PDA

View Full Version : Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good



Pex
2020-09-25, 02:16 PM
Spinning off from a modules discussion to talk about railroading in general.

I don't mind games where the DM sets up the plot, and the players deal with it. The opposite of the sandbox, the plot is the game. There's the overall Campaign Plot which is not necessarily revealed in Session 1 but eventually becomes the final goal. Meanwhile there are a series of adventure arcs that can take a few sessions before defeating the BBEG of that mini-story and go on to the next one. The DM creates the crises the players solve. Playing a module is a type of this trolly track.

What prevents it being a railroad is player freedom to solve the crisis the way they want to. Talk or fight. Go left or go right. Ignore the named NPC but like and care about random person #3 and have drama that has nothing to with the Plot. Maybe the players think of something the DM has not, but it's fun and cool so the DM goes with it. We're the PCs so of course we have to save the world. We're doing it, case closed, but we get to say how.

CharonsHelper
2020-09-25, 02:24 PM
Yeah - that's a good way to make a longer module/adventure especially.

I consider it to be the Immersive Sim style of adventure. In Deus Ex (the epitome of the immersive sim genre IMO) you didn't get to choose your missions, but there were always half a dozen viable ways to do them, and some of the methods likely weren't planned by the designers. They just give you the tools and the objective - how you deal with it is up to you. Plus, your choices often have a noticeable impact upon the plot.

Ex: Whether or not your brother dies. The story moves right along either way, but your decisions feel impactful.

kyoryu
2020-09-25, 02:26 PM
Are you talking about advice that's basically "create situations, not plots?"

So, like, if you were going to do a "the Baron is bad" game, a linear game would be "I am going to design a series of encounters that will basically be gone through, in order, until you fight the Baron."

OTOH, what I tend to do is "okay, the Baron is bad. These are the things he's going to do. These are the other people in the city, and the major players that are both supporting and against the Baron", and then letting the players figure out what they're going to do - assassinate him, lead an armed insurrection, cut off his support amongst the other nobles, even get on his good side and use that to change what he's doing.

(Also, linear games are fine. I just always say that you should get your players on board with that.)

NigelWalmsley
2020-09-25, 03:11 PM
Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

Democratus
2020-09-25, 03:52 PM
Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

This works fine in a sandbox/hex crawl.

Knowing what kind of game you are running is an important 'Session 0' decision.

kyoryu
2020-09-25, 03:59 PM
Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

In an adventure path kinda thing? Yup. And that's fine, just tell the players that's what's going on.

In a sandbox? Nope, not at all.

In a more emergent game? Not at all. There's lots of ways to have emergent games that still have "stories" but not predefined plots, and I'd be happy to talk about those.

NigelWalmsley
2020-09-25, 04:14 PM
In a more emergent game? Not at all. There's lots of ways to have emergent games that still have "stories" but not predefined plots, and I'd be happy to talk about those.

How are you defining "emergent"? Because it seems to me that if your big bad or whatever is determined before the game starts, that is by definition not emergent.

kyoryu
2020-09-25, 04:28 PM
How are you defining "emergent"? Because it seems to me that if your big bad or whatever is determined before the game starts, that is by definition not emergent.

I disagree.

I think you can have an emergent game where there is a known threat. How the players deal with that can still be emergent.

And, hell, maybe something happens to the "big bad" between campaign start and the end, and maybe that's even because of player actions, and so the big bad gets changed out.

Emergent play is all about setting a starting situation, and then putting the balls in motion. There can be a "big bad" at that point, but that can change over time too. If you're planning that the players will fight the big bad, and in this location, and after they do these other things... you're starting to pull away from that.

I mean, look at my Baron example... I'd say that sounds perfectly emergent. If I were to run that scenario, I really don't know how it would go. Any of the paths could work, and any of the paths could have interesting unintended consequences.

Assassinate the Baron? Cool, now there's a power vacuum.

Make alliances in the nobles to get them to overthrow? Awesome, now are they any better? What are their goals? What do they want from the players now? How have you entwined yourselves in debt and obligations to them?

Work to cause civic unrest? Great, now how does hte rest of the kingdom feel about that? What does the mob do when they've ousted him? Do the people see you as a savior and have expectations, or do they see you as a useful tool that must now be discarded?

Get in with him and convert him to Good? Sweet, now how is he going to deal with the rest of the kingdom? How many people now see him as a threat?

Pex
2020-09-25, 06:24 PM
Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

The point is we wouldn't just leave town. We're doing the Thing because that's the session's adventure. The freedom is in doing it how we want to do it.

OldTrees1
2020-09-25, 06:59 PM
The point is we wouldn't just leave town. We're doing the Thing because that's the session's adventure. The freedom is in doing it how we want to do it.

In other words this is a (multidimensional) continuum from 0 freedom to total freedom. A Trolly Track style will contain railroading (just look under the trolly) but it permits more agency than the more stereotypical railroading. That is fine, there are players that enjoy that style, and even some that prefer it over true sandboxes.


Although I do still prefer sandboxes. You get interesting moments like me, the DM, not knowing who the final antagonist will be. I thought I knew, and I might still be right, but the players have thrown that into doubt. And I love it.

Pleh
2020-09-25, 07:19 PM
Although I do still prefer sandboxes. You get interesting moments like me, the DM, not knowing who the final antagonist will be. I thought I knew, and I might still be right, but the players have thrown that into doubt. And I love it.

In a true sandbox, there may not end up being any big bad or final antagonist.

Vahnavoi
2020-09-25, 08:44 PM
Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

This question would be best answered by playing Star Control 2, Exile 3 or Ancient Domains of Mystery on a computer. :smallsigh: Long story short: if it's a campaign plot, it's by definition bigger than a "town". There's more than one hook and there are active events that will create more hooks if the players don't pay attention to the first one.

OldTrees1
2020-09-26, 08:34 AM
In a true sandbox, there may not end up being any big bad or final antagonist.

Very true. In this case the PCs don't like the status quo and there are agents that cause / propagate that status quo. So I suspect they will choose a final antagonist eventually. However that is not a forgone conclusion. I love how the DM's omniscience POV still leaves me with only speculation about the future.

Quertus
2020-09-26, 05:28 PM
I disagree.

I think you can have an emergent game where there is a known threat. How the players deal with that can still be emergent.

And, hell, maybe something happens to the "big bad" between campaign start and the end, and maybe that's even because of player actions, and so the big bad gets changed out.

Emergent play is all about setting a starting situation, and then putting the balls in motion. There can be a "big bad" at that point, but that can change over time too. If you're planning that the players will fight the big bad, and in this location, and after they do these other things... you're starting to pull away from that.

I mean, look at my Baron example... I'd say that sounds perfectly emergent. If I were to run that scenario, I really don't know how it would go. Any of the paths could work, and any of the paths could have interesting unintended consequences.

Assassinate the Baron? Cool, now there's a power vacuum.

Make alliances in the nobles to get them to overthrow? Awesome, now are they any better? What are their goals? What do they want from the players now? How have you entwined yourselves in debt and obligations to them?

Work to cause civic unrest? Great, now how does hte rest of the kingdom feel about that? What does the mob do when they've ousted him? Do the people see you as a savior and have expectations, or do they see you as a useful tool that must now be discarded?

Get in with him and convert him to Good? Sweet, now how is he going to deal with the rest of the kingdom? How many people now see him as a threat?

Imma use your example. Because it's good. And the PCs *could* do those things.

Or the PCs could *assist* the Baron (without converting him).

Or they could *ignore* the Baron, and *use* the chaos his plans create to improve their own position.

Or they could *completely ignore* the Baron, and travel to another area / plane / world.

If, as GM, you didn't get buy-in from the players that "defeating the evil Baron is the name of the game" from the start, then that's on you, and you need to decide if you're going to railroad the game back onto the tracks (bad), talk to the players like adults and ask them not to break your game (can be good, can be silly (see "the role of the mighty"), but should probably be coupled with learning to do a better job communicating the game in the future), or take the game in the direction that the players want to go (can be good, or can be something you're simply not able to run well).

I've done all 3 :smallredface:

And I'll still do the last two, depending.

In short, creating "trolly tracks" can be fine, *if* you get buy-in. But, then, that's true of most things.

Tanarii
2020-09-26, 08:48 PM
Trolley track's moral worth depends on the effort the DM and Players want to put in. They're much easier for everyone involved. They may or may not be as satisfying though.

Jay R
2020-09-27, 10:00 AM
The problem with a railroad doesn't come when the DM invents the problems and put them in a row.

The problem comes when the DM invents the solutions and puts them in a row.

Nothing wrong with, "First they have to make it through the swamp, then they will face an ogre, then there is a mountain to climb, leading to a secret door to a long cave."

The problems come in with "To get through the swamp they need to get K'karrh to guide them. Then the ogre can't be beaten except with Cold Iron. The mountain can't be climbed without Spider Climb. To get to the rest of the cave they will need to make a DC 30 Spot check."

