PDA

View Full Version : railroading obstructive DM and rpg videogames



King of Nowhere
2020-05-17, 08:47 PM
this is yet another musing of me wondering why bad DM think they are doing a good job and won't realize they are bad even when explained, as well as why players accept their behavior.

this time I was inspired by yet another thread where a guy was railroaded and entered into a non-interactive cutscene where his character was captured and everything he tried to do was summarily negated. And the guy talked to the dm, and the dm insisted that he did nothing wrong. and the rest of the table accepted it.
and it got me wondering. how can someone accept as normal something like that? where does this kind of thing happen without anyone batting a lash?
well, in videogames, of course!
my experience is with titles like baldur's gate, neverwinter nights and icewind dale, but there are many others. but they all follow the same pattern.
you are railroaded. well, it's a videogame, of course you must be. there is only so much that can be coded, and the game cannot improvise.
in those kind of games you are captured without being allowed any counterplay whenever the plot demands, you enter non-interacting cutscenes where your character does something obviously stupid. Even in the best cases you only have a limited set of choices you can take. perhaps you can choose two different paths to pursue the plot, but you can't take a third chice. unless that choice is also scripted, but then you can't take a fourth... well, you get what I'm saying: you can't think out of the box. you also have no way of skipping obstacles: in those games you never have access to flight, teleportation, passwall, or similar spells. you can't attempt diplomacy unless the specific encounter is specifically scripted to have you roll diplomacy.
And of course we all accept that videogames are like that, because you can't do anything else with a pc program.

and I realized that this is basically the same that happens with the worst cases of railroading DM.

So perhaps those guys learned of roleplaying from videogames, and when they tried pen-and-pencil they recreated the same kind of scenarios that are in videogames. their players also learned from videogames, so they never realized there's anything wrong. and when someone new joins the group and tell them that they must do things different, they don't get it, or they even get defensive. after all, they always played like that well before they even tried pen-and-paper, and this new guy get all nosy and tell them that they are doing it wrong, how dares him!

the DM handbook with example adventures and published modules also reinforce this, because the structure is always set as "the party is here, they have this motivation, and they can choose to do X, Y, or Z". A good dm will know to temper it by allowing out-of-the-box thinking, but a dm without experience will think those are the options, period. because the whole thing is scripted, like a videogame.

so, do you think the spread of rpg videogames could be responsible for railroading acceptance? or perhaps i'm grasping at straws and trying to find connections where there are none?

prabe
2020-05-17, 09:09 PM
I've always felt that videogames like Baldur's Gate were like dealing with a bad GM. There are times when I feel that way about co-op board games (and I like co-op board games). Those sorts of videogames might be part of where people get that idea, but there have also been published TTRPGs that did similar things as kinda the expected playstyle (I've played some) and there's a reasonable argument that published adventure paths are nothing but long railroads (I don't care much for published adventure paths, so you should probably take that into account). Heck, cooperative boardgames (like Eldritch Horror) have elements of it (Draw encounter, which says "you" are doing something remarkably stupid; ask out loud, "Why am I doing this?"). A DM lacking at least certain kinds or quantities of experience might well fail to see the problems with that approach to play. Likewise players--one might not understand other playstyles exist if you've never experienced them. At this point I see warning signals if someone running homebrew says they have ideas in mind for more than a few sessions out (barring restrictions like those of a dungeon-crawl).


It's not as those people are doing things wrong, really, especially if everyone at the table is having fun. It's more like they're unaware of the possibility of different playstyles or that different tables might have different expectations. Some of them might experience those other styles or expectations and decide to stick with what they've known; others might have the scales fall from their eyes.

Zarrgon
2020-05-17, 09:40 PM
this is yet another musing of me wondering why bad DM think they are doing a good job and won't realize they are bad even when explained, as well as why players accept their behavior.

so, do you think the spread of rpg videogames could be responsible for railroading acceptance? or perhaps i'm grasping at straws and trying to find connections where there are none?

Yes. A RP video game by it's very nature has to be a railroad. After all they can only program so many choices into the game. And you can only do in the game what is programed into the game.

And it also is a DM Problem. Few DMs are good DMs, most are average or bad. A good DM does not need to "railroad", as they can alter the game reality. It is the average, and worst of all the bad DMs that can't run a smooth game and clumsily do "railroad" things.

Take your Capture the Player encounter: A good DM can make an encounter that has a high chance of catching a character. And that would be just a generic encounter too. If the NPCs know the character they (aka the DM) can even tailor the encounter so the character has only a small chance of escape. And none of this is railroading.

Also, the good DM can accept the outcome of an encounter. Even IF the character does escape, it does not "matter much". It's not a big deal. There is a chance that the NPCs might try again, or maybe the NPCs will try some other sort of tactic. Maybe even everything will change. Whatever the plot is will roll on. And the game might change, but it will also go on.

The average, or the bad DM can't, or won't, do any of the above. And that is where you get the clumsy railroad.

