PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Linear Storytelling Vs. Railroading



Pages : [1] 2

AMFV
2015-12-02, 04:00 PM
Howdy, folks, a recent thread got me thinking about where railroading ends and where storytelling begins. Essentially where the distinction is between a story with a predetermined outcome (such as an adventure path), and a railroaded outcome.

For the purpose of this discussion we should probably define the railroad more precisely, I'm defining it as a game where the players are not allowed to make decisions that deviate from those planned by the DM. For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all. Although I'm open to discussion on this point, because it's the point of the thread after all.

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

Aliquid
2015-12-02, 04:17 PM
I think it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say "this is the goal of the campaign". Such as "stop the villain", "save the hostages", "find the lost treasure"

The problem is when the DM doesn't give the players choice in how to achieve that goal.

Also, be careful when you say "predetermined outcome", that sounds a bit railroadish to me. Maybe the predetermined outcome you have in your mind is that the characters kill the villain. Well what if they come up with a different clever solution to stopping the villain without actually killing him? Don't be too predetermined.

Red Fel
2015-12-02, 04:24 PM
Howdy, folks, a recent thread got me thinking about where railroading ends and where storytelling begins. Essentially where the distinction is between a story with a predetermined outcome (such as an adventure path), and a railroaded outcome.

For the purpose of this discussion we should probably define the railroad more precisely, I'm defining it as a game where the players are not allowed to make decisions that deviate from those planned by the DM. For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all. Although I'm open to discussion on this point, because it's the point of the thread after all.

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

The difference between linear storytelling and railroading is the PCs' involvement. By way of example, let's say the story is this: A demonic invasion will happen on the New Year.

If the story will happen in a certain way, and the PCs can get involved and influence it to a certain degree, or ignore it entirely, that's linear storytelling. A demonic invasion will happen on the New Year, and the PCs can either gear up and gather an army to fight it off, or hop around every pub on the coast, their call. A linear story happens irrespective of PC actions, although the PCs can steer or redirect it in certain ways, or even ignore it entirely. Heck, creative enough PCs can figure out a way to channel the demonic invasion, say by making the portal appear in an enemy kingdom, or over an active volcano. You can have certain key events happen, but leave the details up to the PCs, if they care to be involved at all. That's a linear story.

If the story will happen in a certain way, and the PCs will be involved in a particular capacity irrespective of their actions or choices, that's railroading. A demonic invasion will happen on the New Year, because one of the PCs broke the seal, another one received the mark, and a third one spoke the words, at specific times and places. Does it matter if the PCs don't want to be in that place at that time doing that thing? Nope, they will be there, because the story demands it. The PCs will be where you want, and when, doing what you want; that's railroading.

Now, in some ways, a linear story is railroading-lite. That's because the nature of a linear story presumes certain key events which must happen. That means that even if the PCs can have some impact, they cannot completely negate a key event. But the important thing to remember is that some lines are continuous, but others are simply a series of points. As long as the points happen to some degree, the rest of the details can (and should) be mutable. More importantly, a campaign that tells a story does not require the PCs to be at the center of that story. Life goes on outside of the PCs' awareness, after all; if they're absent for it, that doesn't mean the invasion gets postponed.

Distinguish both from a sandbox game, where the PCs can completely subvert the story if they choose - cancel the invasion entirely, for example.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 04:26 PM
I think it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say "this is the goal of the campaign". Such as "stop the villain", "save the hostages", "find the lost treasure"

The problem is when the DM doesn't give the players choice in how to achieve that goal.

Also, be careful when you say "predetermined outcome", that sounds a bit railroadish to me. Maybe the predetermined outcome you have in your mind is that the characters kill the villain. Well what if they come up with a different clever solution to stopping the villain without actually killing him? Don't be too predetermined.

Well to be fair, I was using Adventure Paths as the example for "predetermined outcome" and those need to end at least in the same ballpark as you'd expect since they lead into the next adventure.

Geddy2112
2015-12-02, 04:29 PM
I think it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say "this is the goal of the campaign". Such as "stop the villain", "save the hostages", "find the lost treasure"
The problem is when the DM doesn't give the players choice in how to achieve that goal.


This. A very broad goal, story, whatnot that could be achieved a multitude of different ways. Campaigns, adventures, etc would not be stories if the party never went anywhere or did anything. So most games will tell a story in a more or less linear fashion
If the basis of the campaign is to get to New York from Los Angeles, the party chooses how, their reasons why, and what they do along the way to overcome setbacks, challenges, etc. They might be rich enough to buy a plane ticket and that's that. Maybe the story is about how a bunch of broke young adults hitchhiked their way with the help of a crazy old blind person. Maybe they rode bikes for charity. Maybe they actually took a train. It is railroading when the DM says their only choice is the train.

Railroading can also be the illusion of choice-saying they have other choices but fiating the results to force the party on the train is railroading. Now, certainly some choices can and should be harder or perhaps impossible: in the previous example, it is more dangerous to hitchhike across the country than to take an airplane flight. It is impossible for a human to flap their arms and take flight across the country. Having impossible options and options with scaling difficulty is not railroading.

It does not matter the destination, but that the PC's can choose how and why they get there. When the PC's cannot choose how and why they get there, it is railroading.

Anonymouswizard
2015-12-02, 04:35 PM
For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all.

Still not as annoying as the door that can only be opened in one specific way, and can't be looted.


My opinion on the divide is 'all roads lead to Rome' versus 'this is the van we are using to take to Rome baka'. So even if everything will lead to the same event, but the specific details of the event change (like say Bob the NPC needs to speak the specific words for the Demonic Invasion instead of Dave the NPC, or Geoff the madman being the final boss instead of Derek the planner) then it's linear storytelling (note, this is why I don't even know where the invasion will happen until the session starts, I just have the plan for the scene). If the PCs have to go to a specific place and do specific things or else the game stonewalls, than choo choo!

BRC
2015-12-02, 04:35 PM
My line has always been "Railroading is not saying "There is a wall here", Railroading is saying "There is a wall everywhere BUT here""

To expand on that: Unless the campaign was pitched that way, a GM need not be running a pure sandbox game. A GM need not indulge every player's whim, making all potential goals and plans equally viable.

What it really comes down to is what makes sense within the narrative that has been provided. Railroading happens when things that SHOULD make sense don't because it does not fit with the GM's plan.



Picture this: The Players are being held prisoner for a crime they did not commit. They are being held by an otherwise lawful good society. The GM did not actually establish very compelling evidence against the PCs

The GM wants to do a big trial scene, ending with the players being Convicted, and sent to kill a dragon as community service.

First, the PC's try to talk to the investigators, making the argument that the evidence against them is not enough to warrant a trial. This SHOULD make sense, because there isn't much evidence against the PCs. But the GM insists that the Investigators refuse to be swayed, and the PC's must stand trail.

Then, the PC's decide to break out of jail. The GM insists that it's impossible. They are all held in unbreakable cells with unpickable locks and anti-magic fields. Every day a powerful spellcasting Warden comes by and casts an unresistible Suggestion on them to sit still and await trial. Despite the kingdom in question not being especially rich, powerful, or known for magic.

Then, the Trial arrives. Once again, the PC's plead their case, the evidence against them is far from conclusive, they roll well, they make good arguments. Nope, the Magistrates cannot be swayed, The PC's are found Guilty, and sent to kill a dragon as community service.

Then, The PC's decide "Screw this society, let's go off", but no, the judge placed them all under a Geas. They MUST go kill the dragon.

Then, the PC's decide to set up an ambush outside the Dragon's lair, when it emerges to attack the kingdom (Which has powerful wizards apparently, but can't use them to fight a dragon), they'll bring it down, rather than trying to storm it's lair. NOPE, the GM says. A Bunch of Knights from the kingdom escort you to the mouth of the Lair and push you inside.
"We fight the Knights"
They defeat you easily, heal you back to full, then push you inside.

Now, there are things about this scenario that is NOT railroading. For example, the Investigators could be unwilling to release the PC's because, in this society, once the Warrant is issued, the investigators can't release somebody without a trial, even if they are later convinced that the person is innocent. That makes sense.

The Judge may have found the PC's guilty, not because he believed it was so, but because they needed somebody to go kill the dragon. That makes sense.


It however does not make sense that the Judge is a powerful Wizard who cannot fight off the dragon. It does not make sense that the kingdom can spare elite knights to walk the PC's to the dragon's lair, but not to fight the Dragon itself. It also makes no sense that the Kingdom would reject the PC's plan to ambush the dragon.

All those things happened, not as a logical outcome of the situation and the PC's choices, but because the GM wanted certain things to happen. THAT is railroading.

Florian
2015-12-02, 04:39 PM
Linear Storytelling builds on participation of the players. You declare a goal and everybody plays along. It is teamwork.

Railroading and its couson, illusionism, ignore what players want but force them to participate. It is acceptance.

Flickerdart
2015-12-02, 05:04 PM
I'd say that railroading and linear storytelling are not even the same sort of thing.

Linear storytelling is when you tell your players "the wizard asks you to kill the dragon" and then they go kill the dragon like you intended, and that leads into another plot about the consequences of the dragon dying that you prepared.

Railroading is when the players say "but we like dragons, we fight the wizard instead" and you say no, you will stay on the story track.

A game can have a linear story and no railroading. This is a game where the players are 100% on board with what's going on and they either bite the plot hook or take no initiative and let the plot carry them between scenes.

A game can have a non-linear story and railroading. This is a game where the PCs can do anything, but what they do doesn't matter. The PCs can fight the resurrection of the demon king by drumming up an army, infiltrating the cult, getting the gods on their side, whatever - when the time comes, they will fail no matter what.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 05:31 PM
As a fair warning the posts I'm quoting below are going to be considerably truncated due to the amount of them, so I hope you guys don't mind that too much. Additionally there will be a fair bit of advocating for the devil here, because I think there's some stuff I'd like to see discussed, as such the opinions I present may not be ones that I hold.


...
Now, in some ways, a linear story is railroading-lite. That's because the nature of a linear story presumes certain key events which must happen. That means that even if the PCs can have some impact, they cannot completely negate a key event. But the important thing to remember is that some lines are continuous, but others are simply a series of points. As long as the points happen to some degree, the rest of the details can (and should) be mutable. More importantly, a campaign that tells a story does not require the PCs to be at the center of that story. Life goes on outside of the PCs' awareness, after all; if they're absent for it, that doesn't mean the invasion gets postponed. ...

I like these examples quite a bit. My question is what point would you say over-reliance on the linearity of the story is a problem. For example let's say the players decide to thwart the invasion at any cost. If they are expending all of their time and resources on it, would it be a bad thing to have them fail? After all, stories often do involve set-backs.

The other thing is that the railroading option seems to have the players significantly more involved in the plot. How would you feel about a DM asking if the players minded that pre-game. For example: "For this story, I'd like if somebody was the chosen one, somebody had spoken the words, and somebody had done the other thing at some point in their backstory," thus making the ties to the plot more complete, but not forcing the players in game to something.


...
Now, there are things about this scenario that is NOT railroading. For example, the Investigators could be unwilling to release the PC's because, in this society, once the Warrant is issued, the investigators can't release somebody without a trial, even if they are later convinced that the person is innocent. That makes sense.

The Judge may have found the PC's guilty, not because he believed it was so, but because they needed somebody to go kill the dragon. That makes sense.


It however does not make sense that the Judge is a powerful Wizard who cannot fight off the dragon. It does not make sense that the kingdom can spare elite knights to walk the PC's to the dragon's lair, but not to fight the Dragon itself. It also makes no sense that the Kingdom would reject the PC's plan to ambush the dragon.

All those things happened, not as a logical outcome of the situation and the PC's choices, but because the GM wanted certain things to happen. THAT is railroading.

So you feel that if the DM developed adequete explanations for those things it might not be railroading. For example: "The town and the knights are bound by treaty not to interfere with the dragon, which is why they would send the players", or a similar example for the ambush scenario?

So is it the absence of logic that makes it negative railroading for you?


I'd say that railroading and linear storytelling are not even the same sort of thing.

Linear storytelling is when you tell your players "the wizard asks you to kill the dragon" and then they go kill the dragon like you intended, and that leads into another plot about the consequences of the dragon dying that you prepared.

Railroading is when the players say "but we like dragons, we fight the wizard instead" and you say no, you will stay on the story track.

Is it still railroading though if you wind up with the same outcome, say the players kill the wizard, then you have the dragon attack? It's the same restriction in scenarios, the players ARE fighting the dragon, whether or not they want to, but they weren't pushed to it the same way.



A game can have a linear story and no railroading. This is a game where the players are 100% on board with what's going on and they either bite the plot hook or take no initiative and let the plot carry them between scenes.

A game can have a non-linear story and railroading. This is a game where the PCs can do anything, but what they do doesn't matter. The PCs can fight the resurrection of the demon king by drumming up an army, infiltrating the cult, getting the gods on their side, whatever - when the time comes, they will fail no matter what.

So you think the key difference is in pliability of outcome, rather than the middle ground?

Flickerdart
2015-12-02, 05:40 PM
Is it still railroading though if you wind up with the same outcome, say the players kill the wizard, then you have the dragon attack? It's the same restriction in scenarios, the players ARE fighting the dragon, whether or not they want to, but they weren't pushed to it the same way.


I think so. "You can't" vs "you can but you fail to prevent the thing no matter what" is pretty much the same thing.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 05:42 PM
I think so. "You can't" vs "you can but you fail to prevent the thing no matter what" is pretty much the same thing.

So what if the DM has a planned setback as a story point, rather than as the end of the story. Would it be improved if the player's efforts affected how things happened after the setback?

LnGrrrR
2015-12-02, 05:55 PM
If you have mature players, then they'll just make a new plot. One that will likely work out better than the one you proposed, since it's one they're interested in too. (This is why I spend my research time figuring out areas, characters, etc than making a "Point A to Point B to Point C" scenario.) Of course, sometimes you get players who end up saying things like, "Instead of saving the princess, let's go wander around the countryside and get drunk!" And then when they do that, they get robbed a troll in the woods who heard them singing loudly. If they continue to mess with the "expected" plot, then you can have an OOC conversation about what they're looking for and whether or not it suits your playstyle as a DM.

Aliquid
2015-12-02, 06:12 PM
So what if the DM has a planned setback as a story point, rather than as the end of the story. Would it be improved if the player's efforts affected how things happened after the setback?
If you have the story mapped out in your head... and part of the story requires the party to fail at something, then you are heading into the territory of railroading.

There are a lot of creative players out there... and there is a good chance one of them will come up with a creative solution to avoiding the "predetermined fail". When that happens, the DM is forced to railroad the players into failure anyway, because the plot demands it.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 06:17 PM
If you have the story mapped out in your head... and part of the story requires the party to fail at something, then you are heading into the territory of railroading.

There are a lot of creative players out there... and there is a good chance one of them will come up with a creative solution to avoiding the "predetermined fail". When that happens, the DM is forced to railroad the players into failure anyway, because the plot demands it.

There doesn't necessarily have to be a solution to any particular problem though. Depending on what the failure is. In BRC's scenario there are many places where a clever player could get out of it (by escaping prison, legal loopholes, negotiating with the dragon, seducing the judge etc.) Whereas for example the demon army popping up, may or may not have a solution to it. The larger scale an event is, the less likely it is that the players will simply be able to circumvent it.

So are all large scale events railroading? If there's a war, the player's would not be able to affect much except for the parts of it they touch (which might have a big effect, but likely wouldn't be able to shift everything). Natural disasters, are those railroading? There are after-all, no mechanical ways (in most systems) to stop a volcano.

So, at what point does having a pre-planned setback become railroading. Let's say I have the demon army popping up as a scenario, and the players try several things to stop it, but none of them work. Is it railroading, only if no options at all would have worked? And if so, is that unacceptable?

As a note: my personal belief, is that including no-win situations in the game, is perfectly fine, as long as they aren't constant, and aren't final.

BRC
2015-12-02, 06:42 PM
So you feel that if the DM developed adequete explanations for those things it might not be railroading. For example: "The town and the knights are bound by treaty not to interfere with the dragon, which is why they would send the players", or a similar example for the ambush scenario?

So is it the absence of logic that makes it negative railroading for you?


The absence of logic is what separates Railroading from Obstacles.

Remember, a DM is not railroading just because they refuse to cater to every whim.

If the Players decide to enter a castle via a secret entrance, one that has never been mentioned, and they have no reason to believe exists, the DM is not railroading just because they don't add a secret door at the random spot the PC's look for one.



But, I suppose you are right. It is possible for a DM to create an internally consistent, logical scenario that still forces the PC's along a single path. That, however, is rare. Most Railroading DM's don't set out with the intent to railroad. They make a plan, then react badly when the players deviate from it, attempting to force the players back onto the rails. This often leads to illogical and inconsistent features (Like a legion of unbeatable elite knights forcing some 4th level adventurers to go kill a dragon for them).

Usually, a DM good enough to create a scenario that logically forces the players into a single path is also good enough to realize that would be railroading, and not do it.

So no, a lack of logic is not what defines Railroading, but it is both an early sign, and one of the worst effects.

Consider this scenario. You have an ancient tomb full of evil undead. The Tomb consists of an entrance, and three chambers, each connected to the previous.

Entrance=[ Chamber 1]=[Chamber 2]=[Chamber 3]

A low level party only really has one option. Enter the tomb, fight the undead in chamber 1. Fight the undead in chamber 2. Fight the undead in chamber 3.

The PC's could try to, say, go above where Chamber 3 would be, and dig down, but the DM informs them that it would take weeks to carve through the earth and stone above the tomb. They could try to sneak into the tomb, but so many undead eyes (With darkvision) makes that plan unfeasible.

Now, consider a low-level party attacking a bandit camp in the woods. The DM wants them to attack the gatehouse, then the barracks, then the bandit chief's tent. He shuts down any attempt to create another approach. They can't attack from the side, they can't scale the walls, they can't cause a diversion, they can't enter in disguise, they MUST launch a frontal assault on the gatehouse.

Both these scenarios are technically "Railroading", in that the DM has created a scenario in which the players have only one valid option. But, while most players will accept the occasional three-chambered tomb, the impregnable Bandit Camp is going to ruffle a lot more feathers


Which brings us back to the original question. What is the difference between "Railroading" and "Linear Storytelling"? Nothing we can measure and put into a box.
Some players will accept being led by the nose, others will chafe at anything except a pure sandbox.

But, in the end, what matters is not whether a DM is "Railroading" or just telling a story with a bit of a plan. What matters is how it affects the game. And the most common symptom of railroading is a loss of suspension of disbelief.

The second symptom is a loss of player enthusiasm for the game, as they no longer feel that their decisions, actions, or even dice rolls can have any meaningful impact on the story.

The reason I use the first symptom as my guide post is that it shows up a lot faster. As soon as the DM starts twisting the world to force the PC's down their predetermined path, suspension of disbelief starts breaking down. If the DM is willing to sacrifice the consistency of the game world in order to force the PCs down a specific path, then that's a clear sign that they are not going to let the players have any real agency in the story.

The second symptom, loss of enthusiasm, takes longer to manifest on it's own. Unless the players have a very low tolerance for railroading, it usually takes a while before they see the pattern and realize that, no, the DM is never going to let them make any meaningful decisions.


Edit:

Although, I suppose there is one solid test. But, like most tests, you don't know for sure unless you do it in earnest.

The Test is this: How does the DM respond if the players ignore the plot hook and move on. The town is being threatened by Ogres, so the PC's decide to leave.

A railroading DM tries to stop them. A non-Railroading DM says "Okay. You leave. A few days later you hear that the town has been sacked by Ogres."

Anonymouswizard
2015-12-02, 06:45 PM
As a note: my personal belief, is that including no-win situations in the game, is perfectly fine, as long as they aren't constant, and aren't final.

I'm the opposite. After a session or two I will lie, I will beg, I will trick, but I will not cheat in order to get my players to the outcome, and a no-win situation is cheating to me.

A situation the players can't fully influence is fine. Maybe the most the can do is cause a cease-fire, but they can affect the war. They can stop the demon invasion before it happens, either through months of constant research and the help of the greates scholars in the land, or by going to hell and killing all the demons.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-02, 06:49 PM
BRC brings up what I think is a key determinant of a railroading GM... railroading is when the players can't do something that they logically should be allowed to do, based off the game state as presented. There's a lack of authenticity to the game world when railroading comes into play, which ruins a players sense of immersion, which then usually leads to feelbads.

Most GMs "railroad" to some extent, because it's hard to come up with awesomely inventive, original stories every week when the PCs decide they're just going to go off into the wood/break into a house/find a random dungeon/etc etc. But if that railroading is either not noticed, or agreed upon by the players, then it isn't as big a deal.

Edit: AnonymousWizard, I mostly agree, but introducing a "no-win" situation early in a campaign can sometimes provide motivation and a watershed moment when players level up enough to where they can take on the "no-win" situation later.

Telok
2015-12-02, 06:57 PM
What I'm doing these days for plot writing is making an scene map and a timeline.
My current adventure started with a bank robbery, a nice little combat appetizer. Then there are three arrows leading out to other scenes, a couple of investigations and a payoff scene in a bar. There are arrows from those to a factory stakeout, a secret base, and a dock fight. Then some arrows lead between one event to another and to other events. The scenes are set up so that even partial success or failure can move the plot to another scene. Eventually three different arrows converge on the final battle scene.

The timeline is an if-then of the villain's actions and other world events. It gets vague as the timeline progresses and I update it after each session. This is because it represents my best guess as to what is likely to happen next and how much planning the villain can manage to do.
One aspect of my map is that I have two spare entry points into the adventure. If the players wander off into left field those can happen at any point on the timeline and serve to reorient the direction the players are going.
Of course the players are free to invent their own plot or just wander around and goof off. If they make their own adventure then I go with that and the evil plot of the bad guy has to wait. If they goof off then the timeline of the evil plot goes ahead and bad things happen.

I do have to recognize, and it is a bit of a personal failing, that I tend to write a few scenes that sort of require a particular outcome. These never work out really well. Either the players do something suicidal or insane, or the scene is set up in a can't-fail way that feels railroady. But I recognize this as an issue an I am trying to overcome it.

Aliquid
2015-12-02, 07:03 PM
The larger scale an event is, the less likely it is that the players will simply be able to circumvent it.
True


So are all large scale events railroading? If there's a war, the player's would not be able to affect much except for the parts of it they touch (which might have a big effect, but likely wouldn't be able to shift everything). Natural disasters, are those railroading? There are after-all, no mechanical ways (in most systems) to stop a volcano.No I don't suppose a large scale event would be railroading


So, at what point does having a pre-planned setback become railroading. Let's say I have the demon army popping up as a scenario, and the players try several things to stop it, but none of them work. Is it railroading, only if no options at all would have worked? And if so, is that unacceptable?I think the actual question needs to shift...

Whether or not something is technically railroading or not isn't all that important. What really matters is if the players feel like they have been railroaded. That's when they get bitter and stop having fun with the game.

If the players feel like they have the ability to impact the plot line, then they are ok. If they feel like they are just puppets following the DM's whim, then there is a problem.


As a note: my personal belief, is that including no-win situations in the game, is perfectly fine, as long as they aren't constant, and aren't final.As long as the no-win situation is believable, and the PCs' inability to succeed is believable and doesn't contradict other experiences within the story, then yes.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 07:29 PM
Which brings us back to the original question. What is the difference between "Railroading" and "Linear Storytelling"? Nothing we can measure and put into a box.
Some players will accept being led by the nose, others will chafe at anything except a pure sandbox.

I definitely agree that there is a large margin given to personal preference here, which is actually what I'm mostly interested in, is to what different people prefer, what they consider railroading, that sort of thing. I've got a fairly good idea, what I condider to be unacceptable in terms of railroading, and finding out what other people do is useful to me as a DM.



But, in the end, what matters is not whether a DM is "Railroading" or just telling a story with a bit of a plan. What matters is how it affects the game. And the most common symptom of railroading is a loss of suspension of disbelief.

The second symptom is a loss of player enthusiasm for the game, as they no longer feel that their decisions, actions, or even dice rolls can have any meaningful impact on the story.

The reason I use the first symptom as my guide post is that it shows up a lot faster. As soon as the DM starts twisting the world to force the PC's down their predetermined path, suspension of disbelief starts breaking down. If the DM is willing to sacrifice the consistency of the game world in order to force the PCs down a specific path, then that's a clear sign that they are not going to let the players have any real agency in the story.

The second symptom, loss of enthusiasm, takes longer to manifest on it's own. Unless the players have a very low tolerance for railroading, it usually takes a while before they see the pattern and realize that, no, the DM is never going to let them make any meaningful decisions.

So why is that sometimes railroading, or a straight road story succeeds while others it doesn't in your opinion? Because as you've described it, a savvy enough GM could railroad the entire time, and just use their savvy to prevent a loss of disbelief, or explain things away efficiently enough. What is the key for you at least?


I'm the opposite. After a session or two I will lie, I will beg, I will trick, but I will not cheat in order to get my players to the outcome, and a no-win situation is cheating to me.

A situation the players can't fully influence is fine. Maybe the most the can do is cause a cease-fire, but they can affect the war. They can stop the demon invasion before it happens, either through months of constant research and the help of the greates scholars in the land, or by going to hell and killing all the demons.

I disagree still. Isn't it immersion breaking for you to have the players able to affect every scenario. It certainly would be for me. If the players could change the outcome of every scenario I would be concerned. For example trying to fight the demons might affect things, it could build support, it could rally people to the cause, it could limit demon numbers for later. But one could still have the invasion take place, well within the realm of realism.


BRC brings up what I think is a key determinant of a railroading GM... railroading is when the players can't do something that they logically should be allowed to do, based off the game state as presented. There's a lack of authenticity to the game world when railroading comes into play, which ruins a players sense of immersion, which then usually leads to feelbads.

Most GMs "railroad" to some extent, because it's hard to come up with awesomely inventive, original stories every week when the PCs decide they're just going to go off into the wood/break into a house/find a random dungeon/etc etc. But if that railroading is either not noticed, or agreed upon by the players, then it isn't as big a deal.

Well I suppose a lot of that deals with the DM's ability to improvise. So how do you feel about the "All doors lead to the same room" where the DM just moves the plot points around to where the players choose to go, is that railroading? Or is that even negative?



True

No I don't suppose a large scale event would be railroading

I think the actual question needs to shift...

Whether or not something is technically railroading or not isn't all that important. What really matters is if the players feel like they have been railroaded. That's when they get bitter and stop having fun with the game.

If the players feel like they have the ability to impact the plot line, then they are ok. If they feel like they are just puppets following the DM's whim, then there is a problem.

As long as the no-win situation is believable, and the PCs' inability to succeed is believable and doesn't contradict other experiences within the story, then yes.

Well I'm not actually as concerned with what technically is railroading, I'm more interested in people's opinions as to what is, and what they object to.

Aliquid
2015-12-02, 07:42 PM
Well I'm not actually as concerned with what technically is railroading, I'm more interested in people's opinions as to what is, and what they object to.Then I stick with my point. What matters is that the players feel like they can control what's happening. They feel like they have choice.

All doors leading to the same room... if the players don't catch on, then go for it. They won't be upset.

I agree with LnGrrrR's comment: "railroading is when the players can't do something that they logically should be allowed to do"

If the players say "we want to do this", and the DM stops it from happening and doesn't have a logical and/or believable reason... then the players will be upset. Really it just boils down to that.

Anonymouswizard
2015-12-02, 07:59 PM
I disagree still. Isn't it immersion breaking for you to have the players able to affect every scenario. It certainly would be for me. If the players could change the outcome of every scenario I would be concerned. For example trying to fight the demons might affect things, it could build support, it could rally people to the cause, it could limit demon numbers for later. But one could still have the invasion take place, well within the realm of realism.

Let me put it this way: you can't effect everything, because choice A might male choice B invalid. However, because you can choose B you must be able to effect the situation it's based on.

I'm going back to planning my Anima campaign, I haven't finished statting ip any of the major players.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 08:45 PM
Then I stick with my point. What matters is that the players feel like they can control what's happening. They feel like they have choice.

All doors leading to the same room... if the players don't catch on, then go for it. They won't be upset.

I agree with LnGrrrR's comment: "railroading is when the players can't do something that they logically should be allowed to do"

If the players say "we want to do this", and the DM stops it from happening and doesn't have a logical and/or believable reason... then the players will be upset. Really it just boils down to that.

As a corollary, do you think it's ever acceptable for a DM to ask players to follow a certain course out of character? Essentially encouraging something, or asking for that? I mean that's more directly railroading, but is still an interesting option.


Let me put it this way: you can't effect everything, because choice A might male choice B invalid. However, because you can choose B you must be able to effect the situation it's based on.

I'm going back to planning my Anima campaign, I haven't finished statting ip any of the major players.

I think we're on the same track here, just diverging over specifics. I think that having the players able to influence a situation is important. But I don't think that giving the players the ability to influence a situation necessarily means that they'll have total and complete control.

If the players pick choice A for example, then they can affect the situation it's based on, but they can't necessarily get all the things they want to resolve it, or make it go exactly the way they want.

Gray Mage
2015-12-02, 09:15 PM
As a corollary, do you think it's ever acceptable for a DM to ask players to follow a certain course out of character? Essentially encouraging something, or asking for that? I mean that's more directly railroading, but is still an interesting option.


That's only really railroading if the players refusing makes no difference to them playing along. If the DM has a great idea for a break out of jail scene, he's completely in his right to pitch it to his players, just as they are to say that it doesn't seem fun to them so they'd rather do something else instead. If then the DM pretends to do something else and on the first oportunity throws them in jail by fiat, that is railroading. But if the players are ok with the plot, as long as the DM lets them play out how they want to go about solving the plot (in this case break out), it's not railroading.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 09:29 PM
That's only really railroading if the players refusing makes no difference to them playing along. If the DM has a great idea for a break out of jail scene, he's completely in his right to pitch it to his players, just as they are to say that it doesn't seem fun to them so they'd rather do something else instead. If then the DM pretends to do something else and on the first oportunity throws them in jail by fiat, that is railroading. But if the players are ok with the plot, as long as the DM lets them play out how they want to go about solving the plot (in this case break out), it's not railroading.

So as a player, you'd rather be asked directly, than encouraged subtly. That's pretty interesting. One idea I've had recently is asking players what they want out of campaigns and character development. Although I've not got to try it in game, but the idea of working towards what they want, seems appealing to me. I wonder if pausing the rails for an OOC break, might help tricky situations where you (as a DM) really want things to go a certain way.

Red Fel
2015-12-02, 09:37 PM
I like these examples quite a bit. My question is what point would you say over-reliance on the linearity of the story is a problem. For example let's say the players decide to thwart the invasion at any cost. If they are expending all of their time and resources on it, would it be a bad thing to have them fail? After all, stories often do involve set-backs.

Well, it's complicated. For instance, if a player said, "I want my character to take over France; he has $500, low Charisma, and don't speak the language," would it be a bad thing if he failed? Far from it.

The players could dedicate all of their resources to stopping the invasion, but if this is one of those "cosmic powers predestined" events, tough luck. If, on the other hand, they could come up with a legitimate method of preventing it - for example, discovering the source of the invasion's ability to invade, and destroying it - they should be able to. But at that point, you've changed one of your story points, from "the demons invade, the world (and PCs) responds," to "the demons attempt to invade, the world (and PCs) responds." If you're willing to do that, great, but if not, certain sacrifices - including the ability of the PCs to significantly alter key events - must be made. I'm not making a value judgment on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.


The other thing is that the railroading option seems to have the players significantly more involved in the plot. How would you feel about a DM asking if the players minded that pre-game. For example: "For this story, I'd like if somebody was the chosen one, somebody had spoken the words, and somebody had done the other thing at some point in their backstory," thus making the ties to the plot more complete, but not forcing the players in game to something.

Well, clarify one thing - railroading doesn't actually have the players significantly more involved in the plot. It has the characters involved, but the same could be done with an NPC or trained monkey. It's simply arbitrary and fiat that the PCs are the ones doing the mandatory things. It's an illusion of involvement.

As for asking in advance? That is, in my mind, ideal. That's ideal in any linear setting. When playing an AP or other pre-made module, for instance, it should be standard practice to tell the players, "This scenario is pre-written, with certain things being required. They must happen for the story to continue. I'd really appreciate if you could play along with respect to those things." This informs the players in advance that, for the sake of the adventure, certain freedoms will need to be curtailed. A reasonable player who trusts in his GM should be able to go along with that, being so warned in advance. It's different if you spring those restrictions on players after play has begun.

AMFV
2015-12-02, 11:02 PM
Well, it's complicated. For instance, if a player said, "I want my character to take over France; he has $500, low Charisma, and don't speak the language," would it be a bad thing if he failed? Far from it.


True, although this does border on long-term character goals. I think that asking a player what they want to do in the long-term, and then trying to work with them towards that goal, is something that I want to incorporate more into my games. The main thing I would want to know is if that's a player goal, or a character goal. If the player wants his character to eventually bathe and rule France, that might be doable, if the character wants that (but is still poor and unwashed) it's less likely to succeed.



The players could dedicate all of their resources to stopping the invasion, but if this is one of those "cosmic powers predestined" events, tough luck. If, on the other hand, they could come up with a legitimate method of preventing it - for example, discovering the source of the invasion's ability to invade, and destroying it - they should be able to. But at that point, you've changed one of your story points, from "the demons invade, the world (and PCs) responds," to "the demons attempt to invade, the world (and PCs) responds." If you're willing to do that, great, but if not, certain sacrifices - including the ability of the PCs to significantly alter key events - must be made. I'm not making a value judgment on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.


I agree



Well, clarify one thing - railroading doesn't actually have the players significantly more involved in the plot. It has the characters involved, but the same could be done with an NPC or trained monkey. It's simply arbitrary and fiat that the PCs are the ones doing the mandatory things. It's an illusion of involvement.


I agree as well. Although I suspect that the illusion of involvement might be better than no involvement at all.



As for asking in advance? That is, in my mind, ideal. That's ideal in any linear setting. When playing an AP or other pre-made module, for instance, it should be standard practice to tell the players, "This scenario is pre-written, with certain things being required. They must happen for the story to continue. I'd really appreciate if you could play along with respect to those things." This informs the players in advance that, for the sake of the adventure, certain freedoms will need to be curtailed. A reasonable player who trusts in his GM should be able to go along with that, being so warned in advance. It's different if you spring those restrictions on players after play has begun.

I think that one big thing that might need to be covered is how much wiggle room the players have. I mean it could be very linear, or you could be willing to improvise things. Some published works have more wiggle room, or are fairly removed from chapter to chapter, others are less so. So I think establishing that early on, and then asking the players what they want out of the adventure, is key, if we can give them what they want, then that's going to help in making things more fulfilling I'd imagine (although that's not terribly railroad related)

Darth Ultron
2015-12-03, 06:03 AM
Railroading must be done in any game if you have any sort of even vague plot or story. The only times players even cry about railroading is when they encounter the two worst types of railroading: When they can't do something they overly selfishly thing their character should be able to do and the DM must nudge them back to reality, and the DM that hits players over their heads with the railroad like a club.


Otherwise, players are fine with being railroaded. And it is needed, for anything to happen.

AMFV
2015-12-03, 06:43 AM
Railroading must be done in any game if you have any sort of even vague plot or story. The only times players even cry about railroading is when they encounter the two worst types of railroading: When they can't do something they overly selfishly thing their character should be able to do and the DM must nudge them back to reality, and the DM that hits players over their heads with the railroad like a club.


Otherwise, players are fine with being railroaded. And it is needed, for anything to happen.

Well the main point of this thread is trying to figure out where something becomes the "Hits over the head like a club" when the railroad is too painfully obvious, or is likely to be percieved as a negative. That's what we're aiming to assess.

Earthwalker
2015-12-03, 07:27 AM
Railroading must be done in any game if you have any sort of even vague plot or story. [snip]


Railraoding is only needed if you have a predetermined plot or story. Games without rail roading still have story and plot. Its just that its not known ahead of time.


Well the main point of this thread is trying to figure out where something becomes the "Hits over the head like a club" when the railroad is too painfully obvious, or is likely to be percieved as a negative. That's what we're aiming to assess.

Oddly I find it really difficult to quantify what is too much railroading. I am happy to sit back and watch the story unfold before me. I just prefer an OOC comment about the situation instead of some of the crazy things I have seen trying to get players to go in one direction. If things have gone badly wrong and the GM is lost a OOC word works better on me than some of the things I have seen.

Milo v3
2015-12-03, 08:31 AM
Even in Adventure Paths you don't need to railroad. Your group can still end up tell a story, it just might not be the same to the one in the book.

goto124
2015-12-03, 09:05 AM
Depends on how well-written the AP is. A poor-quality one would have nothing outside the 'rails', and going off the 'rails' would mean playing with content outside the AP itself.

Eisenheim
2015-12-03, 09:08 AM
Railroading is what happens when the players and the GM disagree about the game they're playing, and GM ignores the player's opinion. Linear storytelling is what happens when the players and the GM agree about the game they're playing and that game has a single plot thread, instead of being a sandbox.

I run and play in episodic games. Each adventure takes 2-4 sessions, and is about a particular plot. There are ongoing character things going on, but no one expects to leave town and go pick up something from 3 adventures ago, or to ignore the hooks the GM offers. Linear storytelling just means one plot at a time. Which is fine when everyone agrees to it.

Railroading is unrelated. It's what happens when the group disagrees and the GM tries to impose what they want on the players.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-03, 09:29 AM
I find these discussions bizarre, but probably because my GMing style is heavily influenced by games like Apocalypse World and the GM stylings of Adam Koebel and Steve Lumpkin rather than D&D styles for GMing, and I think it comes down to what I call "The Big Myth."

