds me of a railroading DM trying to learn to let players freeform.

Segev

2016-01-05, 10:38 AM

Video games with linear stories are all railroads, almost without exception. This is just generally accepted as a limitation of the medium.

That said, you can have non-railroad aspects! In order to pull that off, you have to allow for branching options and choices that are meaningful. They'll still mostly be binary (sometimes multiple-choice), because you can't have truly limitless choice in most circumstances, but every time a choice actually changes something in how the story progresses, it's a step away from being a "railroad."

Still, it's just the nature of the medium. True sandbox games almost never have linear story elements.

The closest to being truly non-railroaded while having a linear/branching story I've seen is Star Control II, where a lot of scripted events happen without your intervention, and have specific branches and changes to their outcomes if you intervene in various ways within the time windows of opportunity. It's actually very masterfully done, and a stellar example of how to run a TTRPG that is sandbox-with-an-underlying-story, in my opinion. It is the ONLY game I've seen that pulls this off in a videogame medium.

Frozen_Feet

2016-01-05, 11:09 AM

What if we change the scope of our view? Zoom in(or out) and repeat your analysis of Legend of Zelda. If we scale in enough we see a puzzle with exactly one solution, or an outcome with only one possibility(depending on where you zoom in). So what does it mean if we consider Legend of Zelda not to be a railroad but can see it having many pieces that are railroads when judged alone?
It doesn't matter which level of Zelda you zoom to, because one-solution puzzles are pervasive in the design. What prevents the games from being linear railroads is wealth of optional material and ability to backtrack, creating genuine freedom of choice and allowing the player to advance on their own pace.

Think of it this way: would a railroading GM let players ignore his next puzzle in favor of chasing chickens, or going horse racing, or photographing monsters for a couple of sessions? Would he offer rewards for taking a detour and doing crazy experimentation that does not progress the main plot in any way?

OldTrees1

2016-01-05, 12:46 PM

It doesn't matter which level of Zelda you zoom to, because one-solution puzzles are pervasive in the design. What prevents the games from being linear railroads is wealth of optional material and ability to backtrack, creating genuine freedom of choice and allowing the player to advance on their own pace.

Think of it this way: would a railroading GM let players ignore his next puzzle in favor of chasing chickens, or going horse racing, or photographing monsters for a couple of sessions? Would he offer rewards for taking a detour and doing crazy experimentation that does not progress the main plot in any way?

I think I did not communicate what I meant well enough. Let's say we zoom in/narrow our scope to a single puzzle. If such a puzzle were the setup, session, and conclusion of an adventure then how would one judge such an adventure? Well as a one-solution(no agency in action) puzzle(no agency in outcome) it would be a railroad would it not?

But then we zoom back out a bit(say 3 puzzles). Now we have 3 railroad segments that are connected, however the connections between the segments of track are not track in and of themselves(due to the agency in choosing order or even participation in the case of optional puzzles).

Then we zoom back out to again look at the game as a whole. Now we see it as a non railroad campaign that contains many separate pieces of track. So does this mean "railroad" is not a binary distinction? (related: What does that mean for terms like "railroading GM"?)

Frozen_Feet

2016-01-05, 02:15 PM

OldTrees1

2016-01-05, 04:24 PM

Don't go Darth Ultron's way and redefine railroading in some overly broad way. The whole point of the term is to signify an unalterable course from A to B to C. Once you include branching, multiple endpoints or backtracking, a game ceases to be a railroad and becomes something else. Railroading =/= any forced player decision ever.

The point I'm making with the Zelda example is that while the gameplay and the plot of the game is formed around an obviously linear core, it does not function as a railroad because you can stop the train and take a hike in the woods for extended period of time, literally in one game. As such, actually playing the game is verifiably different from the sort of railroad maligned in tabletop games, even though the underlying structure is obviously limiting.

If a game is Branching from A thru L then strict L to M to N to O and then back to branching thru Z, are you going to insult me over calling "strict L to M to N to O" a stretch of track provided I don't call A thru Z a stretch of track?

The point I was making is that railroading is a verb the GM can do rather than a adjective that only applies at the campaign level scope(even looking at it as an adjective one ought to realize its scope can vary). This differentiates the "railroad GM" from the "linear game GM that relies on railroaded waypoints" from the other linear game GMs or sandbox GM

goto124

2016-01-06, 12:10 AM

Think of it this way: would a railroading GM let players ignore his next puzzle in favor of chasing chickens, or going horse racing, or photographing monsters for a couple of sessions? Would he offer rewards for taking a detour and doing crazy experimentation that does not progress the main plot in any way?

Thing is, nothing meaningful happens in such free times. The plot does not progress in any fashion. The player can interact with the plot and actually create a lasting impact on the world only via the bits where the GM has plotted out all the actions and details (aka railroady bits).

Apricot

2016-01-06, 06:32 AM

Thing is, nothing meaningful happens in such free times. The plot does not progress in any fashion. The player can interact with the plot and actually create a lasting impact on the world only via the bits where the GM has plotted out all the actions and details (aka railroady bits).

I disagree with both of these claims.

The first one, that the plot doesn't progress, is limited to thinking of plot as something outside of the characters. I believe it is far more accurate to say that the most important plot is the story of the characters' lives, and thus anything where those characters are present is important plot. It is accurate to say that the campaign plot doesn't progress when they characters aren't interacting with it (except for timed events and the like), but it's very possible to create minor plots with horse racing or chicken chasing or what have you, which do progress while the players are off messing around.

The second one, that the campaign plot only has meaning or interactivity when the GM has planned everything out in advance, is thinking of preparation in a very limited fashion. The GM can instead prepare characters, stat up enemies, lay out areas, and write up details on plot elements, all so that they have flexibility in responding to what the players do. Let me write out an extended example.

Let's say the plot is for an evil archduke to stage a coup that the heroes find out about only while they're exploring the archduke's castle, too far away for them to stop it happening. So in the railroady sense, the players finding out that the coup is imminent will instantly trigger an unavoidable take-over of the kingdom that happens, as it were, off camera. Nothing the players do can prevent this outcome. But what if we try it my way instead? The GM writes out the character of the archduke, for one: very shrewd and cunning, and a good planner and strategist. So, based on that, the GM has some warding spells put on the castle, preventing Sending-style spells from working within it except for some of the archduke's own spellcasters. Same with Teleport, of course. The GM allows the casters in the party to roll to figure this out as they enter the zone, because they're fair. Similarly, the GM prepares a general plan of battle for the archduke, saying that he'd bring some soldiers inside the city walls on false pretenses and then open the gates, putting times to each action and putting down a rough contingency plan. Now, here's where things go wrong for the GM's plan. The players roll and realize that they can't magically communicate out of the castle, so instead of going in with the full party, they leave a caster with Sending hiding somewhere within a one mile radius of the castle and have the wizard's raven stay with. In addition, they establish a code for the Empathic Link, such as anger equals an expected coup or what have you. So the main party gets in, they figure out the plans, and then the wizard focuses on some strong emotions to communicate that limited information with the familiar. The raven tells the other caster what's up, a communique is sent to the capital, and the forces are rallied for defense. The GM gives a few rolls to see if everything works out properly, and then figures out at what stage of the plan this communication interrupts. For the sake of this example, let's say that the infiltrators have gotten through one gate but not the rest. What would have been an overpowering flanking maneuver thus turns into a sort of botched raid. The archduke is able to get some of the way in, assassinate certain key figures, and possibly decides to start a massive fire to cover his retreat. The capital is thus in shambles as the main plot, the war, begins. Or maybe the PCs took too long, and instead all that happens is that the king is able to send warnings to some of his loyal subjects, giving the PCs some safe havens in outlying duchies instead of having them be outlaws everywhere. This is a massive shift from the original plan, but it was all possible because the GM planned out characters, processes, and locations from the very beginning, and as such was capable of adapting neatly to the players' creativity in a way that rewarded them for it both in mechanics and in plot. I mean, what will people remember more: the coup planned out by the DM, or how the empathic Morse code saved Christmas?

So this is how a plot can be very meaningful without being railroady.

goto124

2016-01-06, 07:53 AM

When I wrote my post, I did have in mind a(n otherwise) railroady DM who happened to allow the players to go on mini-games.

Just clarifying my thoughts, since Apricot is right.

Segev

2016-01-06, 09:58 AM

One "player friendly" aspect of a railroad campaign that lets you go on side-quests is "final fantasy timing." It doesn't matter how long you take putzing about to get that magic sword, to win the heart of the fair prince(ss), or build your perfect hometown, the BBEG's doomsday plot to take over the world will wait on your arrival at his fortress.

Conversely, of course, it doesn't matter how fast you rush to stop him; he'll be at exactly the same point in his plans.

This actually bit a PF Society table I was playing in in the butt; we found out about something awful that was happening RIGHT NOW and used extra resources to get there FASTER than the plot expected. Thus, rather than having an overnight wherein we'd recover spells and hp and such as the plot expected, we arrived half-exhausted. And yet, the BBEG was at exactly the same point in his plot, with all his defenses up and ready and the event we had to stop nearly complete, just as if we'd taken the full two days plus a night of recovery to get there.

I honestly don't recall what module it was nor what it was we had to stop, my clearest memory is of the discussion with the DM afterwards, wherein we recommended that he give some sort of boon to players if he runs it again and they also rush ahead without taking time to rest. The module became nigh-unwinnable because we didn't treat it like a game with speed-of-plot badguy actions, but rather RP'd and acted like people who wanted to prevent something awful with a timetable of which we knew little and thus rushed ahead, worried that waiting would take whatever chances we had of stopping it to 0 (much as the BBEG of Watchmen did).

So what would have been a challenge, but doable, became a near party-wipe that we pulled through with only a few survivors and with half the optimal objectives of the module failed because we just didn't have the resources to put up the kind of fight necessary, after the earlier fights and expending what we had to to rush to the scene. Because this had no impact on the readiness of the BBEG...

Well, Final Fantasy time (i.e. speed-of-plot) is useful if you exploit it and destructive if you don't, and always verisimilitude breaking. And it IS a form of railroading; "You'll encounter what I have planned no mater what you do."

Talakeal

2016-01-06, 12:55 PM

Quertus

2016-01-06, 12:57 PM

Talakeal

2016-01-06, 01:07 PM

While not railroading by most definitions, if you won't give them time to craft items, that does mean that they wasted one or more feats. At least allow them to retain?

That was just an example.

Its not that they never have downtime, its that they want to spend outrageous amounts of prep time mind adventure.

Its not something like, "I have always wanted a +3 sword, I am going to make it between adventures," it is normally something like "Ok, we know the evil dragon of doom is preparing to destroy the kingdom, so before we slay it I am going to spend 2 years crafting dragon-bane weapons and fire resistant armor for the entire part," to which I reply "Ok, but by the time you are finished the dragon will have long since destroyed the kingdom and moved onto something else, so slaying him at that point is kind of meaningless."

Segev

2016-01-06, 03:30 PM

That was just an example.

Its not that they never have downtime, its that they want to spend outrageous amounts of prep time mind adventure.

Its not something like, "I have always wanted a +3 sword, I am going to make it between adventures," it is normally something like "Ok, we know the evil dragon of doom is preparing to destroy the kingdom, so before we slay it I am going to spend 2 years crafting dragon-bane weapons and fire resistant armor for the entire part," to which I reply "Ok, but by the time you are finished the dragon will have long since destroyed the kingdom and moved onto something else, so slaying him at that point is kind of meaningless."

It could be your presentation of it. "Okay, but if you do, this bad stuff will happen," can sound like "don't do that or I'll punish you" to players.

Instead, you should remind them of what they do know (e.g. "The dragon has already burned one village to the ground,") and if that's not enough to change their plans, don't force them to. But make sure they get word a week later that another town was destroyed. Give any info-gathering type PCs rumors that spell out what looks like a planned route or schedule of destruction.

Instead of "if you do that, you'll have already lost," hand them little losses as they delay. Let them know what the dragon's doing. They'll have to make up their own minds as to what the priorities are. How much is "acceptable loss" in order to secure how much of their anti-dragon arsenal?

Apricot

2016-01-06, 03:59 PM

When I wrote my post, I did have in mind a(n otherwise) railroady DM who happened to allow the players to go on mini-games.

Just clarifying my thoughts, since Apricot is right.