I don't insist that the DM invent an entire world of encounters of which I will face less than 0.01%. I insist that when the DM puts me in a difficulty, I can invent a way to overcome it that the DM didn't necessarily plan.

My creativity and ideas should be aimed at more than just guessing the DM's secret trick.

Tanarii
2020-09-27, 10:27 AM
I don't insist that the DM invent an entire world of encounters of which I will face less than 0.01%.

Which brings to mind the other kind of Railroading. Illusionism.

False God
2020-09-27, 11:32 AM
*insert expression of general agreement with the OP here*

I could write a big tedious commentary on sandboxes, railroads and so on, but I'm fairly certain Op-Eds on that are really unnecessary.

OldTrees1
2020-09-27, 11:45 AM
The problem with a railroad doesn't come when the DM invents the problems and put them in a row.

The problem comes when the DM invents the solutions and puts them in a row.

Nothing wrong with, "First they have to make it through the swamp, then they will face an ogre, then there is a mountain to climb, leading to a secret door to a long cave."

The problems come in with "To get through the swamp they need to get K'karrh to guide them. Then the ogre can't be beaten except with Cold Iron. The mountain can't be climbed without Spider Climb. To get to the rest of the cave they will need to make a DC 30 Spot check."

I don't insist that the DM invent an entire world of encounters of which I will face less than 0.01%. I insist that when the DM puts me in a difficulty, I can invent a way to overcome it that the DM didn't necessarily plan.

My creativity and ideas should be aimed at more than just guessing the DM's secret trick.

Creating a series of problems that don't necessarily follow from each other and then saying "No" to anything that could stray from that sequence can be problematic. Check with your players before presuming that they are okay with that much railroading.

Case in point, Jay R seems fine with that degree of railroading. They are okay with the DM creating a predetermined series of problems as long as the PCs have full agency over how to handle each problem. However I would be annoyed that the only valid "solution" to reaching the cave was restricted to that specific sequence of problems. Is the mountain in the middle of the swamp? Are there a million ogres that happen to live spaced out in a circle surrounding the mountain? So it is wise for the DM to communicate (speak & listen) to the players to see what they want. Some players want even more predetermined structure than Jay R does and some want even less than I do. Communication is key to avoiding problems.

For me whether I am the DM or a PC, I don't want the DM to have determined any of the PC's actions (other than common sense and standard operator procedures). Although a fallible prediction of what the PCs will do (aka an educated guess) is fine. If the PCs plan to reach a cave in a mountain, they might or might not go through the swamp. If the DM is not the author, I bend that preference a little by having the DM and other players agree on some of the PC's objectives. But sometimes not even then, for example I am currently running Curse of Strahd with a suspicion but not a certainty that the PCs will have a conflict with Strahd. For that campaign I only required the PCs were corruptible and they would be transported to Barovia.

JNAProductions
2020-09-27, 11:52 AM
To me, the main difference between linearity (which is a perfectly fine playstyle choice) and railroading (which is awful) is player buy-in.

If your pitch is "You start behind the enemy lines-orcs, in this case-and the game will be about that invasion and handling it, in a pretty straightforward fashion," and the game is exactly that... Well, you knew exactly what you were signing on to. If you prefer games where you can go and do anything, then the pitch (possibly asking more about it, but still, at the pitch) is when you can say "Nah, not interested. Good luck and have fun with it, though!"

If your pitch is "Open-world sandbox, do anything, whatever you want!" and the game ends up being a linear series of encounters without responding to player input... Quite simply put, the DM lied.

While linear games are not my favorite style, there's nothing wrong with them. It's the lying that's bad, and will produce unhappy players since they can't do what they thought they could.

Quertus
2020-09-27, 01:20 PM
So, let's go with the swamp ogre mountain example. And imma use myself as an example.

I'm pretty anti-Railroading.

If the GM says, "I'm running a module, and there isn't any content given outside this linear path (and I can't just make something up)", I'm fine with that. You'll get my buy-in. Or… I might suggest additional content (if we're not stoked about the "module" nature of the game).

If the GM is writing their own content, and wants to run a linear adventure, they'll get my tentative buy-in, so long as a) it isn't egregiously stupid / out of character; b) the "what" is linear, but the "how" is not railroaded; C) the PCs can still have their intended effects.

"B" was already covered, I think. Denying "B" is nearly the definition of "Railroading". But, if one of the PCs is an air ship captain, requiring us to walk through the swamp & meet the Ogre just doesn't follow. If one of the PCs had bad experiences with and completely avoids water - including swamps - then it isn't in character for them to go on this quest (at least, now without going *around* the swamp). And, if, when you calculate overland movement, you set that it's actually *faster* to go around the swamp, then the basic premise of the linear adventure fails, too.

Looked at from another PoV, IMO, the whole game should be a conversation. Behavior (like Railroading) becomes problematic, then, when it involves not treating players with the respect due to reasonable adults, and shutting down that communication.

MoiMagnus
2020-09-27, 03:21 PM
Honestly, I think any pre-determined "campaign plot" is going to end up being railroady to some degree. There are simply way too many decision points between 1st level and 20th level for you to be able to set up a "campaign plot" that is robust in the face of any kind of open-ended choice by players. What if the players just leave town before running into the first adventure hook?

What if they don't?
Is it still a railroad if the players actively try to follow the overhaul direction you roughly hinted for them?

I mean, obviously, you just need one player who actively tries to go orthogonal to the plot for things to go south, or one big mistake / big luck at a critical moment for the course of the adventure to go in a completely different direction. But not everyone plays from 1st level to 20th level, so on short campaigns, this is not that unlikely.
[Unless you are the kind of player to willingly go outside the road whenever possible, in this case obviously you will never play in a group where there is no person like you...]

kyoryu
2020-09-27, 08:05 PM
I think it's useful to look at three related concepts:

1. Linear games. A game where the game is defined by a series of encounters/scenes that the GM designs in advance.
2. Participationist games - a linear game where the players are aware that the game is linear, and agree to follow the path.
3. Illusionist/railroad game - a linear game where the players are unaware that the game is linear, and so the GM must do various things to keep them on the path

OldTrees1
2020-09-27, 10:24 PM
I think it's useful to look at three related concepts:

1. Linear games. A game where the game is defined by a series of encounters/scenes that the GM designs in advance.
2. Participationist games - a linear game where the players are aware that the game is linear, and agree to follow the path.
3. Illusionist/railroad game - a linear game where the players are unaware that the game is linear, and so the GM must do various things to keep them on the path

Participationist games might include the players voluntarily agreeing to the GM doing various things to keep them on the path. Aka the Players ask the GM to intervene with railroading if the Players get lost. An example would be if they are playing a linear mystery game and the players ask the GM to help them get back on track if they chase a red herring for more than 30m.

MoiMagnus
2020-09-28, 03:02 AM
Participationist games might include the players voluntarily agreeing to the GM doing various things to keep them on the path. Aka the Players ask the GM to intervene with railroading if the Players get lost. An example would be if they are playing a linear mystery game and the players ask the GM to help them get back on track if they chase a red herring for more than 30m.

On a similar note, my main DM sometimes call for player vote (not character vote) to decide the direction the campaign should take. E.g "This decision will send the campaign of the rails, and precipitate the third act. Please vote on whether you you're ok to precipitate the end of the campaign by proceeding with this assassination attempt, or if you want to keep with your previous plan of condemning the governor to death for high treason, which will be an end of the campaign more focused on investigation and scheming."

kyoryu
2020-09-28, 07:49 AM
Participationist games might include the players voluntarily agreeing to the GM doing various things to keep them on the path. Aka the Players ask the GM to intervene with railroading if the Players get lost. An example would be if they are playing a linear mystery game and the players ask the GM to help them get back on track if they chase a red herring for more than 30m.

Yeah, 100%. Once you've signed up, you're on the path. You should be pretty deliberately following the breadcrumbs, and the GM should make sure there are enough or use some of those techniques.

At the end of the day, the techniques aren't fundamentally the problem (and some of the techniques are used, in some way, in open/emergent games as well). The issue is a) the fundamental structure and b) consent.

IOW, the difference between participationism and illusionism is the difference between polyamory and infidelity.


On a similar note, my main DM sometimes call for player vote (not character vote) to decide the direction the campaign should take. E.g "This decision will send the campaign of the rails, and precipitate the third act. Please vote on whether you you're ok to precipitate the end of the campaign by proceeding with this assassination attempt, or if you want to keep with your previous plan of condemning the governor to death for high treason, which will be an end of the campaign more focused on investigation and scheming."

Yeah, that's fair. I don't see any reason not to involve players at the player level in decisions like this.