The Big Myth is the belief that the GM is responsible to make a story and make sure everyone has fun, and if there isn't a story and people aren't having fun, it's probably their fault. (Or at least, we turn to them first.)

It's a myth. It's not real. It's fed by the existence of premade adventures and by the fact that D&D requires @ssloads of preparation or else the natural sluggishness of the system becomes a huge thorn in everyone's side instead of a mild inconvenience.

This is, in my opinion, the truth:
The GM is a player.
"Oh noes that's not true, they have to-"
No. They are a player. If you are a DM you are participating in the act of playing dungeons and dragons. You are playing dungeons and dragons. A person playing something is a player of that thing.
A GM is a player, unless they aren't playing any game at all. But since they are, they're a player.

They are a player with a very different job from the other players, obviously. They play as the Entire World, instead of as "Bagthor the Barbarian." Being a GM is being the player who plays as "everyone else."

Your job as a GM is this:
1. Make the characters' lives not boring. (This is different from providing a story. It just means they have weird and crazy stuff happen to them more often than usual.)
2. Make the world feel alive. (It reacts to them. It carries on with or without them. Stuff happens where they aren't.)
3. Give every NPC a name and a couple basic wants. (This isn't hard. I'll do 5 off the top of my head right now:
Hogarth, the barkeep, wants his wife to stop drinking all the good mead.
Agatha, Hogarth's wife, wants to forget the time she got kidnapped by Orcs.
Bjern, the blacksmith, wants everyone to think of him as a hero.
Josiah, the mayor, wants nobody to find out about the affair he's been having.
Grundy, the goblin chief, wants to get Bjern to make weapons for his goblins.)
Took me about 2 minutes, and I can easily extrapolate their behaviors now. I know what Grundy will do if the players do nothing about him: he'll kidnap Bjern. Agatha and Hogarth will eventually have a falling out unless, perhaps, the PCs can avenge Agatha's kindapping and kill the orcs responsible for it. The Mayor will likely get blackmailed by his mistress, probably a woman named Patricia who wants to live a life of luxury.

4. Ask them questions about what's happening and what they're doing. (Ask for sensory details: Sight, smell, touch, taste, sound. Ie, "As you sneak closer, you smell her perfume. What does it smell like?" Or "So you put your hand over Grundy's mouth? He's sweaty and nervous. What do his lips feel like under your palm?" Ask for details about HOW they do things. "Ok, so I know you're casting a fireball, what does it look like when you do that?" Or "Ok, you're intimidating her. What does Gruntlock do to make her scared of him?" This crap makes your players feel awesome and like they are a part of the world. It puts them in the moment. Another fun one is, if they are in their home town or something, ask them their personal opinion of a character you just made up. "You see Junia. It's been years since you've seen her. How do you feel when you see her?" And players who love making conflict will instantly give you your character and say something like "Oh no, not this b*tch..." And it leads to amazing stuff.)

5) When doing game stuff, you address the characters, not the players. Always. (Remember, just for game stuff. If you need Ron to pass the m&ms, ask Ron to pass them. If you need to know what Forsythe the Paladin is doing, ask Forsythe what he's doing. It's a really simple way to encourage roleplay, and works pretty well.)


This is easy, easy stuff. How much HP does the mayor have? Eh. I dunno. Not important. If they kill him, whatever. AC 11 or something and maybe 4 HP so he's not killed by a stiff wind.

The Story is what is left over at the end of the session, not something I planned ahead for. The PCs go after Grundy, but maybe as they go along I ask myself why Grundy wants these weapons...well, he needs them to arm his troops. Maybe against the town, but what if it's encroaching orcs? Then suddenly I have a situation where an uneasy alliance can form between the goblins and the humans against the larger threat of the orcs, but I didn't plan that, it just sounded cool and I went with it and it was born from the NPC's motivations and the desire for the PCs' lives to be not-boring.

The Story of them sparing a goblin chief and joining forces with him against some orcs and finding out these may be the same orcs that kidnapped Agatha as a child, and maybe her secret half-orc son is among them, all of that was unplanned until I sat here and had a think for 10 minutes and it was because I'm already playing this world like it's a character, not a story.

If I know what an NPC WANTS there are way fewer curveballs that the PCs can throw me than if I know what the NPC is Destined To Do.

And when it comes to stats and stuff...eh. I avoid playing D&D as of late, but when I do I usually just wing it on stats, based on the monster manual. The players don't really know the difference since it's the same crap that always goes up as difficulty goes up.
"Oh yeah. Grundy is chief. Ok, he has triple the max health and he has 3 more AC than normal, and maybe +2 more on any other rolls vanilla gobs have."

Wizards and stuff are harder, but if you're smart you'll just have a couple premade wizards you can slap new names on. Or just know their general spell list and wing it like they're a sorceror. Whatever, just don't be a cheating ****.

Of course, I usually don't have to deal with that at all anymore. But that's how I ran my 3.5 campaigns for years and only 1 player ever noticed I was being lazy about it and he found it funny because he prefers doing it the lazy way, too. It was a bonding moment.

Embrace the lazy way, my friends.

(One last thing: during your free time, just make a big list of names and draw from it during sessions. Giving everyone a name makes for having a good time. Just make notes about who's who.)

Anonymouswizard
2015-12-03, 09:53 AM
Railraoding is only needed if you have a predetermined plot or story. Games without rail roading still have story and plot. Its just that its not known ahead of time.

I agree with this. My Anima game has each of the major players have a plan. Four unrelated plans, of which only one brings about the Apocalypse (but might be the correct route to take, as in this campaign the powers in the shadow have been dead since the world was separated). The PCs can ally with any of the movers, even the villain, or forge their own route, as long as they except that what they don't do will also change the plot.


Even in Adventure Paths you don't need to railroad. Your group can still end up tell a story, it just might not be the same to the one in the book.

Unless you go out of what's defined (in which case a good GM will use what is defined to make a new plot entirely). But this is why I've never bought a module.

@ the guy who apparently isn't called Trevor: I agree that the GM is a player. He is however a special player because his character is the world. He has more power, but he also has more responsibility.

goto124
2015-12-03, 10:08 AM
Do you guys (not limited to the poster above me) go for first person or third person?

1) "Alice, you see the shop ahead of you..."
2) "Elaro, you see the shop ahead of you..."
3) "Elaro sees the shop ahead of her..."

It seem that 1 is popular for RL games, while 3 is the most common in PbP.

Milo v3
2015-12-03, 10:12 AM
Unless you go out of what's defined (in which case a good GM will use what is defined to make a new plot entirely). But this is why I've never bought a module.
I'm talking about how you can go out of what's defined in an adventure path and still tell a story.

Flickerdart
2015-12-03, 10:36 AM
Well, it's complicated. For instance, if a player said, "I want my character to take over France; he has $500, low Charisma, and don't speak the language," would it be a bad thing if he failed? Far from it.
Well, it is France. :smallamused:

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-03, 10:43 AM
Do you guys (not limited to the poster above me) go for first person or third person?

1) "Alice, you see the shop ahead of you..."
2) "Elaro, you see the shop ahead of you..."
3) "Elaro sees the shop ahead of her..."

It seem that 1 is popular for RL games, while 3 is the most common in PbP.

I do 2. It is me addressing the character. 1 is a non-option for me.

3 will happen if I am bringing someone back to attention on the game. The games are long, and sometimes people will need to check out for a bit. That's fine. I use that to guide them back into their character's head. Once I get a response with that and I know they're back with us, I go back to 2.

1 is dumb unless Alice's character is named Alice. Then go for it. Otherwise, you address her character, not her.



@ the guy who apparently isn't called Trevor: I agree that the GM is a player. He is however a special player because his character is the world. He has more power, but he also has more responsibility.

I don't disagree with that addendum because I said almost exactly that

Red Fel
2015-12-03, 10:55 AM
Here, I think, is where we disagree, INT. (By the way, great acronym.) You feel that the GM is a player, and that the entire world constitutes his character. I will agree to a certain extent with that. But I have one qualifier - the story isn't about his characters. It's about the PCs. Calling the GM a "player" and the world his "character" suggests that the story is about his character as much as it is about the other players', and that's a point with which I disagree.

The GM runs and builds the world. He's setting out the table. But it's about the PCs, not the NPCs. If it becomes about the NPCs, that's frequently when you start hearing horror stories about would-be novelists inviting players to sit through what amount to recitations of their novels campaign worlds.

Now, let me be clear, that's my personal position. I won't say that it's wrong for a GM to want the story to be about some NPCs as well. I feel uncomfortable when the GM feels he deserves the same level of attention as the PCs. It's apples and oranges, not apples and apples. I realize that this makes GMing sound like a thankless job - to a certain extent, it is. But it's a necessary one. Without the GM, the game is the equivalent of schoolkids running around, shouting "I shoot you," "Nope, I have bullet-proof armor," "My bullets are armor-piercing," "Well, I also have a force field," and so on. The GM is needed to provide structure, to build a story and a world, and to moderate disputes. While he does play NPCs, however, I wouldn't put them on the same level as the PCs, at least in terms of focus.

BRC
2015-12-03, 10:59 AM
So why is that sometimes railroading, or a straight road story succeeds while others it doesn't in your opinion? Because as you've described it, a savvy enough GM could railroad the entire time, and just use their savvy to prevent a loss of disbelief, or explain things away efficiently enough. What is the key for you at least?




The playstyle of the players and the skill of the GM, and knowing your players is one of the most important skills a GM can have.

The key is how it impacts the game. Imagine a GM who railroaded relentlessly. The PC's spend all their time being ordered around by unquestionable authority figures to go on missions, solve puzzles with exactly one solution, ect ect. But, it's an exciting story being told, and the players care more about experiencing the narrative than shaping it, so they go along with it.

Is that railroading? Yes it is. But everybody is having fun, so it's not a problem.

The fact of the matter is, different players have different ideas about what constitutes "Railroading", and how much they mind railroading. For some players, it's only railroading if you're literally locked in a straight, indestructible corridor. For others, having in-universe consequences for their decisions might constitute "Railroading" because "My CHARACTER wouldn't leave this village to be raided, which means I'm FORCED to go save it! RAILROADER RAILROADER!"


Which is why trying to define "Railroading" is pointless, because "Railroader" is just a term we use to describe a GM whose plot is too linear for their players, which hurts the game.

Sometimes Railroading fails because the players lose suspension of disbelief, or enthusiasm for the game due to loss of agency. Sometimes it succeeds because the players maintain suspension of disbelief and enthusiasm for the game.

DaveSonOfDave
2015-12-03, 11:19 AM
I think of railroading as when the game basically resembles a long hallway, with no branching paths, versus the alternative which is still having the same entrance and exit, but a multitude of ways of getting to that point. I mean, the DM will probably have a story line, and will need you do do certain things in order to progress it, but leaving the options up to the player and making them figure out what the best way to go about doing that is what takes you off the rails, where you can only go forward, and onto the streets, where you can turn left or right.

An example I can think of is the first game I DM'd, where the whole plot was that the characters got kicked out of town without their money or weapons. I had actually taken the time to set up a plot outside of the town which would help get them on their adventure, but through their own strength of will and refusal to let some Sheriff take their stuff, the party used all the wiles and plots they could think of to get back into the town and take their stuff back by force. It upended what I had planned, but then, it also lent itself to the next session, where I now had to think of where the story would go from this point. And, in fact, the story that they were helping to instigate wound up being much better than the one I had initially planned. I dread to think what would have happened if at any point I had just said, "You can't break in. Move along."

Florian
2015-12-03, 11:46 AM
@AMFV:

You seem to try to built on something that is not there.
We had some talk in similiar direction and you said to me that I uses standards that are not common to this very board. You are right, because I distinguish between colaboratorive game and colaboratorive storytelling.
There is no problem or overlap between the two things, unless you stick clearly to your basics and don't deviate from them.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-03, 12:20 PM
Here, I think, is where we disagree, INT. (By the way, great acronym.) You feel that the GM is a player, and that the entire world constitutes his character. I will agree to a certain extent with that. But I have one qualifier - the story isn't about his characters. It's about the PCs. Calling the GM a "player" and the world his "character" suggests that the story is about his character as much as it is about the other players', and that's a point with which I disagree.

The GM runs and builds the world. He's setting out the table. But it's about the PCs, not the NPCs. If it becomes about the NPCs, that's frequently when you start hearing horror stories about would-be novelists inviting players to sit through what amount to recitations of their novels campaign worlds.

Now, let me be clear, that's my personal position. I won't say that it's wrong for a GM to want the story to be about some NPCs as well. I feel uncomfortable when the GM feels he deserves the same level of attention as the PCs. It's apples and oranges, not apples and apples. I realize that this makes GMing sound like a thankless job - to a certain extent, it is. But it's a necessary one. Without the GM, the game is the equivalent of schoolkids running around, shouting "I shoot you," "Nope, I have bullet-proof armor," "My bullets are armor-piercing," "Well, I also have a force field," and so on. The GM is needed to provide structure, to build a story and a world, and to moderate disputes. While he does play NPCs, however, I wouldn't put them on the same level as the PCs, at least in terms of focus.

I think this is a nuance thing and is covered by the First Rule:
Make the Characters' lives not boring.

Everything revolves around what the characters do (or don't do), but at the same time the world MUST feel alive. A world that runs on conflicting desires and nearby threats is going to feel more alive than a world that runs on a pre-planned script. I didn't mention the part for the players, but there are additional rules I follow with them, that form a different set of protocols. Whenever I'm at the table, I have 4 God-given Rules that I will always follow, and an Agenda that keeps me focused.

Word of God:
Thou shalt always say:
1. What the rules demand.
2. What honesty demands.
3. What the fiction demands.
4. What fun demands.

Therefore, I must always obey the rules. I may not cheat, or if I do I must be up front about it.
I must always obey the rules of the world we are in. If dragons are all evil in this world, then the fiction demands that I not have a good one.
If my players are bored, I need to point out that energy has dropped and ask what's up and how we can change that.

My Agenda is partially listed above, but also includes:
-Be a fan of the PC's
-Play to find out what happens (This one is one of my core concepts. I'm not playing to see my story unfolded. That's playing into the Myth. I'm playing to see what they do, what the npcs do. I don't know exactly how the npcs will react to everything until it happens. I had a PC/NPC interaction that completely surprised me, where an NPC with a few problems started getting stalkerish and overprotective of one of the PC's, per the sort of threat he was. The PC ended up rolling with it and eventually the PC and NPC ended up in a romantic relationship that I hadn't seen coming until the session it happened in. In fact, I had originally though the NPC would be considered a threat and killed. I'm glad I didn't force that to happen because we still talk about how awesome that relationship was. And that, like most things, was unplanned.)
-EVERYTHING is a target. (Become attached to nothing. No NPC is too cool to get stabbed in the face. No PC is too cool to have his stuff stolen by a smug little thief. Threaten their stuff, their friends, your favorite NPCs and their favorites. Everything, everyone, should be a potential target.)

I think there is a difference between being a would-be novelist forcing people to interact with his cool world in exactly the way he wants you to (Which is railroading and breaks nearly all of my fundamental rules and plays into The Big Myth), and playing the world as a big giant character with characters living on it. In the former, you're just making a story and getting too attached.

In the latter, you are roleplaying as many people.

The whole system I use to GM is longer than even what I've mentioned, but I could compile it if anyone is interested in seeing it.

Edit:
I think you may have also had a misunderstanding about what I meant in my tirade. Knowing what the NPCs are like as people, making ties between NPCs and PCs, and NPCs and other NPCs, isn't about spotlighting the NPCs. It's about the world feeling real. If Joe the bartender is always in his bar, is only concerned with his bar, and never seems to have a life outside the bar, then he's the same as having a cardboard cutout. This doesn't mean the PCs ever need to find out about his personal life, but it does mean that they might see him buying things at the same store they're at. And you can do that with a single sentence. "As you walk in, you see Joe handing over a few silver coins to Bob. He nods and smiles at you as he leaves." That is a little thing, but makes the world feel alive in a potent and important way. Joe has a life outside the bar. It's just a little thing, but it's genuine. I haven't made Joe as important as the PCs, but they have a way of knowing he's alive. They see into his life for a moment. Maybe they notice that Joe is quiet whenever Jane is around. Maybe they don't. It's not about making it known. It's about making it a thing they can find out about. Ultimately, that info is less important and will only really be considered for NPCs they like and/or seem to enjoy spending time with. I might know the local beggar's name is Chuck and he has 3 teeth and fleas, but if the PCs never talk to him, he's unlikely to become the forefront of my planning. But I still know:
Chuck, beggar with 3 teeth and fleas, wants to see Sur Anam City before he dies.

That's all I need for Chuck, unless the PCs decide they really like him. (Hell, the NPC I mentioned before was the local drug dealer. They never cared about the barkeep, and so I never gave him more than a name and a basic want.)

GrayDeath
2015-12-03, 12:27 PM
Ah, the good old Railroading debate, I remember, when Iw as young and this came up for the first time in our group. Good times .... not. ^^


As generally agreeing what determines the fine line between "there is a plot that is not (primarly) player driven" and "Railroading" is impossible since we all draw the line at different points, lets just try with my personal definition and hope it helps.

Basics: This assumes that the GM does make a plot outside of "you are here, this are your ressources, do whatever you want"!
Sandboxing can be really fun too, but railroading there is only done when the players outwit the (stupid^^) GM and he decides to "not allow **** they can easily do", which is alwways ALWAYS bad, and hence not applicable here. :)



In my personal experience there are 3 forms of Railroading.

1.: "Startup/Train Station A": There is a certain combination of events that leads to the Characters to HAVE to begin the Adventure (at all and in a certain way).
There are many such adventures, some that do it well, others that as was said here "hit you over the head with a club" (If anyone here has played "Year of the Gryffon", a DSA Adventure, you know what I mean).
While they are often not well done,k I personally have little to no problems with these, as they only "force" you into a certain point. Ifits not badly done all they do is establish a Plot Area/Long Term Goal, eventually define your allies and enemies for that Plot, and you`re done (again YotG does it badly^^).
I think its an often (especially if a very variant and otherwise difficult to "get on the same page" group plays) useful.
Of course its better if you dont NEED it, but ....^^


2.: "The Plot needs you to do X at this moment or it will fail": The most often used, and despised, version.
The adventure/the Plot/ the GM NEEDS the palyers to do/not to do a specific thing at a specific moment. Or everything fails.
For example: the Big bad NEEDS to escape, the Players MUSt destroy McGuffin 1, the Dragon must obtain Item X, and so on.
In my experience, unless of course it goes down far away from any players, always a sign for being lazy. If, at that moment, the palyers CAN crush the plot (with inworld reasons, not just because they are morons") let them!
It may even elad to better stories.

3.: the "I had ONE Idea and you will damn well follow it!" Version. Or as you may also call it "GM feels stupid and lets his anger vent on the players".
YOur Players are doing something you do not want them to do (that does not immedeately crush the plot, merely complicate it or annoy you as the GM) and you crush the life out of it.
If that happens more than once (and only with a good explanation for that one time will I let it go) its reason to leave a group.
THis is what many people think when they think of Railroading Horror Stories.


So yeah, if it fits into any of these its most likely Railroading (at least 80+% me thinks).If not its either "merely Storytelling" or something else entirely. ;)


As for the general debate: Let me say this:
I have had wonderful campaigns with relatively narrow, epicly written "premade" Stories to enjoy "during the ride", but also a lot of great Sandboxes.
No Playstyle is inherently superior, you just need the rifght group of people and let Railroads wait outside.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-03, 12:31 PM
If dragons are all evil in this world, then the fiction demands that I not have a good one.

Gotta say - that is a rule that I wish more people would follow. Not just in GMs - but for novelists etc.

It frustrates me how many times a world sets up that "ALL XXX are inherently evil" just to introduce their special snowflake "except this XXX!".

(Similar but not the same as explaining how badass certain creatures/people are - only to die/get beaten horribly like 80's ninjas.)

Frankly - D&D broke this a few times - and it annoys me to no end.

"Demons are the pure incarnation of evil and chaos... except for the paladin succubus! See how clever we are!"

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-03, 12:51 PM
Gotta say - that is a rule that I wish more people would follow. Not just in GMs - but for novelists etc.

It frustrates me how many times a world sets up that "ALL XXX are inherently evil" just to introduce their special snowflake "except this XXX!".

(Similar but not the same as explaining how badass certain creatures/people are - only to die/get beaten horribly like 80's ninjas.)

Frankly - D&D broke this a few times - and it annoys me to no end.

"Demons are the pure incarnation of evil and chaos... except for the paladin succubus!

I used that as a point, but I also want to point out that universally evil species are a stupid concept.

And if course, it needs to be an extreme example. But of course I can also say things like:
Magical healing is rare. Therefore potions of healing will always be costly/dangerous to make/expensive.
Magic is super common. Therefore magical solutions will be sought before mundane ones, or just as often, and I need to include that in my descriptions.

Things like that.

Florian
2015-12-03, 01:15 PM
Nope. "Universally evil" stuff is ok, as long as one doesn't try and go on an buillt a simulation on it.

And Nom-Nom, just bought a new pan and tried my hand at Omurice just now, fine stuff.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-03, 01:16 PM
I used that as a point, but I also want to point out that universally evil species are a stupid concept.

If they're a normal species - sure. I have no problem with Drizzt. (though the Drizzt clones can get on my nerves)

It's just creatures such as demons/devils/(dragons in some settings) which are defined their alignment incarnate should remain that alignment.

Guran
2015-12-03, 05:18 PM
Every campaign I ever played in or DM'd was one primarly based on storytelling and character development. All of them? Ok, you got me; I'm lying. There was one campaign that I would call a railroad and I did not enjoy that in the slightest.

Lets start talking about how I run my storybased campaign. I usually prepare by challenging the characters. At the start of each campaign I ask the players to write a background detailling where his/her character hails from, what drives him/her and what does he/she wants to achieve. I use elements from this background to present the PC's with challenges and often choices. When the brave heroes face the choice I have allready written possible outcomes for their choices. Maybe they choose to save the princess. Maybe they will sacrifice her. Whatever choice they make, there will always be consequences for them or the campaign world. Maybe they decide to not make a choice at all. Usually when faced with a choice between A and B they manage to find the option C because obviously that is what players do. Forcing me to improvise something while trying to keep a straight face and claiming that everything is going according to my plan. But lets be honest, even though I love linear story campaigns, when players follow you as a meek sheep and never surprise, it isn't a fun campaign.

Now the railroad campaign I played in is a whole different story. This was a campaign we agreed on playing to please a friend who really wanted to DM a high level campaign. Every single time I tried to do something - be it saving NPC's my character met prviously or trying to attack a target the DM didn't want to be attacked - there would be overpowered NPC's standing in front of me that would stop me.
"In my animal form I can have phasing so I just walk through them."
"No you are stopped by something you cannot see..."
"What is it?"
"You don't know."
Nothing we do seems to affect the worls around us. According to the premise we are the empire's greatest warriors and are (in)famous for our services in a previous war. Yet no one seems to know us and every NPC we encounter seems to be able to clobber us. We were eventually forced to betray the empire, swear fealty to an ancient demigod and some other minor things that weren't even worth.

It was horrible to be railroaded like that. But honestly, there is one thing I dislike even more than a railroad campaign: A campaign without a story drive. A sandbox campaign where you can go anywhere to do whatever because of... Why exactly? Or a campaign that only exists out of delving deep in dungeons, slaying monsters to gain loot and experience so that you can slay more monsters to gain mor experience to gain more loot.

Telok
2015-12-03, 06:42 PM
Of course there are also the players who see a railroad in everything.

"There's four bombs and four of us, but that lets the villain escape! It's a railroad! I must not have my actions dictated! I chase the villain! My stated moral code and the lives of 50,000 people matter less than my personal freedom of choice!"

I'm gonna let him do it. He's trying to take a group fight on solo so the villain will almost certainly escape anyways and a bit of negative publicity may be an interesting plot twist.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-03, 07:05 PM
Well the main point of this thread is trying to figure out where something becomes the "Hits over the head like a club" when the railroad is too painfully obvious, or is likely to be percieved as a negative. That's what we're aiming to assess.

Well, mostly when a player complains.


Railraoding is only needed if you have a predetermined plot or story. Games without rail roading still have story and plot. Its just that its not known ahead of time.


Except you can't have a story or even a plot without events that happen or don't happen. If you leave everything thing up to random chance, you just have a mess.


Railroading is what happens when the players and the GM disagree about the game they're playing, and GM ignores the player's opinion. Linear storytelling is what happens when the players and the GM agree about the game they're playing and that game has a single plot thread, instead of being a sandbox.

I'd say Railroading is a vital and needed part of the game, and ''linear storytelling'' is just a buzz word for people that don't want to use the word railroading.




They are a player with a very different job from the other players, obviously. They play as the Entire World, instead of as "Bagthor the Barbarian." Being a GM is being the player who plays as "everyone else."

So the DM is different then a player in every way? Sounds like he is not a player then.




Is that railroading? Yes it is. But everybody is having fun, so it's not a problem.

As long as everyone has fun is the key. Somehow railroading got such a bad name by just a couple DMs and a couple of over reacting players.



Which is why trying to define "Railroading" is pointless, because "Railroader" is just a term we use to describe a GM whose plot is too linear for their players, which hurts the game.

I'd say ''Railroading'' is a term used by players for anything they don't like.

Milo v3
2015-12-03, 07:20 PM
Except you can't have a story or even a plot without events that happen or don't happen. If you leave everything thing up to random chance, you just have a mess.

I'd say Railroading is a vital and needed part of the game, and ''linear storytelling'' is just a buzz word for people that don't want to use the word railroading.
This is ridiculous. It's not even that hard to a story/plot without railroading, just have to be decent at improvisation. Railroading Can help a plot by keeping it on track, but it is no where near vital or necessary.

AMFV
2015-12-03, 07:47 PM
Ah, the good old Railroading debate, I remember, when Iw as young and this came up for the first time in our group. Good times .... not. ^^


As generally agreeing what determines the fine line between "there is a plot that is not (primarly) player driven" and "Railroading" is impossible since we all draw the line at different points, lets just try with my personal definition and hope it helps.

Basics: This assumes that the GM does make a plot outside of "you are here, this are your ressources, do whatever you want"!
Sandboxing can be really fun too, but railroading there is only done when the players outwit the (stupid^^) GM and he decides to "not allow **** they can easily do", which is alwways ALWAYS bad, and hence not applicable here. :)



In my personal experience there are 3 forms of Railroading.

1.: "Startup/Train Station A": There is a certain combination of events that leads to the Characters to HAVE to begin the Adventure (at all and in a certain way).
There are many such adventures, some that do it well, others that as was said here "hit you over the head with a club" (If anyone here has played "Year of the Gryffon", a DSA Adventure, you know what I mean).
While they are often not well done,k I personally have little to no problems with these, as they only "force" you into a certain point. Ifits not badly done all they do is establish a Plot Area/Long Term Goal, eventually define your allies and enemies for that Plot, and you`re done (again YotG does it badly^^).
I think its an often (especially if a very variant and otherwise difficult to "get on the same page" group plays) useful.
Of course its better if you dont NEED it, but ....^^


2.: "The Plot needs you to do X at this moment or it will fail": The most often used, and despised, version.
The adventure/the Plot/ the GM NEEDS the palyers to do/not to do a specific thing at a specific moment. Or everything fails.
For example: the Big bad NEEDS to escape, the Players MUSt destroy McGuffin 1, the Dragon must obtain Item X, and so on.
In my experience, unless of course it goes down far away from any players, always a sign for being lazy. If, at that moment, the palyers CAN crush the plot (with inworld reasons, not just because they are morons") let them!
It may even elad to better stories.

3.: the "I had ONE Idea and you will damn well follow it!" Version. Or as you may also call it "GM feels stupid and lets his anger vent on the players".
YOur Players are doing something you do not want them to do (that does not immedeately crush the plot, merely complicate it or annoy you as the GM) and you crush the life out of it.
If that happens more than once (and only with a good explanation for that one time will I let it go) its reason to leave a group.
THis is what many people think when they think of Railroading Horror Stories.


So yeah, if it fits into any of these its most likely Railroading (at least 80+% me thinks).If not its either "merely Storytelling" or something else entirely. ;)


As for the general debate: Let me say this:
I have had wonderful campaigns with relatively narrow, epicly written "premade" Stories to enjoy "during the ride", but also a lot of great Sandboxes.
No Playstyle is inherently superior, you just need the rifght group of people and let Railroads wait outside.

Well the question is: "What defines a happy medium for you?" At what point do you feel that you're railroading too much?


This is ridiculous. It's not even that hard to a story/plot without railroading, just have to be decent at improvisation. Railroading Can help a plot by keeping it on track, but it is no where near vital or necessary.

Seconded, although I would say that improvising everything tends to leave things quite messy. I've run campaigns of the seat of my pants before, and things tend to get into the very weird category very quickly (alternate universes, clockwork horrors). Also plot threads tend not to get resolved, which can be frustrating for players and is certainly frustrating for me. Additionally complete improv tends to cause a lot of similarish themes to exist (although it seems like it wouldnt), at least for me, I default to things I know have worked (almost exactly like improvising in music, and using licks that you know are decent), so there's less exploration of things unless you deliberately go for it.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-03, 08:33 PM
This is ridiculous. It's not even that hard to a story/plot without railroading, just have to be decent at improvisation. Railroading Can help a plot by keeping it on track, but it is no where near vital or necessary.

If your saying you ''improvise'' to keep the story/plot on track....you know that is railroading, right?

Also note Reverse Railroading: this is where the DM changes things so what the players do does not matter. Like, for example, that Castle Doom is any direction the players choose to go.


Well the question is: "What defines a happy medium for you?" At what point do you feel that you're railroading too much?

Such a tricky question. It is even more fun that, chances are, almost 100% of any great adventure a player has ever had was because of railroading and following a plot to make a story.

Milo v3
2015-12-03, 08:47 PM
If your saying you ''improvise'' to keep the story/plot on track....you know that is railroading, right?
umm.... I said improvise, not ''improvise'' to keep the story/plot on track. I'm not sure why you thought that is what I meant when the point is is that the story Isn't going on track, that's why you need to improvise. What's the point if you're just going to put them back on the track?

When the players go off your rails, you can improvise and end up with a different story. The plot you planned isn't going to happen, because the players don't follow your plan. You can have a story that doesn't follow your plan at all, that's one of the wonderful things about tabletop games, how immensely dynamic and interactive it is. In a videogame, it might have multiple choices and multiple endings, but tabletop games can have an quasi-infinite number of potential events and choices and plots and endings from just the one campaign.

You can play the game as just following a specific narrative the GM has crafted that Has to be followed, that's a perfectly valid way to play. But it is not the only way to play. Players are often inventive, think of things that you didn't when you thought up your plots and adventures, it's not hard for a game to go off the plan you formed, and if you're decent enough at improvisation you can let that path continue despite it not existing in the plan, that path can go completely differently to how the plot is meant to go.


Also note Reverse Railroading: this is where the DM changes things so what the players do does not matter. Like, for example, that Castle Doom is any direction the players choose to go.
That's actually just railroading....

AMFV
2015-12-03, 08:53 PM
umm.... I said improvise, not ''improvise'' to keep the story/plot on track. I'm not sure why you thought that is what I meant when the point is is that the story Isn't going on track, that's why you need to improvise. What's the point if you're just going to put them back on the track?

The point is that BOTH DM and the players get agency that way. Maybe there's no way to avoid the main plot, but the players get a sidequest, or they get to detour the plot bus, so they get control, but the DM still gets his story arc.



When the players go off your rails, you can improvise and end up with a different story. The plot you planned isn't going to happen, because the players don't follow your plan.


But that doesn't need to be an absolute, you can continue to have the plot you planned happening, eventually having it pull your players back in. In the Demon invasion example from before, if the players are off drinking, then there's still going to be an invasion and it will most likely affect them, possibly pulling them back into the main story (Oh no! The demons have cut of all the shipments of booze!). There's nothing wrong with this approach. The DM should not (IMHO) cede ALL of the agency to the players, because as it's pointed out, he's a player too, he should also have agency.



That's actually just railroading....

I would actually call letting the players completely control the story, and having no say as a DM "reverse railroading", since effectively the DM turns into somebody who can only arbitrate and loses out on any ability to creatively influence the story.

Milo v3
2015-12-03, 09:02 PM
The point is that BOTH DM and the players get agency that way. Maybe there's no way to avoid the main plot, but the players get a sidequest, or they get to detour the plot bus, so they get control, but the DM still gets his story arc.
When I asked, "what's the point?" I was more meaning for what would be the point of that being what I was talking about. Since it's what I'm advocating against being necessary. I shall endeavour to be more clear.


But that doesn't need to be an absolute, you can continue to have the plot you planned happening, eventually having it pull your players back in. In the Demon invasion example from before, if the players are off drinking, then there's still going to be an invasion and it will most likely affect them, possibly pulling them back into the main story (Oh no! The demons have cut of all the shipments of booze!). There's nothing wrong with this approach. The DM should not (IMHO) cede ALL of the agency to the players, because as it's pointed out, he's a player too, he should also have agency.
That was not intended as an absolute. I have said that playing along the DM's narrative is a perfectly valid approach, my view is nearly that it is not the only approach.


I would actually call letting the players completely control the story, and having no say as a DM "reverse railroading", since effectively the DM turns into somebody who can only arbitrate and loses out on any ability to creatively influence the story.
I'd agree with that.

Anonymouswizard
2015-12-03, 09:10 PM
I would actually call letting the players completely control the story, and having no say as a DM "reverse railroading", since effectively the DM turns into somebody who can only arbitrate and loses out on any ability to creatively influence the story.

Part of the problem is finding the ideal point, somewhere between 'you cannot leave London' and 'all roads lead to the same building in Rome'. I either give too much freedom and the players stumble blindy, or I stonewall some decisions because they will break the premise.

Something I have noticed is that most players enjoy having a half-decent plot and lots of freedom than a strong plot and little freedom, although that may be because my style leans heavily towards the former, despite seeing the latter done well. I do happen to be an improv heavy GM though, I'll stat NPCs and villains but don't actually know the plot until the players stumble onto it (I've given up running dungeon crawls because it gets to room 4 and I decide '**** it' and get back to plot, I try for more investigation instead which can cause problems).

Which reminds me, Demon is probably a far better game for my group, and I have a scenario involving an earthbound, a Devil focusing on the Lores of Radiance and Light, and a Scourge focused on the Lore of winds.

StealthyRobot
2015-12-03, 09:17 PM
My first campaign turned out to be very railroaded. I thought I was just making a cool story for the players, but we didn't clear up that they wanted a more standard game. Now, anything that happens that prohibits the group from doing something is referred to as a poison arrow, due to the fact I had used a poison arrow that did lasting poison damage to deliver a prophecy.
I may have also planned out when the party would level up, specific encounters, and exactly how they were going to achieve the goal, but that campaign died before any of that.

goto124
2015-12-03, 09:17 PM
Why not run 4-room mini-dungeons as part of larger plots then? :smalltongue:

Anonymouswizard
2015-12-03, 10:06 PM
Why not run 4-room mini-dungeons as part of larger plots then? :smalltongue:

I do, I just think of them as hideouts, not mini dungeons, and they are less disconnected from the outside world. I have a villain who not only has bound monsters in her home, but also an alarm to summon city guards, who will enter from the front door.

I also try to make 'dungeons' more narrative than mazelike, you might flit between three or four different zones trying to solve the puzzle. Very rarely will I create a dungeon that can be bypassed entirely, like one possible conclusion to my planned Anima campaign where the sylvain light wizard summons a horde of low level air and earth elementals to create a series of small islands floating around his central spire of 'bring the three worlds together violently' and the players have to move from island to island quickly (the arrangement changes every 3 rounds) fighting off enemies... or they can vust pull out climbing equipment and avoid 99% of the elementals, or if they have a summoner call upon air elementals of their own to fly them their.

Yeah, my dungeons work a lot better in WoD than Anima.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-03, 11:11 PM
Such a tricky question. It is even more fun that, chances are, almost 100% of any great adventure a player has ever had was because of railroading and following a plot to make a story.

I disagree completely. For instance, in a game I ran in a homebrew, they ended up fighting a village of duergar. Then, instead of abandoning it and moving on to the next quest, they decided they would use it as a base of operations. They had enough of the king's demands, and told him they were quitting, and that if he didn't like it he could try to get them out of the underworld. From there on, their missions involved searching out things that would help increase their little village.

I never would have came up with that plot; the players did. They told their own story, and it was still a lot of fun. Did I help them in coming up with the world to accomplish that story? Sure, but it wasn't "mine"; I didn't come up with the motivation, plot, etc etc.

BRC
2015-12-04, 02:15 AM
Also note Reverse Railroading: this is where the DM changes things so what the players do does not matter. Like, for example, that Castle Doom is any direction the players choose to go.
.
I prefer the term "Quantum Ogre" for that. Which is to say, an Ogre exists, and it is waiting on whichever road you happen to take.

Reverse Railroading would be more like a DM overindulging player whims. Just like with Railroading, the problems this causes are breaking suspension of disbelief, and a lack of enthusiasm.

An example of Reverse Railroading would be: The PC's are asked to retrieve a thing from a bandit camp. So, they ask the king for help, and he sends them 30 knights...to clear out a camp of 1st level bandits. Then, the Knights leave, and the PC's get to loot the camp and collect the bounty.

