Player-led games vs. GM-led games

[Segev]

I think it a disservice to sandbox games to liken them too strongly to "Scenes From A Hat." The biggest reason being that it suggests that the GM has nothing other than the hook to start with. He doesn't know why the worm is attacking; he doesn't know what the NPCs will do if the PCs don't act; he doesn't know if there are NPCs who will try to undermine the PCs efforts.

It is more probable in Scenes From a Hat that the NPCs' part in things will be suggested by players. This actually plays in to Darth_Ultron's mischaracterization of sandbox games as "players just win" because it would be not setting up a world, but just setting up a hook and leaving the rest of the scenario to be defined entirely by the PCs.

A properly done sandbox has Drew know far more about what's going on than just the hook. He can reveal more without having to improvise as the players interact and do things which should have consequences. He will be able to mom-randomly judge how certain actions and their effects will be reacted to and their consequences.

This is not a railroad because he forced nothing in the players' actions and validated said actions with consequences that are meaningfully related to the players' choices. Any improvisation is strongly aided by knowledge of the NPCs, their motives and resources, and the environment.

But player choices mattered because they shaped the next state of things, and did so in ways which may not be precisely what the GM planned. And that's more than Scenes From a Hat.

[Lorsa]

Again a ''scenario'' becomes ''a plot'' once anything happens to advance it forward. Like say the characters are just pretending to drink in a sandbox tavern. Then the DM says ''a purple worm is heading towards town!'' and the PC's choose to act....cue the start of the Plot Story: The Worm of Wildwood. Act one: is nice and simple: stop the worm. The PC's are free to try anything they can do within reason and the rules. The Pc's defeat the worm and the middle act two starts: why did the worm attack and where did it come from? The third act is: defeat the cult of the worm. A nice simple plot, but it is a plot.

Wrong.

A scenario becomes a plot when you have made it into a plot instead of a scenario.

Interestingly enough, for all your wrong definitions, you give a quite accurate description of a plot.

As you say, the "Plot of The Worm of Wildwood" has three acts. Act 1: stop the worm, Act 2: find out the reasons behind the worm attacking, Act 3: stop the cult of the worm. A plot is set in this order, and a railroading DM will make sure the acts are carried out in this fashion.

On the other hand, the "Scenario of The Worm of Wildwood" is different. It has the premise "a cult has summoned a purple worm to attack Wildwood". It has no acts, merely this simple premise. Therefore, it is entirely possible for the players to skip Act 2 entirely and go directly to Act 3, if they somehow figure out a cult was involved much earlier than the DM anticipated. It may also happen that they fail in figuring out why the worm attacked the city and simply move on. Whichever way, the DM isn't dependent on the game following a certain narrative order.

If a GM has made a plot, with pre-defined acts, and is dead set on making them happen in this order, they will be railroading the players. However, if the GM doesn't care in which order the acts occur, players will have agency to affect the narrative.

[Max_Killjoy]

DU, stop saying "random stuff happens in a sandbox".


He's made this false assertion so many times that's it's starting to sound like the GM equivalent to "Only my iron-handed rule stands between this nation and total chaos!"

[Max_Killjoy]

I think it a disservice to sandbox games to liken them too strongly to "Scenes From A Hat." The biggest reason being that it suggests that the GM has nothing other than the hook to start with. He doesn't know why the worm is attacking; he doesn't know what the NPCs will do if the PCs don't act; he doesn't know if there are NPCs who will try to undermine the PCs efforts.

It is more probable in Scenes From a Hat that the NPCs' part in things will be suggested by players. This actually plays in to Darth_Ultron's mischaracterization of sandbox games as "players just win" because it would be not setting up a world, but just setting up a hook and leaving the rest of the scenario to be defined entirely by the PCs.

A properly done sandbox has Drew know far more about what's going on than just the hook. He can reveal more without having to improvise as the players interact and do things which should have consequences. He will be able to mom-randomly judge how certain actions and their effects will be reacted to and their consequences.

This is not a railroad because he forced nothing in the players' actions and validated said actions with consequences that are meaningfully related to the players' choices. Any improvisation is strongly aided by knowledge of the NPCs, their motives and resources, and the environment.

But player choices mattered because they shaped the next state of things, and did so in ways which may not be precisely what the GM planned. And that's more than Scenes From a Hat.


Yeah, I'm not sure if the "amateur night at the improv theater" dismissal that some direct at "sandbox games" has its origin in a small minority of "frustrated thespian" gaming groups, or simply in the fact that it's an easy, cheap, and colorful caricature.

[BRC]

Very true, but.... the bad DM'ing I remember from the 1970's and 80's was more along the lines of surreal "Alice in Wonderland meets Monty Python on LSD" scenarios (yes that bad), however "adventure paths" to follow instead of locations to explore is new (to me), as is the "back-storiy audition" requirement.

I wouldn't mind so much the back-story writing homework assignment, or the mild railroading, it's being both required to submit a back-story for DM approval, and then being told by multiple DM's to not role-play out actions that make sense given the back-story they required, and to instead "follow the path" that's got me steamed.


This is another one of those social-contract situations.

The purpose of a backstory requirement is to make sure the players arrive at the table with a sense of who their character is, rather than just having a group of 4-6 well armed amnesiacs seeking to do violence for money. The secondary purpose is so that the DM can tie things in with the backstory.

The purpose of requiring DM approval for a backstory is to make sure the backstory does not contradict anything in the setting/ any plans they have. If your backstory is that you are a fanatical dragon worshiper, you probably shouldn't be in a campaign about slaying dragons.

That said, on the DM's side of the social contract is, once they accept a backstory, they need to keep it in mind.

If they ABSOLUTELY NEED you to rescue a certain NPC, like, that is 100% plot-critical, then they shouldn't set up a situation where you must choose between rescuing the NPC from your backstory, and the NPC you need for the plot.

But that's not the fault of asking for the backstory, that's the fault of railroading, and failing to acknowledge the backstory in question.

[2D8HP]

The purpose of a backstory requirement is to make sure.....

......But that's not the fault of asking for the backstory, that's the fault of railroading, and failing to acknowledge the backstory in question.I can't and won't argue the theory behind your post, since it seems spot on, but in my experience the practice of the back-story audition requirement, seems to be for the DM to see if the players are capable of writing one.
It's nice that the DM's accept my writing sample audition (because that's what they seem to be), but I'd also like to be told to not actually try to role-play out the character based on the back-story before play started. It would be nice if along with the command to write a backstory, I would also be told to write it in pencil not pen, but I guess that would ruin the GM-led surprise?

Maybe the DM's look at the auditions, and accept the PC's that only require a "little bit of railroading" to fit the adventure "path" they had in mind, but from this players perspective it sure looks like the back-story requirement is just a test to see if a player is willing and able to make one.

While still better than an "empty room", it is tiresome.

After experiencing the futility of actually trying to role-play out the character that the back-story suggests, I don't even bother craft new ones anymore, and I instead just submit the one's that DM's seem likely to accept (maybe they just go by most word count?), once play starts I then try to guess what kind of PC actually fits the mold of the adventure, and keeps the game going, because I've found that actually trying to role-play the PC submitted won't fit the plot.

It's often said that "No DM plans survive contact with the players", but to that I would add "No character concept survives contact with the DM".

[Darth Ultron]

Are you deliberately ignoring people when they tell you why this is wrong? I have yet to see you respond to direct refutations of this baldly false claim.

Are you reading a diffrent thread? I have yet to see anyone say ''all railroading is not the most bad thing ever''?



This is simply not true. The GM deciding how an NPC reacts or that, after the barbarian drops a glass, it breaks on the floor, is not railroading.

How so? Are you trying to say that just as the ''forced lineal plot'' has a trigger action that a character does and set reaction by the NPC it is not a railroad? Like if you can ''blame'' a player, then the DM's actions are as pure as the wind driven snow? Like the DM can just ram anything down on the players and force anything to happen and just be like ''oh don't blame me, your characters stepped on the butterfly''.



It isn't "good railroading." Because it is not railroading at all. By definition. GMs having things happen based on what player characters do (rather than in spite of what they do) is not railroading. It's running the game. Railroading is no-selling the players' actions when those actions are not on the GM's pre-defined path, or warping the game to force the players to make he desired choices.

Again, your putting the Railroad in the Game Run by a Bad DM (or worse a Tyrant Jerk DM) just as you don't like it. Your thinking of that very bad game where the DM controls the characters and just has the player act out small bit parts. And then your like all railroading is like that one type of bad game.



A non-railroad allows the PCs to pursue it however they like. Or ignore it. Or try to take over the cult. Or wait for the worm to destroy their rival adventure guilds before acting. Or find out where he cult meets and send in hired assassins. Or even say, "screw it, we are running with or stuff and finding someplace the worm cult hasn't yet reached to build up an army to take them on."

You should note that all of the above is true for any non bad tyrant DM run game. Except the ''ignore it'' as that is the players being jerks and saying ''we don't want to play.''



Railroading requires there already be rails, and that the goal be to get the party back on them when they stray. If you're building "new rails" to accommodate the players' choices, it isn't a railroad. It's a sandbox you're having react to the PCs and their choices.

Odd you see railroading as like one lone set of train tracks in the wilderness, but you can't see switches, sidings, cross-tracks, turn-a-rounds and all the other things about a railroad.


Exactly.

Cause and effect... is not railroading.
NPCs reacting to what the players do or NPCs having their own plans... is not railroading.
The GM making a decision about something... is not railroading.

The problem is your ''definition'' means nothing is a railroad. All a Dm needs to do is fool the players by tossing up a ''that is just how the NPCs reacted'' and that DM will never railroad...right. So the DM can force the plot along some very tight rails, but just say ''oh, it's just the npcs reacting the the characters''.

So, by that definition, railroading does not exist.


This thinking right here is the fundamental problem. The job of a GM is not to tell a story. If you want to tell a story then go write a book.

The job of a GM is to provide the entire group with the means to do things that could collectively be looked back on after the fact as a story.

We have had this come up before, and yes you can just have random stuff happen for a couple hours and then write it all down in order and say ''here is the story''. It's comparing the ''story'' from any cartoon to the story of any complicated adult show.


Plot, when talking about narrative, is a loaded word. Plot assumes a singular writer at the helm of the narrative, making sure everything goes according to his wishes in the preordained sequence he wants. Movies have plot. Books have a plot. Videogames have a plot.

You should note we should be talking about an ''RPG plot'' and not ''other plots''. A RPG plot is not like a book/movie plot...as, obviously, a book/movie is not like an RPG. A RPG plot does have a singular person at the helm, the DM, but they are there to simply advance the plot and move the game along. An RPG type plot is not a static thing with preordained sequences, it's a dynamic thing with a flow and direction. An actor can't change a movie plot(mostly), but a player can change an RPG plot. Even the most ''iron clad'' RPG plot has ''what ifs'' in it, as the plot-as-written will change via game play.



The GM, who we'll call "Drew", lays the scene out for our players from behind his deskscreen: "The Worm of Wildwood attacks a town, the mayor asks for your help".

At that point if the players want to deal with the worm or not. NPCs can suggest methods and requests, but the end result is that the PCs are free to handle it how they want. This can mean disposing of the worm or leaving the town to fend for itself.

If (our theoretical player) Wayne thinks that (again, theoretical player) Ryan is crazy for wanting to go after the worm and asks to run, this is the player's prerogative... They're free to handle a situation as they see fit. If they can't, that their only option in how to proceed is Y, then they're being railroaded.

It's not randomness. Though I'm sure this is all pointless blathering as DU will just reply with his old rhetoric, at least the rest of us are having a discussion.

Like many others your '' scenarios'' is a plot. The plot is: stop the cult of the worm. Even in the railroaded games the players can ''try anything'' to get to that goal. The plot is just that the cult must be stopped, it does not lay out step by step how that must be done. Even the railroaded encounters that force the characters to do something, won't effect the end of the plot of the players choose not to do so. The plot might have a railroad bit of ''there is a worm cultist in the town jail, maybe you should talk to him'' to advance the plot...but if the players want to stamp there feet and say ''no we want to go into his blind with no information'', then the DM just sits back.

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem is your ''definition'' means nothing is a railroad. All a Dm needs to do is fool the players by tossing up a ''that is just how the NPCs reacted'' and that DM will never railroad...right. So the DM can force the plot along some very tight rails, but just say ''oh, it's just the npcs reacting the the characters''.

So, by that definition, railroading does not exist.


Only if one starts with the mistaken presumption that railroading only exists if the players perceive it.

"Railroading" is in what the GM does, not in what the players perceive, or accuse the GM of.

If a player has been railroaded, but doesn't perceive it, they have still be railroaded. The GM has a preset plan, and sticks with it no matter what the players do -- this is railroading, regardless.

If a player has not been railroaded, but believes that they have been, then this is a mistaken perception on that player's part.


If a stage magician's trick leads some people in the audience to believe that the assistant has really been turned into a dove, or cut in half and then put back together... that doesn't change the truth that it was all just a trick, sleight of hand and nothing more.




Like many others your '' scenarios'' is a plot. The plot is: stop the cult of the worm. Even in the railroaded games the players can ''try anything'' to get to that goal. The plot is just that the cult must be stopped, it does not lay out step by step how that must be done. Even the railroaded encounters that force the characters to do something, won't effect the end of the plot of the players choose not to do so. The plot might have a railroad bit of ''there is a worm cultist in the town jail, maybe you should talk to him'' to advance the plot...but if the players want to stamp there feet and say ''no we want to go into his blind with no information'', then the DM just sits back.


So again, as with "railroad", you're pushing your own personal definition that serves your argument, rather than working from the definition that is used by just about everyone else in these discussions.


the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.


If the main events are emergent from gameplay, and have not been pre-devised by the GM, then there's not really a plot (at least as almost all of us would use the word "plot") at the start of the campaign or "story arc". Rather, the plot will only exist in retrospect, at the end of the campaign or arc.

If the main events HAVE been pre-devised and pre-ordained by the GM, and they cannot be avoided or altered by the players (other than by failing entirely at some point, perhaps), then there is a plot set out even before the campaign starts... and we're into actual railroad territory (rather than "anything other than pure chaos is a railroad" Darth-Ultra-territory).

[BRC]

Only if one starts with the mistaken presumption that railroading only exists if the players perceive it.

"Railroading" is in what the GM does, not in what the players perceive, or accuse the GM of.

If a player has been railroaded, but doesn't perceive it, they have still be railroaded. The GM has a preset plan, and sticks with it no matter what the players do -- this is railroading, regardless.

If a player has not been railroaded, but believes that they have been, then this is a mistaken perception on that player's part.


If a stage magician's trick leads some people in the audience to believe that the assistant has really been turned into a dove, or cut in half and then put back together... that doesn't change the truth that it was all just a trick.

Eh, I would disagree.

If we take "Railroading", as many people do, as a purely negative term (Which is to say, there is no such thing as "Good Railroading"), then our definition must involve Excess. I personally think of Railroading as the GM limiting or countering PC Agency and Luck (Either Proactively or Reactivly) to keep the story going along a set path. But, the only way to know that Agency and Luck are being limited is when they threaten to take the story off the path. Which is to say, you don't know you're on a railroad until you try to leave the rails.

In addition, most GM's Don't know that they're railroading until their players try to leave the rails, and they find themselves intervening to stop it.

"The town is under attack by the Worm of the Wilds" "Eh, this isn't our fight, we're going to leave town before the Worm destroys it".
At this point, the GM has two options
Option 1: Accept that decision, the PC's leave town, and suffer all benefits and consequences of doing so.
Option 2: Put them back on the rails, stop them from leaving town.

And most GM's don't know which they will do until they reach that moment. Railroading isn't the result of a GM Maliciously trying to hold the PC's to their plot, it's the result of a GM who never thinks that the players would want to do anything else but follow the plot they've established.

So, in a hypothetical situation where the PC's stick around to fight the Cult of the Worm, and the GM never thinks of what they would do if the PC's tried to walk away, is that Railroading?

I would say that Railroading happens either when the PC's try to leave the rails (or, due to the whims of the dice, are pushed off the rails, for example, by losing a fight they were supposed to win) and are stopped, or when the DM preemptively builds the adventure such that there is no way OFF the rails (You wake up, with all your gear, at the end of a long dungeon corridor with a CR appropriate encounter every 200 feet), and the Players chafe at the restriction.

Because, for a given value of "The GM's Plan", it can be very difficult to find a situation where the PC's WOULD go off the rails (Exempting the meta-scenario where the players are intentionally trying to break the GM's plan).
If the PC's backstory is that they want to rescue their father from the Evil Duke's prison, and the GM presents an adventure where they break into the Evil Duke's Prison to rescue the PC's father, is it a Railroad if the GM says "I don't care how they do it, but I hope that they rescue the PC's father from this prison", because, so long as the PC's try to rescue the prisoner, they are "On the Rails".

[Max_Killjoy]

Eh, I would disagree.

If we take "Railroading", as many people do, as a purely negative term (Which is to say, there is no such thing as "Good Railroading"), then our definition must involve Excess. I personally think of Railroading as the GM limiting or countering PC Agency and Luck (Either Proactively or Reactivly) to keep the story going along a set path. But, the only way to know that Agency and Luck are being limited is when they threaten to take the story off the path. Which is to say, you don't know you're on a railroad until you try to leave the rails.

In addition, most GM's Don't know that they're railroading until their players try to leave the rails, and they find themselves intervening to stop it.

"The town is under attack by the Worm of the Wilds" "Eh, this isn't our fight, we're going to leave town before the Worm destroys it".
At this point, the GM has two options
Option 1: Accept that decision, the PC's leave town, and suffer all benefits and consequences of doing so.
Option 2: Put them back on the rails, stop them from leaving town.

And most GM's don't know which they will do until they reach that moment. Railroading isn't the result of a GM Maliciously trying to hold the PC's to their plot, it's the result of a GM who never thinks that the players would want to do anything else but follow the plot they've established.

So, in a hypothetical situation where the PC's stick around to fight the Cult of the Worm, and the GM never thinks of what they would do if the PC's tried to walk away, is that Railroading?

I would say that Railroading happens either when the PC's try to leave the rails (or, due to the whims of the dice, are pushed off the rails, for example, by losing a fight they were supposed to win) and are stopped, or when the DM preemptively builds the adventure such that there is no way OFF the rails (You wake up, with all your gear, at the end of a long dungeon corridor with a CR appropriate encounter every 200 feet), and the Players chafe at the restriction.

Because, for a given value of "The GM's Plan", it can be very difficult to find a situation where the PC's WOULD go off the rails (Exempting the meta-scenario where the players are intentionally trying to break the GM's plan).

If the PC's backstory is that they want to rescue their father from the Evil Duke's prison, and the GM presents an adventure where they break into the Evil Duke's Prison to rescue the PC's father, is it a Railroad if the GM says "I don't care how they do it, but I hope that they rescue the PC's father from this prison", because, so long as the PC's try to rescue the prisoner, they are "On the Rails".


If the GM is not ready for the players to "leave the rails", and wouldn't allow them to do so, then the rails exist, whether the players realize they're on them, or not. A fish that never knows a thing of dry land, still lives in the water.

[2D8HP]

Since I don't see an active thread besides this one specifically on what is a "railroad", and "railroading", I'm going to ask here.

Clearly if you state the actions your PC attempts, and the DM says "no your PC doesn't do that", then that's "railroading".

But what about these scenarios?

In a classic game of Dungeons & Dragons we'd roll up our PC's and then the DM would usually say, "Your at the entrance of the Dungeon", now I guess that it was "railroading", if for example I had a Ranger PC and wanted to do a Wilderness adventure, or if I had a Thief and wanted to play a Town adventure instead, but I didn't feel "railroaded".

In contrast if my PC and the rest of the party accepts an invitation to the Palace for what they think will be a mission to do good, but instead are forced to fight or be killed in an arena for the amusement of spectators, even though I chose for my PC to go the Palace, and could choose for the guards to fill him full of arrows instead of fighting, I definitely feel more "railroaded".

How much is "railroading" a matter of how much control the player has of the PC's actions/reactions, and how much is "railroading" a matter of the lameness of the situation that the DM has presented them with?

[exelsisxax]

Since I don't see an active thread besides this one specifically on what is a "railroad", and "railroading", I'm going to ask here.

Clearly if you state the actions your PC attempts, and the DM says "no your PC doesn't do that", then that's "railroading".

But what about these scenarios?

In a classic game of Dungeons & Dragons we'd roll up our PC's and then the DM would usually say, "Your at the entrance of the Dungeon", now I guess that it was "railroading", if for example I had a Ranger PC and wanted to do a Wilderness adventure, or if I had a Thief and wanted to play a Town adventure instead, but I didn't feel "railroaded".

In contrast if my PC and the rest of the party accepts an invitation to the Palace for what they think will be a mission to do good, but instead are forced to fight or be killed in an arena for the amusement of spectators, even though I chose for my PC to go the Palace, and could choose for the guards to fill him full of arrows instead of fighting, I definitely feel more "railroaded".

How much is "railroading" a matter of how much control the player has of the PC's actions/reactions, and how much is "railroading" a matter of the lameness of the situation that the DM has presented them with?

Try to titrate the balance by examining the following:

How would you and that thief feel if you were in a city and invited to the palace, then woke up in the dungeon with a note saying "get mcguffin" but otherwise identical to the initial example?

[2D8HP]

How would you and that thief feel if you were in a city and invited to the palace, then woke up in the dungeon with a note saying "get.....How many GP can my thief sell this "Mace of Guffin" for?
:amused:

[BRC]

If the GM is not ready for the players to "leave the rails", and wouldn't allow them to do so, then the rails exist, whether the players realize they're on them, or not. A fish that never knows a thing of dry land, still lives in the water.
But, is this a useful definition when even the GM themselves doesn't know 90% of the time?

Can you have pre-emptive Railroading? Is the GM always obligated to give the PC's a chance to opt-out of the current adventure? If the PC's are in a city under-siege, and the GM is like "Okay, you can either stay in the city, or try to break through the siege", what do they do if the players say "Nah, I don't want to do that. I want to go fight trolls in the mountains". Is the GM obligated to lift the siege so they can go fight trolls? Was the GM wrong to put them in a city under siege in the first place?

The issue with enshrining "Player Agency" as the ultimate Goal, is that it leads to a situation where the Players become responsible for making their own challenges. I'm going down a slippery-slope here, but if any resistance to a player's desire is met with cries of Railroading, then the Players don't have to interact with the presented world, or scenario, at all.
If Player Straw says: "Screw fighting dragons, I want to lead a kingdom" and GM Mann says: "Okay Straw, in the next valley over is a kingdom whose rules say that the crown goes to the next foreign-born 5th level fighter to show up and ask for it."


Since I don't see an active thread besides this one specifically on what is a "railroad", and "railroading", I'm going to ask here.

Clearly if you state the actions your PC attempts, and the DM says "no your PC doesn't do that", then that's "railroading".

But what about these scenarios?

In a classic game of Dungeons & Dragons we'd roll up our PC's and then the DM would usually say, "Your at the entrance of the Dungeon", now I guess that it was "railroading", if for example I had a Ranger PC and wanted to do a Wilderness adventure, or if I had a Thief and wanted to play a Town adventure instead, but I didn't feel "railroaded".

I would say no. If you don't feel railroaded, you're not. If you cared strongly about what type of adventure to do, it's on you to communicate that to the GM.


In contrast if my PC and the rest of the party accepts an invitation to the Palace for what they think will be a mission to do good, but instead are forced to fight or fie in an arena for the amusement of spectators, even though I chose for my PC to go the Palace, and could choose for the guards to fill him full of arrows instead of fighting, I definitely feel more "railroaded".

If you feel railroaded, then you're railroaded, at least in my book.
A lot of it comes down to suspension of disbelief. When the GM's efforts to keep you on the rails start to violate suspension of disbelief, then we start to have problems.

Taking the "Fight in an Arena" plotline. Here are two scenarios.


Scenario 1: The PC's are invited by the kindly duke to his castle, when they arrive he says "I'm holding a tournament! Fight in my arena for Glory and Prizes!" The PC's refuse, so the Duke has his guards attack them and says "FIGHT OR I HAVE YOU THROWN INTO THE DUNGEON"

Scenario 2: The PC's have been captured by a tyrranical empire. In prison, they are offered a chance to fight in the arena and win their freedom. Those who refuse to fight are left to rot.

In both scenarios, the PC's are offered the same choice, fight in the arena, or rot in prison. One could argue that both scenarios are equally "Railroady", But, the first scenario is far more egregious, because it relies on a supposedly kindly duke forcing the PC's to fight, rather than a tyrannical empire.



How much is "railroading" a matter of how much control the player has of the PC's actions/reactions, and how much is "railroading" a matter of the lameness of the situation that the DM has presented them with?
If we are to have any useful definition of Railroading (one that you can apply to everyday GMing that doesn't come out as "Run a total sandbox game), I say that Railroading is a matter of how much the player's feel that their agency has been restricted. Usually, this is a factor of suspension of disbelief.

If the Tyrannical Empire is demanding you fight in the arena, you're just as restricted as if the kindly Duke is doing so, but because it makes sense, the player feels that they are playing the Scenario rather than having their Agency taken away by the GM.


Of course, it is possible for a series of perfectly logical events to happen in-universe that don't strain disbelief at all, and still leave the players feeling railroaded.


In the end, I would argue that the only metric that matters is not how much hypothetical agency the player has, but how much fun they are having. A game where the GM would never let the players leave the rails, but everybody has a great time, is much better than one where the GM would let the players do anything, but everybody gets bored or frustrated.

[Cluedrew]

My take on 2D8HP's situations:


In a classic game of Dungeons & Dragons we'd roll up our PC's and then the DM would usually say, "Your at the entrance of the Dungeon", now I guess that it was "railroading", if for example I had a Ranger PC and wanted to do a Wilderness adventure, or if I had a Thief and wanted to play a Town adventure instead, but I didn't feel "railroaded".Not railroading. Especially if the assumption was of a dungeon crawl. If the thief player is that is a different issue. Now if the party does something other than enter the dungeon and the GM tries to stop them, then that is railroading.


In contrast if my PC and the rest of the party accepts an invitation to the Palace for what they think will be a mission to do good, but instead are forced to fight or be killed in an arena for the amusement of spectators, even though I chose for my PC to go the Palace, and could choose for the guards to fill him full of arrows instead of fighting, I definitely feel more "railroaded".Not railroading in and of itself but a terrible idea in almost every case and likely involves railroading. Not many groups are up for that sort of adventure.


How much is "railroading" a matter of how much control the player has of the PC's actions/reactions, and how much is "railroading" a matter of the lameness of the situation that the DM has presented them with?For me railroading is defined by the reaction to the story progressing along an unexpected path. The GM can have the entire campaign planned out but if they shrug and put that aside the moment the players head east instead of west, it is not railroading.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

In a classic game of Dungeons & Dragons we'd roll up our PC's and then the DM would usually say, "Your at the entrance of the Dungeon", now I guess that it was "railroading", if for example I had a Ranger PC and wanted to do a Wilderness adventure, or if I had a Thief and wanted to play a Town adventure instead, but I didn't feel "railroaded".

Generally, a game premise wouldn't be considered railroading because there's a minimum amount of player buy-in required to get to that point. "You run into several dozen unusually coordinated and powerful bandits as a random encounter who beat you unconscious, and a few hours later you wake up in a prison cell with all of your gear gone" is railroading, while "Hey guys, I want to run a prison break adventure, so come up with characters who would plausibly be in jail for some reason and don't assume you'll be able to have any particular gear at game start" is not, because in the former case the DM forces the party to get captured and stripped of their gear while in the latter case if the party doesn't want to play a prison break adventure they can say so and the DM will have to pick a different scenario (though of course he can then force them into a prison break scenario after that anyway, in which case it's railroading again).

There's a bit of a gray area if a DM just tells you to roll up your characters and doesn't tell you what sort of scenario he has in mind, doesn't ask what sort of game you'd like to play, doesn't ask you to coordinate with other players as to character concepts and desired games, etc. If in that situation you create a town-based intrigue-loving thief and the DM presents you with a wilderness-based combat-focused dungeon crawl, some might consider that railroading because the DM didn't give you the chance or the information necessary to make an informed decision, essentially like the "Black out in town, wake up at the dungeon entrance" scenario, while some might not consider it to be railroading because some degree of metagaming (e.g. "You walk into a tavern, see three other adventurers, and decide to join them because they're PCs very trustworthy-looking.") is often required to get a game off the ground at all.

(Which isn't to say that's good DMing, even if it's not considered railroading; pretty much every megadungeon module out there tells you what information the PCs have to start off, and knowing that you're playing the Temple of Elemental Evil module can give you some character creation hints in and of itself, so ideally a party should have at least that much information up front to ensure that the character matches the group and the scenario well.)

[Darth Ultron]

the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.


Yes, a plot in an RPG is not like other plots.

But if you really want to drop the word ''plot''..ok, fine we can call ''that part of an RPG that is the plot'' the ''scenario''. Ok, then the ''scenario'' has a beginning, middle and end..and assuming it is complex and the game world makes sense..needs railroading to advance the scenario.

Somehow your saying that the DM can make a ''scenario'' by just reacting to the players, but it's not random. So some how the DM is doing planned stuff based on something? I know there is a lot of talk about ''the DM just has stuff react to the players'' and somehow that is ''pure and innocent.'' But for the reactions to make sense...and not be random...the DM has to base them on a ''scenario''(aka plot). If the characters kill Prince Bob, the king will react X.....but X is only possible if the DM has made up stuff before hand. Otherwise the DM is just improvising by whim and ''quantum Ogre''ing .


How much is "railroading" a matter of how much control the player has of the PC's actions/reactions, and how much is "railroading" a matter of the lameness of the situation that the DM has presented them with?

This is where the illusion of railroading comes in and good players simply choose to ignore it or fool themselves.

For any event that happens in a game the DM decides what happens. That is how the game works. You can say things like ''the DM just reacts'' or whatever, but ultimately the DM makes something happen. Any event can have dozens out outcomes, but only one happens.

A LOT of events in a typical game are of the type of ''this happens and the characters can do nothing about it''. Everyone wants to say that at every second of the game the players can make amazing choices that take control of the game and make it better. If the characters are on a sinking ship, they are obviously ''forced'' to get off the ship. And if the ship is ''right off the coast of Skull Island'', then that is the obviously ''forced'' place for the characters to go. And the Cult of Skulls will attack the characters as soon as they get to the beach...so they will be obviously ''forced'' to fight back.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, a plot in an RPG is not like other plots.

But if you really want to drop the word ''plot''..ok, fine we can call ''that part of an RPG that is the plot'' the ''scenario''. Ok, then the ''scenario'' has a beginning, middle and end..and assuming it is complex and the game world makes sense..needs railroading to advance the scenario.

Somehow your saying that the DM can make a ''scenario'' by just reacting to the players, but it's not random. So some how the DM is doing planned stuff based on something? I know there is a lot of talk about ''the DM just has stuff react to the players'' and somehow that is ''pure and innocent.'' But for the reactions to make sense...and not be random...the DM has to base them on a ''scenario''(aka plot). If the characters kill Prince Bob, the king will react X.....but X is only possible if the DM has made up stuff before hand. Otherwise the DM is just improvising by whim and ''quantum Ogre''ing .

Let's play a game. You can tell me any two numbers A & B and I promise to tell you A/B. Did I make up A/B before you told me A or B? No, I derived it afterwards. Did I "quantum Ogre" by giving the same answer regardless of your choice of A or B? No, I derived A/B from your choice of A and B.

If a DM knows their world then they can simulate the world rather than break verisimilitude with railroads or quantum ogres. Only someone that did not know their world would believe that physics is random rather than cause and effect.

[oxybe]

Ok, then the ''scenario'' has a beginning, middle and end..

Problem: you're inferring that the scenario has a preset middle or end.

Though you're calling it a "RPG plot now" you're still using the classic definition of a plot, to quote max:


the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.

"The worm attacks the town" that is the scenario, or setting, of the adventure at hand. Anything past that, is simply the players & NPCs acting and reacting to each other until it reaches what could naturally be called a conclusion.

You don't need railroading to advance the scenario, as you seem to think.

Players decide to abandon the town when they hear worm is coming, NPC asks them why they're leaving "It's above our paygrade". we now have advancement... how do the NPCs react to this?

The best GMs don't plan plots: They setup scenarios and understand the motivations of that scenario's major players. from there things move in a more natural method and you're better able to have these characters react to the players.

Understanding what drives those 3-5 scenario-important NPCs: what they want, what they need, what they're willing to do to get it, etc... will help you far more then pre-planning a handful of Mass Effect-like responses


If the characters kill Prince Bob, the king will react X.....but X is only possible if the DM has made up stuff before hand. Otherwise the DM is just improvising by whim and ''quantum Ogre''ing .

see above.

The Players kill Prince Bob.

GM sits back and goes "What motivates the king? Does he even care about Bob? How strong are the PCs... would he risk angering them further? Does he make a token show of force? Is he rash and immediately calls for their heads or does he keep a cool front while planning how he's going to deal with these characters?"

Think about the NPC as a person rather then robot made to regurgitate exposition.

...

Let's do an experiment DU: Give me a scenario as if I am a theoretical player in your game. Let's see how this plays out.

[BRC]

Problem: you're inferring that the scenario has a preset middle or end.

Though you're calling it a "RPG plot now" you're still using the classic definition of a plot, to quote max:



"The worm attacks the town" that is the scenario, or setting, of the adventure at hand. Anything past that, is simply the players & NPCs acting and reacting to each other until it reaches what could naturally be called a conclusion.

You don't need railroading to advance the scenario, as you seem to think.

Players decide to abandon the town when they hear worm is coming, NPC asks them why they're leaving "It's above our paygrade". we now have advancement... how do the NPCs react to this?

The best GMs don't plan plots: They setup scenarios and understand the motivations of that scenario's major players. from there things move in a more natural method and you're better able to have these characters react to the players.

Understanding what drives those 3-5 scenario-important NPCs: what they want, what they need, what they're willing to do to get it, etc... will help you far more then pre-planning a handful of Mass Effect-like responses


This oversimplifies things, and implies that "The Best GM's" don't think about anything beyond the state of the world when the session opens. If you take that advice, and you're not an amazing improviser, you're going to be running very short, or very boring sessions, because you didn't let yourself plan for the most likely course of action.

You can figure out some of the most likely actions the PCs will take, and think about where things will go from there. Those 3-5 important NPCs/Factors, you can have that ready to go, the trick is to not hold that as the ONLY way things can go.

"The Worm is coming to attack the town" is the Scenario.

The Mayor would like the worm to not destroy the town.

The Sheriff would like the worm to not destroy the town, and thinks that The Scholar is responsible, so he threw the Scholar in jail.

The Scholar has traveled far, and knows a lot about the Worm, and would like it not to destroy the town, and also not to be in jail.

The Cultist would like to see the worm destroy the town.