Tanarii
2020-09-28, 08:55 AM
IOW, the difference between participationism and illusionism is the difference between polyamory and infidelity.
If I understand you correctly ...

if the players ask the GM the question "if we'd chosen apparently meaningful choice X differently would it have still resulted in the same thing" and the DM says 'Yes':
- it's illusionism if the players find that an abrogation of their agency and they get upset.
- it's participationism if the players find that an abrogation of their agency and they are happy about it.

I suppose technically there's also:
- the players don't understand the meaning of agency, so they don't find it an abrogated.


Most 'reality check if it's illusionism' phrasing that I've seen before assumes the GM must tell a lie and say 'No, it would have been different'. Because otherwise the illusion of agency fails. So that's interesting.

kyoryu
2020-09-28, 09:07 AM
If I understand you correctly ...

if the players ask the GM the question "if we'd chosen apparently meaningful choice X differently would it have still resulted in the same thing" and the DM says 'Yes':
- it's illusionism if the players find that an abrogation of their agency and they get upset.
- it's participationism if the players find that an abrogation of their agency and they are happy about it.

I suppose technically there's also:
- the players don't understand the meaning of agency, so they don't find it an abrogated.


Most 'reality check if it's illusionism' phrasing that I've seen before assumes the GM must tell a lie and say 'No, it would have been different'. Because otherwise the illusion of agency fails. So that's interesting.

Usually it's more done in advance.

Participationism:
"Let's run descent to avernus"
"Oh, cool, I know we're running a module, so my expectations are set and I will happily follow along with the module becuase that's what we agreed to do"

Illusionism:
"Let's run a game! You can do whatever you want! (But secretly I have the whole path and plot planned out!)"
"Oh, cool, I want a game where I have freedom!"

It's not about reaction. It's about knowledge and informed decision-making, especially about whether you play in the game in the first place.

If you don't have an agreement that it's okay to go out and fool around, it's still infidelity, even if you're forgiven after the fact.

And, yes, I do think the GM should be clear if they're running a more open/less directed game as well. There's advantages and disadvantages to both, and some people like one or the other. Giving people the information to make an informed decision on whether or not to play in the game is, to me, pretty much just basic courtesy.

CharonsHelper
2020-09-28, 09:41 AM
Usually it's more done in advance.

Participationism:
"Let's run descent to avernus"
"Oh, cool, I know we're running a module, so my expectations are set and I will happily follow along with the module becuase that's what we agreed to do"

Illusionism:
"Let's run a game! You can do whatever you want! (But secretly I have the whole path and plot planned out!)"
"Oh, cool, I want a game where I have freedom!"

It's not about reaction. It's about knowledge and informed decision-making, especially about whether you play in the game in the first place.

Yeah, that's sort of how I feel about fudging dice. If the GM lies about how he never fudges dice then it bugs me.

But I know my buddy (who was GM) was running a module (Strange Aeons) and he straight-up told us to start that a couple of the early encounters seemed overly brutal and that he might fudge them a bit rather than re-vamping them entirely. Mostly - it felt like the module designer was thinking of the 3.5 doppelgangers (single +5 / 1d6+1 slam) when writing it rather than the much scarier Pathfinder doppelganger (two +8 / 1d8+4 claws), which is pretty brutal at level 1. I think there may have even been an encounter with a pair of them at level 2.

OldTrees1
2020-09-28, 01:54 PM
It's not about reaction. It's about knowledge and informed decision-making, especially about whether you play in the game in the first place.

Agreed, the difference between Participationism and Illusionism is whether the Players were able to make an informed decision about the game in the first place. Both use railroading but in Participationism, the Player made an informed decision to buy into / opt into the specific kind of railroading that would be used.

You could even describe this as orthogonal to the Total Railroad/Total Agency continuum. If a campaign is almost a complete sandbox but has 1 elemental of railroading (Attempts to leave the Island return you to the Island), that railroading could be Participationism or Illusionism depending on if the Players were able to make an informed decision about it, EVEN if the PCs never attempt to leave the Island. If the Players knew about that limitation ahead of time, that would indicate that bit of railroading was Participationism. If the DM mislead the Players, then it would be Illusionism even if the PCs never attempted to leave the Island.


People might have various preferences over how much Player Agency they want in a game. But most people would agree they don't want to be tricked into playing a game that was not as advertised.

Quertus
2020-09-28, 02:27 PM
IOW, the difference between participationism and illusionism is the difference between polyamory and infidelity.


Usually it's more done in advance.

It's not about reaction. It's about knowledge and informed decision-making, especially about whether you play in the game in the first place.

If you don't have an agreement that it's okay to go out and fool around, it's still infidelity, even if you're forgiven after the fact.

Gotta say, this is probably the best and clearest explanation of the topic. Kudos!

RedMage125
2020-09-28, 06:12 PM
I've also coined the term "soft railroading" for incidents when the players do not see the "rails".

As long as they are genuinely unaware, they do not feel that their agency has been impinged.

I'm usually in favor of this. As a DM, shepherding your players so that they all have fun is crucial. Some DMs (like me) don't improvise well. Encounters that I have planned a week in advance are usually better than something I toss together with no notice.

I do, however, try to make sure I protect player agency. I think it's important to have players be able to make meaningful decisions. The game is their story, too. Even when I have a structured storyline, I always leave lots of open room for them to decide how to solve the problems they are presented with. I improvise when I have to, and have, on a few occasions, DRASTICALLY altered even major story points in response to unexpected player choices vis the BBEG.

That is sometimes very rewarding. I've had players who HATED having too much agency. They'd be paralyzed in a sandbox, and LITERALLY ASKED for a railroad plotline for the next game.

The thing to remember about railroads and trolley tracks is that sometimes players prefer them. There is no universal answer to the best way to run a game.

OldTrees1
2020-09-28, 07:09 PM
I've also coined the term "soft railroading" for incidents when the players do not see the "rails".

As long as they are genuinely unaware, they do not feel that their agency has been impinged.

Be very careful with this. Hidden Participationism? People can like that. Hidden Illusionism? Don't backstab people like that. Just because it is possible to make someone unaware of a trespass, does not mean it was not a trespass. Get player buy in and then disguise the act like a stage magician. Don't act like a con man.

Players prefer different degrees of agency along the spectrum from total to zero. And soft railroading can make participationism more immersive.

Pleh
2020-09-29, 12:55 PM
I've also coined the term "soft railroading" for incidents when the players do not see the "rails".

As long as they are genuinely unaware, they do not feel that their agency has been impinged.

I'm usually in favor of this. As a DM, shepherding your players so that they all have fun is crucial. Some DMs (like me) don't improvise well. Encounters that I have planned a week in advance are usually better than something I toss together with no notice.

I do, however, try to make sure I protect player agency. I think it's important to have players be able to make meaningful decisions. The game is their story, too. Even when I have a structured storyline, I always leave lots of open room for them to decide how to solve the problems they are presented with. I improvise when I have to, and have, on a few occasions, DRASTICALLY altered even major story points in response to unexpected player choices vis the BBEG.

That is sometimes very rewarding.

I vibe a lot with this. Soft railroading. Feels like saying there IS a recommended path (or set of paths), but no mandate to follow it.


Be very careful with this. Hidden Participationism? People can like that.

This feels confused to me. How can you have participationism if the participant is unaware of it?

Soft railroading, to me, is like wrapping a present for a friend. Sure, there is participation in the activity of a gift exchange, but it's somewhat implied you are hiding something from them. This kind of disallows them from specifically approving the gift, unless you never wrap it and just take them shopping.

OldTrees1
2020-09-29, 01:46 PM
This feels confused to me. How can you have participationism if the participant is unaware of it?

When I go see a stage magician I am volunteering for certain kinds of sleight of hand but I probably won't notice when it happens. Even if it is Penn and Teller, and they tell me exactly what they are going to do, they are still good enough that sometimes I don't notice it.

In an RPG if someone does not mind some types of railroading, but does not want their immersion disrupted, the DM might try to hide that those types of railroading did/did not occur.

In other words, the participant is generally aware and is consenting, but does not notice if/when the event happens.


So RedMage125 was defining "Soft Railroading = Railroading when Players don't notice" and I said, yes but that can be Participationism (consent granted) or Illusionism (no consent).





Player Buy In
Participationism
Player Deceived
Illusionism


Player noticed
Ok
Bad


Player did not notice
Soft Railroading
Ok
Bad

kyoryu
2020-09-29, 03:01 PM
So RedMage125 was defining "Soft Railroading = Railroading when Players don't notice" and I said, yes but that can be Participationism (consent granted) or Illusionism (no consent).

...


It's almost like consent is the main argument against illusionism. Probably because it is.

Democratus
2020-09-29, 03:38 PM
A little too hard-line on the "consent" angle.

I've thrown many a surprise party for someone. I didn't have their consent. But afterwards they were glad we did it.

There are lots of ways to game. And you should be careful before declaring one of them "badwrongfun".

kyoryu
2020-09-29, 03:59 PM
A little too hard-line on the "consent" angle.