Telok
2020-05-17, 10:10 PM
Not an answer, but more information. Concerning dungeon/adventure layout, choice points, and progress graphs.

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?21794-Melan-s-Dungeon-Layout-article

Pelle
2020-05-18, 04:02 AM
so, do you think the spread of rpg videogames could be responsible for railroading acceptance? or perhaps i'm grasping at straws and trying to find connections where there are none?

Not really. I think it has more to do with the expectation, from both players and GMs alike, that the GM is there to entertain the players.

icefractal
2020-05-18, 04:27 AM
I don't know if it's from video games, but if so it would have to be from old ones, because openly railroaded games have been a thing as long as I've been playing.

Fortunately not too common a thing, but I'd say the majority of games have at least a little bit of railroading. Certainly any game following an Adventure Path is going to have some (which might be voluntary on the players' part), it's that or rewrite everything past the first book.

While it's not my preferred playstyle, it's possible to have fun in a somewhat or even heavily railroaded game. Take it as an opportunity to play a character that would be too non-directed or otherwise unsuitable for charting their own course.

MoiMagnus
2020-05-18, 04:57 AM
You could also blame "chose your own adventures" books. Videogame RPGs are just the modern incarnation of that.

But yes, RPG is influenced by its cousins that heavily use railroading. And you see the same "problem" on others points like players coming with expectation on the D&D universe that does not match the rules, because of all the fantasy novels.

[And similarly, I clearly see an influence from improv theatre on me, pushing me toward trying to make sure any semi-railroad put by the DM actually works smoothly, even if that mean probably falling into avoidable NPCs traps]

At the end, it's just always the same, there is not a lot of difference between an influence and an inspiration source. Just the way it is used by more or less skilled DM/players.

I won't say it is the source of bad DMing. DMing is a position of power that require creativity and a ton of extra work. The first part attract peoples that want to control everything, the second part attract peoples that are proud about their creations, and the last part discourage a lot of peoples that could be good DMs.

Quertus
2020-05-18, 04:59 AM
Less "casual", more "enabler", perhaps?

Certainly, providing a context in which bad behavior is viewed as good is not conducive to teaching people to engage in good behavior.

Mastikator
2020-05-18, 06:40 AM
I think sometimes it comes down to the fact that the DM spent hours building the rails and the train and meticulously did everything on the train and considered many contingencies and a few choices for the players (that they don't notice because the crucial moment came and passed without their notice). However, the DM didn't spent months building anything outside the railroad, there just isn't time.
So when a player tries to go off rails the DM is faced with a catch-22, either you force the players onto the rails or you let them wander the wasteland, doing nothing and the game is basically over. (yes you can improvise on the spot, but that is hard and very tiresome, especially if you spent hours preparing for the train). Most players need plothooks from the DM to have something to do, most players need a mission or quest from an NPC with clearly outlined markers on the floor or they will just wander aimlessly and get bored.

IMO the problem most of the time is not the existence of the rails but the visibility of the rails. You can/should have junctions on a railroaded game but the players need to see the outcome of their choice and possibly even told (out of character) "this happened because you chose to do that, you could have chosen otherwise".

I'm kinda taking the DM's side here, but maybe I lack this particular experience, I've never seen a super railroad-y bad DM (which almost seems like a stereotype than a reality) who bored an otherwise great cast of players. No, what I've seen has included belligerent/selfish players ruining the game and DMs who didn't know how to handle it.

Lucas Yew
2020-05-18, 07:26 AM
I was going to mention the Fronts "mechanic" from Dungeon World as a suitable tactic for GMs to run the world without relying on fully scripted events, then...


Not an answer, but more information. Concerning dungeon/adventure layout, choice points, and progress graphs.

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?21794-Melan-s-Dungeon-Layout-article

...they mentioned this gem and now I have a new working method to create engaging complex dungeon maps from skeleton scratch, thank you!

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-18, 10:00 AM
I find complaints of "railroading" often stem from a lack of buy-in for the premise of the game. Games like DnD promise they can tell many kinds of stories or support many kinds of games, but what they can't do is many of those at once. Maybe DMGs and equivalent books or sections should be more clear about narrowing the premise for buy-in before you start, rather than saying or implying players should be dropped into a murky setting and told to do whatever. If you've already bought in to a general premise, you don't suffer the "problem" of being railroaded back to the desert games desert when you decided to exercise your player agency by going to Ice Mountain.

Pex
2020-05-18, 10:53 AM
For me railroad is bad but trolley tracks are ok. If playing a module the plot and encounters are pretty much set. When it's a DM home world save the world campaign it's generally one long story line. The DM creates the encounters beforehand, and the players stumble through. It's not a sandbox. That's all fine. It's the buy in to play. What matters is the players being able to handle the situation in our way. We solve the situation how we want to solve it. If we want to sneak into the Location of Plot Point by unconventional means instead of the front door fighting our way in as the DM/Module planned for, we can. Sneaking in could include the front door, but we're using deception instead of outright fighting. If we don't want to go to Location of Interest that may or may not have relevance to the campaign plot we don't go, will never go, and the DM doesn't force us to go. We can also have our own individual character quirks and relations with NPCs we meet that have nothing to do with the plot to make the story our story.