When the PC's arrive in town, the Mayor will ask them to save the town, the Sheriff has arrested The Scholar, the Cultist is summoning the Worm.

It's not railroading to say "Okay, if the PC's convince the Sheriff to release the Scholar, he can help them identify the Cultist".

The trick is that, if the PC's DON'T try to rescue the Scholar, you don't try to force them back on that path. You accept their decision, and have the scenario react to their actions in ways that make sense.

Sure, "The Best GM" could create a scenario and never think about how it will develop beyond the second the PC's arrive, then improvise a fun and exciting adventure from there, but that's not the baseline. That's not what every GM should try to do.

The Scenario should be fluid, the plot does not exist until the character sheets get put away and the session closes, but you can have some ideas for where it is likely to go. Players tend to be predictable creatures, and you can use that to create a better experience.

[Darth Ultron]

If a DM knows their world then they can simulate the world rather than break verisimilitude with railroads or quantum ogres. Only someone that did not know their world would believe that physics is random rather than cause and effect.

AND the DM can railroad or ''force'' or ''make'' or whatever other word you want to use to have something happen or not happen. So like when the Pc's go to buy a boat from the only boat seller in town, that that NPC is like ''no boats for sale'' the DM could say ''I know my world and that NPC 'just' does not feel like selling any boats''....and that is exactly what a railroading DM would do to stop them from buying a boat....so where is the difference, other then the story you can try and fool the Pcs with....

Some reasons for Good Railroading:

1.To fit the game within the time frame. It's simple, there is not infinite time to play the game. Things need to happen before the game ends. So the game is from 6-11 and if the DM does not step in and do anything the players will never get to ''encounter 10''. Now some games are fine with this and will be like ''whatever, we will try again next week'. And there is a danger that the encounter will never happen too, and some games are fine with that. But most games want things to happen on time.

2.To get the player to do things they would not choose to do. This is simple too. Ask a player and there are hundreds of things they will say ''no'' to for lots of reasons. But a lot of them have at chance of being exciting or even fun, but the player that just stops their foot and says ''no'' just stops the game. Sometimes the ''no'' play has fun, sometimes they don't, but they never know unless they try.

3.To advance story. Unless it is a static, boring world that makes no sense...things need to happen. And, much like above, the players might not approve every single detail that might or might not happen. Like if the character rob a bank and are asked ''do you think the law will come after you?'' the player might answer ''nope, they are busy and let us go''.

[Max_Killjoy]

But, is this a useful definition when even the GM themselves doesn't know 90% of the time?


I think far more than 10% of GMs know, whether they'd call it "railroading" or not, that they're going to do the things that are railroading, before they get to that moment.




Can you have pre-emptive Railroading? Is the GM always obligated to give the PC's a chance to opt-out of the current adventure? If the PC's are in a city under-siege, and the GM is like "Okay, you can either stay in the city, or try to break through the siege", what do they do if the players say "Nah, I don't want to do that. I want to go fight trolls in the mountains". Is the GM obligated to lift the siege so they can go fight trolls? Was the GM wrong to put them in a city under siege in the first place?


I don't think the GM is obligated to just give the PCs an easy out that breaks continuity or causality or coherence, but if the PCs want to try to find a way to break or evade the siege, that's fine. How did the players get into the city under siege? In medias res? Did they enter the city only to have it come under siege before they could leave? Were they captured and taken there or forced to stay there? It makes some difference.

And no, before it's interjected by someone else, a GM upholding continuity, causality, and coherence as an impartial "referee" is NOT "railroading" -- this would be the equivalent of claiming that because I can't walk outside and jump to the moon or undo the passage of time, that the real world is "railroading" the entire human population.




The issue with enshrining "Player Agency" as the ultimate Goal, is that it leads to a situation where the Players become responsible for making their own challenges. I'm going down a slippery-slope here, but if any resistance to a player's desire is met with cries of Railroading, then the Players don't have to interact with the presented world, or scenario, at all.


The past examples I've seen of "cries of railroading at the first sign of resistance to their desire" is exactly why I reject the notion that feeling railroaded = being railroaded -- see below.




If Player Straw says: "Screw fighting dragons, I want to lead a kingdom" and GM Mann says: "Okay Straw, in the next valley over is a kingdom whose rules say that the crown goes to the next foreign-born 5th level fighter to show up and ask for it."


Player agency is not "the PCs do whatever the players want them to do, without restriction or obstacle".





If you feel railroaded, then you're railroaded, at least in my book.


I think most of us have seen or read about situations in which a player will say "We're being railroaded!", and then we look at the details, and it's not railroading by any reasonable standard most of us would apply -- it's just a player who didn't get his way, or doesn't understand that NPCs can reasonably resist or push back against what the player wants.

Plus you have at least one person here trying to dilute the term so that almost all GM action / proactivity, just about anything other than sitting there waiting to respond to player demands, is "railroading".

So no, I don't think it's fair to say "if you feel railroaded, then you've been railroaded".

[BRC]

I think far more than 10% of GMs know, whether they'd call it "railroading" or not, that they're going to do the things that are railroading, before they get to that moment.

I don't think the GM is obligated to just give the PCs an easy out that breaks continuity or causality or coherence, but if the PCs want to try to find a way to break or evade the siege, that's fine. How did the players get into the city under siege? In medias res? Did they enter the city only to have it come under siege before they could leave? Were they captured and taken there or forced to stay there? It makes some difference.

And no, before it's interjected by someone else, a GM upholding continuity, causality, and coherence as an impartial "referee" is NOT "railroading" -- this would be the equivalent of claiming that because I can't walk outside and jump to the moon or undo the passage of time, that the real world is "railroading" the entire human population.

But at what point does "Railroading" get separated from "The GM is upholding continuity, causality, and Coherence". The PC's get swarmed by The Royal Guard, thrown into an arena, and forced to fight to the death.
"Well" GM Strawman says, "This culture worships a good of death and battle, so they send their elite royal guard out to kidnap skilled adventurers to serve as gladiatorial slaves, it's all here in my 30 page setting document. I'm just upholding Continuity, Casuality, and Coherence".

I can't say I see many GM's saying "what can I do to punish my players for trying to go off the rails". Railroading usually comes about from the GM plotting things out, not realizing that the players may try to do anything else, and then panicking when they do, trying to force the game back onto the rails.





The past examples I've seen of "cries of railroading at the first sign of resistance to their desire" is exactly why I reject the notion that feeling railroaded = being railroaded -- see below.




Player agency is not "the PCs do whatever the players want them to do, without restriction or obstacle".





I think most of us have seen or read about situations in which a player will say "We're being railroaded!", and then we look at the details, and it's not railroading by any reasonable standard most of us would apply -- it's just a player who didn't get his way, or doesn't understand that NPCs can reasonably resist or push back against what the player wants.

Plus you have at least one person here trying to dilute the term so that almost all GM action / proactivity, just about anything other than sitting there waiting to respond to player demands, is "railroading".

So no, I don't think it's fair to say "if you feel railroaded, then you've been railroaded".
I suppose it's more accurate to say that, if you DON'T feel like you're being railroaded, then you're not, at least, not in any way that matters.


This is why I tend to use suspension of disbelief as my metric for Railroading. It's not the ONLY acceptable metric, and nor is it a guaranteed one, but it's usually the first thing to go.

There are two reasons for a GM to say 'No" to a Player's decision
1) The plan in question would go against the Continuity, Casuality, and Coherence of the scene. For example, "I want to rob the palace treasury" "Um, you're 3rd level, and the treasury is very well guarded. You can try, but you'll likely fail".
2) The Plan goes against what the GM wants to happen (Railroading).

If the GM is saying "No", in a way that violates Continuty, Casuality, and Coherence, then reason #2 is the only remaining option.

[2D8HP]

Some reasons for Good Railroading:
3.To advance story. Unless it is a static, boring world that makes no sense...things need to happen.."Stuff happening", I would regard as an "active world", with or without "good railroading". If nothing is happening then the feeling of stumbling off the rails, into an empty room world increases my sense of passive-aggressive railroading.
If I see the rails, then the most forgivable "good railroading" is a "Skip Ahead to Awesome" I.e."Your at the entrance of the Dungeon.", or even "Your inside the Dungeon. ", but if there's no eventual player buy in to the skip, then it's just "Locked into Lameness" i.e. being forced to fight a conga-line of antagonists in an arena for an audience, and healing between bouts is provided to drive home the utter pointlesssness of your battles.", which feels like a "railroad".
Railroading usually comes about from the GM plotting things out, not realizing that the players may try to do anything else, and then panicking when they do, trying to force the game back onto the rails. Yeah reading this thread does make DM'ing seem harder.
I'd thought that my own recent failings at trying to DM again was due to my no longer being able to memorize rules well, with my ability to worldbuild and improvise scenes, and act out NPC's still intact, but now I wonder how long till my players would stumble into an empty room world as well.

I know as a player I recently tried to escape being "locked into lameness", in a mute room by stating that my PC, was having a delusional fit, and "forgetting where he is and his purpose there, arms himself and rides "Rocinante" to where he last battled the forces of the Queen", to which the DM responded:

"I can figure out what he might encounter if you want, or you can decide for yourself. Up to you."

Which showed me that, it was indeed a "shallow world" being created, instead of a "deep world" for my PC to explore. As a former DM I know that's often the case, but I disliked seeing "behind the curtain", as much as I dislike seeing "the rails".

When I think about it, it's surprising that "Empty Room world's" aren't more common.

[Cluedrew]

Some reasons for Good Railroading:

[...]

3.To advance story. Unless it is a static, boring world that makes no sense...things need to happen. And, much like above, the players might not approve every single detail that might or might not happen. Like if the character rob a bank and are asked ''do you think the law will come after you?'' the player might answer ''nope, they are busy and let us go''.Good reasons (still disagree with your definition of railroading but I understand it), but I have to challenge an assumption behind this one. That is that the players are incapable of forwarding the plot. They are, and in my experience if you give them the room to do so they often do.

Let me explain by example. (Real example from a previous campaign.) After a hard battle the party spent a night in town and healed up. The next morning we were not in perfect shape, but in reasonable condition for the next phase of the adventure. We were also in a natural state, there were no pressures forcing us in any direction.

So we went to explore some Viking ruins near by that player A just made up because player B's character had an interest in some things. And this was not "random" because we were on an alternate history Baffin Island and there are abandoned Viking ruins in that part of the world in real life so why not? As it turns out, no reason at all. So we go off and start what ends up being the final story ark of the campaign.

GM "railroading" required: "So what do you do next?"


Which showed me that, it was indeed a "shallow world" being created, instead of a "deep world" for my PC to explore. As a former DM I know that's often the case, but I disliked seeing "behind the curtain", as much as I dislike seeing "the rails".I think a good GM can make the "shallow world" work as long as they keep just one or two steps ahead of the player. Then again my group's GM will ask the players for town names mid-session (and hence is in step with the players) so maybe my threshold for this is different from yours.

[Thrudd]

"Stuff happening", I would regard as an "active world", with or without "good railroading". If nothing is happening then the feeling of stumbling off the rails, into an empty room world increases my sense of passive-aggressive railroading.
If I see the rails, then the most forgivable "good railroading" is a "Skip Ahead to Awesome" I.e."Your at the entrance of the Dungeon.", or even "Your inside the Dungeon. ", but if there's no eventual player buy in to the skip, then it's just "Locked into Lameness" i.e. being forced to fight a conga-line of antagonists in an arena for an audience, and healing between bouts is provided to drive home the utter pointlesssness of your battles.", which feels like a "railroad".Yeah reading this thread does make DM'ing seem harder.
I'd thought that my own recent failings at trying to DM again was due to my no longer being able to memorize rules well, with my ability to worldbuild and improvise scenes, and act out NPC's still intact, but now I wonder how long till my players would stumble into an empty room world as well.

I know as a player I recently tried to escape being "locked into lameness", in a mute room by stating that my PC, was having a delusional fit, and "forgetting where he is and his purpose there, arms himself and rides "Rocinante" to where he last battled the forces of the Queen", to which the DM responded:

"I can figure out what he might encounter if you want, or you can decide for yourself. Up to you."

Which showed me that, it was indeed a "shallow world" being created, instead of a "deep world" for my PC to explore. As a former DM I know that's often the case, but I disliked seeing "behind the curtain", as much as I dislike seeing "the rails".

When I think about it, it's surprising that "Empty Room world's" aren't more common.



Avoiding an "empty room world" is easy. Use some wandering monster tables. DM's make life way too hard on themselves these days. Remember how the AD&D DMG and Fiend Folio came with extensive encounter tables for every terrain and climate, as well as different dungeon levels? There's never a reason that something awesome can't happen even when the players are "off the page" of your adventure plan.

I agree about "seeing behind the curtain". "Decide for yourself" is the worst suggestion ever. Why would a player want to invent what their character encounters? Why would a DM even consider that an option? It defeats the whole point of the game. Just sounds lazy, or being petulant about their plot not being followed.

[OldTrees1]

AND the DM can railroad or ''force'' or ''make'' or whatever other word you want to use to have something happen or not happen.
You have been claiming that a game without railroading is random. I presented why that is not inherently true. Your response was to say "well the DM could still decide to railroad". That is irrelevant. The DM can also stand on their head, dance the hokey pokey, or take a bus to Toronto. None of those is relevant to the case where the DM is choosing to not railroad the game.

By even saying "the DM can railroad" in response to my example of non random non railroading is to admit that non railroading is not inherently random.


Sidenote: I will not discuss the fictional "good" railroading with you. You already threadcrapped at least a half dozen threads via that nonsequitur.

[ComradeBear]

AND the DM can railroad or ''force'' or ''make'' or whatever other word you want to use to have something happen or not happen. So like when the Pc's go to buy a boat from the only boat seller in town, that that NPC is like ''no boats for sale'' the DM could say ''I know my world and that NPC 'just' does not feel like selling any boats''....and that is exactly what a railroading DM would do to stop them from buying a boat....so where is the difference, other then the story you can try and fool the Pcs with....

Some reasons for Good Railroading:

1.To fit the game within the time frame. It's simple, there is not infinite time to play the game. Things need to happen before the game ends. So the game is from 6-11 and if the DM does not step in and do anything the players will never get to ''encounter 10''. Now some games are fine with this and will be like ''whatever, we will try again next week'. And there is a danger that the encounter will never happen too, and some games are fine with that. But most games want things to happen on time.

2.To get the player to do things they would not choose to do. This is simple too. Ask a player and there are hundreds of things they will say ''no'' to for lots of reasons. But a lot of them have at chance of being exciting or even fun, but the player that just stops their foot and says ''no'' just stops the game. Sometimes the ''no'' play has fun, sometimes they don't, but they never know unless they try.

3.To advance story. Unless it is a static, boring world that makes no sense...things need to happen. And, much like above, the players might not approve every single detail that might or might not happen. Like if the character rob a bank and are asked ''do you think the law will come after you?'' the player might answer ''nope, they are busy and let us go''.

Nah. That's not what railroading is.

[georgie_leech]

Nah. That's not what railroading is.

I mean, number 2 is. The DM thinking they know better than the players and that therefore they should decide what the players do is pretty much textbook railroading.

[Lorsa]

AND the DM can railroad or ''force'' or ''make'' or whatever other word you want to use to have something happen or not happen. So like when the Pc's go to buy a boat from the only boat seller in town, that that NPC is like ''no boats for sale'' the DM could say ''I know my world and that NPC 'just' does not feel like selling any boats''....and that is exactly what a railroading DM would do to stop them from buying a boat....so where is the difference, other then the story you can try and fool the Pcs with....

The question is if the decision of lacking boats for sale is logical, plausible and otherwise upholds the verisimilitude of the world.

Why is this NPC lacking boats for sale?

If the answer is "because the DM wants to stop them from buying a boat" then it is railroading. If it is "because a group of bandits came and burned them all last night" then it is something the players could figure out and then try to find these bandits (which means the reason the bandits came to burn boats ALSO has to make sense).

But what do you care? You never read my posts anyway.

[Segev]

Are you reading a diffrent thread? I have yet to see anyone say ''all railroading is not the most bad thing ever''?
Given that the baldly false statement isn't "everybody says railroads are bad," but rather your insistence that railroading is any time the GM does anything other than roll randomly to determine what happens (or refuses to do anything a la empty room problems), I find your response frustrating and useless. It's like somebody asked you why you keep punching them and you replied by saying it's their fault because they didn't agree that punch is delicious. So they asked to be punched. Except that still makes more sense than your complete missing of the point of the question to he point that you're insulting our intelligence if you think it believable that you thought we meant what you answered rather than what we asked.




How so? Are you trying to say that just as the ''forced lineal plot'' has a trigger action that a character does and set reaction by the NPC it is not a railroad? Like if you can ''blame'' a player, then the DM's actions are as pure as the wind driven snow? Like the DM can just ram anything down on the players and force anything to happen and just be like ''oh don't blame me, your characters stepped on the butterfly''.



It is interesting that you claim that we're arguing in bad faith by claiming that a railroad is, by definition, what you term a "jerk DM railroad," but that you resort to exemplar DMs who work in bad faith as jerk DMs pretending they have a fleshed out world to claim not to be railroading as your "evidence" that having a fleshed out setting that reacts to players' choices is a "railroad."

What you call a jerk DM railroad is the core of what makes a railroad. Nearly everything you claim is a "good railroad" is not railroading, and the only justification you've offered for calling it such requires either that all DMs secretly be running in bad faith, or that your sole reason for calling them hat is to accuse people who call out problems with railroading as being bad players who want to disrupt the game.


Again, your putting the Railroad in the Game Run by a Bad DM (or worse a Tyrant Jerk DM) just as you don't like it. Your thinking of that very bad game where the DM controls the characters and just has the player act out small bit parts. And then your like all railroading is like that one type of bad game.

It nearly is. There are legitimate uses for true railroading. The "we are starting the game here" version is okay because you get player buy-in by the premise.

If you can plan your railroad system out more perfectly than any cRPG with tons of branching choices has ever managed, such that nothing the players could think of trying would get off the rails and would flow naturally without no-selling or God-moding, sure, you can call it "good railroading" that is indistinguishable from a sandbox.

But since nobody here is that good, the difference lies in how guided the improvisation by the DM is. A fleshed out setting where he knows what drives the NPCs and what environmental factors are in play is not a railroad unless the DM forces Scenes to go as he planned.

That you have to pretend that there is no difference between a GM who runs this in good faith and one who claims his NPCs "just happen" to stonewall everything except his tail-provided pathway to plot, or who plans things to specifically close off all paths save those along which his rails run, illustrates that you get the difference on some level, and are denying it by erecting a straw man you can claim is what we "really mean" while refusing to address what we actually say.




You should note that all of the above is true for any non bad tyrant DM run game. Except the ''ignore it'' as that is the players being jerks and saying ''we don't want to play.'' Of course it is. And it also is, by definition, not a railroad.




Odd you see railroading as like one lone set of train tracks in the wilderness, but you can't see switches, sidings, cross-tracks, turn-a-rounds and all the other things about a railroad.Untrue, but tying to deal in that level of nuance with you has thus far proven worse than hopeless, given your seemingly-deliberate misinterpretation of even straight forward discussions of these concepts.

But, to try here: a railroad with lots of paths and switches and stuff tends to have set decision points. The switches are fixed and can only be taken at appointed times and places (Scenes), and only cover a finite number of pre-defined paths. The most flexible cRPGs tend to be this sort. And people can enjoy them. However, the allure of a TTRPG tends to be that you can make choices anywhere, since a human GM can improvise reactions. Else, playing a cROG will be a more (literally) spectacular experience, oft with better storytelling.

It is still only a railroad if you're forced to stay on established rails, rather than being allowed to explore the setup and try things for which the GM did not specifically plan.

If the GM allows a solution or choice that he didn't foreordain a scripted response to, it isn't a railroad.




The problem is your ''definition'' means nothing is a railroad. All a Dm needs to do is fool the players by tossing up a ''that is just how the NPCs reacted'' and that DM will never railroad...right. So the DM can force the plot along some very tight rails, but just say ''oh, it's just the npcs reacting the the characters''.

So, by that definition, railroading does not exist. Nonsense. The definition we're using is what you call "jerk DM railroading," because that is the only time the rails actually restrict the players.

If the rails do not restrict the players, then it isn't a railroad.

[Lorsa]

Some reasons for Good Railroading:

1.To fit the game within the time frame. It's simple, there is not infinite time to play the game. Things need to happen before the game ends. So the game is from 6-11 and if the DM does not step in and do anything the players will never get to ''encounter 10''. Now some games are fine with this and will be like ''whatever, we will try again next week'. And there is a danger that the encounter will never happen too, and some games are fine with that. But most games want things to happen on time.

2.To get the player to do things they would not choose to do. This is simple too. Ask a player and there are hundreds of things they will say ''no'' to for lots of reasons. But a lot of them have at chance of being exciting or even fun, but the player that just stops their foot and says ''no'' just stops the game. Sometimes the ''no'' play has fun, sometimes they don't, but they never know unless they try.

3.To advance story. Unless it is a static, boring world that makes no sense...things need to happen. And, much like above, the players might not approve every single detail that might or might not happen. Like if the character rob a bank and are asked ''do you think the law will come after you?'' the player might answer ''nope, they are busy and let us go''.

1. It is not necessary to railroad players for this to happen. The players are aware of the time constraint as well. As long as you show them "encounter 10 lies in this direction", then they can walk there by their own accord. If they don't, then they signal to you that they, in fact, do NOT want encounter 10 to happen right now. It is possible that they might want *some* encounter, but not necessarily "encounter 10". This could mean giving them "encounter 11, 12, 13 or 14" instead. Your assumption is "unless the DM steps in the players will never get to encounter 10". If that is true, it is a sign of poor adventure design. You can't fix that by railroading. Two wrongs don't make a right.

2. So you're saying that you regularly railroad players to things that are not fun? How is that good? In your own words "sometimes the 'no' play has fun, sometimes they don't". This means that it is just as likely that your so called "good" railroading leads to not-fun as to fun. Since you're trying to make an argument of "a bad action is good if the consequence is good", you better be damn sure the consequence IS good.

3. Having the world react in a logical and consistent manner has never been, and never will be, railroading. Good, bad or otherwise.

[Max_Killjoy]

3. Having the world react in a logical and consistent manner has never been, and never will be, railroading. Good, bad or otherwise.


Exactly.

"Railroading" is not determined by whether or not the GM makes decisions and judgement calls, or by whether there are proactive NPCs.

"Railroading" is determined by intent, and by what informs those decisions. It is determined by how the GM responds to the unforeseen and the innovative and the unexpected.





What you call a jerk DM railroad is the core of what makes a railroad. Nearly everything you claim is a "good railroad" is not railroading, and the only justification you've offered for calling it such requires either that all DMs secretly be running in bad faith, or that your sole reason for calling them hat is to accuse people who call out problems with railroading as being bad players who want to disrupt the game.


Unfortunately, all the parallels I've been able to think of for that sort of thinking on that other poster's part... are probably inflammatory and inappropriate to these forums.

[Amphetryon]

"Railroading" is determined by intent, and by what informs those decisions. It is determined by how the GM responds to the unforeseen and the innovative and the unexpected.

From here, that makes railroading all but impossible for the Players to accurately determine. A GM is rarely so completely transparent that the motivations and intents of the NPCs in the world can be clearly known by the Players. Even if the GM does, at some point, lay bare the complete thought process that 'proves' the intent was internal consistency rather than railroading, the GM may be justifying things after the fact, or lying outright. Further, there's no guarantee the Players will find the GM's explanation to be true.

[Max_Killjoy]

From here, that makes railroading all but impossible for the Players to accurately determine. A GM is rarely so completely transparent that the motivations and intents of the NPCs in the world can be clearly known by the Players. Even if the GM does, at some point, lay bare the complete thought process that 'proves' the intent was internal consistency rather than railroading, the GM may be justifying things after the fact, or lying outright. Further, there's no guarantee the Players will find the GM's explanation to be true.

In my experience, it comes across as pretty blatant most of the time.

[Koo Rehtorb]

From here, that makes railroading all but impossible for the Players to accurately determine. A GM is rarely so completely transparent that the motivations and intents of the NPCs in the world can be clearly known by the Players. Even if the GM does, at some point, lay bare the complete thought process that 'proves' the intent was internal consistency rather than railroading, the GM may be justifying things after the fact, or lying outright. Further, there's no guarantee the Players will find the GM's explanation to be true.

It's like dice fudging. A crafty GM who's a good liar can probably get away with it for a good while by using a light touch.

But it is the sort of thing that players will eventually get a feel for and when it does come out trust is gone and the game is permanently damaged because of it. So don't do it.

[Amphetryon]

In my experience, it comes across as pretty blatant most of the time.

Suffice to say our experiences appear fairly different.

[Darth Ultron]

You have been claiming that a game without railroading is random. I presented why that is not inherently true.

Yes a game is random or has a railroaded plot story. somehow, you and other are saying ''if a DM just does things on a whim'' it is never railroading. And ''as long as the DM gets the players to agree or out right fools them'' it's not railroading. Like when the DM says ''doors 1 to 10 are wizard locked and only door 11 is open because (list of reasons)'' it is not railroading...yet it is oddly, exactly what a railroading DM does....



Your response was to say "well the DM could still decide to railroad". That is irrelevant. The DM can also stand on their head, dance the hokey pokey, or take a bus to Toronto. None of those is relevant to the case where the DM is choosing to not railroad the game.

How so? I the DM railroads...they do. Your saying ''it's not railroading unless the players don't like it''.




If the answer is "because the DM wants to stop them from buying a boat" then it is railroading. If it is "because a group of bandits came and burned them all last night" then it is something the players could figure out and then try to find these bandits (which means the reason the bandits came to burn boats ALSO has to make sense).

But what do you care? You never read my posts anyway.

This is the odd as your saying a DM can railroad as long as the players agree and or are fooled. This would mean a clever DM can never railroad as long as they can toss up a smoke screen.


1. It is not necessary to railroad players for this to happen.

True, nothing exciting can happen or the next hour of the game and everyone can go home unhappy and say ''oh maybe we will do it next game''. You can do it but it is a downer ending or the night.

Note I the DM ''leads'' the characters to the encounter THAT is railroading.



2. So you're saying that you regularly railroad players to things that are not fun? How is that good?

Regularly railroad players to things they think might be un-fun yes. Fun is never automatic. It might happen, it might not. Ask a player ''think it would be fun or your character to be caught by the drow slavers?'' and they will scream ''no'' and will never agree to it. Yet, if it does happen..amazingly the ''escape from the drow'' becomes there most fun adventure ever...one they would have never had if they had there way.

3. Having the world react in a logical and consistent manner has never been, and never will be, railroading. Good, bad or otherwise.[/QUOTE]

My question is: How are the two different? The players want to do X and the DM stops them:

Taking the jerk tyrant DM railroading out of the question, so no ''your characters can not go north as I say so..hahahahahah!"

We get two other DMs. Both have ''amazing improvised reactions plausible reasons'' as to why the characters can not go north. One DM is railroading and is simply stopping them from going north. The other DM is, er, ''having the world react in a logical and consistent manner'' and stopping the characters from going north. In both games the player either ''accept and agree'' with whatever the DM says and/or ''they are fooled by the DM''.

So how can a player, in one o the two examples, EVER say railroading? As long as the DM ''has a good smoke and mirrors'' trick, it can never be a railroad...even if it is one.

And if ''react'' DM is ''doing exactly what the railroad DM is doing in every single way'', why can they say ''I'm not railroading...it just looks like I am...but I'm not."

[Segev]

From here, that makes railroading all but impossible for the Players to accurately determine. A GM is rarely so completely transparent that the motivations and intents of the NPCs in the world can be clearly known by the Players. Even if the GM does, at some point, lay bare the complete thought process that 'proves' the intent was internal consistency rather than railroading, the GM may be justifying things after the fact, or lying outright. Further, there's no guarantee the Players will find the GM's explanation to be true.

Generally speaking, a GM who can convince a party to follow his rails doesn't need to railroad. He may have a railroad, but if the players are following his prepared path willingly, he need not force them into it.

If the skilled lies are supposed to be regarding the motivation behind various obstacles, it can be detected by how willing the GM is to allow the PCs to explore the obstacles and their causes and to find alternate solutions.

Players tend to notice when the pattern is increasingly suspiciously (in)convenient to hints in the way of them trying anything other than one specified path.

[Segev]

Yes a game is random or has a railroaded plot story.False. We have repeatedly pointed out how this is not true, and you repeatedly ignore what we say and pretend we instead said:



somehow, you and other are saying ''if a DM just does things on a whim'' it is never railroading.

We have never said the GM is doing things "on a whim." We have said he is reacting to the players' actions with logical outgrowths of the NPCs' personalities, goals, and the state of the setting in which the game is happening.

Until you stop pretending we're saying what you want us to so you can beat up the straw man, we will continue to treat you like you do not have a valid point, because you have failed to present one. A valid point does not require its proponents to lie about what those who disagree with him are saying. A valid point can have arguments address what its opponents say, rather than pretending a straw man is what its opponents are supporting.


In short, Darth_Ultron, you are making your position clearly false. You are practically admitting that you have no point, that you are wrong, and that you know it. Otherwise, you'd be able to acknowledge what we've been saying. Since you can't and instead pretend we're saying what you want us to be saying, you're clearly not just wrong, but either lack basic reading comprehension or are intellectually dishonest.



Finally, if the DM is improvising a reason the party can't go north, he's railroading. If he instead examines his setup and realizes that the players' approach to going north won't work, he's not railroading.

Note that motive is peripheral here. It is there: for the DM to deliberately improvise reasons they can't go north, he must not want them to go north and is trying to railroad them into not doing so.

But the difference isn't the motive. The difference is what causes him to say it won't work.

The DM who is not railroading will have something involving his setting and setup that the PCs can look into. The "you can't go north" is not a dead end keeping them there until they deal with the DM's plot and he feels like making something up in the north. It is, instead, inherently a hook because whatever is preventing them from going north is, itself, a soluble problem. If they want to go north, they can find a way to do so.

The railroading DM won't let the problem he improvised be solved until he feels like letting them go north. The non-railroading DM will let them go north as soon as they figure out how. And "how" need not be his prescribed solution.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Additionally, the railroading GM won't just have a "reason" for not going north. He'll also have "reasons" for not going west, or east, or staying still.

[OldTrees1]

Yes a game is random or has a railroaded plot story. somehow, you and other are saying ''if a DM just does things on a whim'' it is never railroading. And ''as long as the DM gets the players to agree or out right fools them'' it's not railroading. Like when the DM says ''doors 1 to 10 are wizard locked and only door 11 is open because (list of reasons)'' it is not railroading...yet it is oddly, exactly what a railroading DM does....

How so? I the DM railroads...they do. Your saying ''it's not railroading unless the players don't like it''.

Darth, I gave an example of non random non railroading.
You responded with: "but the DM could decide to railroad instead".

Here is some java code:

public int add(int num1, int num2)
{
return num1+num2;
}

1) The result returned is not determined before the user input. Likewise a DM does not need to determine the result before the player chooses how to act.
2) The result is not random. Likewise a DM simulating the world without railroading does not mean it will be random.

[Lorsa]

This is the odd as your saying a DM can railroad as long as the players agree and or are fooled. This would mean a clever DM can never railroad as long as they can toss up a smoke screen.

A clever railroading DM will indeed toss up a smoke screen. Otherwise the players would notice right away and simply go home.

The problem the railroading DM has is that the players might try to interact with the smoke screen, which was never the intention to begin with. Remember, in this case, the DM wants players to continue with whatever plot they envisioned. If they say "he doesn't have any boats because, uhm.... some bandits came and burned them", then the players might start looking for these bandits. This result is clearly not what the DM wants either, so then he has to put up another smoke screen as to why they can't find the bandits, which the players might then want to interact with as well and on we go in an infinite loop.

You see, the problem with putting up smoke screens, which is what a railroading DM typically does, is that players will try to look behind it. In the end, this will lead to one of two things:

1) The players figure out the DM was trying to railroad them all along
2) The DM gets burned out

The other DM, on the other hand, has no interest in forcing the players into following some pre-set idea of a plot, so they will simply let the players look for the bandits, and create an interesting adventure and a fun encounter from it.

Or even more likely, allow the players to buy the boat in the first place.




True, nothing exciting can happen or the next hour of the game and everyone can go home unhappy and say ''oh maybe we will do it next game''. You can do it but it is a downer ending or the night.

Note I the DM ''leads'' the characters to the encounter THAT is railroading.

Or you can have exciting things happen without railroading.




Regularly railroad players to things they think might be un-fun yes. Fun is never automatic. It might happen, it might not. Ask a player ''think it would be fun or your character to be caught by the drow slavers?'' and they will scream ''no'' and will never agree to it. Yet, if it does happen..amazingly the ''escape from the drow'' becomes there most fun adventure ever...one they would have never had if they had there way.

A better idea would be NOT to railroad them, and instead bring them something fun where they are now.

What you are suggesting is first doing something un-fun for the players, with the promise of "it might be fun later". So in your mind, a fun thing later makes the un-fun thing right now okay.

My suggestion is: skip the un-fun thing now, and focus on giving the players fun at their present location (both in the story and in the world).




3. Having the world react in a logical and consistent manner has never been, and never will be, railroading. Good, bad or otherwise.

My question is: How are the two different? The players want to do X and the DM stops them:

Taking the jerk tyrant DM railroading out of the question, so no ''your characters can not go north as I say so..hahahahahah!"

We get two other DMs. Both have ''amazing improvised reactions plausible reasons'' as to why the characters can not go north. One DM is railroading and is simply stopping them from going north. The other DM is, er, ''having the world react in a logical and consistent manner'' and stopping the characters from going north. In both games the player either ''accept and agree'' with whatever the DM says and/or ''they are fooled by the DM''.

So how can a player, in one o the two examples, EVER say railroading? As long as the DM ''has a good smoke and mirrors'' trick, it can never be a railroad...even if it is one.

And if ''react'' DM is ''doing exactly what the railroad DM is doing in every single way'', why can they say ''I'm not railroading...it just looks like I am...but I'm not."

They are different because of the reasons I explained above.

A DM which has the world react in a plausible and consistent manner will be quite happy to see the players interact with this new situation that arise.

The DM which is simply trying to railroad the players will be upset when the players interact with their smoke screen and try to erect even more smoke screens to cover up the first one.

A really really crafty smoke screen creator might be almost indistinguishable from a non-railroading DM, for a very long time.

However, a DM that is trying to railroad will never be satisfied unless the players go along with the story. So after ten sessions of the players trudging through their smoke screens, continuously putting up more and more, the DM will be very unhappy.

So yes, for the players the two types of DM might look the same, at least for a couple of sessions, but for the DM, the fun level will be severely different.

[Quertus]

Only a bad DM would ever do something like ''I wrote down the boss is a orc warlord and that will never change.'' A good DM can change anything, even ''cemented'' stuff.