Oh! I misunderstood the scope of your claim. If you're talking about that kind of DM, then yes, the empty little chicken-chasing thing is going to be pretty damn empty. That was my mistake; I should have looked more into the context of your post than I did.

My players actually have sort of the opposite problem, they feel that I use deadlines to railroad them.

They will, for example, want to take six months to craft magic items in town, and if I explain that if they wait that long the BBEG of doom will have already enacted his plan to destroy the world, then they get mad at me for telling them what to do.

Maybe they dislike that kind of rushed timeframe and prefer a slower and more calculated approach. I think you might be able to make your players really, really happy if you give them a complicated enemy above their level to face and a substantial amount of time to prepare for it. This doesn't sound like railroading, but a lot more like a disconnect between what you and your players have in mind.

If they want to make it a battle of wits and preparation, why not give it to them?

Talakeal

2016-01-06, 04:13 PM

Maybe they dislike that kind of rushed timeframe and prefer a slower and more calculated approach. I think you might be able to make your players really, really happy if you give them a complicated enemy above their level to face and a substantial amount of time to prepare for it. This doesn't sound like railroading, but a lot more like a disconnect between what you and your players have in mind.

If they want to make it a battle of wits and preparation, why not give it to them?

Really it is one particular player for whom this is an issue, and this player HATES challenge.

When he plays a video games he always grinds as much as possible before starting the storyline stuff, and he wants to be able to do the same in tabletops.

So basically, if he was level 5 and the BBEG was level 10 we would want to just wander the wilderness around town until he earned some gold and XP, then return to town to rest up and use the gold and most of the XP to create magic items, and then repeat until he was level 15 with double the normal WBL and then he would go crush the level 10 bad guy without any challenge.

LnGrrrR

2016-01-06, 05:24 PM

Apricot

2016-01-07, 12:39 AM

Really it is one particular player for whom this is an issue, and this player HATES challenge.

When he plays a video games he always grinds as much as possible before starting the storyline stuff, and he wants to be able to do the same in tabletops.

So basically, if he was level 5 and the BBEG was level 10 we would want to just wander the wilderness around town until he earned some gold and XP, then return to town to rest up and use the gold and most of the XP to create magic items, and then repeat until he was level 15 with double the normal WBL and then he would go crush the level 10 bad guy without any challenge.

Oh, so it's just one person, and not the whole group. Have you tried taking him aside and talking about it? Possibly explaining it both from a gameplay mechanics perspective and from a story perspective? Like, telling him that you want enemies to be a challenge, and also that their opponent is also a character in the same world and that he wouldn't just be sitting around idly for all that time but would instead be getting stronger himself? It definitely does sound troublesome, though. The personality type that expects absolutely everything to operate at their own pace can be difficult to work with.

Frozen_Feet

2016-01-07, 11:33 AM

Thing is, nothing meaningful happens in such free times.

Nothing meaningful according to... who?

The players are choosing to go chicken chasing, horse racing or whatever out of their own volition. Presumably they find some meaning in it, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

And the GM is letting them. Presumably, if the plot not progressing was frustrating them, they would not do that.

There's a pretty clear dynamic here which leads to notably different game from your typical railroad when applied to a tabletop game.

The plot does not progress in any fashion. The player can interact with the plot and actually create a lasting impact on the world only via the bits where the GM has plotted out all the actions and details (aka railroady bits).

Sure. This is built into the structure. But the confusion here is rooted in the underlined phrase: "lasting impact".

Do you actually have such thing in Zelda and is that even a reason for why people play it?

What if the whole reason people go chicken chasing or horse racing is that they're not playing for "lasting impact", but instead for their immediate enjoyment? What if you got it backwards and beating their hi-score in a race is more meaningful to them than the world-spanning plot?

These are important questions, because in your typical linear railroad, they've been answered - by the GM. The answer is "obviously the plot is more meaningful" - and that is why the chicken chasing (etc.) is not an option.

Talakeal

2016-01-07, 12:22 PM

Tell him to suck it up, and that the BBEG isn't going to just wait around while he races chocobo.

That's what I do, and that's why he cries and accuses me of railroading.

AMFV

2016-01-07, 02:26 PM

That's what I do, and that's why he cries and accuses me of railroading.

Hmm, well maybe if you used a less direct straight line approach... For example if he wants to sit around crafting the perfect tools for the job, give them a different job. Typically if players are wandering off-script it's because they aren't interested in it, that's generally a sign that they need to have a different script. The player is telling you what he wants, he wants to be perfectly prepared for the boss fight. So give him opportunities to do that, that don't derail the game.

If he wants to craft for all eternity, then force him to go to wild areas to find the appropriate raw materials, that's perfectly acceptable. If they're in a city, what defenses are they taking to avoid being robbed, after all those items are worth a lot, and they'd attract attention. What defenses are they taking to avoid being scryed by the BBEG who would then send things to attack them? Point that out, don't make it a "you didn't act so you're being punished," make it "you can choose not to act, but there are consequences". If the player isn't okay with any kind of consequences, I would tell them that they might be better off reading or something, for a game to work there has to be consequences.

So I would recommend giving them opportunities to prepare: Quests to learn the BBEG's weaknesses, quests to find items he's weak to. That sort of thing, and then you can have those things help out in the end.

LnGrrrR

2016-01-07, 04:52 PM

That's what I do, and that's why he cries and accuses me of railroading.

Tell him his character gets to stay behind chasing squirrels while the heroes actually take out bad guys. Just have him roll dice a few times to see how many squirrels he's caught. Then level him every ... 10th session :D

Apricot

2016-01-07, 05:07 PM

The way this incident is starting to sound like me is a poor fit between someone who has developed habits from a different style of game (CRPGs, where not grinding for a boss is going to just make the game impossible to complete in many cases) and some poor Diplomacy checks from the DM trying to correct those habits. And I mean, realistically, the grinding approach has some merit: it's only sensible to be prepared for whatever enemy you're going to face. But the balance between preparation and letting the enemy do whatever they please is something that neither DM nor player are considering, here. That's why I recommend OOC discussion, perhaps asking the player to roleplay as the villain for a little. As in, say to him: "All right, so the players have decided to spend six months on preparation. You're the BBEG, you have these tools, this plan, and six months to get as much power as you can manage. What do you do?" The results should show the player why giving the other side unlimited time is unacceptable, by having them grant the other side the exact same agency that they have.

Talakeal

2016-01-08, 01:06 AM

Itsjustsoup.com

2016-01-08, 02:01 AM

You could always send the story after him. Villains don't stay immobile they have plans of their own. What if some of his plans comes crashing down on top of your squirrel grinder?

OldTrees1

2016-01-08, 10:16 AM

Its nit really a huge deal anymore, just mentining an old recurrng argument as an anecdote that relates to the thread.

I will say though, that this player takes grinding to the extreme. He finds that grinding is the best part of games, and will power up his character well beyond anythng required to handle what the game throws at you. I have seen him play RPGs that he doesnt even like but wont stop until he has completely maxxed out all of his characters.

@The anecdote as it relates to this thread
Plot time railroads by ensuring a event will happen regardless of the time spent. Real time creates time constraints. As we know from real life, time constraints limit agency in a close to proportional relationship. While realistic(which often means fitting verisimilitude), the side effect of limiting agency, when severe*, can be railroading.

However there is another aspect to this one can consider. Different players have different tastes (including quantitative tastes per qualitative) for agency limits. This is the point at which the objective degree of railroading(degree to which agency is limited beyond the threshold) shifts to also be the normative/judging term**. This aspect I think informs us about why the anecdote occurred and gives guidance for how to treat circumstances more severe than that anecdote.

*I personally do not consider your anecdote to qualify as severe to me.(The amount of qualifiers here will be addressed above)
**Which I guess can be considered an accusation of badwrongfun with respect to the person making the accusation. I consider this(with the subjective qualifier on the end) an exception to our normal judgments of such accusations.

Amphetryon

2016-01-08, 11:33 AM

You could always send the story after him. Villains don't stay immobile they have plans of their own. What if some of his plans comes crashing down on top of your squirrel grinder?

From evidence provided, it sounds to me like the Player in question would consider that fairly railroady.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-09, 12:36 AM

I realized...

the Quantum Ogre relies on the players not knowing a certain piece of information. If the players were told "the Ogre lives in the swamp", it'll be weird if the players say "let's go to the plains to avoid the Ogre", and encounter the Ogre anyway. The DM could make up reasons afterwards, but if similar situations occur repeatedly, things become obvious.

The QO is a crutch. A DM could use it sparingly, because people are imperfect and can't make everything out of whole cloth all the time, and it does work often enough. It should not, however, be the main DMing style.

Not exactly true. Sure if the DM says ''Ogre Bob lives over in Black Swamp'', then that ogre is a bit locked to that location. But the DM can still pretty easily say ''Ogre Bob is hunting on the plains'' and that is perfectly reasonable.

But the real way to reverse railroad(the ''ogre'', sigh) is to have the Pc's be unable to avoid an idea of an encounter. So the base idea for the encounter is ''an evil sage that attempts to trick and capture the Pc's to feed his pet monster''. It does not matter where the Pc's go, as any NPC sage they go to will be that encounter.

Don't go Darth Ultron's way and redefine railroading in some overly broad way. The whole point of the term is to signify an unalterable course from A to B to C. Once you include branching, multiple endpoints or backtracking, a game ceases to be a railroad and becomes something else. Railroading =/= any forced player decision ever.

I do disagree.

A lot of people are saying railroad is only A to B to C.
And a lot of people say A to X to K to C is not railroading, even though they still get to C.
And if players want to believe that it's not railroading, when the game plot gets to the exact same point as the railroaded game got too, that is fine by me. Though it is just saying that if you distract the players with an indirect route to C, they won't feel railroaded.

The first one, that the plot doesn't progress, is limited to thinking of plot as something outside of the characters. I believe it is far more accurate to say that the most important plot is the story of the characters' lives, and thus anything where those characters are present is important plot.

This would be more the character's story, not plot.

The second one, that the campaign plot only has meaning or interactivity when the GM has planned everything out in advance, is thinking of preparation in a very limited fashion. The GM can instead prepare characters, stat up enemies, lay out areas, and write up details on plot elements, all so that they have flexibility in responding to what the players do.

Not sure why your saying ''the DM's plan of having the duke take over'' is a plot, but that ''the random plan from nowhere(aka the DM) of having the Pc's attempt to stop the dukes take over'' is not a plot.

Like say the duke has the plan to take over. The Pc's find out. The plan is for the duke's thugs to break the dam, and attack in the confusion. The Pc's foil the plan and save the dam. Ok, but that does not change the plot at all of ''the duke wants to take over''. The duke will very likely try another plan.

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-09, 12:55 AM

Not exactly true. Sure if the DM says ''Ogre Bob lives over in Black Swamp'', then that ogre is a bit locked to that location. But the DM can still pretty easily say ''Ogre Bob is hunting on the plains'' and that is perfectly reasonable.

But the real way to reverse railroad(the ''ogre'', sigh) is to have the Pc's be unable to avoid an idea of an encounter. So the base idea for the encounter is ''an evil sage that attempts to trick and capture the Pc's to feed his pet monster''. It does not matter where the Pc's go, as any NPC sage they go to will be that encounter.

I thought Reverse Railroading was when the players railroad the GM, as youve described it elsewhere.
(Unless the actual term has no real meaning because lul trolling.)

I do disagree.

A lot of people are saying railroad is only A to B to C.
And a lot of people say A to X to K to C is not railroading, even though they still get to C.
And if players want to believe that it's not railroading, when the game plot gets to the exact same point as the railroaded game got too, that is fine by me. Though it is just saying that if you distract the players with an indirect route to C, they won't feel railroaded.

"Let me reinterpret what you said to mean something else that makes me right" method of trolling. Used to use this all the time while making my mathemetician friend mad about the fake number Bajillion being like Infinity, but with 1 less zero at the end.

This would be more the character's story, not plot.
"Only things I say are plots, are plots." Aka shifting goalpost.
Obviois troll remains obvious.

Not sure why your saying ''the DM's plan of having the duke take over'' is a plot, but that ''the random plan from nowhere(aka the DM) of having the Pc's attempt to stop the dukes take over'' is not a plot.

Like say the duke has the plan to take over. The Pc's find out. The plan is for the duke's thugs to break the dam, and attack in the confusion. The Pc's foil the plan and save the dam. Ok, but that does not change the plot at all of ''the duke wants to take over''. The duke will very likely try another plan.

