PDA

View Full Version : Venting about Metagaming and Railroading



Galithar
2020-01-28, 01:20 AM
Okay, so first thing I want to say is I'm not holding this against my DM. I just have some issues with how tonight's session went down that I need to vent out.

The system is D&D 5e.
Important characters are my Diviner Wizard and a Grave Cleric. The bad guy is a former party member (Half-Orc Barbarian with a Homebrew subclass) turned into an large size Alpha Werewolf.

The scenario is that a bad guy ran past the entire party (taking AoO as appropriate) to 1 round kill an NPC. First thing that irked me was he got no death saving throws, but that's up to the DM to decide who outside of PCs get those anyways so not really a big deal. He then proceeds to book it out of combat at full speed. My Wizard casts a wall of Force (in the shape of a box) to trap him until we can deal with the rest of the encounter (who weren't retreating)

Two rounds later we surrounded the Big guy, and the party calls out that they are readying actions for when I drop the wall. This prompts everyone to get a readied action (including the big guy) and we proceed in normal initiative order. Now this wouldn't be a big deal, except that we were limited to a readied action (no multi-attack, no bonus actions etc) while the big guy made his full multi-attack AND moved to begin fleeing again. This is a sore spot for me because the bad guy clearly got to circumvent a rule that we were forced to adhere to. This includes him having moved out of range of 2 readied actions (my wizard and a Bladelocks Booming Blade)

Finally we're chasing him down (we can't really keep up) and can tell he is ALMOST dead (later revealed to have had 6 hp left) and he has us make perception checks to determine if we still see him through the trees he is running to. Our Cleric can see him, but is told it would be into 3/4 cover. He says he's going to Guiding Bolt and I mention that I'm going to use Portent to make the roll a 13 (22 after Modifiers) to which the DM says that would miss. This was said out of game, and had it been MY character making the attack roll I would have stuck with using my Portent, but because I didn't want to feel like I was FORCING another player to miss an attack I 'took his advice' and let him roll. He got an 11 and missed. It later came out that the targets AC (after cover) would have been 22 and that my Portent would have caused a hit. Had I used my Portent and "missed" when the mistake was found he would have retconned it as a hit. This irritated me because I know this very powerful enemy will be back, but should have died had I not let the DM metagaming influence my decision (which was in turn Metagaming because I had every intention of using that Portent but didn't want to make my ally miss an attack when he had prior knowledge that my action would cause a miss, even though it should have been a hit!!)


I just generally felt very railroaded that this NPC was going to die, and that this bad guy was going to escape regardless of what we did. Also the bad guy "consumed his soul" preventing us from resurrecting the NPC (though we used a 500gp diamond trying anyways...)

Kaptin Keen
2020-01-28, 02:30 AM
Well none of this is metagaming. But it sounds like a really bad case of teenage DM. He decided what was going to happen ahead of time, then had precisely that happen regardless of player actions. Frankly, if you had dealt more damage, the BBEG would have had more HP.

Galithar
2020-01-28, 02:59 AM
Well none of this is metagaming. But it sounds like a really bad case of teenage DM. He decided what was going to happen ahead of time, then had precisely that happen regardless of player actions. Frankly, if you had dealt more damage, the BBEG would have had more HP.

Calling out game stats to a character when they declare an action is the meta-gaming. He pulled a number (that was wrong) to tell me my action wouldn't work out of the game. That gave me as a player the metagame knowledge that my intended action would fail, and I let that change my course of action. Had he told me it would fail and then had me keep the decision to use the ability anyways then it wouldn't be Metagaming it would have simply been him declaring the outcome of an action.

The rest is just railroady. And we ARE in a published module, but this particular character we were fighting was added due to a party member that wanted to change characters having their character run off to join Strahd.


I let most things go, but that little bit of metagame is what really bothered me. He said something out of the game that I had to either heed, or knowingly force an ally to fail. And then finding out by him doing this it caused the bad guy to escape because my action SHOULD have caused a minimum of 6 damage (4th level Guiding Bolt is 6d6) He tracks HP on a paper that he will show us after combat if we ask which is how we knew how much he had left in the first place.

Another reason it feels so sour to me is that the same perception check that the Cleric made one of our Warlocks made (controlled by me tonight because the player was missing) rolled HIGHER on the check and was told that all she found was our teammate (Tabaxi that could keep up for a limited time and had been knocked to 0) on the ground bleeding. Again she would have had two chances to hit AC 17-22 with a +9 modifier and a minimum of 6 damage (Eldritch Blast w/Agonizing and a Cha of 20)

I just really felt like my character and the character I controlled were not given the same opportunities to impact things as the others were.

CombatBunny
2020-01-28, 12:57 PM
Your venting has been heard.

As I see it, you have a DM with good intentions and good ideas, but that still has some aspects to improve. One of the hardest aspects that many DMs go through is to learn to prepare sessions as a game not as a story.

He is not being unfair unconsciously; I imagine that his plan in his mind was something like:

“Woah! It would be super cool if PCs confront NPC and the PCs have the upper hand, but when the villain realizes he is overpowered, he runs into the woods and when the PCs finally catch him, they realize how a new villain even more powerful engulfs his soul and becomes the next super cool antagonist that the party will have to defeat in the future, just not now”.

But because he thinks it would be dull to simply describe all of this, he wants you to experience it and live it through your PCs so that it feels more personal. He designs layouts and stat blocks for this to happen, but because RPGs are all about unexpected outcomes, moreover when you include in your adventure things like “They barely survive”, “In the last moment”, “With his last spell”, everything crumbles, the DM enters in panic and begins to try to justify everything. Being you the more knowledgeable player and the one with the best ideas, is obvious that you are jeopardizing his efforts to keep his original idea and that’s why he cancels and blocks you more severely than the other players.

As I said, his intentions are good, his ideas are neat, it’s just that he is planning with many outcomes already in mind which fails to work in RPG adventure design. Matter of experience and improving.

Droid Tony
2020-01-28, 05:33 PM
As I said, his intentions are good, his ideas are neat, it’s just that he is planning with many outcomes already in mind which fails to work in RPG adventure design. Matter of experience and improving.

Yea, this is a classic. Lets see the Mistakes:

1. The DM let a NPC they wanted to keep alive get close to the PCs. Really, this one is simple: If you want a NPC to live, keep them away from the PCs.

2.The DM made a weak foe. Another simple one. The characters sure have a TON of power....and the bad guy is what a werewolf? See a Werewolf Barbarian is not really at the power level of Party Foe. Even more so if your going by the book where the werewolf has...er...sharp claws and the party has at least TWO powerful spellcasters.

3.The DM made a foe with no escape plan. This is just a classic newbee mistake. Smart foes have escape plans. And the plan is never ''run away in a straight line and be a target for the party".

Really, because 5E brought back the awesome to D&D, all your DM needed to say was ''the foe fades away to black and is gone and nothing you do can stop them".

The end. The foe gets away. The game rolls on.

5E is not a slave to the rules like 3.5E was: The DM can just say things happen.

And if the players were going to nitpick, all the DM needed to do was make a better foe rule/magic/mechanical wise so that the foe could escape with a ''23'' to the characters ''22'' or whatever number. And the players would accept that number play.

And most of ALL, of course, the DM could have taken ''option three" like:

1.Ok...you kill the werewolf guy....but he comes BACK! Raised from the dead, undead, a clone, a time copy, a twin...whatever.

2.Evil ally #2 swoops in to save the werewolf.

3.Ok wolf boy is dead....whatever...now meet the new, real foe!

EggKookoo
2020-02-22, 08:30 AM
Well none of this is metagaming. But it sounds like a really bad case of teenage DM. He decided what was going to happen ahead of time, then had precisely that happen regardless of player actions. Frankly, if you had dealt more damage, the BBEG would have had more HP.

Right, he let his cards show. An experienced version of the same DM would have managed to let the BBEG get away without you realizing he pulled any stunts to do it.

Not defending him, but his "crime" wasn't in steering the game a certain way. It was that he let you feel steered.