I wonder if we are defining "good" and "bad" differently. A bad DM can certainly ruin the game by inconsistently changing cemented facts, whereas a good DM will present a logical, consistent world. What did you mean for us to take away?


I'd point out again that railroading must exist unless your game is random or you Quantum Oger everything right in front of the characters.

And sure, you will disagree, and ok fine. Instead of just saying or or making an insult, try to answer a question: How do you set up any event to happen in the game world to the characters?

Quantum Ogre or Railroad are the only two normal ways of making, unless you have some radical third way? (and before you answer ''I have a world that reacts to the players: that is an example of ''slight railroading'').

The tricky thing is your definition is just ''if the players like it, it's not railroading''. And goes right back to ''as long as the players fool themselves the game is good.'' It also as the cry baby player problem of as soon as a player does not like anything, even something not in the game, the player can just cry ''I don't like this game anymore'' and it is automatically a railroad.

You have certainly helped us see that we do not all define railroading exactly identically. If forced to put it into words, I suppose I'd define railroading similarly to most everyone else... But probably focus on times when DMs make players actions unrealistically fail when the outcome would deviate from the DM's pre-scripted plan, or even when they make the players actions unrealistically succeed when they advance the DM's pre-scripted plan.

Problem is, this definition is not particularly useful, as it requires being able to read the DM's mind.

At best, it means that one can say that they feel like they've been railroaded when something they think should work mysteriously doesn't, without explanation.

...

Also, yes, the DM does set the scene. To continue the example, the DM chooses to have a monster attack the town while the party is there. There must be some word for whatever magic the DM uses when they decide that there is a monster attacking the town. But I don't think that word is "railroading".

I'd ask the playground what that word is, to try to get us all on the same page, but, honestly, if Darth Ultron started using words the same way the rest of us do, we'd never have these enlightening conversations, where we learn the subtle differences in how we all define words in the first place.


Right, and notice how you, and ''everyone'' is bias? You think railroading is negative so you only say negative stuff about it, you like the sandbox, so it's the greatest thing ever made. You have the railroad DM as the tyrant jerk only, while your sandbox DM is just beyond cool. The railroad game is no fun, but the sandbox is the most fun ever.

But, note your descriptions don't match and don't add up. For example:

1. the sequence of events can only proceed exactly as the GM has preordained them OK, so either the sandbox has no sequence of events(is a random mess) or the sequence of events happens in some other way....but you don't tell us how?

2. and any actual impact the players have on the course of events is just an illusion; at most their choices determine the minor "how" of their progress from one predetermined encounter/scene to the next. So the sandbox players have ''real'' control over the game and can do anything? But it's not like the players are DMs, right? But, somehow, in a way you did not mention they have ''real'' control over the game, but how?

3. there is only one direction the campaign may proceed A railroaded plot has a start and finish...so, a sandbox one does not, right? The players can ''randomly'' just do stuff, but not follow any plot, but if they do follow a plot they can ''somehow'' go in any direction?

4.an developed world/setting, with history, where characters exist and things are going, is presented to the players; the player characters interact with that world and cause, stop, and alter events through their own actions. Well, railroad type games have all this, so how is all of this somehow unique to a sandbox game?

If you have a plot that will advance in a way that makes sense, the DM will need to make it happen. If you want to hide behind words you can call it ''force'' or ''pressure'' or ''lineal progression'' or ''influence'', if you don't want to use the ''R'' word. Even if you try the smoke and mirrors of ''the DM just has the world react to the players'', that is exactly what a railroad plot does...so how is the sandbox way different? It is not?

Unless the DM is the worst kind with the Quantum Ogre: Pc: ''We go to the left'' DM: "and you walk into Encounter #5''.....

Not that this will help, but... Let's say I've got a sandbox called "the playground". In it, I've created lots of hooks, with fancy titles like "Player-led games vs. GM-led games". Then I let the players do whatever they want in these threads, within certain limits imposed by the laws of reality I've established (maximum word count, no profanity, whatever). Heck, let's say I even let the players invent their own plots that I never even considered before. According to you, in this scenario, everything everyone posts must, by definition, be completely random. Are you really just a random text generator?

At least, I suspect that's how everyone reads your arguments. I suspect you mean to say that, by creating a scenario, the DM is laying down track in the first place. The way most of us define railroading, it's only if the players are forced to a particular conclusion (or one of several preset conclusions), and not allowed to "lay their own track" to whatever logical destination they envision, that people usually cry "railroading".


"Backstory" is a first step towards what most GMs probably want but don't quite realize they are looking for: concept and personality. The reason to hold "auditions" is to make sure you don't let in the paladin and the axe crazy assassin and the sociopathic made with the too pure to swing a mace cleric. Which could happen with "first com first serve."

I can't and won't argue the theory behind your post, since it seems spot on, but in my experience the practice of the back-story audition requirement, seems to be for the DM to see if the players are capable of writing one.

but from this players perspective it sure looks like the back-story requirement is just a test to see if a player is willing and able to make one.

Actually, IRL, most DMs vet their players. If your backstory is just an anime ripoff, filled with run-on sentences, shows an unhealthy obsession with raping the NPCs, hits Max's pet peeves with misusing homophones, is clearly derived from Quertus' "Wall of Text" spell, or otherwise makes the DM's life miserable, well, that's about the best vetting one can do online.

So I'm not surprised if it has become common practice.


I am curious as to the possibility that the rise of the interwebs has allowed both bad DMs and bad players easier access to the general public as well as making it easier for them to escape criticism for their bad behavior.

Eh. A little of both, I suspect. Bad DMs that have been outed can more easily find new, unsuspecting players. On the other hand, players no longer have as much reason to view DMs as single source providers, and so are more likely to "vote with their feet" in the first place.


After experiencing the futility of actually trying to role-play out the character that the back-story suggests, because I've found that actually trying to role-play the PC submitted won't fit the plot.

It's often said that "No DM plans survive contact with the players", but to that I would add "No character concept survives contact with the DM".

Sadness. Happily for me, most of my crazy personalities have fit in just fine... perhaps in part because most of my GMs don't railroad a plot, and are willing to let the story go in whatever direction the players take it.


But, is this a useful definition when even the GM themselves doesn't know 90% of the time?

Can you have pre-emptive Railroading? Is the GM always obligated to give the PC's a chance to opt-out of the current adventure? If the PC's are in a city under-siege, and the GM is like "Okay, you can either stay in the city, or try to break through the siege", what do they do if the players say "Nah, I don't want to do that. I want to go fight trolls in the mountains". Is the GM obligated to lift the siege so they can go fight trolls? Was the GM wrong to put them in a city under siege in the first place?

The issue with enshrining "Player Agency" as the ultimate Goal, is that it leads to a situation where the Players become responsible for making their own challenges. I'm going down a slippery-slope here, but if any resistance to a player's desire is met with cries of Railroading, then the Players don't have to interact with the presented world, or scenario, at all.
If Player Straw says: "Screw fighting dragons, I want to lead a kingdom" and GM Mann says: "Okay Straw, in the next valley over is a kingdom whose rules say that the crown goes to the next foreign-born 5th level fighter to show up and ask for it."

I would say no. If you don't feel railroaded, you're not. If you cared strongly about what type of adventure to do, it's on you to communicate that to the GM.

If you feel railroaded, then you're railroaded, at least in my book.
A lot of it comes down to suspension of disbelief. When the GM's efforts to keep you on the rails start to violate suspension of disbelief, then we start to have problems.

If we are to have any useful definition of Railroading (one that you can apply to everyday GMing that doesn't come out as "Run a total sandbox game), I say that Railroading is a matter of how much the player's feel that their agency has been restricted. Usually, this is a factor of suspension of disbelief.

Of course, it is possible for a series of perfectly logical events to happen in-universe that don't strain disbelief at all, and still leave the players feeling railroaded.

In the end, I would argue that the only metric that matters is not how much hypothetical agency the player has, but how much fun they are having. A game where the GM would never let the players leave the rails, but everybody has a great time, is much better than one where the GM would let the players do anything, but everybody gets bored or frustrated.

We don't seem to be defining player agency the same way. IMO, if the players realistically could escape the siege via teleportation, flight, invisibility, or, heck, actually belonging to the invading nation, but are prevented from doing anything other than the DMs false dichotomy, then it's railroading.

For the part I bolded, can you explain what you mean?


For me railroading is defined by the reaction to the story progressing along an unexpected path. The GM can have the entire campaign planned out but if they shrug and put that aside the moment the players head east instead of west, it is not railroading.

Agreed. Railroading is definitely the DM taking action to keep the plot on the rails.

So... I suppose, even if it is a single-track railroad, unless/until the party attempts to venture off the rails, there can't be railroading.


Yes, a plot in an RPG is not like other plots.

But if you really want to drop the word ''plot''..ok, fine we can call ''that part of an RPG that is the plot'' the ''scenario''. Ok, then the ''scenario'' has a beginning, middle and end..and assuming it is complex and the game world makes sense..needs railroading to advance the scenario.

Somehow your saying that the DM can make a ''scenario'' by just reacting to the players, but it's not random. So some how the DM is doing planned stuff based on something? I know there is a lot of talk about ''the DM just has stuff react to the players'' and somehow that is ''pure and innocent.'' But for the reactions to make sense...and not be random...the DM has to base them on a ''scenario''(aka plot). If the characters kill Prince Bob, the king will react X.....but X is only possible if the DM has made up stuff before hand. Otherwise the DM is just improvising by whim and ''quantum Ogre''ing .

Yes, the DM decides what is in the world. Yes, most DMs don't have the entire world existing in perfect detail at the start of a campaign. Yes, most DMs will create the "monster attacking the town" scenario to happen "at the right time", whatever that happens to be. Yes, one could argue that, because no matter how the PCs schedule their travels, they will encounter this monster attack, that it could reduce their ability to make meaningful choices.

But what most people complain about under the heading of "railroading" is what happens after the stage is set. Are they allowed to try to fight the monster, even if it is above their pay grade, and starts killing them? Are they allowed to try to run away? Are they allowed to try to extort protection money from the townsfolk for their services? Are they allowed to try to loot the town? Are they allowed to try to busy in doors, throwing sense motive & knowledge checks, and murder the cult instead of the monster? Are they allowed to try to run into the local magic shop, and buy a scroll of gate / prayer bead of summoning, to try to convince something else to save the town?


Let's play a game. You can tell me any two numbers A & B and I promise to tell you A/B. Did I make up A/B before you told me A or B? No, I derived it afterwards. Did I "quantum Ogre" by giving the same answer regardless of your choice of A or B? No, I derived A/B from your choice of A and B.

If a DM knows their world then they can simulate the world rather than break verisimilitude with railroads or quantum ogres. Only someone that did not know their world would believe that physics is random rather than cause and effect.

Pretty much this. Setting the scene, choosing that it will be a/b, is DMs prerogative; choosing a and b is up to the players, and evaluating a/b is the purview of the laws of reality.

[ComradeBear]

@Quertus:
A term does exist for the power by which the DM causes things to occur. The term is "Narrative Authority."
Railroading is as much Narrative authority you can swing around before becoming the author of a novel.

[Max_Killjoy]

@Quertus
It would seem that to the other party in this disagreement, anything not preplanned is "random".

Again, this would be a case perhaps of favoring personal definition over functional communication. To most of us, "random" in this context would mean:

1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.


2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.


Neither of those would apply to a cause-and-effect relationship established between the actions and reactions of PCs, NPCs, and the setting itself (presuming a coherent, consistent setting, characters, "physics", etc).


@Lorsa
That's one of the major indicators of whether a GM is railroading or not -- are they putting up complications that the PCs can interact with and overcome, or "beyond here is naught but the void" roadblocks that the PCs cannot interact with and overcome. The former is not railroading (unless you get a complication pileup that's functionally a roadblock), the latter is.

[2D8HP]

In an earlier post I wrote of how I found that as a player being asked "what does your PC find there", by a GM as disagreeable as being "railroaded, because it ruins my sense of "exploring a world", and I like a clear division between what the GM controls and what the player controls.
This morning I read an installment of "Dice Tales", which details something similar:

Backseat GM'ing (http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/2016/10/09/dice-tales-backseat-gming/)

[Darth Ultron]

I wonder if we are defining "good" and "bad" differently. A bad DM can certainly ruin the game by inconsistently changing cemented facts, whereas a good DM will present a logical, consistent world. What did you mean for us to take away?

The bad DM, in this case the Tyrant Jerk DM will refuse to change ''their story'' no matter what and just want the players to follow along. The good DM can change anything, and ''logic'' and ''consistent'' don't have their real world meanings in a game. For example, in D&D a villain can be a clone, so it is ''logically consistent'' to encounter and kill that npc several times.



Problem is, this definition is not particularly useful, as it requires being able to read the DM's mind.

Any time I mention this people just ignore it. If a ''cool reaction '' DM does the exact same things a ''railroad'' DM does....why is not the first DM railroading? Just as they ''say'' they are not?



But what most people complain about under the heading of "railroading" is what happens after the stage is set. Are they allowed to try to fight the monster, even if it is above their pay grade, and starts killing them? Are they allowed to try to run away? Are they allowed to try to extort protection money from the townsfolk for their services? Are they allowed to try to loot the town? Are they allowed to try to busy in doors, throwing sense motive & knowledge checks, and murder the cult instead of the monster? Are they allowed to try to run into the local magic shop, and buy a scroll of gate / prayer bead of summoning, to try to convince something else to save the town?

This goes back to only the Jerk Tyrant DM where the DM will say stuff like ''your characters go north as I say so'' or ''you can't escape the trap, so stop wasting time, your characters are caught.''

Most normal DM's will ''allow'' the players to try something, even if it is a waste of time. A big problem here though is too many players think ''try'' means ''automatically happens as they want it too''

And as said, any Railroad plot even written (by non-jerk DMs) is full ''what ifs'' as the characters effect things.


@Quertus
It would seem that to the other party in this disagreement, anything not preplanned is "random".


There is preplanned and there is random, and there is not much middle ground to stand on. Some say they ''know the stuff they made up so well that they can just blink an know what that stuff would do in response to anything''. Some how this does not count as ''preplanning'', though simply as they don't want it too. Like the PC's kill the prince....how will the king react? DM A checks his notes and says ''X'' happens. DM Z ''knows the king so well'' and says ''X'' happens. How are they not exactly the same thing? Both are preplanned. Just as DM Z ''keeps all the stuff in their head'' does not change anything, it's just ''sounds cool'' or whatever to some people.

[Max_Killjoy]

The bad DM, in this case the Tyrant Jerk DM will refuse to change ''their story'' no matter what and just want the players to follow along.

This goes back to only the Jerk Tyrant DM where the DM will say stuff like ''your characters go north as I say so'' or ''you can't escape the trap, so stop wasting time, your characters are caught.''


Actually, that defines railroading. Not "bad railroading" or "good railroading" or "rainbow railroading" -- just plain railroading.




There is preplanned and there is random, and there is not much middle ground to stand on.


Then that's where you're just plain wrong. Either you're presenting a false dichotomy (aka, fallacy of the excluded middle), or you're using the word "random" in a way that's back-defined to suit your position, rather than in a standard way that's useful for communication (which seems to be a pattern, really).

We've given you enough examples and rundowns of how that statement is wrong in this and other threads that I think many of us are seeing a fading utility in yet another go-around.

[Cluedrew]

You have certainly helped us see that we do not all define railroading exactly identically. If forced to put it into words, I suppose I'd define railroading similarly to most everyone else... But probably focus on times when DMs make players actions unrealistically fail when the outcome would deviate from the DM's pre-scripted plan, or even when they make the players actions unrealistically succeed when they advance the DM's pre-scripted plan.

Problem is, this definition is not particularly useful, as it requires being able to read the DM's mind.I actually think the "intent" definition is actually useful for two reasons. The first is it gets quite close to the issue at hand. If I may break into metaphor; it is why doctors diagnose diseases despite the fact it is the symptoms that give the patient trouble. Being blocked, facing suddenly unreasonably strong enemies or someone forcing you to take on a particular mission are all symptoms of the disease called railroading. However railroading can have other symptoms, so we talk about the disease itself when talking about cures and causes.

Second is simpler: Being able to read the broad strokes of people's mind is usual pretty easy if you spend enough time around them. Most people don't hide it very well.

[kyoryu]

Then that's where you're just plain wrong. Either you're presenting a false dichotomy (aka, fallacy of the excluded middle), or you're not using the word "random" in a way that's back-defined to suit your position, rather than in a standard way that's useful for communication (which seems to be a pattern, really).

I like ice cream. Some people say that they don't like ice cream, and like cake. They're clearly wrong! And if you think about it, ice cream can have chocolate. And so can this so-called cake, which means that obviously what they're calling cake is really ice cream. So if you take chocolate, and strawberries, and other things out, then what's left is just just flavorless bread. So, really, you either like ice cream, which can have chocolate and strawberries, or you're saying you like flavorless bread for dessert. Because if the flavorless bread had chocolate or strawberries in it, it would be ice cream.

[OldTrees1]

There is preplanned and there is random, and there is not much middle ground to stand on. Some say they ''know the stuff they made up so well that they can just blink an know what that stuff would do in response to anything''. Some how this does not count as ''preplanning'', though simply as they don't want it too. Like the PC's kill the prince....how will the king react? DM A checks his notes and says ''X'' happens. DM Z ''knows the king so well'' and says ''X'' happens. How are they not exactly the same thing? Both are preplanned. Just as DM Z ''keeps all the stuff in their head'' does not change anything, it's just ''sounds cool'' or whatever to some people.

Here is some java code:

public int add(int num1, int num2)
{
return num1+num2;
}
1) The result returned is not determined before the user input. Likewise a DM does not need to determine the result before the player chooses how to act.
2) The result is not random. Likewise a DM simulating the world without railroading does not mean it will be random.

Here is some different java code:

public int railroad(int num1, int num2)
{
return 5;
}
1) The result returned(5) was determined before user input.
2) The result returned was not random.

Here is a third set of java code.

public int random(int num1, int num2)
{
return random.next();//returns a random number
}
1) The result returned was not determined before user input.
2) The result returned was random.

"random" gives inconsistent results due to the RNG
"railroad" gives a consistent result that ignores user input
"add" gives a consistent result that is controlled by user input

Railroading is when the DM has determined the outcome regardless of player input
Random is when the DM determines the outcome via RNG
Non random, non railroading is when the DM determines the outcome based on player input.

Another example:
The Break DC for a strong wooden door is DC 23 in D&D 3.5.
A player has their character (with 8 strength) try to break a strong wooden door


railroading(int characterStrengthMod)
{
return "fails";
}


non-railroading(int characterStrengthMod)
{
if(characterStrengthMod + 1d20 => 23)
{return "Succeed";}
else
{return "fails";}
}
In both cases the attempt fails (23 > 19). However the difference is the non-railroading case determines the outcome from player input while the railroading case ignores the player input.

[Darth Ultron]

We've given you enough examples and rundowns of how that statement is wrong in this and other threads that I think many of us are seeing a fading utility in yet another go-around.

Actually all I get is someone saying that I'm wrong and then insulting me.

Then maybe they type something vague like ''my game is so special that I never railroad or anything like it'' and ''somehow'' things just ''happen'' in the game, but the ''DM does not do anything''. At worse, they describe how they, do ''force things to happen in the game, but just don't call it railroading''. And if I ask how they just say ''somehow'' and toss out another insult.



Railroading is when the DM has determined the outcome regardless of player input
Random is when the DM determines the outcome via RNG
Non random, non railroading is when the DM determines the outcome based on player input.

Ok, this might be the best definition yet.....except, what is ''player input''? Are you talking about when the jerk player is like ''DM I demand there be a million gold coins in the wooden chest''?

In most normal games, the player does not have much ''input''. After all there is no game when the players can just say ''I don't want my character to be attacked'' and then that happens in the game.

And how do you account for the ''common sense, know the stuff, reactions''? NPC orc will not like the human PCs, no matter what ''input'' they do, so that would be railroading..and makes all the DMs that do that railroad DMs




Another example:
The Break DC for a strong wooden door is DC 23 in D&D 3.5.
A player has their character (with 8 strength) try to break a strong wooden door
In both cases the attempt fails (23 > 19). However the difference is the non-railroading case determines the outcome from player input while the railroading case ignores the player input.

I don't follow this, but then I think Java is Coffee.

So how does ''player input'' effect how strong the door is?

[OldTrees1]

Ok, this might be the best definition yet.....except, what is ''player input''? Are you talking about when the jerk player is like ''DM I demand there be a million gold coins in the wooden chest''?

In most normal games, the player does not have much ''input''. After all there is no game when the players can just say ''I don't want my character to be attacked'' and then that happens in the game.

And how do you account for the ''common sense, know the stuff, reactions''? NPC orc will not like the human PCs, no matter what ''input'' they do, so that would be railroading..and makes all the DMs that do that railroad DMs




I don't follow this, but then I think Java is Coffee.

So how does ''player input'' effect how strong the door is?

Background knowledge:
1) Java is a programming language.
2) Player input means character actions/decisions (normal free willed player, not jerk player)
Essentially Player input In-Game is akin in scale to your(Darth Ultron's) input IRL. You cannot demand reality dump gold in front of you, but you can control yourself and your own actions.

If the DM determines the outcome without checking to see if player input had/has an effect then that is railroading. Compare this to if your calculator told you X+Y=4 regardless of what you, the player, put in for X or Y.
If the DM has RNG determine the outcome, then the outcome is random.
If the DM checks to see if player input had/has an effect then it might not be railroading.

The strength of a strong wooden door is set by the rules of the RPG the DM is using.
The DM decided the door was a strong wooden door.
The player decided to try to break the door.
The DM could
A) Roll a d6 and have the door break on a 6 (random)
B) Read notes that say "the door doesn't break" (railroading)
C) On the fly say "the door doesn't break" (railroading)
D) Compare the PC's strength check vs the door break DC (not railroading even if the PC had insufficient strength as in the 8 Str vs DC 23 example)
E) Change the door to an steel door to make the break DC too high (railroading)

D is not railroading but B, C and E are railroading.
A is random, but B, C, D, and E are not random.

Essentially is the DM trying to dictate what the Player does? Is the DM denying alternatives because they are alternatives rather than because the PC fails? Does the game hinge on an event that would not happen if the Players could play their PCs? Those are examples of railroading but avoiding those does not require everything be random.

[Darth Ultron]

The strength of a strong wooden door is set by the rules of the RPG the DM is using.
The DM decided the door was a strong wooden door.

How do the two statements match up? Either the rules say the strength of the door or the DM makes it up....it can't be both. The rules never say ''all this must be this always'', in fact most RPG's just give DMs a list of something like door materials, enchantments, spells and the like...but the DM always decides ''what'' a door will be.



D) Compare the PC's strength check vs the door break DC (not railroading even if the PC had insufficient strength)


I see a flaw in your program. Your saying it is only railroading if the DM first says ''it's a strong wood door'' and then just, on a whim, changes it to ''a strong steel door''. Now, I'd go one more and say that DM would be a jerk, but lets just stay with your definition that DM is ''just railroading''.

So if the DM makes it a steel door from the start, then has to change nothing, in your view that is not railroading. A DM can always make something tough, hard or even impossible...using whatever ''interpretation'' of the rules you want to use. And, in short, as the DM can do anything, they can always out optimize a player. So how is this not railroading? (I'd say it is)




Essentially is the DM trying to dictate what the Player does? Is the DM denying alternatives because they are alternatives rather than because the PC fails? Does the game hinge on an event that would not happen if the Players could play their PCs? Those are examples of railroading but avoiding those does not require everything be random.

Yes, and that is my over all point. Every single locked door...or anything is ''the DM dictating what a player can do with a character''. You simply can not get around that.

And this is the big question everyone avoids: if you say you don't railroad, then how do you have events effect the PCs?

Your choices, if no railroading, are:

A)Run very simple games with simple plots
B)Just wait for a random roll to happen
C)Quantum Ogre the world so it happens ''around'' the Pcs
D)Out-Optimize the Pcs

[Cluedrew]

Ok, this might be the best definition yet.....except, what is ''player input''?...

... ... ...

Well there's your problem.

Technically yes, players making unreasonable demands of the. GM is player input. But it is hardly the only form. Reasonable requests are also part of it, "Could [NPC] show up again?" is player input. As are more reasonable demands, "If rape comes up again I am out.", actions they take with their PCs, suggestions to other players.

Put a different way, anything a player puts into the game is player input and anything a game master puts into the game is GM input.

Now, I'm going try and answer the "next" question, which I think would be something like "What does 'determines the outcome based on player input' mean?" Well first let me cover a few things it is not.

It is not saying "I'll consider it" and continuing on with no changes. That is a railroad. It is also not automatically throwing out whatever the GM had planned to make it happen. That could actually lead to one of the players railroading the campaign. It is allowing player input to shape (not completely re-write) the campaign. Small ways like how a particular encounter is handled happen all the time. The big, campaign altering, decisions happen less frequently, but they can and should be shaped by players to.

If the party gets together and decides "Both sides of this war are messed up, let's build a boat and head for the mainland." Generally you shouldn't say "You can't" or "You do that", but more like "To build a boat you will have to...". Then while they do that, start working out what is going on in the mainland. I use this extreme example on purpose, because it does involve throwing out a lot of GM work (side note: preparation light can make this easier to handle). If they make a habit of it you might want to talk to the players about it. But sometimes the plot should go in directions no one, not even the GM, planned for. And no it is not random, unpredictable is not the same as random.

And that is my opinion on the matter.

[OldTrees1]

How do the two statements match up? Either the rules say the strength of the door or the DM makes it up....it can't be both. The rules never say ''all this must be this always'', in fact most RPG's just give DMs a list of something like door materials, enchantments, spells and the like...but the DM always decides ''what'' a door will be.
The Monster Manuel says what a Goblin is. I, the DM, decided there is a Goblin in the forest.
The DMG says what the break DC of a "strong wooden door" is. I, the DM, decided to place a "strong wooden door" in the castle.
If I homebrew a magic item, my homebrew says what the magic item is. I, the DM, decided to put it in the merchant's shop.


I see a flaw in your program. Your saying it is only railroading if the DM first says ''it's a strong wood door'' and then just, on a whim, changes it to ''a strong steel door''. Now, I'd go one more and say that DM would be a jerk, but lets just stay with your definition that DM is ''just railroading''.

So if the DM makes it a steel door from the start, then has to change nothing, in your view that is not railroading. A DM can always make something tough, hard or even impossible...using whatever ''interpretation'' of the rules you want to use. And, in short, as the DM can do anything, they can always out optimize a player. So how is this not railroading? (I'd say it is)
You replied too fast
The DM could
A) Roll a d6 and have the door break on a 6 (random)
B) Read notes that say "the door doesn't break" (railroading)
C) On the fly say "the door doesn't break" (railroading)
D) Compare the PC's strength check vs the door break DC (not railroading even if the PC had insufficient strength as in the 8 Str vs DC 23 example)
E) Change the door to an steel door to make the break DC too high (railroading)

I could put the PCs in a hallway with only steel doors(or otherwise mechanically impossible options) in order to force them to do what I want, but that too would be railroading. Why? Because I predetermined the outcome without taking the player input into account. Even if I put mechanical impossibility to cover up my railroading, it does not remove the rails I would have placed.



Yes, and that is my over all point. Every single locked door...or anything is ''the DM dictating what a player can do with a character''. You simply can not get around that.

And this is the big question everyone avoids: if you say you don't railroad, then how do you have events effect the PCs?

Your choices, if no railroading, are:

A)Run very simple games with simple plots
B)Just wait for a random roll to happen
C)Quantum Ogre the world so it happens ''around'' the Pcs
D)Out-Optimize the Pcs

Splitting this into 2 parts:
1) How do you have events effect the PCs?
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean how do I have predetermined scenes "The PCs will have an audience with the Duke where he asks for their assistance"? Such scenes are not needed.
Do you mean how do I have existing background events like "England and France are at war again" effect the PCs? Background events effect the world and the PCs interact with the world.
Do you mean how do I have this even the Players put the PCs in effect the PCs? The normal way objects effect each other.

2) How does someone run such a non random non railroad game?
A is possible but not the only answer.
B does not make much sense.
C is a border case railroad.
D usually is means to railroad, so it is not an example.

Many different ways. Of the many people arguing against you, I think I can see at least 4 different game styles. I personally use a Sandbox so I will not use myself as an example. Here is my best attempt at describing one of the various methods another person in this thread might be using.

Step 1: Make a plot without getting attached and without attempting to limit/force the players.
Step 2: Know your world well enough that you can accurately answer every curveball a player could throw at you (at least up until your next preptime).
Step 3: When the players do something you did not plan for, you honestly derive (not decide) what would happen and accept the consequences of the player's actions. This may include scrapping a lot of prep work or even moving onto a different plot.

[Darth Ultron]

...
Put a different way, anything a player puts into the game is player input and anything a game master puts into the game is GM input.

So your only example of player input is the metagaming type? So no game is a railroad as long as the DM puts ''player requests'' into the game?



If the party gets together and decides "Both sides of this war are messed up, let's build a boat and head for the mainland." Generally you shouldn't say "You can't" or "You do that", but more like "To build a boat you will have to...".

This is a very extreme example, and to me this is the players saying ''we don't want to play.'' I know some DM's like jerk players and just say ''ok, abuse me more'', but I'm not one of them.



If they make a habit of it you might want to talk to the players about it. But sometimes the plot should go in directions no one, not even the GM, planned for. And no it is not random, unpredictable is not the same as random.

Well, I know ''talking'' is pointless. If the players are jerks, or just want to act like jerks, then talking is a waste of time.

And ''strange new unpredictable '' ways a plot can go are only for short sighted DM. But I don't count the players being jerks and saying ''we don't want to play'' as ''moving the plot''.

But all the extreme examples really don't address railroading.


The Monster Manuel says what a Goblin is. I, the DM, decided there is a Goblin in the forest.
The DMG says what the break DC of a "strong wooden door" is. I, the DM, decided to place a "strong wooden door" in the castle.

Are you avoiding the question? Yes the once the DM decides they want to have a "strong wooden door" in the next room, they can look it up in the rules. But what about the step back on that decision? The DM really can put ''anything'' there, with the only real limit of ''will the players go along with it'' and/or ''be fooled by it''.



I could put the PCs in a hallway with only steel doors(or otherwise mechanically impossible options) in order to force them to do what I want, but that too would be railroading. Why? Because I predetermined the outcome without taking the player input into account. Even if I put mechanical impossibility to cover up my railroading, it does not remove the rails I would have placed.

But this is saying ''if the DM makes the game hard or a challenge, it is a railroad'', right? And it's the mind reading problem too.

The players encounter a hallway full of steel doors:
Good players: ''oh, the npc in character must just have wanted to protect their stuff.''
Bad players: (whine)''The DM is railroading us!''



1) How do you have events effect the PCs?
What do you mean by this?

OK, I should have said ''directly effect the characters in real game time''.




2) How does someone run such a non random non railroad game?
A is possible but not the only answer.
B does not make much sense.
C is a border case railroad.
D usually is means to railroad, so it is not an example.


Many different ways. Of the many people arguing against you, I think I can see at least 4 different game styles.

Thanks for once again saying you do it ''someway'' that is not railroading or any of my alternatives, but not saying what your ''someway'' is.



Step 1: Make a plot without getting attached and without attempting to limit/force the players.
Step 2: Know your world well enough that you can accurately answer every curveball a player could throw at you (at least up until your next preptime).
Step 3: When the players do something you did not plan for, you honestly derive (not decide) what would happen and accept the consequences of the player's actions. This may include scrapping a lot of prep work or even moving onto a different plot.

This describes any game run by any DM that is not a jerk...so it's not much help.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is a very extreme example, and to me this is the players saying ''we don't want to play.'' I know some DM's like jerk players and just say ''ok, abuse me more'', but I'm not one of them.


Or it's a perfectly reasonable example of the characters deciding that they have no interest in the war. The devil's in the details.

[Darth Ultron]

Or it's a perfectly reasonable example of the characters deciding that they have no interest in the war. The devil's in the details.

Sure it is ''reasonable'' for the players to say ''we don't want to play the game anymore''. As a DM I'm just fine and ''reasonable'' saying ''well, you can all get out of my house, goodbye''.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sure it is ''reasonable'' for the players to say ''we don't want to play the game anymore''. As a DM I'm just fine and ''reasonable'' saying ''well, you can all get out of my house, goodbye''.

Only in your mind is that what they're saying, and further your reaction to what you perceive there is very telling as to the rest of your comments on the matter.

[OldTrees1]

Are you avoiding the question? Yes the once the DM decides they want to have a "strong wooden door" in the next room, they can look it up in the rules. But what about the step back on that decision? The DM really can put ''anything'' there, with the only real limit of ''will the players go along with it'' and/or ''be fooled by it''.
I did not avoid the question. You asked how something I said was possible (possibly by misunderstanding it) so I repeated it with more examples. The rules(including the DM's homebrew) have stats for stuff and the DM decides what stuff to use where.



But this is saying ''if the DM makes the game hard or a challenge, it is a railroad'', right? And it's the mind reading problem too.

The players encounter a hallway full of steel doors:
Good players: ''oh, the npc in character must just have wanted to protect their stuff.''
Bad players: (whine)''The DM is railroading us!''
No it is not sating "if it is too hard it is a railroad".
Also usually the DM can read their own mind. Railroads can always be seen from the DM's seat, not always from the Player's seat. The DM has the power to be a secret jerk. This is why it is important for the DM to understand their responsibility to the others.



OK, I should have said ''directly effect the characters in real game time''.
Well directly effect implies the event is in the same area as the characters. I presume I don't need to tell you how an Orc, on its initiative, can attack a character.





Thanks for once again saying you do it ''someway'' that is not railroading or any of my alternatives, but not saying what your ''someway'' is.
I said my way was a Sandbox. I did not detail what a Sandbox is because you made at 15 page threadcrapping derailment last time.


This describes any game run by any DM that is not a jerk...so it's not much help.
The problem is with you, not with the description.

[oxybe]

At this point I can no longer attempt to entertain the idea that DU is trying to have a discussion and not just arguing for the sake of arguing. I am peacing out.

Have fun y'all.

[Darth Ultron]

I did not avoid the question. You asked how something I said was possible (possibly by misunderstanding it) so I repeated it with more examples. The rules(including the DM's homebrew) have stats for stuff and the DM decides what stuff to use where.

OK, we just need to agree on ''the DM decides what stuff to use where.''



Well directly effect implies the event is in the same area as the characters. I presume I don't need to tell you how an Orc, on its initiative, can attack a character.

To give an example: having the PC's get captured. Now I'm not talking about the metagame where the DM asks the players if they want to play a ''captured game'', I'm just talking about a more encounter plot. Like lets say the DM ''knows the elf king so well'' and has the elf king want the PCs captured for an audience.