Zarrgon
2020-05-18, 11:08 AM
Not really. I think it has more to do with the expectation, from both players and GMs alike, that the GM is there to entertain the players.

This is the truth though, so the problem might be with having the expectation you mentioned.




So when a player tries to go off rails the DM is faced with a catch-22, either you force the players onto the rails or you let them wander the wasteland, doing nothing and the game is basically over. (yes you can improvise on the spot, but that is hard and very tiresome, especially if you spent hours preparing for the train).

Don't forget the third one: the DM can just smoothly keep the game on the rails, or even better for four: just keep the rails hidden. And five of making the railed game so good the players don't want to get off.

Again the real problem here is DM skill. A good DM can smooth anything over without a bump: anyone less then a good DM can't.



Most players need plothooks from the DM to have something to do, most players need a mission or quest from an NPC with clearly outlined markers on the floor or they will just wander aimlessly and get bored.

Very true.




IMO the problem most of the time is not the existence of the rails but the visibility of the rails. You can/should have junctions on a railroaded game but the players need to see the outcome of their choice and possibly even told (out of character) "this happened because you chose to do that, you could have chosen otherwise".

One of the best ways to play the game is when the players think it is a freeform sandbox, but they are really riding a railroad. The vast majority of players won't even see it. Most players think of a railroad as a 'one way only' type thing, and they don't realize that the railroad has many tracks that all lead to the same destination.



I'm kinda taking the DM's side here, but maybe I lack this particular experience, I've never seen a super railroad-y bad DM (which almost seems like a stereotype than a reality) who bored an otherwise great cast of players. No, what I've seen has included belligerent/selfish players ruining the game and DMs who didn't know how to handle it.

I've seen both. The vast majority of bad DMs are simply unexpereinced. Most of the rest just don't have the life skills to 'run' anything. Only a few are jerks.

Though jerk players are much more common. There is a whole jerk sub culture of players that want to ruin games, and one of the top ways to do that is to a game. This type of player is having fun by ruining a game for others as that is what is fun for them.

BRC
2020-05-18, 01:38 PM
I don't think RPG videogames are specifically responsible, the tendency to Railroad is quite understandable, but a tabletop RPG is a unique storytelling medium, it's largely improvisational, and as with all improv, it starts to fall apart when somebody brings a script.
With the example of "The PC's are captured so the cutscene can play out" coming in from a CRPG is likely because the CRPG writer and a DM face the same issue: wanting to have the cutscene play out a certain way, but needing a way to prevent the player from interfering.
The difference is, in a CRPG, there is an understanding with the Player that the creators of the game are limited by their medium. Every option must be accounted for by the programming. If I'm playing a CRPG, I don't mind when my character gets captured and forced to watch a scene play out, because I know that this scene is part of the story I signed up for. The character being captured provides a convenient explanation for why the player can't do anything.

In a tabletop RPG, I didn't sign up for a specific story, I signed up to help write the story. So, the whole "Captured and helpless" thing rankles.

The issue is less "GM's learn from CRPG's that it's okay to take away player agency", and more "GM's want to take away player agency, and use the same narrative tricks that CRPG's use".

Something similar happens with published adventures. A published adventure MUST be somewhat linear, because it cannot account for every possible path the PC's might take. So, if you're running a published adventure, it's understandable that things are a bit railroady, since the writers need to give you a complete story, and you can't do that without making some assumptions about what will happen.


As far as CRPGs having a negative impact on RPG design, I think there are worse impacts than railroading.I think the biggest negative impact is Random Encounters.

Random Encounters have their place, they can help build the world, let people have fun playing with the game mechanics, provide some narrative pacing. In an RPG, game time and real-world time are wildly different, the GM saying "You spend three weeks on the road" takes seconds. To make a three week journey feel like that, a few random encounters can spice things up and provide a good narrative distance between each end of the trip.

In a CRPG, Random Encounters are an expected part of the gameplay, each one takes maybe a minute or two to resolve, and gives you some loot and XP. You don't expect each random encounter to have some interesting framing about it, because part of the game is running into random groups of enemies and fighting them. You walk along the road and fight 10 different groups of enemies, all of whom were just kind of waiting around to try to kill you.

The problem is that when you try to map this onto a Tabletop RPG, where even the simplest combats can take half an hour to resolve, these sort of random, forgettable "You have a fight now" encounters just don't land.