In this case, rather than the DM trying to hold the players to their plot, you have the DM ignoring what makes good gameplay and what makes sense in order to adhere to player Whim. What could have been an exciting battle against the bandits was resolved as soon as one of the PC's said "Hey, let's ask the King for help"

Suspension of Disbelief breaks down, because the King is willing to, at the drop of a hat, send thirty knights to destroy a minor bandit camp at the request of some random mercenary.
Player Enthusiasm falls apart, because there is no sense of tension or accomplishment when you get what you want just by asking for it.

Florian
2015-12-04, 02:54 AM
As far as I understood it, the term railroading mostly covers a situation when the actions of the characters never matter and the players could as well hang back and simply listen to a story being told, enjoying the scenery, so to say.
Illusionism builds on top of that, given the players the feeling that their actions matter, but without really being the case.
In the most extreme cases, all outcomes are predetermined and players have not even the option to fail at something, or have their characters die.

To differentiate from there, linear storytelling has some predetermined plot points or locations that make up the game, but the actions of the character still matter.

As for people seeing railroading anywhere, well, mainly that is because it is associated with a feeling. Any situation that evokes the same kind of feeling will feel like railroading then.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-04, 10:55 AM
So the DM is different then a player in every way? Sounds like he is not a player then.



Today on "Stuff I didn't say and people who didn't get the point"

The GM is a player. His character is the world and its inhabitants. He makes dice rolls. So do the players. The players obey the rules. So does the GM unless he's terrible. (Obeying house rules counts as obeying the rules.) They are all playing d&d together. They are all playing as characters, the GM just plays as more characters than the others. So how and when did I say or did it become apparent that the GMs job is so far removed from what the players do that he is somehow participating in an entirely different activity than playing the game? He ain't.
"The GM has to write the story!" No he doesn't. Thats a crock of BS. Have Threats, portray the world, sure. Write the story? Load of bull.
"The GM has to do prep work!
So do a lot of players that care. Most of my players level up between sessions. Is that somehow not prep? A different kind of prep....but still prep. If I have a dalmation and you have a labrador doesn't mean I have a dog and you don't.
"The GM isn't called a player!"
Duh. He has a slightly different position so he needs a differentiating title. Look at sports and see the players' titles. All of them are players. But not all of them are a Quarterback.

If it still somehow doesn't make sense:

Lets suppose you are GMing a game of D&D. Someone comes up to your group and asks what you are doing. You will likely say "We are playing Dungeons and Dragons." Or some variation. You will NOT say "These guys are playing Dungeons and Dragons. I am not. I am GMing, which is different." Because that would be a stupid and inaccurate thing to say.

The GM is a player by the very definition of what it means to play a game. One who has a different style of play and a different role in the conversation, but still a player by definition.

Edit:
This still isn't even my main point anyways.
My main point is:
Treat the world like a character and/or group of characters and you will have a better time.
Trying to create a story is not a part of being a GM. Story is what happens as a result of good GMing, not the goal of good GMing. The concept of the " A Good GM = The One Who Writes The Best Story" is a myth. It's stupid. It causes you to develop bad habits (such as railroading).

I don't railroad. I haven't railroaded since my first ever D&D campaign I ran when I was 12. And even then I usually let my players get away with insane solutions to problems. And those are the stories they actually remember, not the rest of it. Neither they nor I remember the great evil dragon scourging the land. But they remember the time our Barbarian and Sorceror used a large amount of alcohol and a well-placed Fireball to burn down a house rather than fight the giant bug monster inside. They remember skipping an entire Pyramid dungeon by riding a Floating Disk up the side and grabbing the magic item they wanted.
That's the story they actually remember. It was unplanned, and a side effect of me having those earliest notions that what I think ought to happen is not the important part of GMing. At all.

That's my main point. Be a GM as if you're a player who's playing the world, and you will have a better time. And an easier one. I rarely, if ever, had to prep for more than 30 minutes. The only system I run that involves a long prep time for me is Stars Without Number, and it has nothing to do with the adventures.

So there you have it.

Thrudd
2015-12-04, 12:42 PM
A truly linear story structure, where specific events happen in a specific order building on eachother to lead to a determined conclusion, is difficult to accomplish without railroading. Or rather, it is difficult to accomplish if the players expect to have some agency in the game. The prepared events are going to happen regardless of what the players do or how their characters perform, so even if you aren't strictly railroading them by restricting or directly negating their choices, they still ultimately do not affect the game in any meaningful way. The greatest effect they might have is to fail and characters die, ending the story prematurely.

It is possible to have a game with a narrow focus and specific accepted goal, like a group of knights with a goal of rescuing the princess, which is not strictly linear and has room for the players to have agency in deciding how to accomplish the goal. What events happen and when is reactive to the players' actions. This is how an episodic game can work.

AMFV
2015-12-04, 01:12 PM
@ImNotTrevor, I apologize for not quoting your post, but it was very lengthy, and I wasn't sure what should wind up snipped.

I think that the world is fundamentally different from a character. The DM might have some idea of how he wants the plot to go. But you don't have the same sort of investment as you do when you play a character, it's a completely different thing. Which makes sense, the roles are entirely different. I would argue that putting the world as your character would for many people inspire railroading, because they'd want to preserve what was "theirs". Whereas detachment might prevent such.



A truly linear story structure, where specific events happen in a specific order building on eachother to lead to a determined conclusion, is difficult to accomplish without railroading. Or rather, it is difficult to accomplish if the players expect to have some agency in the game. The prepared events are going to happen regardless of what the players do or how their characters perform, so even if you aren't strictly railroading them by restricting or directly negating their choices, they still ultimately do not affect the game in any meaningful way. The greatest effect they might have is to fail and characters die, ending the story prematurely.

So as I'm advocating for the devil, you would then believe that modules run as written, are railroading?

Thrudd
2015-12-04, 02:12 PM
@ImNotTrevor, I apologize for not quoting your post, but it was very lengthy, and I wasn't sure what should wind up snipped.

I think that the world is fundamentally different from a character. The DM might have some idea of how he wants the plot to go. But you don't have the same sort of investment as you do when you play a character, it's a completely different thing. Which makes sense, the roles are entirely different. I would argue that putting the world as your character would for many people inspire railroading, because they'd want to preserve what was "theirs". Whereas detachment might prevent such.




So as I'm advocating for the devil, you would then believe that modules run as written, are railroading?

Depends on the module. If it is a linear adventure with a specific chain of inter-dependent events, then it is highly likely to require railroading to run it from start to finish. If railroading is not used, there is the possibility that the players will find a way to bypass certain locations and events, kill an NPC at an inappropriate time, or get their characters killed, all of which create a new path not included in the module or end the adventure prematurely.
To successfully run a linear story without railroading would, at very least, require the players accepting and embracing a number of preexisting conditions, motives and role playing guidelines for their characters to ensure they occupy the correct roles in the story.

Florian
2015-12-04, 02:16 PM
Most modern modules don't focus on the setting, they focus on a pre-determined narrative.
If you want, compare Cult of the Reptile God to, say, Expedition to the Demonweb.
The differences are glaring.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-04, 03:17 PM
I'd say that the difference between a linear storyline & railroading isn't a yes/no, but more of a spectrum.

Of course - where on that spectrum linear becomes railroading varies from person to person. Some would even argue that linear storylines are inherently railroading. (likely players who prefer a more sandbox style game)

To me - it's hard to define where linear becomes railroading. It's one of those things 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'. :P


Most modern modules don't focus on the setting, they focus on a pre-determined narrative.
If you want, compare Cult of the Reptile God to, say, Expedition to the Demonweb.
The differences are glaring.

Depends upon which one. I haven't played it - but Kingmaker looks reasonably open to me.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-04, 06:32 PM
When the players go off your rails, you can improvise and end up with a different story. The plot you planned isn't going to happen, because the players don't follow your plan. You can have a story that doesn't follow your plan at all, that's one of the wonderful things about tabletop games, how immensely dynamic and interactive it is. In a videogame, it might have multiple choices and multiple endings, but tabletop games can have an quasi-infinite number of potential events and choices and plots and endings from just the one campaign.

Ok. You seem to be coming from the idea that a DM carves his plot and story in stone and then forces everyone to do that and your calling it ''railroading.'' And your saying it is a great thing if the players rebel and don't follow the DM's plan. Like the poor DM just has to hide under the table and can't do anything. But you seem to forget that the DM is still in control of the game, and more so, the DM will just railroad the players to any and all plots and stories. It does not matter if the players want to be jerks and rebel, they can switch tracks all they like, but they are still riding the train.



You can play the game as just following a specific narrative the GM has crafted that Has to be followed, that's a perfectly valid way to play. But it is not the only way to play. Players are often inventive, think of things that you didn't when you thought up your plots and adventures, it's not hard for a game to go off the plan you formed, and if you're decent enough at improvisation you can let that path continue despite it not existing in the plan, that path can go completely differently to how the plot is meant to go.


I'm not saying the players can't go off of a very narrow plan a DM has crafted. It's is one of the big flaws of being so narrow minded. I'm saying it does not matter.




I would actually call letting the players completely control the story, and having no say as a DM "reverse railroading", since effectively the DM turns into somebody who can only arbitrate and loses out on any ability to creatively influence the story.

This is my play style, but I'm not sure saying the players are in control is correct. How do you see the players in control?




I never would have came up with that plot; the players did. They told their own story, and it was still a lot of fun. Did I help them in coming up with the world to accomplish that story? Sure, but it wasn't "mine"; I didn't come up with the motivation, plot, etc etc.

Except your going with the idea that the DM has planned out ''the great duegar war'' and because the players switched and did the ''hometown makeover'' that the DM just hangs his head and shame. But, again, it does not matter who picked the plot and it does not matter what plot it is...the DM is still in control. Even if it could be said it was a players idea to do a plot, it becomes the DM's plot one second latter when the DM says ''ok, lets do that''.


I prefer the term "Quantum Ogre" for that. Which is to say, an Ogre exists, and it is waiting on whichever road you happen to take.

Yea, I prefer ''Reverse Railroading''. ''Quantum Ogre'' sounds like an Evil Leaper that Slides from life to life putting things wrong that once went right......




An example of Reverse Railroading would be: The PC's are asked to retrieve a thing from a bandit camp. So, they ask the king for help, and he sends them 30 knights...to clear out a camp of 1st level bandits. Then, the Knights leave, and the PC's get to loot the camp and collect the bounty.

I'd call that more Welfare or hand holding or cradling.

Milo v3
2015-12-04, 06:57 PM
Ok. You seem to be coming from the idea that a DM carves his plot and story in stone and then forces everyone to do that and your calling it ''railroading.'' And your saying it is a great thing if the players rebel and don't follow the DM's plan. Like the poor DM just has to hide under the table and can't do anything.
What? You are assigning motives and emotions that I never even hinted at. No, I'm not saying that "it is a great thing if the players rebel and don't follow the DM's plan" at all. I'm not saying "the poor DM just has to hide under the table and can't do anything." I'm saying that players can go off the plans of a DM and the DM can choose to not railroad the players can do what they want. Can. Both not railroading and railroading are styles of play, both can be done horriblely wrong and both can be handled well.



But you seem to forget that the DM is still in control of the game, and more so, the DM will just railroad the players to any and all plots and stories. It does not matter if the players want to be jerks and rebel, they can switch tracks all they like, but they are still riding the train.

Except I don't just railroad the players to any and all plots and stories.... It's not required to do that. Also, what does being jerks or rebelling have to do with it at all? I sincerely don't understand the association with those two and the current discussion.


I'm not saying the players can't go off of a very narrow plan a DM has crafted. It's is one of the big flaws of being so narrow minded. I'm saying it does not matter.
I'm saying that it Can matter. It does not have to matter, but it can.

Florian
2015-12-04, 07:12 PM
Depends upon which one. I haven't played it - but Kingmaker looks reasonably open to me.

I do love Kingmaker, but it is not open, not at all. The wider events and acompanying marrative are still predefined.

Want to talk about a cool modern module? Take a loot at the Armitage Files.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-04, 07:16 PM
What? You are assigning motives and emotions that I never even hinted at. No, I'm not saying that "it is a great thing if the players rebel and don't follow the DM's plan" at all. I'm not saying "the poor DM just has to hide under the table and can't do anything." I'm saying that players can go off the plans of a DM and the DM can choose to not railroad the players can do what they want. Can. Both not railroading and railroading are styles of play, both can be done horriblely wrong and both can be handled well.

Did you read the part where I said it did not matter? The DM can put a lot of work into the epic Dwarf Gate wars, and five minutes into the game the annoying players can rebel and say ''just drop your silly wars DM, we want to go kill a dragon''. And the DM will frown, and then just railroad the players to the dragon lair...and maybe reverse railroad in his dwarf war anyway.



Except I don't just railroad the players to any and all plots and stories.... It's not required to do that. Also, what does being jerks or rebelling have to do with it at all? I sincerely don't understand the association with those two and the current discussion.

Well, only a jerk player would go off the rails, right? In fact, they are metagaing in the worst way. They know the DM has made ''the dwarf gate wars'' plot, but instead of being a good player and just playing the game, they will act up and disrupt it.



I'm saying that it Can matter. It does not have to matter, but it can.

Just wondering, did you ever give a detailed description of game play with no railroading? Remeber that it would need to have no events that happen without the players consent and all event outcomes must be freely chosen by the players with no consequences for it to be ''no railroading''.

Milo v3
2015-12-04, 07:35 PM
Did you read the part where I said it did not matter? The DM can put a lot of work into the epic Dwarf Gate wars, and five minutes into the game the annoying players can rebel and say ''just drop your silly wars DM, we want to go kill a dragon''. And the DM will frown, and then just railroad the players to the dragon lair...and maybe reverse railroad in his dwarf war anyway.
Except the DM doesn't have to railroad or "reverse railroad" (Under your definition of reverse railroad). So saying that is pointless. A DM can do what you suggest, but there is no reason that they have to.


Well, only a jerk player would go off the rails, right? In fact, they are metagaing in the worst way. They know the DM has made ''the dwarf gate wars'' plot, but instead of being a good player and just playing the game, they will act up and disrupt it.
You seriously think that being a jerk is the only reason people would go off the rails? What if the player thinks of something you or the module/adventure path didn't think up? What if the group is bored with what you thought was interesting? What if they didn't see the path you thought up, and decided to go in a different direction? What if in roleplaying their characters they didn't act as you suspected? You can be a good player without having to stay on the plan in your head, I mean god, it's in your head. I wasn't aware that to be a good player you had to be able to read minds.


Just wondering, did you ever give a detailed description of game play with no railroading? Remember that it would need to have no events that happen without the players consent and all event outcomes must be freely chosen by the players with no consequences for it to be ''no railroading''.
1. Not in detail no. Most detail I think I have mentioned was my current campaign is an adventure path Rise of the Runelords. We have just begun Skinsaw Murders. The players have derail the plot because they burn't down the enemy base and destroyed access to that base without going in and doing the stuff that the adventure path assumes the players have to do for the plot, and had players do things that the game never thought and following leads in the murder that aren't leads in the adventure path (they thought someone might be involved in it who actually isn't even in the adventure path), bypassing obstacles completely causing me to have to improvise based on the current information (the groups adamantine dagger means I have very little chance of stopping them go where they wish if they are careful enough when it comes to stealth and covering their tracks), went to individuals before they were meant to interacted with in the plot and pissed him off, the players making their own adventure content in things like building a farm and a tavern and going on pubcrawls, trying to woo a character I honestly don't want them to woo, etc.
2. Events can have consequences. Simply not playing by railroading does not mean players decide how every battle goes. Dice are rolled, consequences occur accordingly.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-04, 09:36 PM
Except the DM doesn't have to railroad or "reverse railroad" (Under your definition of reverse railroad). So saying that is pointless. A DM can do what you suggest, but there is no reason that they have to.

I say they do. No way around it.



You seriously think that being a jerk is the only reason people would go off the rails? What if the player thinks of something you or the module/adventure path didn't think up? What if the group is bored with what you thought was interesting? What if they didn't see the path you thought up, and decided to go in a different direction? What if in roleplaying their characters they didn't act as you suspected? You can be a good player without having to stay on the plan in your head, I mean god, it's in your head. I wasn't aware that to be a good player you had to be able to read minds.

Well if a player thinks of something a short sighted DM did not think of, that is not exactly going off the rails. It is a tiny minor change, unless the play is meaning to go off the rails and ruin the game. If the group is bored, and instead of just telling the DM OOC they decide to just ruin the DM's story plot....then yes they are jerk players. A good DM, with a great railroaded plot will not not let the players just go off in another direction. ''Roleplaying'' is a poor excuse to ruin a game. And assuming the player told the DM all about their character, a DM should be able to figure things out.



1. Not in detail no. Most detail I think I have mentioned was my current campaign is an adventure path Rise of the Runelords. We have just begun Skinsaw Murders. The players have derail the plot because they burn't down the enemy base and destroyed access to that base without going in and doing the stuff that the adventure path assumes the players have to do for the plot, and had players do things that the game never thought and following leads in the murder that aren't leads in the adventure path (they thought someone might be involved in it who actually isn't even in the adventure path), bypassing obstacles completely causing me to have to improvise based on the current information (the groups adamantine dagger means I have very little chance of stopping them go where they wish if they are careful enough when it comes to stealth and covering their tracks), went to individuals before they were meant to interacted with in the plot and pissed him off, the players making their own adventure content in things like building a farm and a tavern and going on pubcrawls, trying to woo a character I honestly don't want them to woo, etc.
2. Events can have consequences. Simply not playing by railroading does not mean players decide how every battle goes. Dice are rolled, consequences occur accordingly.

I don't know the published adventure paths. So I'm not sure what your talking about without more details.

I'd sure love to know how you had the players solve a mystery with no railroading, reverse railroading or DM forcing anything to happen. A mystery needs a railroad by definition: the players must find the set clues, often in a set order and put them together to solve the mystery. There is no other way to do it. You can't ''randomly'' solve a mystery.

I get that you, somehow, let your battles be random..even though I think your just saying that as a cover. But, lets say your battles are so randomly random that anything you want and approve of can happen(though I very much doubt that your a killer DM that randomly kills characters, for example).

Fiery Diamond
2015-12-04, 10:07 PM
Fully in agreement with Milo v3. I'm just as baffled by Darth Ultron's comments.

Darth Ultron, let me see if I understand you. Is this a correct depiction of what you're saying?


__A DM, by his nature as master of the game, is in control of the game. When players behave in a way that ignores or invalidates his initial plan for plot, he must either A) force, push, convince, trick, or coerce the players into following his initial plans anyway in some fashion or B) give up on his initial plans entirely and either 1) force the world to fit into whatever form his players appear to want to give them the plot they seem to be asking for or 2) give up on controlling anything and let his players do whatever, abandoning his role as a DM.

__A Player, by his nature as a cooperative participant, must strive his utmost to go along with whatever the DM seems to have planned for the plot of the game. Acting in a fashion that goes against this is being uncooperative and therefore poor player behavior.

Is that what you're saying? Because that's what I'm getting out of what you're saying, once the value judgments in your statements are removed. If that is indeed what you are saying, then I have three words for you:

You are wrong.

Let me point out a few ways in which you are wrong. We'll take my summary piece by piece.

A DM, by his nature as master of the game, is in control of the game.
-This is a false statement. The DM has greater control over the game than the other players, yes, but a great many people play under the assumption that EVERYONE involved has some amount of shared control over the game. The DM does not HAVE TO BE some autocratic dictator who occasionally deigns to listen to the whims of the lowly players. Presenting a scenario IS NOT RAILROADING.

When players behave in a way that ignores or invalidates his initial plan for plot, he must either
False dichotomy alert!

A) force, push, convince, trick, or coerce the players into following his initial plans anyway in some fashion
-This includes both railroading and your "reverse railroading." (I prefer Quantum Ogre myself, since I actually like using Quantum Ogre sparingly for minor things) Is this an option? Absolutely. Is it by any means the only legitimate or reasonable option? Absolutely not. It doesn't even have to enter the DM's mind as a possibility. So acting like it's the reasonable one to expect any DM to do is... well, wrong.

or B) give up on his initial plans entirely
-Remember when I said false dichotomy? It's actually completely possible to incorporate elements of the original plan in some form or other but in a dramatically different way because player actions changed circumstances, such as having what was intended to be a gang war escalate into an international conflict or having the PCs on the opposite side of the conflict you planned on or having the PCs deal with the fallout of a conflict occurring you were originally planning for them to prevent (but that they ignored or never found out about due to going the wrong way). So, while the GM CAN give up on initial plans entirely, the choice is not railroad or abandon.

and either 1) force the world to fit into whatever form his players appear to want to give them the plot they seem to be asking for
-Okay, we've got an issue. Why do you assume that incorporating what the players want or the player's actions have led them towards requires forcing? In what way is going "Welp, I guess I'll just wing it by putting a dragon in this cave over here since they want to go dragon slaying" somehow railroading? That's utterly absurd. Creating scenarios by itself is not railroading, and the world is not completely set in stone. As long as the DM is being consistent and not doing something like "Now that cave you explored yesterday and emptied out ACTUALLY HAD A DRAGON ALL ALONG GUYZ!" there is nothing odd at all about adding a dragon retroactively to the world.

or 2) give up on controlling anything and let his players do whatever, abandoning his role as a DM.
-Yet another false dichotomy. You know that having the DM follow the players' lead is not necessarily abandoning the role of DM, right? It's totally a valid play style. Besides that point, there also choices besides "Okay, the world is now changed perfectly for you!" and "Okay, you get to declare whatever you want and do whatever you want, I'm just a decorative piece in this chair!" The DM has plenty of other options, such as, I don't know, incorporating elements of what the players want and/or having the world react organically to the players' unexpected and non-original-plan-following actions.

A Player, by his nature as a cooperative participant, must strive his utmost to go along with whatever the DM seems to have planned for the plot of the game. Acting in a fashion that goes against this is being uncooperative and therefore poor player behavior.
This is also wrong. Or, more precisely, this is not universal. It certainly is a valid style of play (DM makes clear what the plot intentions are, players agree to act within those constraints). It is far from the only one. In fact, I'd say it's not even the most common one. So acting in a fashion that doesn't align as perfectly as possible to what the player expects the DM wants is not inherently a bad thing. Secondly, players can't know EXACTLY what the DM's intentions and plans are, so they can't know how their actions will affect things. An action that a player thought was the obvious course of action could be one the DM didn't think of at all (and vice versa) leading to player actions causing things to deviate wildly from the DM's original intent (especially so if the DM doesn't railroad in response to those actions). Many of us, such as Milo v3 and myself, find the stories that are created by such actions and the DM improvising in response (attempting to have the world react in an interesting and organic way) instead of railroading in response to be far more entertaining and memorable than whatever the original intent might be.


And, following that last bit of thought, attempting to run the world in that fashion as entirely as possible with as few "intended plots" as possible, such as by assigning motives and desires to NPCs and traits to locations instead of writing event points, is seen as a good endeavor by us.

Right, Milo v3?

Milo v3
2015-12-04, 10:55 PM
I say they do. No way around it.
I am now 95% sure you are trolling now. Thank you for making this abundantly clear.


Well if a player thinks of something a short sighted DM did not think of,
Players thinking of something you didn't doesn't make the DM shortsighted, it means your not omniscient. I am 100% sure there are no DM's who are omniscient on earth, so it's very likely to happen.


It is a tiny minor change, unless the play is meaning to go off the rails and ruin the game.
1. There is no reason it has to be a minor change, you can just go with it.
2. You're being ridiculous suggesting that going off the rails ruins the game.


If the group is bored, and instead of just telling the DM OOC they decide to just ruin the DM's story plot....then yes they are jerk players.
They might not even be trying to ruin the plot, they might just see something else you've mentioned as more interesting and follow that rather than following what you intended. Please stop assigning malice to sentience.


A good DM, with a great railroaded plot will not not let the players just go off in another direction.
There is no link between being a good DM and railroading a plot. You can be a good DM who allows player to go off in another direction. I think it's rather rude and short-minded of you to say I'm a bad GM just because I use a different style of play than you.


''Roleplaying'' is a poor excuse to ruin a game.
True. Though I'm not really sure what that has to do with it, since going off the rails =! ruining the game.


I don't know the published adventure paths. So I'm not sure what your talking about without more details.
I wrote that in mind of you not needing to know the adventure path. There is nothing there that requires any knowledge about the adventure aside from me mentioning what section the group is up to.


I'd sure love to know how you had the players solve a mystery with no railroading, reverse railroading or DM forcing anything to happen. A mystery needs a railroad by definition: the players must find the set clues, often in a set order and put them together to solve the mystery. There is no other way to do it. You can't ''randomly'' solve a mystery.
There are clues yes, but how players interpret clues in completely up to them. They have completely ignored the order the book intended, went in search of clues in places that would reasonably have clues based on flawed assumptions they made, missed ridiculously major clues, missed some red hearings I was really looking forward to, they have accused people that had nothing to do with it. One important thing I noticed was that they were going through the adventure amazingly quickly, the module assumes that they will take much much much longer than my players are so that further killings happen and so that the next set pieces can happen, but they've been too fast so that set piece the murder mystery has likely wont happen.

They have not been railroaded. Simply giving the players clues of what has happened isn't railroading. Forcing the players on a specific path is, but there has been no force (subtle or overt) I simply told them of the murders as the adventure states, and then they did everything else of their own initiative based on the information their skill checks got. Every time they said "I do x", they did it, and at no time did I warp the setting or rolls to achieve my aims as my aim is merely to be the umpire.


I get that you, somehow, let your battles be random..even though I think your just saying that as a cover. But, lets say your battles are so randomly random that anything you want and approve of can happen(though I very much doubt that your a killer DM that randomly kills characters, for example).
... "Somehow" it's called dice. You know, because D&D and Pathfinder use dice as a success determination mechanic. I'm not really sure what it would be a cover for, could you please explain? What am I covering up? What is my hidden agenda that you seem to be try to place upon me? As for killing characters, if the dice say the character is dead, they are dead. Still not a killer DM though, but that's just because my player's current characters are gestalts with large amounts of health and rather good combat skill though one character was bleeding out a rather large amount while a horde of goblins aimed at her because she was dying which made it very hard for the player. And earlier most the party was close to death because a druid's animal companion keep tripping them and AoO'ing them everytime they tried to get up and they ended up having to try and escape. I have creatures act accordingly, death is close if the dice say so. My players are aware of it and see no issue, though I'm sure they would feel disappointed with their character dying since it's too early to resurrect them, they understand that death can come any time the game says they will die.


Right, Milo v3?
Yeah, pretty much.

goto124
2015-12-05, 04:10 AM
I presume Darth has been playing a lot of linear video games?

Darth Ultron
2015-12-05, 06:16 AM
A DM, by his nature as master of the game, is in control of the game.
-This is a false statement. The DM has greater control over the game than the other players, yes, but a great many people play under the assumption that EVERYONE involved has some amount of shared control over the game. The DM does not HAVE TO BE some autocratic dictator who occasionally deigns to listen to the whims of the lowly players. Presenting a scenario IS NOT RAILROADING.

Ok, the DM has ''greater'' control then the players...that is true as the DM has all the control and the players none. And yes, just as the DM is in control does not say he must be a crazy dictator.



When players behave in a way that ignores or invalidates his initial plan for plot, he must either
False dichotomy alert!

Well, continue...



A) force, push, convince, trick, or coerce the players into following his initial plans anyway in some fashion
-This includes both railroading and your "reverse railroading." (I prefer Quantum Ogre myself, since I actually like using Quantum Ogre sparingly for minor things) Is this an option? Absolutely. Is it by any means the only legitimate or reasonable option? Absolutely not. It doesn't even have to enter the DM's mind as a possibility. So acting like it's the reasonable one to expect any DM to do is... well, wrong.

Ok, so if the DM does not railroad or reverse railroad...how does a DM keep the characters on a plot. Any plot, even a player suggested one, needs tracks to follow.



or B) give up on his initial plans entirely
-Remember when I said false dichotomy? It's actually completely possible to incorporate elements of the original plan in some form or other but in a dramatically different way because player actions changed circumstances, such as having what was intended to be a gang war escalate into an international conflict or having the PCs on the opposite side of the conflict you planned on or having the PCs deal with the fallout of a conflict occurring you were originally planning for them to prevent (but that they ignored or never found out about due to going the wrong way). So, while the GM CAN give up on initial plans entirely, the choice is not railroad or abandon.

I don't think we disagree here. The DM has a great plot story about the dwarf gate war, the players ignore it and want to go kill a dragon. The DM just nods and lets the players go on the dragon quest...and encounter the dwarf war everywhere too....



and either 1) force the world to fit into whatever form his players appear to want to give them the plot they seem to be asking for
-Okay, we've got an issue. Why do you assume that incorporating what the players want or the player's actions have led them towards requires forcing? In what way is going "Welp, I guess I'll just wing it by putting a dragon in this cave over here since they want to go dragon slaying" somehow railroading? That's utterly absurd. Creating scenarios by itself is not railroading, and the world is not completely set in stone. As long as the DM is being consistent and not doing something like "Now that cave you explored yesterday and emptied out ACTUALLY HAD A DRAGON ALL ALONG GUYZ!" there is nothing odd at all about adding a dragon retroactively to the world.


I'll agree that retroactively changing somethings is wrong...sometimes. But in a fantasy game like D&D a lot can ''change''. Clones, undead, shapeshifters, illusions, and so on can make a lot of ''change''. The characters can very much so kill Lord Zod on Monday...and then find him alive and well on Friday.



or 2) give up on controlling anything and let his players do whatever, abandoning his role as a DM.
-Yet another false dichotomy. You know that having the DM follow the players' lead is not necessarily abandoning the role of DM, right? It's totally a valid play style. Besides that point, there also choices besides "Okay, the world is now changed perfectly for you!" and "Okay, you get to declare whatever you want and do whatever you want, I'm just a decorative piece in this chair!" The DM has plenty of other options, such as, I don't know, incorporating elements of what the players want and/or having the world react organically to the players' unexpected and non-original-plan-following actions.

Right, the DM is always in control...even if he chooses to follow the players suggested plot.



A Player, by his nature as a cooperative participant, must strive his utmost to go along with whatever the DM seems to have planned for the plot of the game. Acting in a fashion that goes against this is being uncooperative and therefore poor player behavior.
This is also wrong. Or, more precisely, this is not universal. It certainly is a valid style of play (DM makes clear what the plot intentions are, players agree to act within those constraints). It is far from the only one. In fact, I'd say it's not even the most common one. So acting in a fashion that doesn't align as perfectly as possible to what the player expects the DM wants is not inherently a bad thing. Secondly, players can't know EXACTLY what the DM's intentions and plans are, so they can't know how their actions will affect things. An action that a player thought was the obvious course of action could be one the DM didn't think of at all (and vice versa) leading to player actions causing things to deviate wildly from the DM's original intent (especially so if the DM doesn't railroad in response to those actions). Many of us, such as Milo v3 and myself, find the stories that are created by such actions and the DM improvising in response (attempting to have the world react in an interesting and organic way) instead of railroading in response to be far more entertaining and memorable than whatever the original intent might be.

Now what your talking about is exactly why railroading exists: to keep the game going.

For example, take the player suggested plot that they want to kill a dragon and loot it's lair. So this is a blank slate type DM, just doing what the players want with no interest of his own. So, assuming the dragon lair is not just across the steet from the tavern the Pc's start the game in....how do they find the lair? Now there are only two ways to do it 1)Railroading: the DM makes clues for the players to find and puzzle out the location of the lair or 2)Reverse Railroading: the DM drops clues right in the PC's path no matter what they do. Either way, the Players get the clues and put them together and find the dragons lair so the adventure can continue. If this is not done, the Pc's might very well just aimlessly and pointlessly wander all over the game world and never even come close. And see that does not work, as the players want to slay a dragon. So if the Pc's just ''randomly'' end up miles and miles away from the dragon's lair fighting goblin pirates, they are not slaying a dragon.



And, following that last bit of thought, attempting to run the world in that fashion as entirely as possible with as few "intended plots" as possible, such as by assigning motives and desires to NPCs and traits to locations instead of writing event points, is seen as a good endeavor by us.

Right, Milo v3?

Well, ''assigning motives and desires to NPCs and traits to locations'' is railroading. Your just not using the word. If you ''assign'' the NPC of Lord Dorn ''will only trade his dragon slaying sword for a ghost slaying sword'', then that is railroading. If the not so ''clever'' players attempt to break into Lord Dorn's house(especially after asking him about the sword) they ''amazingly'' find lots of traps and the lord ready for them. This, again, is railroading. The players will whine and cry as they have no ''agency'' and can't rob the guys house with their not so ''clever'' plan. The players might then come up with the not so ''clever'' idea of ''finding another dragon slaying sword'' as they ''just assume'' that there should be ''thousands of them lying around''. When the DM says there are no other publicly known NPC's in the area with a dragon slaying sword...the PC's will again cry railroad. And even if the DM does toss out another sword, if the Pc's can't get it with almost no effort, the players will cry railroad. If the PC's do meet a NPC that just gives them a dragon slaying sword, guess what, that is railroading again. And so on...

And the players above are right, it is all railroading....as it is needed to advance the plot and story of a game.

Thrudd
2015-12-05, 10:41 AM
Ok, the DM has ''greater'' control then the players...that is true as the DM has all the control and the players none. And yes, just as the DM is in control does not say he must be a crazy dictator.



Well, continue...



Ok, so if the DM does not railroad or reverse railroad...how does a DM keep the characters on a plot. Any plot, even a player suggested one, needs tracks to follow.



I don't think we disagree here. The DM has a great plot story about the dwarf gate war, the players ignore it and want to go kill a dragon. The DM just nods and lets the players go on the dragon quest...and encounter the dwarf war everywhere too....



I'll agree that retroactively changing somethings is wrong...sometimes. But in a fantasy game like D&D a lot can ''change''. Clones, undead, shapeshifters, illusions, and so on can make a lot of ''change''. The characters can very much so kill Lord Zod on Monday...and then find him alive and well on Friday.



Right, the DM is always in control...even if he chooses to follow the players suggested plot.



Now what your talking about is exactly why railroading exists: to keep the game going.

For example, take the player suggested plot that they want to kill a dragon and loot it's lair. So this is a blank slate type DM, just doing what the players want with no interest of his own. So, assuming the dragon lair is not just across the steet from the tavern the Pc's start the game in....how do they find the lair? Now there are only two ways to do it 1)Railroading: the DM makes clues for the players to find and puzzle out the location of the lair or 2)Reverse Railroading: the DM drops clues right in the PC's path no matter what they do. Either way, the Players get the clues and put them together and find the dragons lair so the adventure can continue. If this is not done, the Pc's might very well just aimlessly and pointlessly wander all over the game world and never even come close. And see that does not work, as the players want to slay a dragon. So if the Pc's just ''randomly'' end up miles and miles away from the dragon's lair fighting goblin pirates, they are not slaying a dragon.



Well, ''assigning motives and desires to NPCs and traits to locations'' is railroading. Your just not using the word. If you ''assign'' the NPC of Lord Dorn ''will only trade his dragon slaying sword for a ghost slaying sword'', then that is railroading. If the not so ''clever'' players attempt to break into Lord Dorn's house(especially after asking him about the sword) they ''amazingly'' find lots of traps and the lord ready for them. This, again, is railroading. The players will whine and cry as they have no ''agency'' and can't rob the guys house with their not so ''clever'' plan. The players might then come up with the not so ''clever'' idea of ''finding another dragon slaying sword'' as they ''just assume'' that there should be ''thousands of them lying around''. When the DM says there are no other publicly known NPC's in the area with a dragon slaying sword...the PC's will again cry railroad. And even if the DM does toss out another sword, if the Pc's can't get it with almost no effort, the players will cry railroad. If the PC's do meet a NPC that just gives them a dragon slaying sword, guess what, that is railroading again. And so on...

And the players above are right, it is all railroading....as it is needed to advance the plot and story of a game.

None of the examples you're giving are railroading. The whining players in your hypothetical would be wrong.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-05, 12:58 PM
Darth, does it strike you as odd that 95% responses disagree with your definition of railroading?

As you noted, once the DM ok's an idea from the players, it can become a part of the world. But that doesn't retroactively remove that player's contribution; nor is there railroading on either side.

The DM may have final say on everything in the world, to an extent (dice can change things, obviously). But that freedom can be used responsibly, to build the world and story with the players. I certainly am not egotistical enough to think my ideas are better than the ideas of all my players combined, at all times.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-05, 02:21 PM
None of the examples you're giving are railroading. The whining players in your hypothetical would be wrong.

They are all examples of Railroading, that is things the DM is forcing the players to do one way. So why would you say they are not railroading?


Darth, does it strike you as odd that 95% responses disagree with your definition of railroading?

As you noted, once the DM ok's an idea from the players, it can become a part of the world. But that doesn't retroactively remove that player's contribution; nor is there railroading on either side.

The DM may have final say on everything in the world, to an extent (dice can change things, obviously). But that freedom can be used responsibly, to build the world and story with the players. I certainly am not egotistical enough to think my ideas are better than the ideas of all my players combined, at all times.

No.

Ok, the players can contribute.

I think the main problem is the knee jerk reaction to the term railroading. People are so obsessed with the idea that it is a bad word and immediately go to the far end extreme bad examples that they are blind to everything else.



There is no link between being a good DM and railroading a plot. You can be a good DM who allows player to go off in another direction. I think it's rather rude and short-minded of you to say I'm a bad GM just because I use a different style of play than you.

Well a good game of D&d has a plot, and if you have a plot you must railroad. Though sure you can play D&D the random way of ''endless, pointless combat''.




There are clues yes, but how players interpret clues in completely up to them. They have completely ignored the order the book intended, went in search of clues in places that would reasonably have clues based on flawed assumptions they made, missed ridiculously major clues, missed some red hearings I was really looking forward to, they have accused people that had nothing to do with it. One important thing I noticed was that they were going through the adventure amazingly quickly, the module assumes that they will take much much much longer than my players are so that further killings happen and so that the next set pieces can happen, but they've been too fast so that set piece the murder mystery has likely wont happen.