Now the best way to do this is to railroad it....or otherwise ''force'' the PC's to get captured no matter what they do. But everyone says they don't do it....and the DM is not having the players approve and ''co DM'' everything, so that only leaves:

A)As captured is a more complex plot, you keep the game simple so it never happens
B)Let the random dice decide it. If the DM rolls high and the players roll low...then it happens.
C)Quantum Ogre...no matter where the Pc's ''freely go'' there is the elf king.
D)Out-Optimize the Pcs-the elf capture squad is more powerful/optimized then the PCs

So A simply snuffles any complex plots. B is random and C and D are both railroading.

So...how would you get the PCs captured by the elves if not using any of the six above ways?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Now the best way to do this is to railroad it....or otherwise ''force'' the PC's to get captured no matter what they do.

Bzzzt, wrong. That is, for the umpteenth time, railroading, and bad.

If I decide that for whatever reason the elf king wants to try to capture the PCs to force an audience (instead of something more logical like, I don't know, asking nicely or sending them an invitation or practically anything else that won't predispose the PCs to hate him), I'd have the elf king try to capture the PCs, as in do something with an uncertain chance of success, as per your option B, which is indeed "random" in the sense that fair dice rolls are random but not "random" in the sense of "lol I'm making up a plot you guys."

I'd figure out what sort of forces the elf king has at his disposal (which should ideally be something I've already established, but if not I can use the encounter generation guidelines to come up with a fair encounter--and not an ECL+10 curbstomp, as per your option D, that guarantees that the PCs do what I want) and send out an appropriate task force to try to capture them. If the PCs are captured in a fair fight, great! I can go forward with the idea I had in mind. If not, that's also great, because now the PCs know that the elf king tried to capture them and are most likely to seek an audience with the king of their own volition...so that they can make the elf king's life a living hell and burn everything he loves to the ground, because that's what PCs tend to do when you wrong them. And if they decide to just leave the kingdom because any audience with the king risks capture, that works too, and we'd go from there.

If you want to encourage a certain plot to happen, there are plenty of tools at your disposal that don't involve resorting to railroading. If you want to guarantee a certain plot will happen, write a book.

[Max_Killjoy]

Bzzzt, wrong. That is, for the umpteenth time, railroading, and bad.

If I decide that for whatever reason the elf king wants to try to capture the PCs to force an audience (instead of something more logical like, I don't know, asking nicely or sending them an invitation or practically anything else that won't predispose the PCs to hate him), I'd have the elf king try to capture the PCs, as in do something with an uncertain chance of success, as per your option B, which is indeed "random" in the sense that fair dice rolls are random but not "random" in the sense of "lol I'm making up a plot you guys."

I'd figure out what sort of forces the elf king has at his disposal (which should ideally be something I've already established, but if not I can use the encounter generation guidelines to come up with a fair encounter--and not an ECL+10 curbstomp, as per your option D, that guarantees that the PCs do what I want) and send out an appropriate task force to try to capture them. If the PCs are captured in a fair fight, great! I can go forward with the idea I had in mind. If not, that's also great, because now the PCs know that the elf king tried to capture them and are most likely to seek an audience with the king of their own volition...so that they can make the elf king's life a living hell and burn everything he loves to the ground, because that's what PCs tend to do when you wrong them. And if they decide to just leave the kingdom because any audience with the king risks capture, that works too, and we'd go from there.

If you want to encourage a certain plot to happen, there are plenty of tools at your disposal that don't involve resorting to railroading. If you want to guarantee a certain plot will happen, write a book.


One thing I learned a long time ago about GMing... if your plot absolutely, absolutely depends on a certain thing happening to or with the PCs... then you've already completely screwed up.

In fact, if you have a predetermined plot at all, you're treading on thin ice. It's not a book, or a movie, or a story laid out that just needs to be told.

[Segev]

If the DM is designing his world with the thought of how to make sure the PCs cannot do something other than his narrow list of acceptable solutions and have a non-zero chance of success, he's railroading.

If he's clever enough to hide it, he might have players enjoy it anyway. Or get frustrated that they're "not good enough" to figure out the solution rather than recognizing that the DM has set up a railroad and that they just have to follow it with no deviation.

More likely, either he did a good job making things impossible to get out of, but players will still recognize the rails for what they are...or he didn't, and he'll have to make up new obstacles as the players come up with reasonable ways to do other than his planned sequence of events.

A DM who plans based on verisimilitude what the difficulties are will allow any workable solution a reasonable - within the rules - chance to succeed.

[OldTrees1]

OK, we just need to agree on ''the DM decides what stuff to use where.''
I was surprised when you took exception to me saying just that. :p



To give an example: having the PC's get captured. Now I'm not talking about the metagame where the DM asks the players if they want to play a ''captured game'', I'm just talking about a more encounter plot. Like lets say the DM ''knows the elf king so well'' and has the elf king want the PCs captured for an audience.

Now the best way to do this is to railroad it....or otherwise ''force'' the PC's to get captured no matter what they do. But everyone says they don't do it....and the DM is not having the players approve and ''co DM'' everything, so that only leaves:

A)As captured is a more complex plot, you keep the game simple so it never happens
B)Let the random dice decide it. If the DM rolls high and the players roll low...then it happens.
C)Quantum Ogre...no matter where the Pc's ''freely go'' there is the elf king.
D)Out-Optimize the Pcs-the elf capture squad is more powerful/optimized then the PCs

So A simply snuffles any complex plots. B is random and C and D are both railroading.

So...how would you get the PCs captured by the elves if not using any of the six above ways?
So you need "the PCs get captured" as a fixed point in your plot and your plot cannot handle that point being avoided/bypassed/circumnavigated?

No. You can't railroad by not railroading, it is a logical impossibility. In the non railroaded version you would accept and accommodate the possibility that the PCs do not get captured if the PCs happen to not get captured.

So the answer is E
E)You run the capture as per B, but you made your plot such that failing to capture the PCs also is a valid outcome to pursue.
As such the capture/avoid capture of the PCs is based upon their choices and abilities (vs the challenge of the guards) during the potentially captured scenario. If the PCs are captured, then the story continues that way. If the PCs avoid capture, then you proceed with their reactions to the capture attempt (likely including investigating why there was a capture attempt).

Now if you, personally, cannot write a plot without creating these "must happen my way or else the game ends" plot points, then you, personally, cannot DM without resorting to railroading. However that is on you.

If it helps try to rephrase "the elf king wants to force an audience by capturing the PCs" to:
Their is a powerful antagonist that wants to capture the PCs. Their motive is to have an audience with the PCs. Here is the list of their attempt plans and a timetable. How do the PCs react? The PCs might get captured(willingly or otherwise), or they might sneak into the castle to force their own meeting, or they might look for a way to "persuade" the elf king that they will not come as prisoners. All of these are valid resolutions to the adventure arc "arrogant foolish elf king wants a captive audience".

Sidenote: Notice how "the PCs get captured" is still a possible outcome? You can still have complex plots, you just have to accept that which complex plot happens depends on the Players' choices too.

[thirdkingdom]

If you want to encourage a certain plot to happen, there are plenty of tools at your disposal that don't involve resorting to railroading. If you want to guarantee a certain plot will happen, write a book.

The above is pretty important, especially that last bit.

[Cluedrew]

So your only example of player input is the metagaming type? So no game is a railroad as long as the DM puts ''player requests'' into the game?No, I included in-game actions ("... actions they take with their PCs..."), I didn't dwell on it for too long because I thought it would be obvious. Seems I was mistaken about that. If by player requests you mean player input, then yes that is enough to prevent railroading (because in can only consistently occur outside of railroading). If you are referring to only the "by proxy" type of input, I think it still could be a railroad but it is unlikely to be because it represents a mindset quite different than the ones that usually lead to railroading.


Well, I know ''talking'' is pointless.I was going to make joke about this but instead I'm going to say this: I try Darth Ultron, I'm trying real hard. With little-to-no hope I will ever succeed, but I try anyways. I personally find that talking is not pointless (unless the other side just doesn't want to communicate of course) and it might be the thing that lets me play in all these games that you deem as impossible.

[Darth Ultron]

One thing I learned a long time ago about GMing... if your plot absolutely, absolutely depends on a certain thing happening to or with the PCs... then you've already completely screwed up.

And that is a fine way o thinking for light hearted, simple casual games.



In fact, if you have a predetermined plot at all, you're treading on thin ice. It's not a book, or a movie, or a story laid out that just needs to be told.

This is just one of them things that make no sense, unless your saying a game should be completely random. I your game makes any kind o sense, you need to have a plot, even if you are just ''reacting to the players''. And again, a RPG plot is not one like a book or movie plot.


So you need "the PCs get captured" as a fixed point in your plot and your plot cannot handle that point being avoided/bypassed/circumnavigated?

Instead of your insult, how about we say ''there is an event that might be fun and interesting, but it is not one the players willingly would agree to that has nothing to do with the over all metaplot''.

I know it feels good to insult me, and say all plots are always all bad, but whatever...



As such the capture/avoid capture of the PCs is based upon their choices and abilities (vs the challenge of the guards) during the potentially captured scenario. If the PCs are captured, then the story continues that way. If the PCs avoid capture, then you proceed with their reactions to the capture attempt (likely including investigating why there was a capture attempt).

Note, as I have said all along, you are talking about a random game here.



If it helps try to rephrase "the elf king wants to force an audience by capturing the PCs" to:
Their is a powerful antagonist that wants to capture the PCs. Their motive is to have an audience with the PCs. Here is the list of their attempt plans and a timetable. How do the PCs react? The PCs might get captured(willingly or otherwise), or they might sneak into the castle to force their own meeting, or they might look for a way to "persuade" the elf king that they will not come as prisoners. All of these are valid resolutions to the adventure arc "arrogant foolish elf king wants a captive audience".

Your game play sounds odd. It is like your metagaming by just telling the players everything and then bowing down to them and saying ''what do you wish to do''.




Sidenote: Notice how "the PCs get captured" is still a possible outcome? You can still have complex plots, you just have to accept that which complex plot happens depends on the Players' choices too.

This is the random game. The DM has ''vague intentions to do something'' and then just lets the dice roll where they may. If the event happens or not, either way the DM does not care and just says ''whatever will be will be.''

You can't have a complex plot with randomness.



I was going to make joke about this but instead I'm going to say this: I try Darth Ultron, I'm trying real hard. With little-to-no hope I will ever succeed, but I try anyways. I personally find that talking is not pointless (unless the other side just doesn't want to communicate of course) and it might be the thing that lets me play in all these games that you deem as impossible.

I know that it is ''popular'' to say talking is the greatest thing ever and can solve all problems. But just as something is popular does not make it right and does not mean it will work. Though, amazingly, even the people that ''say'' they like talking will have hundreds of topics they will refuse to talk about..they will just try and hide it.

When players complain about a game, something like 75% of the time it is the players problem. Any game with a complex plot and events can't just be ''somehow disliked''. A game will have ups and downs and times of great fun and times o less fun, but that is all part of any game. And if the players can't accept that, they simply are not good players. To expect every second of the game to be amazing is just unrealistic.

But sure, 25% of the time it is a bad DM.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You can't have a complex plot with randomness.

Then apparently no RPG plots can exist, even yours, if the RPG in question uses dice. Because dice are random, and it's entirely possible that when you run the elf-king-captures-the-party scenario your ECL+10 ambushers all roll natural 1s on every single roll and the PCs roll natural 20s on every single roll and they manage to kill the NPCs despite being much lower-level, so you can't trust any scenario involving dice at all to give you the outcome you want.

Gosh, doesn't it suck to learn that you have been running random games this entire time?

[Darth Ultron]

Gosh, doesn't it suck to learn that you have been running random games this entire time?

Well, no, it does not...because I railroad. It does not matter what the dice roll...unless I want it to matter.

And it's true you can't, as you say ''trust the dice'', and that is why complex plots need a railroad.


So once upon a time there was a group of 3X players with over optimized fighter-types. They were bored of always wining encounters in like three rounds and wanted something different that was more of a challenge.

Of course they came from the background of the types of DMs that don't use traps, poisons, curses, de-buffs, energy drain or anything ''negative'' to the Pcs and they mostly fought in clear, flat fields where the foes would just stand out in the open and let the Pc's attack first.

So they come to me to run a game. They well know my reputation, and two of them had been kicked out of one of my games before. I say yes.

It's a nice war campaign for the first couple of games....and then, according to my plan, they are captured. Immediately they loose their one trick pony items that make their characters ''useless and unplayable'', but on-wards the play anyway. The next dozen games were all about them escaping and trying to get away...while ''unplayably weak''.

One player did not like it at all, the rest had tons of fun and loved it.

How did they get captured? By the railroad, of course.....

[flond]

And that is a fine way o thinking for light hearted, simple casual games.

It's also a perfectly fine way to run serious games. You don't need a plot. What CAN help is plans. But that's different. The secret is to make a world. If the players foil something, good. If they don't...well bad. If it kills the PCs. Too bad for them. World keeps on spinning. Unless it gets to the point where it doesn't! Focus on what makes sense.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, I know ''talking'' is pointless. If the players are jerks, or just want to act like jerks, then talking is a waste of time.


The way you post makes it sound more like what makes them "jerks" in your estimation is that they want to be active participants in the game, rather than sit back and "enjoy" "your" "show".




And ''strange new unpredictable '' ways a plot can go are only for short sighted DM. But I don't count the players being jerks and saying ''we don't want to play'' as ''moving the plot''.


So any DM without the ability to see all possible outcomes is "short sighted" in your opinion? And we can surmise that you, Darth Ultron, are not "short sighted"?

The picture of what's really behind this "discussion" gets clearer by the minute.

[Max_Killjoy]

One thing I learned a long time ago about GMing... if your plot absolutely, absolutely depends on a certain thing happening to or with the PCs... then you've already completely screwed up.

In fact, if you have a predetermined plot at all, you're treading on thin ice. It's not a book, or a movie, or a story laid out that just needs to be told.




This is just one of them things that make no sense, unless your saying a game should be completely random. I your game makes any kind o sense, you need to have a plot, even if you are just ''reacting to the players''. And again, a RPG plot is not one like a book or movie plot.



If by "plot" you mean that events take place in a structured manner as determined via causality and coherence, in response to events that came before -- then yes, an RPG campaign usually has a plot.

If by "plot" you mean that events take place in a predetermined manner, and they will somehow occur no matter what -- then no, an RPG campaign does not need to have a plot -- and a good one very probably won't.


Notice that my statement used the phrasing "predetermined plot", which would fall under the latter category.

That latter category is where the entirety of "railroading" lies.

[OldTrees1]

Instead of your insult, how about we say ''there is an event that might be fun and interesting, but it is not one the players willingly would agree to that has nothing to do with the over all metaplot''.

I know it feels good to insult me, and say all plots are always all bad, but whatever...
If you need a specific outcome from an event, then you have failed to write an RPG plot.


Note, as I have said all along, you are talking about a random game here.
So you are using random to mean any game where player choice can impact the outcome? If "random" is your word for "any plot that Darth cannot write a book/film a movie of before session 1 starts" then your usage of random is meaningless and includes things like a game a chess. Is chess "random"?


Your game play sounds odd. It is like your metagaming by just telling the players everything and then bowing down to them and saying ''what do you wish to do''.
1) The players only know what their characters are able to find out with their own abilities.
2) If you do not allow players to choose between the options their characters have, then it is not a multiplayer game.


This is the random game. The DM has ''vague intentions to do something'' and then just lets the dice roll where they may. If the event happens or not, either way the DM does not care and just says ''whatever will be will be.''

You can't have a complex plot with randomness.

Chess can have multiple outcomes and yet no move is determined by RNG. By your usage of the word "random" is chess "random" merely because Darth cannot predict the move sequence before the first move?



Nay, the problem is with your inability to make or respect a branching plot where the PCs can have limited influence on the outcome.

[Darth Ultron]

It's also a perfectly fine way to run serious games. You don't need a plot. What CAN help is plans. But that's different. The secret is to make a world. If the players foil something, good. If they don't...well bad. If it kills the PCs. Too bad for them. World keeps on spinning. Unless it gets to the point where it doesn't! Focus on what makes sense.

Your either talking about a random game or a game that makes no sense...or both.

Everyone keeps repeating this dumb idea that the ''DM just makes the world'' and then just ''sits back and reacts to the players''. But see that only works for like five minutes, as once the DM ''reacts'' to more then one thing they will ''add up to make a plot/story''...unless the game is random or makes no sense.



So any DM without the ability to see all possible outcomes is "short sighted" in your opinion? And we can surmise that you, Darth Ultron, are not "short sighted"?



That is the definition of short sighted.



If by "plot" you mean that events take place in a predetermined manner, and they will somehow occur no matter what -- then no, an RPG campaign does not need to have a plot -- and a good one very probably won't.

Now your describing here a random game that makes no sense. Like a king can't order an attack on another country as that would be ''predetermined'', right? And if the Pcs they can't possibly ''react'' and spot it...so it can't happen then, right?


If you need a specific outcome from an event, then you have failed to write an RPG plot.

If a DM can't railroad his players he has failed to run a RPG game. See I can toss around insults too.



By your usage of the word "random" is chess "random" merely because Darth cannot predict the move sequence before the first move?

Oldtrees does not understand what I'm talking about when I say random as he does not read my posts and just ''reacts''. More insults are fun.



Nay, the problem is with your inability to make or respect a branching plot where the PCs can have limited influence on the outcome.

And your inability to see the good uses of railroading. Strike three.

[ComradeBear]

Darth makes sorta sense if you replace every instance he has of "railroading" with the appropriate grammatical form of the phrase "Narrative Authority."

The problem comes because everyone else means Railroading as really crappy application of Narrative Authority, specifically.

Darth uses it as all forms of Narrative Authority ever, period. Anywhere on the sliding scale of how much a GM wields, any reason, any method. All of it falls under his personal blanket of "Railroad."

Essentially, Darth is asserting that all RPGs require the GM to weild Narrative Authority over the game world. Which isn't 100% correct, since there are GM-less games, but is generally true.

So, to Darth, I'd say the following:
You can instantly make people stop reacting negatively to you by making the following word choice changes:
1. Shorten "Jerk Tyrant DM Railroad" to just Railroad. That's what everyone else did, and what they mean by it.
2. Any other kind of railroading you're talking about, refer to as Weilding Narrative Authority.

Then watch and be amazed as people not only understand what you're talking about, but stop getting quite so emotional.

Or don't.
I'm not a cop.

[Thrudd]

You guys still don't think there's a troll, here? Lol. Every time you think you've cut it apart, it just grows back the exact same rubbery green skin.

[Cluedrew]

I know that it is ''popular'' to say talking is the greatest thing ever and can solve all problems.No, it is not a magic solution. Communication takes work and practice like every other solution, but in social contexts like the ones found in role-playing groups I have been a part of, it solves a lot of problem.



So once upon a time there was a group of 3X players with over optimized fighter-types. They were bored of always wining encounters in like three rounds and wanted something different that was more of a challenge.

Of course they came from the background of the types of DMs that don't use traps, poisons, curses, de-buffs, energy drain or anything ''negative'' to the Pcs and they mostly fought in clear, flat fields where the foes would just stand out in the open and let the Pc's attack first.

So they come to me to run a game. They well know my reputation, and two of them had been kicked out of one of my games before. I say yes.

It's a nice war campaign for the first couple of games....and then, according to my plan, they are captured. Immediately they loose their one trick pony items that make their characters ''useless and unplayable'', but on-wards the play anyway. The next dozen games were all about them escaping and trying to get away...while ''unplayably weak''.

One player did not like it at all, the rest had tons of fun and loved it.

How did they get captured? By the railroad, of course.....

But you had player buy in (at least over all, in the moment not so much) so it was only a linear adventure in my opinion. Still, a very good example of knocking people out of their comfort zone with a linear adventure/good railroad.

Still... the problem with your definition is that it isn't even close to what others mean. There is nothing innately wrong with it but definitions are expected to match (or at least be close) on either end so when they don't there are issues. So when you talk to them without clarifying that you aren't using the standard definition there is miscommunication. (Which tends to snowball into an emotionally charged argument...)

Sure we could have the umpteen people who use the standard definition change to your definition. But considering the number that use each particular definition (which seems to be a 1 and a lot), that is not a reasonable request. If you actually want to communicate, you have to do more than just say/type words. Would you understand this post if it was written in Latin? Probably not, but it would be as correct as it is now.

[Max_Killjoy]

Now your describing here a random game that makes no sense. Like a king can't order an attack on another country as that would be ''predetermined'', right?


No -- not in this context.

You keep slicing off words and attacking them, instead of reading for actual context of the sentence.

Just as you sliced off "plot" from predetermined plot before and went after it, here you're slicing off "predetermined".

One particular event that the GM decides will occur in the game world, or an action taken by one or more NPCs (which in this context includes gods and monsters and whatnot) is not a plot.
A sequence of such events is often plot, but it is not predetermined unless it is immutable cannot be changed by anything that the PCs try or do.


"Predetermined" does not mean "The GM made a decision."
"Random" does not mean "anything not predetermined".




And if the Pcs they can't possibly ''react'' and spot it...so it can't happen then, right?


What?

[Max_Killjoy]

Still... the problem with your definition is that it isn't even close to what others mean. There is nothing innately wrong with it but definitions are expected to match (or at least be close) on either end so when they don't there are issues. So when you talk to them without clarifying that you aren't using the standard definition there is miscommunication. (Which tends to snowball into an emotionally charged argument...)

Sure we could have the umpteen people who use the standard definition change to your definition. But considering the number that use each particular definition (which seems to be a 1 and a lot), that is not a reasonable request. If you actually want to communicate, you have to do more than just say/type words. Would you understand this post if it was written in Latin? Probably not, but it would be as correct as it is now.


To me, it appears that it's so important to him that "railroading" not be a bad thing, that he'd rather twist the language up in knots. "Random", "predetermined", "plot", etc -- every time there's a word with an established meaning and usage that's not convenient to his argument, he starts trying to shove the meaning into a new box that suits his position.

[OldTrees1]

If a DM can't railroad his players he has failed to run a RPG game. See I can toss around insults too.

Oldtrees does not understand what I'm talking about when I say random as he does not read my posts and just ''reacts''. More insults are fun.

And your inability to see the good uses of railroading. Strike three.

Anyone can railroad. But if one can't not railroad then one does not know how to write for situations where other people have agency too (aka the difference between RPGs and books/movies). If you took that as an insult then it says more about you than about my generic statement.


So you don't think Chess is random despite the players having control of their characters? So allowing the possibility for the PCs to escape capture by their own action is not random. Writing your plot so it allows for the player's agency is not random.


As for the good uses of railroading, that is a different thread (one you threadcrapped and locked already).

[kyoryu]

To me, it appears that it's so important to him that "railroading" not be a bad thing, that he'd rather twist the language up in knots. "Random", "predetermined", "plot", etc -- every time there's a word with an established meaning and usage that's not convenient to his argument, he starts trying to shove the meaning into a new box that suits his position.

Exactly. My guess is he's been told by a number of people that they don't like railroading (and probably that he's bad for doing it (which is going too far)), and so has twisted the words around to "prove" that railroading is, in fact, not only good but universally good.

Which is why I don't engage with him on it, and try to convince others not too. You're not arguing the definitions of railroading. You're attacking a construct specifically designed to protect someone's ego. That doesn't work, like, ever.

[Friv]

Exactly. My guess is he's been told by a number of people that they don't like railroading (and probably that he's bad for doing it (which is going too far)), and so has twisted the words around to "prove" that railroading is, in fact, not only good but universally good.

Which is why I don't engage with him on it, and try to convince others not too. You're not arguing the definitions of railroading. You're attacking a construct specifically designed to protect someone's ego. That doesn't work, like, ever.

Nah, he has specifically said that if he allows a die roll, but it gives a result that he doesn't like, he goes ahead with his original plan and to hell with agency.

You're giving him much too much credit. It's pretty much a cookie-cutter bad DM story.

[Lorsa]

Most normal DM's will ''allow'' the players to try something, even if it is a waste of time. A big problem here though is too many players think ''try'' means ''automatically happens as they want it too''

I honestly haven't met any player who thinks "try" means "automatically happen the way they want it to". Sometimes there is a discrepancy between what the DM thinks will work and what the player believes. Other times, the mechanics can help adjucate whether or not something happens (through a die roll i.e. random).




And as said, any Railroad plot even written (by non-jerk DMs) is full ''what ifs'' as the characters effect things.

There comes a time when you realize your pre-planned plots have so many "what-ifs" that it's no longer viable to make them.

There also comes a time when you realize that no matter how many "what ifs" you write down, you can NEVER fully include all the options the players have.

"What if the players decide to kill the king?"
"What if the players decide to buy X magic item?"
"What if the players jump over the stone wall at the market?"
"What if the players donate all their gold to the temple?"
"What if the players starts a pick-pocket scam?"
"What if the players try to get laid with the duchess?"
"What if the players buys a dog?"
"What if the players decide to insult the king?"
"What if the players...."

etc. onto infinity.

It is practically impossible to write an adventure that takes into account ALL the available "what ifs" the players have at their disposal. So, a different approach is simply to WAIT with making the WHAT decision until AFTER the players made their IF decision.




There is preplanned and there is random, and there is not much middle ground to stand on. Some say they ''know the stuff they made up so well that they can just blink an know what that stuff would do in response to anything''. Some how this does not count as ''preplanning'', though simply as they don't want it too. Like the PC's kill the prince....how will the king react? DM A checks his notes and says ''X'' happens. DM Z ''knows the king so well'' and says ''X'' happens. How are they not exactly the same thing? Both are preplanned. Just as DM Z ''keeps all the stuff in their head'' does not change anything, it's just ''sounds cool'' or whatever to some people.

Deciding on the WHAT after the IF declaration has been made rather than before does not count as "preplanning" under any known definition of "pre". It still counts as "planning", but that's really not the issue.

But let's run with your idea, but replacing "preplanning" with "planning".

There is "planning" and there is "random". This is, at the very least, partially true. Either the DM can make a decision of success/failure OR they can let the dice decide. On the other hand, deciding to leave it up to one (or more) random roll(s) is still a decision. But yeah, you can leave success or failure of any particular situation up to random dice. THIS IS WHAT RPGS ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO. So yeah, games being random is... well... part of the design.

Do you never use dice to decide on success / failure of actions in your games?



And this is the big question everyone avoids: if you say you don't railroad, then how do you have events effect the PCs?

Your choices, if no railroading, are:

A)Run very simple games with simple plots
B)Just wait for a random roll to happen
C)Quantum Ogre the world so it happens ''around'' the Pcs
D)Out-Optimize the Pcs

At this point, DU, you have unfortunately painted yourself into a corner of nobody understanding what you are saying as you're not using words like the rest of us.

However, given A,B,C and D, I really THINK what most of us do, in your mind, is A in combination with B.

Yes, my plots ARE simple. They go like this:

"The elven king wants to capture the PCs for an audience."

So then I stat up the troops he sends in to try and capture the PCs, and then play it out like a combat.

Could be the king is successful, could be the PCs fend off the troops.

After the outcome of this, I make a new plot. Could be:

"The elven king wants to capture the PCs for an audience (again)."

or

"The elven king is upset with the death of his troops and wants to kill the PCs."

obviously depending on the personality of the king.

It is also possible there could be a different plot:

"The PCs are trying to get into the elf kingdom to make revenge on this king that sent troops to capture them."

this would be a player-led plot. Also fairly simple in your words.


So, yeah, simple plots with randomly determined outcomes. This is the way I do things. According to my experience, and the experience of EVERY SINGLE PLAYER I'VE EVER PLAYED WITH, this way is also more enjoyable, more fun, than the railroading way.

Doesn't matter how awesome it is play "escape from captivity" or whatever, if you get there by railroading, it simply won't be fun for most people.

It's better then to either:

1) Simply start the game with the PCs being captured.
2) Wait until some random plot outcome puts the PCs in captivity.

or, if you really must

3) Ask players if they're okay with being railroading, and if they say yes, NOT PLAY OUT the capture fight, and wait until they've been captured to ask "so, what do you do?".


Note that having simple plots or allowing for dice to decide outcomes is NOT the same thing as giving players everything they want. Nobody does that (well maybe some do, but it's rare).

[Koo Rehtorb]

To compare two times my characters were captured:

The first time the party went and raided a duergar outpost because they had something we wanted. There was a series of truly unfortunate attack rolls from the duergar prince (all rolled out in the open in front of everyone because that's how we roll :smallbiggrin: ) that dropped me. The rest of the party routed and managed to escape while I got dragged down into the duergar stronghold and tortured for an in game month or so. The party put together a rescue mission and we busted back in and freed me eventually. Good times, fond memories of that. It was a result of in game choices and random chance.

The other time a different DM decided that she wanted to run a "you're captured" plot. Some NPCs randomly jumped out of a sewer in the middle of a nice safe town, cast some unreasonably powerful spells and dragged me off. It was complete ****, because it didn't arise organically and she blatantly cheated to make it happen because she thought it would be interesting.

[Max_Killjoy]

And as said, any Railroad plot even written (by non-jerk DMs) is full ''what ifs'' as the characters effect things.


Missed this the first time -- an RPG "plot" that is full of "what ifs" isn't a railroad -- by definition.





I honestly haven't met any player who thinks "try" means "automatically happen the way they want it to". Sometimes there is a discrepancy between what the DM thinks will work and what the player believes. Other times, the mechanics can help adjucate whether or not something happens (through a die roll i.e. random).


This comes up in several different discussions that hit on "player agency" -- for some reason, the distinction between "player controls the PC's motives, feelings, thoughts, and what they want / attempt to do" versus "player gets whatever they want" seems to be lost on some of those who wish to constrain or systemize player control over their character's inner workings.




There comes a time when you realize your pre-planned plots have so many "what-ifs" that it's no longer viable to make them.

There also comes a time when you realize that no matter how many "what ifs" you write down, you can NEVER fully include all the options the players have.


It's good to think through the what-ifs that one can come up with, it always helps to be prepared for contingencies.

But as you say, it's impossible to anticipate all the what-ifs, as there are so many as to be functionally infinite. To me, this is why it's better to put all that effort into building the setting and history and NPCs and understanding what's going on and what those other, non-player-controlled characters feel and think and want and etc. I find it's better to be able to respond coherently to the unexpected, than it is to try to expect everything and have it all prewritten.

[georgie_leech]

It's good to think through the what-ifs that one can come up with, it always helps to be prepared for contingencies.

To clarify, this is less "how do I keep players on track despite their antics," and more "what ways do I think the players might interact with this thing, and how might the world respond to that?" Aside from being better prepared in case something on the list gets attempted, such exercises are a good way to get a better feel for the world, which helps you respond to curveballs better. If nothing else, if your players are anything like mine, it's nice to know all the things they won't do. After all these years, they always manage to surprise me despite my best efforts. :smalltongue:

[Stealth Marmot]

There comes a time when you realize your pre-planned plots have so many "what-ifs" that it's no longer viable to make them.

There also comes a time when you realize that no matter how many "what ifs" you write down, you can NEVER fully include all the options the players have.

"What if the players decide to kill the king?"
"What if the players decide to buy X magic item?"
"What if the players jump over the stone wall at the market?"
"What if the players donate all their gold to the temple?"
"What if the players starts a pick-pocket scam?"
"What if the players try to get laid with the duchess?"
"What if the players buys a dog?"
"What if the players decide to insult the king?"
"What if the players...."

etc. onto infinity.

It is practically impossible to write an adventure that takes into account ALL the available "what ifs" the players have at their disposal. So, a different approach is simply to WAIT with making the WHAT decision until AFTER the players made their IF decision.

I had a DM literally write down in his notes scripted responses to players if they did certain actions. When he did so, he wrote down as a what if: "If X player does something or asks something stupid."

The, appropriate, response from the NPC was "ARE YOU HIGH??". It came up.

[Max_Killjoy]

To clarify, this is less "how do I keep players on track despite their antics," and more "what ways do I think the players might interact with this thing, and how might the world respond to that?"


Yes -- exactly. If my post sounded like "how do I control the players", that wasn't what I intended.

[Segev]

Instead of your insult, how about we say ''there is an event that might be fun and interesting, but it is not one the players willingly would agree to that has nothing to do with the over all metaplot''.

I know it feels good to insult me, and say all plots are always all bad, but whatever...

Except that there's no insult, there. You, yourself, have said that you can't help but railroad, because anything you do that isn't railroading is "random" and, by your lights, no fun.




You seem to be confusing "disproving your points" with "insults." Which is a bad sign.



Note that your "non-insulting" rephrasing admits exactly what he asked you is true: you can't get them into that situation without forcing it. The only difference is that you demand that he say "but it might be fun so you're justified in forcing it."

Just because it might be fun doesn't mean that you have a right or responsibility to force the players or their characters into it. Pitch plots like that ahead of time if you want to get them to go into it rather than simply setting it up as a possibility. If you must railroad, get the players' buy-in.

This is most obvious at the start of a new game; you can railroad without shame by establishing the start wherever you want. It's only fair to do this with the players knowing where it's starting, of course. My favorite tactic is something along the lines of, "Tell me why your PC is in the prison cells awaiting his first gladiatorial match," as part of how they establish their place in the setting. Now it's the player railroading his PC into a position where he's deprived of his tools that would make escape trivial, and who has determined how he got caught.

But if it's an ongoing game...be prepared for the PCs to fight the guards and possibly win.

Of course, you can set it up with unwinnable opponents...but if the NPCs have that kind of power, why are they spending it on capturing the party? Why not use it for whatever they're going to use the party to achieve? Why use it just to gather prisoners?

[BRC]

We don't seem to be defining player agency the same way. IMO, if the players realistically could escape the siege via teleportation, flight, invisibility, or, heck, actually belonging to the invading nation, but are prevented from doing anything other than the DMs false dichotomy, then it's railroading.

For the part I bolded, can you explain what you mean?



Just got back into town, but I feel like responding to this:

For reference, the bolded part is as follows:

Of course, it is possible for a series of perfectly logical events to happen in-universe that don't strain disbelief at all, and still leave the players feeling railroaded.

The players feel Railroaded when they feel that the GM's desire to keep the story going a certain way is infringing on their agency/enjoyment of the game. (note, we can argue about what is or is not actually railroading, but this is talking about if the Player FEELS railroaded).

The obvious examples are stuff like "The wizard teleports you to the entrance of the dungeon, which locks behind you, it won't open until you have cleared the dungeon", and there are players who will scream "RAILROADING" as soon as any NPC says "No", but let's assume everybody is being fairly reasonable here.

Consider: The PC's have been captured and thrown in jail, to be executed in the morning.

So, the first session is to escape the jail, which is on an island.
The second session is to escape the island by stealing a boat.
The Third session is them on the boat, fighting sea monsters and getting caught in a storm which wrecks them on another island.
The Fourth Session is them fighting monsters on that island while trying to repair their boat.