Once again interpreting whatever was said in a way that makes you sound right but involves really weird stretching of definitions to the point of uselessness.

And yet, this thread continues to take the bait.

As someone who appreciates good trolling at times, I've come to recognize this brilliance for what it is. Know that one person appreciates it, even after falling for it.

TL;DR
Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8

goto124

2016-01-09, 01:39 AM

Itsjustsoup.com

2016-01-09, 03:00 AM

As a DM, you are almost always flying by the seat of your pants. The thing is, people won't care if the product of such is good or fun.

Milo v3

2016-01-09, 05:35 AM

When is it okay to Quantum Ogre, and when should the DM just pull things from, say, the Monster Manual?
Highly dependant on your players and campaign style. But I'd say, Quantum Ogre works best in my experience when the details about the options are both vague, so you can put the elements you desire into the path they travel. Sorta like a Cold Reading with psychics, if your vague you can more easily add in elements that fit.

If the DM pull things from the Monster Manual (or similar activity), wouldn't it be obvious to the players that 'flying by the seat of the pants' is going on?
Well, if the monsters don't make sense to be wherever then they'll notice. If your flicking through the book in front of them they'll notice. Though, with things like PDF's and PRD I've found it's easier. Also, being very familiar with the monsters throughout all the books so you can remember "Oh, there was this cool monster I saw a year ago I can put in here".

goto124

2016-01-09, 06:40 AM

A year ago?! I can't remember what I had for dinner last night! :smalltongue:

Frozen_Feet

2016-01-09, 06:51 AM

The quantum ogre is an odd case because, like Darth Ultron, people are using overly broad definitions.

For example people go "but is it bad if you try to make the ogre fit the new setting?" That's no longer a quantum ogre, because from an in-universe standpoint, there are then several different ogres who occupy different places.

It's no longer the same encounter happening no-matter what. Plus, once you apply any actual uncertainty, it becomes just a random encounter.

From the other side, people ask questions like "but how does a GM use the quantum ogre if players go off the rails?" In games where quantum ogre is a common occasion, players and their characters typically don't have that option to begin with. The roads to where the Ogre couldn't be have pre-emptively been closed. The Wizard can't use plane shift, the characters don't have digging tools to get undergound etc.; none of the options they have would really question the premise of "there's an ogre there".

Milo v3

2016-01-09, 07:07 AM

A year ago?! I can't remember what I had for dinner last night! :smalltongue:

As a PF GM, remembering monsters from 3.5e monster manuals that I haven't read in years is rather useful.

OldTrees1

2016-01-09, 08:15 AM

5/7, neat.

When is it okay to Quantum Ogre, and when should the DM just pull things from, say, the Monster Manual?

If the DM pull things from the Monster Manual (or similar activity), wouldn't it be obvious to the players that 'flying by the seat of the pants' is going on?

What am I trying to go for?

Quantum Ogre:
Deciding the PCs will happen upon the Ogre regardless of what the PCs do is railroading. However it maintains the illusion of choice(since the PCs only go through the campaign once). Some players are fine with illusion of choice. When you have players who may not be fine with illusion of choice then you should use systems that grant meaningful choices rather than railroad. Players in between suggests you can use a hybrid strategy.

In summary: Know your players

Pulling from the MM:
There is no visible/auditory difference between improv and derivative improv(besides the 2nd having a slightly longer lag time). So the players have no way of telling if the DM just decided to put an Ogre there vs if the DM had just derived there would have been an Ogre there. Both of these are improv in the sense that the DM is improvising by generating new content in front of the PCs. However I have found that leaning on derivative improv ties the DM's hands enough that it reduces/prevents unwanted railroading from improv YMMV.

goto124

2016-01-09, 09:26 AM

I realize that the 'pulling from the MM' bit depends on the medium of play as well. If it's an RL game at a real table(top) and all the players physically present, it's much more obvious. Easier to get away with when it's Skype or IRC, and the DM will get away if it's PbP.

Amphetryon

2016-01-09, 11:27 AM

Darth Ultron

2016-01-09, 01:13 PM

I thought Reverse Railroading was when the players railroad the GM, as youve described it elsewhere.
(Unless the actual term has no real meaning because lul trolling.)

If a player railroads a soft DM, that is just railroading.

Once again interpreting whatever was said in a way that makes you sound right but involves really weird stretching of definitions to the point of uselessness.

Maybe what you say just has a lot of holes in it? Sorry for pointing them out.

When is it okay to Quantum Ogre, and when should the DM just pull things from, say, the Monster Manual?

If the DM pull things from the Monster Manual (or similar activity), wouldn't it be obvious to the players that 'flying by the seat of the pants' is going on?

All the time. The whole point of even having a DM is they can change up things in the game on the fly.

From the other side, people ask questions like "but how does a GM use the quantum ogre if players go off the rails?" In games where quantum ogre is a common occasion, players and their characters typically don't have that option to begin with. The roads to where the Ogre couldn't be have pre-emptively been closed. The Wizard can't use plane shift, the characters don't have digging tools to get undergound etc.; none of the options they have would really question the premise of "there's an ogre there".

Or, games with the ''Ogre'' just let the players waste time and resources. The DM has a lich encounter all planned out. And say the Pcs teleport away....well, it does not matter as the lich is where ever they go.

As others said, Know Your Players.

I've had some Players who made this a nigh-impossible balancing act, as anytime the DM paused to look up things from the MM, those Players accused the DM of being unprepared, while at the same time, responded to any encounters where the DM knew the details without having to stop and look things up with 'Railroading!'

The game does work best when the players just play their PCs. As soon as the players are sitting at the table, watching the DM and ready to complain and make verbal attacks, they are not playing the RPG. That is when the game turns into ''the players vs the DM''.

Humm, maybe we can say it is only railroading when players make the game all about just ''players vs. DM'' and not ''let us all just play the RPG together and have fun.''

Florian

2016-01-09, 01:43 PM

I've had some Players who made this a nigh-impossible balancing act, as anytime the DM paused to look up things from the MM, those Players accused the DM of being unprepared, while at the same time, responded to any encounters where the DM knew the details without having to stop and look things up with 'Railroading!'

You know, that actually made me laugh out loud just right now, reading it.
I started playing D&D when it was just some cheap brown booklets in an equally cheap woodgrain box and since then, I´ve known and forgotten more monsters, setting details and rules than most of my players combined ever knew. Heck, I don´t even GM when I´m sober to give the regular joe a fighting chance.
The moment my players would voice anything like this is the moment I´d pack my books and leave, having better things to do.

And no, that is not Hybris, that is a reaction to blatant disrespect.

Amphetryon

2016-01-09, 01:46 PM

You know, that actually made me laugh out loud just right now, reading it.
I started playing D&D when it was just some cheap brown booklets in an equally cheap woodgrain box and since then, I´ve known and forgotten more monsters, setting details and rules than most of my players combined ever knew. Heck, I don´t even GM when I´m sober to give the regular joe a fighting chance.
The moment my players would voice anything like this is the moment I´d pack my books and leave, having better things to do.

And no, that is not Hybris, that is a reaction to blatant disrespect.

It was actually even more "fun" than that, since any expository information, regardless of source, was greeted with "Ooh, it's DM Story Hour!"

Good times.

Florian

2016-01-09, 01:49 PM

It was actually even more "fun" than that, since any expository information, regardless of source, was greeted with "Ooh, it's DM Story Hour!"

Good times.

Good times indeed. Three cheers for entitlement!

plllizzz

2016-01-09, 02:36 PM

{Scrubbed}

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-09, 02:58 PM

{Scrubbed}

Darth Ultron

2016-01-09, 09:02 PM

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-09, 09:27 PM

{Scrubbed}

Darth Ultron

2016-01-09, 09:57 PM

{Scrubbed}

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-09, 10:38 PM

{Scrubbed}

GAAD

2016-01-09, 11:19 PM

Hey INT, those bait pics are hilarious. Where are you getting them from?

OldTrees1

2016-01-09, 11:32 PM

I just wish we could get a definition of Railroading that is more then ''just something the players don't like''.

And it would seem that everyone is against the DM making a plan or having a plot, but at the same time worship players that do so...and that just makes no sense.

There are only three basic ways to do it:

1.The DM makes the story and plot. And, yes, the DM can listen to the players and make what they want...just as the DM makes the story plot does not make him a jerk tyrant. A plot forces the players to do things, but then that is what makes a plot a plot. And a lot of people really don't like the idea of anything forced, so they rebel.

2.The DM just makes plot hooks and other small unrelated things, but makes no story or plot. So the players just randomly do nothing and randomly encounter the hooks and other things. And this is a great way to run a game....for about a half hour. Then the players pick a plot and you go right to number one.

3.Just chaos. Nothing happens, everything happens.

If you took the time to describe these 3 ways objectively and without bias, then they would make more sense to you.

1. This thread has several(most) of the people in this thread have been talking exclusively about subcategories of this. These subcategories vary from the A->B->C thru A->...->Z thru A->...->Z0/Z1/Z2...

2. People are not as bad as you are predicting (since I described personal anecdotal counterexamples, either call me a liar or just trust me on this). Players can make non random choices with their free will(rather than your "nothing or random" comment). They could pick up a plot hook(which does go to #1 but see above) or they could pick up one of the other things thus persisting in this world detailed by the DM while the PCs carve out an adventure.

3. Very poor description especially since you called players with player agency "players do nothing/random" above. If you were referring to a sandbox then "players do, the world does, and story happens" would be a better description.

GloatingSwine

2016-01-10, 07:35 AM

My players actually have sort of the opposite problem, they feel that I use deadlines to railroad them.

They will, for example, want to take six months to craft magic items in town, and if I explain that if they wait that long the BBEG of doom will have already enacted his plan to destroy the world, then they get mad at me for telling them what to do.

Let them do it.

Fill them in on the details of how they're hearing about other towns being attacked, and the one their base is in is filling up with refugees, the attacks are getting closer, desperate banditry is increasing making materials harder to come by, and then on the day that all their dragon fighting gear is completed, the dragon comes to their town.

So they're all prepared to fight a dragon, but now they've got a really chaotic situation where they have to fight it whilst it flies around burning down a town around them, and the kingdom is going to wonder why, if there are some heroes with specialist dragon fighting gear around, why nothing got done before now...

neonchameleon

2016-01-10, 09:23 AM

I just wish we could get a definition of Railroading that is more then ''just something the players don't like''.

Everyone else in this thread has one and is working to approximately the same definition. If you reread the thread you might find it. If not, the rest of us have tried and you've gone way past the benefit of the doubt.

But I see the billygoats have already been turned loose. (Excellent bait pictures btw).

Darth Ultron

2016-01-10, 09:28 AM

We have simply decided to ignore it from here on, and dismiss it as trolling.

Gosh, so you just ignore what you don't like? Ok, guess it is one way to live.

I guess the only real definition of railroading we will ever get is: Railroading is when the players think their decisions don't matter in the game. There is no factual way to see or detect railroading, and flat out half of all cries of railroading will not be true.

I'd add further that it is mostly said by bad players who are playing the ''player vs DM'' card. The bad player does not want to just play the game as a character, they are trying it influence the game out of character.

So, that makes a good DM one that can craft a story that lets the players think and feel like their decisions matter.

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-10, 11:09 AM

Gosh, so you just ignore what you don't like? Ok, guess it is one way to live.

I guess the only real definition of railroading we will ever get is: Railroading is when the players think their decisions don't matter in the game. There is no factual way to see or detect railroading, and flat out half of all cries of railroading will not be true.

I'd add further that it is mostly said by bad players who are playing the ''player vs DM'' card. The bad player does not want to just play the game as a character, they are trying it influence the game out of character.

So, that makes a good DM one that can craft a story that lets the players think and feel like their decisions matter.

Let me give you an anecdote for what is happening here:
Imagine you're with your friends, shooting the breeze about, say, pasta.
One of your friends says "All pasta is Mac and Cheese."
Your friends discuss this, quickly realizing that while an amusing pseudo-truth, not really accurate to reality. You each state your own thoughts on Pasta. Your friend replies with,
"No, all pasta is Mac and Cheese."
You all sigh and say, "Okay, yeah, we heard you the first time. That's a really amusing way to look at it, but not really true."
"Fine, you either have A. All pasta is mac and cheese like a normal person or B. Everyone insists their pasta with a sauce on it somehow isn't the same as Mac and Cheese and have a sub-par meal"

Your friends are somewhat dumbfounded but try to carry on anyways.