I was once hanging out at my game store, and a group of people from a nearby town were running a playtest of an RPG they'd made. They'd gotten pretty far into the process, had a nice professional looking hardcover sourcebook printed up and everything.
The game itself was a mechanical mess, and we didn't get very far before it kind of fell apart, but we hung out with the designers and read through their notes for a while. What always struck me was that, part of the Introduction Scenario they were running for us, the violent occurrence of Magic returning to the world, involved a random encounter with Bandits.
For context, the scenario was "Magic has suddenly returned, you're in NYC, fissures are opening up in the earth, demons are appearing, people are randomly getting magic powers and being transformed", and in the context of all this, while we race through the city seeking aid or answers, we fight some Bandits.
Not "You encounter a group of panicking, armed people who mistake you for enemies", or "You see some people looting during the chaos, do you try to stop them", just a line that said "encounter: 2d6 Bandits". Bandits, in the context of this game, (Which is mostly supposed to be a pseudo post-apocalyptic affair outside this intro scenario), are armed with assault rifles and machetes.

And were I playing a CRPG, and as part of the first level I had a random encounter with some Bandits, I wouldn't have blinked twice. I may have made a quip to my friends about how, in the middle of a disaster, some people were apparently just trying to rob random visibly armed passerbyes, but I would have accepted it as part of the game mechanics. Heck, even if the Bandits were dressed and armed like post-apocalyptic raiders, I would have been "Ah well, they didn't want to make new models just for this one scenario" and moved on.

But, in a Tabletop RPG, the idea of fleeing through the city as impossible things happen around us, only to encounter a well-armed group of people who, with no explanation nor apparent motive, suddenly open fire? We then fight them and move on? that would have been very jarring.

If you treat Random Encounters, Dungeon design, heck even basic narrative and quest design, the way a video game does, you're doing a disservice to the medium of RPGs.

Jorren
2020-05-18, 02:24 PM
I don’t think that videogames are really the culprit, since most videogames do not have an active referee that is running the game. My guess is that it has to do with the broader narrative perspective that comes from books, movies, and other story mediums. Videogames are simply one part of the attempts to tell stories and provide narrative.

I think that the largest issue with railroading or the perception of such has to do with player and DM expectations.

The problems crop up when:

The player(s) believe that their actions should have an impact when in fact they do not or cannot.

The player(s) mistakenly believe that their actions will not have an impact when in fact they can or will.

If the players sincerely believe that they do not or cannot have an impact on a particular plot point or event, and they do not care, then they will likely not care that the situation is scripted, railroaded, or otherwise beyond their control. The talks about invisible rails, illusionism, etc. are really ways to manage those expectations and situations where the players are inclined to believe that their actions should matter. Even when players can see things for what they are, they may be ok with simply going along with it for the sake of the story or simply not rocking the boat so to speak.

Maybe the DM has inadvertently indicated that certain outcomes or decisions are under the players' control when they really are not. It’s often a communication issue. This is where things like session 0 and pre-game discussions help in getting everyone on the same page.

JNAProductions
2020-05-18, 02:39 PM
Though jerk players are much more common. There is a whole jerk sub culture of players that want to ruin games, and one of the top ways to do that is to a game. This type of player is having fun by ruining a game for others as that is what is fun for them.

If you meet a jerk every once in a while, you meet a jerk every once in a while.

If you meet a jerk constantly, the jerk is probably you.

kyoryu
2020-05-18, 04:10 PM
One of the best ways to play the game is when the players think it is a freeform sandbox, but they are really riding a railroad. The vast majority of players won't even see it. Most players think of a railroad as a 'one way only' type thing, and they don't realize that the railroad has many tracks that all lead to the same destination.

I've seen both. The vast majority of bad DMs are simply unexpereinced. Most of the rest just don't have the life skills to 'run' anything. Only a few are jerks.

Though jerk players are much more common. There is a whole jerk sub culture of players that want to ruin games, and one of the top ways to do that is to a game. This type of player is having fun by ruining a game for others as that is what is fun for them.

No, please, just no.

Don't lie to your players about the nature of the game. Be honest, and let them decide what they want.

And a player that gets mad because you misrepresented what the game is is not a jerk.

You sound a lot like jedipotter.

prabe
2020-05-18, 04:37 PM
No, please, just no.

Don't lie to your players about the nature of the game. Be honest, and let them decide what they want.

And a player that gets made because you misrepresented what the game is is not a jerk.

You sound a lot like jedipotter.

Hard agree. You can have multiple threads for the PCs to follow, any of which will likely resolve when pulled upon into something linear (my own approach), but don't lie about what you're doing. You can run a railroad if your players signed up for one; it's probably unwise to do so if they explicitly didn't.

Quertus
2020-05-18, 06:04 PM
I think sometimes it comes down to the fact that the DM spent hours building the rails and the train and meticulously did everything on the train and considered many contingencies and a few choices for the players (that they don't notice because the crucial moment came and passed without their notice). However, the DM didn't spent months building anything outside the railroad, there just isn't time.
So when a player tries to go off rails the DM is faced with a catch-22, either you force the players onto the rails or you let them wander the wasteland, doing nothing and the game is basically over. (yes you can improvise on the spot, but that is hard and very tiresome, especially if you spent hours preparing for the train). Most players need plothooks from the DM to have something to do, most players need a mission or quest from an NPC with clearly outlined markers on the floor or they will just wander aimlessly and get bored.