JNAProductions
2020-02-22, 12:23 PM
My advice? Talk to the DM. Vent your frustrations, but do so in a polite fashion. (No accusations! Don't say "You screwed up," say something more like "Can you do better next time?")

To address a specific point, most monsters and NPCs don't have Extra Attack, they have Multiattack-which lets them do their whole attack routine on a readied action. (Not movement, though-that's a little horse malarky.)

But really, just explain to the DM why you didn't have as much fun as you could've that session, and try to get them to do better in the future. If you can, get support from the other players to reinforce your point. And definitely do this BETWEEN sessions-don't do this at the start of a session.

King of Nowhere
2020-02-22, 02:53 PM
Frankly, if you had dealt more damage, the BBEG would have had more HP.

not necessarily. i've been guilty of giving slight boosts to villains when i feel it would make for a better fight, but one thing is to add 10 hit points, another is to add 100. there's not only "railroading" and "not railroading". there's also "giving a slight nudge", in which case putting in the extra effort will allow the players to jump off the rails.

EggKookoo
2020-02-22, 04:15 PM
Beginners try to make unkillable BBEGs by boosting HP or fudging die rolls.

Experienced DMs do it by just not giving them stats (or at least HP).

Galithar
2020-02-23, 01:34 AM
Well with the forums being down this is well in the past. Multiple sessions have happened, including the resolution of the campaign. Strahd is dead, as is the werewolf that was allowed to escape when he should have died.

It's still a little sour, but I got to thoroughly piss off and then trounce the Werewolf the next time we encountered him.

As I said at the beginning I was just here to vent.

icefractal
2020-02-23, 05:37 AM
Really, because 5E brought back the awesome to D&D, all your DM needed to say was ''the foe fades away to black and is gone and nothing you do can stop them".

The end. The foe gets away. The game rolls on.YMMV obviously, but - I would think that was crap, honestly. If the GM was otherwise really good and/or a friend, I'd put up with it a few times, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

If I just wanted to experience a non-interactive story, I could watch a movie or show, which would have professional quality writing and acting, cool visual effects, music, etc. Or read a book. Even if it happens rarely, the fact that the players could jump the rails entirely and take the story in a different direction than was planned is fairly essential, I feel.


1.Ok...you kill the werewolf guy....but he comes BACK! Raised from the dead, undead, a clone, a time copy, a twin...whatever.

2.Evil ally #2 swoops in to save the werewolf.Again, YMMV, and since these tropes are commonly seen in media obviously a number of people do enjoy them.

But personally - are you on a limited SFX budget or something? Did you get a famous actor to play the original villain and you need to keep him there for ratings? What is the benefit of keeping the same villain that outweighs player agency, when as the GM you have limitless potential to create new ones?

Not saying these ideas are inherently wrong or anything, they're just puzzling to me.

EggKookoo
2020-02-23, 07:07 AM
YMMV obviously, but - I would think that was crap, honestly. If the GM was otherwise really good and/or a friend, I'd put up with it a few times, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

If I just wanted to experience a non-interactive story, I could watch a movie or show, which would have professional quality writing and acting, cool visual effects, music, etc. Or read a book. Even if it happens rarely, the fact that the players could jump the rails entirely and take the story in a different direction than was planned is fairly essential, I feel.

It's still all about proper sleight-of-hand. I could create an encounter that I've pre-decided you won't win, and the bad guy will fade away before being killed, but present it in such a way that you're not aware that I made that decision. The bad guy could have some contingency magic item, or be under the effect of something that triggers his escape. It would feel, to you, like you actually had a chance at killing him but I would know that was never going to happen.

If I ran an encounter and you realized I was pulling something like that, my mistake wasn't in having a non-killable creature but in letting you perceive that I had done so.

Pleh
2020-02-23, 11:17 AM
My advice? Talk to the DM. Vent your frustrations, but do so in a polite fashion. (No accusations! Don't say "You screwed up," say something more like "Can you do better next time?")

Yes, OP you have our sympathy for your frustration. Many here would feel the same. JNAP has the right response. Your DM wants people to have fun at the game, so just tell them politely why this did the opposite for you. They will hopefully be receptive to criticism and remember to avoid these mistakes.

Friv
2020-02-24, 10:53 AM
It's still all about proper sleight-of-hand. I could create an encounter that I've pre-decided you won't win, and the bad guy will fade away before being killed, but present it in such a way that you're not aware that I made that decision. The bad guy could have some contingency magic item, or be under the effect of something that triggers his escape. It would feel, to you, like you actually had a chance at killing him but I would know that was never going to happen.

If I ran an encounter and you realized I was pulling something like that, my mistake wasn't in having a non-killable creature but in letting you perceive that I had done so.

I have a really good shorthand for this kind of situation, both in games and in real life: if the only way to get my friends to approve of a thing is by lying to them about what that thing is, I should not be doing that thing.

EggKookoo
2020-02-24, 01:59 PM
I have a really good shorthand for this kind of situation, both in games and in real life: if the only way to get my friends to approve of a thing is by lying to them about what that thing is, I should not be doing that thing.

How do you think a stage magician works?

MoiMagnus
2020-02-24, 02:05 PM
I have a really good shorthand for this kind of situation, both in games and in real life: if the only way to get my friends to approve of a thing is by lying to them about what that thing is, I should not be doing that thing.

While I agree with that, I would put the caveat in the difference between "lying" and "hiding".

When I make a magic trick and put the card in my pocket instead of in the deck, I'm obviously saying something wrong (I'm not putting the card in the deck), because I believe that it would enhance the experience of everyone present. But that's because I believe they would approve this illusion.

The things that I'm hiding as a DM are things I would gladly share to a person exterior to the tables (or to the players when the session/scenario/campaign is finished).

Pleh
2020-02-24, 02:55 PM
While I agree with that, I would put the caveat in the difference between "lying" and "hiding".

When I make a magic trick and put the card in my pocket instead of in the deck, I'm obviously saying something wrong (I'm not putting the card in the deck), because I believe that it would enhance the experience of everyone present. But that's because I believe they would approve this illusion.

The things that I'm hiding as a DM are things I would gladly share to a person exterior to the tables (or to the players when the session/scenario/campaign is finished).

I think this halfway cuts to the meat of the issue.

A magician lies to give his audience something of value (a performance).

A con artist lies to gain something of value from them (pickpocketing with extra steps).

The difference between a good and bad DM isn't if or how they hide things. It's whether they are actually giving their players an experience they value more than their investment into the game.

EggKookoo
2020-02-24, 03:24 PM
The difference between a good and bad DM isn't if or how they hide things. It's whether they are actually giving their players an experience they value more than their investment into the game.

It's just a lot more nuanced than "lying bad."

And it's a two-way street. If I tell my players that the guy their PCs are fighting is virtually unkillable at this stage in the game (due to relative power levels or whatever), they players are going to change how their characters behave based on that info. So I may refrain from telling the players that the BBEG has unlimited HP so that they play their characters more appropriately. Am I hiding info from them? Sure, but if I believed the players would be able to refrain from metagaming it I might not. I mean if you want the DM to be completely up front about everything, make sure you don't abuse that knowledge.

In principle it's no different from avoiding being too descriptive of a monster the players have encountered before, but the characters haven't, in order to keep the monster's weakness secret until the new characters work it out. I've never had an infinite-HP creature but I have deliberately fudged monster descriptions to delay player recognition for as long as possible.

Friv
2020-02-24, 07:08 PM
How do you think a stage magician works?

Simple. A stage magician works by telling you they are going to offer a feat of illusion, and then providing a feat of illusion. During the performance, they're putting on a show, but everyone knows the magician is putting on an illusion.

On the flip side, the person running a game of three-card monte is telling people that he's offering them a game, but he's not. He's offering the illusion of a game, which ends with him owning your money.

If you tell your players before the campaign begins that you're mostly running a railroad, that's fine. Go for it! A mostly-railroad can be a lot of fun sometimes, and I'm not going to start whacking at the curtain with a baseball bat if I know it's there. That is rude. But if you tell me that I actually have freedom to do what I want, and then you lie to me about what I can and can't do, you aren't actually playing a game with me. You're playing a game, and I'm one of the pieces.