I've thrown many a surprise party for someone. I didn't have their consent. But afterwards they were glad we did it.

There are lots of ways to game. And you should be careful before declaring one of them "badwrongfun".

Game however you want.

Just tell people what you're doing so they can decide to join your game or not.

Darth Credence
2020-09-29, 04:04 PM
Question on what people would consider to be railroading. There was an example given that people would need to cross the swamp, fight an ogre, and scale a cliff, although how they did it wouldn't matter. Some took that as railroading, some as trolley tracks.

If I was running a campaign, and that was the general progression, I would certainly allow for them to completely circumvent the swamp - want to go around, go around. If they went all the way around and found another place they could get to the top of the cliff, that's great, too. But I would almost certainly plop the ogre encounter in somewhere along their path - if I have built a balanced encounter, and there is no reason it wouldn't fit, I'm going to use it. If it was the ogre that lives in the depth of the swamp, and they never went through the swamp, then I'd skip it, but if it is just a balanced encounter without a location truly mattering, then I'm going to use it.

Is that illusionism, railroading, trolley tracks, or what? Am I the only DM who would not even consider this to be a bad thing, even if the players later found out that I set up an encounter in advance and then moved it to where they would encounter it?

OldTrees1
2020-09-29, 04:18 PM
Question on what people would consider to be railroading. There was an example given that people would need to cross the swamp, fight an ogre, and scale a cliff, although how they did it wouldn't matter. Some took that as railroading, some as trolley tracks.

Well yes, a Square is both a Rectangle and a Kite. Although for this case it would be a bit more apt to say a Square is both a Quadrilateral and a Parallelogram.

Trolley Tracks use railroading. They are less extreme than a total railroad and have more railroading than a sandbox.


If I was running a campaign, and that was the general progression, I would certainly allow for them to completely circumvent the swamp - want to go around, go around. If they went all the way around and found another place they could get to the top of the cliff, that's great, too. But I would almost certainly plop the ogre encounter in somewhere along their path - if I have built a balanced encounter, and there is no reason it wouldn't fit, I'm going to use it. If it was the ogre that lives in the depth of the swamp, and they never went through the swamp, then I'd skip it, but if it is just a balanced encounter without a location truly mattering, then I'm going to use it.

Is that illusionism, railroading, trolley tracks, or what? Am I the only DM who would not even consider this to be a bad thing, even if the players later found out that I set up an encounter in advance and then moved it to where they would encounter it?

Total Sandbox vs Road system vs Trolley Tracks vs Total Railroad:
1) Okay they can avoid the swamp. So you are not railroading them into encountering the swamp.
2) You are going to plop the ogre encounter. So you are railroading them into the ogre encounter.
So that is some amount of railroading. However since you are letting them avoid the swamp, this is on the less railroading/more sandboxing side of Trolley Tracks. Probably still best described by that term but it has a continuum inside.

Illusionism vs Participationism:
What do your players think about Quantum Ogres?
What do your players think about Trolley Tracks?
Do they know what kind of game you are going to run? Or do you mislead them? I suspect you would only use these methods if your players were okay with those methods. In that case it would be Participationism. If you had players that disliked Quantum Ogres and then you tried to use Quantum Ogres and hide your deception, that would be Illusionism.


There are players that are okay with the DMs using this kind of quantum ogre. You basically rolled for random encounters and stored the result until the next time they traveled. As a player I usually dislike / hate quantum ogres but this is palatable. However if your players would not mind it, then it is not a bad thing. The only value judgement comes in if the players would have minded X and the GM decides to do X anyways.

Darth Credence
2020-09-29, 04:40 PM
Thanks for the notes. I'm interested in this because I certainly don't want to railroad my players, and I tend to worry about things that I have done. Everyone seems to have a good time, but I've seen groups collapse quickly and want to avoid any pitfalls. I believe I have a handle on what you are pointing out as the fundamental differences, and think I'm in the realm of participationism, at least, but I'll add a little detail for anyone interested.

I'm would drop in the ogre encounter because they want to have encounters, and it can fit anywhere. I wouldn't drop in the ogre's swamp if they avoided the swamp, but if they go somewhere by a cave and I've already determined that an ogre is the appropriate challenge rating for the party, then I'd use it. What would it take to not be railroading? Would a table of encounters that I have made that are the right challenge level, then randomly selecting one when they get to a good place for an encounter fit the bill? As a note, I used a random encounter table recently without making sure it balanced the party, and nearly killed a couple of them. EDIT: I believe you answered this in your last paragraph.

As to what my players expect, we had a session 0 where we discussed everything, and how open we wanted it to be. I gave them the option of an intrigue based campaign that would have a lot of interlocking parts they could go through in any order, a traditional good vs evil that has a definite end game and story beats, but flexibility in how they get to and past those story beats, and a sandbox game where we all play it like a jam session and see what happens. They unanimously wanted the good vs evil campaign where I get them to specific story beats. While I never specifically discussed something like quantum ogre, I would take that session to have meant they would be fine with it as long as they have flexibility in the way they deal with any challenges.

I specifically went with the ogre because it was brought up earlier and it was close to something I just had. I had a dire wolf encounter in a cave they would be passing by. They saw the tracks, and decided to just bug out. Later, they were trying to convince a Lord of the Manor to sell them a painting, which was his fathers so not his to sell. I spur of the moment decided to make an encounter, where the Lord was trying to find out what had been attacking his people, and would be willing to put in a word for them with his father if they helped him solve the problem. They decided to help, and pretty quickly started to talk about the cave they passed on with the wolf tracks and headed there. I added in a couple of werewolves to lead the dire wolves so that it would fit the power level with the lord and his retainers along, and used the cave that I had previously set up. I did not consider this railroading, but was wondering if others would consider reusing something to be so, as a player could take it as me just really wanting them to use that cave. And yet, in the end, they never even went in the cave as they instead set up a fire at the entrance, surrounded by bear traps, and smoked them out into a killing field.

kyoryu
2020-09-29, 04:43 PM
I wouldn't drop in the ogre's swamp if they avoided the swamp, but if they go somewhere by a cave and I've already determined that an ogre is the appropriate challenge rating for the party, then I'd use it. What would it take to not be railroading? Would a table of encounters that I have made that are the right challenge level, then randomly selecting one when they get to a good place for an encounter fit the bill? As a note, I used a random encounter table recently without making sure it balanced the party, and nearly killed a couple of them.

Key words highlighted.

They're getting choices on where to go and what to do. That sounds not railroady to me.

It's not the prepared encounter that's the problem. The problem is when it's a series of encounters that can't be avoided, and must go from one to the other for the game to make sense.

Also, random encounters shouldn't necessarily mean "roll initiative" and they pretty definitely shouldn't mean "kill or die". It means you encounter them. That can mean seeing evidence of them, seeing them from a distance, etc. And think of the world.... the ogre or whomever doesn't just materialize in front of them, right? Where do they see them? How? Who sees who first? Do they engage, and if so, in what way? Can they run? They should be able to!

OldTrees1
2020-09-29, 05:24 PM
Thanks for the notes. I'm interested in this because I certainly don't want to railroad my players, and I tend to worry about things that I have done.
One of the biggest* takeaways from these threads is: Railroading is not inherently bad. Players have preferences on how much they want. Some players do not want the total agency of a sandbox. Some players do want to have the DM keep the group moving towards the adventure. A DM that listens to their player's preferences and respects those preferences will be wise indeed. Oh, and erring on the side of more agency/less railroading is usually safe.

*The biggest takeaway is the GM should respect the players (including themselves) and their preferences, but most people reading these threads already know that. The rare person that doesn't gets lectured.


I'm would drop in the ogre encounter because they want to have encounters, and it can fit anywhere. I wouldn't drop in the ogre's swamp if they avoided the swamp, but if they go somewhere by a cave and I've already determined that an ogre is the appropriate challenge rating for the party, then I'd use it. What would it take to not be railroading? Would a table of encounters that I have made that are the right challenge level, then randomly selecting one when they get to a good place for an encounter fit the bill? As a note, I used a random encounter table recently without making sure it balanced the party, and nearly killed a couple of them. EDIT: I believe you answered this in your last paragraph.

Yes a random encounter table would not be railroading. However which do your players prefer? They might prefer the balance of your carefully selected random encounters over the minute loss of agency compared to an environment based random encounter table. Based upon context and other threads, I suspect, but don't known, that your players prefer your selected encounters over using a random encounter table.


As to what my players expect, we had a session 0 where we discussed everything, and how open we wanted it to be. I gave them the option of an intrigue based campaign that would have a lot of interlocking parts they could go through in any order, a traditional good vs evil that has a definite end game and story beats, but flexibility in how they get to and past those story beats, and a sandbox game where we all play it like a jam session and see what happens. They unanimously wanted the good vs evil campaign where I get them to specific story beats. While I never specifically discussed something like quantum ogre, I would take that session to have meant they would be fine with it as long as they have flexibility in the way they deal with any challenges.