Now, that's four sessions, during which the PC's didn't get to make a lot of meaningful choices as far as the overarching story goes. Staying in jail would mean death by execution, assuming the PC's can't fly long distances or teleport (And saying "Well they could teleport" doesn't mean much, the GM would know if teleportation was on the table), the only way off the prison island was by stealing a boat from the port, once on the boat, the DM threw monsters and a storm at them with no real way to avoid it, and then their choices are "Try to fix the boat" or "Stay on this monster infested island forever", which isn't much of a choice.

But those are also all perfectly logical things to happen in-universe. IF was start from the assumption that it was reasonable for the PC's to end up in jail, Islands make great places for prisons, it's hardly unreasonable to have a boat be the only way off the island, and since the PC's don't have one and are fugitives, stealing one from the port is the only way to do it. Storms and Sea Monsters happen, and if you're on a monster-infested island with a broken boat and a desire to leave, then fighting off monsters while fixing the boat is really your only choice. This exact sequence of events could happen in a fantasy novel without anybody looking twice at it as unreasonable (Unlike the "Good Wizard teleports you into the dungeon, which locks behind you" scenario).

And yet, the PC's only have one reasonable choice in each scenario, which, if the Players are expecting more freedom in the campaign, could easily be seen as railroading.

[thirdkingdom]

I have got to say that this is the most head-spinningly crazy thread I have ever seen.

[Darth Ultron]

I have got to say that this is the most head-spinningly crazy thread I have ever seen.

I know, I think it is good to have such ''crazy'' discussions. It helps to remind some people that not everyone shares the same groupthink. And that there is nothing wrong with that.

[Lorsa]

I know, I think it is good to have such ''crazy'' discussions. It helps to remind some people that not everyone shares the same groupthink. And that there is nothing wrong with that.

Except, of course, when it is: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/25/bob-rapper-flat-earth-twitter

:smallsmile:

[2D8HP]

Except, of course, when it is: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/25/bob-rapper-flat-earth-twitter

:smallsmile:
I love that the second comment I read was:

strooo**ayleshamlad

473474

The world is flat and rests on the back of four giant elephants which stand on the back of Great A'Tuin, the giant turtle, who swims through the vast reaches of the interstellar gulf.

Terry told me this and I believe him.

[kyoryu]

I know, I think it is good to have such ''crazy'' discussions. It helps to remind some people that not everyone shares the same groupthink. And that there is nothing wrong with that.

Are you implying that the people that disagree with you do so because of "groupthink"???

[Darth Ultron]

And yet, the PC's only have one reasonable choice in each scenario, which, if the Players are expecting more freedom in the campaign, could easily be seen as railroading.


Your example sounds good to me. I'm sure a great many players, if in a game like that, would feel they are being railroaded. It's a story that makes sense, but does not give the players much to change. It's also a good example of how there is often only one choice to make. In theory the players can make ''dozens of choices'', including so ''wacky ones the short sighted DM did not see coming'' , but most of the time there really is only ''one choice''.




Are you implying that the people that disagree with you do so because of "groupthink"???

Everyone? No, not everyone.

[thirdkingdom]

I know, I think it is good to have such ''crazy'' discussions. It helps to remind some people that not everyone shares the same groupthink. And that there is nothing wrong with that.

So, this maybe an off-topic question, and I certainly don't mean to be rude, but is English your first language?

[BRC]

Your example sounds good to me. I'm sure a great many players, if in a game like that, would feel they are being railroaded. It's a story that makes sense, but does not give the players much to change. It's also a good example of how there is often only one choice to make. In theory the players can make ''dozens of choices'', including so ''wacky ones the short sighted DM did not see coming'' , but most of the time there really is only ''one choice''.

I suppose a good term to use is Meaningful Choice. A choice that actually has a major impact on how the story goes.

Tactical decisions in combat are rarely Meaningful Choices. If you kill the orc first or the ogre first, at the end of the day they're both dead.

Similarly, if escaping from a prison, it's not a meaningful choice whether you attack the guards, or sneak past them. It may be meaningful in that session, which may be enough for some groups, but if the Players are invested in the idea of writing their character's stories, that won't be enough.

The other term I guess would be "Reasonable Choice", which means that the players have multiple options that make sense and work towards their character's goals.

Techncially, in any scene, the PC's could sit down and refuse to move, but that's not a Reasonable Choice. A DM who says "Do thing X, or die" isn't offering a reasonable choice to his players. Yes, they can technically decide to have their characters die, but that doesn't do anything.

[NichG]

I know, I think it is good to have such ''crazy'' discussions. It helps to remind some people that not everyone shares the same groupthink. And that there is nothing wrong with that.

If you're trying this as an intentional tactic to promote shifts in the forum zeitgeist, its a strategic error. This kind of thing causes people to entrench. Little differences in views which could be discussed and might lead to change get overshadowed in the face of the glaring, exaggerated differences that were presented here.

[RazorChain]

Except, of course, when it is: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/25/bob-rapper-flat-earth-twitter

:smallsmile:


I like the inside out universe better.....and it is theorized by a real wizard too!!

http://wizard.gen.nz/ideas/turning-the-universe-inside-out/

[Darth Ultron]

If you're trying this as an intentional tactic to promote shifts in the forum zeitgeist, its a strategic error. This kind of thing causes people to entrench. Little differences in views which could be discussed and might lead to change get overshadowed in the face of the glaring, exaggerated differences that were presented here.

I know the forum won't ''shift'' any time soon.




Do you never use dice to decide on success / failure of actions in your games?


Yes, when I want too. If I want something to happen/no happen, it does. If I want something to be left up to the chance of the dice, it is. The difference between me and the ''others'' is that they don't have (or want) that level of control of the game. Many have said they leave things up to the random roll of the dice....always. I never have and never will.

[Cluedrew]

On Disagreement: There is nothing wrong with people having different opinions, but sometimes the different opinion is wrong.

Really, all talk of railroading aside I think you can have both player-led and GM-led (or -driven) games and have them be fun. And really the titles mark trends more than anything. As I see it, the game can flip-flop at any time depending on who "acts" and who "reacts" at that moment.

To Darth Ultron: Honestly you might have better luck if you spent more time explaining your opinion and less time merely proclaiming it. That may sound dismissive but that has been my experience talking with you. An example just last night I had a revelation that made the whole "random-to-railroading" spectrum thing make a lot more sense. But I didn't get this from any of your explanations, I got this from reflecting on a recent session that didn't work out.

You also might want to use less polarizing words. I mean you might get a lot less push back if you described a "good railroad" as a rollercoaster. Because I think that metaphor works; something the players get on, giving up control of where they are going because they know (or hope) it is going to be fun. Under that view, the difference between a rollercoaster (good railroad) and a railroad (bad railroad) would be in the first players give up control while in the second it is taken from them.

Am I starting to preach? I might be starting to preach. I'll stop myself there.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Yes, when I want too. If I want something to happen/no happen, it does. If I want something to be left up to the chance of the dice, it is. The difference between me and the ''others'' is that they don't have (or want) that level of control of the game. Many have said they leave things up to the random roll of the dice....always. I never have and never will.

Are you at least up front about this? :smallmad:

Do you tell your players that you'll just decide what happens whenever you feel like it and the stuff being rolled is meaningless?

[Cozzer]

Guys, are you seriously spending time to reply to a person who claims your opinions are "groupthink"?

To the original topic, I think the issue is way more fluid than defining a campaign or a game as "player-led" or "GM-led", and probably even more fluid than a spectrum. It's something that's tied to the pacing of the story of the campaigns, to have a really good experience I think you need to have both player-led parts and GM-led parts.

As an example, I'm playing right now in a campaign where, after a "GM-led" first act, our characters have become the leaders of a good-ish mercenary band. After that happened, we started alternating "player-led" parts (where our characters tried various things to make the band stronger and to create alliances with other factions) and "GM-led" parts, where something bad happened in the world and we needed to do something about it.

If such a thing is done right, the players feel good both when a GM-led part starts ("finally a chance to use the things we gained with our ideas!") and when a player-led part starts ("well, this problem is solved, we can finally get back to getting stronger!"). And during the climaxes of the GM-led parts, if what tips the balance is something we did during a previous player-led part, it feels really empowering.

[2D8HP]

Guys, are you seriously spending time to reply to a person who claims your opinions are "groupthink"?Are you kidding?

Being told I'm participating in "groupthink" on this Forum is AWESOME!

*Hums "The In Crowd" (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OOWO--z1S8A)*

:smile:

BTW I think that the rest of your post is spot on.

[Jama7301]

On the plus side, this thread has helped me consider the type of game I want to run, and be more cognizant of some of the pitfalls that can occur with both a more open game, and a more "on rails" game.

[kyoryu]

On the plus side, this thread has helped me consider the type of game I want to run, and be more cognizant of some of the pitfalls that can occur with both a more open game, and a more "on rails" game.

Oh, absolutely. Railroading is a technique. Some people really dig it, and some people don't, but it's important to understand the pros and cons of what you're doing.

When, why, and how to engage with these tools is a critical skill in GMing.

[Darth Ultron]

Are you at least up front about this? :smallmad:

Do you tell your players that you'll just decide what happens whenever you feel like it and the stuff being rolled is meaningless?

No. I'm not an ''up front'' type of person. If some one is playing in my game it is to have a good time and fun, if they want ''something else'' there are other DMs.

Really though, my house rules and style of play keep away anyone who would not like that anyway.

[kyoryu]

No. I'm not an ''up front'' type of person. If some one is playing in my game it is to have a good time and fun, if they want ''something else'' there are other DMs.

Really though, my house rules and style of play keep away anyone who would not like that anyway.

What happened to jedipotter, anyway?

[georgie_leech]

What happened to jedipotter, anyway?

Got banned well after Darth joined the site, so unless you're crediting them with advanced powers of foresight to set up a backup years in advance, but not enough to see themselves getting banned... :smallamused:

[Quertus]

Everyone keeps repeating this dumb idea that the ''DM just makes the world'' and then just ''sits back and reacts to the players''. But see that only works for like five minutes, as once the DM ''reacts'' to more then one thing they will ''add up to make a plot/story''...unless the game is random or makes no sense.

Suppose someone set up a huge virtual world, and dubbed it "reality". This world had laws (of nature), and would run just fine on its own, emulating the behavior of people, nations, etc. Let's call those people NPCs.

It also allows for some number of users to create avatars in reality. The NPCs will continue to follow their behaviors, and react to these avatars, called PCs, either exactly the same as they would if they were NPCs, or differently, depending on how the creator of reality programmed it.

Now, for some reason, the creator of reality has a vested interest in making the PCs lives... shall we say, interesting. Towards that end, he'll use root access to reality to make things happen around the PCs. Perhaps he'll change the weather so that they encounter a storm. Perhaps he'll seed the idea in a cult to summon a monster such that it happens to appear while the PCs are in town. Whatever.

So the creator of reality can set up these scenarios, and then let the PCs respond however they like, within the laws of reality, and the NPC inhabitants of reality will respond right back.

Or, depending on the group of PCs, and how reality is set up in the first place, perhaps years will pass without the creator ever using root access to modify anything or to create anything new, because the PCs and the world are still happily reacting to one another.

For example, suppose the PCs discover an end of the world, slow weakening of reality, flood of demons doomsday scenario. But it won't reach its climax for years. The PCs explore their options, researching various things in the world (some related, some not), until they believe that have solved the problem, or die trying.

Or suppose the PCs get entangled in an elaborate web of court intrigue, where all the players just keep reacting to one another's maneuvers.

Or suppose the PCs start chatting on the internet about the pros and cons of railroading. :smalltongue:

In any of these scenarios, once the GM has set the world in motion, there is no reason for anything other than simply reacting to the PCs actions.


Yes, when I want too. If I want something to happen/no happen, it does. If I want something to be left up to the chance of the dice, it is. The difference between me and the ''others'' is that they don't have (or want) that level of control of the game. Many have said they leave things up to the random roll of the dice....always. I never have and never will.


You can't have a complex plot with randomness.

Well, since a branching plot, that allows for multiple alternatives, is more complex than a linear railroad, I suspect we once again aren't hearing what you mean to be saying.

So, in case it puts us one step closer to understanding what you mean, let me ask this: why do you want / not want something to happen in the first place? Why not just give the players / random chance / whatever agency to go off in a different direction?


To Darth Ultron: Honestly you might have better luck if you spent more time explaining your opinion and less time merely proclaiming it. That may sound dismissive but that has been my experience talking with you. An example just last night I had a revelation that made the whole "random-to-railroading" spectrum thing make a lot more sense. But I didn't get this from any of your explanations, I got this from reflecting on a recent session that didn't work out.

Personally, I like to think that DU is intentionally very successful at a) getting people to examine their fundamental beliefs in detail, and b) getting people to rally together.

[kyoryu]

Got banned well after Darth joined the site, so unless you're crediting them with advanced powers of foresight to set up a backup years in advance, but not enough to see themselves getting banned... :smallamused:

Nah, wasn't saying that, just that their styles seemed similar :smallbiggrin:

[Cluedrew]

To Quertus: Point A in particular is my reason for participating in arguments that I will never win. Actually on a certain level that is the main reason I'm on this forum, examine and discover things about RPGs. I really don't like the more... emotional arguments because then the intellectual content goes way down.

[Darth Ultron]

So, in case it puts us one step closer to understanding what you mean, let me ask this: why do you want / not want something to happen in the first place? Why not just give the players / random chance / whatever agency to go off in a different direction?


To have an exciting, fast paced game play. Over the course of say a five hour game I have things I want to happen/not happen, a mid point for the plot and a evening climax.

The ''whatever agency'' is great for one or two tyrant players that want the whole game world to revolve around their special characters like the ''Truman Show D&D''. But only that type of extremely bad player. Though very often such a world can be very boring for gameplay as things go around in circles and very little happens.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No. I'm not an ''up front'' type of person. If some one is playing in my game it is to have a good time and fun, if they want ''something else'' there are other DMs.

Really though, my house rules and style of play keep away anyone who would not like that anyway.

Dreadful. :smallannoyed:

Experienced players will probably know the warning signs when they seem them and steer clear. That does nothing to help inexperienced players who don't know that games aren't supposed to be that way, though. I've seen too many traumatized D&D players who think that putting up with terrible railroaded games is just how the hobby works and there aren't any other options, because they never had a chance to see anything different. It's damaging to the hobby as a whole.

[Darth Ultron]

Experienced players will probably know the warning signs when they seem them and steer clear. That does nothing to help inexperienced players who don't know that games aren't supposed to be that way, though. I've seen too many traumatized D&D players who think that putting up with terrible railroaded games is just how the hobby works and there aren't any other options, because they never had a chance to see anything different. It's damaging to the hobby as a whole.

Well, I do look for older, mature players that don't optimize and like to focus more on role play (75%) then combat (25%), so it works out for everyone. And no one ever is trapped in one of my games: if your not into the game it will be noticed and you will be dismissed. I get rid of a good half of any players, and think that is a good rate.

I see a lot of traumatized D&D players from ''sandbox improv reaction'' games, where they just sat there for hours and never got to ''play'' the game as the DM just said ''ok, players do something so I can react to it''.

[Cluedrew]

I see a lot of traumatized D&D players from ''sandbox improv reaction'' games, where they just sat there for hours and never got to ''play'' the game as the DM just said ''ok, players do something so I can react to it''.Could you elaborate on this? I have never meet a "traumatized" RPGer of any kind, but I have heard anecdotes of the kind Koo Rehtorb mentioned before. This one is new.

Also there is a line between merely "not mentioning something" and "lie by omission". There is a concern you might be crossing it.

[Max_Killjoy]

This thread is reminding me that sometimes the best rebuttal against someone's position is to just let them keep talking...

:smallbiggrin:

[Darth Ultron]

Could you elaborate on this? I have never meet a "traumatized" RPGer of any kind, but I have heard anecdotes of the kind Koo Rehtorb mentioned before. This one is new.


I've met plenty of players traumatized by jerk tyrant DM's and jerk tyrant players, so I know they are very real. Often they are ''stuck'' with one available game and ''have to'' game with one or more jerks, but just as often the jerk is ''someone'' they will stick by no matter what(not that that is a good idea or healthy, but there it is).

A traumatized D&D player from ''sandbox improv reaction'' is most often the type of player that wishes to do something during a game session, like have fun, have interesting encounter, solve puzzles, solve a mystery, or other such things. The DM makes some stuff and sits back and waits for the players to react, but if the players don't react, then everyone ends up just sitting around until the game ends. It is very easy for such a game to have no focus and be very random and that is assuming the players even have a ''vague goal'' and are not just ''wandering around''.

Worse, the more shy player or one with any type of social anxiety often just get dragged along by the more aggressive players in a ''sandbox improv reaction'' type game. After all nothing in the game happens directly to the players unless they some how get things started by reacting to something.

And it only gets worse when you start getting into very complex plots that require things to happen to the Pcs that they don't ''willing choose to react too'', so the game can often either get stuck or just dump the half done plot an ''react'' to something else. For a while, until it gets too complex and they get stuck again and dump that half done plot to ''react'' to something else.

Now I'm not saying ''ALL'' ''sandbox improv reaction'', but a lot are.....and they produce traumatized D&D players.

[Stealth Marmot]

Traumatized might be a bit strong of a word to use. Jaded, upset, or disgruntled might work better. Traumatized is something I would prefer that people limited to something that may actual cause mental relapse or panic attacks.

I'm HOPING that the people who went through the problems Darth Ultron described did not go through actual panic attacks and such. (No sarcasm)

If they did, my sympathies, if not I would appreciate it if people used different terminology.

[Max_Killjoy]

Traumatized might be a bit strong of a word to use. Jaded, upset, or disgruntled might work better. Traumatized is something I would prefer that people limited to something that may actual cause mental relapse or panic attacks.

I'm HOPING that the people who went through the problems Darth Ultron described did not go through actual panic attacks and such. (No sarcasm)

If they did, my sympathies, if not I would appreciate it if people used different terminology.

Gamer over-dramatic syndrome. This is the same hobby in which Ron Edwards and his followers claim to have been "brain damaged" by RPGs that aren't "properly narrative in design".

[Quertus]

Could you elaborate on this? I have never meet a "traumatized" RPGer of any kind, but I have heard anecdotes of the kind Koo Rehtorb mentioned before. This one is new.

Also there is a line between merely "not mentioning something" and "lie by omission". There is a concern you might be crossing it.

Imagine a sandbox in which the players just don't click with any of the world's pre-running plots. Say, a bunch of pure war gamers in a political sandbox. Especially if, say, they've only experienced GM led adventures before.

[Max_Killjoy]

Imagine a sandbox in which the players just don't click with any of the world's pre-running plots. Say, a bunch of pure war gamers in a political sandbox. Especially if, say, they've only experienced GM led adventures before.

Boredom or failure of a campaign is not, or should not be, "trauma".

[Thinker]

I've met plenty of players traumatized by jerk tyrant DM's and jerk tyrant players, so I know they are very real. Often they are ''stuck'' with one available game and ''have to'' game with one or more jerks, but just as often the jerk is ''someone'' they will stick by no matter what(not that that is a good idea or healthy, but there it is).

A traumatized D&D player from ''sandbox improv reaction'' is most often the type of player that wishes to do something during a game session, like have fun, have interesting encounter, solve puzzles, solve a mystery, or other such things. The DM makes some stuff and sits back and waits for the players to react, but if the players don't react, then everyone ends up just sitting around until the game ends. It is very easy for such a game to have no focus and be very random and that is assuming the players even have a ''vague goal'' and are not just ''wandering around''.

Worse, the more shy player or one with any type of social anxiety often just get dragged along by the more aggressive players in a ''sandbox improv reaction'' type game. After all nothing in the game happens directly to the players unless they some how get things started by reacting to something.

And it only gets worse when you start getting into very complex plots that require things to happen to the Pcs that they don't ''willing choose to react too'', so the game can often either get stuck or just dump the half done plot an ''react'' to something else. For a while, until it gets too complex and they get stuck again and dump that half done plot to ''react'' to something else.

Now I'm not saying ''ALL'' ''sandbox improv reaction'', but a lot are.....and they produce traumatized D&D players.

In a sandbox, things can still happen to the characters. As a matter of fact, if the characters aren't actively doing something, the GM should either hint at something new happening that might affect the characters (to prod them into investigating something) or have something directly affect the characters that was hinted at before. Sandbox games are difficult to run well, but there should be little sitting around doing nothing.

[kyoryu]

I'll respond with a more detailed response later, but I see it as three (primary) possibilities:

1) GM provides neither problem nor solution
2) GM provides problem but not solution
3) GM provides problem and solution

"Railroads" are generally the third type, and the solution to a given problem segues into the next problem. Because of this, they can be easily prepped, so long as the GM can keep players "on the rails".

Sandboxes can either be the first or the second type. The first type is for a lack of a better word a "total sandbox" - where nothing happens unless prompted by the players.

The second type is the more "active sandbox" type. Things may happen in the background, and certainly bad things can threaten the players. However, how the players respond to these problems is up to them. Typically, this requires a lot of GM improvisation as the solutions to problems are not predetermined, so the GM must come up with appropriate handling for proposed solutions during the game. Also, since the next 'problem' is typically dependent on the previous (unanticipated) actions, the GM must quickly improvise new problems. This is where GM prep is helpful, as understanding the various factions and enemies and NPCs in the situation can make their next move very obvious and consistent in-universe, even if the preceding action *isn't*.

[Darth Ultron]

3) GM provides problem and solution


Except is not the GM always doing this? Unless the game has the odd thing where everyone is a GM.

Like take the GM that knows his setting so well and talks for a couple hours all about it. So then the players pick something to do from the GMs choices. So this is the GM providing a problem. Then talks for a couple more hours, and the players then pick a solution from the GMs choices. So the GM is providing the solution too.

I can only see the GM providing nothing, if they were a jerk. It's bad enough for a GM to just ''describe a perfect world with no problems'' but it is worse to think the GM would not provide ''no solutions''.

[georgie_leech]

Oh, I see. Darth can't imagine his players providing a solution he hasn't already thought up. How dull. I can't imagine players that never offer creative solutions of their own.

[Darth Ultron]

Oh, I see. Darth can't imagine his players providing a solution he hasn't already thought up. How dull. I can't imagine players that never offer creative solutions of their own.

See, what kind of game are you talking about here? The players have to choose and ''react'' to the DM's setting....unless your game is the wacky type where everyone is a DM and it is basically a freeform game.

Though even in a normal game anything ''wacky'' a player might try, I'm already way ahead of them. Only short sighted DMs get all amazed, I'm more like ''oh, so trying plan three, eh."

[thirdkingdom]

See, what kind of game are you talking about here? The players have to choose and ''react'' to the DM's setting....unless your game is the wacky type where everyone is a DM and it is basically a freeform game.

Though even in a normal game anything ''wacky'' a player might try, I'm already way ahead of them. Only short sighted DMs get all amazed, I'm more like ''oh, so trying plan three, eh."

Aight, so this I don't buy.

[Darth Ultron]

Aight, so this I don't buy.

Well, assuming you have DMed, can you give me an example of some time a player did this to you? Like a good example of something you did not see and were just amazed the player saw it and used it.

[thirdkingdom]

Well, assuming you have DMed, can you give me an example of some time a player did this to you? Like a good example of something you did not see and were just amazed the player saw it and used it.

You know what, dude? I'm not going to. I could certainly; my players amaze me on an almost daily basis with stuff they come up with. And I can guarantee you that this is the norm for 99% of the people posting in this thread.

You know why I'm not going to give you an example? I've seen person after person in this thread humor you and give you example after example of what railroading is, yet you steadfastly refuse to . . . I don't even know what the phrase is. "Deliberately misinterpret?" "Blatantly ignore?" Someone help me out here.

[Segev]

Well, assuming you have DMed, can you give me an example of some time a player did this to you? Like a good example of something you did not see and were just amazed the player saw it and used it.

In a game I'm in (but before I joined), the party had made plans to push south through a massive force of an evil empire's high-tech military. They set up all sorts of logistical plans, means of using low-tech artillery to aid in creating an illusion of presence where they weren't, and hammering past a soft spot while hopefully making it look like they're hitting with a larger force all the way along. The GM had spent all this time coming up with the whole campaign - not in the sense of what WOULD happen, but what was out there to be encountered through the whole of all available paths through.

On the day they were going to start, the players looked at each other and said, "You know what? We probably CAN afford the extra month of travel; we're going way out west and around the empire's fortified position, through barbarian country. We think the barbarians - even with their high-tech raiding gear - will be less of a hard point challenge for our small strike force."

That one was massive enough of a shift from what the GM had planned that she had to take 15 minutes to mentally put aside her plans, and think about what she knew lay along that path to make sure she could put together reasonable encounters from that region. And check what lay in the destination zone and remind herself what they were up to in a month (as opposed to in the time she had expected it to take the party to shove through), so the party would encounter the situation as it unfolded by the time they got there.

It made for a very different game than it otherwise might have, and the party has never gone back north (the way they might have if they'd shoved through initially and never made the contacts and set the roots they did taking the alternate route).

[kyoryu]

Well, assuming you have DMed, can you give me an example of some time a player did this to you? Like a good example of something you did not see and were just amazed the player saw it and used it.

Sure! In a game where the players were trying to find a magically-mutated person, they decided to take some tissue samples they found to corrupt people working at a hospital. I didn't anticipate that.

That logical action led to the corrupt hospital people requiring a task as a favor, first - delivering some organs. This led (through some bad rolls) to the person getting caught by some good guys stopping him from making the delivery - as he was delivering the organs to a group that was using them to feed ghouls.

*That* led to several people in the group having to go (at the bequest of said group) to a place where they were harvesting organs from the homeless, which led to one party member losing his crap and getting knocked out and strapped to a chair so they could suck his magic from him.

None of this was 'planned' except the initial situation. Yet I don't think I'd call it "random".

[Darth Ultron]

It made for a very different game than it otherwise might have, and the party has never gone back north (the way they might have if they'd shoved through initially and never made the contacts and set the roots they did taking the alternate route).

First, I'd note the players did not ''make anything up'' and the DM must have mentioned the world/map/barbarians and the players just picked to do that. So this is still an example of picking from what is given.

And ''out flanking'' an enemy is really not that amazing, but I can see how some DMs would be amazed by that action.




Sure! In a game where the players were trying to find a magically-mutated person, they decided to take some tissue samples they found to corrupt people working at a hospital. I didn't anticipate that.

Unfortunately, without more context your example just makes no sense. The way it reads is ''characters are looking for someone''...ok makes sense so far.

Then, instead of looking for that someone, they go to a hospital and infect everyone there with...something....ok, makes no sense now.

Next..the infected hospital people ask the Pcs to take some organs to some ghouls...um, what? Er what happens to looking for that someone?

Then they get caught by good guys...and, er, end up at a homeless harvest....um, what? Er what happens to looking for that someone?


This is a great example of ''the players start with a set goal'' and then ''just do whatever'' and forget about the goal.

[georgie_leech]

Corrupt as in 'bribable and not working for the good of others.'

[Segev]

First, I'd note the players did not ''make anything up'' and the DM must have mentioned the world/map/barbarians and the players just picked to do that. So this is still an example of picking from what is given.

And ''out flanking'' an enemy is really not that amazing, but I can see how some DMs would be amazed by that action.


As I've been trying to get across to you, nobody said players "just made things up." Players did something possible in the setting.

It wasn't something the GM had planned for, and she didn't stop them from trying nor set up impossible barriers to "let them try" with the intent they fail and be forced back to the planned activities.

I'm not sure where you think anybody has argued for other than that. We've been telling you all along that your characterization of things as "random" was a silly straw man presentation of what others were saying.

[kyoryu]

Corrupt as in 'bribable and not working for the good of others.'

Correct. It's used as an adjective, not a verb.

[Stryyke]

If you don't mind, I'd like to contribute a tiny bit.

The game is not so different from real life. In life people preach "freedom" and say "don't take away my freedoms." But absolute freedom is anarchy. The converse is tyranny. The players don't really desire either, in the end. You can probably discern each person's needs based on their daily life. Take the degree to which their lives are structured, and make the game a few steps more open than that. If you offer too much more freedom than they are use to, they will be overwhelmed. If you offer as much or more structure than they are use to, it probably doesn't represent an "escape."

Those are my thoughts on the subject. And it seems to work pretty well for me.

[RazorChain]

Though even in a normal game anything ''wacky'' a player might try, I'm already way ahead of them. Only short sighted DMs get all amazed, I'm more like ''oh, so trying plan three, eh."


Aight, so this I don't buy.


Really? Not that I try to be omniscient or anything but most solution are easily predicted and players when you get to know them are pretty predictable as well.

Players will try to overcome obstacle through these most common ways

A) Force
B) Subterfuge
C) Talk
D) Skill
E) Magic
F) Other

When I design or think of an obstacle I will 95% of the time have predicted options A to E. Only F is the unpredictable option. Also a good GM knows his PC's...and here I mean what says on their character sheets and what they are capable of. It isn't enough to know the setting, know your protagonists as well.

[Darth Ultron]

As I've been trying to get across to you, nobody said players "just made things up." Players did something possible in the setting.

It wasn't something the GM had planned for, and she didn't stop them from trying nor set up impossible barriers to "let them try" with the intent they fail and be forced back to the planned activities.

I'm not sure where you think anybody has argued for other than that. We've been telling you all along that your characterization of things as "random" was a silly straw man presentation of what others were saying.

OK, so ''everyone'' is saying that they are taking the things in the setting the DM has made up and detailed. So a candle falls over and starts a bed on fire, and the DM mentions ''there is a bucket of water by the window'' and the clever player says ''I grab the bucket of water to put out the fire''. I find it hard that ''a lot'' of DMs did not ''see'' that clever move by a player, but you say it happens all the time, right?

And plenty of people have said ''the let the dice decide things''....and that is random. I'm not sure why everyone thinks ''random'' is so bad. So your game is random, so what? If your not going to force or guide the PCs at all, then your game is random....how can you say otherwise? It would be nothing but pure luck if the players ''just went the vague direction needed''....unless the DM is quantum ogre-ing things.





Players will try to overcome obstacle through these most common ways

Also a good GM knows his PC's...and here I mean what says on their character sheets and what they are capable of. It isn't enough to know the setting, know your protagonists as well.

Yea, a ''good DM knows his Pcs'', and more so ''knows his players'' too.......you know the same way the improv DM ''knows his setting so well''.

For any complex role play problem there are really only a couple ways to solve it that have a good chance of success. The players might ''mix up'' how they do something....but not what they are doing.

[Cluedrew]

Really? Not that I try to be omniscient or anything but most solution are easily predicted and players when you get to know them are pretty predictable as well.It can be true but surprises still happen. For instance in a recent game I decided to step out of my comfort zone and play a different sort of character than I usually do. The first time there was a moment that character did something none of my previous characters would have done there was an actual moment of silence while everyone process what I just said.

Mind you, people learned and it stopped being a surprise. It even became a joke of sorts. But I got that 5% (as you put it) moment where no one saw that coming.


I'm not sure why everyone thinks ''random'' is so bad. So your game is random, so what?I think they assume you mean a bad kind of random when you say it, just from all the previous things you have said on the matter. Personally unpredictability is part of what make the game interesting for me, but often times you seem to mean something more like "nonsense" when you use the word.

[Thinker]

OK, so ''everyone'' is saying that they are taking the things in the setting the DM has made up and detailed. So a candle falls over and starts a bed on fire, and the DM mentions ''there is a bucket of water by the window'' and the clever player says ''I grab the bucket of water to put out the fire''. I find it hard that ''a lot'' of DMs did not ''see'' that clever move by a player, but you say it happens all the time, right?


My games involve the fiction of the world. I might not mention the bucket by the window filled with water, but a player might add such a thing to the fiction. And that's good so long as it doesn't contradict previous fiction.

Besides, it's not unreasonable to have players come up with things that I haven't prepared for. Mostly, it's just something that I haven't accounted for. My group had to sneak into an enemy's capital city one time. They were unknown to the enemy - little more than special forces in a war. I wasn't sure how they'd react, but I expected them to either try to sneak across the border along their own, brute force their way past a patrol, or something like that. They asked about the merchants trading with the enemy. I had no idea, but I didn't have any reason to oppose such a plan so after a few dice rolls and some planning, they got hired on by some merchants as caravan guards. I didn't expect it and hadn't prepared for it, but it worked out.

[Cozzer]

Well... honestly, it depends. I agree with the "merchants" example because it wouldn't make sense for them to not exist. But I would definitely not allow a player to assume there's "bucket full of water" in the corner of the room unless there's a good in-universe reason for it to be there. An empty bucket? Sure, it's reasonable to assume there's one in each room. It's also reasonable for the characters to get a lucky break and find a metaphorical bucket full of water in the corner just when they need it, but not always.

I mean, for me it's not enough to avoid contradicting previously estabilished facts, it also has to avoid contradicting basic probability. If the characters always find metaphorical "buckets full of water" in metaphorical corners of metaphorical rooms, after a while it starts feeling really contrived. Just like when they can never find any bucket in any corner of any room because a railroading DM wants them to use his one special correct solution to the problem.

[Thinker]

Well... honestly, it depends. I agree with the "merchants" example because it wouldn't make sense for them to not exist. But I would definitely not allow a player to assume there's "bucket full of water" in the corner of the room unless there's a good in-universe reason for it to be there. An empty bucket? Sure, it's reasonable to assume there's one in each room. It's also reasonable for the characters to get a lucky break and find a metaphorical bucket full of water in the corner just when they need it, but not always.

I mean, for me it's not enough to avoid contradicting previously estabilished facts, it also has to avoid contradicting basic probability. If the characters always find metaphorical "buckets full of water" in metaphorical corners of metaphorical rooms, after a while it starts feeling really contrived. Just like when they can never find any bucket in any corner of any room because a railroading DM wants them to use his one special correct solution to the problem.

For the bucket solution to work, the player still has to roll. Failure likely would have led to some comic hijinks since at the character's expense. After all, a fallen-over candle is hardly all that interesting of a challenge. I suppose it depends on the stakes involved. Finding a fiery sword of fire to fight against the currently-rampaging troll is a metaphorical bucket of water, but the stakes are such that finding such a sword would eliminate a challenge with stakes that greatly impact the characters.

[Cozzer]

Oh, well, yes, if we're currently in "funny things happen" mode then the availability and the contents of the bucket would vary depending on what makes me laugh the most. :P

What I meant was, let's say... in the "merchants" example, in my games the players couldn't just say "we'll ask for help from our friend Merchy the merchant, who's trading with that city". Unless it has already been estabilished that Merchy is trading with that city, or at least that it's very likely that he is.

I specify this because there are games that encourage you to always accept that sort of thing, unless it conflicts with estabilished canon. I tried it, but it just wasn't my style.

[Segev]

OK, so ''everyone'' is saying that they are taking the things in the setting the DM has made up and detailed. So a candle falls over and starts a bed on fire, and the DM mentions ''there is a bucket of water by the window'' and the clever player says ''I grab the bucket of water to put out the fire''. I find it hard that ''a lot'' of DMs did not ''see'' that clever move by a player, but you say it happens all the time, right? Note your order of events here:

1) Bed catches fire.
2) DM mentions bucket of water.
3) Player, upon DM's mentioning of heretofore unknown bucket on the floor, uses bucket.