You can't interpret a clue....a clue is a fact. I'd like for you to give and example of how you can ''interpret'' a clue.





They have not been railroaded. Simply giving the players clues of what has happened isn't railroading. Forcing the players on a specific path is, but there has been no force (subtle or overt) I simply told them of the murders as the adventure states, and then they did everything else of their own initiative based on the information their skill checks got. Every time they said "I do x", they did it, and at no time did I warp the setting or rolls to achieve my aims as my aim is merely to be the umpire.

See your being way to vague here. Your trying to say you just ''told the players stuff'' and they made this wonderful adventure while you just sat and watched?




... "Somehow" it's called dice. You know, because D&D and Pathfinder use dice as a success determination mechanic. I'm not really sure what it would be a cover for, could you please explain? What am I covering up? What is my hidden agenda that you seem to be try to place upon me? As for killing characters, if the dice say the character is dead, they are dead. Still not a killer DM though, but that's just because my player's current characters are gestalts with large amounts of health and rather good combat skill though one character was bleeding out a rather large amount while a horde of goblins aimed at her because she was dying which made it very hard for the player. And earlier most the party was close to death because a druid's animal companion keep tripping them and AoO'ing them everytime they tried to get up and they ended up having to try and escape. I have creatures act accordingly, death is close if the dice say so. My players are aware of it and see no issue, though I'm sure they would feel disappointed with their character dying since it's too early to resurrect them, they understand that death can come any time the game says they will die.


Dice are just part of it though, the DM can change and control everything so the dice don't matter.

I'd say your covering up for the fact that you, like any other DM that is in control of a game and telling a story plot, must railroad. Your so obsessed with the idea that ''railroad=bad'', even though you must obvisily do it for a game to even happen.

I gave a couple examples of railroading, maybe you could give a couple?

Florian
2015-12-05, 03:45 PM
@Darth Ultron:

I really think that you missunderstand something here. Railroading = Devalueing choices, up to the point where there are actually no choices to make.
The Quantum Ogre is one example for it, because no matter which of the two paths you chose, you meet the ogre. Your choice has no value, therefore you can go one stop further and remove one of the two paths.

mephnick
2015-12-05, 03:59 PM
How far do people go with the Quantam Ogre?

I think putting the same ogre on each path which then lead to different plots is OK. If I spent my limited time prepping one cool encounter for the week, it's getting used whether the path leads to the Ocean of Wetness or Red Rock Tower. Or must everything be completely random?

Florian
2015-12-05, 04:25 PM
How far do people go with the Quantam Ogre?

I think putting the same ogre on each path which then lead to different plots is OK. If I spent my limited time prepping one cool encounter for the week, it's getting used whether the path leads to the Ocean of Wetness or Red Rock Tower. Or must everything be completely random?

I think you're mixing up two things here: limitations that force the gm to act in a certain way vs. predertermining how things will work out and devalueing player choices to make that work.

If you have limited prep time, that can't be changed. Your players should know that the availlable content will be a bit limited and play along with that.

The other thing is not only having a plot planned out, but also a predetermined narrative that waits to be told and not wanting the players to deviate from it.

AMFV
2015-12-05, 05:00 PM
How far do people go with the Quantam Ogre?

I think putting the same ogre on each path which then lead to different plots is OK. If I spent my limited time prepping one cool encounter for the week, it's getting used whether the path leads to the Ocean of Wetness or Red Rock Tower. Or must everything be completely random?

Well it depends. I think a good middle ground is to always have a few extra "cool encounters" prepared. Maybe even a few plot threads to possible side plots. Then instead of the players needing to run into the quantum ogre, or even something that links into the main plot. I can give them a side plot and such for them to focus on. It's also a good way of gauging what sort of plot they're in the mood for at that particular junction.

Maybe the main plot is a dungeon crawl, and they're just sick of dungeons, so you can introduce a sideplot to give them a break from that sort of adventure. With D&D I think that variety is definitely the spice of life. As such a few varied encounters may be good.

Going back to the original question. I will Quantum Ogre, but only in those instances where I think the players are not following the path I expected because they don't realize which path I'd planned on, if they choose to deliberately jump the tracks, I tend to try to either improvise something new (which isn't terribly hard in most cases), or pull something out that they hadn't expected.

If it's less jumping the tracks and more derailing the whole train, I'll probably stop the game for a second and discuss it with the players, so that way I can figure out why they aren't interested in the plot, and if the whole main plot needs some sort of adjustment.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-05, 05:56 PM
@Darth Ultron:

I really think that you missunderstand something here. Railroading = Devalueing choices, up to the point where there are actually no choices to make.
The Quantum Ogre is one example for it, because no matter which of the two paths you chose, you meet the ogre. Your choice has no value, therefore you can go one stop further and remove one of the two paths.

I understand. The thing is I think any devaluing of choices and loss of choice matters. Everyone else is saying that only the couple of ways they don't like are railroading, and every other way that is just as devaluating and choice less is not railroading.


How far do people go with the Quantam Ogre?

I think putting the same ogre on each path which then lead to different plots is OK. If I spent my limited time prepping one cool encounter for the week, it's getting used whether the path leads to the Ocean of Wetness or Red Rock Tower. Or must everything be completely random?

This is exactly why railroading (and ''quantum ogreing, that I call reverse railroading) is needed in a game: to keep things moving. It also helps with the time constraint. Most games only last a couple hours and they need to move along quickly.

Fiery Diamond
2015-12-05, 06:31 PM
Do you really believe "DM has final say" and "DM has only say" are functionally identical? Because as far as I can tell, that seems to be the gist of why you're calling everything under the sun railroading even though everyone else disagrees with you. Suffice to say, those two things are not equal and anyone asserting that they are doesn't understand either of them.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-05, 07:22 PM
Do you really believe "DM has final say" and "DM has only say" are functionally identical? Because as far as I can tell, that seems to be the gist of why you're calling everything under the sun railroading even though everyone else disagrees with you. Suffice to say, those two things are not equal and anyone asserting that they are doesn't understand either of them.

How are they not identical? The DM has the final and only say.

And I'll say again, anything that takes away freedom and choice from a player and forces them to have a character do or not do anything, is railroading. But, again, it is not a bad word. Everyone is just only talking about railroading as the vague extreme of a tyrant DM that they don't like.





The GM is a player. His character is the world and its inhabitants. He makes dice rolls. So do the players. The players obey the rules. So does the GM unless he's terrible. (Obeying house rules counts as obeying the rules.) They are all playing d&d together. They are all playing as characters, the GM just plays as more characters than the others.

And lets list the differences.... A player only has limited control over thier single character that the DM allows, and maybe another being like a mount, if the Dm allows that. The DM on the other hand controls every single character, item, thing, concept, idea, force and the kitchen sink in the whole game universe, up to and including the Pc's if the DM so wishes too.

In the game world, the DM can create anything on a whim. If the DM wants there to be an orc fighter with a vorpal sword around the next corner, then 'pop' one is there. Players can not create anything directly in the game, except the limited things their character can do (a player character could cut down a tree and make a table).

The players have to ask for the DM's permission to do anything and must have the DM's approve before anything is part of the game world. The DM does not need to ask or have permission.

The DM is not bound by the rules like the players are and is free to say things outside the rules and still pay lip service to the rules. Players are bound by the rules always, unless they get the DM's permission to change things. For example a player can't just 'freeze time' and say ''oh my character spends five months making a magic item'', but a DM can, and can even say things like ''Oh, NPC #12 made that magic item last year''.

The DM makes all decisions on what things like DC will be. Players have no input here. Sure the DM can say he uses ''the rules as a guideline'', but he does not have too. And ultimately must make decisions on his own. The rules might set the basic DC for a poor and average lock, but the DM is still the one that says if any encountered lock is poor or average or good or anything else.

The DM makes all snap judgement calls during that game. In most games, lots of stuff comes up that is not exactly covered by the rules. And that DM is the one that says how it works. Sure the players can offer advice or tips or complain....but the DM ultimately makes the call.




Lets suppose you are GMing a game of D&D. Someone comes up to your group and asks what you are doing. You will likely say "We are playing Dungeons and Dragons." Or some variation. You will NOT say "These guys are playing Dungeons and Dragons. I am not. I am GMing, which is different." Because that would be a stupid and inaccurate thing to say.

I'd say I'm DMing a game of D&D, myself.

The GM is a player by the very definition of what it means to play a game. One who has a different style of play and a different role in the conversation, but still a player by definition.




Treat the world like a character and/or group of characters and you will have a better time.
Trying to create a story is not a part of being a GM. Story is what happens as a result of good GMing, not the goal of good GMing. The concept of the " A Good GM = The One Who Writes The Best Story" is a myth. It's stupid. It causes you to develop bad habits (such as railroading).

I'd like to see an example of your game where 1)The ''player just called the DM'' has no story and 2) there is no railroading or any events that happen that the players don't expressly do, commit and approve of.

Milo v3
2015-12-05, 07:39 PM
Well a good game of D&d has a plot,
False. A good game of D&D may or may not have a plot.


If you have a plot you must railroad.
False. I have run plots both with and without railroading.


Though sure you can play D&D the random way of ''endless, pointless combat''.
While I do not find just dungeon crawling with no plot a fun playstyle I do think that you should not be insulting toward the style just because you dislike it. There is no reason it has to be "endless pointless combat", pure dungeoncrawl games that I've seen all had things like puzzles and the battles weren't pointless they were the point....


You can't interpret a clue....a clue is a fact. I'd like for you to give and example of how you can ''interpret'' a clue.
A clue is not innately a fact. People can misinterpret a fact and it can lead characters towards red herrings. Also, as characters generally need to make skill checks to identify clues it can lead to only getting partial information or find some clues but not others or getting other information that you think is a clue but is not. As for example of players misinterpreting a clue, in my last last session there was a rune on two of the victims chests, not being able to identify the rune themselves with their skill checks they went in search of a scholar and with a knowledge (local) check the paladin/monk was able to remember where the scholar generally was in the town, he then brought the scholar to the rune and learned information about what it means and what culture it is from. Eventually one of the questions was whether he was aware of anyone else with knowledge about that culture in the area, he paused for a moment and looked slightly panicked as he said no, I'm the only scholar on that culture in the region that they were currently in. Some then interpreted that to be that the scholar must have been involved in some way, as he is the only one with the knowledge to have done the act. Which is incorrect, the correct interpretation is that the people who had the knowledge on the subject are not in the region.


See your being way to vague here. Your trying to say you just ''told the players stuff'' and they made this wonderful adventure while you just sat and watched?
To a degree, yes. But only about 25% of the game. The other 75% was describing the results of their checks, attacks, attacks made on them and replies in conversation, and the players talking themselves.


Dice are just part of it though, the DM can change and control everything so the dice don't matter.
That's an idiotic suggestion. Dice are what determine the success of an action. I did not change or control anything so the dice don't matter.


I'd say your covering up for the fact that you, like any other DM that is in control of a game and telling a story plot, must railroad. Your so obsessed with the idea that ''railroad=bad'', even though you must obvisily do it for a game to even happen.
But I haven't railroaded in several campaigns. So that's false. Please state some evidence or proof that supports your outrageous claim, rather than just stating your premise repeatedly. I'm Not obsessed with railroading being bad. I have repeatedly stated that railroading can help running games and can enrich players experiences. Both railroading and not railroading are styles. Neither are innately bad or good. Both can be used well and both can be abused. Personally I dislike the style of railroading, but have no delusion that can't be used highly effectively and that many others will enjoy that style.


I gave a couple examples of railroading, maybe you could give a couple?
Examples of railroading I've done? If that's what you mean then I may have to think on that for abit, only just woke up and I haven't railroaded since my early days of GM'ing when I ran the game poorly. I slowly realised the railroading style didn't really fit with me or my players so we stopped, though I do acknowledge that I am horrible at the railroading style.


How are they not identical? The DM has the final and only say.
The DM does not have the final and only say. DM's shouldn't be tyrants. If someone tried to run my DM group in such a way, we would likely argue, and/or leave, and assign a different person to DM since a tyrant DM is a jerk.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-05, 09:28 PM
How are they not identical? The DM has the final and only say.

"No, the are identical because I just said they're identical. I'll repeat that now."

The logic. It is flawless.


Let me tell you why the DM doesn't have the only say:

Because if he has the only say in what happens, he's playing by himself. No one else will stay there to listen to him ramble about what is happening while the players sit and watch him.

In the games I run, players have a TON of input into what happens. Especially in Apocalypse World, which is the system I'm currently running alongside Stars Without Number.

In Apocalypse World, I introduced two characters: Fuze and Hopeful. I stated that the two were arguing. That was my say. Then I asked "What are they arguing about?" One of the players answered. That was then the truth. I ran with it, and it became a key point for the game. They could have been arguing about essentially nothing, but my players decided to make it something of vital importance to the town that eventually lead to a full-on violent overthrow of the town's mayor thanks to various player actions.

This was not reverse railroading, since the overthrow was not planned ahead of time nor guaranteed. It became a looming potential threat, but it could have been prevented in many ways. They just happened to prioritize other threats.

It wasn't railroading since...well, I didn't force it to happen. They chose to avoid it. There wasn't a Plot so much as a countdown to bad things happening. A chart of escalation.
1. Fuze and Hopefull are arguing a lot.
2. Fuze talks Mercer into overthrowing Chrome's hold on the gas farming.
3. Fuze pays off/manipulates members of the town guard into being on his side of things.
4. Fuze spreads rumors about Hopeful being incompetent.
5. Fuze springs his overthrow, attempting to be peaceful.

These aren't static must-happen events, but rather how things will progress if left unchecked. As it happened, things changed a LOT.

-The players nearly murdered Mercer, crippling him permanently. So his plan never happened, and in fact one of the PCs took over Chrome's thing.

-Fuze didn't get his peaceful overthrow and things got violent.

Granted, this was one of about 6 countdowns happening at the same time. They stopped 3 of them. It was a good time.

That there are only 1 or 2 ways to GM is a myth. Don't buy into it. It's a load of bs.

And as it happens, this countdown system works great in D&D, too.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-06, 01:58 PM
A clue is not innately a fact. People can misinterpret a fact and it can lead characters towards red herrings. Also, as characters generally need to make skill checks to identify clues it can lead to only getting partial information or find some clues but not others or getting other information that you think is a clue but is not. As for example of players misinterpreting a clue, in my last last session there was a rune on two of the victims chests, not being able to identify the rune themselves with their skill checks they went in search of a scholar and with a knowledge (local) check the paladin/monk was able to remember where the scholar generally was in the town, he then brought the scholar to the rune and learned information about what it means and what culture it is from. Eventually one of the questions was whether he was aware of anyone else with knowledge about that culture in the area, he paused for a moment and looked slightly panicked as he said no, I'm the only scholar on that culture in the region that they were currently in. Some then interpreted that to be that the scholar must have been involved in some way, as he is the only one with the knowledge to have done the act. Which is incorrect, the correct interpretation is that the people who had the knowledge on the subject are not in the region.

A clue is a fact. A person wrote that specific rune on a body for a reason, lets just say it was Bhall's mark of death used by the black cult of death. This is a fact. There is nothing to interpret. A person can be wrong about the rune, or they can be right, and there is only one right answer.

Note in your example the clue is, in fact, a fact and not ''interpreted'' by the players. The fact of what the rune is and means does not change, not matter what crazy, wacky stuff the players do or think.




That's an idiotic suggestion. Dice are what determine the success of an action. I did not change or control anything so the dice don't matter.

Here is how the math works: The Dm knows that the character has a plus five modifier to skill A, so the DM just needs to set the DC at 26 and that character will never make it. Though, even if the DC sets the DC at ''only'' say 20, there is a good chance the roll will fail. It is the same with things like AC, so the orc foe suddenly have very good armor. And for everything else too.

And even more so, as DM, you control all the NPCs. So when two characters, one a tank and one a squishy wizard, are in the open, it is the DM that decides who the goblin archers shoot at: will it be the tank that the goblins are almost sure to miss or the wizard that they are almost sure to hit and kill? Sure you can say ''the goblins shoot at the tank because that is what they were taught in goblin archery school'', but that is still the DM making the call.



But I haven't railroaded in several campaigns. So that's false. Please state some evidence or proof that supports your outrageous claim, rather than just stating your premise repeatedly.

And example of you railroading, using your example above is: the one and only expert. See that is railroading, your saying to the players ''oh, you want to know about the rune you must go to my set NPC'' and if the PC's try to go anywhere else you said ''nope, sorry, he is the only expert around''. Railroading again.

Have you posted other game examples?

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-06, 03:06 PM
It seems like the railroading problems are coming from the d&d system itself. Outside of d&d a lot of these problems disappear.

For instance in Apocalypse World, my bread and butter, you don't set any DCs. It's not a thing you can do. The moves have a set procedure and it is based on the PCs to meet the requirement or fail.

Having a key NPC and/or only one option to solve a problem is actually against the rules the GM must play by.

Yes, in AW, the GM must follow rules, and has moves just like the PCs do. In fact, it's the only system I've used that teaches how to GM.

When exactly does d&d set aside a few pages to explicitly teach how to DM? As far as I've ever seen, never. Which is why crappy DMs are a dime a dozen and good ones are rare.

To deal with a few of the arguments recently made:

"You could just set the DC to 26...etc"
This basically strikes me as:
"The possibility of railroading always exists, therefore it is always railroading!"
Hahahahahahaha what?

I'm blown away by how bad these examples are and how easy they are to pick apart.

Let me explain why this one, specifically, is wrong. I'll do so with an example that is equally bad logic of the same sort.
"Some cats can be tabby cats. Therefore, all cats are tabby cats."

And for the following point:
"Having only one person be the local expert on ancient southwestern elven linguistics is so unrealistic and railroady."
Ok.

Having only one expert on Divine Magic is stupid. Having only one conveniently close expert on Ritualistic Sacrificial Magic Performed By Ancient Demonologist Cults of the Southern Marshes.... that's specific enough that having the one expert be someone who isn't dead is the unrealistic part.
Of course, having one local expert doesn't mean the wizard or psion can't run over to the library and study it until they are the new local expert, unless you're a terrible GM. The party can also ignore the specifics and just go "eh, screw it." And not worry about the specifics and just investigate local hooded weirdos.
If you prevent their alternate solutions, you're railroading.
Offering one convenient solution is hand-holding, but not railroading, so long as you go with any alternative solutions they come up with.

If making sure a solution exists is railroading as much as making sure no solution at all exists, then yes. There is only railroading. Luckily, that isn't a true comparison. The former is making sure that something can potentially happen. It's when you only allow exactly one solution that problems arise. Providing one solution but permitting all solutions is a sign of being not-omniscient.

It's ok to be wrong, man. It means you have the opportunity to learn and grow. Being wrong is often a good thing.

What has been generally agreed upon is that railroading is:
Removing all player agency and forcing them to do exactly what you planned on them doing, and nothing else.

Most of the things you're talking about either aren't that, or are only potentially that (but usually aren't.)

Milo v3
2015-12-06, 06:16 PM
A clue is a fact. A person wrote that specific rune on a body for a reason, lets just say it was Bhall's mark of death used by the black cult of death. This is a fact. There is nothing to interpret. A person can be wrong about the rune, or they can be right, and there is only one right answer.
I'm honestly confused on how you think that people cannot misinterpret a clue.


Note in your example the clue is, in fact, a fact and not ''interpreted'' by the players. The fact of what the rune is and means does not change, not matter what crazy, wacky stuff the players do or think.
It was misinterpreted by the players.


Here is how the math works: The Dm knows that the character has a plus five modifier to skill A, so the DM just needs to set the DC at 26 and that character will never make it. Though, even if the DC sets the DC at ''only'' say 20, there is a good chance the roll will fail. It is the same with things like AC, so the orc foe suddenly have very good armor. And for everything else too.

And even more so, as DM, you control all the NPCs. So when two characters, one a tank and one a squishy wizard, are in the open, it is the DM that decides who the goblin archers shoot at: will it be the tank that the goblins are almost sure to miss or the wizard that they are almost sure to hit and kill? Sure you can say ''the goblins shoot at the tank because that is what they were taught in goblin archery school'', but that is still the DM making the call.
Except I did not pick those numbers to fit my desires, I based on it the Skill rules, NPC creation guidelines, NPC stats in monster mannuals/bestiaries, and CR system (you already knew I had the numbers come from the game mechanics so that was a stupid thing to say).


And example of you railroading, using your example above is: the one and only expert. See that is railroading, your saying to the players ''oh, you want to know about the rune you must go to my set NPC'' and if the PC's try to go anywhere else you said ''nope, sorry, he is the only expert around''. Railroading again.
What? No, it is just information (which I didn't decide, it says that as part of the adventure path, and even then it's rather sensible as they are in a random village not some city and the rather in depth guide to the village in the book only describes two scholars iirc). There is nothing stopping them from leaving the area and finding an individual outside the region with further information on the topic. They also had the opportunity to know the information themselves with knowledge checks so they didn't have to go to him at all. One character only failed the check by 2.

And again, simply giving information on the setting is Not railroading. You still haven't said how providing a setting is in itself railroading. You've simply claimed the same thing over and over despite the fact you seem to be using different definitions of every key word in this discussion, and despite the fact that other people are giving evidence that proves your premises are false.


Have you posted other game examples?
To be honest, I don't really see much point just repeatedly giving examples when you ignore everything people say to you. You are obviously just being a troll.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-06, 06:42 PM
Darth, per your description of railroading, there can actually be NO GAME without it. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the term "railroading"? 99.999% of players (and people on this board) define railroading in a completely different manner than you. If railroading is essential to playing the game, then there would be no such thing as "railroading".

Milo v3
2015-12-06, 07:20 PM
Darth, per your description of railroading, there can actually be NO GAME without it. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the term "railroading"? 99.999% of players (and people on this board) define railroading in a completely different manner than you. If railroading is essential to playing the game, then there would be no such thing as "railroading".

According to him, anything other than players being gods is railroading. His definition is ridiculous.

edit: Now that I think about it, I wonder how he'd view Lords of Creation games where everyone IS a god, and there doesn't have to be a GM but a story can still develop.

AMFV
2015-12-06, 08:35 PM
According to him, anything other than players being gods is railroading. His definition is ridiculous.

Then it seems to me, that we should probably try to pull the thread away from the other thread's argument and back towards "At what point is railroading bad," and "How do you guys define that line?" Darth Ultron pretty clearly defines almost all levels of DM dictation as good, which is fine for most games, and is something that can certainly work. But I think that there's more to this thing than just that.

For example, we're only talking about control that is not overt, there hasn't been too much discussion about how the actual railroading can work. Let's say we're going to have a really linear plot, then how can one carry out a linear plot WITHOUT railroading? I would argue it's certainly possible but what methodology would a DM use? How would you gus do it?

Milo v3
2015-12-06, 08:41 PM
Then it seems to me, that we should probably try to pull the thread away from the other thread's argument and back towards "At what point is railroading bad," and "How do you guys define that line?" Darth Ultron pretty clearly defines almost all levels of DM dictation as good, which is fine for most games, and is something that can certainly work. But I think that there's more to this thing than just that.

For example, we're only talking about control that is not overt, there hasn't been too much discussion about how the actual railroading can work. Let's say we're going to have a really linear plot, then how can one carry out a linear plot WITHOUT railroading? I would argue it's certainly possible but what methodology would a DM use? How would you gus do it?

I think a linear plot without railroading would likely only function through luck or Player-Buy-In, where players follow the story not because of manipulations but simply that they are interested in what will happen so have their characters go along.

AMFV
2015-12-06, 09:11 PM
I think a linear plot without railroading would likely only function through luck or Player-Buy-In, where players follow the story not because of manipulations but simply that they are interested in what will happen so have their characters go along.

So you don't think it's possible to run a linear plot without forcing the players do to things they don't want?

Milo v3
2015-12-06, 09:27 PM
So you don't think it's possible to run a linear plot without forcing the players do to things they don't want?
I just said two ways to do it without forcing the players to do things they don't want.... I am sincerely confused by your response. Perhaps there is a typo or something?

GrayDeath
2015-12-07, 01:53 PM
It seems to me, Darth Ultron, that you DO manage, contrary to your post, to misinterpret both clues (given by various other opinions) and Facts (your definition of Railroading is "A Game takes place where not everything is totally random") pretty well.


Ah well, I have taken part in many such discussions, wich is why I tried to point towards obvious, and mostly bad, examplex of Railroating without trying to define it.
Believe me, people, it never works. NEVER: :smallannoyed:

Even in my circle of well known players, where we tend to favour similar playing styles, we have varying "points of Linear Storytelling becoming Railroading obvious/unbeareable".

So how about we just post our own, clearly stated, interpretations of "when does it become Railroading for you" and be done with it?
That way we might actually achieve something positive: Collecting "Points of No Re... ah I mean Fun". :smallcool:

AMFV
2015-12-07, 02:14 PM
I just said two ways to do it without forcing the players to do things they don't want.... I am sincerely confused by your response. Perhaps there is a typo or something?

I meant, excluding formal player buy-in, or luck. Do you think such a thing might be possible?

BRC
2015-12-07, 02:38 PM
I think a linear plot without railroading would likely only function through luck or Player-Buy-In, where players follow the story not because of manipulations but simply that they are interested in what will happen so have their characters go along.

Define Manipulations?

Here, let me use an example of a game I ran last night.

D&D 5e Sci-Fi game.

The PC's are on a remote ice planet. They had their ship searched by some corrupt space cops who they had a deal with. They failed to make the checks to notice the space cops planting a bomb onboard their ship.

So, when the PC's tried to leave the planet, the bomb went off, and they found themselves in a ship with multiple systems failing and a big hole in the side. Fearing that the Space Cops would just shoot them if they landed, the PC's initiated an emergency FTL Jump (Trashing their ship even more in the process).


So, the Plot of the session was "The Star Marshals plant a Bomb on the PC's Ship". That defined the events of the sessions, and since the PC's had no reason (beyond general paranoia) to expect the Star Marshals to betray them, or to suspect the bomb on their ship. This is only the second session, so it's not like the assassination was a consequence of some decision the PC's made earlier beyond accepting the plot hook to begin with.


So, the PC's had to deal with a bomb on their ship, and so they did. So, did I, the evil schemer that I am, manipulate them into that position? Was it pure luck that I got them to do that? Was it "Player Buy-In", or did I just railroad them into an exploding spaceship.

Milo v3
2015-12-07, 07:33 PM
I meant, excluding formal player buy-in, or luck. Do you think such a thing might be possible?
No... Because player buy-in is if they are willing to follow a path purposely without needing to be manipulated, so... That would mean that they aren't interested in x story event and will likely do something else.


So, the PC's had to deal with a bomb on their ship, and so they did. So, did I, the evil schemer that I am, manipulate them into that position? Was it pure luck that I got them to do that? Was it "Player Buy-In", or did I just railroad them into an exploding spaceship.
Question, was your intention that they deal with the issue by emergency FTL Jump? Simply having a single event on it's own is not necessarily an example of any of those things, there is not enough information to tell reasonably.

Thrudd
2015-12-08, 09:35 PM
Then it seems to me, that we should probably try to pull the thread away from the other thread's argument and back towards "At what point is railroading bad," and "How do you guys define that line?" Darth Ultron pretty clearly defines almost all levels of DM dictation as good, which is fine for most games, and is something that can certainly work. But I think that there's more to this thing than just that.

For example, we're only talking about control that is not overt, there hasn't been too much discussion about how the actual railroading can work. Let's say we're going to have a really linear plot, then how can one carry out a linear plot WITHOUT railroading? I would argue it's certainly possible but what methodology would a DM use? How would you gus do it?

I guess the question is, how linear is "linear"? Is it still a linear plot if an unexpected action leads you to improvise a new path?

For instance, the GDQ series of modules might technically be a linear plot. Players are asked to investigate the concerning alliance of giants attacking the kingdom. They get information that leads them to the first dungeon location, where they find information to lead them to the next one, and then the next one. They ultimately find the masterminds of the giant invasion, and pursue them into the underdark. If the players accept the premise of the adventure, which is always required, then no real railroading should be needed. There isn't a sequence of events that need to happen, it is a sequence of locations which can each be approached in any manner the players want, each of which has a new piece of information to lead them to the next adventure location.

themaque
2015-12-08, 11:45 PM
I love the campaign Nights Below for 2nd ed D&D. I have updated it through multiple editions and have run it for several campaigns. This is a linear adventure.

Why is it a linear Adventure and not a railroad? Because No two runs of this campaign has been the same. Different groups players have taken different paths through the story. One crew militarized the entire region and one crew let it remain a quiet hamlet taking on the burden themselves.

If players are invested in the characters and story but still allowed to chose what road they travel, then you are telling a good linear adventure.

It's only a railroad if the only option is the one with tracks laid in steel. Hence the name.

goto124
2015-12-09, 02:37 AM
http://www.byov.com/Tom/Images/railroading.jpg

Darth Ultron
2015-12-10, 08:11 PM
I'm honestly confused on how you think that people cannot misinterpret a clue.


I never siad they could not, but the clue is still a fact.



Except I did not pick those numbers to fit my desires, I based on it the Skill rules, NPC creation guidelines, NPC stats in monster mannuals/bestiaries, and CR system (you already knew I had the numbers come from the game mechanics so that was a stupid thing to say).

I get that your saying you ''find'' all the stuff in the rules..somewhere. And even when the rules list the different DC for each type of door material, you..somehow..don't decide that any one particular door encountered by the players is made of wood, or metal or something else. The same way you...somehow...don't decide what monster lurks in a forest.

And even more so, you'd say you don't control the actions of the npcs/foes/monsters...somehow...even when you do.




What? No, it is just information (which I didn't decide, it says that as part of the adventure path, and even then it's rather sensible as they are in a random village not some city and the rather in depth guide to the village in the book only describes two scholars iirc). There is nothing stopping them from leaving the area and finding an individual outside the region with further information on the topic. They also had the opportunity to know the information themselves with knowledge checks so they didn't have to go to him at all. One character only failed the check by 2.


Did you limit the players choices...check. Did you force them to do something...check. That is railroading.



And again, simply giving information on the setting is Not railroading. You still haven't said how providing a setting is in itself railroading. You've simply claimed the same thing over and over despite the fact you seem to be using different definitions of every key word in this discussion, and despite the fact that other people are giving evidence that proves your premises are false.


Because the DM decides setting information. Who decides there was only one sage in town? The DM. Even if that is what the book says, the DM can change things or add things.


Darth, per your description of railroading, there can actually be NO GAME without it. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the term "railroading"? 99.999% of players (and people on this board) define railroading in a completely different manner than you. If railroading is essential to playing the game, then there would be no such thing as "railroading".

And that is exactly my point. All games with stories and plots must railroad to move the game along. And the railroading is fine, as long as the players are happy or just don't think about it or just play along. It is when you get the complaining players that want to ruin the game that you get railroading even mentioned. The player might have a character encounter dozens of locked doors, but when they encounter one and they don't ''like'' the fact that it is locked they will cry railroading.


I think a linear plot without railroading would likely only function through luck or Player-Buy-In, where players follow the story not because of manipulations but simply that they are interested in what will happen so have their characters go along.

I think this is the only two ways that don't require railroading...and even the player buy in will need it quite often.

Milo v3
2015-12-11, 05:26 AM
I get that your saying you ''find'' all the stuff in the rules..somewhere. And even when the rules list the different DC for each type of door material, you..somehow..don't decide that any one particular door encountered by the players is made of wood, or metal or something else. The same way you...somehow...don't decide what monster lurks in a forest.
It's generally rather easy to determine whether something would have a wooden or metal door based on the area it's in. But regardless, none of those things are railroading in themselves.


And even more so, you'd say you don't control the actions of the npcs/foes/monsters...somehow...even when you do.
I... never suggested I don't control the actions of NPCs/Foes/Monsters. Also, controlling an NPC is not railroading...


Did you limit the players choices...
No I didn't... What did I limit?


Did you force them to do something...
Again no... What did I force them to do?


That is railroading.
You're honestly annoying me now. This will be my last post in this thread because it is getting difficult trying to not be abrasive in this environment.


Because the DM decides setting information. Who decides there was only one sage in town? The DM. Even if that is what the book says, the DM can change things or add things.
There was more than one sage, just only one sage of that area of knowledge. Since that's what the book says and I saw no reason to change it, so I didn't change it. My GM'ing style is "okay, put the pieces on the board and then lets see what the players do."



All games with stories and plots must railroad to move the game along
Bull. You can have stories and plots in games without railroading, they just wont linear superplanned out ones.

Florian
2015-12-11, 07:59 AM
I get the feeling that what he goes on and on about being railroading is either creating limited enviroments or actions-decision-outcome scenarios where one has to lead to the other, no other solution beyond the players willfully breaking that chain.

hifidelity2
2015-12-11, 08:26 AM
Originally Posted by Milo v3 View Post
I think a linear plot without railroading would likely only function through luck or Player-Buy-In, where players follow the story not because of manipulations but simply that they are interested in what will happen so have their characters go along.

I disagree. Assuming the players want a game then

simple Dungeon

entrance----Room1-----2-----3----4----final room

This is a linear adventure. How the PC's handle it is up to them. They can charge in, go in stealth, summon (something) and send it in etc

Railroading this.
This is the DM saying you will go in in this party format. This trap in room1 will hurt you so no matter what yo9u do it will go off, etc etc

Milo v3
2015-12-11, 08:46 AM
I disagree. Assuming the players want a game then

simple Dungeon

entrance----Room1-----2-----3----4----final room

This is a linear adventure. How the PC's handle it is up to them. They can charge in, go in stealth, summon (something) and send it in etc

Railroading this.
This is the DM saying you will go in in this party format. This trap in room1 will hurt you so no matter what yo9u do it will go off, etc etc

I said I wouldn't post again in this thread, but I will clarify this. That is not a plot or story, that is not really a linear adventure in the terms that were being discussed. That is a dungeon. The dungeon would have to be part of the adventure for it to be applicable to the discussion, which wouldn't be difficult to impliment.

For example, the king could say "A faction of violent rebels is in x dungeon and I want you guys to deal with it" and you plan for once they are in the final room the players find out that the rebels are actually justified in their actions. But then, the players can veer off the linear adventure, they might decide to disobey the king, they might reach the dungeon and set fire to the outside and try to smoke them out, they might repeatedly cast Create Water until the dungeon fills up, they might make a simulacrum or planar ally do the adventure for them.

Now, you can either have the game continue as according to the players actions and have your linear adventure derail, or will you railroad (overtly or covertly) to keep the players on the railroad so they get to the setpiece of the dungeon?

themaque
2015-12-11, 07:54 PM
You're honestly annoying me now. This will be my last post in this thread because it is getting difficult trying to not be abrasive in this environment.


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.

Space Pumpkin
2015-12-11, 08:04 PM
Okay, I have to say this. Darth Ultron is totally Jedipotter with an alternate account. I know it will probably get me banned but I lurk a lot on these forums, and the similarities are too huge to ignore any longer.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-11, 11:14 PM
I think Darth may be confusing two things:
GMing and Railroading.
GMing is essential to play most trpgs.
Railroading is not.


Making or choosing a setting isn't railroading. It's GMing. The game HAS to happen somewhere. It is a needed part of virtually all trpgs.

Making the story happen in only these specific places that the characters must visit is Railroading. That is not necessary to play D&D or any trpg.

Making challenges suitable to the situation and characters as they currently stand is GMing. Even putting obstacles they can't currently surmount can be GMing. (I'm currently running a hexcrawl that features areas that are too dangerous for any of the characters right now. But they may soon be ready to tackle the challenges there, and I hope they do.) It is a much-needed part of play (for D&D).

Using ridiculously high DCs to corral and wrangle the PCs into doing what you want and only what you want is Railroading. It is not necessary for a trpg.


Of course, my preferred system somewhat laughs at these.

In Apocalypse World and Powered by the Apocalypse Systems, it is VERY common that the players decide the setting alongside the GM.

In PbtA systems, you don't set the DCs. In fact, a lot of times you don't even make a good portion of the NPCs. The players do.

In Apocalypse World specifically, one class can instantly create, through the right selection of options, 200-300 NPCs. Not all named or needed, but all in a town that the player playing that class designs, not the GM.

The GM serves to throw in problems. Conflict. Specifically, to find the places where the characters and their things are vulnerable and push there. Every town lacks something. Water, safety, money, human decency, something. The GM finds those places of want and pushes.

Not because that's how I GM it.
But because the GM in Apocalypse World is treated like a player, with rules they must obey and moves they can employ just like the other players.

It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I stand in defiance of the notion that I MUST railroad to have fun.

I didn't decide that Fuse and Wisher were arguing about how to run Bigg Sitee. The players did. I just figured out the order in which that situation was probably going to deteriorate, and adjusted that countdown as they changed the playing field and/or eliminated that problem.

I didn't tell the player that their character once got attacked by a slaver named Smokey. They told me that.

I didn't decide that Mercer was going to fall out a window. Dia talked him into jumping on his own.

I didn't decide that they needed to hunt down Smokey's gang. They did. I just told them it was a problem. One of many.

I didn't plan on Dia falling for the local drug dealer. But she did. And I sure as hell didn't count on Sully giving him a gun when he finally decided to man up be a hero.


So yeah, I stand in blatant defiance of the notion that in order to have a storyline I have to plan it all ahead of time. Screw that. That campaign had a great story and I planned maybe 30% of it. The rest was a group effort. A conversation. And it was great and I CANNOT WAIT to run AW again.