And it's a two-way street. If I tell my players that the guy their PCs are fighting is virtually unkillable at this stage in the game (due to relative power levels or whatever), they players are going to change how their characters behave based on that info. So I may refrain from telling the players that the BBEG has unlimited HP so that they play their characters more appropriately. Am I hiding info from them? Sure, but if I believed the players would be able to refrain from metagaming it I might not. I mean if you want the DM to be completely up front about everything, make sure you don't abuse that knowledge.

I mean, I'm glad that you agree that this is a trick you use when you don't trust your players. But if you don't trust your players, you will not have a healthy relationship with them, and that's not a place I want to be in when I'm running a game. I would rather build trust than assume failure.


The things that I'm hiding as a DM are things I would gladly share to a person exterior to the tables (or to the players when the session/scenario/campaign is finished).

This is also an excellent point, and maybe a better shorthand than the one that I had used: "If you wouldn't feel comfortable telling your players that you did a thing after the campaign ends, don't do the thing."

EggKookoo
2020-02-24, 08:02 PM
I mean, I'm glad that you agree that this is a trick you use when you don't trust your players. But if you don't trust your players, you will not have a healthy relationship with them, and that's not a place I want to be in when I'm running a game. I would rather build trust than assume failure.

Yeah, okay, if you feel the need to throw around that condescension, have at it.

It has nothing to do with trust.

Pleh
2020-02-25, 05:37 PM
It's just a lot more nuanced than "lying bad."

Yeah, I was saying that it's less about lying and more about intent.

Rephrasing it as "hiding" is likely a better description. A parent hiding easter eggs for their kid isn't really lying to them. The intent is to have them search something out.

Lying would be to tell the kids to look for easter eggs when you haven't hidden any.

The first example has a parent hiding something to give their child something of value. The second is a cruel abuse of trust, presumably to laugh at their expense.

I think this is a big part of the common frustrations with railroading. You get promised a game of searching for easter eggs, only for the host to tell you part way through that they cleverly didn't hide any and it was all an excuse to show off how nice they've made their yard.

Drascin
2020-02-26, 09:26 AM
Yea, this is a classic. Lets see the Mistakes:

1. The DM let a NPC they wanted to keep alive get close to the PCs. Really, this one is simple: If you want a NPC to live, keep them away from the PCs.

2.The DM made a weak foe. Another simple one. The characters sure have a TON of power....and the bad guy is what a werewolf? See a Werewolf Barbarian is not really at the power level of Party Foe. Even more so if your going by the book where the werewolf has...er...sharp claws and the party has at least TWO powerful spellcasters.

3.The DM made a foe with no escape plan. This is just a classic newbee mistake. Smart foes have escape plans. And the plan is never ''run away in a straight line and be a target for the party".

Really, because 5E brought back the awesome to D&D, all your DM needed to say was ''the foe fades away to black and is gone and nothing you do can stop them".

The end. The foe gets away. The game rolls on.

5E is not a slave to the rules like 3.5E was: The DM can just say things happen.

And if the players were going to nitpick, all the DM needed to do was make a better foe rule/magic/mechanical wise so that the foe could escape with a ''23'' to the characters ''22'' or whatever number. And the players would accept that number play.

And most of ALL, of course, the DM could have taken ''option three" like:

1.Ok...you kill the werewolf guy....but he comes BACK! Raised from the dead, undead, a clone, a time copy, a twin...whatever.

2.Evil ally #2 swoops in to save the werewolf.

3.Ok wolf boy is dead....whatever...now meet the new, real foe!

Honestly, I am far more willing to accept the GM just going "villain cutscene-escapes" than "oh no, he's back!".

See, the first may feel a little bad in the moment, but it's also WAY better for the long-term health of the game. Because with the first, players understand it's a story thing, so they might feel a touch robbed at the moment but they probably get they'll get another go, while the second just starts an arms race between players (who assume that this probably means they're supposed to do their best to ensure their enemy stops coming back) and the GM (who still needs the NPCs). This is how you start on the route of creating players that distrust everything, disintegrate every villain's body, and generally assume they can't trust anything presented to them.

MrSandman
2020-02-26, 10:44 AM
Honestly, I am far more willing to accept the GM just going "villain cutscene-escapes" than "oh no, he's back!".


See, I would rather have a villain come back as an undead (or any other plausible way to come back in the setting) than having them escape because the GM has already decided it must happen so.

But to each their own, I guess.

prabe
2020-02-26, 10:50 AM
I think that if you are expecting your Evil NPC (or maybe BBEG) to survive contact with the PCs, you aren't used to how D&D works. You can do it if the game is simulating a different genre (like any sort of Supers game) or if you're playing a game that's built more around narrative railroading (*cough* *White Wolf* *cough*), but the sort of fade-to-black, bad-guy-escapes doesn't seem, in my experience, to be what people play D&D for. YMMV.

EggKookoo
2020-02-26, 11:33 AM
I think that if you are expecting your Evil NPC (or maybe BBEG) to survive contact with the PCs, you aren't used to how D&D works. You can do it if the game is simulating a different genre (like any sort of Supers game) or if you're playing a game that's built more around narrative railroading (*cough* *White Wolf* *cough*), but the sort of fade-to-black, bad-guy-escapes doesn't seem, in my experience, to be what people play D&D for. YMMV.

At the same time, my smart, rich, experienced BBEG might have an amulet that, if his HP ever reaches zero, or if he ever fails a death saving throw, activates and teleports him to a sanctum. While there are ways to block that (antimagic, perhaps), if I know my PCs don't have access to any such mechanism it's pretty much a gets-away-clean card.

Players might not like that, and I haven't pulled this particular trick myself, but I have had it pulled on me in one form or another by other DMs. Why wouldn't he have such an item, given the amount of magic available?

prabe
2020-02-26, 11:51 AM
At the same time, my smart, rich, experienced BBEG might have an amulet that, if his HP ever reaches zero, or if he ever fails a death saving throw, activates and teleports him to a sanctum. While there are ways to block that (antimagic, perhaps), if I know my PCs don't have access to any such mechanism it's pretty much a gets-away-clean card.

Players might not like that, and I haven't pulled this particular trick myself, but I have had it pulled on me in one form or another by other DMs. Why wouldn't he have such an item, given the amount of magic available?

Sure. That's plausible, depending on how the dice shake out at the table and/or how much you're willing to fudge. It probably works better if there's some sort of mechanism for you to pay the players/characters for the fiat (which D&D doesn't have a good one). My main point was that that sort of plan rarely survives contact with the PCs.

Pleh
2020-02-26, 01:53 PM
At the same time, my smart, rich, experienced BBEG might have an amulet that, if his HP ever reaches zero, or if he ever fails a death saving throw, activates and teleports him to a sanctum. While there are ways to block that (antimagic, perhaps), if I know my PCs don't have access to any such mechanism it's pretty much a gets-away-clean card.

Players might not like that, and I haven't pulled this particular trick myself, but I have had it pulled on me in one form or another by other DMs. Why wouldn't he have such an item, given the amount of magic available?


Sure. That's plausible, depending on how the dice shake out at the table and/or how much you're willing to fudge. It probably works better if there's some sort of mechanism for you to pay the players/characters for the fiat (which D&D doesn't have a good one). My main point was that that sort of plan rarely survives contact with the PCs.

Feels like this convo is headed towards JNAProduction's DM Guidelines (I'll be paraphrasing)

"It must be acceptable for the players to mess up your plot as long as they aren't messing up the game."

This, for me, best sums up the balance of how far player and DM agency goes. Important NPCs are always an element of plot, not the game. DMs tread close to invalidating their agency and even derailing the game experience when they overrule the game mechanics to protect an important NPC.

Far better to instead think of new ways to advance the plot even when the NPC is unexpectedly killed. Adapt your plot before you run the game by fiat

JNAProductions
2020-02-26, 02:07 PM
I have that as a DM guideline? I mean, it's a good guideline, but I'm not sure I ever said it. :P

prabe
2020-02-26, 02:20 PM
Feels like this convo is headed towards JNAProduction's DM Guidelines (I'll be paraphrasing)

"It must be acceptable for the players to mess up your plot as long as they aren't messing up the game."