IMO the problem most of the time is not the existence of the rails but the visibility of the rails. You can/should have junctions on a railroaded game but the players need to see the outcome of their choice and possibly even told (out of character) "this happened because you chose to do that, you could have chosen otherwise".

I'm kinda taking the DM's side here, but maybe I lack this particular experience, I've never seen a super railroad-y bad DM (which almost seems like a stereotype than a reality) who bored an otherwise great cast of players. No, what I've seen has included belligerent/selfish players ruining the game and DMs who didn't know how to handle it.

I mean, "a GM who thinks in terms of 'handling' the players, and 'paths' instead of 'tools', whose players can only get a good game by being belligerent to a GM who won't listen" sounds like a story of surviving a railroad GM to me. I say this as someone whose had to swing a clue-by-four quite a few times at players and GMs alike.

It's not a matter of how much you build, it's a matter of how you build it.

Take my classic example of Flying Rocks.

The GM can build them on rails, and decide that they… are intended to be used to bypass the pit trap in area 7; are the only way to cross the lava in area 69 to get through the antimagic cone to get to the Beholder; are the namesake for the Flying Rocks School of Martial Arts, the one and only possible use for floating rocks ever.

Or the GM can simply create the various tools, like the Beholder and the floating rocks. Then, if the players research the floating rocks, and discover that they work on magnetism, or gravity, or manipulating planar geography or extra dimensions, and want to research new spells or prestige classes based on that, the GM lets them. And, if they think to teleport behind the Beholder (from inside their tinfoil hat teepee), the GM lets them. If they use the rocks as a ghetto Tensor's Floating Disc, or rig up a sail-powered super-ghetto Drift Disc, the GM lets them. Or if they start selling advanced skipping stones, or invent muggle Shoes of Water Walking, or cobble together an entire floating castle (or twenty), the GM lets them.

"Limited prep time" is not the reason for - and is no excuse for - railroading.

-----


Most players need plothooks from the DM to have something to do, most players need a mission or quest from an NPC with clearly outlined markers on the floor or they will just wander aimlessly and get bored.

I can't really speak to that, because, curiously, every group I've ever been in, there's been at least one player (usually me, but sometimes I'm GM) who has no such need of a mission, who can happily lead the party to Explore the GM's world, so long as the world is one that is worth Exploring (hint: worlds built on rails are not), or who can happily combine components / tools / problems / solutions in inventive ways (that thing that doesn't require more prep on the GM's part, just better, more flexible, less rigidly defined tools - "floating rocks", rather than "floating rocks intended as the one and only acceptable solution to area 69, and that is the only possible use for them, ever").

"Not all who wander are lost."


I find complaints of "railroading" often stem from a lack of buy-in for the premise of the game. Games like DnD promise they can tell many kinds of stories or support many kinds of games, but what they can't do is many of those at once. Maybe DMGs and equivalent books or sections should be more clear about narrowing the premise for buy-in before you start, rather than saying or implying players should be dropped into a murky setting and told to do whatever. If you've already bought in to a general premise, you don't suffer the "problem" of being railroaded back to the desert games desert when you decided to exercise your player agency by going to Ice Mountain.

IME, the problem is when the GM says "desert", the players bring Luke Skywalker, Obi Wan Kenobi, Paul Atreides, Sinbad, and Aang, then doesn't understand why his players didn't get it, or why they're being so difficult as he tries to force them through the plot of Aladdin. And, since said GM cannot think outside the box, the PCs absolutely *have* to make the same decisions that Aladdin made, else the GM is lost, and the game falls apart. (Don't ask me how that works with all 5 of them marrying Jasmine at the end; I guess that the sultan changes those laws, too.)

Zarrgon
2020-05-18, 11:12 PM
Take my classic example of Flying Rocks.

Putting something in the game for the PCs to use is not exactly Railroading. You would not say if a DM mentioned a pond or a grove of trees nearby a ruin that the DM is railroading the players to use them for specific things. When the PCs find a cabin in the woods, it's stocked with a huge cut woodpile...that they PCs could use to block the door at night: but it is typical for a cabin to have cut wood if someone was using it.

Really it fall under more puzzles then anything else: the DM makes a puzzle with a solution. And really this should be fine, after all this IS done in real life. For thousands of years people have protected things with puzzles, and still do today.

The only way this slips into Railroading is with the bad DM: the one that refuses to let the PCs solve a puzzle unless they use the One Way the DM wants.

Quertus
2020-05-18, 11:46 PM
The only way this slips into Railroading is with the bad DM: the one that refuses to let the PCs solve a puzzle unless they use the One Way the DM wants.

Bingo! That's pretty much (half of) what I mean when I talk about Railroading.