This is where I would drop the mic, if I had one.

Quertus
2015-12-12, 09:29 AM
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.

Thank you for that post. I have been struggling with how to put that into words.

I agree DU is using a different definition of railroading. I think his version would make for a great philosophical discussion - one I'd like to be a part of, one with interesting ramifications IRL. But I feel like a discussion of the conscious and subconscious effects of the GM's intentions / style / definition of fun / personality / etc, and the ways that limits or predetermines certain outcomes, probably belongs in a different thread from "GMs who consciously don't allow reasonable actions and RAW to work in order to force a given challenge to have exactly one solution, and how that hurts the game". But perhaps I'm wrong.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-12, 09:44 AM
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.


Yup. That is what I'm saying. Anything the DM does to force, guide, influence, steer, or entice is Railroading.




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.

Yes, all agreed.




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 myself don't see a line. The game can't have any plot or story unless the DM forces, guides, steers, influences or otherwise effects the players decisions and character actions.

I really do wonder where others draw the line, why is one thing good and another thing suddenly bad?

Like the DM has a group of thugs attack the character. The characters loose the fight and are captured.

1. If the attack is ''random'' and the ''dice decide'' things and the DM had no ''plan'' to capture the characters, then most people are saying this is Not Railroading.

2. If the attack is planned and the ''dice decide'' things and the DM only went as far as ''making a challenging encounter using the rules'', then most people are saying this is Not Railroading.

3. If the attack is planned and the ''dice decide'' things, and the DM creates an optimized capture thug squad of NPCs, then most people are saying this is Not Railroading.

4. If the attack is planned and the DM, not the dice, decides everything, then most people are saying this is Railroading.

They all look the same to me. Do people think that 1-3 are not railroading as there is the false illusion of chance? Like if in 1-3 if the players rolled all 20's they would have changed the out come(even though it would be impossible for a group of people to roll dozens of 20s in a row)?

And even beyond the rolls, are the DM's actions. How do the thugs attack? Do they gang up on the tough characters? Target the weak characters? Even if the DM does the (false) fairness of five thugs per character, five thugs is a lot different to a half giant barbarian and a halfling diviner.

And a lot comes down to just player complaining. If the optimized thugs beat up a character, about half of the players will just say ''ok, lost that combat'' and game on. The other half will whine and complain ''Railroading'' as they feel there was ''no way'' for them to win the fight and it was ''not fair'' that all the thugs with whips had the improved trip feat.

So I say what line? There is no line. The line is an illusion.

RyanW1019
2015-12-12, 10:42 AM
I feel like very little has been accomplished in the last 2 pages of posts here, it's just arguing around and around in a circle.

For what it's worth, I loved ImNotTrevor's post about "give NPCs wants, not destinies"--it changed my view on how to DM. I love the idea of sandbox campaigns, though I haven't DMed before, and your method sounds like the perfect way to set up a game world--set several major players in a region, each with their own wants and needs, let the NPCs start acting on them, and then throw the players into the mix. Do they have the ability to shape the plot? Absolutely, but if they don't try to have some agency all of these different characters will start playing off each other organically.

I feel like railroading is a case of "you know it when you see it". Like, putting an evil lich in a castle somewhere isn't railroading, since the game has to have an antagonist. Giving the characters no option but to go there and kill him is, especially if you only have 1 way of going about it. The players can do what they want, but that can lead to stories like this one: http://i.imgur.com/JlYk3zg.png

As long as the players are allowed to try any idea they want, it's not railroading. They don't have to succeed, and may end up forced onto a more successful plan, but they should be allowed to try.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-12, 10:12 PM
I feel like railroading is a case of "you know it when you see it".

As long as the players are allowed to try any idea they want, it's not railroading. They don't have to succeed, and may end up forced onto a more successful plan, but they should be allowed to try.

The problem is your definition of railroading is something you see and not like. And it is random and vague. You'd say one thing is railroading, and another is not....based on what? Your feelings?

Take the one of the most common types of complaints of railroading: The players are forced to do the DM's plot or not play the game.

So the game is set in a tiny farm town of like 200 people, and has the basic story of an evil undead awakens nearby to threaten all that is good or alive. Like basic fantasy plot #3. So the players, for whatever reason, don't want to follow that plot. So the characters wander around town looking for another adventure. But there is no other adventure to be found. It is a simple, normal, boring small town with nothing adventure worthy going on, except the undead one.

Now a lot of people will say that is railroading. Some people will think it is normal for a small town to have ''no adventures, except one'' in it. But it is just a matter of personal taste, feelings, and so on.

Florian
2015-12-13, 03:28 PM
I feel like very little has been accomplished in the last 2 pages of posts here, it's just arguing around and around in a circle.

For what it's worth, I loved ImNotTrevor's post about "give NPCs wants, not destinies"--it changed my view on how to DM. I love the idea of sandbox campaigns, though I haven't DMed before, and your method sounds like the perfect way to set up a game world--set several major players in a region, each with their own wants and needs, let the NPCs start acting on them, and then throw the players into the mix. Do they have the ability to shape the plot? Absolutely, but if they don't try to have some agency all of these different characters will start playing off each other organically.

I feel like railroading is a case of "you know it when you see it". Like, putting an evil lich in a castle somewhere isn't railroading, since the game has to have an antagonist. Giving the characters no option but to go there and kill him is, especially if you only have 1 way of going about it. The players can do what they want, but that can lead to stories like this one: http://i.imgur.com/JlYk3zg.png

As long as the players are allowed to try any idea they want, it's not railroading. They don't have to succeed, and may end up forced onto a more successful plan, but they should be allowed to try.

There´re two issues here, especially with "you know it when you see it".

One thing is the issue of "creative constraint". There actually must be some "borders" or "funnels" to get even the most creative player with an agenda going. That can be the simple fact of a map, a dungeon or something like "the Titanic is sinking...".

The other thing is players "feeling railroaded", mostly by running against some borders or boundaries and either don´t understanding or don´t accepting them.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-13, 03:40 PM
There´re two issues here, especially with "you know it when you see it".



I like to see an example of how one thing is railroading, and how the exact same thing is not railroading, myself.

It seems like lots of people are saying they never, ever railroad, as they force, guide, steer, influence or otherwise effect the players decisions and character actions. But they will immediately say another person is doing it, when they do the exact same thing, based on nothing other then they don't like it.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-13, 05:19 PM
Like the DM has a group of thugs attack the character. The characters loose the fight and are captured.

1. If the attack is ''random'' and the ''dice decide'' things and the DM had no ''plan'' to capture the characters, then most people are saying this is Not Railroading.

2. If the attack is planned and the ''dice decide'' things and the DM only went as far as ''making a challenging encounter using the rules'', then most people are saying this is Not Railroading.

3. If the attack is planned and the ''dice decide'' things, and the DM creates an optimized capture thug squad of NPCs, then most people are saying this is Not Railroading.

4. If the attack is planned and the DM, not the dice, decides everything, then most people are saying this is Railroading.

The big problem with this:
Your assumption comes from the fact that all of these MUST have the same outcome. And because they have the same outcome, they are all railroading. That's some flimsy logic.

Scenario 1 can go several ways. PC actions matter. Dice rolls matter. So long as everyone is playing by the same agreed-upon rules, things will happen according to those rules and the dice. There is no need to put quotes around everything. Even if the attack isn't random, but a reasonable reaction to PC actions (They stole these thugs' money yesterday and escaped capture then, and spent all day today boozing without continuing to run), then this is just GMing like a normal person. Multiple outcomes are possible, and they rely on PC decisions and dice rolls to be resolved.

Scenario 2 is the exact same thing as scenario one except that the attack was not rolled for randomly. "Planned" is a fuzzy term that often means "Planned out a long time ago." And in this case is surreptitiously excluding "This is probably the correct NPC response, so it is happening." Sure, that requires the GM to make an in-character decision. So do the players. This is not outside the realm of what it means to play a trpg.

Scenario 3, most people say IS railroading. Just soft railroading. UNLESS it has been decided that everything and everyone is high-optimization. If you do this without that mutual agreement among everyone at the table, then you're just doing Railroading Lite. Still railroading. The possibility of multiple outcomes still exists, but is very small.

Situation 4 has no chance of multiple outcomes. There is only one possible outcome to that scenario. And it will come no matter what the PCs do.

Railroading is not worldbuilding. It is not the path to an outcome.

Railroading is the forced, deceptive, and/or unrealistic minimization of player agency.

Having only two outcomes to a coin flip is not forced, it is simply how reality works. Now, if you force them into relying on a coin flip to decide their fate, then you are railroading. If you force the outcome to be Heads or force it to be tails, then you are railroading.

Forcing the characters to choose between Awful Option A and Great Option B when a myriad of other choices could be made, is Forced and eliminates player agency.

Situation 1 does not forcefully, deceptively, or unrealistically minimize player agency.

Neither does Situation 2. Saying they have no choice in being attacked is silly. They also have no choice in whether or not water is wet or if lava is hot.

Situation 3 MIGHT. If done deceptively (The players don't know that this squad will be optimized because such has not previously been the case) then it IS, since the goal is to minimize player agency and influence towards one outcome.

Situation 4 DOES. It is forceful minimization of character choice, plainly and obviously.

It isn't the outcome that matters. Its the POSSIBILITY of many different outcomes that matters.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-13, 08:39 PM
The big problem with this:
Your assumption comes from the fact that all of these MUST have the same outcome. And because they have the same outcome, they are all railroading. That's some flimsy logic.

Well, everyone agrees that if the characters have an encounter, defeat the foes and have nothing negative done to them, it is not Railroading.




Scenario 1 can go several ways. PC actions matter. Dice rolls matter. So long as everyone is playing by the same agreed-upon rules, things will happen according to those rules and the dice. There is no need to put quotes around everything. Even if the attack isn't random, but a reasonable reaction to PC actions (They stole these thugs' money yesterday and escaped capture then, and spent all day today boozing without continuing to run), then this is just GMing like a normal person. Multiple outcomes are possible, and they rely on PC decisions and dice rolls to be resolved.

Pc actions and dice rolls only matter if the DM allows them to matter. The DM is not bound by the same rules as the players.




Scenario 3, most people say IS railroading. Just soft railroading. UNLESS it has been decided that everything and everyone is high-optimization. If you do this without that mutual agreement among everyone at the table, then you're just doing Railroading Lite. Still railroading. The possibility of multiple outcomes still exists, but is very small.


This brings up the problem, however, of what is ''high'' optimization. What is ''medium'' optimization? ''Low'' optimization? No optimization? Again it will just fall right under ''if the players don't like it, they will say high optimization.''




Railroading is the forced, deceptive, and/or unrealistic minimization of player agency.

That is going to be too vague. If the players want the Sword of Doom, and the DM says it is in the center of the Maze of Madness, is that railroading or world building? Good players will say world building and bad players will cry railroading as they are forced to go through the maze.

And DMing in general is ''deceptive'', as the DM does not OOC tell the players things.





Having only two outcomes to a coin flip is not forced, it is simply how reality works. Now, if you force them into relying on a coin flip to decide their fate, then you are railroading. If you force the outcome to be Heads or force it to be tails, then you are railroading.

Forcing the characters to choose between Awful Option A and Great Option B when a myriad of other choices could be made, is Forced and eliminates player agency.

Except the game reality is controlled by the DM.





It isn't the outcome that matters. Its the POSSIBILITY of many different outcomes that matters.

Ok, so I think I might have a first draft of defining Railroading:

Railroading: When a DM willing or by accident allows the players to realize that they have no free will or ''player agency''.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-13, 09:11 PM
Well, everyone agrees that if the characters have an encounter, defeat the foes and have nothing negative done to them, it is not Railroading.
Allow me to disprove you:
I disagree. Any guarantee of only one possible outcome is railroading, positive or negative.



Pc actions and dice rolls only matter if the DM allows them to matter. The DM is not bound by the same rules as the players.
Then why are you playing at all?
The only time to say No is when it's something that is either:
1. So off-the-wall that it's obviously a joke or
2. Finding a way to manage the action within the rules would take waaay too long. And you tell them that.

The DM is bound by the SAME rules as the players: Those of the system they play and any add-ons that the collective group has agreed upon. You cannot decide that some of those rules don't apply to you. It's a crappy way to GM and won't make for a good time.

You operate within the rules of your system, or you're not actually playing that game at all. You're doing something entirely different.



This brings up the problem, however, of what is ''high'' optimization. What is ''medium'' optimization? ''Low'' optimization? No optimization? Again it will just fall right under ''if the players don't like it, they will say high optimization.''

If my players think I optimized, I'll show them the NPCs they fought. Why hide it? We're a bunch of dudes playing a game. If they feel cheated, I have the unique burden of being transparent about it. If I genuinely intended to cause a particular outcome, then that's me railroading. If I happened to make a character unusually strong without noticing, and this guy is seriously thrashing the party, there is nothing wrong with saying "Oh, oops. I think I made this guy really really strong on accident. A giant nerf bat whacks him on the head and he seems like a less ridiculous challenge now." And have a laugh about it because we all make mistakes.



That is going to be too vague. If the players want the Sword of Doom, and the DM says it is in the center of the Maze of Madness, is that railroading or world building? Good players will say world building and bad players will cry railroading as they are forced to go through the maze.

This is vast oversimplification and false dichotomy.
The Maze of Madness is where it is, sure. If that has always been the case, no foul. If you stick it there specifically to limit their options, railroading.
If you allow them to use problem solving to solve the maze in an interesting way, then you aren't railroading.
If you force them to run the maze and do exactly all of the encounters you planned for it and they have no alternative way of solving the problem, then you're railroading. Not hard.


And DMing in general is ''deceptive'', as the DM does not OOC tell the players things.
Over generalization and manipulation of a word. Keeping information hidden is not universally "deceptive" which has a much intended negative connotation.
Keeping information away from them that they SHOULD be aware of and keeping things hidden so that they don't have information they need ("You Didn't Ask if there was anyone in the room with you!") is not kosher.





Except the game reality is controlled by the DM.
The sky is also blue. Some things are what they are by necessity. And that's not a counterpoint to the distinction.
If you don't follow the rules of the system, you aren't playing the system anymore. You're being a turd.


Ok, so I think I might have a first draft of defining Railroading:

Railroading: When a DM willing or by accident allows the players to realize that they have no free will or ''player agency''.

Why do you even play these games with people, then? It makes as much sense to play them with rocks. Or play with action figures by yourself.

It's like Nihilism for DMs.

"Nothing you do matters, the DM is the true master. There's no reason to show up because it will all end exactly as the DM wants it to. Always."

It's not particularly deep and certainly makes for terrible GMing if you think you're anything more than one of the dudes at the table playing pretend with dice. If you feel the need to justify everything you're doing to control you players by saying all forms and levels of control are equivalent, YOU have a problem. That's why hardly anyone agrees with you and why most of us are put off by your argument. You aren't seeing the truth of the matter, you're not the smartest of us all for recognizing the futility.

You're trying to put on your Neitzche pants and play the sophisticated-depression-game. And it's not working.

I'm sorry your players have no agency. Mine do.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-13, 09:38 PM
The DM is bound by the SAME rules as the players: Those of the system they play and any add-ons that the collective group has agreed upon. You cannot decide that some of those rules don't apply to you. It's a crappy way to GM and won't make for a good time.

You operate within the rules of your system, or you're not actually playing that game at all. You're doing something entirely different.

Except the rules of games like D&D say the DM can do anything. If the Dm wants a goblin to have a sword +1 or a half dragon template, then 'pop' the goblin has one. Players can not do that.




If my players think I optimized, I'll show them the NPCs they fought. Why hide it? We're a bunch of dudes playing a game. If they feel cheated, I have the unique burden of being transparent about it. If I genuinely intended to cause a particular outcome, then that's me railroading. If I happened to make a character unusually strong without noticing, and this guy is seriously thrashing the party, there is nothing wrong with saying "Oh, oops. I think I made this guy really really strong on accident. A giant nerf bat whacks him on the head and he seems like a less ridiculous challenge now." And have a laugh about it because we all make mistakes.

This falls under the idea that it is always better if the player just don't know anything about the game details. And sure a charismatic, deceptive or clever DM can convince the players of anything.




This is vast oversimplification and false dichotomy.
The Maze of Madness is where it is, sure. If that has always been the case, no foul. If you stick it there specifically to limit their options, railroading.
If you allow them to use problem solving to solve the maze in an interesting way, then you aren't railroading.
If you force them to run the maze and do exactly all of the encounters you planned for it and they have no alternative way of solving the problem, then you're railroading. Not hard.

First off, almost nothing in the whole game exists until the DM says it does. Even if ''in the game world'' it has existed for 1,000 years. It is utterly impossible for a DM to tell the players everything about everything before a game.

And, 99% of the time, the players can only have the characters do something one way. Unless your playing a super epic game where the characters can move 100 trillion tons of earth, the only way to get an item in the center of the maze is to ''got through the maze and all it's encounters''.

So by that definition, all games are railroaded games.



Over generalization and manipulation of a word. Keeping information hidden is not universally "deceptive" which has a much intended negative connotation.
Keeping information away from them that they SHOULD be aware of and keeping things hidden so that they don't have information they need ("You Didn't Ask if there was anyone in the room with you!") is not kosher.

This is a common problem, that only comes up with bad players. Take a tavern full of NPC's:

The characters walk into a full tavern, in broad daylight and the DM says ''the tavern is full of people'', but does not take a whole hour to describe in detail every single NPC in the tavern.. The players have their characters do something beyond stupid, like slaughter an NPC in the middle of the crowded tavern. And then the DM has all the NPC's react to this. Then the players will cry ''railroad'' as it ''was not fair'' as they were not told who else was in the tavern, and they will say they ''should not have to ask for details when they are being stupid, crazy murderhobos''.





I'm sorry your players have no agency. Mine do.

i'll guess what you mean here is you let your players get away with most things most of the time...maybe all the time. It's one way to run a game.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-13, 10:11 PM
Except the rules of games like D&D say the DM can do anything. If the Dm wants a goblin to have a sword +1 or a half dragon template, then 'pop' the goblin has one. Players can not do that.
Where does it say that?
It actually doesn't ever explicitly say the DM can do anything. And more importantly one group of people allows you to do anything:
The players.

Sure. Have them fight the Terrasque at level 1. And expect them to flip you off and go home. Then you aren't playing anything at all.
The players ALWAYS have the agency to just leave. And that power will always trump the DMs powers over the game world. No players means no game. So you play by the rules like a sane person or people get mad and you don't play at all.




This falls under the idea that it is always better if the player just don't know anything about the game details. And sure a charismatic, deceptive or clever DM can convince the players of anything.
Who actually espouses this idea? Aside from you, obviously. Players need to know things.




First off, almost nothing in the whole game exists until the DM says it does. Even if ''in the game world'' it has existed for 1,000 years. It is utterly impossible for a DM to tell the players everything about everything before a game.
It sure is. And yet, it's not railroading so long as you do not make that decision for the purpose of limiting their options.



And, 99% of the time, the players can only have the characters do something one way. Unless your playing a super epic game where the characters can move 100 trillion tons of earth, the only way to get an item in the center of the maze is to ''got through the maze and all it's encounters''.

allow me to disprove you handily.

-Dig through the walls of the maze with Move Earth spells.

-use same spell to dig down to the center of the maze.

-Open air maze? Go over it.

-hire a bunch of people to storm the maze as a group for you.

-Hire the same bunch of people to dig through the maze, and you just protect them.



So by that definition, all games are railroaded games.

Quite the leap in logic based on a flawed premise.


This is a common problem, that only comes up with bad players. Take a tavern full of NPC's:

The characters walk into a full tavern, in broad daylight and the DM says ''the tavern is full of people'', but does not take a whole hour to describe in detail every single NPC in the tavern.. The players have their characters do something beyond stupid, like slaughter an NPC in the middle of the crowded tavern. And then the DM has all the NPC's react to this. Then the players will cry ''railroad'' as it ''was not fair'' as they were not told who else was in the tavern, and they will say they ''should not have to ask for details when they are being stupid, crazy murderhobos''.

Solve this problem in one easy step:
Before play, say the follwing:
"This world will react realistically to what you do. If you walk into a crowded tavern and stab someone in the face, people will be understandably upset. If you steal things and get caught, they will be upset. If you act like an idiot, NPCs will treat you like an idiot. Capiche? Alright. Let's play."



i'll guess what you mean here is you let your players get away with most things most of the time...maybe all the time. It's one way to run a game.
That's a great wild extrapolation.
I let players attempt nearly anything that isn't obviously a joke.
But they may not succeed.
"Yes. You can try to do a triple backflip without a running start across the grand canyon. I can almost guarantee you will fail and die. But if you REALLY REALLY want to try, you can."
They can be stupid if they want to. Amd they'll face appropriate consequences.
If the wizard starts shooting giant flaming meteors at some giants, the giants might decide the guy throwing FREAKIN METEORS is major threat.
This happened. Player complained. I explained the logic and he had to agree.


Treat your players like rational people rather than whiny children and it may work out better for you.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-13, 10:37 PM
I like to see an example of how one thing is railroading, and how the exact same thing is not railroading, myself.

It seems like lots of people are saying they never, ever railroad, as they force, guide, steer, influence or otherwise effect the players decisions and character actions. But they will immediately say another person is doing it, when they do the exact same thing, based on nothing other then they don't like it.

I figured it out Darth. What you're talking about is driving the story. The GM is still behind the wheel, but the other passengers can suggest different roads to take. Like maybe there's traffic up ahead, and the guy in the backseat tells the GMDriver about another road, so they take that to get to the same destination.

That's the thing about a railroad. There's only one way. If something obstructs the path, there's no easy way to go around it.

I think that's the key to what most people see as railroading. If it's visible to the players that the world isn't acting "realistically", then it's railroading. If you can "drive" them there using an alternate path, then great! And if they suggest a different place to eat, the person driving the car can do that. The guy driving the train can't just lay new railroad tracks.

Edit: Also, I would love to see a session report by one of Darth's players. :)

goto124
2015-12-14, 02:26 AM
The guy driving the train can't just lay new railroad tracks.

http://www.michaelbransonsmith.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/spare-track.gif

Florian
2015-12-14, 04:37 AM
I like to see an example of how one thing is railroading, and how the exact same thing is not railroading, myself.

It seems like lots of people are saying they never, ever railroad, as they force, guide, steer, influence or otherwise effect the players decisions and character actions. But they will immediately say another person is doing it, when they do the exact same thing, based on nothing other then they don't like it.

Most of that is based on the kind of social contract that is in effect for a given table.
The "dm can do anything" hinges on what the dm as a fellow player is allowed to do. It is an important difference between the players participating in linear storytelling on their own free will, thereby knowing what the end goal of something is (best example would be an Adventure Path) or them being thrown into a situation that leads to a certain, predetermined end goal. Only expection to this is, when this logical end goal is a natural result and is based on the physics/reality of the setting that is used.

Things that are linear by their very nature are not railroading. "The Titanic sinks" is simply something that happens based on the physics. "You are on the Titanic, it sinks and you will live thru 5 hours of futile attempts to save it until you have to swim for your very lifes" hinges on the players knowing that and participating in that scenario or the dm forcing that scenario onto them, not telling them that this ship will not be saves from sinking.

AMFV
2015-12-14, 08:38 AM
Where does it say that?
It actually doesn't ever explicitly say the DM can do anything. And more importantly one group of people allows you to do anything:
The players.


Point of order. 1st Edition DMG, 2nd Edition DMG, 3.0 Edition DMG, 3.5 Edition DMG...

All of them to the best of my memory spell that explicitly. Not disagreeing with the rest of your point, just correcting a pretty egregious slip-up. Most games have some variation of Rule Zero posted (although some of those state it should be group consensus)

Edit: Also in response to the earlier objection by Darth Ultron. I am entirely interested in "feelings" in fact I stated in the very first post that I did not think there was one true specific definition of railroading. I'm interested in where various people draw that line and why.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-14, 09:12 AM
Point of order. 1st Edition DMG, 2nd Edition DMG, 3.0 Edition DMG, 3.5 Edition DMG...

All of them to the best of my memory spell that explicitly. Not disagreeing with the rest of your point, just correcting a pretty egregious slip-up. Most games have some variation of Rule Zero posted (although some of those state it should be group consensus)

Edit: Also in response to the earlier objection by Darth Ultron. I am entirely interested in "feelings" in fact I stated in the very first post that I did not think there was one true specific definition of railroading. I'm interested in where various people draw that line and why.

Can you quote the page number where it says "The DM can do whatever he wants."

That is different from Rule 0, which places the DM as final arbitrator of rules disputes and operator of the game. He still has to operate within some boundary of the rules. He doesn't get to flippantly decide in the middle of the game that the Fighter rolls 1d12 during his attack rolls while everyone else rolls d20s because He Just Wanted To. That causes problems and means you're playing a different game.

Giving the DM free reign to do ANYTHING, and all of it is kosher because the DM did it, is a very different thing that I have never seen stated. Rule 0 is not "The DM can do whatever the hell he wants, when he wants, because DM." And if it is that, then the weird powertrips DMs go on are the fault of D&D and the system should be avoided like the plague if you don't want to have an awful time.

Milo v3
2015-12-14, 09:19 AM
And if it is that, then the weird powertrips DMs go on are the fault of D&D and the system should be avoided like the plague if you don't want to have an awful time.
This reminds me of when I was reading through the Exalted rules and it has a page with the biggest most important rules on it. Most important: The storyteller is Always right, no matter what, and this is the most important thing ever and this can never change.
Second most important: People having fun.

... they seriously put DM is God as more important than people enjoying the damn game.

AMFV
2015-12-14, 09:52 AM
Can you quote the page number where it says "The DM can do whatever he wants."

That is different from Rule 0, which places the DM as final arbitrator of rules disputes and operator of the game. He still has to operate within some boundary of the rules. He doesn't get to flippantly decide in the middle of the game that the Fighter rolls 1d12 during his attack rolls while everyone else rolls d20s because He Just Wanted To. That causes problems and means you're playing a different game.

Giving the DM free reign to do ANYTHING, and all of it is kosher because the DM did it, is a very different thing that I have never seen stated. Rule 0 is not "The DM can do whatever the hell he wants, when he wants, because DM." And if it is that, then the weird powertrips DMs go on are the fault of D&D and the system should be avoided like the plague if you don't want to have an awful time.

The rule states that the DM is the final arbitrator of the rules and that he or she is allowed to modify the rules at his or her discretion. That means pretty explicitly that he or she COULD do whatever he wants.

You're assertion that this means that "powertrip DMs are the fault of the system" is then partially true. Yes, the system does allow the DM to have a great deal of power in both altering the rules and in enforcing them. But you the group are the ones that choose to play or not play as the case may be with the DM. In D&D though the DM does have complete authority to modify the rules.

Rules Compendium Pg. 5, is a pretty good citation, it does back the current rules, but it gives the DM complete leeway to modify them as necessary. Although it argues that when a current rule exists it's often not necessary.

BWR
2015-12-14, 10:47 AM
Can you quote the page number where it says "The DM can do whatever he wants."

That is different from Rule 0, which places the DM as final arbitrator of rules disputes and operator of the game. He still has to operate within some boundary of the rules. He doesn't get to flippantly decide in the middle of the game that the Fighter rolls 1d12 during his attack rolls while everyone else rolls d20s because He Just Wanted To. That causes problems and means you're playing a different game.

Giving the DM free reign to do ANYTHING, and all of it is kosher because the DM did it, is a very different thing that I have never seen stated. Rule 0 is not "The DM can do whatever the hell he wants, when he wants, because DM." And if it is that, then the weird powertrips DMs go on are the fault of D&D and the system should be avoided like the plague if you don't want to have an awful time.

2E (revised) p.9 "In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game."

3.0 DMG p. 9, 3.5 DMG p. 6

"...you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something published in a rulebook."
It does mention that "consistency is a critical aspect of [rules] adjudication" and to be a good GM you shouldn't change things without good reason or to something that everyone else hates.

I could dig out older books but I'm pretty sure you'll find similar things there.
The point is that I don't think any GM, even the horrible power-trippy railroaders you hear about (or have the misfortune to play under) actually think their alterations make things worse, at least not initially. In every case I'm willing to bet the GM thinks the changes they make or the things they do are for the good of the game, and the rulebooks do explicitly support this idea that the GM is God. It's just everyone else disagrees about what is good for the game. Things one group is OK with may be considered horribly unfair or permissive by another. There is no hard line you can draw between 'good rules GM' and 'bad rules GM', only 'good for this group' and 'bad for this group'.

AMFV
2015-12-14, 10:57 AM
2E (revised) p.9 "In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game."

3.0 DMG p. 9, 3.5 DMG p. 6

"...you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something published in a rulebook."
It does mention that "consistency is a critical aspect of [rules] adjudication" and to be a good GM you shouldn't change things without good reason or to something that everyone else hates.

I could dig out older books but I'm pretty sure you'll find similar things there.
The point is that I don't think any GM, even the horrible power-trippy railroaders you hear about (or have the misfortune to play under) actually think their alterations make things worse, at least not initially. In every case I'm willing to bet the GM thinks the changes they make or the things they do are for the good of the game, and the rulebooks do explicitly support this idea that the GM is God. It's just everyone else disagrees about what is good for the game. Things one group is OK with may be considered horribly unfair or permissive by another. There is no hard line you can draw between 'good rules GM' and 'bad rules GM', only 'good for this group' and 'bad for this group'.

Exactly! This is why I'm trying to figure out what people consider to be too much for their individual groups, or not enough. Basically this thread is a survey to see at what point people start to feel that things are too much.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-14, 12:54 PM
2E (revised) p.9 "In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game."

3.0 DMG p. 9, 3.5 DMG p. 6

"...you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something published in a rulebook."
It does mention that "consistency is a critical aspect of [rules] adjudication" and to be a good GM you shouldn't change things without good reason or to something that everyone else hates.

I could dig out older books but I'm pretty sure you'll find similar things there.
The point is that I don't think any GM, even the horrible power-trippy railroaders you hear about (or have the misfortune to play under) actually think their alterations make things worse, at least not initially. In every case I'm willing to bet the GM thinks the changes they make or the things they do are for the good of the game, and the rulebooks do explicitly support this idea that the GM is God. It's just everyone else disagrees about what is good for the game. Things one group is OK with may be considered horribly unfair or permissive by another. There is no hard line you can draw between 'good rules GM' and 'bad rules GM', only 'good for this group' and 'bad for this group'.

The 2E quote is actually a good one to go by, and judging by your admission about 3.0, it doesn't give a blank check that literally anything the DM does is okay because we refer to them with two really special letters.

He has ultimate authority over game mechanics, BUT....if you are inconsistent then you're doing a bad job. D&D explicitly says that following its own rules consistently is better than doing whatever the hell you feel like when you feel like it. (Because that's not a game.)

I agree that when something needs to change for the sake of fun, you change it. Changing it because you are the DM and you can and everyone who doesn't like it can stick their thumb up their end...is not a good idea. And the rules espouse this idea, if poorly worded.

The DM can change rules and ultimately it's up to them... but doing it frivolously is doing it "wrong" or is at least to be frowned upon.

What I continue to NOT see is where the DM has ever been given a 100% blank check to do what they want, and everyone else can go hang. It doesn't happen anywhere. D&D is very focused on allowing the DM the freedom he needs to ensure the group has a good time. Not himself. That's the point I was trying to get at.

I guess I didn't word myself well. Maybe I still haven't made the distinction clear enough. Tell me if I haven't.

If anything, most of the advice coming out of non-published DM advice (Stuff like Chris Perkins and other D&D folks chatting about DMing) is group-centric. How to make sure the group has fun. How to get the players involved. How to react to them.

As for the original purpose of the thread:
Once my players complain about it, we discuss it. I am an extremely transparent GM. I will admit when I don't feel familiar with a rule and ask them to tell me where to find it and run me through the basics.

By staying transparent and open about my GMing, players are more willing to talk to me about problems they're having. And I'm very willing to help.
I see nothing wrong with admitting my mistakes or things I forgot. It's really not a big deal. Usually a shrug and "oops" is about all that's needed and all is forgiven. So long as the group is having fun, who cares?

It's ultimately up to the group. I had a guy drop out because the system we used promoted characters who were very self-driven rather than story-driven, and he didn't prefer that style. So we'll bring him back in when we start playing more linear-friendly games again. And that's ok.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-14, 07:29 PM
Who actually espouses this idea? Aside from you, obviously. Players need to know things.

Except the players can't know everything. And have to be in the dark to play the game. I know there is a weird sub type of game where the DM tells the players everything, and then the players ''pretend'' the characters don't know.



It sure is. And yet, it's not railroading so long as you do not make that decision for the purpose of limiting their options.

But, again, limiting an option is just another way of saying if the players don't like something.




allow me to disprove you handily.

See, it is not a case of ''prove how amazing you are by thinking of a theoretically way to do something'', it is what can the characters do. If the group is 2nd level characters, they don't have access to all the higher level spells. And this is when the ''real'' railroading comes in, as often the players will ''try'' something with little chance of success and will cry railroad when the DM apply ''common sense'' to the game world.



Solve this problem in one easy step:
Before play, say the follwing:
"This world will react realistically to what you do. If you walk into a crowded tavern and stab someone in the face, people will be understandably upset. If you steal things and get caught, they will be upset. If you act like an idiot, NPCs will treat you like an idiot. Capiche? Alright. Let's play."

But, if the DM takes away the players choices and options and ''agency'', he is railroading, right?




He has ultimate authority over game mechanics, BUT....if you are inconsistent then you're doing a bad job. D&D explicitly says that following its own rules consistently is better than doing whatever the hell you feel like when you feel like it. (Because that's not a game.)

But what is ''consistent'' in a fantasy world? Things that ''don't make sense'' are are ''inconsistent'' can happen every day.



I agree that when something needs to change for the sake of fun, you change it. Changing it because you are the DM and you can and everyone who doesn't like it can stick their thumb up their end...is not a good idea. And the rules espouse this idea, if poorly worded.

But this goes back to the feelings and likes and dislikes. Your saying the DM can change anything the players like and agree with, but not anything they don't like or agree with.



What I continue to NOT see is where the DM has ever been given a 100% blank check to do what they want, and everyone else can go hang. It doesn't happen anywhere. D&D is very focused on allowing the DM the freedom he needs to ensure the group has a good time. Not himself. That's the point I was trying to get at.

So the Dm can do anything and one of the jobs of a DM is to make sure everyone has a good time. OK, I agree.



Once my players complain about it, we discuss it. I am an extremely transparent GM. I will admit when I don't feel familiar with a rule and ask them to tell me where to find it and run me through the basics.


I wonder do you stop the game to do this? And, ok, your transparent with ''the rules'', but are you transparent on your world building, common sense and role playing too?

And where does everyone draw the line between ''ok'' and ''railroading''?

Milo v3
2015-12-14, 08:11 PM
But, if the DM takes away the players choices and options and ''agency'', he is railroading, right?
UGH. What he just said did not alter the players choices or options or agency at all. Your being ridiculous.


But what is ''consistent'' in a fantasy world? Things that ''don't make sense'' are are ''inconsistent'' can happen every day.
If things are inconsistent then you're a bad GM.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-14, 08:26 PM
Except the players can't know everything. And have to be in the dark to play the game. I know there is a weird sub type of game where the DM tells the players everything, and then the players ''pretend'' the characters don't know.
"If the characters know some things, they must know EVERYTHING! That, or they know nothing."
You're really good at false dichotomy. Good thing I'm good at spotting it and calling you out on the BS. There are more options than "All" and "Nothing."



But, again, limiting an option is just another way of saying if the players don't like something.
No. Limiting options is limiting options regardless of how the players feel about it. How the players feel has no bearing on whether or not the DM is minimizimg their agency. The players can be wrong. Mine have been. It means talking it out.




See, it is not a case of ''prove how amazing you are by thinking of a theoretically way to do something'', it is what can the characters do. If the group is 2nd level characters, they don't have access to all the higher level spells. And this is when the ''real'' railroading comes in, as often the players will ''try'' something with little chance of success and will cry railroad when the DM apply ''common sense'' to the game world.

Who said they were 2nd level? Only you have added that stipulation and only afterwards. Don't move the goalposts around. It's unbecoming.

If you talk to your players before play and warn with "You can try it. You will probably fail and die. But I will allow you to try," then this is not a big problem.

Players are rational human beings. Treat them as such for a good time.


But, if the DM takes away the players choices and options and ''agency'', he is railroading, right?

Yes. And you'll notice that in that discussion I never forbade those actions. They can still do them. Freedom to Act is not the same as Freedom from Consequence. They sure are allowed to randomly murder people if they want to. And are free to become targets of the local guards and possibly a wider area of authority. How they solve the problem they made for themselves is up to them. But I'll let them be idiots. I will also make sure they are aware that actions have consequences.



But what is ''consistent'' in a fantasy world? Things that ''don't make sense'' are are ''inconsistent'' can happen every day.
Dat Red Herring Though. This isn't related to consistency with the rules of the game. Good try, though.
Consistency within the fantasy genre is not the same thing as consistent rulings as the GM of a game. (Also not all games are fantasy. So this is an especially egregious red herring.)



But this goes back to the feelings and likes and dislikes. Your saying the DM can change anything the players like and agree with, but not anything they don't like or agree with.
People are amazingly willing to compromise when you treat them like adults and with respect, rather than being 1 misstep away from a temper tantrum. You can change things they don't like...so long as they agree that it is ok or they trust you enough with it.



So the Dm can do anything and one of the jobs of a DM is to make sure everyone has a good time. OK, I agree.
No. Not anything. Never write yourself a blank check as a DM. It's a bad idea.