This, for me, best sums up the balance of how far player and DM agency goes. Important NPCs are always an element of plot, not the game. DMs tread close to invalidating their agency and even derailing the game experience when they overrule the game mechanics to protect an important NPC.

Far better to instead think of new ways to advance the plot even when the NPC is unexpectedly killed. Adapt your plot before you run the game by fiat

I agree. One of the biggest gripes I'm likely to have as a player is when I have to solve the same problem more than once; so, I tend to make an effort to solve problems permanently. I'm willing to go along with a BBEG getting away essentially by fiat once, but I think it works better if there's some way for the party to get some warning that he has tricks like that up his sleeve, and maybe some way for the party to find that sanctum and jump him there.

HeraldOfExius
2020-02-26, 02:59 PM
I agree. One of the biggest gripes I'm likely to have as a player is when I have to solve the same problem more than once; so, I tend to make an effort to solve problems permanently. I'm willing to go along with a BBEG getting away essentially by fiat once, but I think it works better if there's some way for the party to get some warning that he has tricks like that up his sleeve, and maybe some way for the party to find that sanctum and jump him there.

This is why Word of Recall is a great tool for when you want the BBEG to escape. It lets him bail out of a fight that happens outside of his temple/shrine/etc., but it won't let him escape for a second time when the PCs chase him there.

prabe
2020-02-26, 03:50 PM
This is why Word of Recall is a great tool for when you want the BBEG to escape. It lets him bail out of a fight that happens outside of his temple/shrine/etc., but it won't let him escape for a second time when the PCs chase him there.

World of Recall has many advantages, to be sure. It's limited, and it's in the book so it's plausibly available to the PCs (unlike a custom Magic McGuffin). OTOH, if your idea for the BBEG isn't a cleric, you need to look at other possibilities.

EggKookoo
2020-02-26, 05:17 PM
Far better to instead think of new ways to advance the plot even when the NPC is unexpectedly killed. Adapt your plot before you run the game by fiat

So looking at it in the abstract and (hopefully) bypassing any emotional issues with an unkillable NPC. As a DM, you have a plot of some sort in mind. How do you keep your players on-plot without violating their agency? An age-old question to be sure.

A more common example might be that you set up your scenario so that one particular NPC has the bit of info the PCs need in order to proceed. The players manage to routinely avoid interacting with that PC. Behind the scenes, as the DM, do you switch things around so another NPC has that bit of info? Is that violating player agency because, looking back on it, they were ultimately forced to encounter that information? Or, as long as you never tell the players you made the switch and they have no reason to think you did, is their agency intact because they believe it to be intact?

Same issue if your players steer you off course entirely, so you "recycle" the content they avoided into the content they encountered. I had a great haunted dungeon set up in the south. The players head north, completely oblivious to the existence of the dungeon. I move the dungeon to the north. Railroad?

JNAProductions
2020-02-26, 05:45 PM
So looking at it in the abstract and (hopefully) bypassing any emotional issues with an unkillable NPC. As a DM, you have a plot of some sort in mind. How do you keep your players on-plot without violating their agency? An age-old question to be sure.

A more common example might be that you set up your scenario so that one particular NPC has the bit of info the PCs need in order to proceed. The players manage to routinely avoid interacting with that PC. Behind the scenes, as the DM, do you switch things around so another NPC has that bit of info? Is that violating player agency because, looking back on it, they were ultimately forced to encounter that information? Or, as long as you never tell the players you made the switch and they have no reason to think you did, is their agency intact because they believe it to be intact?

Same issue if your players steer you off course entirely, so you "recycle" the content they avoided into the content they encountered. I had a great haunted dungeon set up in the south. The players head north, completely oblivious to the existence of the dungeon. I move the dungeon to the north. Railroad?

It depends. Giving PCs info I would not consider railroading, assuming they are free to act on it or not as they please.

For the second example, it depends WHY they went north. If they knew the dragon was south, then encountering the dragon is railroading. If they knew that the dwarves at war are north, then the dragon is also railroading. But if they just randomly went north because north is cool, with no expectations of what to encounter, then I would not consider it railroading, just good allocation of resources.

NigelWalmsley
2020-02-26, 08:19 PM
A more common example might be that you set up your scenario so that one particular NPC has the bit of info the PCs need in order to proceed. The players manage to routinely avoid interacting with that PC. Behind the scenes, as the DM, do you switch things around so another NPC has that bit of info?

I think that's a different problem. If there's something the PCs need to do to advance the plot, and they keep not doing it, that suggests to me that the players either don't understand what they need to do, or don't care about whatever you think the plot is. In either case, I think that reflects a deeper problem with what you've been doing as a DM. Why aren't the players looking for the information the NPC has? Even if they're avoiding him, there must be some other way to find out what they need. Sticking something else in their path is a stopgap at best.


Same issue if your players steer you off course entirely, so you "recycle" the content they avoided into the content they encountered. I had a great haunted dungeon set up in the south. The players head north, completely oblivious to the existence of the dungeon. I move the dungeon to the north. Railroad?

It depends why they headed north. If they headed north because they heard there was political intrigue up north, and you hit them with the haunted dungeon instead, that's railroading (or at least some sort of bad DMing, I'm not overtly concerned with precise terminology here). If they headed north because they have friends up north, or because they like the snow, or because they flipped a coin, the haunted dungeon probably isn't a problem. At its core, railroading is about not making a good faith effort to respect the player's decisions. If they avoid a plot thread, bludgeoning them over the head with it won't help.

Jay R
2020-02-26, 10:04 PM
Feels like this convo is headed towards JNAProduction's DM Guidelines (I'll be paraphrasing)

"It must be acceptable for the players to mess up your plot as long as they aren't messing up the game."

This, for me, best sums up the balance of how far player and DM agency goes. Important NPCs are always an element of plot, not the game. DMs tread close to invalidating their agency and even derailing the game experience when they overrule the game mechanics to protect an important NPC.

Far better to instead think of new ways to advance the plot even when the NPC is unexpectedly killed. Adapt your plot before you run the game by fiat

That's not JNAProduction. You're quoting from my Rules for DMs.

"14. The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not give them a set of options that includes screwing up the game."

If anybody is interested, you can find the full set here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?592257-Rules-for-DMs).

Pleh
2020-02-27, 06:16 AM
That's not JNAProduction. You're quoting from my Rules for DMs.

"14. The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

a. Do not give them a set of options that includes screwing up the game."

If anybody is interested, you can find the full set here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?592257-Rules-for-DMs).

Oh, man. I'm so sorry about that. That's what I get for posting on my work break when I don't have time to do my research. I get my J's confused. Many apologies.

Jay R
2020-02-27, 08:10 AM
Oh, man. I'm so sorry about that. That's what I get for posting on my work break when I don't have time to do my research. I get my J's confused. Many apologies.

No problem. I'm glad my rules have made a good impression. If I'm a good enough writer, then what you will remember most are my ideas, not my name.

Galithar
2020-02-28, 05:55 AM
No problem. I'm glad my rules have made a good impression. If I'm a good enough writer, then what you will remember most are my ideas, not my name.

Word. That's a fantastic list by the way! I first read it a while ago and it's definitely been a positive impact on my DMing experience.

kyoryu
2020-02-28, 11:59 AM
How do you think a stage magician works?

Well, that's the meat of it, right? Here's a little word for you - consent.

When I go to see a stage musician, I know he's going to deceive me and trick me. That's what I'm signing up for! I know it's not "real" magic, and I want to see how he can cleverly deceive me. And since real magic doesn't exist, I interpret all statements to the contrary as puffery.

When I sign up for a game? That may or may not be the case.

Since games without railroading can and do exist, then I should be able to trust that if you saying you're running a game without railroading that you will in fact do so. (And I would argue that, implicitly, offering me choices in a game implies that they are meaningful choices).