That actually is the DM providing the solution.

If the order of events was, instead:

1) DM describes room, which happens to include bed, lit candle, and bucket of water.
2) Players (or NPCs) do something which causes the candle to light the bed on fire.
3) Player, recalling bucket's existence, uses it to put out the fire.

Now, if your position is that the DM "knew" that the bed would catch on fire, and had planned that it must be, and that's why the bucket was there, then you're running a railroad (because, since the DM "knew" it, he'll make it happen...and if the players actually thwart it, by the way you've been arguing, they're "refusing to play" since they won't let the DM force them into something that "might be fun" - the bed being on fire).

A more likely, non-railroad version of this is that the DM does, in fact, describe a room with a partially-full chamberpot bucket (seriously, a bucket of water on the floor is unlikely, but a chamberpot is moreso, and more likely to have been described without a priori knowledge that the bed was going to catch on fire during the scene), a bed, and a lit candle providing light. Some sequence of events does really just happen to lead to the candle falling on the bed - such things can happen without the GM or the players deliberately planning for it. For example, a fight scene breaks out and somebody is thrown into the night stand, and the GM describes the night stand's contents falling over onto the bed. Maybe he realized that the candle was there as he said it, or maybe it was pointed out later; he had the nightstand's contents fall on the bed because the way he envisioned the forces involved being applied, they would, not because he "wanted the candle on the bed."

Candle on bed does seem to naturally lead to bed on fire.

The DM has provided a problem (a scene that led to a fight) which escalated to include a different problem he didn't necessarily "foresee" (bed on fire). A clever player remembers the partially-full chamberpot and uses it to douse the fire (ew). The DM "provided the solution" only in that there were objects in his world which could be used to solve the problem. He didn't say, "By the way, there's a bucket of water just perfect for solving this problem lying within easy reach." Even though he put the bucket there, he didn't put it there expressly to solve this specific problem. The players used the world to come up with a solution.

In a more high-adventure game, the bed catching on fire might lead to the players jumping out the window. The GM didn't invent the window as a solution to the problem of "players in the same room as a bed on fire." Perhaps another player remembers the GM describing the view from the window, earlier, included the water tower across the street. Or, perhaps the player didn't get such a description, but asks the GM, "Is there a town water tower? If so, where is it?" and the GM, checking his notes, realizes that it is, in fact, there and right across the street. So he informs the player of this.

Not wanting the inn to burn down, this "clever" player thinks to use his XTREME MARTIAL ARTSINESS to break the legs of the water tower nearest the inn, causing the whole thing to collapse and douse the entire inn in the town's water supply.

The DM definitely did not plan for that, but the player's PC has the ability to do such a thing, and so the DM rolls with it. He does some mental math (or takes time to do real math) to figure out just how much water there was, and whether or not the inn survived having the water tower break open on top of it. And he knows what the NPCs in town are like, at least the ones he's written up, and has a general idea that most townsfolk will be DISPLEASED that their water supply is now running down the street and flooding some of their homes and businesses and is NOT available for drinking.

So he RPs them that way. Using the more detailed NPCs for more nuanced reactions and having a general mob/crowd for the bulk displeasure. And now THAT is the problem the PCs have to deal with. All of which came about organically from the situation and the previously-established description of the town.



And plenty of people have said ''the let the dice decide things''....and that is random.Somewhat random. Every time they've said that, it's been about a situation where the mechanics of the game call for a die roll. Don't decide by fiat that the PCs cannot succeed at something. Look at the situation and see what a reasonable DC would be, and let them roll their skills. Or look at the combatants in a fight they want to pick, and let them roll the combat out.

I know, I know, your reply is, "But the DM could just arbitrarily make the objects have too high a DC to be overcome, and face the PCs with monsters 99 levels above them, making it as foregone a conclusion as if the DM just said 'you fail.'"

I don't know that I can explain the difference to you, as it's failed in the past, but I'll try.

Let's take your "PCs captured by the guards" scenario. The railroad plot into getting them into the "might be fun" jailbreak scenario you have planned would either a) fiat them into being captured by whatever you descriptively made your arresting guards be, or b) create guards of so high a level and in such numbers, including editing more in at every possible avenue of escape, that the PCs can't win even though you're "rolling it out."

This ignores that b) requires you to have amazingly powerful guards in shocking numbers, who either cover literally every avenue of escape perfectly or have perfect knowledge of what the PCs will try in order to escape - better than the DM himself had, because he's editing them in as the PCs reveal what they're trying to do.

Option c), not listed above, is the non-railroad path of really looking at the setting the DM has in place and asking himself to legitimately identify the kind of resources the guards have. Their numbers, their levels, etc. Then determine how many would be assigned to this "capture the PCs" task force, based on what the authorities know of the PCs' capabilities. This would also include evaluating whether the authorities, upon evaluating known PC might vs. the might of their guards, determine that they may not be ABLE to successfully arrest uncooperative members of this party.

If, because they have sufficient force OR they don't realize just how powerful the PCs are, the authorities send the guards to arrest the PCs, this option-C DM will let the PCs react to the scene however they like. He has the fixed resources he brought to bear, and he knows how they're deployed. If the PCs surprise him with more power than he expected, or a clever escape plan, or used a power he'd forgotten to take into account...he rolls with it. They escape, if that's how it works. They win the fight, if that's how the dice fall. Or they're captured, if THAT is how the dice fall.

That's what people mean by "let the dice decide." It's not "roll dice on a table" or even "flip a coin to see if the players get to narrate today, or the DM does," which is seemingly what you mean when you disparage things as "random."


I'm not sure why everyone thinks ''random'' is so bad. So your game is random, so what? If your not going to force or guide the PCs at all, then your game is random....how can you say otherwise? It would be nothing but pure luck if the players ''just went the vague direction needed''....unless the DM is quantum ogre-ing things. Because "random" as everyone else uses it doesn't actually lead to a cohesive or even necessarily fun game. And it's an innacurate description.

"I'm not sure why everyone thinks 'awful' is so bad. So your game is awful. So what? If you're not going to do what I say you need to to make your game great, then your game is awful....how can you say otherwise? It would be nothing but pure luck if the players 'just made the game great themselves'....unless the DM is secretly doing what I say he should."

The above is true if you define 'awful' not to mean "bad, unfun, not good" but "not using Railroads the way Darth_Ultron defines them." And since you've changed the definition of 'awful,' an 'awful' game might not mean it's a bad game.

But you're not using the language the way everyone else is, and you've been using a condescending tone that disparages the word "random." So combine what the word means to everyone else ("no cohesion and determined entirely by something akin to throwing darts at the monster manual, with entirely random-which-means-equal-odds-for-any-possible-reaction reactions from every NPC to every action, regardless of what makes sense") and your overall sneering tone when saying "random" games, and yes, people assume you're disparaging their games as bad when you call them "random."


Yea, a ''good DM knows his Pcs'', and more so ''knows his players'' too.......you know the same way the improv DM ''knows his setting so well''. Nope. A good DM does know his players and their PCs, but he CANNOT know them as well as he knows his setting. Because his setting is 100% under his control. He could abuse this in a "jerk DM" fashion, making for the kind of railroad both you and everyone else has said is not fun, or he could use it to have the setting react in believable ways to what the PCs do. The PLAYERS know their PCs probably better than the DM knows his setting, just because their focus is smaller and so can go into finer detail. And the players can and will come up with actions the DM may never have considered, because they didn't occur to him.

DMs are not magically more intelligent and creative than their players, and there are usually 4x or more players than there are DMs at any given gaming table. The greater creative source is on the players' side; ONE of them is likely to think of something the DM didn't.


For any complex role play problem there are really only a couple ways to solve it that have a good chance of success. The players might ''mix up'' how they do something....but not what they are doing.
Nonsense. This is only true if the DM has a filter that says, "If I didn't think of it, it has a bad chance of success."


Heck, the same GM for the game I described before has asked me NOT to describe my plan for the situation my character will open the next session in, because she knows what the NPCs' plans are, she knows how the scene is laid out, and while she thinks she has a good idea what I'm planning, she doesn't want to know for sure because she doesn't want that to bias her thinking as she goes into it.

We're seiging a town run by a demon cult, and my character has blithely walked into it because we have a large number of refugees leaving. This has told us the cult's military is loosening its grip, so I am seeing what's going on. I have a very easy time escaping if I really want to; I can teleport.

My partner and I on this mission (a PC who is now a magical owl; long story) have discovered that the patrols have been largely replaced by roof-top observers with backpack radios. We've conceived a desire to snatch one without letting the bad guys know we have it, hoping to listen in on their transmissions. Unfortunately, we have been discovered by a sniper in a tall water tower, and they called in what amounts to an armored tank armed with a railgun.

My PC started charging the sniper tower with rough plans to get inside and ruin their day. He's now at the door of it (which was tougher than he'd planned, so he couldn't just smash through it in one action), but the railgun-armed tank is rolling up the street right at him and firing at will. The GM has described this as the two bad guy emplacements (sniper and tank) having my PC in "a literal pickle." (In the baseball sense.)

I've asked her some questions about what one of my spells - which can pulverize material without really MOVING it - can and cannot do. My suspicion is that she believes my plan remains to get inside, out of line of fire of the rail gun, and ruin the sniper's day in person. (I'm fireproof and have access to lots of fire; I've previously half-joked about turning the stone water tower into an oven. I could do this if I got inside.)

However, I have since realized that that would take more time than I really want to spend just to disable the sniper. So instead, I plan to fly up to where the tower is more slender (it's got a huge building at its base) and use this spell on a slanted ring of material around the tower, sheering it from its base in a way I hope will cause it to topple downwards, towards the tank. It probably won't actually reach the tank, but seeing it topple that direction should be disturbing and distracting. Certainly will wreck the sniper position.

In the distraction, I plan to fly over and snap up a radio observer and his radio and then hightail it out of there.

Now, it's possible the GM has thought of this plan. I don't think she has. It's possible that what I'm picturing and what she's picturing are two different things, and so the tower may not be of a shape or size conducive to my plan. Though really, size just adds time and mana cost to it.

There are also other possibilities I've already thought of which could thwart it.

But I trust my GM not to make things up just to make my plan fail because it isn't what she planned for me to do. I trust that things will fall out in a way that makes sense. My destructive actions will be allowed to work as well as they should given reasonable construction of the building(s) in question. There are things that could "go wrong," but none of them will be due to the GM not having already thought of the plan and determined it has a high chance of success.


There are a lot of things I could do. Many of them, I am sure the GM won't have thought of. Not because she's uncreative, but because her mind works differently than mine. I know she's got the city, if not 100% planned out, at least roughly detailed in terms of what KIND of things exist in it. I know the building won't suddenly be made of a 100% fireproof material that never gets warm, just because she doesn't want me to turn it into an oven (but instead wants me to be forced to retreat, or wants me to have to fight my way up the tower level by level, or whatever). I know my spell will work as we've discussed, even if I use it in ways she didn't plan for. (In fact, being vague on what I plan to do with it was her specific request so she would make decisions about what it can and cannot do without bias towards whether she wants me to be able to use it HERE.)

That's the difference. That's how players can throw curve balls to the GM. And a good GM can know what is present in his setting well enough to have the setting react, even when the players do something with it that the GM didn't expect.


To go back to chess, in chess, both players know everything that's present in the game. But still, one player can surprise the other. This isn't "random." But neither is it only happening because some third party "chess judge" decided it was how this match would play out.

[Segev]

Oh, well, yes, if we're currently in "funny things happen" mode then the availability and the contents of the bucket would vary depending on what makes me laugh the most. :P

What I meant was, let's say... in the "merchants" example, in my games the players couldn't just say "we'll ask for help from our friend Merchy the merchant, who's trading with that city". Unless it has already been estabilished that Merchy is trading with that city, or at least that it's very likely that he is.

I specify this because there are games that encourage you to always accept that sort of thing, unless it conflicts with estabilished canon. I tried it, but it just wasn't my style.

I'd argue that, if they already have "Merchy the Merchant" as a friend, they could certainly use that as an "in." "Does Merchy trade with them? If not, does he know anybody who does?" It is probable that Merchy could at least point them in the right direction. Through some role playing, investigation, etc. the players should be able to find the right merchants to be hired on with to get in as part of a trade caravan.

[Cozzer]

Yeah, yeah, of course. My point was that there are games whose rules say that the players are able to decide that their friend Merchy is the one who's trading with the city, simply because it's the sort of coincidence that would happen in a story or because it would make for a better story than them traveling with a new NPC.

And because of the existence of these games, there are gamers who believe that things should work that way in every game.

[Segev]

Yeah, yeah, of course. My point was that there are games whose rules say that the players are able to decide that their friend Merchy is the one who's trading with the city, simply because it's the sort of coincidence that would happen in a story or because it would make for a better story than them traveling with a new NPC.

And because of the existence of these games, there are gamers who believe that things should work that way in every game.

Sure. But that's not the fault of those games' existence, any more than games where that's not the case are to blame for players assuming they CAN'T do that in games where they could.

That's a problem of player understanding of system.

[Stealth Marmot]

Sure. But that's not the fault of those games' existence, any more than games where that's not the case are to blame for players assuming they CAN'T do that in games where they could.

That's a problem of player understanding of system.
Don't those games usually have some sort of cost? Like players have certain points they spend to have coincidences happen in their favor?

Shouldn't be a tipoff when said points system is not in a game that they can't do that anymore?

[Segev]

Don't those games usually have some sort of cost? Like players have certain points they spend to have coincidences happen in their favor?

Shouldn't be a tipoff when said points system is not in a game that they can't do that anymore?

Not all of them. But yes, that would be a tipoff. The thing is, it's really a group dynamic thing. Some game systems actively encourage it. Others are silent. Some groups allow it regardless. Some have a hard time with it even when the game system says it should happen.

Exalted 2E is the one I'm most familiar with that has something like this. It costs nothing. A 2-die stunt is any description of an action which expressly interacts with the environment in some way. 2-die stunts add 2 dice to your die pool for the roll. They also may explicitly edit in something that makes sense for the scene.

"I swing down from the second floor balcony on the chandelier," is a valid 2-die stunt, even if there was never a chandelier described. So long as it isn't nonsensical for there to be one.

[Cozzer]

No no no, I'm not saying it's these games' fault. On the contrary, I respect all attempts to try new things and challenge assumptions, especially in a field such as RPGs with so many people who follow the "it's how we did things Back Then so it's the right way" line of thought.

The problem is with people that, instead of changing their line of thought, simply exchange "Back Then" for "Right Now". :P

[2D8HP]

with so many people who follow the "it's how we did things Back Then so it's the right way" line of thought. :P

Guilty!


:mitd:

[Darth Ultron]

The players used the world to come up with a solution.

I find it so odd that you think it is so wrong for the DM to do anything. Your version makes the DM really sound like a slave to the players. And it is amazing how many hoops you'd want a DM to jump through to prove they are doing nothing to effect the game.

1.You want the DM to describe things in detail, but only put stuff ''they(or you)'' think should be there.
2.You want the DM not to have anything that ''must be used''.
3.You want the DM to do nothing to, well make anything much happen really.
4.And when/if something happens only the players can do anything, as the DM can only do stuff by ''accident''.

I'm not sure I buy it.....I'm sure if I was to observe you DM you'd have all sorts of things happen.....but I'm also sure that if anyone accused you o that you'd have a huge story explanation of how ''you'' did not do it but somehow ''it happened'' in some sort of way.




I know, I know, your reply is, "But the DM could just arbitrarily make the objects have too high a DC to be overcome, and face the PCs with monsters 99 levels above them, making it as foregone a conclusion as if the DM just said 'you fail.'"

I would.

Your explanation does not address at all that the DM can create anything they want. If when you DM you can put crazy limits on yourself, sure....but you could also not do that.

And even if your so obsessed with following the rules, at least how you interpret them, the encounter rules are still vague. A ''level 10 encounter'' can be a great many things, ask ten DMs and you will get 10 wildly different encounters. And things like CR in D&D are just crazy, as some things of the same CR are not even close in power level. And that does not even count the endless number of optimization tricks.



Nope. A good DM does know his players and their PCs, but he CANNOT know them as well as he knows his setting. Because his setting is 100% under his control.

Control has nothing to do with knowing a person or a PC. And really, don't you keep saying the DM is not ''in control'' of the setting?



DMs are not magically more intelligent and creative than their players, and there are usually 4x or more players than there are DMs at any given gaming table. The greater creative source is on the players' side; ONE of them is likely to think of something the DM didn't.

It's not magic. Most of the time, the most experienced gamer is DM....at least in normal games.



But I trust my GM not to make things up just to make my plan fail because it isn't what she planned for me to do. I trust that things will fall out in a way that makes sense. My destructive actions will be allowed to work as well as they should given reasonable construction of the building(s) in question. There are things that could "go wrong," but none of them will be due to the GM not having already thought of the plan and determined it has a high chance of success.

Your clearly describing the antagonistic player vs DM type game. You will accept or ''trust'' anything as long as you ''agree'' that it makes sense to you and you ''think'' the DM is just ''having the world react'' in some disconnected way so ''they'' are not doing it.

[Cluedrew]

I find it so odd that you think it is so wrong for the DM to do anything. Your version makes the DM really sound like a slave to the players. And it is amazing how many hoops you'd want a DM to jump through to prove they are doing nothing to effect the game.But your version make the other players like a slave to the GM. A less charged simile might be that your style seems to treat the players like actors, who are part of a play's presentation but have no control over how it plays out. If they signed up for that, great, but I never had an urge to take drama in school.

And honestly I don't think the GM doing nothing to affect the game is part of anybody's position. (If it is, sorry for misrepresenting you.) Rather the point is the players can affect the game. And this is beyond the little details as well. Massive game changing decisions can be made by the players and sometimes (in player-driven games) that is the expectation.

I'm not saying the GM should have no power in the game, that would be as ridiculous as saying the players have none, but the GM doesn't have complete control over the game either.

[Max_Killjoy]

And honestly I don't think the GM doing nothing to affect the game is part of anybody's position.


It's not been anyone's stated position -- it's just another of DU's strawmen.

[Lorsa]

Except is not the GM always doing this? Unless the game has the odd thing where everyone is a GM.

Like take the GM that knows his setting so well and talks for a couple hours all about it. So then the players pick something to do from the GMs choices. So this is the GM providing a problem. Then talks for a couple more hours, and the players then pick a solution from the GMs choices. So the GM is providing the solution too.

I can only see the GM providing nothing, if they were a jerk. It's bad enough for a GM to just ''describe a perfect world with no problems'' but it is worse to think the GM would not provide ''no solutions''.

As always, it depends a bit on what sort of problems you are talking about, and what level of abstraction you are discussing/analyzing the game in.

In the strictest sense, as long as the GM is providing the world, you could claim they are also providing the solutions to the problems, as those are are, you know, part of the world.

However, since the GM can not fully know how the players will choose to interact with the world, especially the parts of the world that hasn't been explicitly stated yet, it is perfectly valid to say that "the players come up with the solution".

I mean, if the GM provides a problem AND a solution, the players haven't actually solved the problems. It's like one of those new computer game mechanic where they have interactive cut-scenes. Sort of like "press X to escape from the grab", and then you press X, and the game developers pat themselves on the back for being so awesome as to make you be able to solve problems in the cut scene. Except you didn't. The game told you, explicitly, how to do something, you did it and then the game proceeds. It's rarely very fun.



Well, assuming you have DMed, can you give me an example of some time a player did this to you? Like a good example of something you did not see and were just amazed the player saw it and used it.

I was once amazed when my player, who was working for the supernatural investigation branch of the FBI (in a WoD-inspired type of campaign world), convinced a demon to work for them instead of, you know, killing it. I thought I had provided a simple adventure "find demon, destroy demon", but instead it turned out to be "find demon, recruit demon". The PC made a really convincing argument for the demon, but I had really not seen it coming.



Really? Not that I try to be omniscient or anything but most solution are easily predicted and players when you get to know them are pretty predictable as well.

Players will try to overcome obstacle through these most common ways

A) Force
B) Subterfuge
C) Talk
D) Skill
E) Magic
F) Other

When I design or think of an obstacle I will 95% of the time have predicted options A to E. Only F is the unpredictable option. Also a good GM knows his PC's...and here I mean what says on their character sheets and what they are capable of. It isn't enough to know the setting, know your protagonists as well.

Ok, you have listed a number of actions that can be used to overcome an obstacle. However, you forgot that options A-F can be used on an almost infinite number of things. I mean, who are they going to talk to? Can you properly predict it for all problems you provide your players? I certainly can't.

When I played Eclipse Phase once, I gave my player a mission of finding a wanted runaway that just recently arrived to the station and had moved into the large area without any surveillance cameras. This area was basically a large gathering for people that want to avoid notice, with large marketplaces for questionable goods and roaming downtrodden desperate individuals hoping to rob however seem weak enough.

I basically predicted the PC would solve it with either A, B, C or D. But I had no idea whom it would be directed towards. How could I? There were probably at least a thousand people there.

I didn't even see a reason as to why I should try to figure out how my player would attempt to find the runaway. Why is it my job as a GM to do this? Isn't it enough that I provide the problem along with a detailed setting for the player to interact with?

In the end, my player was clever to find someone running a gang that was good at information gathering, made a deal to have them located the runaway and then sat back and waited. I thought the player would have their character do a more "hands on" or personal approach, but this worked out as well.



OK, so ''everyone'' is saying that they are taking the things in the setting the DM has made up and detailed. So a candle falls over and starts a bed on fire, and the DM mentions ''there is a bucket of water by the window'' and the clever player says ''I grab the bucket of water to put out the fire''. I find it hard that ''a lot'' of DMs did not ''see'' that clever move by a player, but you say it happens all the time, right?

-snip-

For any complex role play problem there are really only a couple ways to solve it that have a good chance of success. The players might ''mix up'' how they do something....but not what they are doing.

It is interesting that you talk about "complex role play problem" but as an example uses one of the simplest one I could possibly come up with.

The example is exactly akin to the "press X to continue" thing I was talking about earlier. It's a really poor problem, as it isn't really a problem but just the DM saying "tell me your character grabs the bucket and puts out the fire". It's exactly this kind of thing that should be avoided, as it provides both problem AND a very obvious solution.

Better would be "a fire just broke out in the bed, what do you do?" with no mention of any buckets. THAT might make the players start thinking.

A complex role play problem would be something like "find person A who (probably) got into city B to sell illegal goods C". This does not come with a "press X to continue", rather it invites to open creativity in how to approach the solution.

[Segev]

I find it so odd that you think it is so wrong for the DM to do anything.Straw man, and one you must on some level is one since I'm about to quote you, one paragraph later, counting up what I supposedly demand the DM to do.


Your version makes the DM really sound like a slave to the players.Interesting how you view anything other than absolute jerk-DM behavior as "being a slave to the players." You might claim otherwise, that there is being a "jerk DM" and just railroading, but every time anybody suggests something outside the behaviors you yourself describe as those of a "jerk DM," you come back to this canard of the DM "doing nothing" while simultaneously being "a slave" to the players.


And it is amazing how many hoops you'd want a DM to jump through to prove they are doing nothing to effect the game.

1.You want the DM to describe things in detail, but only put stuff ''they(or you)'' think should be there.
2.You want the DM not to have anything that ''must be used''.
3.You want the DM to do nothing to, well make anything much happen really.
4.And when/if something happens only the players can do anything, as the DM can only do stuff by ''accident''. And here's where you put lie to your opening sentence straw man. Let's examine these one by one.

1. Of course I want the DM to describe things in detail, at least sufficient to set the scene. That's literally his biggest job at the table. I have no idea what this "only put stuff 'they(or you)' think should be there" business is, but I suspect it's the core of another straw man that you've yet to bother fleshing out as more than a means of ignoring what's actually being said.

2. I assume what you mean here is that I don't want the DM to say, "Here is Problem A, and Solution B, and you must use B to solve A to proceed." This is, by your own definition, "jerk DM" behavior. It is...actually, let me quote somebody else, as they put it well:


I mean, if the GM provides a problem AND a solution, the players haven't actually solved the problems. It's like one of those new computer game mechanic where they have interactive cut-scenes. Sort of like "press X to escape from the grab", and then you press X, and the game developers pat themselves on the back for being so awesome as to make you be able to solve problems in the cut scene. Except you didn't. The game told you, explicitly, how to do something, you did it and then the game proceeds. It's rarely very fun.

This is drawn directly from your - Darth_Ultron's - "bucket of water next to a bed on fire" example, for context.

3. The notion that I want the GM to do nothing to "make anything happen" is ludicrous. I have given numerous examples of the GM doing many things, making many things happen. This is a straw man so blatantly fraudulent that I can only assume you're either covering your eyes and making up what others are saying, or that you're out-and-out lying with a base desire to win an internet argument rather than actually address the substance of what I'm saying.

A GM absolutely should "make things happen." What he should not be doing is making the player characters behave as his plans require.

Think of it this way: do the players actually DO anything in your games? Or do they just repeat back, "I do what Darth_Ultron just prompted me to do?"

Anything you expect players to be "doing," I expect GMs to be "doing," but with every NPC and with the environment (albeit the environment should be a bit more deterministic, since it usually isn't a decision-maker; the GM's job with the environment is that of running a simulator, not of RPing a character).

4. You're the only one who keeps insisting that anything other than "the DM's plot is carried out, scene-for-scene, exactly as he plotted it out ahead of time" is "random" or "by accident." The rest of us are quite literally telling you that this is a false presentation of what we're saying, and giving detailed outlines of how that's so.

If you want to argue that it is so, you must give actual support for that position. Simply repeating "this is what you say you want" to us, when we have said, "no, that's not what we are saying," is indicative that you're ignoring us, to the point of metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALA YOU GUYS ARE ALL STUPID BECAUSE YOU WANT TO PICK YOUR NOSES AND EAT THE BUGERS" to anybody saying they don't like your favorite flavor of ice cream.


I'm not sure I buy it.....I'm sure if I was to observe you DM you'd have all sorts of things happen.....but I'm also sure that if anyone accused you o that you'd have a huge story explanation of how ''you'' did not do it but somehow ''it happened'' in some sort of way.I'm afraid this sentence doesn't parse. Can you please try again? I literally have no idea what you're trying to say here, beyond "Darth_Ultron assumes Segev (and anybody arguing the same position as Segev) is lying about something." I honestly can't tell what that "something" is. I just have a vague sense that you're accusing me of lying.



I would.

Your explanation does not address at all that the DM can create anything they want. If when you DM you can put crazy limits on yourself, sure....but you could also not do that. Tell me: are you familiar with a term called "verisimilitude?"

The DM, like an author of a fictional work, could definitely make up anything he wants.

So, for example, the author of a story about Magneto could claim that Magneto can't affect a super-rare metal he's made up (I'll steal Marvel's "Vibranium" and claim that as one of its properties). He could then go on to say that this super-rare metal is everywhere. In everything. Every lock, every machine, every electrical system in his world uses it, except those few that the author wants Magneto to use his powers to overcome. Magneto is constrained to one particular plot-specific path that gets the scenes the author has planned out (because they're "really cool" and "fun," he promises). And since vibranium prevents Magneto from using his powers in ways that would otherwise be obvious to get out of the situation, it "makes total sense," right?

Except... that vibranium shouldn't really be in the hands of small-time gangs who robbed Magneto's safehouse. I mean, the author really needed these "random" thugs who had no idea what they were getting into to get ahold of Magneto's secret codes with access to his doomsday devices to drive his plot. It's really cool to suddenly have Magneto need to work with the X-Men to get his doomsday devices back, you see, and these "random" thugs not knowing how to use them makes it even more thrilling than if it were a deliberately-orchestrated plot by a competent and powerful set of villains.

Of course, not knowing what they were doing, the "random" gang thought they were robbing some old guy's house for jewelry or life savings or electronics. They "just happened" to have their getaway vehicle and all their guns and bullets made of vibranium. Because the author can decide that, right?

The fact that it doesn't make sense that thugs who were out for a few thousand dollars (maximum) in stolen goods would be able to afford this super-rare material in that quantity and those specialized forms is why it's bad writing.

The same applies to a DM in his setting. Sure, he COULD say that the locks in this Podunk town's jail are all superior-quality, DC 45 locks (which "just happens" to be beyond what he believes any PC could possibly pick), and that the doors are all metal or stone in this heavily-wooded area with no nearby quarries and an aesthetic that suggests everything (except for anything the PCs might want to break) is made of wood and such.

He could also decide that the town guards are all 6 levels higher than the PCs, and outnumber them, so that they can successfully capture the PCs and drag them before the king, who will make them an offer about going off to solve a quest for him...but now he's got everybody wondering why the king has the time to devote his high-level guards to capturing people to do quests, rather than just having them handle the quests. They're higher level and could do it faster, with more chance of success and less chance of betrayal.

So, yes, the GM could deliberately pick out everything to be beyond the ken of the PCs, except the one narrowly-defined path he wants them to go down. But it gets awfully hard to maintain verisimilitude when he does this, since the question starts to arise...why is this one, specified path so much easier, and where did the resources come from for the impenetrable walls keeping us on it?

The questions the DM should ask himself in creating his setting are, "What makes sense here?" Not, "What could my players do to solve or avoid this problem in ways I don't want them to?" And before you say "but you can't tell what the GM is thinking," remember that a) the GM knows, and b) players can tell when things don't make sense. If you can fridge logic "why did they leave that gap there" or "why didn't they solve it themselves with all those resources they must have had" even before you get up to go to the fridge, you are going to suspect that the GM was more concerned with constraining the PCs than building a believable world.


And even if your so obsessed with following the rules, at least how you interpret them, the encounter rules are still vague. A ''level 10 encounter'' can be a great many things, ask ten DMs and you will get 10 wildly different encounters. And things like CR in D&D are just crazy, as some things of the same CR are not even close in power level. And that does not even count the endless number of optimization tricks. Honestly, while I don't mind planning games this way, this isn't sandbox design.

In sandbox design, you only place "a CR 10 encounter" someplace if you're doing it based on how tough things in general are in that area. You're often NOT concerned with making "balanced" encounters. You're concerned with making believable ones. Verisimilitude: the notion that you can look at all the encounters and say, "Okay, that makes sense there." And, if you run into something that seems not to, if you've built up trust between the GM and players (i.e. by not using "oooh mysterious" to excuse blatant denial of choices), players usually will ask, "what's going on here?"

The trick for the GM, when he does that, is to make sure that he didn't start from this "seeming incongruity," but instead had it evolve from things he was building up. If he wants the "mysterious inconsistency" as a hook, he needs to think long and hard about why it's there, so that when it's investigated, it will make sense. And, upon making sense, it doesn't open up whole new questions. "Wait, if the 'medusa' was a sculptor kidnapping people after making statues of them all along, how was she overpowering those level 8 adventurers when she's only a level 5 Expert?" Even if "kidnapping sculptor" is the explanation for why the "petrified" people are showing up a few towns over, or some such, if the rest doesn't make sense...


The constraint on the GM is, quite simply, verisimilitude. And the dreaded railroad being "hidden" by the DM "just happening" to make everything too tough other than the One True Path is going to violate verisimilitude almost every single time. That's why it might be able to be hidden for a little while, but the pattern starts to become clear and the inconsistencies build up. Because the design goal was "keep the PCs on the path," rather than "make sure the setting makes sense."


Control has nothing to do with knowing a person or a PC. And really, don't you keep saying the DM is not ''in control'' of the setting?If you don't know the person or the PC, then you can't perfectly predict everything they might try. Therefore, you cannot have everything they might try planned out so that you have pre-planned everything.

And no. Nobody (other than straw men you keep insisting on debating) has said that the DM isn't in control of the setting.


It's not magic. Most of the time, the most experienced gamer is DM....at least in normal games. ....
...
..
.


Maybe in your experience. Given that you also seem to always be both DM and "most experienced gamer," I'm unsurprised. Experienced gamers tend to see through rails more easily and get frustrated and go elsewhere. And inexperienced gamers will either enjoy it because they've never done anything like it before, or will get frustrated and fail to become experienced gamers as they're brow-beaten by a DM who "knows better" what "could be fun" and denies them the very premise of RP: that they're in control of their PCs' decisions, and that their PCs' actions will matter.


Your clearly describing the antagonistic player vs DM type game. You will accept or ''trust'' anything as long as you ''agree'' that it makes sense to you and you ''think'' the DM is just ''having the world react'' in some disconnected way so ''they'' are not doing it.Hardly. This is the GM-as-player-of-the-antagonists. Because her head is in the "they're fighting to win" space, she has to be careful not to arbitrarily make up things they retroactively could have done, and not to plan their defenses around my plans. So she wants to plan their actions out only with the knowledge they would have, to the best of her ability.

I mean, turn this around: do you tell your players all the twists and turns of your plot, and then expect them to ignore that meta-knowledge and play to their PCs' relative ignorance of what's coming? Or do you keep things secret so they can be surprised by twists and turns, and so that they are better able to play PCs who don't know what's coming?

[Darth Ultron]

So....this came up in another thread: How is forcing the player along one path not railroading?

Like say the DM makes a murder plot or ''reacts'' to the players for several hours....so the DM has a story of how/why/when/where and such the murder took place. So the players set off to solve the murder. And we are saying the facts of the murder are set in stone, like a normal game and the DM won't alter the game world reality just as a PC ''bumps into a tree'' and they want to give them ''control over the game or whatever''. Colonel Mustard did the murder with the candlestick in the conservatory no matter what ''reactions'' happen.

So, for whatever reason, the players think Scarlett did it, and follow her around.

Now a railroading DM, wanting to stick to the pre made story and plot will only allow this waste of time for maybe a couple seconds before saying something like ''you follow Scarlett all day and night and she only does normal lady things.''

But that is not railroading?

Now the ''reaction improv'' DM will just say with the boring player picked ''lets watch Scarlett and never have an adventure'', right? It will be like ''game session 22, your characters watch from the bushes as Scarlett buys another pair of red shoes, bringing her total red shoe number owned to 32.'' The DM will never do anything to even slightly ''influence or force'' the PCs to do anything, right? So unless the players decide to do something, nothing will happen.

So how is forcing the players on the path to solve a mystery not railroading?

[Cluedrew]

So....this came up in another thread: How is forcing the player along one path not railroading?Considering you just paraphrased my definition of railroading, I'm going say that is railroading.

You said "influence or force" at one point, sort of like they are the same thing. They really aren't, or at least not as I have been using them. Influence may make someone more likely to make a decision, but forcing them takes the ability to make the decision away from them. It has been made for them.

Its the difference between "An evil dragon lives in a cave to the east." when your players are big on dragon slaying (and probably going to head for that cave) and saying "You go to a cave in the east to fight an evil dragon." whether the players enjoy dragon slaying or not. As long as you accept that the players decide that the elven bandits are a bigger problem and leave the dragon alone for now, the first is not railroading. I can't think of a context where you could say the second and it not be railroading.