I wonder do you stop the game to do this? And, ok, your transparent with ''the rules'', but are you transparent on your world building, common sense and role playing too?
If necessary, yup. If not, I wait until wrap-up. And yes, I am transparent in those things as much as is needed for the game. A game of discovery and exploration may be shrouded in mystery. A world where metropolitan politics are common, basic rundowns of different political factions will be provided and they can ask questions if they want more info on the setting for character building, and I'll accomodate as much as I can without spoiling secrets. It's a careful line to tread, which is why I want to be able to talk about it with my group and see what they prefer, rather than doing whatever the hell I feel like, when I feel like it.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-14, 10:01 PM
If things are inconsistent then you're a bad GM.

Really Milo, if all your going to do is post personal attacks, maybe you should just not post at all.


"If the characters know some things, they must know EVERYTHING! That, or they know nothing."
You're really good at false dichotomy. Good thing I'm good at spotting it and calling you out on the BS. There are more options than "All" and "Nothing."

And we can have a whole thread on this too. I say ''nothing'' and you say ''something, but i won't tell you what''. Not great for a discussion.




No. Limiting options is limiting options regardless of how the players feel about it. How the players feel has no bearing on whether or not the DM is minimizimg their agency. The players can be wrong. Mine have been. It means talking it out.

And this takes us back to ''it is Railroading if the players don't like it'', right?





Who said they were 2nd level? Only you have added that stipulation and only afterwards. Don't move the goalposts around. It's unbecoming.

Well, sorry Mr. You Moved the Goalposts First. I said, most of the time, like 99% of the time, there is only one way to do things. That is how reality works. Even though in theory there are other ways, most simply can't do them. Your the one that jumped to the ''billions of ways''.



If you talk to your players before play and warn with "You can try it. You will probably fail and die. But I will allow you to try," then this is not a big problem.

But, if your saying ''probably'', are you not railroading?



Dat Red Herring Though. This isn't related to consistency with the rules of the game. Good try, though.
Consistency within the fantasy genre is not the same thing as consistent rulings as the GM of a game. (Also not all games are fantasy. So this is an especially egregious red herring.)

So, again are we back to ''it is wrong if the players don't like it''?




No. Not anything. Never write yourself a blank check as a DM. It's a bad idea.

Not really sure why your so against a DM doing anything and having a blank check.



If necessary, yup. If not, I wait until wrap-up. And yes, I am transparent in those things as much as is needed for the game. A game of discovery and exploration may be shrouded in mystery. A world where metropolitan politics are common, basic rundowns of different political factions will be provided and they can ask questions if they want more info on the setting for character building, and I'll accomodate as much as I can without spoiling secrets. It's a careful line to tread, which is why I want to be able to talk about it with my group and see what they prefer, rather than doing whatever the hell I feel like, when I feel like it.

So you do keep secrets from the players and walk a line with information.

I'm I right in thinking that your definition of railroading is ''when a DM is a jerk''?

RedMage125
2015-12-15, 12:29 AM
Exactly! This is why I'm trying to figure out what people consider to be too much for their individual groups, or not enough. Basically this thread is a survey to see at what point people start to feel that things are too much.

On the old WotC forums, in a conversation about railroading with another individual, I coined the term "soft railroading".

Soft Railroading is having things done "behind the screen" as it were, irrespective of player choice and agency, but which players will never know. In effect, railroading that the players never see or feel the "rails".

Example: You know that next session your party will be leaving the city. So you plan a gnoll encounter. They know gnolls live in the forest immediately West of the city, but they go North. You give them the gnoll encounter anyway. Now, just because gnolls are more POPULOUS in the forest to the West, doesn't mean they don't range out of the forest, so the players don't think it's that odd. They have no way of knowing that you were going to give them that encounter no matter which way they went.

Is that even "railroading" at all? Well, yes, kind of, because you have something happening that is GOING to happen, no matter which choice the players make, thus making player agency less relevant. But the players don't know that and they don't FEEL railroaded.

I personally, have no problem with a bit of "soft railroading", as it were, as long as care is taken not to make it too obvious that seemingly "random" things are not random at all. I no longer use Random Encounter tables. I decide, usually during the week or so between sessions, what kinds of encounters the players are likely to face, based on location. Then I make several encounters, some for day, some for night. And while I do roll a percentage check to see if they HAVE an encounter, I go with one of my pre-made ones if they do. Also, sometimes the percentage check is just fake rolls behind the screen. If I decide an encounter right now would be cinematic and exciting and most of all-FUN-it will happen.

But I've DMed games that had a basic overarching storyline planned out from levels 1-18, but it was a basic skeleton outline, and my players ABSOLUTELY had a lot of choice and agency in deciding how to progress. Some of their choices honestly surprised the crap out of me, and I was so pleased.

Fast forward a couple of years, to me taking over DMing for a buddy of mine who was changing duty stations. The group wanted to run an "Evil campaign". So I did, a short one that lasted about 5 or 6 sessions. During that time, this group was PARALYZED by the freedom of choice that being a villain offered (I operate on the principle that heroes are reactionary, so a campaign of villains requires the PCs to make a plot and move the story forward while I administer how the world reacts to that). Turns out their old DM almost exclusively ran pre-made adventures. So they asked me for a more "structured" storyline next time. I was like "are you asking me to make a railroad plotline?" To which they responded "We'd be fine with that".

The moral of that anecdote, is that "railroading", even "hard railroading" is not always a bad thing. The only Wrong Way to Play is the way that is not fun for the people playing (which includes the DM). Some people really LIKE having a plotline that has a given direction. So that's just a note out there to the people who act like DM Railroading is some kind of crime. Remember, some people HATE sandbox-style campaign worlds, and some people chafe at ANY kind of restriction to their agency of choice as a player. It takes all kinds. And as long as everyone at the table is having fun, it's the Right Way to Play.

hifidelity2
2015-12-15, 04:39 AM
On the old WotC forums, in a conversation about railroading with another individual, I coined the term "soft railroading".

Soft Railroading is having things done "behind the screen" as it were, irrespective of player choice and agency, but which players will never know. In effect, railroading that the players never see or feel the "rails".

Example: You know that next session your party will be leaving the city. So you plan a gnoll encounter. They know gnolls live in the forest immediately West of the city, but they go North. You give them the gnoll encounter anyway. Now, just because gnolls are more POPULOUS in the forest to the West, doesn't mean they don't range out of the forest, so the players don't think it's that odd. They have no way of knowing that you were going to give them that encounter no matter which way they went.

Is that even "railroading" at all? Well, yes, kind of, because you have something happening that is GOING to happen, no matter which choice the players make, thus making player agency less relevant. But the players don't know that and they don't FEEL railroaded.

I personally, have no problem with a bit of "soft railroading", as it were, as long as care is taken not to make it too obvious that seemingly "random" things are not random at all.

But I've DMed games that had a basic overarching storyline planned out from levels 1-18, but it was a basic skeleton outline, and my players ABSOLUTELY had a lot of choice and agency in deciding how to progress. Some of their choices honestly surprised the crap out of me, and I was so pleased.



The moral of that anecdote, is that "railroading", even "hard railroading" is not always a bad thing. The only Wrong Way to Play is the way that is not fun for the people playing (which includes the DM). Some people really LIKE having a plotline that has a given direction. So that's just a note out there to the people who act like DM Railroading is some kind of crime. Remember, some people HATE sandbox-style campaign worlds, and some people chafe at ANY kind of restriction to their agency of choice as a player. It takes all kinds. And as long as everyone at the table is having fun, it's the Right Way to Play.

I agree totally (esp the FUN bit)

Myself as a player and DM (and the Players / DM’s I play with) want some basic structure – Save the Princess, Save the empire whatever

At the start we may not even know what the overarching plot is – that is something we (hopefully) discover. However how that issue is solved is up to the players

There will be adventures during the campaign that are “needed”. No matter what the players do they will meet key people (Railroading), go down designed dungeons etc . How they interact with them / solve them is up to the players (Agency)

In a recent campaign the solution the party came up with (to stop a demon apocalypse destroying the world) the idea to destroy all magic in the world (in the world Demons are magic and cannot exist in a Nul Magic area). This was not something I had planned but they came up with a way to do it so I let them (Agency).

themaque
2015-12-15, 06:27 AM
Really Milo, if all your going to do is post personal attacks, maybe you should just not post at all.


I can agree, but Darth Ultron you also need to honestly try to understand someone elses opinion, and sometimes it doesn't read like you do, I'm sorry if I'm wrong. That is where some of the... hardships during the discussion come from.



And we can have a whole thread on this too. I say ''nothing'' and you say ''something, but i won't tell you what''. Not great for a discussion.

Again, a language problem. You are using a different definitions than the rest of the discussion. Rail Roading is a term used for GM's gone power made. who don't allow for player agency.

You don't believe in player agency and that's fine for your table. But it's hard to give you a strict "IF you do THIS you are a railroader" other than perhaps what you call Reverse-Railroading. Where it doesn't matter what action or decision you take, you will end up where the GM has planed for you to reach.



And this takes us back to ''it is Railroading if the players don't like it'', right?

In a matter of speaking, yes it is. But most of us don't seem to have HALF the problems you do with players. They are not our adversaries. They are not children that need to be corralled. Our players are our friends who are helping to shape and tell this story. Do they wield supreme godly powers? NO. But their actions and decisions should have some sort of impact on the story and even the world. Should/could all their plans work? No. Will some claim "I was railroaded!" falsely? Of course, but that doesn't invalidate all other claims to such problems.

In your examples you say things like "Letting players get away with anything" or just running rampant all over you. Players don't really know what they want. It's the rare player who won't destroy a game for his own personal gain. Players shouldn't really think to hard and just go with the story. This language sets up a very confrontational relationship between Player and GM. This runs counter to what many of us experience in our games and makes it harder for us to understand your position.




Well, sorry Mr. You Moved the Goalposts First. I said, most of the time, like 99% of the time, there is only one way to do things. That is how reality works. Even though in theory there are other ways, most simply can't do them. Your the one that jumped to the ''billions of ways''.

There is always a third door. You can start getting very specific both of you coming up with situations to back up your cause, but reality is dirty and messy and there is no way to accurately predict everything your characters will do, think, or try.




But, if your saying ''probably'', are you not railroading?

Provided you give them an honest chance, than no it's not. This is a give and take social contract.




Not really sure why your so against a DM doing anything and having a blank check.

I get the feeling you don't trust your players. Some players don't trust all GM's. I know some people who love 3.P for the specific reason that it has a set guide of rules for both player and GM alike. There is some leeway in Rule 0 but their version of the social contract is that the GM will play within those guidelines and not just whip up celestial thwak dragons in a 10X10 foot room just because they don't want you going in that direction.

GM's are just as prone to going rogue as any player if not more so and can cause far more damage. Now, on weeks that I am not running my game, I trust the GM in charge to run his system fairly. But if I'm in a pick up game, where trust has not been established yet, I might be thrown off if they suddenly start "abusing" that trust.



So you do keep secrets from the players and walk a line with information.

Depends on the game and the player. I know my player JH will keep things in perspective when deciding his actions. I know GG will have... problems doing so. Sometimes it's more fun to let the players be in the dark. Mystery/Horror based games are like that. Sometimes it's more fun for them to see behind the curtain. Beer & Pretzel or Humor based games are like that.



I'm I right in thinking that your definition of railroading is ''when a DM is a jerk''?

Effectively, YES. Railroading is what happens when a GM abuses the social contract in a way that removes all player agency. You don't feel that player agency even EXISTS so it's quite easy to see why you feel ALL GM'ing is railroading. However, Myself and many of us feel that is a label for when we are doing our job poorly.

We can't tell you a direct "THIS is Railroading and THIS is NOT" because this hobby is SO very wide and different tables SO very different it could easily be different in EVERY scenario.

Let me give you another personal example. I am currently running the RPG Legends of the 5 Rings. The party is on a diplomatic mission going throughout the empire trying to drum up support for the little Fox clan. They are up against some heavy opposition in the Scorpion clan, who don't want them to succeed!

Now I've laid this general plot line out. I have an idea where I would LIKE things to go. The story in my head has them Succeeding and this leads directly into the second campaign. However, outside of the broad strokes, I don't have a firm grasp as to what they are going to do. Some NPC's will have suggestions but they can come up with their own plans, go their own way. Whether they succeed in convincing the NPC's will depend on a combination of their personal Role Playing Prowess and the dice rolls. Judged from my understanding of the NPC's personal goals.

Players are encouraged to ask questions, almost all the Source material is open to be read and what isn't mostly isn't accurate to my interpretation of the world anyways.

Now then, Let's say I'm running Call of C'Thulhu.

The players are part of a detective agency hired to track down a young girl who has gone missing. They know nothing of the area and as soon as they enter the small town, their ability to control their own destiny starts to rapidly diminish. They are playing with forces being their keen. Things beyond their pale of understanding in both knowledge and power. They have no real hope of success and very little of survival. Player and Character knowledge is strictly kept need to know. They have little control over what happens or perhaps even their own sanity.

Now let's say I'm running a Dungeon Crawl in 5e.

My players are just random people I met down at the friendly local games store. We meet for a few hours every week as they try to make it through the classic Undermountain. There isn't much role playing to be had and we are just here to kill monsters & take their stuff. One guy even named his half-ling Murder McStabby.


You see, the social contract in all those games will be different. The expected freedoms and flow of information is all different and my role as GM is thus slightly tweaked in each scenario.

in L5R I am guiding the actions of the NPC's in a way that makes narrative sense. The Players won't have FULL Access to this information without working for it, but they will have a good amount for free just because they are living breathing members of this world. There will be a story but it will be guided by them and the NPC's will have to react to that. Sometimes they will plan ahead but sometimes so will the players.

In CoC there is supposed to be fear, uncertainty, and a loss of power. If things don't work they way they are supposed to, if reality starts to behave.. wrong than that is almost expected.

In the Dungeon Crawl I am the Referee. I'm their to help keep things running and provide a challenge for the players. I am both limited and yet given vasts amount of freedom to change and manipulate things. There will even be a story at the end of it, maybe not as compelling as the other two, but we might get a few accolades and "Oh! You remember that time McStabby rode the Displacer beast up the well!?!"

Storytelling is a GM doing his job RIGHT.
Railroading is a term used for a GM going power made or just plain messing it up.

When you say ALL GM'ing is Railroading, you are saying, to people who use the above definitions, there is no social contract and that all players should just shut up and color. Listen to the pretty story and press A when prompted.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-15, 10:06 AM
And we can have a whole thread on this too. I say ''nothing'' and you say ''something, but i won't tell you what''. Not great for a discussion.
I can't tell you exactly what I tell them every time because it is different depending on the situation. But it is neither "Nothing" nor "Everything," which were the only two options you believed existed. I don't have to have only an empty or full gas tank, but I couldn't tell you exactly how much gas was in my tank last Thursday or will be in it on Sunday because the situation will be different. (That is an illustrative example of my point, not a 1-to-1 comparison to what we're talking about.)




And this takes us back to ''it is Railroading if the players don't like it'', right?
From this thread, no. It was:
Me: Be consistent with game rules.
You: But Fantasy settings are inconsistent.
Me: That is irrelevant to this discussion.
You: SO RAILROADING IS ANYTHING THE PLAYERS DON'T LIKE!

Are you seeing how this logical train is going off the rails on your end and making zero sense?




Well, sorry Mr. You Moved the Goalposts First. I said, most of the time, like 99% of the time, there is only one way to do things. That is how reality works. Even though in theory there are other ways, most simply can't do them. Your the one that jumped to the ''billions of ways''.

We never established a limitation on levels with the first situation so I ignored such limitations because there were none. And besides, grappling hooks and rope are both cheap enough that a first or 2nd level character can acquire them easily and use them to climb over the maze walls and walk on top of them. Clever use of wood panels can also help. (Perhaps salvaged from elsewhere.) Since we established no set shape, location, or size for this quantum maze and no set level of characters, all solutions were theoretically probable. So no, I moved no goalposts since there were none. Good attempt, though.


But, if your saying ''probably'', are you not railroading?
Why would it be limiting player agency to say that their actions may not have the results they hope for? Especially if I tell them exactly what is the most likely occurance. My specific example of doing a crazy flip across the Grand Canyon would be really really REALLY unlikely. I can both tell them that success is highly unlikely and that they can do it anyways if they want to. I'm not making a choice for them or removing the possibility of success entirely. Just informing of the small chance of success and allowing them to make their own decision.



So, again are we back to ''it is wrong if the players don't like it''?





Not really sure why your so against a DM doing anything and having a blank check.
Easy to go on a power trip and begin to believe you're way more important than you are. Or as the quote goes:
"Absolute Power corrupts, absolutely."
If you allow yourself to get away with literally anything, that's a lot of power and it becomes easier and easier to abuse it. Easier and easier to see those who aren't GMs as lesser. (Players just whine! Players need to be told no or there will be chaos at the table!) Easier and easier to see those who don't exert the same amount of power as you do as being inferior. ("You probably let your players get away with anything, don't you?")
None of that seems like the kind of thinking anyone here is using, though.


So you do keep secrets from the players and walk a line with information.
Yes. And that line is on a middle ground between "Tell them nothing" and "tell them everything" and depends upon the situation. As far as my actual GMing at the table goes, I'm pretty open about it. I'll even roll in the open if it's not really a big deal and if I feel it will add to the tension of the scene. Especially opposed rolls. (Also it makes it go faster in the latter case.)


I'm I right in thinking that your definition of railroading is ''when a DM is a jerk''?
That's one cause of the problem. Not the problem itself.
The problem is minimizing your players' agency for no good reason.
Remember: Agency is the capacity to make one's own decisions. That's all it is. Having more information doesn't limit your agency, it usually enhances it by allowing you to make smarter decisions.
For instance, if I'm playing a SciFi game, and my character, McPilot, is about to attempt something crazy in my starship that might cause us a lot of damage, I would want the GM to say:
"ImNotTrevor may not know this since you aren't a starship captain, but McPilot would be aware that this maneuver is very dangerous and may end up causing serious damage to the ship and crew. If you think it's worth it, you can still do it. But McPilot would be aware of the risks."
I can still do what I want, but now I'm not blindly making a stupid decision with glaring, punishing consequences because I failed to ask if my experienced space captain would know if a certain maneuver would be a bad idea.

Character Knowledge and Player Knowledge are not always in-sync. Which is ok, so long as you address it when it becomes a problem.

On the opposite end, something that has actually happened:

Character A is at the tavern.
Character B and C get themselves into trouble at the butcher's shop down the street.
Character A gets up and heads over to help them.
I ask "How does A know they're in trouble?"
Player A is confused. "Aren't we all in the same place?"
Players B and C say "No, we're in the butcher's shop down the street."
I confirm.
Player A says "Oh! My bad. I thought I could see this happening. Nevermind, Character A will stay put."

The player had more info that the character did, but a quick conversation to clarify (about 20 seconds) fixed the issue and we carried on as normal.

I treat my players with respect and hold the social contract of trpgaming in high esteem.

That being said:
Railroading is not universally bad.
If your players WANT it, and they are all on board with it, then do it. I have a friend who would rather be railroaded because having too many options makes him feel stressed out. He likes linear solutions. If I'm playing with him, I won't worry too much about making it open and will instead try to make something more linear, because that's what the group in that situation WANTS.

Railroading is always Railroading.
Railroading isn't always bad.
Rollercoasters are a kind of railroad, and they are very fun.

Some people don't like being constrained. So I don't constrain them.


As others have said, the CORRECT way to do it is to do what makes it fun for you AND the group. If one of those two parties is bored, a conversation needs to happen. And if gaming can't continue in that evironment, then it shouldn't.

As in all things that deal with people's preferences and wants, there is no absolute.
The answer to being a good GM is neither "Always Railroad" nor is it "Never Railroad."

It is "Sometimes Railroad, if the situation calls for it."

AMFV
2015-12-15, 12:08 PM
Hey dudes... this is not a productive area of discussion. Seriously, I said at the beginning, Mr. Ultron that defining railroading was not possible in this thread, and that those definitions would be personal, trying to argue against other people's personal preferences is ALWAYS a losing battle in the end, and is going to bog down a thread that might actually be a useful thread. Could we desist from that sort of thing? And get back to general disscussion of railroading. Clearly there are those who object to it (and it ISN'T "Anything a player dislikes") since it's a varied topic it's worth discussing other people's views of it, but telling them that their subjective opinions are wrong is not going to accomplish anything.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-15, 12:27 PM
I don't want to be a naysayer, AMFV but the OP does include the following:


"For the purpose of this discussion we should probably define the railroad more precisely, I'm defining it as a game where the players are not allowed to make decisions that deviate from those planned by the DM. For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all. Although I'm open to discussion on this point, because it's the point of the thread after all."

So the point of the thread, via the OP, is to define the point where Railroading begins...and thus defines railroading.

But we shouldn't try to define railroading because it's subjective.

At least you can understand how the OP might directly lead into this debate, yes? I'm not faulting you as being overtly hypocritical or anything, just pointing out that the wording in the OP very much invites this exact discussion, and may need to be changed if we want to change the flow of conversation.

*shrug*

AMFV
2015-12-15, 12:50 PM
I don't want to be a naysayer, AMFV but the OP does include the following:


"For the purpose of this discussion we should probably define the railroad more precisely, I'm defining it as a game where the players are not allowed to make decisions that deviate from those planned by the DM. For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all. Although I'm open to discussion on this point, because it's the point of the thread after all."

So the point of the thread, via the OP, is to define the point where Railroading begins...and thus defines railroading.

But we shouldn't try to define railroading because it's subjective.

At least you can understand how the OP might directly lead into this debate, yes? I'm not faulting you as being overtly hypocritical or anything, just pointing out that the wording in the OP very much invites this exact discussion, and may need to be changed if we want to change the flow of conversation.

*shrug*

Well there is a certain truth to that. However, I also mentioned that a strict definition would likely vary from person to person. That paragraph if you'll reread it focuses on the definition as per this thread. The rest is subjective, and is supposed to be. I don't mind healthy debate. But roughly three pages of identical arguments isn't doing anyone any favors.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-15, 10:50 PM
And get back to general disscussion of railroading.

Sounds good to me.

So starting with: A game where the players are not allowed to make decisions that deviate from those planned by the DM. For example the hallway with locked doors that can't be opened, or bypassed by any means, at all.

Now the first thing I notice is the DM's plan. Is the DM's plan necessary? Is the DM having a plan needed for there to be railroading? Can a DM railroad with no plan?

And second, how much of a bypass, or chance to alter a path, must be given?

themaque
2015-12-16, 07:41 AM
For me, I don't see how something can be defined as "railroading" if the GM has no plan. Even if it's not a formalized written out plan, in order to railroad the players the GM has to have some destination he wants the players to go to.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-16, 08:56 PM
For me, I don't see how something can be defined as "railroading" if the GM has no plan. Even if it's not a formalized written out plan, in order to railroad the players the GM has to have some destination he wants the players to go to.

Ok, that is one for a DM must have a plan to railroad.

I wonder: If the DM uses the players plan, can he railroad them along it? Would that still be railroading?

Milo v3
2015-12-16, 09:32 PM
Ok, that is one for a DM must have a plan to railroad.

I wonder: If the DM uses the players plan, can he railroad them along it? Would that still be railroading?

I'd say yes, if they attempt to get off that plan and you stop them overtly or covertly.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-16, 11:09 PM
I'd say yes, if they attempt to get off that plan and you stop them overtly or covertly.

So if the players pick a path, but then suddenly want to change the path and the DM wants to keep them on the first path, that would be railroading.

Though, in most games the players don't know the path details, just the general outline. So if the DM keeps the players on the path they choose, but unknowingly to the players, is that still railroading?

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-16, 11:17 PM
I think it's best to get back to why it's called Railroading in the first place.

A railroad is a way of connecting two places, and is traversed by a train.

The thing that makes a railroad dissimilar from a road or path is that the vehicle that traverses it CANNOT deviate from its path without severe damage to itself and its path, and it will simply never arrive at its destination.

Which is why it's usually thought of as having Start and Destination and you cannot deviate from the set course without serious negative consequences (punishments).

So I figure the change between the two is the negative consequences.

With a linear storyline, we're dealing with something more like a Road Trip. There is a start, and a destination. But the group can take exits every now and then of their own free will. They can't go too far off the path, but it's usually a lack of things to do rather than punishment and bad outcomes that prevents this behavior.

The upside to the Railroad is that the passengers don't need to make any input to keep the train moving. The conductor handles it all.

With the Road Trip, sometimes the passengers get involved with the driver and make decisions. The destination and general path are unchanged. But occasional detours are fine.

Feel free to adopt those terms. Or don't. I'm not an internet cop.

Milo v3
2015-12-17, 01:16 AM
So if the players pick a path, but then suddenly want to change the path and the DM wants to keep them on the first path, that would be railroading.
Yes.


Though, in most games the players don't know the path details, just the general outline. So if the DM keeps the players on the path they choose, but unknowingly to the players, is that still railroading?
Yeah.

goto124
2015-12-17, 01:26 AM
It's not railroading if the players are kept only on the general outline that both the players and the GM have agreed on beforehand, right? Just linear?

Milo v3
2015-12-17, 01:29 AM
It's not railroading if the players are kept only on the general outline that both the players and the GM have agreed on beforehand, right? Just linear?

If the players are kept anywhere (in the manner we are discussing, not like "You commited a crime and ended up in jail") it's generally railroading. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, when players and GM are on the same page it can work really well and lower the chance of the plot snagging in the wrong spots.

goto124
2015-12-17, 01:39 AM
Terminology problems!

I suppose the "train tracks" vs "straight path" analogy works well here. It's already been explained by a post above me, so I won't do so.

One group of people say only the train tracks would be railroading, while the straight path is linear but not railroading.

Another group of people say both the train tracks and straight path are railroading, but the former is wrong and excessive while the latter is alright.

Both agree on the essential points though.

Florian
2015-12-17, 04:53 AM
Terminology problems!

I suppose the "train tracks" vs "straight path" analogy works well here. It's already been explained by a post above me, so I won't do so.

One group of people say only the train tracks would be railroading, while the straight path is linear but not railroading.

Another group of people say both the train tracks and straight path are railroading, but the former is wrong and excessive while the latter is alright.

Both agree on the essential points though.

You can actually add another level of complexity to it. I think this´ll showcase some things about the differences:
Railroading is most of the time not only about going from A to B, may that be places or events, but also about following an already completed narrative, a story that has already been told and needs to be reenacted by the characters. Dramaturgic considerations also are an important factor for railroading, because the gm has the feeling that he has to present an engaging story to his players.

Compare a "boring" classic dungeon crawl (linear. Has a start and a definite goal, stopping the BBEG. Everything in-between is up to the players) with a more "engaging" module as found in Call of Cthulhu, Mountains of Madness or Orient Express as prime examples, where stuff happens for dramaturgic reasons and the characters are moved from plot point to plot point without any chance to alter the route (and even on a train, of all things...)

LnGrrrR
2015-12-17, 06:40 AM
Another point about railroading is that it's obviously much easier to justify at lower levels than higher. It's more realistic that a low level group of adventurers don't have many options. This means that a GM who does railroad may not have problems with the group, but as they acquire more contacts, favors, etc, if you don't have that growth of freedom in a character, it can grate on the player.

When you start a low level game, you're explicitly accepting some limitations on your character, in the expectation that you will level and unlock all the cool stuff. That also goes along with narrative freedom, I would argue.

It's fine occasionally to limit their options. As noted, it's hard to have a horror theme when PCs can do everything. So maybe you run a one off where all the party is drinking, and then wake up without weapons in the basement of a haunted castle. Did you railroad to get them there? Highly likely that's a yes. But if the players trust you, you can get away with taking away things more often, because they trust you to give them freedom to figure things out.

Florian
2015-12-17, 08:22 AM
Another point about railroading is that it's obviously much easier to justify at lower levels than higher. It's more realistic that a low level group of adventurers don't have many options. This means that a GM who does railroad may not have problems with the group, but as they acquire more contacts, favors, etc, if you don't have that growth of freedom in a character, it can grate on the player.

When you start a low level game, you're explicitly accepting some limitations on your character, in the expectation that you will level and unlock all the cool stuff. That also goes along with narrative freedom, I would argue.

It's fine occasionally to limit their options. As noted, it's hard to have a horror theme when PCs can do everything. So maybe you run a one off where all the party is drinking, and then wake up without weapons in the basement of a haunted castle. Did you railroad to get them there? Highly likely that's a yes. But if the players trust you, you can get away with taking away things more often, because they trust you to give them freedom to figure things out.

Which leads us back to the concepts of "Participation" and "Creative Constraints".
Participation: Being willing to share control over the narrative with others, especially with the gm. That potentially also includes the character itself. "This is the story, I want to participate in it"
Creative Constraints: Even if able to do something, you refrain from doing it because it will immediately alter the game and its goals. "This action would break the story, I refrain from doing it"

For people who have been socialized with D&D, especially 3E, this will touch on some "holy cows", as it downplays Rules and RAW by a significant level.

Amphetryon
2015-12-17, 08:33 AM
With a linear storyline, we're dealing with something more like a Road Trip. There is a start, and a destination. But the group can take exits every now and then of their own free will. They can't go too far off the path, but it's usually a lack of things to do rather than punishment and bad outcomes that prevents this behavior.

I've known more than a couple of players who would treat 'a lack of things to do' stemming from any of their Characters' choices as both bad/lazy DMing, and a form of punishment meted out by said DM.

Florian
2015-12-17, 10:28 AM
I've known more than a couple of players who would treat 'a lack of things to do' stemming from any of their Characters' choices as both bad/lazy DMing, and a form of punishment meted out by said DM.

So?

Frankly, if I tell my players "I´ve planned this campaign. You signed up to it. I´m willing to cooperate and improvise stuff depending on whats happening, but only up to a certain point.", then I actually do expect some operation from the players and not spending any more of my free time on prep work than is necessary.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-17, 10:56 AM
I've known more than a couple of players who would treat 'a lack of things to do' stemming from any of their Characters' choices as both bad/lazy DMing, and a form of punishment meted out by said DM.

Then those players signed up for a sandbox and got a linear, or in some other way the social contract is being violated.

GM says "We agreed at the start that this campaign would be relatively linear. You've wandered a pretty far way from where I've prepared for that linear story. If you would like to play a sandbox game instead, then we need to stop for today so that I can properly prepare for one."

Bring up the social contract that has been established and there's no problem unless your players are really immature and/or unusually stupid. Which, in my experience, is pretty rare compared to the player who either forgot the social contract or never understood it because the GM did a poor job of establishing it.

themaque
2015-12-17, 11:06 AM
So?

Frankly, if I tell my players "I´ve planned this campaign. You signed up to it. I´m willing to cooperate and improvise stuff depending on whats happening, but only up to a certain point.", then I actually do expect some operation from the players and not spending any more of my free time on prep work than is necessary.

On the other hand, if your players keep getting distracted and going further and further afield there may be something in your adventure that simply fails to catch their attention.

Florian
2015-12-17, 11:18 AM
On the other hand, if your players keep getting distracted and going further and further afield there may be something in your adventure that simply fails to catch their attention.

Sure, that could always happen. No need to talk about that. Interestingly, though, is looking at player agency here, especially concerning goals and backstory.
It is not all too uncommon that someone envisioned a character in this and that way, complete with backstory and goals and wants to see that happen in actual play. The opposite to that is a player envisioning a character in a way that is simply not compatible with what happens at the table, leading also to that player expressing agency by enforcing his own way.

But all that stuff is simply a break-down of communication and could have been avoided by simply talking about it before the whole action starts.

Amphetryon
2015-12-17, 11:25 AM
On the other hand, if your players keep getting distracted and going further and further afield there may be something in your adventure that simply fails to catch their attention.

They (generally) weren't distracted; they were responding to anything that looked like a 'plot' as "DM railroad tracks over here, guys! RUN!"

Darth Ultron
2015-12-17, 07:31 PM
I can see three types of Railroading and the DM's that do them, based off of things said here in the thread:

1.The Railroad Thug: This is your classic self centered, power tripping, evil, sadistic, jerk of a DM. He is playing the game to do little more then to torture the players. This type of game is nothing short of a nightmare for the players. You would think this type of DM would never be able to find players, but they always do.

2.The Railroad Gambler: This type of DM tries to let randomness and chance everything. This type of DM works hard to make it seem like they are not even playing the game, but just observing random events that are happening. They want the players to feel like they have all the power and control in the game. Like most gambling , this is not exactly honest and fair. This DM will tell you that they somehow don't control the creation of the game world, don't control the fabric of the game world and are not the ultimate arbiter of the game rules..though they are all three of those things. And it is possible that the DM is pure, neutral and have no bias...but most are not.

3.The Railroad Baron: This type of DM controls everything as part of a metaplot, several metaplots or lots of smaller plots. They keep the players so immersed in the game that they don't have time to think about the plot or plots. When the DM does it right, the players don't even realize they have been railroaded. This DM has to walk a fine line between the active game play and sliding down towards the Railroad Thug.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-17, 07:39 PM
One thing that I somewhat agree with Darth is that I DO change some things in my universe that others see "set in stone". For instance, I've heard horror stories about players in 3.X E complaining that such and such monster should be dead by now because its HP range was already covered. That's way too meta for me. If I want to make a dragon with ridiculous HP/AC/stats, I will. And maybe I'll make some really weak goblins. In fact, if I find my players are trying to use OOG knowledge like that in a particular way to game the system, I likely will.

Some people think that's a violation of a code of etiquette, akin to "changing" the amount of die an attack does or something similar. But sometimes I want a monster/character to be unique, whether for good or bad. *shrug*

Milo v3
2015-12-17, 07:43 PM
I can see three types of Railroading and the DM's that do them, based off of things said here in the thread:

1.The Railroad Thug: This is your classic self centered, power tripping, evil, sadistic, jerk of a DM. He is playing the game to do little more then to torture the players. This type of game is nothing short of a nightmare for the players. You would think this type of DM would never be able to find players, but they always do.

2.The Railroad Gambler: This type of DM tries to let randomness and chance everything. This type of DM works hard to make it seem like they are not even playing the game, but just observing random events that are happening. They want the players to feel like they have all the power and control in the game. Like most gambling , this is not exactly honest and fair. This DM will tell you that they somehow don't control the creation of the game world, don't control the fabric of the game world and are not the ultimate arbiter of the game rules..though they are all three of those things. And it is possible that the DM is pure, neutral and have no bias...but most are not.

3.The Railroad Baron: This type of DM controls everything as part of a metaplot, several metaplots or lots of smaller plots. They keep the players so immersed in the game that they don't have time to think about the plot or plots. When the DM does it right, the players don't even realize they have been railroaded. This DM has to walk a fine line between the active game play and sliding down towards the Railroad Thug.

Ummm... In 2 you didn't mention any railroading at all... so how is it railroading. Also, I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone in this thread mentioning 2.

Talakeal
2015-12-17, 08:12 PM
Can you quote the page number where it says "The DM can do whatever he wants."

That is different from Rule 0, which places the DM as final arbitrator of rules disputes and operator of the game. He still has to operate within some boundary of the rules. He doesn't get to flippantly decide in the middle of the game that the Fighter rolls 1d12 during his attack rolls while everyone else rolls d20s because He Just Wanted To. That causes problems and means you're playing a different game.

Giving the DM free reign to do ANYTHING, and all of it is kosher because the DM did it, is a very different thing that I have never seen stated. Rule 0 is not "The DM can do whatever the hell he wants, when he wants, because DM." And if it is that, then the weird powertrips DMs go on are the fault of D&D and the system should be avoided like the plague if you don't want to have an awful time.

So my ex DM runs a board game club at his house. He has a rule that as the host he resolves all rules disputes. When he plays a game he blatantly cheats or makes up rules, and if you call him on it he says "we are now having a Dispute, therefore I will resolve it by saying I amright and you are wrong."

To me tis is really a letter of the law vs spirit of the law situation; one can make a dispute out of anythin, even the most unambiguous rules, if one has an incentive to do so.



Point of order. 1st Edition DMG, 2nd Edition DMG, 3.0 Edition DMG, 3.5 Edition DMG...

All of them to the best of my memory spell that explicitly. Not disagreeing with the rest of your point, just correcting a pretty egregious slip-up. Most games have some variation of Rule Zero posted (although some of those state it should be group consensus)

Edit: Also in response to the earlier objection by Darth Ultron. I am entirely interested in "feelings" in fact I stated in the very first post that I did not think there was one true specific definition of railroading. I'm interested in where various people draw that line and why.

Someone posted an article in my recent thread on rule zero describing various editions approach to rule zero, and it really does run the gammut.

Its also kind of funny, the editions that do give the DM unlimited power also incoude several pages on how they should (or should not) use that power, but most people dismiss them because the book gives them permission to do somas part of the unlimited power.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-17, 08:49 PM
Ummm... In 2 you didn't mention any railroading at all... so how is it railroading. Also, I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone in this thread mentioning 2.

I'm not talking about the specifics, I'm saying all DM's that are runnjing a game like D&D with any type of linear common sense plot and story, fit into the three types of Railroading.

1)Crude Railroading with a club.

2)Stealth Railroading (or even denial railroading).

3)Sneaky Railroading.

Everything you have said in this thread puts you in #2.

Milo v3
2015-12-17, 09:06 PM
Everything you have said in this thread puts you in #2.
I am sincerely insulted. I'm not going "everything is random", the randomnesss comes from the fact that dice determine success, it's a + b = c.