If you tell me up front that you're running Adventure Path X, and we're gonna have to stay on it, then I can accept that and choose to join it or not.

It's that simple. If a game is good, and some railroading is okay, then the GM should be able to be open about that. I mean, I'm horrendously anti-railroading and I'm in an Adventure Path-based game right now becuase I want to play with the people involved.

To use an analogy, if you offer me Dragon's Blood as a drink, I know there are no dragons. So if you bring me a mixture of juices and stuff I won't be upset.

But, if you offer me apple juice and give me orange juice instead, I will not be happy. Especially if you insist that it's still really really apple juice.

EggKookoo
2020-02-28, 12:22 PM
But, if you offer me apple juice and give me orange juice instead, I will not be happy. Especially if you insist that it's still really really apple juice.

So my original point was that it's not the fudging that's the crime. It's letting the players become aware that you fudged. What if you couldn't tell it wasn't really apple juice?

JNAProductions
2020-02-28, 12:23 PM
Not being caught doesn’t mean it’s fine.

EggKookoo
2020-02-28, 12:31 PM
Not being caught doesn’t mean it’s fine.

It's 100% absolutely fine with me (as a player). If you're my DM, cheat the hell out of things. Just don't let me know you're doing it.

JNAProductions
2020-02-28, 12:38 PM
It's 100% absolutely fine with me (as a player). If you're my DM, cheat the hell out of things. Just don't let me know you're doing it.

But, at the same time, you should be able to recognize that not everyone feels the same.

EggKookoo
2020-02-28, 01:01 PM
But, at the same time, you should be able to recognize that not everyone feels the same.

Of course I do. But very few players have a zero-tolerance policy for any form of DM fudging whatsoever. And having an unkillable NPC is fundamentally no different than, say, having a gazer specifically target one PC with a particular eye beam (the gazer stat block says it's random). It's just a difference in severity. Most players wouldn't get too upset about the gazer thing, probably because most wouldn't even realize the DM "cheated" by deliberately selecting. The unkillable NPC raises flags because it's so obvious what's going on.

Switching analogies for a minute. Most people don't mind watching a movie and getting excited or worried for the hero, or loathing the villain, or being scared by the monster. You're being completely, utterly manipulated into feeling that through unmitigated contrivance by the writer (and actors, etc.). You only mind when the manipulation is clumsy enough for you to notice it. I think that's why people of similar aptitude and intelligence can have such differing opinions about the same story. One happened to notice the contrivances while the other didn't. I don't know about you, but the more I've learned about how storytelling works, the less I like stories. I mean the actual stories I read or watch or whatever, not stories as a concept. That's because I've become more aware of the various tricks writers use to manipulate. It's rare that a movie or show or book really surprises. Maybe I'm just getting old. Pretty soon I'll start rambling pointlessly...

MrSandman
2020-02-28, 03:20 PM
Leaving the ethical aspects out of it, the problem with fudging, hidden railroading and such is that often the players notice a lot more than the game master gives them credit for. They just, for some reason, accept it without saying a thing.

kyoryu
2020-02-28, 04:51 PM
Not being caught doesn’t mean it’s fine.

Yeah. Breaking agreements isn't okay "if you don't get caught".


It's 100% absolutely fine with me (as a player). If you're my DM, cheat the hell out of things. Just don't let me know you're doing it.

My preference is that if the GM is going to do that, they tell me. Doesn't mean they have to say on each occasion it happens, just "yeah, I will do this as part of the game on occasion."

I see literally no downside to this.


Leaving the ethical aspects out of it, the problem with fudging, hidden railroading and such is that often the players notice a lot more than the game master gives them credit for. They just, for some reason, accept it without saying a thing.

100%. There's a semi-dysfunctional game style where the GM pretends they're not railroading, and the players pretend not to notice while they're fully aware of what's going on.

I've literally had people in games tell me "come on, let's just start the fight, it's obvious that's what the GM has prepped".

Jay R
2020-02-28, 06:56 PM
But, at the same time, you should be able to recognize that not everyone feels the same.

Yes. And some people don't want games with elves. Some people don't want to travel to other planes, or to go dungeon diving. I had one player who really didn't want to face giant spiders. There was a time when I only wanted to face traditional European monsters, not made-up D&D creatures like owlbears and beholders. People have lots of different preferences, and that's fine.

If people don't want a game with elves, or spiders, or whatever, that's fine. They just need to realize that these elements are in the actual rules of the game, and therefore the default assumption is that they will (or at least might) exist. If you don't want to play a game with elves (dungeons, planes, spiders, etc.), then it is your responsibility to tell the DM you want him or her to leave out certain parts of the game.

The DM cannot guess which aspect of this vast and sprawling game you don't want.

And if the DM's scenario requires them, then maybe that isn't the game for you. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.


My preference is that if the GM is going to do that, they tell me.

The DM's power to overrule the rulebooks is written in the rulebooks, in every version of D&D I've played. It is therefore the default assumption. If you want the DM to leave out this part of the rules, then it is your responsibility to bring it up to the DM. It isn't the DM's responsibility to say, "Oh, by the way, I'm warning you that I play all by the rules."

Again, the DM cannot guess which aspect of this vast and sprawling game you don't want.

Tvtyrant
2020-02-28, 08:01 PM
Leaving the ethical aspects out of it, the problem with fudging, hidden railroading and such is that often the players notice a lot more than the game master gives them credit for. They just, for some reason, accept it without saying a thing.

Because RPGs are built around a series of contradictory and absurd conceits that only function with direct rule intervention?

Why does the Demon Arshablabble only appear to destroy the world by eating the sun when the party either is high enough level to beat it or find a way around it? Why are monsters still in existence if herds of archers one shot them and they are supposed to be rare? How is it that the party meets each other when they are all at the same level, and are conveniently only racist enough for comedic purposes and not actual night murders? How come scry and die is okay for the party to use and not enemies? Or Disjunction? How come in a world with so many monsters that have mind control you almost never hear "And then it sat nearby using Greater Invisibility and took control of you all permanently, the end?"

People let it go because the game needs it to function, its why there is a Dungeon Master at all.

NigelWalmsley
2020-02-28, 08:47 PM
Again, the DM cannot guess which aspect of this vast and sprawling game you don't want.

But he can ask. And a good DM does. And it's not like these things are subtle. "I don't like it when you make my choices meaningless by fudging results you don't like" is not some super weird thing that no DM could possibly anticipate. It's kind of fundamental to the whole notion of a game where players make choices that advance the story. If you can't figure out that people who signed up for that don't like it when their choices instead don't advance the story, that's a you problem to some non-trivial degree.


Why does the Demon Arshablabble only appear to destroy the world by eating the sun when the party either is high enough level to beat it or find a way around it?

Because the other times someone else dealt with it? This is like asking "why did JFK only have to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis when he was president, and not when he was a student at Harvard". Not every single thing that happens in the world happens to the players.


Why are monsters still in existence if herds of archers one shot them and they are supposed to be rare?

Because herds of archers don't one-shot high level monsters? In 3e, Dragons have high AC and DR/magic greater than the amount of damage a bow does. Throw all the archers you want at them, it won't kill them. Now, sure, there are games where the numbers don't work out like that. I would submit that the designers of those games have failed, and we should instead play games where the rules and the world are not in tension, because that makes the game better.


How is it that the party meets each other when they are all at the same level, and are conveniently only racist enough for comedic purposes and not actual night murders?

I'll grant you that the level thing is implausible, but it's a fairly small sacrifice in the grand scheme (and even that can be explained if you really cared to). The reason the characters aren't super racist is that the players aren't super racist. Fantasy settings make moral assumptions closer to the real world than the parts of history they nominally ape because they are being written by people who find the actual values of those times uncomfortable, incomprehensible, or both.


How come scry and die is okay for the party to use and not enemies?

It's not? People hate scry and die no matter who's doing it, and you could fairly easily prevent it by changing the rules. This is not a fundamental problem with the genre, it's just a thing the designers put in there that (most) people don't like. You could get rid of it if you wanted to by just ... writing rules that prevent it.


Or Disjunction?