(Half is not letting them bar the door with their Daern's Instant Fortress, the other half is not letting the PCs use that wood to make a fire)

Railroading === bad GM (OK, no, Railroading guarantees you have a bad GM; having a bad GM does not guarantee Railroading)

Knaight
2020-05-19, 02:37 AM
Videogames seem like an unlikely culprit here, not least because a lot of the blatant railroading stories predate most videogames. The exceptions are pretty clearly not relevant games, Pong isn't exactly informing anybody's DMing.


You sound a lot like jedipotter.
I'd completely forgotten about that guy. Why couldn't you leave me that luxury?


I think sometimes it comes down to the fact that the DM spent hours building the rails and the train and meticulously did everything on the train and considered many contingencies and a few choices for the players (that they don't notice because the crucial moment came and passed without their notice). However, the DM didn't spent months building anything outside the railroad, there just isn't time.

It shouldn't take months. Even in prep heavy systems you can prep differently and still run games which don't have rails at all, in lighter systems the hours you describe building the rails are enough to build non-railroad structures several times over.

Mastikator
2020-05-19, 02:42 AM
I can't really speak to that, because, curiously, every group I've ever been in, there's been at least one player (usually me, but sometimes I'm GM) who has no such need of a mission, who can happily lead the party to Explore the GM's world, so long as the world is one that is worth Exploring (hint: worlds built on rails are not), or who can happily combine components / tools / problems / solutions in inventive ways (that thing that doesn't require more prep on the GM's part, just better, more flexible, less rigidly defined tools - "floating rocks", rather than "floating rocks intended as the one and only acceptable solution to area 69, and that is the only possible use for them, ever").

"Not all who wander are lost."
Yeah, same. Me.
But what about the other players? And can we skip the passive aggressive hints?

MoiMagnus
2020-05-19, 04:08 AM
It's not a matter of how much you build, it's a matter of how you build it.

"Limited prep time" is not the reason for - and is no excuse for - railroading.

It does raise an important point: railroading is seen as a necessity by DMs that have very few experience is handling the game in other ways, and that whenever they don't have a precise script that handle how they are supposed to react are just not able to react in any other way than awkward silence or boring and badly done stereotypes.

It's kind of pointless to prepare "tools" instead of "stories" if you don't know how to use those tools other than reading aloud their description. There is a skill gap to make a somewhat interesting session with a branching (or even linear) story with the PCs as heroes, and confidently handling the reaction of a universe to unplanned event. And assuming you have some experience on the first and are able to run smooth sessions, the transition to the second one can be very painful since you suddenly feel very incompetent.

[On a similar note, managing to get some ideas out of your players to fill the blanc is a skill by itself. It is very easy to mishandle it and end up in a sterile lack of idea around the table, if you don't have any player experienced enough to essentially to the full job for you and give a complete and well-though idea.]

Quertus
2020-05-19, 06:56 AM
Yeah, same. Me.

Glad it's really easy for us to be on the same page here then :smallbiggrin:


But what about the other players?

Um… what about them? Best guess as to where you're going: there are followers and leaders - they can follow my exploration lead like I follow their "get revenge for my murdered relative(s)" plot lead, or their "con the king out of X" plot lead.

(I would say, "like I follow their tactical lead", but I'm not sure my optimal positioning as "Delta force" exactly qualifies…)


And can we skip the passive aggressive hints?

?

I'ma claim that, like… um… "King Explosion Murder" Bakugo, much of the way I talk is just… the way talk. I'll happily - gleefully - wield a clue-by-four upside someone's head; passive-aggressive (as I understand the term) really isn't my style (not intentionally, at least).

So, uh, if there's an improvement to my Bakugo-esque (anti-Bakugo-esque? Bakugo adjacent?) communication style that you think worth the digital ink, by all means, I'm all ears. Given my senility compounding my decades of "old dog, new trick" syndrome, I fear I may disappoint you in how adept I am at implementing and/or retaining the lesson, but, senility willing, I do love to learn.


It does raise an important point: railroading is seen as a necessity by DMs that have very few experience is handling the game in other ways, and that whenever they don't have a precise script that handle how they are supposed to react are just not able to react in any other way than awkward silence or boring and badly done stereotypes.

It's kind of pointless to prepare "tools" instead of "stories" if you don't know how to use those tools other than reading aloud their description. There is a skill gap to make a somewhat interesting session with a branching (or even linear) story with the PCs as heroes, and confidently handling the reaction of a universe to unplanned event. And assuming you have some experience on the first and are able to run smooth sessions, the transition to the second one can be very painful since you suddenly feel very incompetent.

[On a similar note, managing to get some ideas out of your players to fill the blanc is a skill by itself. It is very easy to mishandle it and end up in a sterile lack of idea around the table, if you don't have any player experienced enough to essentially to the full job for you and give a complete and well-though idea.]

OK, let's see if I've followed you correctly here.

Yes, I agree that "Railroading" and "lacking certain GMing skills" have a high correlation.