Communication is key and you know your players' preferences better than I do. You might want to ask them about how you do these travel encounters, however I suspect you have a rough idea already.


I specifically went with the ogre because it was brought up earlier and it was close to something I just had. I had a dire wolf encounter in a cave they would be passing by. They saw the tracks, and decided to just bug out. Later, they were trying to convince a Lord of the Manor to sell them a painting, which was his fathers so not his to sell. I spur of the moment decided to make an encounter, where the Lord was trying to find out what had been attacking his people, and would be willing to put in a word for them with his father if they helped him solve the problem. They decided to help, and pretty quickly started to talk about the cave they passed on with the wolf tracks and headed there. I added in a couple of werewolves to lead the dire wolves so that it would fit the power level with the lord and his retainers along, and used the cave that I had previously set up. I did not consider this railroading, but was wondering if others would consider reusing something to be so, as a player could take it as me just really wanting them to use that cave. And yet, in the end, they never even went in the cave as they instead set up a fire at the entrance, surrounded by bear traps, and smoked them out into a killing field.

That does not sound like railroading. You placed a direwolf den in the world and the PCs only encountered the den because the players choose to go there. You did decide the direwolf den, located near a Manor, would indicate the nearby people had been attacked before by the wolves, but that is not railroading. That is deriving information about your world from the facts you had established.

Duff
2020-09-29, 07:01 PM
Soft railroading, to me, is like wrapping a present for a friend. Sure, there is participation in the activity of a gift exchange, but it's somewhat implied you are hiding something from them. This kind of disallows them from specifically approving the gift, unless you never wrap it and just take them shopping.

I quite like this as a metaphor, In a similar way, most games require the players to discover things the GM already knows*. And the process is expected to be fun
But
There needs to be a degree of trust. The GM needs to trust that the gift will be opened and the effort appreciated even if it's not actually as well chosen a gift as they hope. Otherwise they aren't going to the effort next time.
The player needs to trust that the gift will not be harmful and that the GM is not going to make them use the thing in a particular way. It's ok for the GM to suggest the player put the vase on the mantlepiece. It's not OK for the GM to yell at the player for putting it on the table instead.

To raise a point I also raised on the module post, the amount of freedom that's desirable for player and for GM will vary, not only from group to group but from game to game.
To me, Shadowrun works best when the mission is given by the GM "Get the info from the company HQ". But then, within that mission the GM basically runs a sandbox. PCs want to talk to the retired former head of security? "give me 10 minutes" - creates former head of security, including the bodyguards etc to ensure he never tells the secrets
Feng Shui works as the party rushes at breakneck pace from one fight to the next without stopping to think or plan (so we basically followed the monorail willingly)
But the Game of Thrones game I ran was at it's best when the players drove the action. You want to form an alliance against that house? OK. Those houses are having a war - you want to join the war? Which side? OTOH, when I ran the adventure which came in the book, I took the needed steps to make the adventure and the rest of the game fit and the players complained of being railroaded


* Where a GM can be considered to "know" things they haven't actually made up yet but can, and will if they have to

Pex
2020-09-29, 08:45 PM
Question on what people would consider to be railroading. There was an example given that people would need to cross the swamp, fight an ogre, and scale a cliff, although how they did it wouldn't matter. Some took that as railroading, some as trolley tracks.

If I was running a campaign, and that was the general progression, I would certainly allow for them to completely circumvent the swamp - want to go around, go around. If they went all the way around and found another place they could get to the top of the cliff, that's great, too. But I would almost certainly plop the ogre encounter in somewhere along their path - if I have built a balanced encounter, and there is no reason it wouldn't fit, I'm going to use it. If it was the ogre that lives in the depth of the swamp, and they never went through the swamp, then I'd skip it, but if it is just a balanced encounter without a location truly mattering, then I'm going to use it.

Is that illusionism, railroading, trolley tracks, or what? Am I the only DM who would not even consider this to be a bad thing, even if the players later found out that I set up an encounter in advance and then moved it to where they would encounter it?

It's a type of railroad that has been called All Roads Lead To Rome. It has also been published advice to DMs in D&D past. It's mileage varies territory whether one thinks it good or bad. If the players never knew there would have been an ogre encounter it's ok with me. Location didn't matter. The encounter is for fun and/or the party is meant to learn important information from it. For some players this still would be distasteful. It is a direct railroad problem if the party knew there was an ogre in the swamp and purposely avoided the swamp so as not to encounter the ogre. The DM is forcing the encounter against their wishes.

The better solution is not to have the ogre encounter at all. Just because the PCs travel somewhere doesn't mean something must happen on the way. They avoided the danger area so should not encounter danger. If dealing with the ogre was crucial they should have learned the knowledge of the urgency before they set out to travel. That would be the trolley track, but the players are free to handle the ogre situation as they please.

Tanarii
2020-09-29, 10:01 PM
Usually it's more done in advance.

Participationism:
"Let's run descent to avernus"
"Oh, cool, I know we're running a module, so my expectations are set and I will happily follow along with the module becuase that's what we agreed to do"

Illusionism:
"Let's run a game! You can do whatever you want! (But secretly I have the whole path and plot planned out!)"
"Oh, cool, I want a game where I have freedom!"

It's not about reaction. It's about knowledge and informed decision-making, especially about whether you play in the game in the first place.

If you don't have an agreement that it's okay to go out and fool around, it's still infidelity, even if you're forgiven after the fact.

And, yes, I do think the GM should be clear if they're running a more open/less directed game as well. There's advantages and disadvantages to both, and some people like one or the other. Giving people the information to make an informed decision on whether or not to play in the game is, to me, pretty much just basic courtesy.
Well that's a very different thing then. You're just agreeing to take choices off the menu, instead of presenting apparently meaningful choices that aren't actually choices. IMO they're completely unrelated. Willing constraints don't remove player agency.

MoiMagnus
2020-09-30, 05:03 AM
I wouldn't drop in the ogre's swamp if they avoided the swamp, but if they go somewhere by a cave and I've already determined that an ogre is the appropriate challenge rating for the party, then I'd use it. What would it take to not be railroading?

I'd say it depends on how you presented the choice to go through the swamp or not.

If the party is thinking "the swamp looks pretty dangerous, and that's typically the place where you could find an ogre, so let's be safe and go through the cave" but they still encounter the same ogre in the cave, that would feel railroading: you negated the desired effect of their choice.

However, if the choice swamp vs cave had nothing to do with avoiding some specific kind of enemies, that's fair to put the ogre in both situations.

Democratus
2020-09-30, 08:12 AM
Game however you want.

Just tell people what you're doing so they can decide to join your game or not.

Absolutely not. That would be like telling someone that I'm having a surprise party for them. Completely spoils the point.

My players come to my table so that I can deliver a fun game, regardless of its structure. Sometimes everything is above board.

Sometimes I completely fool the players as a part of my game plan. It's not "badwrongfun", it's showmanship.

Forty years in and I haven't had any complaints yet.

Silly Name
2020-09-30, 08:31 AM
Absolutely not. That would be like telling someone that I'm having a surprise party for them. Completely spoils the point.

My players come to my table so that I can deliver a fun game, regardless of its structure. Sometimes everything is above board.

Sometimes I completely fool the players as a part of my game plan. It's not "badwrongfun", it's showmanship.

Forty years in and I haven't had any complaints yet.

I think you're talking past each other. kyoryu isn't saying that surprise and unexpected things are inherently bad, but rather that you should make sure people are on board with the kind of game you plan to run (and this is, of course, much easier with friends because we know what they like and dislike and we build a catalogue of implicit and explicit agreements along the years).

In other words, while in general surprise parties are ok, if you had a friend that you know absolutely hates surprise parties, it wouldn't be very nice to throw her one.

Likewise, what kyoryu is suggesting is to make sure everyone is on the same page about what type of game they're going to play. If we agree on playing Risk tonight, and then you show up bringing Settlers of Cataan, I'm going to be annoyed. I may even enjoy playing SoC, but I had agreed (and thus likely wanted) to play a different game.

And on the other hand, this process is much different from twists and sudden revelations and new knowledge that changes the players' perspective. Those are plot elements that all can work to great effect, but still exist within the structure of the agreed-upon game (and, again, agreement can be implicitly reached through having played together for forty years and thus knowing pretty well what your players like).

kyoryu
2020-09-30, 08:44 AM
Well that's a very different thing then. You're just agreeing to take choices off the menu, instead of presenting apparently meaningful choices that aren't actually choices. IMO they're completely unrelated. Willing constraints don't remove player agency.

Yes, precisely.

Which is why my stance on this topic is really "make as linear of a game as you want, just be honest that you're doing it, so people can decide to play in that game or not".