Similar to scry and die, Disjunction is a problem because of more fundamental rules problems. Specifically, problems with the magic items rules. If those rules were better, enemies using Disjunction would be fine. And here, there's even an in-world justification. Hitting your enemies with Disjunction destroys magic items you'd otherwise get after killing them, meaning that people will avoid doing it unless there's no other path to victory.


How come in a world with so many monsters that have mind control you almost never hear "And then it sat nearby using Greater Invisibility and took control of you all permanently, the end?"

Because there are defenses against mind control? Also, that does sometimes happen. "Mind control monster took over the government" is one of the more iconic D&D plots. And, as with any adventure, there is some risk that the players could get TPKed during that adventure.

It's actually not that hard to make a TTRPG where the mechanics of the game have good in-world explanations. Earthdawn did it when Clinton was president. It's certainly not the only virtue a system can have, but if you think it's impossible to explain why there are monsters or heroes or dungeons or adventures without having to directly appeal to "that's how it has to be for the game to work", that's a sign of the limits of your horizons, not any fundamental constraint of the medium.

MrSandman
2020-02-29, 02:33 AM
Snip

First of all, everything you said is highly dependent on the game you're playing. There are plenty of games out there that don't run into this sort of issue.

Second, that's okay. As long as you don't pretend that only a bad GM would let their players realise that's what's going on, I have no problem with anything you've said.

kyoryu
2020-03-02, 11:24 AM
The DM's power to overrule the rulebooks is written in the rulebooks, in every version of D&D I've played. It is therefore the default assumption. If you want the DM to leave out this part of the rules, then it is your responsibility to bring it up to the DM. It isn't the DM's responsibility to say, "Oh, by the way, I'm warning you that I play all by the rules."

Again, the DM cannot guess which aspect of this vast and sprawling game you don't want.

Modifying the rules is not the same as railroading. Modifying the rules can be used to railroad, but they're not inherently the same thing. You can also railroad without modifying the rules.

EggKookoo
2020-03-02, 12:19 PM
Ok, so I've been watching Critical Role lately. I know people have various opinions about it but I find it entertaining. Anyway, in the most recent episode (campaign 2, episode 13) Mercer pulls something.



During an escape through the sewers, the Nein come across a drow carrying an object of obvious power. Mercer has the drow attack fairly aggressively, but the party prevails and manages to subdue him. Caleb casts identify on the object (a softly glowing orb) but it's largely beyond his comprehension. While the drow is subdued, Mercer gives Liam an opportunity to re-examine the orb and implies he could maybe learn something if he pushed himself, but Liam declines. It's pretty clear Mercer's future plans hinge on the party obtaining the orb possibly using it in some way.

The Nein actually negotiate with the drow due to some nice rolls, and even let him go, taking the orb with him. A few moments later, the crownsguard intercept and kill the drow, and the party was basically ushered out into the street where they see the guards heading off with it. The Nein decide they want the orb now (flabbergasting Beau who didn't know why they didn't just take it when they had it) and go through another series of solid rolls to use illusions and persuasion to get it away from the crownsguard.

My impression during watching it was that Mercer really wanted them to take the orb, and would have likely kept putting it into their path until they did. I wouldn't be surprised that had they kept avoiding it, Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it. I'm curious what people's thoughts are on how that kind of thing affects player agency.

huttj509
2020-03-02, 04:10 PM
Ok, so I've been watching Critical Role lately. I know people have various opinions about it but I find it entertaining. Anyway, in the most recent episode (campaign 2, episode 13) Mercer pulls something.



During an escape through the sewers, the Nein come across a drow carrying an object of obvious power. Mercer has the drow attack fairly aggressively, but the party prevails and manages to subdue him. Caleb casts identify on the object (a softly glowing orb) but it's largely beyond his comprehension. While the drow is subdued, Mercer gives Liam an opportunity to re-examine the orb and implies he could maybe learn something if he pushed himself, but Liam declines. It's pretty clear Mercer's future plans hinge on the party obtaining the orb possibly using it in some way.

The Nein actually negotiate with the drow due to some nice rolls, and even let him go, taking the orb with him. A few moments later, the crownsguard intercept and kill the drow, and the party was basically ushered out into the street where they see the guards heading off with it. The Nein decide they want the orb now (flabbergasting Beau who didn't know why they didn't just take it when they had it) and go through another series of solid rolls to use illusions and persuasion to get it away from the crownsguard.

My impression during watching it was that Mercer really wanted them to take the orb, and would have likely kept putting it into their path until they did. I wouldn't be surprised that had they kept avoiding it, Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it. I'm curious what people's thoughts are on how that kind of thing affects player agency.



I don't see your conclusion that reasonable. They generally ignored the orb as fluff, then Mercer followed up by highlighting "someone thinks this orb is important." At this point the group decides "hey, someone else thinks it's important, we should too."

That's different from "Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it."

If the conclusion you went to was instead "some old archivist approaches the party to tell them about the Orb of Plot Relevance that has come into possession of the Crownsguard, and how it should not remain in their hands," that's something I could see happening.

EggKookoo
2020-03-02, 05:39 PM
I don't see your conclusion that reasonable. They generally ignored the orb as fluff, then Mercer followed up by highlighting "someone thinks this orb is important." At this point the group decides "hey, someone else thinks it's important, we should too."

That's different from "Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it."

If the conclusion you went to was instead "some old archivist approaches the party to tell them about the Orb of Plot Relevance that has come into possession of the Crownsguard, and how it should not remain in their hands," that's something I could see happening.


I'm more talking about the approach a DM might take to keep putting a McGuffin in front of the party until they eventually give in and bite. A kind of soft railroading, some might say.


Not really very different from my earlier example of moving the haunted castle. In theory the party might have more say if it's a specific object that keeps getting dangled but if it keeps getting dangled until they take it, how different is it really?

NigelWalmsley
2020-03-02, 07:34 PM
Not really very different from my earlier example of moving the haunted castle. In theory the party might have more say if it's a specific object that keeps getting dangled but if it keeps getting dangled until they take it, how different is it really?

Well, the campaign ends at some point. If you can get to that point without ever doing the haunted castle adventure, I don't think you were railroaded. I might consider it a little lazy of the DM to keep recycling a plot hook if the PCs aren't interested, but as long as the players always have a real choice about what to do, I don't think it's railroading to have the same choice show up repeatedly. Depending on the specifics, it may even be a good thing -- if there's no reason for a plot hook to expire, it should still be there if the party comes back in a month or a year.

Mordaedil
2020-03-03, 03:13 AM
Ok, so I've been watching Critical Role lately. I know people have various opinions about it but I find it entertaining. Anyway, in the most recent episode (campaign 2, episode 13) Mercer pulls something.



During an escape through the sewers, the Nein come across a drow carrying an object of obvious power. Mercer has the drow attack fairly aggressively, but the party prevails and manages to subdue him. Caleb casts identify on the object (a softly glowing orb) but it's largely beyond his comprehension. While the drow is subdued, Mercer gives Liam an opportunity to re-examine the orb and implies he could maybe learn something if he pushed himself, but Liam declines. It's pretty clear Mercer's future plans hinge on the party obtaining the orb possibly using it in some way.

The Nein actually negotiate with the drow due to some nice rolls, and even let him go, taking the orb with him. A few moments later, the crownsguard intercept and kill the drow, and the party was basically ushered out into the street where they see the guards heading off with it. The Nein decide they want the orb now (flabbergasting Beau who didn't know why they didn't just take it when they had it) and go through another series of solid rolls to use illusions and persuasion to get it away from the crownsguard.

My impression during watching it was that Mercer really wanted them to take the orb, and would have likely kept putting it into their path until they did. I wouldn't be surprised that had they kept avoiding it, Caleb would have woken up one morning with it in his bed, or hovering outside the window, or even develop a pathological need to possess it. I'm curious what people's thoughts are on how that kind of thing affects player agency.




I watched an interview Matt gave regarding that, he wanted to give them a few opportunities to get the object, but he admitted he was a bit perplexed that they let the thing go in the first place. But he was ready to just kinda rewrite what he had planned if they decided not get it. Showing the crownsguard grab the orb and walk off with it was intended in his mind as a cut-scene telling the players they had lost it, but he allowed them to basically double back on that part since it allowed him to go through with his plans as originally intended.