As how to handle players fixated on a false lead in a mystery, I don't have the relevant experience to answer that one.

[OldTrees1]

So....this came up in another thread: How is forcing the player along one path not railroading?


@Everyone
As usually Darth Ultron is completely misrepresenting what was said in the other thread.

In the other thread the generalized case was:

Player starts following a false lead (The missing Innkeeper was unrelated to the lich BBEG plaguing the town).
Darth Ultron says that showing that lead to be false is railroading.
However everyone knows that a PC discovering a false lead is false through their own investigation is verisimilitude (specifically in that a truly false lead remains false even after the PC pursues it) and not railroading.
As expected Darth Ultron was called out on his mislabeling, so he decided to misrepresent it in this thread instead.

[Cluedrew]

To OldTrees1: He is still free to ask the question. Unless he is trying to falsify evidence to bring back to the other thread or something I don't see the issue. I don't think it changes any of my answers either. Although perhaps it makes them less relevant.

[Max_Killjoy]

To OldTrees1: He is still free to ask the question. Unless he is trying to falsify evidence to bring back to the other thread or something I don't see the issue. I don't think it changes any of my answers either. Although perhaps it makes them less relevant.


If he had asked the question without referencing the other thread, that would be fine.

If he had accurately represented what was said in the other thread, that would be fine.


Instead, he pulled his usual trick of twisting what someone else has said just enough that it now makes better fodder for his argument, but not enough that the twisting is immediately apparent to those not playing close attention.

[thirdkingdom]

So....this came up in another thread: How is forcing the player along one path not railroading?

Like say the DM makes a murder plot or ''reacts'' to the players for several hours....so the DM has a story of how/why/when/where and such the murder took place. So the players set off to solve the murder. And we are saying the facts of the murder are set in stone, like a normal game and the DM won't alter the game world reality just as a PC ''bumps into a tree'' and they want to give them ''control over the game or whatever''. Colonel Mustard did the murder with the candlestick in the conservatory no matter what ''reactions'' happen.

So, for whatever reason, the players think Scarlett did it, and follow her around.

Now a railroading DM, wanting to stick to the pre made story and plot will only allow this waste of time for maybe a couple seconds before saying something like ''you follow Scarlett all day and night and she only does normal lady things.''

But that is not railroading?

Now the ''reaction improv'' DM will just say with the boring player picked ''lets watch Scarlett and never have an adventure'', right? It will be like ''game session 22, your characters watch from the bushes as Scarlett buys another pair of red shoes, bringing her total red shoe number owned to 32.'' The DM will never do anything to even slightly ''influence or force'' the PCs to do anything, right? So unless the players decide to do something, nothing will happen.

So how is forcing the players on the path to solve a mystery not railroading?

I facepalmed so hard I think I broke my hand.

[georgie_leech]

The DM establishing facts isn't railroading. The DM is railroading if he decides there is only one possible way to determine these facts, or that the players absolutely have to find those specific facts. I'm reminded of a quest in ES:IV where unless you found every single clue, you couldn't complete one mystery based quest, even though having all but one was enough to rule out other suspects and prove intent, means, motive, and that they were at the scene of the crime anyway. Something like that is railroading.

[OldTrees1]

To OldTrees1: He is still free to ask the question. Unless he is trying to falsify evidence to bring back to the other thread or something I don't see the issue. I don't think it changes any of my answers either. Although perhaps it makes them less relevant.

He is free to falsify evidence and misrepresent what people said.
I am free to provide context that corrects such misrepresentations as my reply to his intentional lies.

PS: Also my post was not intended as a comment on your post. As usual, your posts are quality posts.

[Lorsa]

So....this came up in another thread: How is forcing the player along one path not railroading?

Like say the DM makes a murder plot or ''reacts'' to the players for several hours....so the DM has a story of how/why/when/where and such the murder took place. So the players set off to solve the murder. And we are saying the facts of the murder are set in stone, like a normal game and the DM won't alter the game world reality just as a PC ''bumps into a tree'' and they want to give them ''control over the game or whatever''. Colonel Mustard did the murder with the candlestick in the conservatory no matter what ''reactions'' happen.

So, for whatever reason, the players think Scarlett did it, and follow her around.

Now a railroading DM, wanting to stick to the pre made story and plot will only allow this waste of time for maybe a couple seconds before saying something like ''you follow Scarlett all day and night and she only does normal lady things.''

But that is not railroading?

Now the ''reaction improv'' DM will just say with the boring player picked ''lets watch Scarlett and never have an adventure'', right? It will be like ''game session 22, your characters watch from the bushes as Scarlett buys another pair of red shoes, bringing her total red shoe number owned to 32.'' The DM will never do anything to even slightly ''influence or force'' the PCs to do anything, right? So unless the players decide to do something, nothing will happen.

So how is forcing the players on the path to solve a mystery not railroading?

The answer is very simple.

Because in the example above, the DM is actually not forcing the players on the path to solve a mystery.

Examine what you said. The players state their intent "we want to follow Scarlett because we think she is suspicious". The DM then allows this action to take place (although a followup question should be "for how long do you follow her?").

Clearly there is no force that takes place by the DM in order to make sure the players follow a predetermined plot. The DM didn't plan for the players to follow Scarlet, but allows them to do so anyway.

So why do YOU think it is railroading?

[Cluedrew]

I find myself in a rather odd position.


Instead, he pulled his usual trick of twisting what someone else has said just enough that it now makes better fodder for his argument, but not enough that the twisting is immediately apparent to those not playing close attention.This is Giant in the Playground, "those paying close attention" is approximately "everyone". I hadn't even read the thread in question and I could tell something was off. I have been talking with Darth Ultron for a long time, and I understand that how he views the situation will rarely be how I (or most other people) view the situation. This is actually part of the reason I avoided taking about the example directly.

That being said, from what I understand now of the situation, "why isn't having one correct solution railroading" and "how do you keep the plot moving without railroading if the players don't find it" are both pretty reasonable questions of Darth Ultron to ask of our positions on railroading. I think georgie_leech and Lorsa put together good answers about the first question, and the second relates to my influence vs. force piece (could be expanded on, but might be just off topic for the thread).

Admittedly, in the past seriously answering Darth Ultron's questions have met with mixed results, but I still believe it is better than simply dismissing his posts. As much as I understand thirdkingdom's response (which is to say I understand perfectly).


He is free to falsify evidence and misrepresent what people said.
I am free to provide context that corrects such misrepresentations as my reply to his intentional lies.

PS: Also my post was not intended as a comment on your post. As usual, your posts are quality posts.Well thank-you. Also mine was not to say the additional information was unwanted, I actually found it quite useful. I just wanted to keep the tone of the conversation as positive as I could.

[Segev]

Just to add to the comments along these lines already: Railroading is about forcing the players and their characters along a particular path. It isn't about having a fixed reality. A fixed reality is generally going to be less likely to railroad, in fact. (It can, obviously, if the DM goes out of his way to design the "fixed reality" so that there are -metaphorically or literally - infinitely high walls every direction except down the appropriate path.)

A fixed reality is going to be useful for NOT railroading, because the GM knows what's going on, and can allow the players to interact with that however they like, pulling out prepared material where he has it and improvising something that makes sense given what else is already established where the party is about to step into a place where the GM hadn't finished painting the set.

"The disappearances are due to a lich who is kidnapping some people and murdering and animating those who come looking for them," is a fixed reality for a game. The GM already knows that the innkeeper and sheriff are not involved, except possibly as victims. If the player(s) convince themselves that one or both of those NPCs are involved, it is not railroading to let the players investigate and find only what is there to be found.

Perhaps the GM has the sheriff and innkeeper fleshed out enough to know what they're doing every moment of every day. Perhaps it's only enough to judge the sort of thing they might do, and the GM has to improvise the order or what they're doing at any particular moment. Perhaps the GM has only a general idea about one or both of them, and has to ask himself questions like, "What would you find in the innkeeper's bedroom if you searched it?"

He knows there isn't evidence linking them to the lich, though, since there is no connection to the lich.

As long as the GM allows the players to interact with the setting and NPCs however they like, and keeps in mind WHAT the lich is doing and WHAT is happening with the kidnapping victims and HOW the zombies are coming back to attack the town, the GM can evaluate what the PCs' investigations will yield based on what they do. Maybe they will surprise the GM by coming up with something that, upon evaluation, would in fact reveal something the GM hadn't thought of, but has to be there due to what's going on. Maybe they won't.

A railroad would be the GM having the only way to progress the plot, "The PCs follow the lich back to her lair after they have an encounter with her zombies in the woods." It would require forcing the PCs into that encounter with the zombies, ensure they notice the lich amongst them, and compel them to follow her. It would not permit them to follow a set of tracks of attacking zombies backwards into the woods, except to trigger the lich+zombies encounter. It would not permit them to discover anything at all until they did this, no matter what they did. It wouldn't let them avoid the lich+zombie encounter with stealth, and try to follow the lich's trail back without following her. It certainly wouldn't allow them to place tracking magic on all the potential victims and follow THAT back, or ambush the kidnapper mid-kidnapping. Or replace one of the likely victims with a PC, and find out what's going on by being "captured."

Rails aren't about there being something specific going on. They're about having there be only GM-approved means of discovering it and dealing with it once discovered.

[kyoryu]

I generally like to think about railroading in terms of controlling scenes, and specifically who gets to choose what the next scene is.

In a railroaded game, the GM sets the start of each scene and decides what it is. The player actions will not impact the scenes or the order.

In a "pure" sandbox, the players will start/frame every scene.

In most sandbox-style games, the players will start *most* scenes, but the GM will start/frame certain scenes when circumstances take that control away from the players.

GMs trying to preserve the illusion of freedom while maintaining railroading will generally either do "null scenes" (where nothing happens to progress anything), block attempts to do other things, or use the Quantum Ogre. In each of those cases, there's one "real" next scene, though the players are free to either go and do other things (which do nothing), be told no, or take a false choice which will still lead to the GM's preplanned scene.

So, is having "one true dunnit" in a whodunnit railroading? The question doesn't really contain enough information to really answer it. Are there a myriad of hints available which the players can discover through investigation? Not railroading. Is there one clue which must be followed, which inevitably leads to the next one, and so on? Railroading.

[Segev]

Eh, I don't think players framing the scenes is really a hallmark of sandboxes. Characters deciding which scenes to go to and explore, and how to do so once there, is.

The GM is the one who sets the scene because he's the one who knows what the world looks like. The players can't "see" anything the GM doesn't tell them about. Players shouldn't be, under normal circumstances, describing the scene because they aren't the ones who run the world.

[kyoryu]

Eh, I don't think players framing the scenes is really a hallmark of sandboxes. Characters deciding which scenes to go to and explore, and how to do so once there, is.

That's why I said deciding what scene is next as well :) If you'd like, scratch the word 'framing', though if you have players framing scenes you're clearly not railroading :smallbiggrin:

But in every case of railroading I can think of, you have the GM deciding what the next scene is, every time (or almost every time). In every sandboxy thing I can think of, you have players doing it a large amount of the time.

[Max_Killjoy]

I find myself in a rather odd position.

This is Giant in the Playground, "those paying close attention" is approximately "everyone". I hadn't even read the thread in question and I could tell something was off. I have been talking with Darth Ultron for a long time, and I understand that how he views the situation will rarely be how I (or most other people) view the situation. This is actually part of the reason I avoided taking about the example directly.

That being said, from what I understand now of the situation, "why isn't having one correct solution railroading" and "how do you keep the plot moving without railroading if the players don't find it" are both pretty reasonable questions of Darth Ultron to ask of our positions on railroading. I think georgie_leech and Lorsa put together good answers about the first question, and the second relates to my influence vs. force piece (could be expanded on, but might be just off topic for the thread).

Admittedly, in the past seriously answering Darth Ultron's questions have met with mixed results, but I still believe it is better than simply dismissing his posts. As much as I understand thirdkingdom's response (which is to say I understand perfectly).



I haven't even been here that long, and I already know that it's been explained to DU that there's difference between...

A) "the setting is a living breathing world, NPCs have their own agendas, PCs dynamically interact with it and chart their own course" (not railroading)
versus
B) "there's only one path through this entire campaign, and you will follow it no matter what, PCs complete preset nodes" (actual railroading)

...so many many times that it might as well have its own reference page we can link to.

[BRC]

I think my old quote is "Railroading isn't saying there is a wall there, Railroading is saying there is a wall everywhere BUT there".

With the Murder Mystery, it would be Railroading if there was only one way to get to the conclusion.

Colonel Mustard did it with the Lead Pipe, in the Billiards Room.

If the PC's had to ask Mrs. White where she saw the Victim go, to learn that it happened in the Billiards Room.

After that, they search the fireplace in the Billiard's Room, to find the Lead Pipe.

Then, they check the pipe for fingerprints, and match them to Colonel Mustard.

The Players must say "We ask Mrs. White where she saw The Victim go last", then they must say "We search the fireplace", then they must say "We check the pipe for fingerprints".

No other path of investigation will lead them to Colonel Mustard. That is railroading.

Merely establishing that Mrs. White saw the victim go into the billiards room, where Colonel Mustard killed him with the lead pipe, and hid it in the fireplace, is not by itself railroading, because there are other ways the PC's could reach that conclusion.

They could ask Ms. Scarlet, who reports that Colonel Mustard was very angry with the Victim. They could find a length of pipe missing from the basement, and learn that Colonel Mustard was seen going down there with a wrench. They could learn that the victim was bludgeoned with a long, cylindrical object wielded by a tall, left-handed man, of which only Colonel Mustard fits the description.
They could dig through the study, and find evidence that the victim had been blackmailing Colonel Mustard over an incident that happened when they were both in the army twenty years ago. They could find out that Colonel Mustard had changed his clothes during the evening. They could find a charred scrap of yellow clothing in the Kitchen fireplace.

The Dm's notes, rather than reading
Talk to Mrs White -> Search Fireplace -> Dust for Prints
Should read

Victim was blackmailing Colonel Mustard over an incident that happened 20 years ago.

Victim demanded more money to cover a debt owed to Mr Green, told Col. Mustard just after Dinner, after which Scarlet and Mustard spoke.

Prof Plum saw Mustard taking a wrench down to the basement, where he took a length of pipe from the wall, then he went to the Billiard's room where he was supposed to hand the money over, carrying the pipe and a bag with a spare change of clothes.

Mrs White saw Victim going to Billiard's room alone.

Mustard kills Victim with pipe, hides it in the fireplace, drags the body to the Hallway, then goes to the Kitchen where he changes out of his bloody clothes and tosses them into the fire.

So that the PC's can engage the Scenario, rather than stumbling around trying to find the tracks the DM set up ahead of time.

If they decide that Ms Scarlet is responsible, and they keep following Ms. Scarlet, then they find nothing, except perhaps that her true last name is "Herring".

[Max_Killjoy]

Just to add to the comments along these lines already: Railroading is about forcing the players and their characters along a particular path. It isn't about having a fixed reality. A fixed reality is generally going to be less likely to railroad, in fact. (It can, obviously, if the DM goes out of his way to design the "fixed reality" so that there are -metaphorically or literally - infinitely high walls every direction except down the appropriate path.)

A fixed reality is going to be useful for NOT railroading, because the GM knows what's going on, and can allow the players to interact with that however they like, pulling out prepared material where he has it and improvising something that makes sense given what else is already established where the party is about to step into a place where the GM hadn't finished painting the set.

"The disappearances are due to a lich who is kidnapping some people and murdering and animating those who come looking for them," is a fixed reality for a game. The GM already knows that the innkeeper and sheriff are not involved, except possibly as victims. If the player(s) convince themselves that one or both of those NPCs are involved, it is not railroading to let the players investigate and find only what is there to be found.

Perhaps the GM has the sheriff and innkeeper fleshed out enough to know what they're doing every moment of every day. Perhaps it's only enough to judge the sort of thing they might do, and the GM has to improvise the order or what they're doing at any particular moment. Perhaps the GM has only a general idea about one or both of them, and has to ask himself questions like, "What would you find in the innkeeper's bedroom if you searched it?"

He knows there isn't evidence linking them to the lich, though, since there is no connection to the lich.

As long as the GM allows the players to interact with the setting and NPCs however they like, and keeps in mind WHAT the lich is doing and WHAT is happening with the kidnapping victims and HOW the zombies are coming back to attack the town, the GM can evaluate what the PCs' investigations will yield based on what they do. Maybe they will surprise the GM by coming up with something that, upon evaluation, would in fact reveal something the GM hadn't thought of, but has to be there due to what's going on. Maybe they won't.

A railroad would be the GM having the only way to progress the plot, "The PCs follow the lich back to her lair after they have an encounter with her zombies in the woods." It would require forcing the PCs into that encounter with the zombies, ensure they notice the lich amongst them, and compel them to follow her. It would not permit them to follow a set of tracks of attacking zombies backwards into the woods, except to trigger the lich+zombies encounter. It would not permit them to discover anything at all until they did this, no matter what they did. It wouldn't let them avoid the lich+zombie encounter with stealth, and try to follow the lich's trail back without following her. It certainly wouldn't allow them to place tracking magic on all the potential victims and follow THAT back, or ambush the kidnapper mid-kidnapping. Or replace one of the likely victims with a PC, and find out what's going on by being "captured."

Rails aren't about there being something specific going on. They're about having there be only GM-approved means of discovering it and dealing with it once discovered.


Precisely.

The more the GM has fleshed out about the setting and how it works, the NPCs and how they think, the opposition and what they actually want, etc, the more freedom the players have to spontaneously interact with that world.

When the GM only intends for the players to follow certain paths, then the GM only fleshes out those paths, and leaves everything else a blur or a blank.

The claim (not made by you Segev) that "more detail" = "more railroading" is nonsense, and was introduced to the discussion to serve a very particular and inaccurate viewpoint of what railroading is, as part of the "railroad or random" false dichotomy.


As an example, compare World of Warcraft before and after the introduction of flying mounts. Before, players were confined to the ground and their travels bound by landscape features; large swaths of inter-zone landscape could be left empty or as stretches of low-res filler. After, players could fly directly over all that landscape, and look at it, and land on it, and so on, and it all had to be filled in with fully-functional, graphically-complete terrain.

[kyoryu]

D_U takes an issue with the idea of railroading (telling players what they have to do next), and generalizes it to the GM being able to tell the players *anything*.

It's a strawman, at best.

[Segev]

D_U takes an issue with the idea of railroading (telling players what they have to do next), and generalizes it to the GM being able to tell the players *anything*.

It's a strawman, at best.

Technically, if I understand Darth_Ultron correctly, he doesn't take issue with railroading. He likes railroading (as he defines it) and scoffs at those who dislike it. He believes those who dislike it either don't know what they really want, or want "random" games where "nothing happens" or are jerks as players who want to dictate to the DM how the game will go and always have every victory handed to them on a silver platter.

I may be misunderstanding him, but I believe I've captured the overall tone and general word-choice he's exhibited. If I'm wrong, he's free to correct me.

[OldTrees1]

Technically, if I understand Darth_Ultron correctly, he doesn't take issue with railroading. He likes railroading (as he defines it) and scoffs at those who dislike it. He believes those who dislike it either don't know what they really want, or want "random" games where "nothing happens" or are jerks as players who want to dictate to the DM how the game will go and always have every victory handed to them on a silver platter.

I may be misunderstanding him, but I believe I've captured the overall tone and general word-choice he's exhibited. If I'm wrong, he's free to correct me.

Based on this thread and past Darth Ultron threads this description is almost on the mark. The only addendum is:
Darth Ultron also likes railroading (as this forum tends to define it).

This is evident in some of the "complex" plots he sites as good plots (the Elf King must capture the PCs for the game to continue was the most recent example).

[kyoryu]

Technically, if I understand Darth_Ultron correctly, he doesn't take issue with railroading. He likes railroading (as he defines it) and scoffs at those who dislike it. He believes those who dislike it either don't know what they really want, or want "random" games where "nothing happens" or are jerks as players who want to dictate to the DM how the game will go and always have every victory handed to them on a silver platter.

I may be misunderstanding him, but I believe I've captured the overall tone and general word-choice he's exhibited. If I'm wrong, he's free to correct me.

Yeah, I may have been unclear there. He takes issue with people *complaining* about railroading.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, I may have been unclear there. He takes issue with people *complaining* about railroading.

And because of that, he's tried repeatedly and vociferously to:

1) Expand the meaning of "railroading" to include any active role on the part of the GM, and any normal interactive/dynamic interaction (between the PCs, the setting/NPCs, and story), so that when someone says "you railroad" he can respond "so do you".

2) Present a false dichotomy, with (his personal definition of) "randomness" as the only alternative to (his personal expanded definition of) railroading, so that he can disparage anyone who doesn't accept (his personal definition of) railroading as a good and proper method of GMing, and tar his opponents with the "improv troupe" and "jerk player" brushes.

3) Snare people into accepting that broad version of railroading and the false dichotomy, so that he can then claim that "railroading" under the accurate and useful definition used by almost everyone else, is a fine way to run any RPG campaign.

4) And, when called on this behavior, accuse his opponents of "insulting him" and "groupthink" and whatever else he can come up with at the moment.

[Cozzer]

Guys... might the actual problem be the fact that you're all trying to communicate with someone who's not interested in communicating? Just asking.

(I am not trying to say that you shouldn't talk with him if you want to, but this topic could be so interesting if it hadn't been derailed into this absurd back-and-forth between people trying to explain themselves better and a person actively refusing to understand them...)

On topic: I would argue that the solution of a mystery changing depending on the characters' action and on what they think is a lead is more railroading-like than the mystery having a set solution.

If the characters follow a false lead, I'd say the best thing to do is to follow the very basis of roleplaying games: "choices, then consequences". Make very clear that the false lead is a false lead (don't string them along more than necessary), but also make the fact that they wasted time following it matter. Maybe the real culprit used that time to hide better, maybe the person they were suspecting is offended and won't help them.

[RazorChain]

Ok, you have listed a number of actions that can be used to overcome an obstacle. However, you forgot that options A-F can be used on an almost infinite number of things. I mean, who are they going to talk to? Can you properly predict it for all problems you provide your players? I certainly can't.

When I played Eclipse Phase once, I gave my player a mission of finding a wanted runaway that just recently arrived to the station and had moved into the large area without any surveillance cameras. This area was basically a large gathering for people that want to avoid notice, with large marketplaces for questionable goods and roaming downtrodden desperate individuals hoping to rob however seem weak enough.

I basically predicted the PC would solve it with either A, B, C or D. But I had no idea whom it would be directed towards. How could I? There were probably at least a thousand people there.

I didn't even see a reason as to why I should try to figure out how my player would attempt to find the runaway. Why is it my job as a GM to do this? Isn't it enough that I provide the problem along with a detailed setting for the player to interact with?


You don't have to try to predict player actions if you don't want to, no more than you have to predict the weather, financial markets or the enemy during war. I still do and always have, don't get me wrong, I have no problems or nothing against improvisation, in fact for many years I was a lazy GM and often just approached the table with nothing but a couple of ideas and it worked well.

But by predicting how obstacles can be solved makes you prepared. Most of us prepare for sessions in one way or another and just thinking what you or your players would do helps you flesh out a scene/obstacle.

If your player wants to solve the obstacle through talking then you should be able to predict to some degree who he talks to as you set the scene and populate it with npc's (in this case a space station)

Of course it is a waste of time to think about lesser obstacles that are no more than roadbumps. If the PC's have a door in their way then they will get through....it's merely a roadbump.

But let's take the often mentioned king and the rebels plot where the PC's can chose to back one or remain neutral. Just by thinking what the king or the rebels would require of them helps you keep on top of your game. I think most of the time the GM can predict what the PC's will choose because of how the GM will present the plot.

Now I am fully aware tha I do this in the extreme but then again we play biweekly and around 30 hours of my workweek I don't have to use my head so I use it on plotting and planning my rpg sessions which results in NPC's outmanouvering the PC's. Complex plots where I have predicted my players course of actions multiple sessions ahead in time. So what happens if they just abandon it all and sail away? Well then I have 30 hours to think of something :)

The best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior.

[Jay R]

If they decide that Ms Scarlet is responsible, and they keep following Ms. Scarlet, then they find nothing, except perhaps that her true last name is "Herring".

Laughing. Finally, after rehashing the DU argument so much, this thread has produced a fun, new idea.

[kyoryu]

Guys... might the actual problem be the fact that you're all trying to communicate with someone who's not interested in communicating? Just asking.

Well, yeah.

And it's clear to me that the definition of "what is railroading" isn't really what D_U cares about. There's a number of arguments you can get into with people where it becomes clear that they won't shift on that one because it's actually a consequence of another, more deeply held belief. And I really get that feel on this discussion.

[HidesHisEyes]

Wow. I feel like Dr. Frankenstein.

Anyway, for what it's worth I do want to come out in defence of Darth Ultron on one point, and with a caveat. The point is that it really is annoying when players decide to turn their backs the game's apparent story completely and insist on going and doing something totally different. Sailing to a different continent is obviously an extreme example. The caveat is that most of us would agree it's a good idea to sit down and discuss what kind of game you're going to play before you start playing. Then the players know roughly what to expect, what sort of thing they'll be doing and, most importantly, what kind of characters they should make. If the group agrees they're going to play a game about overthrowing a tyrannical king then it's a **** move for the players to say in the second session "we want to steal a ship, sail to another continent and become pirates". And I think it's important to remember that in a broad sense the GM is a player too, and should get to have fun. In fact, as I've argued before, the GM should really have slightly more say on what the game is all about since he or she is the one doing the work to make the game happen at all, and it's difficult to do that work if you're not excited about the game. I really don't understand the mentality that the GM is merely a part of the game's apparatus. I like running games my friends enjoy but I'm not gonna spend hours each week planning a game that I'm not going to enjoy. I have a job.

So to that extent I agree with you, Darth Ultron. Where I start to disagree is where you seem to insist that the GM's input into what type of game the group plays needs to extend to the specifics of the plot. If the game we agreed to play was about overthrowing a tyrannical king then, assuming they don't try and run away to sea, why would I try and dictate how they go about it? As others have said, if you want to plot every detail then an RPG probably isn't the best medium.

[kyoryu]

The point is that it really is annoying when players decide to turn their backs the game's apparent story completely and insist on going and doing something totally different. Sailing to a different continent is obviously an extreme example. The caveat is that most of us would agree it's a good idea to sit down and discuss what kind of game you're going to play before you start playing. Then the players know roughly what to expect, what sort of thing they'll be doing and, most importantly, what kind of characters they should make. If the group agrees they're going to play a game about overthrowing a tyrannical king then it's a **** move for the players to say in the second session "we want to steal a ship, sail to another continent and become pirates".

I don't think anybody would argue that point at all.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think anybody would argue that point at all.

I wouldn't argue that point at all.

I also think "we're all sailing away to become pirates" in the second session is an extreme communication failure in campaign setup, or a fringe case of selfish gamers... or they're rebelling for some reason.

[thirdkingdom]

I wouldn't argue that point at all.

I also think "we're all sailing away to become pirates" in the second session is an extreme communication failure in campaign setup, or a fringe case of selfish gamers... or they're rebelling for some reason.

Yeah. If the explicit understanding is that the party wants to, say, play through a module than that's annoying (although as Max pointed out we should all be grownups and try to figure out *why* they'd rather be pirates). If it's a sandbox game . . . sure, why not be pirates.

[Cluedrew]

I've been having some mixed feelings about this last part of the conversation. The best, but still imperfect, thing I have to say about it is:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's a difference between defending what someone has to say, and defending how they go about saying it.

[Darth Ultron]

Anyway, for what it's worth I do want to come out in defence of Darth Ultron on one point, and with a caveat. The point is that it really is annoying when players decide to turn their backs the game's apparent story completely and insist on going and doing something totally different.

Agreed, mostly.

I find a lot of players find the game not what they expected, so they suddenly want to do a 180 and somehow think that will fix things.

A classic is when the players want to be ''agents of something'' and have great ideas of how much fun it will be. I know better, and might suggest that just having ''the DM tell you what to do'' won't be all that much fun for long. And most of the time the players find having an NPC boss tell them what to do all the time is not much fun.





So to that extent I agree with you, Darth Ultron. Where I start to disagree is where you seem to insist that the GM's input into what type of game the group plays needs to extend to the specifics of the plot. If the game we agreed to play was about overthrowing a tyrannical king then, assuming they don't try and run away to sea, why would I try and dictate how they go about it? As others have said, if you want to plot every detail then an RPG probably isn't the best medium.

The vast majority of players I know will just say ''I want to play D&D'' and don't have anything else to say.

And when it comes to the plot, again most players will just sit around, unless motivated. I've seen players sit around, having their characters pretend to drink in a tavern, and then complain the game is boring.

Though I'd never let that happen now a days. Five minutes of pretend drinking and the tavern will explode and hurl the characters into The Abyss....

[Cluedrew]

There's a difference between defending what someone has to say, and defending how they go about saying it.You seem to be going somewhere with this, or is that all you have to say on the matter? Although if I understand your point, I might be following it.


And when it comes to the plot, again most players will just sit around, unless motivated. I've seen players sit around, having their characters pretend to drink in a tavern, and then complain the game is boring.You... have a very different group of players than the ones I have played with. And honestly to run a Player-led games you need players that {Dramatic Pause} lead. Without that the game isn't going to work.

[Max_Killjoy]

You seem to be going somewhere with this, or is that all you have to say on the matter? Although if I understand your point, I might be following it.


Just that I think the right to express one's thoughts is not the same as the right to deceive, distort, and dissemble. A culture that regards honest discussion and intellectual dishonesty as somehow equivalent... is in trouble.

[HidesHisEyes]

Yeah. If the explicit understanding is that the party wants to, say, play through a module than that's annoying (although as Max pointed out we should all be grownups and try to figure out *why* they'd rather be pirates). If it's a sandbox game . . . sure, why not be pirates.

Well actually, to continue with the idea of how important the session 0 discussion is, I do think it's reasonable to say as part of that discussion, even with a sandbox, "the game will be about this kind of thing". For example, you could agree quite simply that the PCs are "heroes". Or even just "adventurers". In a sandbox the players can go anywhere but that doesn't necessarily mean anything goes. It comes down to play style, and if the GM is willing and able to run a certain type of game then the players should try and be aware of it.

Edit: I agree that if the players really want to be pirates then the GM should be open to saying "ok, let's play a game about pirates", but he or she should also be willing to say "that's not what I want or feel able to run" if that's genuinely the case. Personally I'd probably be up for running a game about pirates, but I can think of games I wouldn't be keen on. Mystery-solving or court espionage for example. Nothing against it, just I have neither the skill nor the inclination to run it - and as I said I'm a person playing the game too, I'm not a CPU.




And when it comes to the plot, again most players will just sit around, unless motivated. I've seen players sit around, having their characters pretend to drink in a tavern, and then complain the game is boring.

Though I'd never let that happen now a days. Five minutes of pretend drinking and the tavern will explode and hurl the characters into The Abyss....

I've seen players sit around unmotivated, and I've been one of those players. The thing is, I know this is old ground and no one seems to have convinced you of it yet, but there is a middle ground between giving the players nothing and insisting they make their own fun, and forcing them down a single strict and undeviating path.

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: No they aren't the same, but a certain level my response is the same: Examine them for their merits, counter the flaws and build off the good parts. How much of each I tend to find however varies drastically.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've seen players sit around unmotivated, and I've been one of those players. The thing is, I know this is old ground and no one seems to have convinced you of it yet, but there is a middle ground between giving the players nothing and insisting they make their own fun, and forcing them down a single strict and undeviating path.


To me, the argument from that side has come across as the other way around -- "I firmly believe that the only proper way to run a game is to force the players down a single strict and undeviating path, so I'm going to keep asserting that the only alternative is giving the players nothing and insisting they make their own fun."

[BRC]

The vast majority of players I know will just say ''I want to play D&D'' and don't have anything else to say.

And when it comes to the plot, again most players will just sit around, unless motivated. I've seen players sit around, having their characters pretend to drink in a tavern, and then complain the game is boring.

Though I'd never let that happen now a days. Five minutes of pretend drinking and the tavern will explode and hurl the characters into The Abyss....

Define "Motivated"?

Like, if your PC's are in a tavern, which of the following is the LOWEST number that you would consider "Motivation" for the players to get out and adventure. What is the lowest number that you consider "Railroading"

if 0 is "Do nothing, remind the PC's that adventure exists outside the tavern".

1 is something like "you overhear two locals discussing strange sounds coming from the old ruins near town" (offer a vague plot hook)

2 is "The Bartender gestures over to a cloaked figure in the corner and says 'Hey, that guy wants to talk to you about something'" (Offer a specific plot hook directed at the PCs)

3 is "Somebody bursts into the tavern shouting 'THE ORCS ARE ATTACKING THE TOWN! EVERYBODY TO ARMS!" (Offer an immediate, but technically refusable plot hook)

4 is the Orcs attack the tavern, everybody must either fight, flee, or get cut down. (Offer a plot hook that must be addressed immediately, but doesn't require follow up, since the PC's could just choose to flee rather than engaging the orcs)

5 is "The Tavern is suddenly sucked into the abyss. If you wish to survive, you'll need to navigate this demon-filled abyssal fortress to find a portal out" (The PC's have no choice but to resolve the plot hook in it's entirety, following it to the DM's pre-determined conclusion)

[kyoryu]

The vast majority of players I know will just say ''I want to play D&D'' and don't have anything else to say.

And when it comes to the plot, again most players will just sit around, unless motivated. I've seen players sit around, having their characters pretend to drink in a tavern, and then complain the game is boring.

That's easy to solve. Don't just say "let's play D&D!". Say "let's play a D&D game where the characters overthrow the king!" (or whatever).

(and no, that's not railroading)

[HidesHisEyes]

To me, the argument from that side has come across as the other way around -- "I firmly believe that the only proper way to run a game is to force the players down a single strict and undeviating path, so I'm going to keep asserting that the only alternative is giving the players nothing and insisting they make their own fun."

Yes I think you're right.

Darth Ultron, your position seems to come down to "everyone railroads even if they say they don't, because the only possible alternative is completely random games where nothing interesting happens. The thing is, as others have pointed out, this only works if you expand the definition of "railroading" to "anything that limits the players' power over what happens". Obviously that includes things like locked doors, cliffs, walls, the absence of flying cars... yes these things impede the players' freedom but the players aren't trying to play Minecraft on creative mode, they're trying to play an RPG, and that means limitations are inherent. The question of railroading and player agency is about how far the choices they are logically able to make have meaningful effects.

[Darth Ultron]

I've seen players sit around unmotivated, and I've been one of those players. The thing is, I know this is old ground and no one seems to have convinced you of it yet, but there is a middle ground between giving the players nothing and insisting they make their own fun, and forcing them down a single strict and undeviating path.