Your one friend remains absolutely adamant through all portions lf the discussion that you all are idiots and that ALL pasta is, in fact, Macaroni and Cheese, in its essence.

Now you tell me. How much longer would this friend's word have any sort of impact on the discussion? How quickly would you determine he was just screwing with you? I doubt either of these would take long.

We've seen your point. Understood it. Taken the grain of truth within it for our own use, and discarded the rest as unhelpful.

It's not that we don't like it. It's that the same thing over and over again is tedious. And boring. None of us are here to be bored.

{Scrubbed}

OldTrees1

2016-01-10, 11:22 AM

We've seen your point. Understood it. Taken the grain of truth within it for our own use, and discarded the rest as unhelpful.

Well that is a bit questionable considering how much y'all pushed back when I said the scripted ending(the C) in a A->...->C campaign is an example of railroading despite the middle(the ...) not being railroading.

Segev

2016-01-10, 11:49 AM

It is really only railroading if the players' actions make no difference. The quantum ogre is railroading only if the players make a deliberate effort to avoid it (or something very like it) and they cannot because th DM says so.

If the plot culminates in a big fight at the BBEG's lair, it is only railroading if the PCs cannot avoid it even by making choices that should change how they participate in it.

Railroading is the removal of ability for PCs to have impact beyond that scripted for them by the DM before the PCs make any choices at all. As long as player choices can have consequences beyond those the DM has already planned, it is not railroading. Linear storytelling has a strong impetus to make certain choices, as they will have the most obvious impacts. It is not railroading if the players' choices can create new paths, create meaningful variants in the path(s), or the players can leave the path.

Railroading becomes obvious when players are either denied ability to try things that seem like they should work, when the world has increasingly improbable obstacles which only seem to impede the players' options but have limited impact on the world otherwise, or when player actions are never allowed to succeed or never can have effects that should seek to change how things will work out.

That last can be misread and misrepresented, so let me point out that it can be quite obvious when the world decides that one cannot change pre-set "fate." This does not mean all player choices will work out as the player hoped, but that consequences of choices have to make sense, even if they are not what the DM had planned.

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-10, 11:59 AM

Well that is a bit questionable considering how much y'all pushed back when I said the scripted ending(the C) in a A->...->C campaign is an example of railroading despite the middle(the ...) not being railroading.

Some disagreed with you. Welcome to discussion. So long as multiple people participate, multiple opinions will exist. You've made contributions OUTSIDE of that one point, yes?

Then you've contributed more than DU has. And done it without being condescending and putting off really heavy Troll vibes.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-10, 12:53 PM

Let me give you an anecdote for what is happening here:

Right, so your saying everyone here has a preconceived notion on the way they want thing to be and are unwilling to even consider changing their minds. Ok, works for me.

It's not that I'm saying ''all pasta is mac and cheese'', I'm saying ''All pasta must have noodles to be called pasta'', and your saying ''I make pasta all the time with no noodles and it is great''. I then ask ''Ok, what is in your noodle less pasta'' and you say ''things and stuff...but no noodles ''.

It is really only railroading if the players' actions make no difference. The quantum ogre is railroading only if the players make a deliberate effort to avoid it (or something very like it) and they cannot because th DM says so. If the plot culminates in a big fight at the BBEG's lair, it is only railroading if the PCs cannot avoid it even by making choices that should change how they participate in it.

I think a lot of it is just coming by bad players. The kind of player that thinks their character is a demi god and can alter reality with a snap of the fingers. And they refuse to accept that they way the game reality works is that a character can't really change all that much.

And the thing is....it is not a bad thing that the players can't have their characters alter reality like play dough. It keeps the game world realistic and make sense.

Railroading becomes obvious when players are either denied ability to try things that seem like they should work, when the world has increasingly improbable obstacles which only seem to impede the players' options but have limited impact on the world otherwise, or when player actions are never allowed to succeed or never can have effects that should seek to change how things will work out.

That last can be misread and misrepresented, so let me point out that it can be quite obvious when the world decides that one cannot change pre-set "fate." This does not mean all player choices will work out as the player hoped, but that consequences of choices have to make sense, even if they are not what the DM had planned.

This is a slippery slope, as it is saying everything a player tries should work, or even should have a chance to work. And in a well run game, that is not true.

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-10, 01:03 PM

{Scrubbed}

YossarianLives

2016-01-10, 01:09 PM

I feel compelled to say, pasta doesn't have to have noodles in it, but I suppose that's straying off topic.
Because this thread has a perfect track record for staying on topic.

neonchameleon

2016-01-10, 01:13 PM

GnomishPride

2016-01-10, 02:53 PM

Railroading: Eliminating player choice to the point where the DM decides what the characters do, not the other players. At this point, the other players might as well not show up, because the DM overrides all their decisions. 'Reverse Railroading' is when the DM just makes all player decisions have the same result.
Degrees of Railroading are how much the player's choices are limited by the DM.
That's my view at least.

Segev

2016-01-10, 03:35 PM

I think a lot of it is just coming by bad players. The kind of player that thinks their character is a demi god and can alter reality with a snap of the fingers. And they refuse to accept that they way the game reality works is that a character can't really change all that much.

And the thing is....it is not a bad thing that the players can't have their characters alter reality like play dough. It keeps the game world realistic and make sense.Not at all what I was saying. In fact, it's why I clarified later on in my post, which you seem to have totally failed to understand, given this line, which you used in direct response to my clarification:

This is a slippery slope, as it is saying everything a player tries should work, or even should have a chance to work. And in a well run game, that is not true.

My apologies that I failed to communicate better.

Let me try again: There is a broad but somewhat fuzzy line between "players can do anything with a snap of their fingers" and "players' choices have meaningful impact on the course of events."

Railroading is obvious when the DM has determined that the players WILL go to THIS location for THIS adventure, and nowhere else, and suddenly there's an impenetrable wall in the way of them going one other possible direction, an infinite supply of way-too-high-level monsters in the way in another, and a band of pirates who will infallibly capture them and deliver them up to the site where they must undergo the mandatory adventure if they try anything else (including "doing nothing"). It's railroading, and obviously so, when the only way to get through the dungeon is to solve the puzzle the DM has laid out, defeat the monsters he has put in place, and overcome traps with the specific method he's got in mind, because he can't have them teleport, dig tunnels, bash through doors, or befriend monsters.

It's not railroading to have the NPCs not be willing to bend over backwards and give up their hopes and dreams on the PCs' say-so; it is railroading if every NPC in the world is heck-bent on getting the PCs to follow the exact plot as laid out. It's railroading when the DM decides the PCs must be tricked into doing the bad guys' dirty work, so the PCs cannot be allowed to avoid it even if the players figure out something is "up" and refuse to do the obviously plot-required "thing."

It's railroading when the players are not ALLOWED to decide to side with the villain, because the DM had planned that the villain's offer to join him and rule as father and son would be a dramatic moment for the party to refuse and trigger a mid-campaign fight with the boss. It's railroading when the party takes a dislike to the NPC the DM thought they should adore and want to protect, and thus the DM forces them to take her along and pretend to like her because he needs them to feel "hurt" IC by her betrayal when she turns out to be the BBEG in hiding.

Players and their characters can fail without it being railroading. It's only railroading when there exists only one path, and when PCs can only succeed exactly as planned or fail and have the game over screen occur. The more PC actions can change the course of events without ending the game, the less railroading there is.

OldTrees1

2016-01-10, 06:01 PM

It is really only railroading if the players' actions make no difference. The quantum ogre is railroading only if the players make a deliberate effort to avoid it (or something very like it) and they cannot because th DM says so.

...

Railroading is the removal of ability for PCs to have impact beyond that scripted for them by the DM before the PCs make any choices at all. As long as player choices can have consequences beyond those the DM has already planned, it is not railroading. Linear storytelling has a strong impetus to make certain choices, as they will have the most obvious impacts. It is not railroading if the players' choices can create new paths, create meaningful variants in the path(s), or the players can leave the path.

You seem to state slightly different contradicting positions here.

Abstract example:
What if the DM would have prevented the players from trying to do otherwise but did not have to since the players coincidentally did not try to try to do otherwise?

Concrete example:
The party knows there is an ogre in the forest between them and their destination. They imagine they could skirt the forest to avoid the ogre. Unbeknownst to the players, the DM would have moved the ogre to wherever the party was going to go. However the players decided to go straight through the forest ogre and all.

It seems to me that the DM's ogre's quantum position removes some of the players ability to have impact despite the coincidence of the players independently deciding to fight the ogre just as the DM had decided they would.

GloatingSwine

2016-01-10, 06:56 PM

Darth Ultron

2016-01-10, 11:35 PM

Railroading is obvious when the DM has determined that the players WILL go to THIS location for THIS adventure, and nowhere else, and suddenly there's an impenetrable wall in the way of them going one other possible direction, an infinite supply of way-too-high-level monsters in the way in another, and a band of pirates who will infallibly capture them and deliver them up to the site where they must undergo the mandatory adventure if they try anything else (including "doing nothing").

So to save the dying king the characters must get the orb of life from the tomb of doom. So is that railroading as the DM is forcing them to go to a location and get an item?

It's not railroading to have the NPCs not be willing to bend over backwards and give up their hopes and dreams on the PCs' say-so; it is railroading if every NPC in the world is heck-bent on getting the PCs to follow the exact plot as laid out. It's railroading when the DM decides the PCs must be tricked into doing the bad guys' dirty work, so the PCs cannot be allowed to avoid it even if the players figure out something is "up" and refuse to do the obviously plot-required "thing."

So if every NPC is just played as a character, some helpful, some neutral and some hostile, then that is not railroading...even when the NPC's go against the players or follow the plot.

It's railroading when the players are not ALLOWED to decide to side with the villain, because the DM had planned that the villain's offer to join him and rule as father and son would be a dramatic moment for the party to refuse and trigger a mid-campaign fight with the boss. It's railroading when the party takes a dislike to the NPC the DM thought they should adore and want to protect, and thus the DM forces them to take her along and pretend to like her because he needs them to feel "hurt" IC by her betrayal when she turns out to be the BBEG in hiding.

The ''allowed'' part is odd. It seems to be talking only about the jerk tyrant DM. So it is only railroading if the DM has a plan? If the DM has no plan, or simply lies about having one, then the DM can never railroad...right? So if the DM just ''plays the NPC the way they should be and all'', with no predetermined jerky tyrant plan, then the players can't cry railroad?

Players and their characters can fail without it being railroading. It's only railroading when there exists only one path, and when PCs can only succeed exactly as planned or fail and have the game over screen occur. The more PC actions can change the course of events without ending the game, the less railroading there is.

You seem to be set on ''it is only railroading if the DM has a set plan''. And that is fine, but it does not cover all the times a DM does not have a plan and their is still only one path.

goto124

2016-01-10, 11:54 PM

A thread about how to balance Player Agency and GM Agency (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?474595-Making-Player-driven-quests-fun).

In a sense, railroading is what happens when the game is 0% Player Agency and 100% GM Agency...

OldTrees1

2016-01-11, 12:12 AM

No, the real railroad is that if the players try to not go through the forest and fight the ogre something always stops them, they must go through the forest and fight the ogre there, they cannot go around the forest and coincidentally run into the ogre on the way back from the shops, forest or nothing.

Abstractly: It's not railroading if the DM kludges the general shape of the plot to fit what the players do (or don't do), it's railroading if the DM forces the players to follow the specific scenes the way he imagined them.

1) That question was very specifically asked of someone about their position. Your position may be worth its weight in gold and still be irrelevant.

2) That question was dealing with "Is it railroading if the players couldn't try to do otherwise but didn't think to try to do otherwise?". In contrast your response was dealing with variable location of a scripted scene renders the scripting irrelevant.

3) Now to address your response:
You seem to be taking the position that despite the player actions(trying to go around the forest) having no capability to impact the outcome(ogre fight, roll initiative), the scenery change is enough to make it not a railroaded encounter? In that case I have 2 questions for you
A: What is the minimum set of necessary conditions by which you define the smallest possible railroaded thing(event, action, encounter, outcome, ...)?
B: What word do you use for the DM preventing the players from having an ability to impact the outcome when applied to outcomes that arise midgame(like what happens after the players choose a path)?