There's a bit of a difference between railroading the players somewhere and dropping heavy hints at a preferred route, imo. Allow the players to make their own decisions, but like Matt, leave it open to be grabbed again.

I don't think Matt would have gone as far as make it appear with Caleb or hover outside of his window given what it ends up being, but he certainly would have given them plenty of opportunities to find it again on their journeys, but that'd be stuff as of yet unwritten.

Pleh
2020-03-03, 06:22 AM
Not really very different from my earlier example of moving the haunted castle. In theory the party might have more say if it's a specific object that keeps getting dangled but if it keeps getting dangled until they take it, how different is it really?

Fairly different, actually. Going back to the original metaphor of a Railroad, the idea that the original plot hook just hangs around in easy reach until you're ready to pick it up doesn't much feel like you're trapped on rails. It may seem contrived and the players may feel compelled by honor to humor the DM, but that doesn't make it a railroad.

You're in the neighborhood of the railroad vs quantum ogre question, which is an interesting discussion, but one we've already gone into rather large depths about.

kyoryu
2020-03-03, 10:43 AM
I'd also like to point out that railroading isn't bad. It's not bad to have a prewritten plot that the players are expected to follow.

It might not be how some people prefer to play, but that's okay, too. Some people juggle geese.

The only issue I have is when a GM does have a prewritten plot, and does expect players to engage in it, but claims that that is not the case.

The interesting thing about these conversations is that not only do they miss that bit, but they also seem to often hyper-focus on the individual action, while ignoring the context. Reusing encounters is fine, and not railroading. It can be overly lazy if done too much, but whatever. Putting a specific encounter wherever the player goes so that they can get the vital next thing to push them along your plot is railroading. And that's okay, or not, depending on the group.

Friv
2020-03-03, 11:25 AM
I'd also like to point out that railroading isn't bad. It's not bad to have a prewritten plot that the players are expected to follow.

It might not be how some people prefer to play, but that's okay, too. Some people juggle geese.

The only issue I have is when a GM does have a prewritten plot, and does expect players to engage in it, but claims that that is not the case.

The interesting thing about these conversations is that not only do they miss that bit, but they also seem to often hyper-focus on the individual action, while ignoring the context. Reusing encounters is fine, and not railroading. It can be overly lazy if done too much, but whatever. Putting a specific encounter wherever the player goes so that they can get the vital next thing to push them along your plot is railroading. And that's okay, or not, depending on the group.

Yep, all of this.

With regards to the CR-specific example, I would expect mild railroading in Critical Role, because Critical Role isn't just a roleplaying game. It's a show. It needs to be fun for the players, and it also needs to be entertaining for the audience. All of the players are aware of this, and are taking actions based on both their own desire to have fun and their desire to create a compelling narrative and interesting show for outside viewers.

This is true of most AP podcasts, twitch streams, and the like. The GM is going to be designing a storyline that will be interesting, the players are going to be making choices based on that outside information. That necessarily is likely to involve a bit more planning and creating of railroads, because you aren't going to want to spend an hour messing around with a minor NPC tangent that is only funny to you and your closest friends, or setting up a complicated shopping plan to save 5 GP, or whatever. A lot of things that are fun to do aren't fun to watch, and Critical Role needs to be both.

NigelWalmsley
2020-03-03, 06:14 PM
I'd also like to point out that railroading isn't bad. It's not bad to have a prewritten plot that the players are expected to follow.

This is just playing an unhelpful semantic game. When people complain about railroading, they're not saying "it's always bad for any game to ever have a pre-determined plot". They're complaining about the DM forcing players down a pre-determined plot when the players expect to be given meaningful choices. If you want to run people through Red Hand of Doom, Rise of the Runelords, Dawn of the Artifacts, or some pre-defined adventure of your own design, and you get your group to agree to it, more power to you. But that is not what anyone is talking about when they complain about railroading.

MrSandman
2020-03-04, 05:56 AM
This is just playing an unhelpful semantic game. When people complain about railroading, they're not saying "it's always bad for any game to ever have a pre-determined plot". They're complaining about the DM forcing players down a pre-determined plot when the players expect to be given meaningful choices. If you want to run people through Red Hand of Doom, Rise of the Runelords, Dawn of the Artifacts, or some pre-defined adventure of your own design, and you get your group to agree to it, more power to you. But that is not what anyone is talking about when they complain about railroading.

That's simply not true. I have met plenty of people that talk about railroading as kyoryu does. I talk about it that way as well. People use the term railroading both ways.

Pleh
2020-03-04, 06:11 AM
The only issue I have is when a GM does have a prewritten plot, and does expect players to engage in it, but claims that that is not the case.

Or worse, when a GM get some kind of manipulation complex and thinks that successfully tricking players into believing the game is open when it isn't somehow makes them a better GM, rather than just an egotistical jerk.

I say this because some well meaning GMs could fall into cognitive dissonance unintentionally. They *think* they're running an open game and so their brain sticks all the evidence to the contrary into their cognitive blind spot. It's human. We all fall into this trap from time to time. This sort of GM can probably be reasoned with, because they always *meant* to be honest and upfront with their players.

Once a GM embraces the idea that tricking their players by lying about the premise is a good basis for a game, it becomes drastically less likely that reasoning with them will work, as it's more likely they'll give a false concession, agreeing to change with no intention of doing so. Lying was already deemed acceptable, why stop when you get called out?

EggKookoo
2020-03-04, 08:07 AM
Once a GM embraces the idea that tricking their players by lying about the premise is a good basis for a game, it becomes drastically less likely that reasoning with them will work, as it's more likely they'll give a false concession, agreeing to change with no intention of doing so. Lying was already deemed acceptable, why stop when you get called out?

It might be helpful to clarify what we mean by lying. Telling the players one thing, then running the game differently, sure. That's lying and bad and all that.

Let's say a DM has an ogre that their story requires to survive at a certain point. Maybe the ogre needs to lead the PCs to a macguffin or whatever. Not the best way to create an encounter, but it happens. A poor or lesser experienced DM might be tempted to do this:

DM: The ogre is down to 10 hp.
Player: I attack [rolls, hits, deals 11pts]
DM: (handwaves the ogre remaining conscious) The ogre runs off.
Player: I... what? How?

A more experienced DM might decide to also disregard damage/hp, but mask that from the player more:

DM: The ogre is hurt and staggered, but still standing.
Player: I attack [rolls, hits, deals 11pts]
DM: (handwaves the ogre remaining conscious) The ogre runs off.
Player: Wow, one tough ogre!

In that case, the DM knows the ogre only had 10 hp, but just didn't communicate it to the player. He might also just not track hp at all. Either way works, since the player doesn't know the number. This approach works better than the first but is still clunky since the player could possibly keep track of damage dealt and realize the ogre has taken more than the MM would allow. Still not an indication of cheating or lying on the DM's part, though, since the DM is allowed to create an ogre with as many hp as desired.

A much more experienced DM might do this:

DM: The ogre is hurt and staggered, but still standing.
Player: I attack [rolls, hits, deals 11pts]
DM: The ogre starts to fall, but uses its reaction to grasp at a pendant at its neck. It's bathed in warm light, and it regains its footing and runs off.
Player: Wow, one cool pendant!

This DM might also be disregarding hp, but the player not only doesn't know, but now can't really know because of the added element of the magic pendant. Did it heal the ogre? Stabilize him? Allow him to resist damage? So many variables. Hard to determine. If the player later asks what the pendant did, the DM is well within their rights to say "you don't know."

In all three cases, the DM essentially kept the ogre alive through fiat. But in the second and especially the third, the player was unaware of it as it was masked by some form of sleight of hand. Does it really benefit the player's experience to tell them that? Or just let it flow naturally?

Pleh
2020-03-04, 10:15 AM
It might be helpful to clarify what we mean by lying. Telling the players one thing, then running the game differently, sure. That's lying and bad and all that.