It's the players, not the GM, that need to use the tools. The GM need only have someone (himself being a valid option, but not the only one) who can comprehend the mechanics to adjudicate their interactions; ie, that, yes, a tinfoil teepee will allow the Wizard to teleport the party over the lava and behind the Beholder, or no, the maximum lift per cubic foot of the floating rocks requires more than a skipping stone to levitate a Dragon corpse.

Putting those two points together, I should point out that it's good baby steps for an unskilled railroad GM to work on developing the skills to utilize a variant of the Rule of Three, and learn to craft less fragile adventures, where even their uncreative mind can see at least three uses for any tool, and at least three very different ways past any obstacle (I've already included plenty for the floating rocks; I'll add "Diplomancy" as a third solution for the Beholder encounter). Anything that fails the Rule of Three gets rejected from their adventure during the planning stage. Further, to further build their skills, the GM's goal is to listen for and hope for fourth (etc) uses / options / solutions from the players - their greatest joy in a game should be when a player does something that they hadn't seen when they looked at their adventure, because it's an opportunity for them to learn something, and improve their GMing skills.

Now, if the players are a bunch of uncreative lumps, incapable of inventing their way from 2&2 to 4? Then you've got problems. Or would, if you couldn't simply satisfy them with a linear adventure, telegraphed with neon sky writing every 5-foot step.

In other words, "Railroading" - the act of negating player agency through rewriting physics in order to (en)force a single-solution path¹ - only exists if you have players mentally and psychologically capable of wandering off the path in the first place.

I can understand that handling the reaction of the sultan when Luke starts whining, or when his daughter wants to marry all 5 heroes, may be daunting. But understanding what happens when I try to stick a magnet or a sticker to my bookcase, when I've only ever considered sticking them to the fridge? Sorry, I can't sympathize. I'm a war gamer - comprehending rules interactions comes with the trade. A GM who cannot do that… needs to build their skills, and play war games / MtG until they can?

And, no pun intended, but I'm drawing a blank as to what you mean by "get[ting] some ideas out of your players to fill the blanc is a skill by itself". What blank are we talking about here?

¹ not an exact definition

Mastikator
2020-05-19, 07:34 AM
Um… what about them? Best guess as to where you're going: there are followers and leaders - they can follow my exploration lead like I follow their "get revenge for my murdered relative(s)" plot lead, or their "con the king out of X" plot lead.

(I would say, "like I follow their tactical lead", but I'm not sure my optimal positioning as "Delta force" exactly qualifies…)


What's a delta force?

kyoryu
2020-05-19, 07:44 AM
I'd completely forgotten about that guy. Why couldn't you leave me that luxury?

More Darth Ultron now that I think about it

Democratus
2020-05-19, 08:13 AM
What's a delta force?

"Deeds. Not Words."

Telok
2020-05-19, 05:08 PM
Now, if the players are a bunch of uncreative lumps, incapable of inventing their way from 2&2 to 4? Then you've got problems. Or would, if you couldn't simply satisfy them with a linear adventure, telegraphed with neon sky writing every 5-foot step.

Man ain't that the truth.

I tend to build location/npc based adventures and settings. There's a location(s) where something is going on, mine tend to be relatively static most of the time, untill the pcs appear. I know the npcs and the place, then just have everything react to the pc actions. Often there is stuff that points the pcs at another location. Sometimes there are npcs with long running scripts that just mark time untill the next step completes unless the pcs interfere. The world reacts to the pcs, I mark time and update location and npc status.

But it does rely on the pcs setting off to do something past the inital intro scenario. And I do have to have a decent grasp of the rules and be able to improvise.

Give that sort of campaign setting to a noob gm who doesn't have a good hold on the rules and can't easily improvise? It's a disaster.

Have players who are just along for the ride and the fights? Also a disaster unless you can script a movie for them on the fly.

Railroading, the blatant and annoying kind, that I've had to deal with has always been from published modules run by inexperienced dms. Modules are inherently railroady to some degree (if they aren't ghen they're a setting book, not a module), and that's ok. It's the nature of the beast. But I've noticed that the modules they've picked tend to fail at two points that more experienced dms can often handle better.

First is "pcs discover W, reach conclusion X, and proceed to location Y by method Z". We, the forumites, all pretty much know these. The pcs failed a search check, a computer hacking check, didn't detect magic, or didn't open door #4, and thus W isn't discovered. Reaching "conclusion X" requires the players to have all the information, evaluate it the same way the writer did, and have similar unwritten assumptions to the writer. Possibly X can also be gated by a check or the pcs possessing an analytic ability and the players knowing to apply that rule. Location and method? If it's a floating island with a jumping/climbing challenge to get there try to make sure the game doesn't give them jet packs and vtol space shuttles, or have the module tell the dm its ok to bypass the stupid jumping puzzle. If the dungeon is supposed to flood and they should float out a hole at the top it needs to make sure you don't have water breathing magic, the ability to just swim back out the entrance, and really really make sure to tell the players that thete's that hole at the top.