Absolutely not. That would be like telling someone that I'm having a surprise party for them. Completely spoils the point.

My players come to my table so that I can deliver a fun game, regardless of its structure. Sometimes everything is above board.

Sometimes I completely fool the players as a part of my game plan. It's not "badwrongfun", it's showmanship.

Forty years in and I haven't had any complaints yet.

If your players know that you're doing this, overall? Then they're on board with it and you're doing exactly what I'd suggest.

But a lot of people hate linear games, and illusionism doubly so. I think it's worth while to tell people that aren't on board that it's a thing they do so they can decide to play or not. I mean, what's the downside? I don't necessarily mean telegraph every time you do it.


I think you're talking past each other. kyoryu isn't saying that surprise and unexpected things are inherently bad, but rather that you should make sure people are on board with the kind of game you plan to run (and this is, of course, much easier with friends because we know what they like and dislike and we build a catalogue of implicit and explicit agreements along the years).

In other words, while in general surprise parties are ok, if you had a friend that you know absolutely hates surprise parties, it wouldn't be very nice to throw her one.

Exactly. Especially since most people like surprise parties, making it a somewhat poor analogy. It's more like.... feeding someone real hamburgers when you know they're a vegetarian, and claiming that they're some kind of plant-based protein. Maybe the vegetarian would choose to come to your cookout anyway, and just eat sides or hangout. Maybe they would skip. Maybe they'd even have one and deal with it. But that should be thier choice, not yours. Claiming that they're really actually plant based protein when they're actually meat is a jerk move, even if they enjoy it.

Tanarii
2020-09-30, 08:45 AM
Is that illusionism, railroading, trolley tracks, or what? Am I the only DM who would not even consider this to be a bad thing, even if the players later found out that I set up an encounter in advance and then moved it to where they would encounter it?
It's illusionism. And unfortunately you're not the only DM who doesn't think it is a bad thing. Some are hard core advocates for it. Players who value agency, the ability to make meaningful choices, suffer because it's all too common.

Silly Name
2020-09-30, 09:04 AM
It's illusionism. And unfortunately you're not the only DM who doesn't think it is a bad thing. Some are hard core advocates for it. Players who value agency, the ability to make meaningful choices, suffer because it's all too common.

On the other hand, illusionism is sometimes necessary to keep the game going forward. I, as a GM, have limited time and resources to create a game, so if I have a perfectly serviceable encounter at the ready and the players happen to decide to visit an area that's underprepared, I can use that planned encounter to provide them with some content.

MoiMagnus spelled it out pretty well upthread:


I'd say it depends on how you presented the choice to go through the swamp or not.

If the party is thinking "the swamp looks pretty dangerous, and that's typically the place where you could find an ogre, so let's be safe and go through the cave" but they still encounter the same ogre in the cave, that would feel railroading: you negated the desired effect of their choice.

However, if the choice swamp vs cave had nothing to do with avoiding some specific kind of enemies, that's fair to put the ogre in both situations.

Respecting player agency necessitates understanding what choices they're making and why. It's bad form to put the ogre in the cave if the players went into the cave to avoid the swamp ogre, because then I'd be negating player agency by fundamentally making their choices irrelevant.

If the decision to go through the cave was due to the fact that the players wanted to avoid environmental hazards (bad terrain, quicksand, bugs and sickness, etc), then meeting an ogre in the cave doesn't really do anything to undercut that decision.

kyoryu
2020-09-30, 09:34 AM
On the other hand, illusionism is sometimes necessary to keep the game going forward.

No, it's not.

There's ways to run games that involve zero illusionism, and can involve less prep over time.


I, as a GM, have limited time and resources to create a game, so if I have a perfectly serviceable encounter at the ready and the players happen to decide to visit an area that's underprepared, I can use that planned encounter to provide them with some content.

MoiMagnus spelled it out pretty well upthread:

Respecting player agency necessitates understanding what choices they're making and why. It's bad form to put the ogre in the cave if the players went into the cave to avoid the swamp ogre, because then I'd be negating player agency by fundamentally making their choices irrelevant.

If the decision to go through the cave was due to the fact that the players wanted to avoid environmental hazards (bad terrain, quicksand, bugs and sickness, etc), then meeting an ogre in the cave doesn't really do anything to undercut that decision.

I mostly agree with this.

Again, "use of prepared encounters" isn't illusionism, inherently. And the problem with most discussions of the Quantum Ogre is that they scope in too closely and miss the bigger context.

Using an encounter you prepped isn't the problem. The "problem" is when the GM has scripted out an entire set of encounters that the players will go through in a particular order (or are allowed some small amount of "switching"). And even that's not a problem.

The problem is when:

1. The players are unaware that this is how the game is structured
2. The GM presents choices to the players that appear meaningful
3. The GM subverts those choices so that the GM's scripted set of encounters is still what happens

So, if the GM has decided that:

a: the players will meet the ogre on the way out of town, and find the note leading to the bandit cave
b: in the bandit cave, the players will find the journals pointing them to the Society For A Brighter Future
c: in investigating the SFABF, the players will learn of the evil cult monsters that are secretly behind them...

then ensuring that the ogre is there no matter where they go is illusionism (provided the players are unaware that they're being scripted).

But if the GM has just prepped an ogre encounter as a cool encounter, and the players go in a cave for other reasons, and the GM just uses that encounter to save prep time? I don't see that as illusionism. The ogre isn't there to preserve the GM's sequence - it's just there to save prep energy. You know, presuming that the players went to the cave instead of the swamp for some larger reason, and that the ogre isn't putting them back "on track" to what the GM wants them to do.

I mean, otherwise at the extreme case you can say that random encounter tables are illusionism, which seems silly.

Quertus
2020-09-30, 09:35 AM
A little too hard-line on the "consent" angle.

I've thrown many a surprise party for someone. I didn't have their consent. But afterwards they were glad we did it.

There are lots of ways to game. And you should be careful before declaring one of them "badwrongfun".

Kantian ethics includes the notion that that is ethical to which adults have, in principal, given consent.

Consider the following parallel: "I have cheated on many partners. I didn't have their consent. But afterwards they were glad I did it." As stated above, the cheating was not (by that standard) ethical, regardless of the ultimate forgiveness or effects (other metrics of determining ethical behavior can give different results).

One could argue that surprise parties are culturally accepted, and therefore opt-out. One has, in principal, consented to them unless otherwise noted. Cheating and Railroading lack that cultural acceptance that "throw a party for someone" has.


Question on what people would consider to be railroading. There was an example given that people would need to cross the swamp, fight an ogre, and scale a cliff, although how they did it wouldn't matter. Some took that as railroading, some as trolley tracks.

If I was running a campaign, and that was the general progression, I would certainly allow for them to completely circumvent the swamp - want to go around, go around. If they went all the way around and found another place they could get to the top of the cliff, that's great, too. But I would almost certainly plop the ogre encounter in somewhere along their path - if I have built a balanced encounter, and there is no reason it wouldn't fit, I'm going to use it. If it was the ogre that lives in the depth of the swamp, and they never went through the swamp, then I'd skip it, but if it is just a balanced encounter without a location truly mattering, then I'm going to use it.

Is that illusionism, railroading, trolley tracks, or what? Am I the only DM who would not even consider this to be a bad thing, even if the players later found out that I set up an encounter in advance and then moved it to where they would encounter it?

It depends.

If they take an air ship, and you have it rain ogres so that they can have that ogre encounter on schedule, then you are forcing things to stay on track, and that's railroading.

If they go around the swamp, and you're like, "dagnabbit, I rolled that ogre on the random encounter tables and went through the effort to look up its stats. There's Ogres in the terrain they're going through, no point in rerolling."? Answers will vary, but I consider that reasonable, as it doesn't bend game physics out of shape to get the result.

"Moving the Ogre" is kinda the definition of a Quantum Ogre. My stance on the practice...depends. Obviously, if the players are aware of and accept it (which includes or is tied into comments about them wanting / preferring for you to craft balanced encounters), then it is ethical. Outside that, if it bends physics, then it is Railroading. If the players are specifically attempting to avoid that Ogre, and are taking actions to reduce the risk of that encounter, then it is potentially an abridgment of their agency, which is also Railroading.

That is to say,

I'd say it depends on how you presented the choice to go through the swamp or not.

If the party is thinking "the swamp looks pretty dangerous, and that's typically the place where you could find an ogre, so let's be safe and go through the cave" but they still encounter the same ogre in the cave, that would feel railroading: you negated the desired effect of their choice.

However, if the choice swamp vs cave had nothing to do with avoiding some specific kind of enemies, that's fair to put the ogre in both situations.

If the stated action logically should have the desired consequences, yes, negating their efforts is Railroading.


And, obviously, if you decide it would be a really cool scene to have the party pour lava on the ogre, and force every other solution to the encounter to fail, disregarding game physics, than that is also Railroading.