I have not said I "don't control the creation of the game world", I said I do not have sole control over the creation of the game world, my players have power over that as well. I have not said I "don't control the fabric of the game world" I have said that I do not have sole control over the fabric of the game, players are able to do as they wish within the bounds of the rules. I have not said I'm "not the ultimate arbiter of the game rules", I have repeatedly said that my style of GM'ing is primarily simply following the rules of the game and putting a setting down for players to do as they will in them, which means yes I referee the rules. I have even said that I see my role as GM as a referee, instead of being a god which you seem to think is the only friggin option.

There is no stealth railroading because I'm not stopping them from doing anything. There is no railroading when players go off the rails and the GM does Nothing to try and get the players back on the rails. You repeatedly say other people are doing railroading without any actual link between their actions and railroading. Simply having a plot is not railroading if you do not do anything to force your players to go along the plot. My players have destroyed major plot points through their actions, my players could easily decide to simply leave the whole plane of existent they are on all together and that is fine for me, they can do whatever they want. In this instance, there is no railroading. Please stop saying ridiculous statements with no evidence over and over again, it is immensely annoying. Not everyone has your DM'ing style, deal with it.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-17, 09:40 PM
I am sincerely insulted. I'm not going "everything is random", the randomnesss comes from the fact that dice determine success, it's a + b = c.

The dice are random, but everything your rolling for is not. It is possible for a DM to be pure and fair and neutral while being random, but it is also possible that they are not.




I have not said I "don't control the creation of the game world", I said I do not have sole control over the creation of the game world, my players have power over that as well. I have not said I "don't control the fabric of the game world" I have said that I do not have sole control over the fabric of the game, players are able to do as they wish within the bounds of the rules. I have not said I'm "not the ultimate arbiter of the game rules", I have repeatedly said that my style of GM'ing is primarily simply following the rules of the game and putting a setting down for players to do as they will in them, which means yes I referee the rules. I have even said that I see my role as GM as a referee, instead of being a god which you seem to think is the only friggin option.

What makes you the second one is how much you insist you don't have sole control over the world. You have not really explained how you ''share'' control in a game like D&D. Like can your players(co-DM's?) create things in the game world? Can a player just say ''my character has a million gold or a sword +5''? Do your players control the game world? Can they say ''all the goblins are asleep and stay asleep while we coup de grade them all''? Can your players make rule calls? Can they just say ''as my character falls off the cliff he shoots his bow and gets a +10 to hit from the falling winds''?

It is a perfectly valid play style.



There is no stealth railroading because I'm not stopping them from doing anything. There is no railroading when players go off the rails and the GM does Nothing to try and get the players back on the rails. You repeatedly say other people are doing railroading without any actual link between their actions and railroading. Simply having a plot is not railroading if you do not do anything to force your players to go along the plot. My players have destroyed major plot points through their actions, my players could easily decide to simply leave the whole plane of existent they are on all together and that is fine for me, they can do whatever they want. In this instance, there is no railroading. Please stop saying ridiculous statements with no evidence over and over again, it is immensely annoying. Not everyone has your DM'ing style, deal with it.

I did ask how did you advance a plot with no railroading, and you never answered.

For an easy example: say the characters are looking for a treasure map. Do you:

A)Decide on an exact spot where the treasure map is (''the dwarf Dorg has it'')
Or
B)Just put the treasure map somewhere in their path wherever you feel like it

See, both ''the characters must find person X to get the map'' and ''no matter where the characters go they will find the map'' are both railroading.

Now, if you go A, what do you do, if anything to lead, guide, or another word you might want to use, to the person with the map. Do you just let the players do whatever they want all the time, even if it takes them miles and miles away from the character with the map? Do you let the characters trek through the lost jungles of Cull, when the dwarf with the map is 2,000 miles away in the desert of Cailm?

Because if you do anything, like a player rolls a knowledge check and you as DM say ''you hear a rumor that the dwarf Dorg has the map your looking for''.....that is railroading (soft, stealthy railroading, but railroading none the less).

Milo v3
2015-12-17, 11:08 PM
The dice are random, but everything your rolling for is not. It is possible for a DM to be pure and fair and neutral while being random, but it is also possible that they are not.
Again... Never said I was random.


Like can your players(co-DM's?) create things in the game world? Do your players control the game world?
Yes (also, i have no co-DM's, always been confused personally how that'd work without the co-DM getting bored). For example, they can say they part of a rich family, they can say a city exists in a certain spot, they can say "x person is the prince of x nation", they can say "I am a childhood friend with the prince of x nation", they can say "x creatures live in y", they can say "there is a secret passage through my manor". In one of my campaigns, it had one PC who was the god of a city-state and the player decided on all the details of that city-states society. Another PC in that campaign was a lord of an immense region of the shadow plane and when it came to something to do with the shadow plane, I asked that player how they think it should work, and that immediately becomes canon. Another decided he was a rich celebrity who runs an immense magic item business and choose how magic marts work in the setting.


Can a player just say ''my character has a million gold or a sword +5''? Can they say ''all the goblins are asleep and stay asleep while we coup de grade them all''?
Probably not (sometimes yes... I mean, that has happened and in one setting it made perfect sense so it was allowed, but it doesn't really fall under what your attempting with the question). But I would say I don't have that level of power either. If I tried to do something as ridiculous as that then my players would complain and leave.


Can your players make rule calls? Can they just say ''as my character falls off the cliff he shoots his bow and gets a +10 to hit from the falling winds''?
Sorta. Outside of the standard "players can question rule calls in the game and might convince the DM" that everyone has, we follow the circumstance bonus/penalty rules. But generally, the DM makes rule calls, since his role is as the referee.


I did ask how did you advance a plot with no railroading, and you never answered.
I did say, luck or player buy-in. Other than that, I don't think advancing a planned plot is feasible.


For an easy example: say the characters are looking for a treasure map. Do you:

A)Decide on an exact spot where the treasure map is (''the dwarf Dorg has it'')
Or
B)Just put the treasure map somewhere in their path wherever you feel like it

See, both ''the characters must find person X to get the map'' and ''no matter where the characters go they will find the map'' are both railroading.
B) is railroading, but A) isn't really railroading in itself.


Now, if you go A, what do you do, if anything to lead, guide, or another word you might want to use, to the person with the map. Do you just let the players do whatever they want all the time, even if it takes them miles and miles away from the character with the map? Do you let the characters trek through the lost jungles of Cull, when the dwarf with the map is 2,000 miles away in the desert of Cailm?
Okay, say Dorg has it and they go the wrong way... Then they go the wrong way. Different stories will be told. So be it. I'd be able to say more if there was more information on why they want the map and why Dorg has the map.


Because if you do anything, like a player rolls a knowledge check and you as DM say ''you hear a rumor that the dwarf Dorg has the map your looking for''.....that is railroading (soft, stealthy railroading, but railroading none the less).
If they roll a knowledge check and get an answer that is not railroading. Nothing forces them to meet Dorg, why do they want that treasure map? If they want a specific treasure, then there is likely only a small number of maps for that treasure. Though they could change hands but that'd take time, so I'd probably be tracking the position of the maps overtime in my setting notes. Alternatively they could actually end up stumbling into the treasure (very very very very very unlikely, but theoretically possible), or more likely they could give up and decide to do something else. Also, it'd be weird if you get knowledge checks as rumours, you either know it or you don't.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-17, 11:34 PM
I don't know why Darth insists upon calling it railroading, when he is aware it's a loaded term. Especially given that with his definition, it literally means "running a game". According to Darth's definition of railroading, even allowing players to do anything they want is STILL railroading, as the DM still has "control" per the rules.

Given that you need some sort of setting to play, and that games are usually run by one person, in most cases someone would be "railroading" according to Darth. Which defeats the purpose of the term.

The only way to not have a "railroad" in a game would be if each player democratically voted to add encounters, enemies, settings etc. (And who knows, he might even call that railroading.)

Essentially, Dartb's definition doesn't really do anyone any good, as for the great majority of games it translates to "playing DnD".

I also find it interesting that whenever Darth goes for an example, his "players" always suggest something ridiculously game breaking that doesn't fit in with the reality of the world at all. My experience with players is not the same as Dartb's. I think he should find better players.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-17, 11:50 PM
The dice are random, but everything your rolling for is not. It is possible for a DM to be pure and fair and neutral while being random, but it is also possible that they are not.
Rolls are often prompted by character actions. There are things you need to roll for. Like picking a lock. That's just the rules of the game.

It should also be noted that you are making one GIGANTIC assumption as the basis of your point:
D&D games are always linear.
A Hexcrawl is a kind of d&d game that is not linear. In fact, it often doesn't have the same party every time you play. Only a persistent world. You would have a hard time railroading a Hexcrawl since... there isn't a storyline at all. Players make their own stories and go explore stuff.




What makes you the second one is how much you insist you don't have sole control over the world. You have not really explained how you ''share'' control in a game like D&D. Like can your players(co-DM's?) create things in the game world? Can a player just say ''my character has a million gold or a sword +5''? Do your players control the game world? Can they say ''all the goblins are asleep and stay asleep while we coup de grade them all''? Can your players make rule calls? Can they just say ''as my character falls off the cliff he shoots his bow and gets a +10 to hit from the falling winds''?

It is a perfectly valid play style.

False Dichotomy. Seriously. Stop breaking it down into only 2 possibilities. It kills your credibility. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to knock that off.

Anyways. It is possible to ask your players things like: "What city do you hail from?" And poof, that city exists somewhere. They have affected the world. You can ask details about the city, etc. Maybe their parents own a tavern there called the Big Fallacy. And so that tavern exists somewhere.

As has been agreed upon, Railroading is a term that means imposing one and only one course of action and/or sequence of events and enforcing it with negative consequences. Referring to other things as Railroading within this discussion is pretty much attempting to derail the discussion back to defining Railroading (not the point of this thread per AMFV, who started the thread.) Please stop derailing.


I did ask how did you advance a plot with no railroading, and you never answered.
Story is what happens when you're done playing. Not something you must write out and plan ahead of time. But anyways....



For an easy example: say the characters are looking for a treasure map. Do you:

A)Decide on an exact spot where the treasure map is (''the dwarf Dorg has it'')
Or
B)Just put the treasure map somewhere in their path wherever you feel like it

See, both ''the characters must find person X to get the map'' and ''no matter where the characters go they will find the map'' are both railroading.

Now, if you go A, what do you do, if anything to lead, guide, or another word you might want to use, to the person with the map. Do you just let the players do whatever they want all the time, even if it takes them miles and miles away from the character with the map? Do you let the characters trek through the lost jungles of Cull, when the dwarf with the map is 2,000 miles away in the desert of Cailm?

Because if you do anything, like a player rolls a knowledge check and you as DM say ''you hear a rumor that the dwarf Dorg has the map your looking for''.....that is railroading (soft, stealthy railroading, but railroading none the less).

You can certainly allow the players to wander 2000 miles out of the way. I've allowed my players to end up on the wrong continent entirely. Not my problem.

If they want the map, they have to obtain the map, and they will find it boring and stupid if they suddenly have it. It HAS to be somewhere. Putting the map somewhere isn't Railroading. It's how GMing works. You've not forced only one solution or one possible sequence of events. They can kill the dwarf. Steal it from him stealthily. Buy it from him. Bring him along in exchange for a cut of the treasure. They haven't been forced to do anything other than locate the dwarf who has the treasure map...or choose to just not do that. They just know he has one.

Although I usually just have someone wander into town with a map, among around 7 other potentially interesting things going on all at once, and let the players decide what sounds fun. Which isn't railroading, by the way. Railroading would be preparing 1 thing and only allowing them to do that one thing or bad things happen.

Or at least, that is the only version of railroading according to your very strange system that applies to this discussion. All the others are superfluous and appear to have no purpose other than derailment back to trying to prove your weird omnirailroad theory. Which, if you want to do, should be a different thread. But not this one.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-18, 12:17 AM
Or at least, that is the only version of railroading according to your very strange system that applies to this discussion. All the others are superfluous and appear to have no purpose other than derailment back to trying to prove your weird omnirailroad theory. Which, if you want to do, should be a different thread. But not this one.

See, I'm saying ''Railroading is anything a DM does that forces, guides, temps, leads, or in any way makes the players have their characters follow a path and remove choice. ''

Everyone else is saying ''Railroading is only when a DM is a jerk'' and ''Sometimes somethings are sometimes Railroading and sometimes somethings are sometime not...maybe''. And then no one....no one will step up and say why is A railroading and B is not railroading.

Like A: The characters get to town very late at night. The DM says only one tavern/inn, the Night Owl is open and the DM has made an encounter for that tavern where the character will get captured by making a challenging encounter for that very reason(so the tavern inn is an optimized trap). Everyone screams this is Railroading.

Now B. The characters get to town very late at night. The DM ''randomly'' using ''common sense'' or some ''rules'' that only they can see in the rulebook say only one tavern/inn, the Night Owl, is open. The DM ''randomly'' using ''common sense'' or some ''rules'' that only they can see in the rulebook makes an encounter at the tavern/inn for no reason in particular. The Dm has no plan other then to just pointlessly have the encounter and will just let the dice roll as they may. And, oddly, this DM screams like crazy and says they don't create the encounter, when as DM they do create the encounter. Everyone says this is just normal game play.

Now the only real differences I see:

A: The DM plans things out
B: The DM has no plan and does nothing?

A:The DM makes the encounter tough ''using the rules'' so that, even with chance, the characters are likely to fail and be caught.
B:The DM, somehow, makes every encounter bland and fair and balanced and neutral and with no bias so that there is a flat 50% of the characters getting captured.

A.The DM will try there best to have the NPC's capture the characters.
B.The DM will just lazily have the NPC's do things and stuff and just kinda see what happens.

Milo v3
2015-12-18, 12:31 AM
Everyone else is saying ''Railroading is only when a DM is a jerk'' and ''Sometimes somethings are sometimes Railroading and sometimes somethings are sometime not...maybe''.
I really find this a perfect example to show that you are not listening to anyone. Many people including myself have repeatedly said that railroading can improve the players fun and can help a plot work without encountering snags or the players missing something that is critical to the plot. Please read what people are saying rather than just repeating yourself.


Now B. The characters get to town very late at night. The DM ''randomly'' using ''common sense'' or some ''rules'' that only they can see in the rulebook say only one tavern/inn, the Night Owl, is open. The DM ''randomly'' using ''common sense'' or some ''rules'' that only they can see in the rulebook makes an encounter at the tavern/inn for no reason in particular. The Dm has no plan other then to just pointlessly have the encounter and will just let the dice roll as they may. And, oddly, this DM screams like crazy and says they don't create the encounter, when as DM they do create the encounter. Everyone says this is just normal game play.
This is blatantly insulting and nothing like what has been described by the other people in the thread. You are now just being rude.

Florian
2015-12-18, 03:41 AM
A simple example of how railroading (in the sense that the gm "forces" some things on the characters) can be part of the core gameplay and have a positive effect on player agency can be found in the Gumshoe system and is based on the "core clue" principle:

This is an investigative game based on highly competent characters. The basic assumption is based on the characters being competent enough to solve the case/mystery by themselves, without player input. So, the "spine" story of the investigation is fixed, the players are handed all necessary core clues at the start of a scene and can always transit to the follow-up scene without trouble.

So, what do the players do here, where is the agency, the fun when the characters solve the story themselves? The story is just a "spine", leaving out the why, the motive, the background and the connections between the things. You´ll know who the murder was, but you´ll miss all the details.
Now you outfit your character with stuff you will want to use in-game at your leisure, like "calling up a friend in the morgue" or "connections to the FBI" and freely engage in how _you_ solve this mystery/case, what parts you take a deeper look into, and so on.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-18, 10:58 AM
Darth, given your definition of railroading, could you please give me an idea of a DnD game that wouldn't involve railroading that would still fall under the definition of "playing DnD" to you?

Amphetryon
2015-12-18, 11:37 AM
"Creating an encounter" does not equal "railroading." "Actions have consequences" does not equal "railroading" (unless you believe some Players I've known).

Gravitron5000
2015-12-18, 12:09 PM
Like A: The characters get to town very late at night. The DM says only one tavern/inn, the Night Owl is open and the DM has made an encounter for that tavern where the character will get captured by making a challenging encounter for that very reason(so the tavern inn is an optimized trap). Everyone screams this is Railroading.


Nope. That is just a possible planned encounter. This is only railroading if the players choose to sleep in a field instead (or anything else that avoids the inn), and the DM contrives a reason to force them to the inn.

AMFV
2015-12-18, 12:24 PM
Nope. That is just a possible planned encounter. This is only railroading if the players choose to sleep in a field instead (or anything else that avoids the inn), and the DM contrives a reason to force them to the inn.

To be fair, I don't even think creating an encouraging reason for them to go to the Inn is railroading in all cases. I'll often plan contingencies around players deciding to go off the beaten path. It's more a matter of maintaining verisimilitude, for example, say the players sleep in the field, I may have the weather get sour, which is pretty realistic. The key is not to have the players feel that you're forcing them, and if they're stubborn ("I don't care if it's raining cats and dogs"), then you pay attention to that and reorient around that.

Basically anytime the players get off the plot bus, I give them some encouragement to get back on, and if they don't, I alter stuff or organize a side plot. But I don't think a little bit of encouragement counts as railroading. I think that for it to be railroading it would basically have to be "No you don't, you sleep in the inn." Or you have implausible wandering monsters force them to the inn, I don't think one gentle reminder is all that bad.

Gravitron5000
2015-12-18, 12:31 PM
To be fair, I don't even think creating an encouraging reason for them to go to the Inn is railroading in all cases. I'll often plan contingencies around players deciding to go off the beaten path. It's more a matter of maintaining verisimilitude, for example, say the players sleep in the field, I may have the weather get sour, which is pretty realistic. The key is not to have the players feel that you're forcing them, and if they're stubborn ("I don't care if it's raining cats and dogs"), then you pay attention to that and reorient around that.

Basically anytime the players get off the plot bus, I give them some encouragement to get back on, and if they don't, I alter stuff or organize a side plot. But I don't think a little bit of encouragement counts as railroading. I think that for it to be railroading it would basically have to be "No you don't, you sleep in the inn." Or you have implausible wandering monsters force them to the inn, I don't think one gentle reminder is all that bad.

That's the nuance I was implying by choosing the word force, rather than encourage. I may be too terse.

Florian
2015-12-18, 12:36 PM
To be fair, I don't even think creating an encouraging reason for them to go to the Inn is railroading in all cases. I'll often plan contingencies around players deciding to go off the beaten path. It's more a matter of maintaining verisimilitude, for example, say the players sleep in the field, I may have the weather get sour, which is pretty realistic. The key is not to have the players feel that you're forcing them, and if they're stubborn ("I don't care if it's raining cats and dogs"), then you pay attention to that and reorient around that.

Basically anytime the players get off the plot bus, I give them some encouragement to get back on, and if they don't, I alter stuff or organize a side plot. But I don't think a little bit of encouragement counts as railroading. I think that for it to be railroading it would basically have to be "No you don't, you sleep in the inn." Or you have implausible wandering monsters force them to the inn, I don't think one gentle reminder is all that bad.

Being realistic about that, most if not all gms will not be able to always instantly react to what the players want to do at a given moment with the same level of quality material that some prep time will come up with. There´ll always be holes, compromise and fidgeting with the rules/setting stuff if you have to wing it.
Stuff like that simply is a "technical issue" and can´t be avoided.

AMFV
2015-12-18, 12:37 PM
Being realistic about that, most if not all gms will not be able to always instantly react to what the players want to do at a given moment with the same level of quality material that some prep time will come up with. There´ll always be holes, compromise and fidgeting with the rules/setting stuff if you have to wing it.
Stuff like that simply is a "technical issue" and can´t be avoided.

Not necessarily. Actually I've found that my improv material actually is sometimes better than my prepped stuff. The main problem is following on to it and seeing the eventual consequences, so too much reliance on that has caused a problem for me.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-18, 01:12 PM
Being realistic about that, most if not all gms will not be able to always instantly react to what the players want to do at a given moment with the same level of quality material that some prep time will come up with. There´ll always be holes, compromise and fidgeting with the rules/setting stuff if you have to wing it.
Stuff like that simply is a "technical issue" and can´t be avoided.

This is why I don't usually prep plots, and prep "hooks" instead. I just generally try to come up with two or three different areas based on the geography, and one or two hooks per location. So if they go off script, I can work on the fly. Of course, not all DMs are great at making stuff up on the fly, but even a list of "Quantum Ogre" type stuff can help.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-18, 02:08 PM
Everyone else is saying ''Railroading is only when a DM is a jerk'' and ''Sometimes somethings are sometimes Railroading and sometimes somethings are sometime not...maybe''. And then no one....no one will step up and say why is A railroading and B is not railroading.
Ignoring all the various times when we said that so long as everyone is fine with the railroading, railroading is fine. And also still railroading. Just that peeps aren't mad about it.


Like A: The characters get to town very late at night. The DM says only one tavern/inn, the Night Owl is open and the DM has made an encounter for that tavern where the character will get captured by making a challenging encounter for that very reason(so the tavern inn is an optimized trap). Everyone screams this is Railroading.

If this is set up to have exactly one outcome and the DM cheats (breaks the game's rules and violates the social contract implicit in the playing of games like this) to make sure that only 1 thing happens... then yes. That is railroading. Also notice that he isn't just railroading in this example, but TARGETING ONE SPECIFIC CHARACTER AND INFLICTING NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED.
So yes. This individual is a ****. Also railroading. These are mutually exclusive.


Now B. The characters get to town very late at night. The DM ''randomly'' using ''common sense'' or some ''rules'' that only they can see in the rulebook say only one tavern/inn, the Night Owl, is open. The DM ''randomly'' using ''common sense'' or some ''rules'' that only they can see in the rulebook makes an encounter at the tavern/inn for no reason in particular. The Dm has no plan other then to just pointlessly have the encounter and will just let the dice roll as they may. And, oddly, this DM screams like crazy and says they don't create the encounter, when as DM they do create the encounter. Everyone says this is just normal game play.

Who said they didn't create the encounter? Has anyone said this? What thread have you been reading? What?

It is not the existence of the encounter that is railroading. Forcing ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME for the encounter is railroading.

See the difference?

I found a (comically exaggerated) mimic to your reasoning.
You: "ALL tacos are fish tacos."
Others: "What? I mean, yeah, there's always a shell and meat and cheese but there can be many kinds of meat in a taco."
You: "Like what?"
Others: "Like a beef taco."
You: "But that's still a shell, meat, and cheese! It's still a fish taco!"
Others: "WTF? A beef taco and a fish taco are both tacos, but they are different tacos."
You: "Okay, so Taco A has a shell, and Fish meat, and cheese and lettuce. But taco B has a shell, beef, and cheese and lettuce. It's the same thing. It's all fish tacos."
Others: "*Violent Rage*"

Taking the few similarities between two things and using that as proof they are the same thing is really, really bad logic.

Or really, really obvious trolling.

The differences have been pointed out to you numerous times. Youve elected tl continue citing the few similarities and proof that the differences aren't real or are irrelevant, when they are not.

I'm just gonna point out for everyone else:
Please just stop feeding the troll.
Or poking him or whatever.
Just ignore it. Seriously. Don't let him drag the discussion back into his omnirailroad theory.

And again, if you want to discuss that theory and have an argument about it, make a new thread. The OP of the thread has asked that this aspect of the discussion cease.

Have some respect and drop the issue.

Seriously. It's getting to the point of being blatantly disrespectful. Just stop.

Telok
2015-12-18, 02:46 PM
So, question. Is this plot map for a supers game railroading?
http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo198/jcc_telok/2015-12-18-101722_zpsulmcenwg.jpg (http://s375.photobucket.com/user/jcc_telok/media/2015-12-18-101722_zpsulmcenwg.jpg.html)

Also, at the end several of the villains are scripted to get away. One of the players however has jumped plot and decided to chase a villain instead of going to help disarm the bombs. Now, numbers wise the PC can catch the villain but not stop him and the villain's jet pack has hours of fuel while the PC's has five minutes of fuel. Since it was predetermined that the villain will escape (script backed by legitimate game mechanics) is that railroading?

Since there won't be enough PCs to disarm all the bombs a portion of a football stadium with 50,000 people is going to get gas bombed. This is an unplanned result of the PC's actions. I'm trying to plan what the public reaction will be to this disaster. Are the anti-supers riots and attacks that I'm planning railroading? Are they railroading if I'm planning on forcing the characters out of the country and into Central America drug territory?

Florian
2015-12-18, 02:53 PM
So, question. Is this plot map for a supers game railroading?
http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo198/jcc_telok/2015-12-18-101722_zpsulmcenwg.jpg (http://s375.photobucket.com/user/jcc_telok/media/2015-12-18-101722_zpsulmcenwg.jpg.html)

Also, at the end several of the villains are scripted to get away. One of the players however has jumped plot and decided to chase a villain instead of going to help disarm the bombs. Now, numbers wise the PC can catch the villain but not stop him and the villain's jet pack has hours of fuel while the PC's has five minutes of fuel. Since it was predetermined that the villain will escape (script backed by legitimate game mechanics) is that railroading?

Since there won't be enough PCs to disarm all the bombs a portion of a football stadium with 50,000 people is going to get gas bombed. This is an unplanned result of the PC's actions. I'm trying to plan what the public reaction will be to this disaster. Are the anti-supers riots and attacks that I'm planning railroading? Are they railroading if I'm planning on forcing the characters out of the country and into Central America drug territory?

No immediate answer possible. A question first: You seem to enforce "supers" tropes. Do your players know this, know the tropes themselves and did they agree to them?

themaque
2015-12-18, 03:14 PM
Also, at the end several of the villains are scripted to get away. One of the players however has jumped plot and decided to chase a villain instead of going to help disarm the bombs. Now, numbers wise the PC can catch the villain but not stop him and the villain's jet pack has hours of fuel while the PC's has five minutes of fuel. Since it was predetermined that the villain will escape (script backed by legitimate game mechanics) is that railroading?


Depends on the plan of the Heros to stop them. If your villain has A, B, & C as pre-set up escape options, that is your villain thinking ahead.

If the players come up with Avenue Q as a way to try and stop him, and it's a reasonable idea with good design it should work. If nothing they can think up will end up with him getting away or you keep pulling out more things that "Oh he would have thought of that!" than yes it is railroading.

Had a GM once who LOVED to have villains make last minute escapes. To the point we wouldn't even want to try and chase them since we knew they would get away in the end no matter what we tried.



Since there won't be enough PCs to disarm all the bombs a portion of a football stadium with 50,000 people is going to get gas bombed. This is an unplanned result of the PC's actions. is this planned or assumed?



I'm trying to plan what the public reaction will be to this disaster. Are the anti-supers riots and attacks that I'm planning railroading?


Depends on what the characters do as well. If they just sit there and let things play out, then this could be reasonable. If there is already alarm or distrust about these dangerous vigilantes than this being the final problem that sets of the powder keg makes sense. not to mention there are always people who WANT to see them in trouble.

Now I am playing a supers game now, and my character has hired a PR management team to help keep his public image clean. If players can do this and try to take them on and aren't destined to lose?


Are they railroading if I'm planning on forcing the characters out of the country and into Central America?

It can be. whether that is GOOD or not I could tell you.

If they players want to escape to Canada but you force them to Bolivia that's railroading.

If you plan for Venezuela but they want to go to Thailand than no, it's not.

If they originally want to run to Spain but you convince them that Colombia offers better opportunities both in and out of character than no.

DireSickFish
2015-12-18, 04:31 PM
Angry DM just did an article on running linear adventures, it's worth a read: http://theangrygm.com/coloring-inside-the-lines-linear-adventure-design/


I'd say that to plan a good linear adventure that isn't a dungeon you have to work on the transitions. Transitions from scene to scene will changed based on player actions. If they need to see the King to get permission to take a boat out but they skip that scene by sneaking on the ship the players have turned your linear adventure into a branching one, or they've just skipped a scene in the linear adventure. A problem can have multiple solutions and multiple failure states.

If instead of giving them the open problem of needing to get on a boat and instead make the problem that they need to get on a specific boat and it is owned by the king that helps constrain the problem. Now the players can steal it so you have to plan for that in some way. You either let them steal it and turn it into a branching structure or present them with the very realistic problem that they don't have a crew and highering one in a day for an illegal ship would be next to impossible.

Now players can always mess up your plans, that's just what they do. But to make an adventure linear in the planning phase focuses on the scenes and ways to transition not just scenes and how you want them to transition.

Have to think on the Raillroading part, I'm not sure what is to much and it is a very situational thing. DMing is hard work and a thankless task so I tend to cut my GM's some slack.

Telok
2015-12-18, 06:39 PM
No immediate answer possible. A question first: You seem to enforce "supers" tropes. Do your players know this, know the tropes themselves and did they agree to them?

Well it's a supers game. They wanted to play a supers game with supers tropes and even chose to be government sanctioned and supported heroes. I was up front with the generally classic age comic book style. They could have said 'no' or chosen to be vigilantes, they had those options.

themaque:
The villain only had one plan in place, but it worked like expected except for one guy who tends to have teamwork issues at odd times. It was pretty obvious for about four rounds of combat that the PC chasing the villain can't actually hurt him (high accuracy and versatility but lowish damage vs. a pretty good force force field) on his own, so being able to catch up isn't an issue. Still, if he can actually pull off some stunt to stop the guy then sure, it works.

The bombs? The villain told 4 PCs that there were 4 bombs that couldn't be disarmed one at a time. The PCs knew this before deciding on what to do. So yeah, he knew that he was leaving the others with too few people to defuse the bombs. Still the others do have a chance, there are three or four ways I can think of to stop the bombs that will work and they have the skills and equipment on them. But they don't know that yet, they only know that there are four bombs that need to be defused simultaneously and there aren't four PCs to do that anymore.

PR is an issue for these guys. The bad guys score is a bank robbery, some arms smuggling, a kidnapping, stealing from municipal power and water, unauthorized construction (secret base in the basement), and hiring some assassins who failed. The players have blown up almost a dozen cars and boats (they like throwing cars and trucks at things), destroyed two buildings (they really like throwing cars and trucks through walls), set one building on fire (I admit that was mostly an accident), killed thee people by leaving them in burning cars, and hospitalized about half a dozen people including one lady on life support that they have no evidence against and another guy with third degree burns over 60% or 70% of his body. I may have to have them take "Code vs. Killing" off their character sheets and replace it with "Hunted: Lawyers".

As for where they go they actually have two reasons to go to Central America, it's where the assassins came from and they're stilll government employees. They can simply be ordered to go clean up a couple of military/CIA mistakes. I mean, they can ignore that of course, but... Consequences.

Florian
2015-12-18, 07:20 PM
Well it's a supers game. They wanted to play a supers game with supers tropes and even chose to be government sanctioned and supported heroes. I was up front with the generally classic age comic book style. They could have said 'no' or chosen to be vigilantes, they had those options.

In this kind of game, tropes are more or less hardcoded physics of the setting.
So, four heroes, four bombs, one villain, everything is clear and, based on the tropes here, only one train of action leads to a satisfying outcome.
In this case, I´d actually lay the blame on the player that decided to break with the tropes here and went after the villain.

themaque
2015-12-18, 11:18 PM
In this kind of game, tropes are more or less hardcoded physics of the setting.
So, four heroes, four bombs, one villain, everything is clear and, based on the tropes here, only one train of action leads to a satisfying outcome.
In this case, I´d actually lay the blame on the player that decided to break with the tropes here and went after the villain.

There was a cool reprimand that Hal Jordan gave Kyle Rainer in a comic once. Sinestro had him tied up and told them "You can rescue Hal from Death or stop me! No time for both!"

Then Hal started berating Kyle for saving him instead of stopping Sinestro. That if you let the Villain set the rules of engagement, then yes they will WIN. Know your powers, capabilities, teammates and do things the bad guys haven't accounted for. You are limted by your intelligence and imagination!

of course... These guys plan A seem to be "Throw a car at his head" so maybe they should just K.I.S.S. and stick to the tropes that don't cause even MORE bystanders to blow up...

HOWEVER, this GM is more than willing to let players TRY, FAIL, or SUCCEED outside the box so in this case NO it's not Railroading. Consequences are the side effect of freedom.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-19, 02:46 AM
Darth, given your definition of railroading, could you please give me an idea of a DnD game that wouldn't involve railroading that would still fall under the definition of "playing DnD" to you?

Well, the classic dungeon crawl is pure D&D, and needs no railroading. But you don't need to railroad to play D&D, you only need to railroad if there is a plot and story. Random D&D is a perfectly fine way to play D&D, like where the characters just stand in a blank nowhere and endlessly fight monsters.


Nope. That is just a possible planned encounter. This is only railroading if the players choose to sleep in a field instead (or anything else that avoids the inn), and the DM contrives a reason to force them to the inn.

When does ''force'' count? For example the DM could say ''it starts to rain'' to attempt to get the players to go to the inn. The DM is useing passive force, does that count? What about reverse railroading when ''no matter where they sleep, the bandits attack!"


To be fair, I don't even think creating an encouraging reason for them to go to the Inn is railroading in all cases. I'll often plan contingencies around players deciding to go off the beaten path. It's more a matter of maintaining verisimilitude, for example, say the players sleep in the field, I may have the weather get sour, which is pretty realistic. The key is not to have the players feel that you're forcing them, and if they're stubborn ("I don't care if it's raining cats and dogs"), then you pay attention to that and reorient around that.

I think we just made some progress! The key is for the players not to feel forced into an action.



Basically anytime the players get off the plot bus, I give them some encouragement to get back on, and if they don't, I alter stuff or organize a side plot. But I don't think a little bit of encouragement counts as railroading. I think that for it to be railroading it would basically have to be "No you don't, you sleep in the inn." Or you have implausible wandering monsters force them to the inn, I don't think one gentle reminder is all that bad.

So encourgement for the players to follow a plot does not count as railroading.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-19, 04:30 AM
Darth, I must say, I haven't really heard of anyone playing DnD where all they do is fight monsters in some sort of limbo. It's always had a physical space, I thought.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 05:22 PM
If this is set up to have exactly one outcome and the DM cheats (breaks the game's rules and violates the social contract implicit in the playing of games like this) to make sure that only 1 thing happens... then yes. That is railroading. Also notice that he isn't just railroading in this example, but TARGETING ONE SPECIFIC CHARACTER AND INFLICTING NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED.
So yes. This individual is a ****. Also railroading. These are mutually exclusive.


Railroading does come into play with the two main playstlyes:

The Classic, Traditional Game: In this game the DM can do whatever he wants to any character on a whim, without any sort of input from the player at all. When something effects their character, a player only has the following choices: cry and complain and beg the DM to change his mind or leave the game. Otherwise the player just has to play the game with whatever the DM says happens to their character.

The Modern ME Game: In this game, the character is put up high on a pedestal out of the DM's reach. Any and all things that might even slightly effect the character must be presented to the player and the player must give their express permission and consent.

Now, we are not talking about the small stuff. In both games a DM can have effects on the characters that are small in scope and duration. We are talking about big effects. And almost always negative things.

An example would be loosing a special weapon when the whole character is built around that weapon. In the classic game the DM can just have the sword of a thousand truths lost, stolen or broken on a whim. In the Me game, the DM must ask the players permission before anything happens to the special weapon.

And that is where the Railroading comes in: the classic game does not give the player any choice as things just happen to the character. In the Me game the player keeps control of their character at all times.

Milo v3
2015-12-20, 06:11 PM
And that is where the Railroading comes in: the classic game does not give the player any choice as things just happen to the character. In the Me game the player keeps control of their character at all times.
Um.... how is the second one railroading, players being in control at all times is the opposite of railroading? I don't know who would do the second, but still.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 07:54 PM
Um.... how is the second one railroading, players being in control at all times is the opposite of railroading? I don't know who would do the second, but still.

The second one does not need railroading, by definition, the player is railroading themselves. If they player wants to follow the rails of a plot to make a story, that is not exactly pure railroading.

The Me type a game seems to be very common, even more so here on this forum.

Milo v3
2015-12-20, 07:59 PM
The Me type a game seems to be very common, even more so here on this forum.
I really think you should stop telling other people how they run a game.

Talakeal
2015-12-20, 08:01 PM
The second one does not need railroading, by definition, the player is railroading themselves. If they player wants to follow the rails of a plot to make a story, that is not exactly pure railroading.

The Me type a game seems to be very common, even more so here on this forum.

People on the forums like to take much more extreme positions than they do in real life.

In my experiance no game actually falls into either of the extremes that you suggest.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 08:18 PM
Since Darth doesn't care to answer me, has anyone else ever heard of a DnD game where players fight monsters in limbo?

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 08:26 PM
People on the forums like to take much more extreme positions than they do in real life.

In my experiance no game actually falls into either of the extremes that you suggest.

I would not say either way is extreme.

The classic way is just the DM creating a plot and story for the characters, without the players direct consent and permission to change, alter or effect the character.

The Me way is where the DM must ask the player first if they can do anything to the character. You know, as the Dm must ''respect'' that the player has their own story about the character and should not be subject to the Dms whims.

The Classic way requires railroading of the most basic sort: forcing the player to do things. The Me way never needs railroading, as the player has agreed to do it. Though few players will choose anything extreme in the Me way, so they will have quite bland plots.

Milo v3
2015-12-20, 08:36 PM
I would not say either way is extreme.

The classic way is just the DM creating a plot and story for the characters, without the players direct consent and permission to change, alter or effect the character.

The Me way is where the DM must ask the player first if they can do anything to the character. You know, as the Dm must ''respect'' that the player has their own story about the character and should not be subject to the Dms whims.

The Classic way requires railroading of the most basic sort: forcing the player to do things. The Me way never needs railroading, as the player has agreed to do it. Though few players will choose anything extreme in the Me way, so they will have quite bland plots.

And yet your the only one who has ever heard of someone doing a "Me way" game..... ?