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-11, 12:20 AM

{Scrubbed}

LnGrrrR

2016-01-11, 10:34 AM

Right, so your saying everyone here has a preconceived notion on the way they want thing to be and are unwilling to even consider changing their minds. Ok, works for me.

It's not that I'm saying ''all pasta is mac and cheese'', I'm saying ''All pasta must have noodles to be called pasta'', and your saying ''I make pasta all the time with no noodles and it is great''. I then ask ''Ok, what is in your noodle less pasta'' and you say ''things and stuff...but no noodles ''.

I think a lot of it is just coming by bad players. The kind of player that thinks their character is a demi god and can alter reality with a snap of the fingers. And they refuse to accept that they way the game reality works is that a character can't really change all that much.

And the thing is....it is not a bad thing that the players can't have their characters alter reality like play dough. It keeps the game world realistic and make sense.

This is a slippery slope, as it is saying everything a player tries should work, or even should have a chance to work. And in a well run game, that is not true.

See Darth, that's the problem you're having. You're defining railroading as ... well doing pretty much anything. Coming up with a world. Putting monsters in it. Etc etc. Literally EVERYONE ELSE is saying railroading is far more specific, and you fail to see that. And you consistently frame your experience as being that players can not have ANY say in things, because if they do, they will want a +10 sword or want to kill the dragon in one hit, etc etc. You don't seem to allow for the idea that players may come up with an idea that makes the game BETTER.

You make players sound as if they are five years old, demanding unrealistic options and pouting if they don't get their way. That is not my experience, and given the general tenor of the responses, it's not the experience of the majority of people DM'ing. Yet you refuse to accept our experiences, consistently inserting your own.

And your conflation that the permission power of the DM is the same as the DM deciding the story is also problematic. Basically, you're saying there's no difference between a story a DM comes up with that he forces the players to play, and a story that the players come up with that the DM oks. But of course there's a huge difference... the players VERY LIKELY will want to play a story that they came up with. The same is not always true of the story the DM wants them to follow.

Finally, you seemingly deliberately twist words to better suit your arguments. Look above at your "alter reality like play dough". You consistently use "all or nothing" terms. Your implication is that everything is up for grabs... say my player wants to roll a Notice check to see if there's a hidden door. I might "create" a hidden door there. Another player then asks, "Hey, can I jump 100 feet in the air to chase this dragon?" I likely would disallow it. Your stance melds the two together, implying a DM must allow every player's whim, or none at all. When you try to see things from another player's perspective, you use language that is obviously inflammatory. Instead of looking like you want actual insight, your stance betrays your eagerness to tear down a strawman position which you have created or plan on creating.

In summary, the reason everyone is arguing with you is because you're using logical fallacies, poor debating tactics, and you refuse to see things from any perspective but your own.

Segev

2016-01-11, 03:21 PM

You seem to state slightly different contradicting positions here.

Abstract example:
What if the DM would have prevented the players from trying to do otherwise but did not have to since the players coincidentally did not try to try to do otherwise?

Concrete example:
The party knows there is an ogre in the forest between them and their destination. They imagine they could skirt the forest to avoid the ogre. Unbeknownst to the players, the DM would have moved the ogre to wherever the party was going to go. However the players decided to go straight through the forest ogre and all.

It seems to me that the DM's ogre's quantum position removes some of the players ability to have impact despite the coincidence of the players independently deciding to fight the ogre just as the DM had decided they would.This is largely answered by GloatingSwine, quoted below. It's not a pure railroad if the DM allows the players' actions to change things. Your example does feel a bit like railroading, though, because the DM didn't let the PCs' choice to avoid the ogre mean anything, and there was no real reason why it shouldn't other than, "The DM says you're fighting an ogre." If there's something about the ogre fight that's essential to advancing the plot, he should alter things so that that essential bit can happen without the part the PCs deliberately avoided (fighting the ogre).

Where the PCs choose to do what the DM wanted anyway, that's...not railroading. There may be a railroad, but for it to be "railroading," the players have to be trying to get off said rails and the DM has to be forcing them back on.

No, the real railroad is that if the players try to not go through the forest and fight the ogre something always stops them, they must go through the forest and fight the ogre there, they cannot go around the forest and coincidentally run into the ogre on the way back from the shops, forest or nothing.

Abstractly: It's not railroading if the DM kludges the general shape of the plot to fit what the players do (or don't do), it's railroading if the DM forces the players to follow the specific scenes the way he imagined them.

So to save the dying king the characters must get the orb of life from the tomb of doom. So is that railroading as the DM is forcing them to go to a location and get an item?Of course not. It's railroading if, despite the PCs coming up with plans that SHOULD have a chance of working, the DM shuts them down because they avoid his planned "go here" adventure. It's railroading if the DM forces them to save the king even if the PCs come up with a plan that doesn't involve doing so at all. (Why is saving the king important? Can they get what they need without him being really alive? Could placing an imposter on the throne work just as well, for instance? What about letting him die and then casting resurrection?)

It's railroading if the Tomb of Doom cannot be reached by any means the PCs have at their disposal except for the one the DM planned (e.g. he planned for them to be captured by pirates who secretly run the ship they hire, but the PCs plan to simply use overland flight and rope trick to get there on their own, so he forces that to be unviable...and makes sure their efforts to hire a trustworthy crew cannot succeed no matter what they do about it...and won't let them find any route other than by boat). It's not railroading that the Orb of Life is at the Tomb of Doom, and it's the one way the DM had thought of to cure the King. It's not railroading if the King being alive seems the best way for the party to achieve their goals, but it is if the King being alive is forced into being the only option because other options are stonewalled by the DM inventing increasingly impossible obstacles to them.

So if every NPC is just played as a character, some helpful, some neutral and some hostile, then that is not railroading...even when the NPC's go against the players or follow the plot.NPC stonewalling is harder to label as "railroading," because it's harder to say it's "out of character" for them. However, if the mechanics of the game start warping, or the NPCs all become impossibly competent at resisting whatever-it-is the PCs do to divert from the rails, then it is. If the NPCs won't even let the PCs choose to do something off the rails (say, the greedy chancellor who poisoned the king won't agree to keep the king's death a secret with the PCs as long as he, serving as the king's mouthpiece, gives the PCs what they need in return for a hefty bribe and their silence, even with the PCs rolling ludicrous social skills), then it becomes obvious.

The ''allowed'' part is odd. It seems to be talking only about the jerk tyrant DM. So it is only railroading if the DM has a plan? If the DM has no plan, or simply lies about having one, then the DM can never railroad...right? So if the DM just ''plays the NPC the way they should be and all'', with no predetermined jerky tyrant plan, then the players can't cry railroad?If the DM has no rails, then no, he can't railroad. By definition. If the DM lies about it, then yes, he can railroad. And the players may or may not pick up on it.

If players are accusing you of railroading, you probably need to ask yourself if you have a defined course of events or actions on the part of the PCs you're hoping to orchestrate. If not, you cannot be railroading (but still may be stonewalling unreasonably).

You seem to be set on ''it is only railroading if the DM has a set plan''. And that is fine, but it does not cover all the times a DM does not have a plan and their is still only one path.How can there be only one path if the DM doesn't have a plan?

OldTrees1

2016-01-11, 08:32 PM

Where the PCs choose to do what the DM wanted anyway, that's...not railroading. There may be a railroad, but for it to be "railroading," the players have to be trying to get off said rails and the DM has to be forcing them back on.

Interesting definition with railroading not being the creation of a railroad but rather the enforcement of an already created railroad. Most useful as a judgement definition (identifying when the DM has enforced a railroad) than as a preventative definition (identifying what design not to do in order to avoid creating a railroad).

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-11, 09:33 PM

In answer to that last question, I suppose it's possible in one and only one situation:
Everything must be solved via the McGuffin.

AKA:
Baby's First D&D Plothook.

In this situation, technically there is only one way to save the kingdom (Throw the Ring of McGuffins into Mount Doom) but it's also a lazy, amateur plot basis for a trpg if it's anything beyond your very first time GMing. It can be done well, but doing it in a way that doesn't feel cliche and cheesy is... very hard. Hard enough that I don't recommend it. If you put that same energy into making a great setting or other sort of campaign, you'll have a higher payoff for equal work.

Basically, why dig for coal at minimum wage when you could wash cars for 20 bucks an hour? (I know that isn't accurate to reality, but whatever. Metaphor.)

Outside of that single, solitary instance...
I can't think of any.

But yeah, with other things said,

GM Control over the game lies on a spectrum. To use the convervative/liberal, right/left dichotomy...

Over on the extreme right you have Freeform and No-GM systems. (0% GM control, there is no GM)

On the extreme left you have one guy writing a novel. (100% GM control, there are no players.)

As GM Control goes up, Player Agency goes down.

As GM for many systems, you CAN take a huge amount of control. Its a factor of actively deciding to NOT use that control. In other systems, your control is automatically limited. (Most PbtA systems)

Since it's a spectrum, and player tolerances for reduced Player Agency may vary, finding the exact pinpoint of where Railroading definitively begins is difficult, but we can find where it will usually be. (Within one or two Standard Deviations of the Mean, to be overly statistical about it.)

Most of what we've been talking about falls within that range, I think. Where Player Agency is reduced to a point most of us agree is "too low."

Of course, different players react differently. Some genuinely can't handle having a GM and so don't play TRPGs at all.
Some are fine with having very little control and letting the GM determine the entire course of events. But other methods of play exist and are viable and equally fun, provided the players enjoy it.

This doesn't mean that railroading is "anythimg the players don't like" but it's a certain portion of the GM control spectrum where Player Agency is very low.

GloatingSwine

2016-01-12, 10:40 AM

Interesting definition with railroading not being the creation of a railroad but rather the enforcement of an already created railroad. Most useful as a judgement definition (identifying when the DM has enforced a railroad) than as a preventative definition (identifying what design not to do in order to avoid creating a railroad).

By the definitions some people seem to be proposing, the only way for a GM not to create a railroad is not to GM...

Segev

2016-01-12, 10:43 AM

Ah, if you're looking at it from the GM's perspective, seeking guidelines to avoid building something that will require you to railroad your party, that's a slightly different question.

Starting from the premise that "railroading" is enforcing the game staying on your rails, the first rule of thumb to avoid railroading your players is to avoid any plot-critical events that require the PCs to make a particular choice in a particular way. This is often hardest at the "plot hook" level, since if you have a plot going on, you need the PCs to take an interest in it. This is also the part where most players are generally okay with at least a little railroading, especially at the start of a campaign. To reinforce player agency, my preferred tactic here is to tell the players, "You will be starting the game in this situation; tell me how you got there." Or some variant on that.

For example, one classic railroading blunder is for a GM to decide that it'd be cool to have his PCs captured and imprisoned. This can either lead to a break-out scenario or to a "work for your captors" scenario.

This is rife with problems from the get-go, if not handled very delicately: first off, if the game starts before they're captured, the GM must arrange the capture. He can do this narratively, by "boxed text," but that is the ultimate railroad, as it denies the players any opportunity to react and can, if done clumsily, ignore blatant PC protections and advantages they may have. "But I'm immune to poison, so how did they drug me?" "But my contingent teleport would have taken me away before they managed to grab me." "Wait, how did a bunch of humans manage to imprison my guy who can walk through tank armor by sheer strength alone?" That kind of thing.

Thus, I suggest that the players be made complicit in this, instead. This works best at the start of a new campaign. The GM, rather than having the PCs get captured and imprisoned, tells the players, "The game is starting in this prison, run by these kinds of people, with the PCs as prisoners. Tell me how you got into that situation."

This immediately puts the onus on the players not only to make characters which COULD reasonably be stuck there, but to define WHY they're there. That shapes it so that the players' choices matter, and they're not demanding why the GM railroaded them into it. They cooperatively placed themselves on the tracks, knowing that's where the game starts. They're there to play a game, after all, so starting as part of it is a good idea.

Now, there's the next problem: how do you ensure that they're still stuck there when the warden wants to offer them freedom in exchange for working for him? One way is to open the game with them all with the warden, and him making the offer. You hope they'll take it, but this is where "avoid railroading" design really doesn't help; be willing to let players who won't take it go, or ask them to make new characters who will. Or, if the whole party refuses, be willing to let it go off the rails. Though, since you gave them the choice IC, you should have a back-up plan at least for the short-term, possibly in the form of a breakout scenario to run here and now.