Second is having the module give the pcs options that conflict with the plot rails. Putting in 'next week or else' deadlines but expecting the pcs to spend a month waiting for spaceship upgrades so the next scripted space battle doesn't tpk them. Letting the pcs loose to hex crawl the underdark and expecting them to exit two months later at 8th level, not accounting for murderhobos perfectly happy to hang out in phatlewt-land or someone to accidentally pick a home town with a famous entrance/exit that's just three weeks travel away. Generally expecting the pcs to be at a point, at a time, at a power level, after they've been given unlimited (to the players knowledge) time off the rails. Or having a time limit that the games makes them unable to meet in some way.

Experienced dms usually adjust, they can often wing it well enough. Or they can communicate the expectations of the module to the players. The inexperienced dms often end up doing the blatant railroading, voiding player choice and imposing arbitrary nerfs or impossible obstacles, trying to follow what the modules tell them to do.

kyoryu
2020-05-19, 05:56 PM
Man ain't that the truth.

I tend to build location/npc based adventures and settings. There's a location(s) where something is going on, mine tend to be relatively static most of the time, untill the pcs appear. I know the npcs and the place, then just have everything react to the pc actions. Often there is stuff that points the pcs at another location. Sometimes there are npcs with long running scripts that just mark time untill the next step completes unless the pcs interfere. The world reacts to the pcs, I mark time and update location and npc status.

But it does rely on the pcs setting off to do something past the inital intro scenario. And I do have to have a decent grasp of the rules and be able to improvise.

My general answer to this is "plot grenades". Some impending doom that's significant enough that the players can't ignore it, but not something that has a specific plan to resolve, especially one laid out in advance.

The options are not "linear game" and "world where the characters do whatever".

Telok
2020-05-19, 06:13 PM
My general answer to this is "plot grenades". Some impending doom that's significant enough that the players can't ignore it, but not something that has a specific plan to resolve, especially one laid out in advance.

The options are not "linear game" and "world where the characters do whatever".

Like "Well you threw away the <foo> when you ran off so now the demons can open the gate again. I guess demon attacks in the area will ramp up for a few months untill the gate is fully open and then we'll have a full on demon invasion"? Yeah, done that too. I did say 'usually'.

kyoryu
2020-05-19, 06:15 PM
Like "Well you threw away the <foo> when you ran off so now the demons can open the gate again. I guess demon attacks in the area will ramp up for a few months untill the gate is fully open and then we'll have a full on demon invasion"? Yeah, done that too. I did say 'usually'.

Well, maybe wthout the "you screwed up" bit, unless it's actually relevant. But yeah. I find that a good way to retain a bunch of open-ness in the game, while still preventing it from beign "well, what do you want to do?"

Telok
2020-05-19, 10:28 PM
Well, maybe wthout the "you screwed up" bit, unless it's actually relevant. But yeah. I find that a good way to retain a bunch of open-ness in the game, while still preventing it from beign "well, what do you want to do?"

Twice.

The second time was supposed to happen by the planned plot, but by then I was sure enough of the players that I had the high mage council just give them the instructions to bypass all the defenses of the secure area. Sure enough, the plan of "go in, don't trigger the guardians, cut the iron flask containing the demon lord free of the altar, return without opening it" was just way too complicated for them.

Scripten
2020-05-20, 11:40 AM
More Darth Ultron now that I think about it

I've had my suspicions ever since he showed up. Between this thread and looking at his games, it seems pretty likely. He uses a lot of the same terms and runs games with similar tropes. And now we're getting back into orthogonal definitions of railroading (to justify vanilla railroading).

Quertus
2020-05-20, 11:42 PM
I've had my suspicions ever since he showed up. Between this thread and looking at his games, it seems pretty likely. He uses a lot of the same terms and runs games with similar tropes. And now we're getting back into orthogonal definitions of railroading (to justify vanilla railroading).

Would it be verboten to move beyond concurring and into actual "well, obviously" territory?

I mean, I've had paranoid suspicions that there could exist two such individuals, so alike in mannerisms and mindset, so similar in style and substance; these suspicions were allayed by a display of the same gems of wisdom - unique among Playgrounders in their particular qualities, as they can seemingly only be forged within that rarest of perspectives - that I always looked forward to in our conversations.

Knaight
2020-05-21, 12:30 AM
More Darth Ultron now that I think about it
Hold on, I think I had a line for this. Right, that's what it was:


I'd completely forgotten about that guy. Why couldn't you leave me that luxury?

Dimers
2020-05-21, 02:13 AM
People talk all the time about taking inspiration from a favorite story -- novel, manga, movie, TV series, whatever. Everything is scripted in those and they're very entertaining. So it follows (if you don't examine too closely) that highly scripted TTRPG scenes should be a good thing. I think that's just as strong a factor in the problem as any other type of game is.