And I consider all forms of Railroading to be bad.

On a related note, if the module / adventure requires the Ogre encounter (otherwise, how could the PCs ever...), then the module is Fragile. And that, generally, is a sign that the module writer (who may be the GM) needs to work on their skills.

Quertus
2020-09-30, 09:55 AM
On the other hand, illusionism is sometimes necessary to keep the game going forward.

Citation needed. Unless we're defining our terms differently, I believe I've seen (and run!) plenty of games which disprove that statement.


Respecting player agency necessitates understanding what choices they're making and why. It's bad form to put the ogre in the cave if the players went into the cave to avoid the swamp ogre, because then I'd be negating player agency by fundamentally making their choices irrelevant.

If the decision to go through the cave was due to the fact that the players wanted to avoid environmental hazards (bad terrain, quicksand, bugs and sickness, etc), then meeting an ogre in the cave doesn't really do anything to undercut that decision.

I disagree. If the players take an airship, for the express purpose of moving faster / avoiding terrain hazards / whatever, even without considering avoiding monsters in general let alone ogres in particular, and you force them to have the ogre encounter, it's still an abridgment of their agency to undercut the logical consequences of their actions.

Ogre in a cave, otoh, is fine in my book. Even if, in ignorance, the PCs chose the cave thinking it would reduce the odds of encountering Ogres. The PCs are allowed to be wrong; the PCs are allowed to fail. Their choices can be dumb, or otherwise not have their intended effects. But the PCs should be informed when their choices will not have the intended effects if the PCs would know better.

In short, while intent can matter, game physics should matter more.

kyoryu
2020-09-30, 09:58 AM
Respecting player agency necessitates understanding what choices they're making and why. It's bad form to put the ogre in the cave if the players went into the cave to avoid the swamp ogre, because then I'd be negating player agency by fundamentally making their choices irrelevant.

If the decision to go through the cave was due to the fact that the players wanted to avoid environmental hazards (bad terrain, quicksand, bugs and sickness, etc), then meeting an ogre in the cave doesn't really do anything to undercut that decision.

That's one of the things that random encounters can do - they can list out the dangers that the players might encounter, putting the onus of risk management on the players.

Like, say the players need to get to Adventureville, and there's two paths - one though the Friendly Fields which will take two weeks, but they will likely only encounter mostly pleasant terrain and fairly weak critters. The other is through the Menacing Mountains where the very terrain is out to get them, and it's full of all sorts of bad things which are scary, but, if they're lucky, they can do in two days.

Now the players get to decide, and the GM isn't in a position to have to "screw" them for making the "wrong" choice. There can still be possible dangers in the Friendly Fields without it being the GM doing an "a-ha!" on them.

That all requires the use of prepared encounters, and some of the encounters might be possible for both FF and MM. But it's in no way illusionism by any definition I can think of.

Silly Name
2020-09-30, 10:10 AM
Citation needed. Unless we're defining our terms differently, I believe I've seen (and run!) plenty of games which disprove that statement.

I think I may be misunderstanding how others have used "illusionism" in regard to discrete scenarios, so let's just say that statement of mine is probably wrong.



I disagree. If the players take an airship, for the express purpose of moving faster / avoiding terrain hazards / whatever, even without considering avoiding monsters in general let alone ogres in particular, and you force them to have the ogre encounter, it's still an abridgment of their agency to undercut the logical consequences of their actions.

I should have probably put more emphasis on this, but what I meant by "perfectly serviceable encounter" is that the encounter also makes sense in the context. Of course I agree ogres raining from the sky is ridicolous, and the players taking an airship require a different approach rather than the players going through a cave.


Ogre in a cave, otoh, is fine in my book. Even if, in ignorance, the PCs chose the cave thinking it would reduce the odds of encountering Ogres. The PCs are allowed to be wrong; the PCs are allowed to fail. Their choices can be dumb, or otherwise not have their intended effects.

Agreed, although I'm also of the opinion that a scenario in which the PCs "fail" because the GM has decided they fail a priori is still not ideal. I'd rather the failure come about because of faulty logic, choices that, in retrospect, were poorly made, and lack of research. I.E., if they had stopped to ask more questions or look up information on ogres, they may have been able to find out that ogres live in caves too.

Quertus
2020-09-30, 11:24 AM
Of course I agree ogres raining from the sky is ridicolous, and the players taking an airship require a different approach rather than the players going through a cave.

Agreed, although I'm also of the opinion that a scenario in which the PCs "fail" because the GM has decided they fail a priori is still not ideal. I'd rather the failure come about because of faulty logic, choices that, in retrospect, were poorly made, and lack of research. I.E., if they had stopped to ask more questions or look up information on ogres, they may have been able to find out that ogres live in caves too.

I have no disagreement with any of this.

I would add that "research" should not be necessary for things that the PCs should reasonably be expected to know. Contrariwise, "no, you know nothing about Ogres" is fine - or is most players, and would be for me if I hadn't played through too many "you must seem knowledge from the sage / crazy / village idiot to learn that werewolves are vulnerable to McGuffin silver" adventures, and have lost my taste for such. My PCs generally come more trained than that (having been trained by - and, often, sired by - those who lived through such adventures), dagnabbit!

OldTrees1
2020-09-30, 11:27 AM
It's illusionism. And unfortunately you're not the only DM who doesn't think it is a bad thing. Some are hard core advocates for it. Players who value agency, the ability to make meaningful choices, suffer because it's all too common.

I am not sure their example is illusionism. It is a quantum ogre but it might be participationism. Would you double check and elaborate?

RedMage125
2020-09-30, 12:15 PM
There's a few people here that are letting themselves fall into the trap of "one true way-ism". In their zeal to protect what they see as an integral part of the game, they are denouncing "badwrongfun".

Quertus said it earlier. Railroading, whether soft or even hard railroading, is not necessarily bad. Different people have different values on the subject of player agency. As a DM who has had players LITERALLY REQUEST a railroad plotline (because they hated the absolute freedom of choice a sandbox offered, they were too paralyzed with indecision), I can affirm from experience that this is true.

So, to be clear when I mentioned "Soft Railroading" earlier, the example of the prepared Ogre encounter that the DM uses no matter which road the PCs take...that is Soft Railroading. Provided the players don't ever find out that the ogre was planned no matter what.

Now Tanarii (whom I often agree with on the forums), decries this as something that makes players who value Player Agency "suffer". I disagree. Because the players have no idea that any infringement of their agency has occurred. And, indeed, it could be said that no infringement HAS occurred. Unless the decision the PCs made was specifically to avoid the known territory of that specific ogre, it isn't really an infringement.

What some people who advocate for sandbox and complete Player Agency don't always acknowledge is that some DMs, some of whom are very good DMs, don't always improvise well. When I plan an encounter even a little bit in advance (like even the day before), it's going to be a better encounter. This is because one of my weaknesses in encounter design is failure to use terrain in interesting or dynamic ways. An encounter I come up with on the spot is likely to just take place in an open room or open area of cave or plain...very little terrain at all. Give me some time, and I can come up with ideas. I've had some good ones in the past that ended up being AWESOME, and I can re-use or cherry-pick from those.

One of my perceived responsibilities as a DM is one of Aesthetic Standards. While Player Agency is also a value I respect, I view the aesthetics as a higher virtue. To me, presenting my players with a higher-quality encounter is worth any "crime" attributed to the "shell game" of preparing encounters in advance. Of course, I usually try to establish major choices for players towards the end of a session, so I can prepare encounters that DON'T infringe on their agency (i.e. "You guys can choose to go through the mountain pass, or the lowland swamps", and based on their choice, I will be preparing either mountain or swamp encounters between sessions). But, if forced into it, I'd rather prepare my encounters in advance. I'm a good enough storyteller to make these encounters appear to fit in with where the players are, though, so none of them even realize that this ogre would have been in their way no matter which direction they chose. And if those "rails" are never visible, who's to say that anything "suffered"? They got a better encounter that had more effort and thought put into it.

To me, it would be a greater crime to give my players something of lower quality.

Faily
2020-09-30, 12:22 PM
I've also coined the term "soft railroading" for incidents when the players do not see the "rails".

As long as they are genuinely unaware, they do not feel that their agency has been impinged.

I'm usually in favor of this. As a DM, shepherding your players so that they all have fun is crucial. Some DMs (like me) don't improvise well. Encounters that I have planned a week in advance are usually better than something I toss together with no notice.

I do, however, try to make sure I protect player agency. I think it's important to have players be able to make meaningful decisions. The game is their story, too. Even when I have a structured storyline, I always leave lots of open room for them to decide how to solve the problems they are presented with. I improvise when I have to, and have, on a few occasions, DRASTICALLY altered even major story points in response to unexpected player choices vis the BBEG.