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 08:40 PM
I would not say either way is extreme.

The classic way is just the DM creating a plot and story for the characters, without the players direct consent and permission to change, alter or effect the character.

The Me way is where the DM must ask the player first if they can do anything to the character. You know, as the Dm must ''respect'' that the player has their own story about the character and should not be subject to the Dms whims.

The Classic way requires railroading of the most basic sort: forcing the player to do things. The Me way never needs railroading, as the player has agreed to do it. Though few players will choose anything extreme in the Me way, so they will have quite bland plots.

What about a game where a DM can force changes on the players, but players have some capability to define the word with permission to change as well? That would seem to be neither of the definitions you provided.

Also, it's not helping your case when you refuse to take advice and keep throwing false dichotomies up in the air like they're 1 dollar bills at a strip club.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 08:47 PM
And yet your the only one who has ever heard of someone doing a "Me way" game..... ?

Well, we will just have to accept that I'm much more informed then most other people.

But if your saying your style is not Me and is Classic, then your a railroading DM. And there are no other styles for this: player consent and permission or not. It is one way or another.


Since Darth doesn't care to answer me, has anyone else ever heard of a DnD game where players fight monsters in limbo?

It is not like you asked a question......

Limbo is full of Slaads, characters can have tons of fun fighting them.....


What about a game where a DM can force changes on the players, but players have some capability to define the word with permission to change as well? That would seem to be neither of the definitions you provided.



Yea, so how does this way work?

The DM has a foe disintegrate the wizards only unattended spellbook. And the player says ''nope that does not happen!''. Well that is the Me game, as the player as the veto power.

How are you ''defining'' words?

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 08:56 PM
Well, the classic dungeon crawl is pure D&D, and needs no railroading. But you don't need to railroad to play D&D, you only need to railroad if there is a plot and story. Random D&D is a perfectly fine way to play D&D, like where the characters just stand in a blank nowhere and endlessly fight monsters.

You contradict your own wording on what railroading is.

In order to have a dungeon crawl, one must, pretty much by definition, have a dungeon, or at least some reasonable facsimile. Yet, you say it needs no railroading.

But your definition of railroading is that the DM is in charge of everything, correct? The DM chooses whether or not a room exists, whether monsters exist in it, etc etc.

Therefore, I don't see how you could have a "classic dungeon crawl" without "railroading" as you've defined the term. Maybe I'm defining it wrong. If you care to give a precise definition, I'm all ears.

Also, even in your "limbo" example, the DM still has full control over the game, yes? He chooses the monsters. He can adjust their AC or HP. He can rule that a fighter's sword was broken, and he has to punch the monster out.

If I'm wrong about any of this, please let me know why neither of the two examples provided above are railroading, according to my understanding of your definition.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 09:00 PM
Yea, so how does this way work?

The DM has a foe disintegrate the wizards only unattended spellbook. And the player says ''nope that does not happen!''. Well that is the Me game, as the player as the veto power.

How are you ''defining'' words?

Easy. The players have a set number of points per session/encounter/etc that they can utilize to this effect.

Example:

DM: "The monster disintegrates your spellbook!"
Player: "No, he doesn't! I'm going to use one of my "plot points" to say that I knew in advance there would be a chance to fight such and such monster, and so he doesn't do that."
DM: Ok, great! Then the other monster casts a spell on you... will save?
Player: (rolls a 2)... Damn... now I wish I hadn't used that plot point...

Could the DM choose to ignore the plot point? Sure, especially if it's something like, "I use a plot point to kill the dragon with one blow!" Of course, the players at that point could choose to ignore the DM, and just start saying, "Actually, that didn't happen" and just ignore the DM at that point. Real life always hold precedence over gaming.

Look, it even has its own wikipedia page!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_point_(role-playing_games)

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 09:17 PM
.

If I'm wrong about any of this, please let me know why neither of the two examples provided above are railroading, according to my understanding of your definition.

Railroading is not that the DM has full control over the game. It is the DM using his control of the game to keep the player characters on a single plot to tell a single story. You must have a plot and story to railroad.

A classic dungeon crawl has no plot. It is just go into the next room and kill monsters.


Easy. The players have a set number of points per session/encounter/etc that they can utilize to this effect.



If the players have ''plot points'', then it is a Me type game. But if the DM has plot point veto power, then the plot points are meanless and it is a classic game.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 09:35 PM
Railroading is not that the DM has full control over the game. It is the DM using his control of the game to keep the player characters on a single plot to tell a single story. You must have a plot and story to railroad.

A classic dungeon crawl has no plot. It is just go into the next room and kill monsters.

If the players have ''plot points'', then it is a Me type game. But if the DM has plot point veto power, then the plot points are meanless and it is a classic game.

Fair enough.

Re: plot points, there's obviously a social contract aspect to them, as there is in any game. Let's use your "classic dungeon crawl" game. The DM is within his rights to throw 100 Tarrasques into every room, correct? But while he is still "controlling" things from a game perspective, his players are probably going to think that sucks and leave.

And the idea of players just getting everything handed to them doesn't exist either, as I know it. There has to at least be an ILLUSION of risk, if not actual risk.

Given the idea behind plot points, they are limited. If a player requests something that breaks the social contract, then they CAN be denied. But denial of a plot point means something went very wrong, on either the DM or player's side. In a normal game, a player has NO expectation of being able to change the plot. Plot points create an expectation of that capability, tempered by the idea that their requests are reasonable. (I kill the dragon with one punch probably isn't reasonable.)

In essence, you're saying there's no difference between the plot that goes straight from A to B, and the plot that was going A to B, but instead went to C.

Darth, have you GM'd anything on here? Or do you have players on these boards?

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 09:51 PM
In essence, you're saying there's no difference between the plot that goes straight from A to B, and the plot that was going A to B, but instead went to C.

Darth, have you GM'd anything on here? Or do you have players on these boards?

Guess it is a good thing that games like D&D don't have plot points....

Not sure what you mean by different plots? The DM can change plots at any time, and the players can at least attempt to not follow a plot and it is possible for a DM to tell them do is if he feels like it.

Online I DM mostly on Skype.

Milo v3
2015-12-20, 10:02 PM
Well, we will just have to accept that I'm much more informed then most other people.
This is hilarious.


But if your saying your style is not Me and is Classic, then your a railroading DM. And there are no other styles for this: player consent and permission or not. It is one way or another.
Wow.... That's.. Like saying everyone on the planet is either Incapable of movement at all or able to move faster than the speed of light "It is one way or the other". I cannot believe I just read that. Thank god it's obvious your trolling. No, I do not follow either of those styles because both of those styles are ridiculous.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 10:02 PM
Guess it is a good thing that games like D&D don't have plot points....

Not sure what you mean by different plots? The DM can change plots at any time, and the players can at least attempt to not follow a plot and it is possible for a DM to tell them do is if he feels like it.

Online I DM mostly on Skype.

The above holds for any game with plot points, or any game in general where one person is driving the storyline. And DnD can have plot points in it, if one wants. (Sure it's a homebrew rule, but I would argue that the majority of people playing DnD have at least one homebrew rule they're playing by...)

The DM can change from his expected plot, to a player's plot. A DM can theoretically tell the players to do something, but the players can just walk away from the table if it's something extreme. "Hey, I know you rolled a nat 20, but instead of hitting the dragon, he actually has the natural spell like ability to go back in time, so he does that, and before you even swing at him, he gets behind you and eats you. Sorry. Reroll another character."

DnD is a game of give and take. You can't give a player anything, but you also can't take everything from them. Doing either of the two extremes leads to a lack of tension, and without tension, it's not much fun.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 10:15 PM
DnD is a game of give and take. You can't give a player anything, but you also can't take everything from them. Doing either of the two extremes leads to a lack of tension, and without tension, it's not much fun.

Not sure where you see a lack of tension, unless your talking about how bland and boring the Me type game is for most people.

But sure it is give and take....that is life.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 10:26 PM
Not sure where you see a lack of tension, unless your talking about how bland and boring the Me type game is for most people.

But sure it is give and take....that is life.

Would you agree that there would be a lack of tension if the DM consistently threw enemies against the players that they had no hope of defeating?

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 10:34 PM
Would you agree that there would be a lack of tension if the DM consistently threw enemies against the players that they had no hope of defeating?

Yes. The DM would also be a jerk and a bad DM. But that alone would not be railroading.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 10:43 PM
Yes. The DM would also be a jerk and a bad DM. But that alone would not be railroading.

Agreed, it would be a bad DM. And that's somewhat my point overall. Railroading can be done, if the PLAYERS agree to it. That's what it all comes down to, in my mind.

The problem with railroading is that it eliminates the capability of a player's character to affect the world. At low levels, this isn't much of a big deal, as he's usually not that high up on the food chain, so players tend to accept limits on their character. As they get higher, it gets tougher to justify limits on what they can do. So I find railroading becomes a bigger issue at higher levels.

Ultimately, the problem isn't necessarily railroading. Railroading is just short for, "A DM that doesn't allow for player agency, when it can be assumed that said player's agency makes sense in the world as presented, which usually ends up removing the suspension of disbelief."

Let's take the example of the situation presented where a party wanted to camp outside, instead of going to an inn. A DM is likely doing this to subtly "railroad" them to going into the inn. Rain is not some crazy concept, so most players won't lose their suspension of disbelief. But if it rains every time they try to camp? Players will likely need an in-universe explanation, or it will feel like railroading.

If your players are fine with railroading, it's not an issue. Most times, all it requires is some in-universe explanation. The only time railroading is an issue is when it upsets players, usually due to lack of agency/suspension of disbelief. If the DM forces railroading on a playerbase that DOESN'T enjoy it, it doesn't matter what the book says about the DM's capabilities because he'll be playing by himself.

In the same sense, a set of players that gets everything they want is probably not much fun for the DM... why is he even there at that point? And a DM who runs an inconsistent universe (or one that's just brutally hard and doesn't give the player the chance to be heroes) probably isn't much fun for the players.
That's my two dollars on it, anyways.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-20, 11:01 PM
Agreed, it would be a bad DM. And that's somewhat my point overall. Railroading can be done, if the PLAYERS agree to it. That's what it all comes down to, in my mind.

Railroading, by defination, is something the players never agree to.



The problem with railroading is that it eliminates the capability of a player's character to affect the world. At low levels, this isn't much of a big deal, as he's usually not that high up on the food chain, so players tend to accept limits on their character. As they get higher, it gets tougher to justify limits on what they can do. So I find railroading becomes a bigger issue at higher levels. .

It does in fact become much easier at higher levels of game play.




Let's take the example of the situation presented where a party wanted to camp outside, instead of going to an inn. A DM is likely doing this to subtly "railroad" them to going into the inn. Rain is not some crazy concept, so most players won't lose their suspension of disbelief. But if it rains every time they try to camp? Players will likely need an in-universe explanation, or it will feel like railroading.

The DM just needs to be creative and clever. For example, getting attacked by thugs if you sleep in the field is a very reasonable concept. In fact, said thugs keep an eye on the fields note when ''rich folk'' like adventurers show up there''.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-20, 11:05 PM
Darth, whose definition? Yours? Obviously there have been MANY definitions provided in this thread alone. Are you claiming sole authority over the definition?

You're saying it becomes easier to railroad at higher levels of play? If you mean, "it becomes easier for my players to negatively view the way a DM does something", then yes. If you mean "it becomes easier to justify railroading when characters are higher level", then I'd need further explanation for why you think that.

I would agree that a DM needs to be creative and clever. That ties back into the whole "Suspension of disbelief". Using "Quantum Ogre" stuff isn't a problem if the characters are never aware of it. If they are aware of it (because you weren't creative/clever enough to think of something that went along with the logic of the world as presented), then players will find fault with the DM.

Talakeal
2015-12-21, 12:03 AM
Railroading, by defination, is something the players never agree to.

I thought you said that any game with a firm plot was railroading?

My players, for example, have trouble making up their mind on things, and actually prefer me to guide them with a firm hand and give them fairly linear plots, and sandbox games are an utter failure for my group, so I would say that my players actually do ask me to railroad them.

DireSickFish
2015-12-21, 01:01 AM
I'm honestly surprised people are still responding to Darth. I've been skipping over his posts the last 3 or 4 pages and any responses where he's quoted.

goto124
2015-12-21, 04:14 AM
"What the DM says, goes, If the DM says enough stupid stuff, the players go too." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?245027-How-to-deal-with-a-GM-who-thinks-he-can-just-override-the-rules-(Star-Wars-Saga)&p=13328236#post13328236)

Florian
2015-12-21, 08:57 AM
B]The Classic, Traditional Game:[/B] In this game the DM can do whatever he wants to any character on a whim, without any sort of input from the player at all. When something effects their character, a player only has the following choices: cry and complain and beg the DM to change his mind or leave the game. Otherwise the player just has to play the game with whatever the DM says happens to their character.

Lol, wut? "Classic" before or after Dragonlance happened? Before, the gm was mostly concerned with verisimilitude and keeping it "plausible". He could change whatever stuff came in the way of a plausible result, nothing more.


Since Darth doesn't care to answer me, has anyone else ever heard of a DnD game where players fight monsters in limbo?

Erm, *caugh*, confession time: We did that once, back in my youth. Everybody was looking forward to a lengthy 3 days session, the gm having left his campaign notes at home an not fit enough to wing it. We had our characters and the old white monster ring binders and a good supply of Four Roses, so we started with "A"....

Trickshaw
2015-12-21, 09:18 AM
An experienced DM can railroad an adventure without his players ever realizing it.

For example,

And I will be vague here since I don't know if my players frequent these boards.

Object A was taken from Dungeon Z. Object A remained in the groups possession for about 7 sessions before Player Q decided to employ it in, what they considered, an unconventional way to overcome a certain obstacle. Now, they didn't know that's why I allowed them to take Object A. And the fact it took 7+ sessions before they came to said conclusion reinforces the idea that it was "outside the box" thinking as opposed to railroaded story telling.

There's a fine line between presenting solutions and dropping hints Vs. presenting a problem in such a fashion that clever players will come to their own conclusions. At least they'll THINK it's their own conclusion when in fact it was a planned outcome.

Consequence is a great disguise. Taking Object A had an unforeseen consequence. A consequence the players hadn't considered and they ultimately reasoned was the "wrong way" to go about that particular plot point. Which makes it more believable that the solution Player Q concocted was an original idea. Played up of course by me being "impressed" by their ingenuity.

Subtlety.

If your subtle, you can railroad your players from start to finish without them being any the wiser. It just takes planning, experience and improvisational chops.

OldTrees1
2015-12-21, 10:55 AM
An experienced DM can railroad an adventure without his players ever realizing it.

For example,

If your subtle, you can railroad your players from start to finish without them being any the wiser. It just takes planning, experience and improvisational chops.

If your players could have but did not do otherwise than you planned, then is this railroading or just knowing your players? To me railroading is defined by the existence of DM imposed rails (the players would not be allowed to do other than you planned) rather than defined by the players happening to be predictable (the players would have been allowed to do other than you planned but were predictable enough that you planned for what they would do).

So you are right that an experienced DM can railroad without his players realizing it, but only if the situation that tests "railroad vs prediction" (aka the situation where they defy your prediction) never comes up.

goto124
2015-12-21, 11:23 AM
That sort of thing depends on the GM being able to read the minds of the players, really.

That, or having a low-level party in a typical linear dungeon where everything's set up to make alternate options illogical.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-21, 11:52 AM
I still think that "No Plot = Boring" is a huge load of stinking BS. And also that "D&D MUST have a plot or else it's boring!" is a huge load of bull.

But then again, D&D shoots itself in the foot by demanding so much prep time that it's easy to be forced into a corner as a DM that feels like you MUST prep everything ahead of time. (You actually don't, but whatever. It's still a pressure many DMs feel.)

This is part of the reason I don't play D&D hardly at all anymore. And the one I do play is a hexcrawl, which requires an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT kind of prep.

For those who don't know, this is how our Hexcrawl works:

Whenever someone is going to be absent that week, instead of skipping we play our Hexcrawl.

The Hexcrawl consists of a map and a starting town. The town has a few resources for the characters to make use of. (And these can be improved over time by spending money with a bit of homebrewing.)

This means that the party fluctuates. It won't always be the same characters. In fact, I encourage my players to have multiple characters or to at least have standbys since Hexcrawls tend to be unusually high on the lethality scale.

The world is persistent, and I have multiple quests that they could take and lots of places they could just opt to explore (or find on accident). All of the quests are in a countdown system so that for every session the quest goes unresolved, the situation gets worse.
(Nearby golbin camp gets bigger. Starts theiving from the town. Openly attacks caravans coming into and leaving town. Attacks the actual town and becomes a clear and present active danger. That sort of thing.) The players can interrupt the countdown whenever, but past a certain point it becomes Damage Control rather than outright prevention. (Usually the last two steps. Once I'm on the penultimate step, the final step is still gonna happen. The players can still lessen the blow, though. But hey, if they figure out a way to stop it entirely...I'll let it stand. Creativity gets rewarded.)

There isn't a PLOT and there are no BBEGs. The MAP is the BBEG.

The world is persistent. The party members (and players!) are not.

Whoever shows up, plays.

It's a fun way to play, and involves no plot. I just make sure I have lots of encounter tables filled with thematically appropriate monsters, and plenty of cool locations sprinkled liberally across the map, and it's a good time every time.

OldTrees1
2015-12-21, 11:57 AM
That sort of thing depends on the GM being able to read the minds of the players, really.

That, or having a low-level party in a typical linear dungeon where everything's set up to make alternate options illogical.

It depends on the players and on how well the DM known the players.

For instance: With the same group of players
I was able to predict their path through a branching non symmetric dungeon (without making options illogical) but was not able to predict where and what they would do on the overworld map (hence why I run a sandbox).

I could easily see different subsets of this group of players as being easy/impossible to predict in both cases.

So it does not take telepathy but is not applicable to every group.

Thrudd
2015-12-21, 02:41 PM
I still think that "No Plot = Boring" is a huge load of stinking BS. And also that "D&D MUST have a plot or else it's boring!" is a huge load of bull.

But then again, D&D shoots itself in the foot by demanding so much prep time that it's easy to be forced into a corner as a DM that feels like you MUST prep everything ahead of time. (You actually don't, but whatever. It's still a pressure many DMs feel.)

This is part of the reason I don't play D&D hardly at all anymore. And the one I do play is a hexcrawl, which requires an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT kind of prep.

For those who don't know, this is how our Hexcrawl works:

Whenever someone is going to be absent that week, instead of skipping we play our Hexcrawl.

The Hexcrawl consists of a map and a starting town. The town has a few resources for the characters to make use of. (And these can be improved over time by spending money with a bit of homebrewing.)

This means that the party fluctuates. It won't always be the same characters. In fact, I encourage my players to have multiple characters or to at least have standbys since Hexcrawls tend to be unusually high on the lethality scale.

The world is persistent, and I have multiple quests that they could take and lots of places they could just opt to explore (or find on accident). All of the quests are in a countdown system so that for every session the quest goes unresolved, the situation gets worse.
(Nearby golbin camp gets bigger. Starts theiving from the town. Openly attacks caravans coming into and leaving town. Attacks the actual town and becomes a clear and present active danger. That sort of thing.) The players can interrupt the countdown whenever, but past a certain point it becomes Damage Control rather than outright prevention. (Usually the last two steps. Once I'm on the penultimate step, the final step is still gonna happen. The players can still lessen the blow, though. But hey, if they figure out a way to stop it entirely...I'll let it stand. Creativity gets rewarded.)

There isn't a PLOT and there are no BBEGs. The MAP is the BBEG.

The world is persistent. The party members (and players!) are not.

Whoever shows up, plays.

It's a fun way to play, and involves no plot. I just make sure I have lots of encounter tables filled with thematically appropriate monsters, and plenty of cool locations sprinkled liberally across the map, and it's a good time every time.

This, I believe, is the ideal way to run D&D

Trickshaw
2015-12-21, 06:03 PM
If your players could have but did not do otherwise than you planned, then is this railroading or just knowing your players?

IMO there's no distinction. They play hand in hand. To tie back in with my original example, there are 4 players. one of them is a long time friend whom I've known for decades, the second is a co worker and the other two are nigh strangers. To say I "know" my players would be off base but I am terribly proficient at READING people in general, in part because it's a skill honed over the years from my RL profession.


To me railroading is defined by the existence of DM imposed rails (the players would not be allowed to do other than you planned) rather than defined by the players happening to be predictable (the players would have been allowed to do other than you planned but were predictable enough that you planned for what they would do).

So you are right that an experienced DM can railroad without his players realizing it, but only if the situation that tests "railroad vs prediction" (aka the situation where they defy your prediction) never comes up.

I would argue that if players go outside intended boundaries, and... they will, that is where the improvisation comes into play from my original post. Again from my previous example, the plot couldn't continue from a story perspective without said event (we'll call it: Plot Point C) happening. My players took a COMPLETELY different course than what was planned. Plot Point C was supposed to happen on session 3 but it wasn't until session 7 that it actually took place.

That took quite a bit of navigation on my part to get them back on track but was done in such a fashion as to give the illusion that it was through their own choices and actions. This gives the players a feeling of completely organic game play. A story of their own making. It gives them investment in the campaign that you would otherwise never have if they were simply told, "You're doing it wrong."

However, the story and main plot points are already pre ordained.

I always tell my players it's an open world. Do what you will. I don't care about stats. I don't care about gear. What I care about are your choices, whatever they may be. Because with choice comes consequence.

The reality is their choices are irrelevant. It's simply, as I said before, an illusion of freedom. You're GOING to save the princess. The trick is making them think it was THEIR idea. That, IMO, is what defines a good DM.

goto124
2015-12-22, 12:47 AM
To be honest, I'm not sure how to set up plot points where the players have freedom between the points. I'm constantly fearing I can't come up with something, especially the last time I tried to run a game only to realize the plot had so many holes it left railroading as the only option.

hifidelity2
2015-12-22, 05:25 AM
I think we can say that no one likes “Blatant Railroading”

However what is Blatant Railroading can depend on

The Skill of the DM
The Game style the DM / Players want
And where in the adventure it takes place

Indeed Blatant Railroading can change during a long running game. It might be accepted at the start

Adventure 1
(Party all low level mixed group)

Blatant Railroading?
The party are all employed by the local duke and he sends them on a mission and told not to come back until its resolved. The party have no choice – that was the starting conditions and they rolled up characters based on that premise
(Now there maybe some parties /players that would baulk at that )

Party travel from A to B through the only mountain pass and have an encounter (Blatant Railroading?)
How they solve the encounter is up to them (NOT Blatant Railroading)

and so on

DireSickFish
2015-12-22, 08:31 AM
To be honest, I'm not sure how to set up plot points where the players have freedom between the points. I'm constantly fearing I can't come up with something, especially the last time I tried to run a game only to realize the plot had so many holes it left railroading as the only option.

I find drawing a web of each scene really helps after I've got an idea of character motivations. Some arrows go one way like the meeting with the guards at the gate to the city. While others are two way arrows like I don't know if they'll investigate the merchant first or go to the inn and can do either in any order. Make sure you are taking enough time for prep. The longer I'm mulling over a situation the better my sessions tend to be.

hifidelity2
2015-12-22, 09:06 AM
[
Originally Posted by goto124
To be honest, I'm not sure how to set up plot points where the players have freedom between the points. I'm constantly fearing I can't come up with something, especially the last time I tried to run a game only to realize the plot had so many holes it left railroading as the only option.


I find drawing a web of each scene really helps after I've got an idea of character motivations. Some arrows go one way like the meeting with the guards at the gate to the city. While others are two way arrows like I don't know if they'll investigate the merchant first or go to the inn and can do either in any order. Make sure you are taking enough time for prep. The longer I'm mulling over a situation the better my sessions tend to be.
I use Mind Map software for this with the main plot at the centre and then radiating options branching out.

I also find that if I do do this I normally find a number of holes and so can fix them before the party can exploit them
(They still all to often find other holes and then I have to run around fixing them on the fly)

neonchameleon
2015-12-22, 10:33 AM
Well, we will just have to accept that I'm much more informed then most other people.
...

Yea, so how does this way work?

The DM has a foe disintegrate the wizards only unattended spellbook. And the player says ''nope that does not happen!''. Well that is the Me game, as the player as the veto power.

How are you ''defining'' words?

Given that that's from the same post, that's pretty ironic.

There is, however, only one type of game I'd refer to as a "Me" game. And that's the one where only the DM (or frequently Storyteller) has absolute control and the PCs are the flotsam tossed on the storms of the DM's imagination. Even if Darth Ultron's strawman were accurate then he wouldn't be talking about a "Me" game, he'd be talking about an "Us" one where everyone had authority rather than it being in single hands.

Edit: I can't imagine a clearer illustration of a solipsistic "Me" game than:

Pc actions and dice rolls only matter if the DM allows them to matter. The DM is not bound by the same rules as the players.

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-22, 01:19 PM
IMO there's no distinction. They play hand in hand. To tie back in with my original example, there are 4 players. one of them is a long time friend whom I've known for decades, the second is a co worker and the other two are nigh strangers. To say I "know" my players would be off base but I am terribly proficient at READING people in general, in part because it's a skill honed over the years from my RL profession.



I would argue that if players go outside intended boundaries, and... they will, that is where the improvisation comes into play from my original post. Again from my previous example, the plot couldn't continue from a story perspective without said event (we'll call it: Plot Point C) happening. My players took a COMPLETELY different course than what was planned. Plot Point C was supposed to happen on session 3 but it wasn't until session 7 that it actually took place.

That took quite a bit of navigation on my part to get them back on track but was done in such a fashion as to give the illusion that it was through their own choices and actions. This gives the players a feeling of completely organic game play. A story of their own making. It gives them investment in the campaign that you would otherwise never have if they were simply told, "You're doing it wrong."

However, the story and main plot points are already pre ordained.

I always tell my players it's an open world. Do what you will. I don't care about stats. I don't care about gear. What I care about are your choices, whatever they may be. Because with choice comes consequence.

The reality is their choices are irrelevant. It's simply, as I said before, an illusion of freedom. You're GOING to save the princess. The trick is making them think it was THEIR idea. That, IMO, is what defines a good DM.

This seems like a lot of work compared to the way I do it. Like...unecessarily intense and manipulative work. And definitely not the universal method of good GMing. (There really isn't one besides "Did the players have fun? Yes? Then you're doing it right.")

I just have their actions actually matter and make it up on the fly. I've never had any complaints except that one time when I literally had 5 minutes to prep and most of my digital resources were on the fritz, and even then it wasn't so much COMPLAINTS as "We should probably do something else instead of making INT flip through manuals fast enough to make the corners smoke."

The roleplaying side of improvisation is easy. It's all the manual-searching and table-consulting that takes forever.

That's why I like Apocalypse World and Dungeon World. First session is played with NO PREP. It isn't even allowed by the rules. In fact, writing a predetermined story is forbidden by the rules. It's whack. And I love it.

Everyone who can spare 10 bucks should try Apocalypse World. My players learned it in 15 minutes and the first campaign was so crazy that they insisted on having another. (And we'll probably have 3 or 4 more before switching to Dungeon World or Monster Hearts or some other PbtA system since my group is now as in love with those systems as I am.) If your players like roleplaying more than minmaxxingn it is DEFINITELY worth the 200 page read. (It takes like a day or two of light reading to get through it all and understand how it works.) And it even comes with a popcorn recipe.
Apopalypse Corn.
Hell yeah.
Best system.

(Vince Baker should hire me for sales...)

BRC
2015-12-22, 03:34 PM
(Vince Baker should hire me for sales...)

Considering posts you've made recently, I'm not sure he hasn't. :smalltongue:

As for Trickshaw...while I'm okay with the occasional Quantum Ogre, I don't approve of it as an overarching campaign philosophy. What's the point of tricking your players into thinking they have agency instead of, I don't know, giving them actual agency? Just let their choices matter.


In my experience, 90% of players will follow the general plot that is dangled in front of them. Occasionally you get a player who isn't actually interested in the campaign being run, so they insist on running off and doing their own thing, or a player that is specifically playing for the purpose of breaking the GM's plans.

More commonly, when players start deliberately trying to upset the GM's plot, it's because they feel that they don't have agency. So, they start pushing at boundaries. "Will the GM let me do this" "How will the GM respond to this", because you've taken away their ability to control the story by following it, so they try to have their fun by disrupting it.

You can avoid all that by just working WITH the players, letting them help you craft the story, rather than trying to shove your plot down their throats.

Talakeal
2015-12-22, 04:26 PM
...


Given that that's from the same post, that's pretty ironic.

There is, however, only one type of game I'd refer to as a "Me" game. And that's the one where only the DM (or frequently Storyteller) has absolute control and the PCs are the flotsam tossed on the storms of the DM's imagination. Even if Darth Ultron's strawman were accurate then he wouldn't be talking about a "Me" game, he'd be talking about an "Us" one where everyone had authority rather than it being in single hands.

Edit: I can't imagine a clearer illustration of a solipsistic "Me" game than:

I was going to post the same thing. It is odd that the "me" game is one that refers to a large group having a greater say in what happens while the non "me" game is all about giving one person absolute power.

Trickshaw
2015-12-22, 07:14 PM
To be honest, I'm not sure how to set up plot points where the players have freedom between the points. I'm constantly fearing I can't come up with something, especially the last time I tried to run a game only to realize the plot had so many holes it left railroading as the only option.

I usually have 3 groups going on regularly. One a home group reserved for friends and two that I run at local shops. When asked how I concoct such intricate stories for my game shop players I use a magic trick as an explanation.

Have a deck of cards in your hand that you continuously shuffle as you're talking to your audience. While you're doing the shuffling note what the bottom card is and ensure it stays at the bottom as you're shuffling and talking. We'll call this card the 7 of spades.

While continuing the conversation begin to put cards face down in a grid pattern. 4x4. 8x8. Or put them all down if you want. The important thing is while doing so casually draw your bottom card (7 of spades) and mentally note WHERE you placed it.

Now, ask one onlooker to pick a suit. If he picks spades say, "Ok spades it is." If he doesn't and instead picks hearts say, "Ok we'll toss hearts out." Or you can combo it up by asking an onlooker to pick two suits. If he says diamonds and spades say, "Ok, out of those two someone pick one." If they pick spades keep it if they pick diamonds toss it out.

It doesn't matter how you do it just continue this dialogue until spades is picked.

Once you got your suit continue eliminating cards until you narrow it down to seven. This works better in a group of people obviously. Have people keep picking cards or groups of cards until you eventually narrow it down to the 7 of spades.

Once you got it, do some showmanship. As if you're psychically seeking out the 7 of spades amongst all the face down cards. You can even play it up with the audience by picking a wrong card or two and make some jokes but then... with a serious look... voila... the 7 of spades.

Now, you just made a group activity look like a completely random set of events as far as your audience is concerned but, in reality, they had no choice. It wasn't random. They picked what you WANTED them to pick.

You just fed them the illusion of choice.

Now, this is an old card trick. Most people in the world don't follow magic or card tricks in general and to be honest I've only met one person in 30 years who figured it out on their own. When asked, you can either explain it. Showing them how choice is an illusion or you can simply say,

"We started this trick with the question, 'How do you come up with these stories'? and now you have your answer... magic."

Either way, this is how I tackle each and ever story I make. It takes planning, experience and improvisational chops. Once you understand the trick, you can make any game seem like a simple random series of events of the player's own making.

But in the end... it's just a 7 of spades.

= )

goto124
2015-12-22, 07:19 PM
I... do PbP xD

So are you recommanding the Quantum Ogre and other illusion of choice stuff?

Darth Ultron
2015-12-22, 07:49 PM
The world is persistent, and I have multiple quests that they could take and lots of places they could just opt to explore (or find on accident). All of the quests are in a countdown system so that for every session the quest goes unresolved, the situation gets worse.
(Nearby golbin camp gets bigger. Starts theiving from the town. Openly attacks caravans coming into and leaving town. Attacks the actual town and becomes a clear and present active danger. That sort of thing.)
There isn't a PLOT and there are no BBEGs. The MAP is the BBEG.

It's a fun way to play, and involves no plot. I just make sure I have lots of encounter tables filled with thematically appropriate monsters, and plenty of cool locations sprinkled liberally across the map, and it's a good time every time.

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?

Trickshaw
2015-12-22, 08:26 PM
I... do PbP xD

So are you recommanding the Quantum Ogre and other illusion of choice stuff?

QO is a very simplistic way to go about it but should be used sparingly. Not too much salt. Not too much pepper. Or you risk ruining the chili.

Instead of a fork think of it like a play off bracket. Start with 8 options. Narrow it to 4. Then 2. Finally one.

These represent probable player choices or scenarios. Whatever choice they make it could likely fall into one of the first 8 options. Maybe not perfectly but that's what improvisation is for.

While they may not take the bartender's advice to seek out the local provost for 'X' mission you devised they may intervene when observing a group of thugs shaking down a party of refugees new to the city. Which could lead to 'V' encounter then to 'W' resolution skipping 'X' mission but putting them back on 'Y' course to the 'Z' eventuality.

While your 'W' mission may have gone to waste who's to say you can't inject it elsewhere in the timeline as filler or as a means to redirect the party back on course at a later time? The limits are only what you make.

This is a game of imagination and, at least for ME, the fun of DM'ing isn't just coming up with a story. Any hack with a notepad, some dice and a rule book can concoct a story. Even a good one.

For ME, the fun is giving players the freedom to do what they will and engineer the story behind the scenes in such a fashion that they find the intended destination. Many times players themselves feed you ideas when they're talking together about a decision to be made. Many times ideas far better than your own.

Say the group turns down a plea for help. Doesn't matter what the plea is or what the problem is. Story wise that problem eventually leads to a baron funneling slaves into the underdark.

Well crap, how do I get them back on course?

The players are gallivanting in the tavern before heading out to do a side job they signed up for in lieu of your "plea for help" when one of the players says:

"Dude, don't sleep with that chick. She's probably riddled with space herpes."

Hmmm... that gives me an idea.

What happens when they come back to town? They got 4 mercs lying in wait to slit their throats. Come to find out that was the Baron's daughter who was betrothed to another.

Bam. You just got your party back on track. The Baron's in their cross hairs and that's all you needed. Now they weren't even aware that this Baron even existed because they ignored the "plea for help" earlier which would have put them on track to him.

As far as the party is concerned this was one fluid organic series of events that was of their own making. You didn't "railroad" them from their perspective but, in reality, you did. They just weren't aware of it.

Sure, some content got skipped but we'll save that for a later date. Waste not want not. Now you just gotta get them to figure out about the kidnappings.

What's this? People being gagged and dragged into the back of the manor at night? Underdark you say? Hark my companions!

ADVENTURE IS AFOOT!

hifidelity2
2015-12-23, 09:10 AM
QO is a very simplistic way to go about it but should be used sparingly. Not too much salt. Not too much pepper. Or you risk ruining the chili.

While they may not take the bartender's advice to seek out the local provost for 'X' mission you devised they may intervene when observing a group of thugs shaking down a party of refugees new to the city. Which could lead to 'V' encounter then to 'W' resolution skipping 'X' mission but putting them back on 'Y' course to the 'Z' eventuality.

While your 'W' mission may have gone to waste who's to say you can't inject it elsewhere in the timeline as filler or as a means to redirect the party back on course at a later time? The limits are only what you make.


I always try and reuse "missed" plots / adventures






This is a game of imagination and, at least for ME, the fun of DM'ing isn't just coming up with a story.

For ME, the fun is giving players the freedom to do what they will and engineer the story behind the scenes in such a fashion that they find the intended destination. Many times players themselves feed you ideas when they're talking together about a decision to be made. Many times ideas far better than your own.


Agree

ImNotTrevor
2015-12-23, 12:12 PM
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?
Is it a plot?
I guess by the most basic definition, one of those individual countdowns could be a "plot" so long as Plot= "devise the sequence of events in (a play, novel, movie, or similar work)"

But at the same time, it's not really a defined and absolute series of events, is it?
At any point they can interrupt or change any of these countdowns. (Of which there are at least 4 at any given time.) They just have a potential progress meter. Nothing is forced or absolute, and I often make edits to the countdowns according to what characters do. If the PCs talk the guard into running raids on the Goblins, then obviously the Goblin countdown needs to be altered.
If the PCs start up a cult of their own, then the Cult of Papa Gamba countdown is probably going to shift.
All of the countdowns are written very lightly in pencil, and edited constantly.

So no, it's not quite the same thing as the kind of plot you're referring to.

And these countdowns, aside from the ones I HAVE to make at the start of the hexcrawl, come from what the Players do and discover.

For AW, there are no Fronts (as these countdowns are called in the system) except ones born from the first session and subsequent sessions.

Also, that last paragraph smacks of blatant disrespect. If you can't show even basic respect, why would we listen to anything you have to say?

Mocking and belittling those who believe differently than you is the fastest possible way to be ignored and your ideas discarded.

So is acting as if you are supreme authority and the rest of us must be enlightened to your high station.

Of course, you tend to utterly ignore these points so I'll just mention again:

Please ignore the Troll. I broke that rule and will likely pay for it. But just ignore him. He's not here for respectful discussion. Best to ignore him entirely.

LnGrrrR
2015-12-23, 12:29 PM
I think there's a difference between Plot and "meta"plot. A metaplot can occur in any game, really. Maybe you're playing Pandemic, and the plot that you built up is that China broke out into some horrible epidemic, and it keeps coming back because reasons.

But that's not the same as a plot when we're thinking of a book or movie. A hexcrawl is more like a board game than an RPG, in my eyes.

Darth Ultron
2015-12-24, 08:03 AM
Is it a plot?


So no, it's not quite the same thing as the kind of plot you're referring to.

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?