If your intent is a break-out scenario, then the only railroading you'll need to do is ensure that if they don't even try to break out, they effectively don't get to play the game. It's not "railroading" when you declare that the bad guys are going to kill the heroes if the heroes don't do anything to prevent it. Anti-railroading design, here, lies mostly in not planning for HOW they'll get out. Just create the dungeon and let them figure it out. Maybe create a "plot path" if you want something to ensure they have guidance and help if they need it, but don't make it required that they accept it. The "fellow prisoner" who helps them escape should not be required as a companion or trusted ally or anything else relying on the PCs' relationship with him being something specific, or existing at all...not to advance your plot. You should have advancing your plot be something that can happen with or without the party wanting anything to do with such individuals (even if it's easier for you if they work with that guy and he provides the hook).

The other key is, if you have what you think is a binary set of choices, have a plan for each possible choice. And then one more that's a "quantum ogre" sort of deal that you can drop on them if they somehow take a "third option" that jumps way off the rails.

And, finally, be ready for the players to take entirely the wrong goals as their own. Don't be afraid to say, "Well, I didn't plan for that. Let's discuss what your characters' goals are, and I'll prepare the campaign to go that direction starting next session."

Milo v3

2016-01-12, 08:23 PM

By the definitions some people seem to be proposing, the only way for a GM not to create a railroad is not to GM...

Simply GM'ing isn't railroading. It's only railroading if you stop your players from doing things to keep it on track. The way I avoid that is that I let them do what they think the answers to a solution or event is. I can just provide an environment with certain traits and NPC's, and they can decide "okay I'll go and murder this duke" (that the plot I imagined had them working with for a few more adventures), or they could work with him (as I imagined) or they could not go back to the duke, or they might not ever meet the duke and do other stuff, or they could charm the duke, or they could discover some of the illegal activity of the duke and get his position removed, etc. etc.

I mean, players are often rather inventive so they can think of ways to bypass or interact with obstacles and issues that you didn't foresee so if they think of a way that would logically work then you probably shouldn't stop it from working just to maintain the plot or correct order of events if you want to not railroad.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-13, 01:47 AM

How can there be only one path if the DM doesn't have a plan?

Assuming you have a game based on common sense reality, there will often be only one path. And often, even when there are multiple paths, all but one are improbable , if not impossible.

The thing is how complex the plot is too. It is easy to have the billion billion ways to do a very simple thing, but as you get more complex, you get down to a handful or even one.

This doesn't mean that railroading is "anythimg the players don't like" but it's a certain portion of the GM control spectrum where Player Agency is very low.

So, can we say that railroading is simply when the DM does not give the characters a chance to do something?

It's not a perfect definition, as it assumes a perfect neutral DM with no bias, and that is impossible. But as long as the DM gives the illusion of choice and free will, then it is not railroading. It's like railroading is saying ''the bridge is broken and you can't get across the river'' and the illusion is letting the players at least have the characters try to get across the river. And the illusion comes from the fact that the imperfect DM can make it hard, or even impossible for the characters to do something. For example a river with a high swim check or some effect that does damage, can prevent the characters from swimming across, though there is a chance they might make it.

The best DM does give roughly anything a character tries to do a 50% chance of success, at least in general. Though as you get more specific that percentage gets lower. A half orc barbarian with no charisma based skills stands very little chance getting elected high lord in a racist elitist human noble culture. But a half orc bard with lots of social skills does have at least the 50% chance.

Milo v3

2016-01-13, 02:29 AM

Assuming you have a game based on common sense reality, there will often be only one path.
*Facedesk*

It's like railroading is saying ''the bridge is broken and you can't get across the river'' and the illusion is letting the players at least have the characters try to get across the river. And the illusion comes from the fact that the imperfect DM can make it hard, or even impossible for the characters to do something. For example a river with a high swim check or some effect that does damage, can prevent the characters from swimming across, though there is a chance they might make it.
Flies over/jumps over/builds bridge/teleports/has good swim check/buffs stats so you swim across/magically makes the water calm/magically removes the water/uses effect so he can walk on water/uses item to breath underwater and just walks across the bottom/travels up or down stream until they find a point they can cross/tries to swim despite not being able to get across and gets washed away or knocked unconscious or drowns/etc.

Thrudd

2016-01-13, 10:19 AM

There are two different related things at discussion now. There is the question of railroading: a behavior or action the GM takes which elicits a feeling of purposefully invalidated choices on part of the players. There is the question of the railroad itself: the designed plot or story which requires a specific series of events to occur. To play through a railroad will often require some form of railroading on part of the GM. "Railroading" might be avoided, even on a railroad adventure, if the players' choices lead them directly to all the required plot events (lucky GM or very good at anticipating how the players will react to things, probably both).

There is no question, for me, that for a game to move forward with purpose there need to be limits. Some people may identify this and imagine those limits must come in the form of a story with a plot, in which the characters must be forced to participate. However, I feel a more effective method is to ask the players to define their own limits in the form of character creation. What I mean by this, is that characters need to be designed to fit into the game world in a way that is productive for game play. I don't need to force my players to go on an adventure seeking treasure if their characters are treasure hunters and the game rewards them for finding treasure.

Example: If my game world is one where supernatural creatures lament the monstrosity of their lives, and I want to engage the players in an exploration of how monsters can redeem themselves, then I don't just hand them a stack of books and say "make any character you want."
I tell them that they need to create characters that are conflicted in some way about being monsters, and hope for redemption in some way, and also make sure the choice of monsters is limited to those in the "redeemable" category. Then, in the game when they are presented with opportunities, I don't need to force them to do anything. The players, having clear character motives and being rewarded mechanically by the game for playing in a certain way (with XP or mechanical benefits), will want and be looking for the hooks and scenarios I have devised.

Another issue which turns a plot or story into a railroad, is complexity. GMs that think of themselves as story tellers (doesn't help that there's a game system that calls them that), often imagine they must devise long, clever, complex stories with twists and turns and reveals like an exciting novel or movie. The problem is, the more complexity you try to pre-plan, the more railroading you need, the less room there is for chance and player input.
RPG plots should be much more simple, with all the twists and turns and excitement coming from the actions of the players and the random stuff that happens because of them.
"Characters want treasure. Treasure is rumored to be over there-->. Characters go there in search of treasure." "Characters are defenders of the realm. Bad guy threatens the realm. Characters set out to stop the bad guy." That's about as much plot as you want. Note the first key element to the plot is "characters want" or "characters are". This is overlooked by GMs to their detriment far too often, as they conflate being permissive in character creation with giving players "agency". In fact, doing this results in the players having less agency, because now the only way you can get them all in one place pursuing a single goal is by railroading them.

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-13, 12:59 PM

{Scrubbed}

Segev

2016-01-13, 01:36 PM

Assuming you have a game based on common sense reality, there will often be only one path. And often, even when there are multiple paths, all but one are improbable , if not impossible.Does the DM "see" this sole extant path? Does he plan for the PCs to take it? If so, this qualifies as the DM "having a plan."

Do the players come up with things that are NOT that path, and the DM allows them to try without arbitrarily creating obstacles which are insurmountable? That's not railroading.

The thing is, your hypothetical "common sense reality" situation probably does not have only one possible path through, unless it was purpose-built to do so. It may seem to have NO paths through, making figuring their way out of the metaphorical box into a challenge for the players. It's railroading when the DM FORCES there to be only one available path because he erects insurmountable obstacles to all others.

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-13, 01:45 PM

{Scrubbed}

Quertus

2016-01-13, 07:15 PM

Everyone is taking the bait. This is sad to watch.

Several threads on these forums are sad to watch. At least in this one, I feel the discussion is being kept alive and making headway.

So, on the (new) topic of what is railroading, I hold that, at any scale, when the GM forces RAW actions/solutions to not work, or introduces elements to force players in the prescribed direction, it is railroading. So even if the party gets from A to X during 2 years of sandbox play, if the path from X to Y is 2 hours of "my way or the highway", the path from X to Y is still a railroad.

I also add the term soft railroading to include the GM mildly punishing those who go off the tracks - making it rain after the PCs declare they aren't planning on sleeping in the DMs plot-essential inn. "Ok, guys, the GM obviously wants us to go this way."

The idea of making certain courses of action plot essential may well be the essence of building a railroad.

As it breaks immersion / suspension of disbelief, I probably dislike this more than most. I prefer an OOC discussion of, "how do I get your character to do x?", or, better yet, for my character doing X to never be required in the first place - with the exception of initial campaign buy-in. There, if it won't spoil the campaign, it is probably best to ask, how can I get everyone's characters involved in x?

Milo v3

2016-01-13, 07:45 PM

{Scrubbed}

I've gone past the point of frustrated, some of his arguments are just... too easy to de-construct to not de-construct.

goto124

2016-01-14, 07:44 AM

Thrudd

2016-01-14, 10:01 AM

I had a thought:

When running a campaign, the DM should not get too attached to the setting, otherwise the DM would railroad (invalidate players' choices) to ensure the Totally Awesome and Cool and Very Carefully Plotted Out Plot will play itself out just the way the DM wants it. Such a plot belongs in a book or a video game, not an RPG with other living, breathing players who want to shine.

(I recently learned a similar lesson: One shouldn't get too attached to one's character, lest one gets upset at anything remotely bad that happens to the character. Like the Totally Awesome and Cool and Very Carefully Plotted Out Plot, the Totally Awesome and Cool and Very Carefully Designed Character belongs in a book or a video game, not a shared game like an RPG. I hope no one has to learn this the painful way like I did.)

Unless you mean a different kind of RPG. For our purposes though, those RPGs fall under "video games".

Setting and plot are very different things. D&D works best when the DM is not be attached to a plot, like you say. Depending on how you are defining "plot", D&D doesn't even need one.

Setting is everything, however. Setting is how you make decisions about what happens when the PCs do something not explicitly in the rules. If the players take the north road, how do you decide what they find? Setting. Hopefully you've already mapped that far. Even if you plan hardly anything in advance and use a series of tables for randomly determining terrain, inhabitants, and wandering monsters, the parameters of the setting are determined by what is on the tables.

Setting is how you enable the players to make their own stories, by placing their motivated characters into a world populated by things they want and using the world's own logic and the game rules to decide what happens. You don't need to guide them anywhere, just show them things and situations their characters want, and then see what happens as the dice roll.

Amphetryon

2016-01-14, 02:31 PM

I also add the term soft railroading to include the GM mildly punishing those who go off the tracks - making it rain after the PCs declare they aren't planning on sleeping in the DMs plot-essential inn. "Ok, guys, the GM obviously wants us to go this way."

The idea of making certain courses of action plot essential may well be the essence of building a railroad.

As it breaks immersion / suspension of disbelief, I probably dislike this more than most. I prefer an OOC discussion of, "how do I get your character to do x?", or, better yet, for my character doing X to never be required in the first place - with the exception of initial campaign buy-in. There, if it won't spoil the campaign, it is probably best to ask, how can I get everyone's characters involved in x?

Adding weather punishes Player choices and creates a railroad? Rain in the setting breaks immersion? Really?

Segev

2016-01-14, 02:36 PM

Adding weather punishes Player choices and creates a railroad? Rain in the setting breaks immersion? Really?

That's not what he said.

What is said was that it suddenly raining, with the implication that it hadn't really done so before in similar circumstances, just when the DM needs to strongarm the PCs into staying in an inn rather than camping out, it's a form of "soft" railroading.

It's the game world conspiring to encourage the PCs to make particular choices to advance the plot in a specific way that keeps it on the rails.

Amphetryon

2016-01-14, 05:02 PM

That's not what he said.

What is said was that it suddenly raining, with the implication that it hadn't really done so before in similar circumstances, just when the DM needs to strongarm the PCs into staying in an inn rather than camping out, it's a form of "soft" railroading.

It's the game world conspiring to encourage the PCs to make particular choices to advance the plot in a specific way that keeps it on the rails.

I was responding to what he said, not what you're inferring was implied. Personally, I don't see 'making it rain' as strongarming the PCs into doing anything. Apparently, he does, and - because 'strongarm' is the particular term you chose - you agree. Fair enough.