Snip

In all three cases, the DM essentially kept the ogre alive through fiat. But in the second and especially the third, the player was unaware of it as it was masked by some form of sleight of hand. Does it really benefit the player's experience to tell them that? Or just let it flow naturally?

This circles back to what we were saying earlier about the difference between hiding something and outright lying about things.

Again, the real line you don't want to cross is from Stage Magician to Con Artist (in this case, the difference between prioritizing the DM's plot over the PC's agency).

Because GMs that value skill in lying *to their players* (as opposed to their *characters*) seem to overlook the fact that you could use the same creative energy to adapt your plot to the loss of a plot critical NPC instead of using it to overrule the player's agency without their knowing.

So at the end of the day, "letting it flow naturally" is probably better represented by letting the Ogre die, then telling your players they've done something unexpected and you need to end the session early to adjust your prepared material to compensate.

Honesty is the best policy, even when the game often requires that you don't tell them everything.

EggKookoo
2020-03-04, 11:29 AM
So at the end of the day, "letting it flow naturally" is probably better represented by letting the Ogre die, then telling your players they've done something unexpected and you need to end the session early to adjust your prepared material to compensate.

Well, we're probably deep in YMMV territory here but I don't really see much difference between handwaving something in the moment (giving the ogre a pendant) and stopping the game so the DM can go home and cook up some handwaving to apply for next session. In the end, it's pretty clear to the players that the DM is going to alter something to keep their plot intact. Probably moreso in the second case since they're drawing attention to it.

I also guess I come from a bit of an unreliable-narrator-DM world, where the DM is expected to apply a little BS here and there. The DM isn't telling you what is, they're telling you what your PC perceives. But your PC's senses aren't perfect and they certainly don't know anything about game mechanics like HP.

All of this should, of course, be in the service of player fun.

kyoryu
2020-03-04, 12:28 PM
TBut that is not what anyone is talking about when they complain about railroading.

A) Understood.
B) I'm going with the Forgey-definitions of railroading as having a pre-written plot (a railroad), and probably pre-written scenes, which can be subdivided into Participationism (people know this is happening and go along with it) or Illusionism (where the GM attempts to do this while maintaining the illusion that there is agency at that level).


That's simply not true. I have met plenty of people that talk about railroading as kyoryu does. I talk about it that way as well. People use the term railroading both ways.

Indeed.



I say this because some well meaning GMs could fall into cognitive dissonance unintentionally. They *think* they're running an open game and so their brain sticks all the evidence to the contrary into their cognitive blind spot. It's human. We all fall into this trap from time to time. This sort of GM can probably be reasoned with, because they always *meant* to be honest and upfront with their players.

Unintentional railroading. You think it's an open game, but you only really allow the things that you thought would be good ideas to actually be good ideas. And since you control the opposition, it's really easy to make the idea you initially thought would be a good idea be the only actually good idea possible.


Once a GM embraces the idea that tricking their players by lying about the premise is a good basis for a game, it becomes drastically less likely that reasoning with them will work, as it's more likely they'll give a false concession, agreeing to change with no intention of doing so. Lying was already deemed acceptable, why stop when you get called out?

Exactly. And my experience is that players figure this out. What often happens is we get a dysfunctional version of illusionism where the GM thinks he's being more clever than he is, the players are fully aware and just go with it, while pretending they're not aware.

Pleh
2020-03-04, 01:52 PM
The DM isn't telling you what is, they're telling you what your PC perceives. But your PC's senses aren't perfect and they certainly don't know anything about game mechanics like HP.

All of this should, of course, be in the service of player fun.

Precisely. Hide things from the player by lying to their character.

I was saying the line to avoid crossing was deliberately misinforming the player, and I mean primarily on the meta level. Having the characters experience an illusion effect without telling the players isn't lying to them. It's playing a game of hide and seek.

Retconning an unanticipated resolution of an encounter as an illusion because the resolution otherwise forces the plot to change (not that this is what you were defending) is lying to the players about the premise of the game. It's cheating at the shell game with extra steps.

Note this is different from just reusing encounters that got missed. A quantum ogre isn't strictly railroading unless the players specifically took actions that should have reasonably allowed them to avoid the ogre (with the intent of avoiding the Ogre).

EggKookoo
2020-03-04, 04:17 PM
Retconning an unanticipated resolution of an encounter as an illusion because the resolution otherwise forces the plot to change (not that this is what you were defending) is lying to the players about the premise of the game. It's cheating at the shell game with extra steps.

Eh, I kinda was, wasn't I? Is it really much different from poofing a "not quite dead" pendant around the ogre's neck because the DM didn't want it to die just yet? I mean in principle?

What I'm saying is the DM is within their right to do that, so long as the result is an increase in fun for the players (or at least the DM's intent is to increase fun). In addition, my position is that the DM is under no obligation to tell the players that they just did it.

As for what happens if the players ask, that depends on a bunch of stuff outside how D&D works. Basic social interaction and whatnot. All I can tell you is how I interact with my players and have interacted with DMs in the past. If asked if the ogre had the pendant all along, I'd ask who's asking. Is this the PCs themselves asking? Then the answer is yes, because the moment I put it around the ogre's neck, by all laws of physics and reality he had it all along. I didn't intend that the ogre literally conjured it up. If it's the players asking, I'd ask what answer is more fun for them. Do they want to believe I planned it out that way? Or would they be happier knowing I panicked? I'd give them the answer that makes them the most satisfied. I don't think they really need to know. There's a certain showmanship that comes with being a DM, and there's a level of mystique that needs to be maintained. At least IMO. I talk to other DMs about D&D differently than I talk to non-DMs (IRL, I mean).

Truth is, I would never dream of asking a DM such questions. I'd consider it disrespectful. I mean, that is as long as what the DM pulled was fun. If the DM did something that fell flat, they'd hear about it. But it would be in the context of providing that fun experience (or lack thereof). I'm not interested in how they make their sausage. I just want it to be tasty.

It's clear you wouldn't like me being your DM. That's fine, I probably would run out of patience with you as a player.

kyoryu
2020-03-06, 11:17 AM
It's clear you wouldn't like me being your DM. That's fine, I probably would run out of patience with you as a player.

The only thing I'd ask is that you're honest about what kind of DM you are, so that I can make an appropriate decision to join your game or not.

Jay R
2020-03-07, 06:16 PM
Every time I read a thread like this, I have two reactions that overwhelm any other possible response.

1. Evidently, I have been incredibly lucky in who my DMs have been, from 1975 to the present, and

2. Evidently, I have been incredibly lucky in who my players have been, from 1978 to the present.

I've had problems and annoyances and disagreements aplenty, but nothing that would generate the level of concern most people have shown here. I've never had a player I wouldn't invite back, and I've only seen one DM I wouldn't play with again.

Galithar
2020-03-08, 01:37 AM
Every time I read a thread like this, I have two reactions that overwhelm any other possible response.

1. Evidently, I have been incredibly lucky in who my DMs have been, from 1975 to the present, and

2. Evidently, I have been incredibly lucky in who my players have been, from 1978 to the present.

I've had problems and annoyances and disagreements aplenty, but nothing that would generate the level of concern most people have shown here. I've never had a player I wouldn't invite back, and I've only seen one DM I wouldn't play with again.

I haven't been playing nearly as long as you, but I've only met one player that I won't DM for again, and not a single DM that I wouldn't play with again. Even when I wrote the OP I was just here to vent a little about a session I wasn't thrilled with, but worked everything out with the DM shortly after. I just needed to vent frustration here so I could calmly talk to my DM without coming across as confrontational.

Not everyone is as lucky as us though. The stories in this thread are nothing compared to things I've heard elsewhere though.

EggKookoo
2020-03-08, 05:23 AM
Never had a player I wouldn't invite back.

Had one GM that the lot of us stopped playing under. He viewed the GM role as adversarial to the players and set out specifically to cause PC deaths. Once we realized what his mindset was, we moved on. But to be honest I'd probably play at his table again. People change, and aside from plotting TPKs he was pretty good. It makes a difference going in when you know what to look out for.