There is no middle ground though. The players can motivate themselves, but if they don't then the game goes no where unless the DM does something.


Define "Motivated"?

Like, if your PC's are in a tavern, which of the following is the LOWEST number that you would consider "Motivation" for the players to get out and adventure. What is the lowest number that you consider "Railroading"

Only five looks like railroading to me.

Though for unmotivated players 0-4 is just a waste of time.


That's easy to solve. Don't just say "let's play D&D!". Say "let's play a D&D game where the characters overthrow the king!" (or whatever).

(and no, that's not railroading)

Except when the players don't care....they still don't care. And you might get the players to say yes to a vague idea, but unless they have some motivation things won't go anywhere unless the DM does something.




Darth Ultron, your position seems to come down to "everyone railroads even if they say they don't, because the only possible alternative is completely random games where nothing interesting happens.


A random game can sure be interesting, but it can't have a lot of detail, make sense or be complex.




he question of railroading and player agency is about how far the choices they are logically able to make have meaningful effects.

The big draw of a RPG is the ''choose your own adventure''. But the agency side go beyond far to the players, somehow, creating the adventure. And sure the DM can sit back and wait for the players to do something....but then the DM has to create and control that ''something''. But one second after that your back to a normal game, as everyone says they are not doing the ''co-dm'' thing where the players can alter the game world reality on a whim.

So after that one second of freedom, the game is just ''pick from the DMs choices''. And even if the players do a ''wacky'' thing the DM did not see coming, it still has to be from something the DM had previously mentioned. The players can't just say ''there is a gnome army over there and they help us'', but they can remember when the DM said ''the gnome army is over there, but is neutral'' and they can go take actions to try to get the gnome army to help.

[BRC]

There is no middle ground though. The players can motivate themselves, but if they don't then the game goes no where unless the DM does something.



Only five looks like railroading to me.

Though for unmotivated players 0-4 is just a waste of time.
Those are some very, very unmotivated players.

If I had players sit around and keep drinking after #2, I would pause the game to ask if they're sure they wanted to play D&D.

because if the players are not interested in playing the game, then dragging them along, kicking and screaming, isn't a good time for anybody.

[kyoryu]

There is no middle ground though. The players can motivate themselves, but if they don't then the game goes no where unless the DM does something.

There is a middle ground. The middle ground is "the GM provides interesting, compelling events, but not a specific solution to them."

I often call them "plot grenades". You *have to* move, but not necessarily in any particular direction.

[Max_Killjoy]

There is a middle ground. The middle ground is "the GM provides interesting, compelling events, but not a specific solution to them."

I often call them "plot grenades". You *have to* move, but not necessarily in any particular direction.

"Plot grenade" -- I love it.

Run, dive for cover, someone take one for the team and jump on it, "reality hack" the thing, whatever -- but you better do SOMETHING.

[kyoryu]

"Plot grenade" -- I love it.

Run, dive for cover, someone take one for the team and jump on it, "reality hack" the thing, whatever -- but you better do SOMETHING.

Exactly. The only thing you *can't* do is nothing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Exactly. The only thing you *can't* do is nothing.


Yeah. :smallbiggrin:

And (since I guess it needs to be said here) it's not railroading. You're not forcing the players into one course of action, you're just giving them reason to take some course of action of their choosing.

[Darth Ultron]

because if the players are not interested in playing the game, then dragging them along, kicking and screaming, isn't a good time for anybody.

See, that is the tricky part: the players want to play D&D. They just don't want to motivate themselves.


There is a middle ground. The middle ground is "the GM provides interesting, compelling events, but not a specific solution to them."


Except, again, if the players are not motivated they will not do anything. Like say the DM takes two hours detailing every little detail of his novel little world, gives the players so vague something to do and then just sits back and says ''ok, do something''. Sure like one in a hundred players will have taken notes of all the details, looked through them all and come up with a plan and solution. The other 99 players will sit there and be like ''ok, what do we do now?"

And it's kinda impossible for the DM to not provide solutions.




And (since I guess it needs to be said here) it's not railroading. You're not forcing the players into one course of action, you're just giving them reason to take some course of action of their choosing.

Sounds like railroading to me though...

DM wants players to ''do x'', so tosses out the plot grenade. And then the players ''do x'', and it does not matter ''how'', as long as they do it. But your saying it's only a railroad if it is like: DM wants players to do X, so says ''you will do X and here is the plan you must follow'', and the players are good followers and follow the DMs plan to do X.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sounds like railroading to me though...

DM wants players to ''do x'', so tosses out the plot grenade. And then the players ''do x'', and it does not matter ''how'', as long as they do it. But your saying it's only a railroad if it is like: DM wants players to do X, so says ''you will do X and here is the plan you must follow'', and the players are good followers and follow the DMs plan to do X.


How on earth can you read what we actually wrote in plain English right there on the page, which is that the GM says "Here's an event/thing/challenge/problem/fact, now do something -- anything you can come up with -- about it... the only thing you can't do is nothing, or you get utter failure/shame/death/dishonor"...

...and turn that into "The GM says do X."


Just... how?



It's NOT "do X", it's "do something, do anything, as long as it's not nothing and it's conceivably possible within the context of the setting". It's giving the players a vast array of options, which lead off in a functionally infinite number of different ways.


:confused:

[Darth Ultron]

Just... how?

:confused:

Well, the idea was a DM tossed out a ''plot grenade'' : where a DM provides interesting, compelling events, but not a specific solution to them. So the DM is providing ''event x'' for the players to react to and ''do''. But they can ''do'' it anyway they want, picking from anything the DM has described in the setting.

But it's ''not'' the DM saying ''do x''?

Like say you have some players just sitting around. The DM mentions ''an evil red dragon has attacked the nearby town of Plotdale''. Then the DM just sits back. Then the players say ''hey, lets go kill that dragon...it is better then doing nothing.'' So the players are now doing X, that is ''saving Plotdale/taking care of the dragon''. The players are free to come up with any wild and wacky plan they want....as long as it saves Plotdale/takes care of the dragon.

So how would the game be any different if it was the DM just saying ''Ok, you all head over to Plotdale to help them with their dragon problem''?

[kyoryu]

Well, the idea was a DM tossed out a ''plot grenade'' : where a DM provides interesting, compelling events, but not a specific solution to them. So the DM is providing ''event x'' for the players to react to and ''do''. But they can ''do'' it anyway they want, picking from anything the DM has described in the setting.

But it's ''not'' the DM saying ''do x''?

Like say you have some players just sitting around. The DM mentions ''an evil red dragon has attacked the nearby town of Plotdale''. Then the DM just sits back. Then the players say ''hey, lets go kill that dragon...it is better then doing nothing.'' So the players are now doing X, that is ''saving Plotdale/taking care of the dragon''. The players are free to come up with any wild and wacky plan they want....as long as it saves Plotdale/takes care of the dragon.

So how would the game be any different if it was the DM just saying ''Ok, you all head over to Plotdale to help them with their dragon problem''?

GM saying "here's a problem" isn't railroading, especially if the players have agreed to play a game that's about that problem.

GM saying "you will do this, then this, then this, then this" is railroading. See, because it's like you get on a train, and you have no control over where you're going, you just have to go where the train takes you, because it's on tracks. That's why it's called "railroading". Because you're on a track, and have no control over where you go. Maybe you can wander around the train car a bit, but you have to follow the tracks. Because it's a railroad.

And, ideally, saying you "have to" respond to the plot grenade really means "you're not being literally forced to, but the consequences of ignoring the event are sufficiently bad that the players are motivated to deal with it." So "Go save Plotsburg!" isn't really a plot grenade. "Hey, a dragon is attacking your town RIGHT NOW" is. You can fight the dragon, or negotiate with it, or lure it off, or rally the townsfolk, or even just run away, but the one thing you can't do is just sit there.

An example of a plot grenade I've used in an actual game is "one of the demon-infested people shows up at your door, asking for help." Even if you technically do nothing, *that* has repercussions as well. But the players could help her, or try to capture her, or kill her, or slam the door in her face and then follow her (which is what they did, and not what I expected).

[OldTrees1]

Well, the idea was a DM tossed out a ''plot grenade'' : where a DM provides interesting, compelling events, but not a specific solution to them. So the DM is providing ''event x'' for the players to react to and ''do''. But they can ''do'' it anyway they want, picking from anything the DM has described in the setting.

But it's ''not'' the DM saying ''do x''?

Like say you have some players just sitting around. The DM mentions ''an evil red dragon has attacked the nearby town of Plotdale''. Then the DM just sits back. Then the players say ''hey, lets go kill that dragon...it is better then doing nothing.'' So the players are now doing X, that is ''saving Plotdale/taking care of the dragon''. The players are free to come up with any wild and wacky plan they want....as long as it saves Plotdale/takes care of the dragon.

So how would the game be any different if it was the DM just saying ''Ok, you all head over to Plotdale to help them with their dragon problem''?

1) The Player controlling their character vs The DM deciding the actions the PCs take

Max Killjoy did not decide the PCs would go to Plotdale in this example
Darth Ultron did decide the PCs would go to Plotdale in his example



2) The Player deciding their character's reaction vs The DM deciding the reaction the PCs will have

Max Killjoy did not specify the reaction the PCs would take. Sure the Players might decide to go help Plotdale, or they could go seek employment with the Dragon, or they could fortify the defenses of the city they are currently in, or several other possible reactions, or they help Plotdale without going there, or they could advance their own agendas while the competition is distracted, or ... etc etc
Darth Ultron decided the PCs would react by going to Plotdale with the motive of seeking to solve their dragon problem.




Those are 2 differences between the open ended "React" and the railroading "Do this".

[HidesHisEyes]

The big draw of a RPG is the ''choose your own adventure''. But the agency side go beyond far to the players, somehow, creating the adventure. And sure the DM can sit back and wait for the players to do something....but then the DM has to create and control that ''something''. But one second after that your back to a normal game, as everyone says they are not doing the ''co-dm'' thing where the players can alter the game world reality on a whim.


I think you're conflating "railroading" with "the work the GM has to do". I do see the point you're making: as soon as the PCs decide what to do next the control goes back to the GM as he creates game elements (either on the fly or in advance for the next session) based on their choice, to give them something to play. That's not railroading, that's just the GM doing his job. Yes the players now have less freedom than they had before, assuming they commit to doing what they said they were going to do (and I find it problematic if they don't), but the important thing is they still made the choice. Railroading is when they don't get to make the choice, or when they do but the GM just contrives a way to make their choice lead to what he had in mind all along.


There is a middle ground. The middle ground is "the GM provides interesting, compelling events, but not a specific solution to them."

I often call them "plot grenades". You *have to* move, but not necessarily in any particular direction.

Yeah I'm gonna jump on this bandwagon. What a great term! I'd add that a plot grenade doesn't have to be as immediate as a dragon attacking the town. The solo campaign I'm currently running has as its main story the fact that the PC has accidentally unleashed her evil Plane of Shadows counterpart on the world. The Shadow is now roaming around killing people and eating their souls, and since she looks like the PC the PC is now wanted for the murders. She didn't have to do anything immediately but she has to do something about it sooner or later. That plot grenade leaves her immediate freedom intact but guides the course of the campaign.

[Koo Rehtorb]

DM wants players to ''do x'', so tosses out the plot grenade. And then the players ''do x'', and it does not matter ''how'', as long as they do it. But your saying it's only a railroad if it is like: DM wants players to do X, so says ''you will do X and here is the plan you must follow'', and the players are good followers and follow the DMs plan to do X.

I'm fully aware that I'm shouting into the wind at this point but...

"The way house you're in is being attacked by bandits."

Railroading: "You must kill the bandits."

Not Railroading: "What do you do about it?" This opens up the PCs to kill the bandits, sure. It also lets them, say, try to negotiate with the bandits. It also gives them the possibility to flee from the way house and run away. Or possibly some other reaction that I've spent more than two seconds thinking of. They can do what they like, they just can't do nothing.

[Darth Ultron]

GM saying "here's a problem" isn't railroading, especially if the players have agreed to play a game that's about that problem.


Right, so if the DM gets approval from the players before hand it is not railroading, but if the DM does not...then it is.



GM saying "you will do this, then this, then this, then this" is railroading. See, because it's like you get on a train, and you have no control over where you're going, you just have to go where the train takes you, because it's on tracks. That's why it's called "railroading". Because you're on a track, and have no control over where you go. Maybe you can wander around the train car a bit, but you have to follow the tracks. Because it's a railroad..

Well, what about ''the PCs are on the train to Tombstone, and they can do whatever they want to on the train but they still will end up in Tombstone. The Pcs can fight a mummy in the baggage car, talk to a god in the dining car, fight a werefox in a sleeping car, encounter a vile wizard in the caboose, eat some sushi in the bath car and talk to the engineer...all on the train, while it is still going to Tombstone. The PC's are free to..somewhat..pick and choose some of the encounters on the train..somewhat in any order they want...sometimes, but unless they go to an extreme, they won't effect the train.



"The way house you're in is being attacked by bandits."

Railroading: "You must kill the bandits."

Not Railroading: "What do you do about it?" This opens up the PCs to kill the bandits, sure. It also lets them, say, try to negotiate with the bandits. It also gives them the possibility to flee from the way house and run away. Or possibly some other reaction that I've spent more than two seconds thinking of. They can do what they like, they just can't do nothing.

This reduces railroading to just the jerk tyrant DM. It's like saying it is only stealing if you steal more then $500 or it is only a murder if the person is famous.

[thirdkingdom]

Right, so if the DM gets approval from the players before hand it is not railroading, but if the DM does not...then it is.



Well, what about ''the PCs are on the train to Tombstone, and they can do whatever they want to on the train but they still will end up in Tombstone. The Pcs can fight a mummy in the baggage car, talk to a god in the dining car, fight a werefox in a sleeping car, encounter a vile wizard in the caboose, eat some sushi in the bath car and talk to the engineer...all on the train, while it is still going to Tombstone. The PC's are free to..somewhat..pick and choose some of the encounters on the train..somewhat in any order they want...sometimes, but unless they go to an extreme, they won't effect the train.



This reduces railroading to just the jerk tyrant DM. It's like saying it is only stealing if you steal more then $500 or it is only a murder if the person is famous.

You're just messing with us now, aren't you.

[Max_Killjoy]

Right, so if the DM gets approval from the players before hand it is not railroading, but if the DM does not...then it is.


Your ability to extract things from people's posts that they never actually said is astounding.

[thirdkingdom]

Your ability to extract things from people's posts that they never actually said is astounding.

It's actually a really difficult to qualify for prestige class.

[BRC]

See, that is the tricky part: the players want to play D&D. They just don't want to motivate themselves.

If the DM says "Hey, this guy over here wants to hire you to go on an adventure", and the Players can't bring themselves to have their characters stand up and go talk to the guy, the problem isn't a lack of Motivation, the problem is that the players don't want to play D&D.

In my experience, people who sit down at the table are actively seeking plot hooks. They'll wander towards whatever seems most likely to contain Adventure.
Sure, I guess if you drop them in a tavern, then expect them to leave it seeking Adventures on their own you might be disappointed, but that's probably not due to a lack of motivation, that's because they assume you started them in the tavern for a reason. They're waiting for the plot hook to happen.

If the plot hook happens, and they don't react, then they probably don't want to go on an adventure today.

If you lead the horse the water, and it doesn't drink, the answer is that it isn't thirsty, not that you need to push it in.


Except, again, if the players are not motivated they will not do anything. Like say the DM takes two hours detailing every little detail of his novel little world, gives the players so vague something to do and then just sits back and says ''ok, do something''. Sure like one in a hundred players will have taken notes of all the details, looked through them all and come up with a plan and solution. The other 99 players will sit there and be like ''ok, what do we do now?"

So you don't spend two hours, that's information overload.

You spend two to five minutes outlining the salient features of the scenario.

And, in a way, you "Provide Solutions", in that you created the problem, but there's a difference between "Creating a scenario that has solutions" and verbally listing them out like a multiple choice question.



DM wants players to ''do x'', so tosses out the plot grenade. And then the players ''do x'', and it does not matter ''how'', as long as they do it. But your saying it's only a railroad if it is like: DM wants players to do X, so says ''you will do X and here is the plan you must follow'', and the players are good followers and follow the DMs plan to do X.
Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. Welcome to the definition of railroading used by everybody else.
Part of the social contract that makes the game work is the idea that the GM provides adventure, and the Players follow that adventure. If the GM says "Here's a dragon for you to slay", the expectation is that the players are willing to go slay the dragon. They could refuse, they have that power, but the 90% case is that they'll agree to go kill the dragon. If they reject the scenario altogether for no good reason, then they're just wasting everybody's time.

That said,there is a lot they can do within the scenario to write their own story. There are hundreds of ways to resolve the standard "Dragon is pillaging the countryside" plot, and the players get to craft their own.

X is done, but there's more to both the game and the story than just saying "Okay, we kill the dragon. Huzzah". In fact, the DECISION to stop the dragon is barely even a factor in the experience. The Experience comes from the planning, the roleplay, and the fight itself, which is where Player Agency happens.

Is any of this getting through?

[Max_Killjoy]

DM wants players to ''do x'', so tosses out the plot grenade. And then the players ''do x'', and it does not matter ''how'', as long as they do it. But your saying it's only a railroad if it is like: DM wants players to do X, so says ''you will do X and here is the plan you must follow'', and the players are good followers and follow the DMs plan to do X.




Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. Welcome to the definition of railroading used by everybody else.
Part of the social contract that makes the game work is the idea that the GM provides adventure, and the Players follow that adventure. If the GM says "Here's a dragon for you to slay", the expectation is that the players are willing to go slay the dragon. They could refuse, they have that power, but the 90% case is that they'll agree to go kill the dragon. If they reject the scenario altogether for no good reason, then they're just wasting everybody's time.

That said,there is a lot they can do within the scenario to write their own story. There are hundreds of ways to resolve the standard "Dragon is pillaging the countryside" plot, and the players get to craft their own.

X is done, but there's more to both the game and the story than just saying "Okay, we kill the dragon. Huzzah". In fact, the DECISION to stop the dragon is barely even a factor in the experience. The Experience comes from the planning, the roleplay, and the fight itself, which is where Player Agency happens.

Is any of this getting through?


I'd say the plot grenade isn't even "do X". It's "BOOM, here's X!" to which the players/PCs need to react.

[Segev]

"Plot grenade" -- I love it.

Run, dive for cover, someone take one for the team and jump on it, "reality hack" the thing, whatever -- but you better do SOMETHING.I think you'd need some sort of powerful grrl to do that.


There is no middle ground though. The players can motivate themselves, but if they don't then the game goes no where unless the DM does something.



Only five looks like railroading to me.

Though for unmotivated players 0-4 is just a waste of time.You honestly don't see how players motivated to play the game could be waiting about for something to happen and not get anywhere if the DM provides no hooks at all (or hides the hooks so that the players have to wander around at random, clicking on NPCs and listening to their dialog), or could flail about failing to find the hooks, but would happily latch on to a hook that's made obvious to them, without having to have the DM say "and then your characters agree to take this quest?"



A random game can sure be interesting, but it can't have a lot of detail, make sense or be complex. It'd be nice if your comments were actually replies to what you quoted, rather than non sequitors.

He didn't describe a random game. He described a detailed, complex game that wasn't a railroad.


The big draw of a RPG is the ''choose your own adventure''. But the agency side go beyond far to the players, somehow, creating the adventure. And sure the DM can sit back and wait for the players to do something....but then the DM has to create and control that ''something''. But one second after that your back to a normal game, as everyone says they are not doing the ''co-dm'' thing where the players can alter the game world reality on a whim.

So after that one second of freedom, the game is just ''pick from the DMs choices''. And even if the players do a ''wacky'' thing the DM did not see coming, it still has to be from something the DM had previously mentioned. The players can't just say ''there is a gnome army over there and they help us'', but they can remember when the DM said ''the gnome army is over there, but is neutral'' and they can go take actions to try to get the gnome army to help.Again, no. You're the only one putting up the straw man of "co-DMs altering reality."

"X happens; what do you do about it?" is not railroading. "X happens; A, B, and C are potential solutions, and OBVIOUSLY anything else is not going to work" is railroading. "X happens; the GM thinks A, B, and C are potential solutions, but considers what the players come up with and evaluates what will happen based on what he knows is going on" is not railroading. The difference between the second and the third is whether the GM has gone out of his way to justify to himself why nothing but A, B, and C could work and thus turns his "evaluation" to further justification of why anything else won't work.

We had an example of this a while back, with a DM who meant well, and genuinely tried to grant his players freedom, but had so scripted his scenario that only A, B, and C could work, because he'd determined that nothing else was "powerful enough" to help, and that the PCs couldn't, no matter what they tried, do it without A, B, or C helping. Because nobody else was able to be convinced who had power, and they were denied any other resources that would be useful.

He honestly didn't see why this was railroading. It amounted to railroading primarily because he so inflated the challenge that only his solutions could solve it. And the challenge was, honestly, unreasonably large for the scale it was being applied to. (A massive, unstoppable horde that could crush any forces the party could possibly have contacted for help, so those forces wouldn't help...but was focusing on this tiny outlying village rather than actually threatening the larger, juicier prizes that were too scared of them to oppose them.)


This reduces railroading to just the jerk tyrant DM. It's like saying it is only stealing if you steal more then $500 or it is only a murder if the person is famous.Your analogy makes no sense. A better analogy is that you're saying it's stealing to make somebody pay 100 gp for a glass of water in the desert, when we're saying that it's only stealing to take it if he's unwilling to trade for it. Or that you're saying it's murder to kill somebody, even if they were literally going to kill you if you didn't, while we're saying it's only murder to kill somebody who's not forcing you to choose between their life and another's.

Words mean things. "Steal" doesn't mean "obtain something." It means "obtain something without the permission of its current owner." "Railroad" doesn't mean "the GM does something other than randomly determine outcomes." It means "the GM is forcing the PCs to use the solutions he's chosen, and go to the scenes he's scripted, as he's scripted them."

[Koo Rehtorb]

This reduces railroading to just the jerk tyrant DM. It's like saying it is only stealing if you steal more then $500 or it is only a murder if the person is famous.

I think it would be best for everyone's sanity, including yours, if you realized that literally everyone except you defines "railroading" as what you define as "jerk tyrant DM railroading" and performed the appropriate mental substitutions.

You may or may not be slipping into jerk tyrant DM railroading yourself on occasion, but that's another topic.

[Jay R]

If the building is on fire, the only way out is the locked door, the only way to open it is to find the key, and the only way to find the key is to cast Detect Invisible, and the only way to cast Detect Invisible is to open the safe, and the only way to find the safe is to search the north wall, then that's a railroad plot. The PCs must:
Search the wall, find the safe, open the safe, find the scroll, use the scroll, find the key, unlock the door, and leave. They must reach each railway station, in the exact order, and the plot will not go anywhere else.

If the building is on fire, and I don't care how they get out, that's not railroading - even though I have determined that they must leave the room soon.

[kyoryu]

I think it would be best for everyone's sanity, including yours, if you realized that literally everyone except you defines "railroading" as what you define as "jerk tyrant DM railroading" and performed the appropriate mental substitutions.

You may or may not be slipping into jerk tyrant DM railroading yourself on occasion, but that's another topic.

The other thing worth pointing out is that there's something that doesn't seem to be clicking.

In non-railroading games, what the players do is *not* the GM's responsibility. What happens in the world *is*.

So, no, the GM doesn't decide what the players do. That is *literally* the definition of railroading.

So when I talk about plot grenades, they're not deciding that the players fight the dragon. They're deciding that the dragon does something that requires *some type* of response. Now, the more you tailor the dragon's action to try to dictate a single response, the more railroady you're getting.

And dictating what the world is doing isn't railroading, any more than playing one side in a chess match is controlling the other player.

[RazorChain]

I love this, you are still arguing with Darth Ultron about the definition of railroading. I'm going to call it the definition of futility

[Max_Killjoy]

I love this, you are still arguing with Darth Ultron about the definition of railroading. I'm going to call it the definition of futility


This seems to be conflating an exchange in a public forum, with a private discussion.

There's always a broader audience here, and some web searches actually show threads here on their list of results.

[Max_Killjoy]

The other thing worth pointing out is that there's something that doesn't seem to be clicking.

In non-railroading games, what the players do is *not* the GM's responsibility. What happens in the world *is*.

So, no, the GM doesn't decide what the players do. That is *literally* the definition of railroading.

So when I talk about plot grenades, they're not deciding that the players fight the dragon. They're deciding that the dragon does something that requires *some type* of response. Now, the more you tailor the dragon's action to try to dictate a single response, the more railroady you're getting.

And dictating what the world is doing isn't railroading, any more than playing one side in a chess match is controlling the other player.

If "other people in the world do something now" or "this is how the world responds to your actions" is railroading... then every one of us is being railroaded in real life every moment of every day.

[Friv]

You honestly don't see how players motivated to play the game could be waiting about for something to happen and not get anywhere if the DM provides no hooks at all (or hides the hooks so that the players have to wander around at random, clicking on NPCs and listening to their dialog), or could flail about failing to find the hooks, but would happily latch on to a hook that's made obvious to them, without having to have the DM say "and then your characters agree to take this quest?"
If any attempt to step outside the tightly defined railroad you're on led to failure, you'd be pretty unmotivated too.

[thirdkingdom]

The vast majority of players I know will just say ''I want to play D&D'' and don't have anything else to say.

And when it comes to the plot, again most players will just sit around, unless motivated. I've seen players sit around, having their characters pretend to drink in a tavern, and then complain the game is boring.

Though I'd never let that happen now a days. Five minutes of pretend drinking and the tavern will explode and hurl the characters into The Abyss....

This is something he said that caught my eye. Maybe I'm way out of touch with things, but I find it hard to believe that the "vast majority" of players don't have some opinion about the type of game they want to play in.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Yeah Darth Ultron either has the bad luck of stumbling into a handful of really terrible players or... he's trained his players to be helpless dependents with his DMing style, which I find more likely.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is something he said that caught my eye. Maybe I'm way out of touch with things, but I find it hard to believe that the "vast majority" of players don't have some opinion about the type of game they want to play in.



Yeah Darth Ultron either has the bad luck of stumbling into a handful of really terrible players or... he's trained his players to be helpless dependents with his DMing style, which I find more likely.


Given his past comments, I've wondered if players with any sort of independent initiative or who object to being boxed up in railcars aren't kicked out of his games as "jerk players". :smallconfused:

[ellindsey]

I have known players who refuse to do anything unless the GM drags them by the nose through the plotline, who need to be hand-held and personally delivered every plot hook to follow step by step.

I try to avoid gaming with people like that. As GMs, they are horrifically railroady. As players, they are completely non-self-motivated lumps who can drag the entire campaign to a halt unless you force them to proceed.

[thirdkingdom]

I have known players who refuse to do anything unless the GM drags them by the nose through the plotline, who need to be hand-held and personally delivered every plot hook to follow step by step.

I try to avoid gaming with people like that. As GMs, they are horrifically railroady. As players, they are completely non-self-motivated lumps who can drag the entire campaign to a halt unless you force them to proceed.

Sure. But do they comprise the "vast majority"?

[ellindsey]

Sure. But do they comprise the "vast majority"?

Not in my experience, but gaming groups tend to self-select. I don't invite passive players to my games, and tend to avoid games comprised of them. DU may have driven away all the players who aren't passive from his games.

[kyoryu]

Not in my experience, but gaming groups tend to self-select. I don't invite passive players to my games, and tend to avoid games comprised of them. DU may have driven away all the players who aren't passive from his games.

Based on his descriptions of how he runs things, I'd self-select out of his group in a hurry.

[Segev]

If any attempt to step outside the tightly defined railroad you're on led to failure, you'd be pretty unmotivated too.

Oh, absolutely. Which may be part of Darth_Ultron's problem with "unmotivated players." My point more is that 0-4 in that earlier list were increasingly obvious presentations of hooks. And in my experience, it takes almost actively not wanting to play to ignore 3 and 4.

And most players? They want to play. They're just looking for something to latch on to. They may be perceptive enough to pick up on something really subtle, or creative enough to invent something just by going out and getting involved somehow. Alternatively, they may be unable to see it if it isn't dancing on the table to get their attention. But they'll go for it if they perceive it.

It rarely require railroading, unless you're going beyond "hook is here" to "now here's the next hook onto how you will solve it." The latter is railroading. If you haven't left a blank canvas where nothing can happen if the PCs don't push the GM-provided "solve the problem" button, players WILL try things to solve the problem, as a general rule. The GM may or may not have thought of what they try.

[Max_Killjoy]

Based on his descriptions of how he runs things, I'd self-select out of his group in a hurry.


I suspect that his earlier statement (paraphrasing) "players never do stuff I haven't already anticipated and accounted for, and only bad GMs are ever surprised", is because any player capable of offering up any surprises is "a jerk", and is either booted from or leaves the table.

[kyoryu]

I suspect that his earlier statement (paraphrasing) "players never do stuff I haven't already anticipated and accounted for, and only bad GMs are ever surprised", is because any player capable of offering up any surprises is "a jerk", and is either booted from or leaves the table.

To be fair, I *have* had players, on asking them "okay, what are you trying to accomplish here?" tell me that not only had nobody ever asked them that, but they had not really had to think about that ever before.

So, there is some selection of the gaming public used to a model of "poke around until we find the 'next scene' button".

[HidesHisEyes]

If the building is on fire, the only way out is the locked door, the only way to open it is to find the key, and the only way to find the key is to cast Detect Invisible, and the only way to cast Detect Invisible is to open the safe, and the only way to find the safe is to search the north wall, then that's a railroad plot. The PCs must:
Search the wall, find the safe, open the safe, find the scroll, use the scroll, find the key, unlock the door, and leave. They must reach each railway station, in the exact order, and the plot will not go anywhere else.

If the building is on fire, and I don't care how they get out, that's not railroading - even though I have determined that they must leave the room soon.

Beautifully expressed.

I feel like this thread has become a sort of training ground for DMs and players to practice organising and articulating their thoughts, in ever more inventive and eloquent ways. I may have started the thread but we have Darth Ultron to thank for what it has become!

[HidesHisEyes]

To be fair, I *have* had players, on asking them "okay, what are you trying to accomplish here?" tell me that not only had nobody ever asked them that, but they had not really had to think about that ever before.

So, there is some selection of the gaming public used to a model of "poke around until we find the 'next scene' button".

Having played video games for years before I ever played a PnP RPG, and being used to poking around looking for the next scene button because of how most video games work, one of the great joys of RPGs for me was realising, once I realised it, that I could stop poking around and just stop and think "what would I do if I were my character right now?" and then just declare that I do that.

And as a DM perhaps the greatest joy is watching players new to the game realise the same thing. I find new players often look at their character sheets as a list of options for what they can do. I relish the little speech I give where I tell them to just declare what they're doing, and I will tell them what kind of check to make if any.

[Cluedrew]

This is something he said that caught my eye. Maybe I'm way out of touch with things, but I find it hard to believe that the "vast majority" of players don't have some opinion about the type of game they want to play in.One possible explanation is they haven't played different styles of D&D and so think "D&D" states the system and style. Considering Darth Ultron seems to get a lot of new players and to have a play style similar to CRPGs, that might be the case.

To HidesHisEyes: I will probably wish computer RPGs and table top/pen and paper role-playing games had gotten different names until the end of my days. I'm not going to claim that one is not a real role-playing game, but they are just so different to be grouped under the same title. You can see my attempted solution in this post.

[HidesHisEyes]

One possible explanation is they haven't played different styles of D&D and so think "D&D" states the system and style. Considering Darth Ultron seems to get a lot of new players and to have a play style similar to CRPGs, that might be the case.

To HidesHisEyes: I will probably wish computer RPGs and table top/pen and paper role-playing games had gotten different names until the end of my days. I'm not going to claim that one is not a real role-playing game, but they are just so different to be grouped under the same title. You can see my attempted solution in this post.

To the first part, yes it seems likely. To a new player it would make sense to assume "D&D is D&D", although probably not for long. As soon as the question of how much player agency there is - "what happens if we go the other way, do we fall off the edge of your graph paper?" to quote Community - comes up, whatever the answer is it's gonna be obvious that different people play different ways.

To the second part, yes it's unfortunate. All I can think is that the computer games were called RPGs because they were based on/inspired by the pen and paper RPGs of the time.

[Darth Ultron]

This is something he said that caught my eye. Maybe I'm way out of touch with things, but I find it hard to believe that the "vast majority" of players don't have some opinion about the type of game they want to play in.

I find most players just want to play D&D, and that is ''just play D&D as a single character''. They are not coming to the game with a list of demands for the DM and they are not trying to write a novel and force others to watch. They just want to play a character.


I suspect that his earlier statement (paraphrasing) "players never do stuff I haven't already anticipated and accounted for, and only bad GMs are ever surprised", is because any player capable of offering up any surprises is "a jerk", and is either booted from or leaves the table.

I am selective on who is a player in my group. The odd immature player that shows up with a list of demands, will get sent away from my game quick.

[ComradeBear]

>mfw people are still engaging DU on this subject after nearly 10 pages
http://i.imgur.com/NXfIstj.jpg

>mfw there are no brakes on the Darth Ultrain. Especially when it derails.
https://media.giphy.com/media/k70Lyla434g0M/giphy.gif

[OldTrees1]

>mfw people are still engaging DU on this subject after nearly 10 pages
http://i.imgur.com/NXfIstj.jpg

>mfw there are no brakes on the Darth Ultrain. Especially when it derails.
https://media.giphy.com/media/k70Lyla434g0M/giphy.gif

Darth Ultron threadcraps on threads related to DMing and Player agency. The length of the thread is not really a factor since he will threadcrap another thread when this one starts to dry up.

Hopefully the mods will eventually see something they will consider worthy to act upon. Until then we have to live with the threads he threadcraps.

[kyoryu]

Darth Ultron threadcraps on threads related to DMing and Player agency. The length of the thread is not really a factor since he will threadcrap another thread when this one starts to dry up.

Hopefully the mods will eventually see something they will consider worthy to act upon. Until then we have to live with the threads he threadcraps.

Really, it's best to keep the attention focused here.

[Segev]

I find most players just want to play D&D, and that is ''just play D&D as a single character''. They are not coming to the game with a list of demands for the DM and they are not trying to write a novel and force others to watch. They just want to play a character.


Since you're the only one who's suggested players have "a list of demands" and want to play more than just their character, I don't see how this addresses anything anybody else has said.

Of course they want to play a character. What they may not want is to play the part you've scripted out for them in your pre-designed screenplay.

"Bob wouldn't want to kill the goblin kids. He'd want to take them back to town and try to get them raised by somebody who might help them not grow up evil." "You can't do that; then I won't have undead goblin zombie babies to attack you with later!"

[Enixon]

Really, it's best to keep the attention focused here.

:vaarsuvius: I weep bitter tears for this thread, which dies a little each day so that other discussions may live.