TheIronGolem

2016-01-14, 05:16 PM

OldTrees1

2016-01-14, 05:24 PM

I was responding to what he said, not what you're inferring was implied. Personally, I don't see 'making it rain' as strongarming the PCs into doing anything. Apparently, he does, and - because 'strongarm' is the particular term you chose - you agree. Fair enough.

It was blatantly stated not implied.

First the establishment of the term
I also add the term soft railroading
Then defining the term
to include the GM mildly punishing those who go off the tracks
Then giving an example only to be read in the light of the preceding definition
- making it rain after the PCs declare they aren't planning on sleeping in the DMs plot-essential inn.

That is a word by word dissection of the first sentence without omissions or additions. To get more blatant you need to leave human languages and go into computer languages.

Amphetryon

2016-01-14, 07:15 PM

It was blatantly stated not implied.

First the establishment of the term
Then defining the term
Then giving an example only to be read in the light of the preceding definition

That is a word by word dissection of the first sentence without omissions or additions. To get more blatant you need to leave human languages and go into computer languages.

Yes, this was blatantly stated:

soft railroading to include the GM mildly punishing those who go off the tracks - making it rain after the PCs declare they aren't planning on sleeping in the DMs plot-essential inn.
That says making it rain - not rain hard, not ruin their gear, not even rain when the PCs have no capacity to prepare for precipitation - is mildly punishing those PCs who go off the tracks. How it was determined that the particular inn was plot-essential was not, actually, stated, but whatever.

goto124

2016-01-14, 09:12 PM

The one situation wouldn't be enough, but if the DM makes a habit of creating similar situations over and over? It's obvious. It's railroading.

Try the bottom panels of this comic strip (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615). In fact, this entire comic (DM of the Rings) is about a fictional railroady campaign.

OldTrees1

2016-01-14, 10:10 PM

Yes, this was blatantly stated:

That says making it rain - not rain hard, not ruin their gear, not even rain when the PCs have no capacity to prepare for precipitation - is mildly punishing those PCs who go off the tracks. How it was determined that the particular inn was plot-essential was not, actually, stated, but whatever.

Sorry if you recognize that it was blatantly stated, then why did you initially respond as if to a pale mockery of the post? Was it just nitpicking the example of using "You displeased me, therefore suddenly it is raining. See if your characters reconsider IC after their tents are soaked and they are sleeping in soggy clothes."

Darth Ultron

2016-01-16, 07:44 PM

Does the DM "see" this sole extant path? Does he plan for the PCs to take it? If so, this qualifies as the DM "having a plan."

A DM can have a idea, like common sense, and not have a plan.

Do the players come up with things that are NOT that path, and the DM allows them to try without arbitrarily creating obstacles which are insurmountable? That's not railroading.

There is a thin line between ''insurmountable'' and ''hard''. Ant DM can make anything hard, and most likely have the characters fail. And a clever, smart, or charismatic DM can easily cover the tracks.

The thing is, your hypothetical "common sense reality" situation probably does not have only one possible path through, unless it was purpose-built to do so. It may seem to have NO paths through, making figuring their way out of the metaphorical box into a challenge for the players. It's railroading when the DM FORCES there to be only one available path because he erects insurmountable obstacles to all others.

That adds to the definition of Railroading to make it: Railroading is when the DM FORCES there to be only one available path because he erects insurmountable obstacles to all others.

So this fully puts Railroading in the realms of the Jerk DM. So anything else plot, story or gamewise a DM does that the players don't like or disagree with is not railroading.

GAAD

2016-01-16, 07:48 PM

Milo v3

2016-01-16, 08:45 PM

Railroading is when the DM FORCES there to be only one available path because he erects insurmountable obstacles to all others.
Yes. WHITETEXT

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-16, 11:16 PM

That adds to the definition of Railroading to make it: Railroading is when the DM FORCES there to be only one available path because he erects insurmountable obstacles to all others.

So this fully puts Railroading in the realms of the Jerk DM. So anything else plot, story or gamewise a DM does that the players don't like or disagree with is not railroading.

Premise 1: True.

Premise 2: Not a logical leap you can make.

Some players don't mind a DM that runs a game in the way you described, so he's technically not a jerk since he's doing something his players like.

It's when the players DON'T want Premise 1's situation to occur, but it occurs anyways, players be damned, that the DM becomes a Jerk.
Not because he's railroading, but because he's being a jerk about it.

Just like you can be a jerk by forcing players who prefer a linear, even railroaded game to play in a sandbox. That's equally jerk-worthy, on the opposite end of things.

But your definition of what Railroading IS, is right. That is what we've been saying it is this entire time.

{Scrubbed}

Segev

2016-01-17, 12:45 AM

Darth Ultron

2016-01-17, 08:57 AM

Yep. Railroading is when the DM will permit nothing that will deviate from the rails, whether he does so by erecting insurmountable obstacles to all attempts to do anything else, doesn't allow anything else to accomplish anything (but doesn't out-and-out forbid it), or blatantly tells the players that they have to do the one thing he has in mind.

Anything else isn't railroading. When the players can make meaningful choices which have meaningful impact on the future state of the game (beyond "success" or "failure"), it ceases to be railroading.

So a smart, sneaky and clever DM who gives the players the illusion of choice, while just making any path they don't like highly improbable, is not railroading? Is it enough that the DM just lets the players 'try' anything? It does not matter how improbable, or even impossible it is to do? As long as the players feel like they could try it? And it does not matter that the DM can simply change things even if the 'dice' say something?

Milo v3

2016-01-17, 09:01 AM

And it does not matter that the DM can simply change things even if the 'dice' say something?
There is a social convention and assumption that you won't act like a jerk and that you'll follow what the dice say, because otherwise, why are you playing a game with dice?

Darth Ultron

2016-01-17, 09:19 AM

There is a social convention and assumption that you won't act like a jerk and that you'll follow what the dice say, because otherwise, why are you playing a game with dice?

I'm sure a rule book somewhere, the DMG maybe, says ''you don't have to follow the rules and dice like a zombie: it's your game just have fun."

And, after all, very few people have any problem with the DM ignoring dice in favor of the characters. Though this does go on to the bigger part of the dice don't matter problem. If a character only has one hit point, and they 'amazingly' don't get attacked by any foe in the middle of a battle, then the attack and damage dice rolls don't matter, as they never happen.

Milo v3

2016-01-17, 09:27 AM

And, after all, very few people have any problem with the DM ignoring dice in favor of the characters. Though this does go on to the bigger part of the dice don't matter problem. If a character only has one hit point, and they 'amazingly' don't get attacked by any foe in the middle of a battle, then the attack and damage dice rolls don't matter, as they never happen.
I know several people who would have issue with that. Both players and GM's.

I mean it seriously, what's the point of using method of success determination, and then ignoring it?

LnGrrrR

2016-01-17, 09:56 AM

I'm sure a rule book somewhere, the DMG maybe, says ''you don't have to follow the rules and dice like a zombie: it's your game just have fun."

And, after all, very few people have any problem with the DM ignoring dice in favor of the characters. Though this does go on to the bigger part of the dice don't matter problem. If a character only has one hit point, and they 'amazingly' don't get attacked by any foe in the middle of a battle, then the attack and damage dice rolls don't matter, as they never happen.

Honestly, DMs should never allow a roll unless they're prepared for the consequences of that roll. For instance, the players are crossing a rickety bridge over a chasm, and you force a dex roll. If they fail, you better be prepared for that. It need not necessarily be death... it could be something like, "You trip and lose something out of your backpack, what is it?" (Note: As a DM when I allow players to choose, it has to at least matter. If they say something like, Oh I lost one arrow, then I will be like, No, you actually lost this valuable whatever. It's in the player's best interests to play fair. :D)

Now, as a DM, I usually speak OOCly with people about character death, and whether they want it. There is always SOME punishment for death, but it may not be "death" outright. I don't like treating death as cavalierly as old school DnD. (Ie, well pick up his body, get the cash and let's resurrect him!) Therefore, I usually allow some other form of punishment, like a permanent injury for a fighter (resulting in -1 Str) or a scar for a bard (resulting in -1 Cha). Something that will prevent them from being dumb, but won't hinder them so much that they won't be heroic.

Of course, if your group and you are fine with playing it "no consequences", hey, have fun. Maybe they "respawn" a few minutes later. If everyone's ok with that, then sure.

tl;dr - If you don't want the dice to count, don't throw the dice. If a challenge is far harder than you thought it would be when you drew it up, you can pause OOCly and ask the players if they want some sort of deus ex machina to help them out. Knowing your players helps.

OldTrees1

2016-01-17, 11:44 AM

So a smart, sneaky and clever DM who gives the players the illusion of choice, while just making any path they don't like highly improbable, is not railroading? Is it enough that the DM just lets the players 'try' anything? It does not matter how improbable, or even impossible it is to do? As long as the players feel like they could try it? And it does not matter that the DM can simply change things even if the 'dice' say something?

Under the judging definition of Railroading (the definition that Railroading is the act of forcing the players back onto the rails),
1) An illusion of choice when meant literally would not be railroading since the players did not try to leave the rails

2) Allowing the players to only leave the rails if they overcome an improbable check is the DM exerting limited force to try to get the players back on the rails. This would be an imperfect example of railroading under the judging definition since it is the exerting of an imperfect force. If it is actually impossible then it would be an exact example of railroading since the force pushing the players back to the rails is absolute.

3) The judging definition defines railroading as an action not a position that allows an action. So the DM being in a position where they can change the dice is not railroading. However the DM deciding to change the dice in order to force the players back on the rails would be railroading.

Under the prescriptive definition of railroading (the definition that Railroading is the creation of a railroad which is not the major definition being used in this thread)
1) Yes, illusion of choice is railroading since it creates a railroad.
2) Yes, making deviation improbably/impossible is imperfect/exact examples of railroading since it creates a railroad.
3) No, the DM being in the position of DM is not railroading, but the DM planning on using that to create a railroad would be.

Segev

2016-01-17, 02:21 PM

So a smart, sneaky and clever DM who gives the players the illusion of choice, while just making any path they don't like highly improbable, is not railroading? Is it enough that the DM just lets the players 'try' anything? It does not matter how improbable, or even impossible it is to do? As long as the players feel like they could try it? And it does not matter that the DM can simply change things even if the 'dice' say something?

As I said, it's railroading if the DM lets them "try" but won't let it ever succeed. Letting the PCs do anything they like but make no progress until they get back on the rails is still railroading.

As a general rule, while you cannot spell out a definite line in abstract terms, it is pretty obvious when a DM has things on this sort of rail. If only because PCs inevitably have powers or abilities that the DM has forgotten about or just can't stymie without resorting to obvious plotanium-armored obstacles. Or the PCs get lucky rolls. The railroading DM makes things literally impossible even when they only make sense if you retro-actively plan for everything the PCs might try.

So, yes, a "sneaky" or "clever" DM who knows his party inside and out and is brilliant at designing his railroad could create a believable scenario with only his rails being the way to success...but if he's that good, he probably would be just as good without the rails. The truth, like it or not, is that railroads are bad mainly because they're clumsily executed as a means of denying player agency to the point of harming verisimilitude. Railroading rips away the fourth wall and says "you have to do it this way," reminding players that they are not, in fact, able to have their characters act in any way but the scripted ones. It removes the sense that this is a TTRPG rather than a cRPG.

Quertus

2016-01-17, 02:57 PM

I'm sure a rule book somewhere, the DMG maybe, says ''you don't have to follow the rules and dice like a zombie: it's your game just have fun."

And, after all, very few people have any problem with the DM ignoring dice in favor of the characters. Though this does go on to the bigger part of the dice don't matter problem. If a character only has one hit point, and they 'amazingly' don't get attacked by any foe in the middle of a battle, then the attack and damage dice rolls don't matter, as they never happen.

I know several people who would have issue with that. Both players and GM's.

I mean it seriously, what's the point of using method of success determination, and then ignoring it?

I'm such a player. Let me mourn my just defeat, that I might celebrate my righteous victory.

Honestly, DMs should never allow a roll unless they're prepared for the consequences of that roll. For instance, the players are crossing a rickety bridge over a chasm, and you force a dex roll. If they fail, you better be prepared for that. It need not necessarily be death... it could be something like, "You trip and lose something out of your backpack, what is it?" (Note: As a DM when I allow players to choose, it has to at least matter. If they say something like, Oh I lost one arrow, then I will be like, No, you actually lost this valuable whatever. It's in the player's best interests to play fair. :D)

Now, as a DM, I usually speak OOCly with people about character death, and whether they want it. There is always SOME punishment for death, but it may not be "death" outright. I don't like treating death as cavalierly as old school DnD. (Ie, well pick up his body, get the cash and let's resurrect him!) Therefore, I usually allow some other form of punishment, like a permanent injury for a fighter (resulting in -1 Str) or a scar for a bard (resulting in -1 Cha). Something that will prevent them from being dumb, but won't hinder them so much that they won't be heroic.

Of course, if your group and you are fine with playing it "no consequences", hey, have fun. Maybe they "respawn" a few minutes later. If everyone's ok with that, then sure.

tl;dr - If you don't want the dice to count, don't throw the dice. If a challenge is far harder than you thought it would be when you drew it up, you can pause OOCly and ask the players if they want some sort of deus ex machina to help them out. Knowing your players helps.

my signature character, Quertus, would not be heroic, even if he knew that he would respawn automatically with a permanent +1 int from the experience.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-17, 03:20 PM

Under the prescriptive definition of railroading (the definition that Railroading is the creation of a railroad which is not the major definition being used in this thread).

Is the definition used by the thread the choice one? That a railroad is where the players have agency to make choices that alter the game world? So the non-railroading game is the one where the DM just sits back and lets the players run everything?

If so, that is a horrible definition, as it is always false. The players can only effect and change what the DM allows. And even if the DM is so deluded that they fall for the whole ''player agency and meaningful choices'' smoke screen....it is still all false. Even as the DM is saying as loudly as he can ''you players are special and your choices matter'', he is still controlling the whole game world. So it is up to the DM as to what happens when the characters do things. And, as no DM is perfect, bias and other negative things creep in.

So Railroading is simply when the players loose the illusion?

Milo v3

2016-01-17, 03:34 PM

The players can only effect and change what the DM allows. And even if the DM is so deluded that they fall for the whole ''player agency and meaningful choices'' smoke screen....it is still all false.
Well it was inevitable that it wouldn't last I guess.

Segev

2016-01-17, 03:55 PM

Is the definition used by the thread the choice one? That a railroad is where the players have agency to make choices that alter the game world? So the non-railroading game is the one where the DM just sits back and lets the players run everything?

If so, that is a horrible definition, as it is always false. The players can only effect and change what the DM allows. And even if the DM is so deluded that they fall for the whole ''player agency and meaningful choices'' smoke screen....it is still all false. Even as the DM is saying as loudly as he can ''you players are special and your choices matter'', he is still controlling the whole game world. So it is up to the DM as to what happens when the characters do things. And, as no DM is perfect, bias and other negative things creep in.

So Railroading is simply when the players loose the illusion?

This is a trite, pointless bit of commentary which is utterly missing the point. Yes, a DM is "totally in control of everything," but it is only railroading if he only permits things on his pre-set rails to work. The moment the DM allows the PCs' actions to alter events beyond "success" or "failure" (that is, whether they advance further along the rails or are halted where they are), it isn't a railroad. How dramatic this deviation from the pre-set path-of-success is may vary from as little as "the farmer's daughter winds up marrying the dragon the DM had intended the PCs to slay to rescue her, so now the dragon has an interest in protecting the farm while the PCs are off on a broader quest" to as much as "the PCs have managed to take the 'find the macguffin to thwart the evil archduke' plot and morph it into a political game of intrigue wherein they're important members of the court vying to out-influence said archduke.'"

The degree to which their choices alter the plot can vary significantly, depending on the choices and the nature of the plot. It's when the players are forced to make choices that they know are stupid, or cannot take any options other than the one open path the DM planned, that it's railroading.

GAAD

2016-01-17, 04:31 PM

ImNotTrevor

2016-01-17, 05:43 PM

Honestly, DMs should never allow a roll unless they're prepared for the consequences of that roll. For instance, the players are crossing a rickety bridge over a chasm, and you force a dex roll. If they fail, you better be prepared for that. It need not necessarily be death... it could be something like, "You trip and lose something out of your backpack, what is it?" (Note: As a DM when I allow players to choose, it has to at least matter. If they say something like, Oh I lost one arrow, then I will be like, No, you actually lost this valuable whatever. It's in the player's best interests to play fair. :D)

Now, as a DM, I usually speak OOCly with people about character death, and whether they want it. There is always SOME punishment for death, but it may not be "death" outright. I don't like treating death as cavalierly as old school DnD. (Ie, well pick up his body, get the cash and let's resurrect him!) Therefore, I usually allow some other form of punishment, like a permanent injury for a fighter (resulting in -1 Str) or a scar for a bard (resulting in -1 Cha). Something that will prevent them from being dumb, but won't hinder them so much that they won't be heroic.

Of course, if your group and you are fine with playing it "no consequences", hey, have fun. Maybe they "respawn" a few minutes later. If everyone's ok with that, then sure.

tl;dr - If you don't want the dice to count, don't throw the dice. If a challenge is far harder than you thought it would be when you drew it up, you can pause OOCly and ask the players if they want some sort of deus ex machina to help them out. Knowing your players helps.

I'm of the opinion, personally, that killing a character is the LEAST interesting bad thing that can befall them. If it happens, it happens, but I'm usually bummed about it not because I dislike character death but because it's boring.

Nah, I want the characters to walk into a situation and realize partway in that they were royally screwed from the moment they darkened the door.
And to have it be 100% their fault it happened, in a way none of them can deny. (Obviously this is a rare occurence since it often doesn't come together so nicely... but I love when their old screwups come back to bite them.)

I considered for a mome t while writing this whether or not it would be railroading, but came to the conclusion that while it CAN be railroaded, its not necessarily always the case.

If the characters can avoid the situation by recognizing it for what it is, then they can avoid it and be on their way, as far as I'm concerned. Disappointing, but possible and allowed. (I always have several backup plans and make sure to know enough about current events within the setting to come up with things on the fly.)

In some ways, as far as avoiding railroading goes, I really like the Stars Without Number Faction Turn system. Bascally, the GM takes an hour or so and plays a minigame that determines the general goings-on in the sector. It's really adaptable to other systems with some mild elbow grease and pretty fun.
Sure, you can tip the scales in favor of one or ignore rolls but, at that point you shouldn't be using it in the first place. The fun is in seeing what happens.

And hey, SWN is free. So yeah. Feel free to look into it.

OldTrees1

2016-01-17, 10:46 PM

goto124

2016-01-17, 10:58 PM

I love when their old screwups come back to bite them.)

Been on the side of the players before. I was so scared of doing anything lest it came back to bite me.

Never strayed from established paths, always listened to other people's advice, repeated the same old things over and over again for the sake of survival.

It was too realistic.

I decided to quit.

Darth Ultron

2016-01-17, 11:31 PM

No, the definition the majority of the thread is using is not the one orientated on player agency. Although I will say that you are misrepresenting the agency focused definition (although I won't go into detail since it would be off-topic to your question).

Instead the majority of this thread is using a definition that only focuses on the DM's reactive enforcement of a script.

So the defination is a DM with a pre made set path/plot/story that they force the Pc's to follow? So a DM with nothing set can't railroad, no matter what they force the pc's to do?

Kinda odd that 'railroading' is only 'the classic traditional way to run an D&D adventure'. That is just way too bias. To say classic traditional way is a negative way, and at the same time jump up on the pedestal to say how wonderful and great the new fair and balanced way is....

Guess it is convenient coincidence that railroading just so happens to be the way people are saying they don't play the game, so amazingly by their own definition they don't railroad.

LnGrrrR

2016-01-17, 11:57 PM

I mean, it's not that weird. There's been decades of study in game design since then. I should hope current games would, overall, be "better".

Segev

2016-01-18, 01:16 AM

No, a DM who forces players to do one specific thing is railroading. If a DM is forcing players to do something, he has a plan in mind. Otherwise, he wouldn't be forcing anything. It may not be a long-term plan. It might just be "and then the players do this." But it's a plan. And it's a railroad because the DM has forced one specific action/path/choice, not permitting any others to do anything but "fail." Whether that's "fail and end the game" or just "fail to do anything that will change the game state" is irrelevant.

OldTrees1

2016-01-18, 01:49 AM

hifidelity2

2016-01-18, 06:32 AM

At the weekend while running my Star Wars (D6) game the issue of Railroading came up

Background:
As a result of the PCs action the 2nd DeathStar (DS) has been destroyed (3rd or 6th film – your choice)

Leading up to this the PC;’s were asked to

Find out additional info about the DS
(they could have said no but accepted the mission)

While following leads they infiltrated a Naval Base
Managed to find info re the 2nd DS but set off a security alert ending up in planetary lockdown
Managed to steal an imperial shuttle and chose to abandon their own ship
They then destroyed a 2nd shield generator that was protecting the DS – so allowing it to be destroyed

- So far so normal

However when fleeing the base (with the now destroyed) shield generator they got caught up in the DS explosion – and were captured by the Ssi-Ruuk
The Ssi-Ruuk have weapons that cannot be parried with standard LightSabres. This resulted in the party (2 Jedi, 2 others and a droid) being captured by the SSi-Ruuk stun guns – as they use / started to rely on the Jedi LS parry skill to protect them

They however did not know this (and failed a perception roll to notice) this meant that while they rolled really well for parry it was of no effect giving the NPCs a free shot at them

A couple of them complained about me railroading them with the NPCs have ridiculously high gun skills (8D+ where a standard person may have 3D – 4D). However I wasn’t. They will eventually work out how they got captured and why they were targeted (and that LightSabres can be modified to affect the stun guns)

So form this one might like to learn that sometimes when you think you are being railroaded its just that you as a PC don’t have all the info

neonchameleon

2016-01-18, 06:50 AM

So the defination is a DM with a pre made set path/plot/story that they force the Pc's to follow? So a DM with nothing set can't railroad, no matter what they force the pc's to do?

Kinda odd that 'railroading' is only 'the classic traditional way to run an D&D adventure'. That is just way too bias. To say classic traditional way is a negative way, and at the same time jump up on the pedestal to say how wonderful and great the new fair and balanced way is....

Guess it is convenient coincidence that railroading just so happens to be the way people are saying they don't play the game, so amazingly by their own definition they don't railroad.

Why do people talk about the history of D&D when they obviously don't know much about it.

The traditional way of running an adventure is an open sandbox where the DM's role is reactive after the DM has made the world and the dungeons within the world. And the PCs set out to rule by this axe. That was the way both Gygax and Arneson ran and played, with the role of DM developed from the neutral referree in a tabletop wargame. This was the game as it was desinged and as it was intended to be played.

The way you consider traditional has its major foundation point being in 1985 (i.e. 10 years later) with the Dragonlance saga as arguably the first true adventure path* (and probably coincidentally E. Gary Gygax being thrown out of TSR by Lorraine Williams in 1985). DL1 was such a railroad that the PCs not only didn't have control of the storyline, but they weren't even allowed to die by their own acts - instead having the "Obscure Death Rule" keeping them alive.

And to anyone expecting the sort of sandboxes D&D was designed for this adventure path style of play is as obnoxious as hell. The term Railroad was used to describe the most annoying and antisocial features of such things as practiced by the worst DMs.

But yes, you're right that adventure paths rose to dominate D&D. This didn't even happen in the 90s (although adventure paths were being sold much more then than the 80s). The first module published for 3.0 was The Forge of Fury - a fairly traditional dungeon that is not in any way a railroad (traditional dungeons are almost never railroads). Neither was Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil in 2001. Now Pathfinder is overrun by Adventure Paths, but this is for two reasons. The first is Pathfinder is known to be unbalanced, and wizards break sandboxes much harder than they do adventure paths. The second is that prepping PF (or 3.X in general) monsters is a lot of work and can't be done on the fly anywhere near as easily as for TSR-D&D or 4e so it's much harder on the DM if the PCs leave the straight and narrow and the DM needs much more support (which contributed to the growing popularity of adventure paths over the run of 3.X and the dominance of them for Pathfinder).

In short the "Classic Traditional way to run a D&D adventure" is only classic and traditional if by D&D you mean Pathfinder although it was done quite a bit back in the 2E days.

* Yes, things like Against the Giants predated it - but they were short linked sandboxes where the PCs pick their method of approach.