That is sometimes very rewarding. I've had players who HATED having too much agency. They'd be paralyzed in a sandbox, and LITERALLY ASKED for a railroad plotline for the next game.

The thing to remember about railroads and trolley tracks is that sometimes players prefer them. There is no universal answer to the best way to run a game.

I relate very strongly to this!

As a player, I often feel lost in sandboxes. I am quite fine with buying in on whatever the GM wants to do and going along with the plot. I consider play-buy-in a part of my duty as a good player.

I consider things to be "bad railroady" when I don't get to make choices in response to what is happening, or when the story forces very dumb choices (Savage Tide's infamous "release these Big Bads to deal with the Lesser Big Bads" being on).

Tanarii
2020-09-30, 12:51 PM
I am not sure their example is illusionism. It is a quantum ogre but it might be participationism. Would you double check and elaborate?
Per the definition I was given of participationism upthread, it is not that. That's (apparently, based on my understanding of how it was explained to me upthread) where you all agree to not make some certain choices in advance, thus avoiding abrogating agency.

The quantum ogre as usually presented, and as presented in post I quoted, is the canonical example of defined illusionism. It always abrogates agency. There is no way you can take a prepared encounter for one specific location or area/zone, have the players make a choice to have their PC avoid the zone, then move it so the players encounter it anyway, without it being illusionism / abrogating agency.

kyoryu
2020-09-30, 12:52 PM
There's a few people here that are letting themselves fall into the trap of "one true way-ism". In their zeal to protect what they see as an integral part of the game, they are denouncing "badwrongfun".

Quertus said it earlier. Railroading, whether soft or even hard railroading, is not necessarily bad. Different people have different values on the subject of player agency. As a DM who has had players LITERALLY REQUEST a railroad plotline (because they hated the absolute freedom of choice a sandbox offered, they were too paralyzed with indecision), I can affirm from experience that this is true.

I agree that people like different things and that so long as everybody agrees to a particular style of game - from the sandiest sandbox to the most linear linear game to be linear - that all is good. As well as basically every other style of game that is argued. The ultimate answer to "is it okay" is "if everyone agrees to it".

And that's the key.

Some people like high agency. Some people like low agency. And that should be part of the pre game discussion, so that people can play games that they want to play and avoid games that they don't want to play.

And so if you're hearing "badwrongfun" in this thread from me, and I think from most people, it's not really about the style of the game - it's about getting everybody on the same page. You wanna run a totally linear game? Go for it! You wanna run an open sandbox? Go you! But tell players so that they can decide which game they want to play.

Offering one thing, and delivering a different thing is where the problem is, especially if you're making efforts to make people think that you're actually giving them the thing you promised. And that's true whether the thing offered is a sandbox or a railroad or something in the middle.

To use an analogy - it's the difference between cheating and polyamory. And that goes both ways! It's just as wrong to have infidelity in a supposedly monogamous relationship as it is to enter a relationship with the understanding that it's polyamorous and then do everything in your power to enforce monogamy.


As a player, I often feel lost in sandboxes. I am quite fine with buying in on whatever the GM wants to do and going along with the plot. I consider play-buy-in a part of my duty as a good player.

Absolutely. And that's why "sandbox" isn't a universal good, but a preference.


Per the definition I was given of participationism upthread, it is not that. That's (apparently, based on my understanding of how it was explained to me upthread) where you all agree to not make some certain choices in advance, thus avoiding abrogating agency.

The quantum ogre as usually presented, and as presented in post I quoted, is the canonical example of defined illusionism. It always abrogates agency. There is no way you can take a prepared encounter for one specific location or area/zone, have the players make a choice to have their PC avoid the zone, then move it so the players encounter it anyway, without it being illusionism / abrogating agency.

As someone that is personally very anti-railroading/illusionism, I don't necessarily think using a prepared encounter elsewhere is illusionism in all cases.... see my earlier post for a more detailed breakdown.

OldTrees1
2020-09-30, 01:00 PM
There's a few people here that are letting themselves fall into the trap of "one true way-ism". In their zeal to protect what they see as an integral part of the game, they are denouncing "badwrongfun".

Quertus said it earlier. Railroading, whether soft or even hard railroading, is not necessarily bad. Different people have different values on the subject of player agency. As a DM who has had players LITERALLY REQUEST a railroad plotline (because they hated the absolute freedom of choice a sandbox offered, they were too paralyzed with indecision), I can affirm from experience that this is true.

Yes, railroading is not necessarily bad (I think that is a nearly universal opinion in this thread). Also, good on you for listening to those player preferences!


So, to be clear when I mentioned "Soft Railroading" earlier, the example of the prepared Ogre encounter that the DM uses no matter which road the PCs take...that is Soft Railroading. Provided the players don't ever find out that the ogre was planned no matter what.

Yes the ogre is a good example.


Now Tanarii (whom I often agree with on the forums), decries this as something that makes players who value Player Agency "suffer". I disagree. Because the players have no idea that any infringement of their agency has occurred. And, indeed, it could be said that no infringement HAS occurred. Unless the decision the PCs made was specifically to avoid the known territory of that specific ogre, it isn't really an infringement.

Maybe I can phrase it better.
If you make a promise and later can break that promise without anyone knowing, you still broke the promise. Getting caught breaking the promise is not the important part. Breaking the promise is.

So let's say I tell you I am going to run a linear campaign. You join because that sounds fun. In this hypothetical you happen to strongly prefer the structure of a linear game over a sandbox. If I decide to run it as a sandbox, then I broke the expectations I set even if I disguise the sandbox so you never noticed it was not a linear campaign. If you had known that I flagrantly ignored your preferences and betrayed your trust, you might be upset with me over that dishonesty. But are you upset because I was caught or because I was dishonest? Is the moral "Lie all you want, just don't get caught" or "Let's have honest communication".

That is why there was the dialogue above about Participationism vs Illusionism. They are both railroading and the DM can attempt to hide them (soft railroading). However honest soft railroading is applauded while dishonest soft railroading is denounced even if the con man gets away with it.


What some people who advocate for sandbox and complete Player Agency don't always acknowledge is that some DMs, some of whom are very good DMs, don't always improvise well. When I plan an encounter even a little bit in advance (like even the day before), it's going to be a better encounter. This is because one of my weaknesses in encounter design is failure to use terrain in interesting or dynamic ways. An encounter I come up with on the spot is likely to just take place in an open room or open area of cave or plain...very little terrain at all. Give me some time, and I can come up with ideas. I've had some good ones in the past that ended up being AWESOME, and I can re-use or cherry-pick from those.

I believe these were unstated yet shared premises. Although I also believe from the opening post to the final post nobody said all railroading was bad. Many like Quertus, myself, the OP, and others even explicitly acknowledge the merits of Participationism.


One of my perceived responsibilities as a DM is one of Aesthetic Standards. While Player Agency is also a value I respect, I view the aesthetics as a higher virtue. To me, presenting my players with a higher-quality encounter is worth any "crime" attributed to the "shell game" of preparing encounters in advance. Of course, I usually try to establish major choices for players towards the end of a session, so I can prepare encounters that DON'T infringe on their agency (i.e. "You guys can choose to go through the mountain pass, or the lowland swamps", and based on their choice, I will be preparing either mountain or swamp encounters between sessions). But, if forced into it, I'd rather prepare my encounters in advance. I'm a good enough storyteller to make these encounters appear to fit in with where the players are, though, so none of them even realize that this ogre would have been in their way no matter which direction they chose. And if those "rails" are never visible, who's to say that anything "suffered"? They got a better encounter that had more effort and thought put into it.

To me, it would be a greater crime to give my players something of lower quality.

Have you asked the players? Also why does there need to be a crime? Plenty of DMs use soft railroading without either crime. They uphold their Aesthetics Standards and they respect their Players' preferences. This is not an either/or scenario.


Per the definition I was given of participationism upthread, it is not that. That's (apparently, based on my understanding of how it was explained to me upthread) where you all agree to not make some certain choices in advance, thus avoiding abrogating agency.

The quantum ogre as usually presented, and as presented in post I quoted, is the canonical example of defined illusionism. It always abrogates agency. There is no way you can take a prepared encounter for one specific location or area/zone, have the players make a choice to have their PC avoid the zone, then move it so the players encounter it anyway, without it being illusionism / abrogating agency.

I was asking about that particular ogre. I did not see evidence one way or another about whether the players agreed to that style of random travel encounters. That is why I labeled it as railroading but did not jump to label it as participationism or illusionism. Rather I explained what would make it one or the other.

Basically the players might have voluntarily given up the agency of their route affecting which random encounter they encounter.

RedMage125
2020-09-30, 01:45 PM
Per the definition I was given of participationism upthread, it is not that. That's (apparently, based on my understanding of how it was explained to me upthread) where you all agree to not make some certain choices in advance, thus avoiding abrogating agency.

The quantum ogre as usually presented, and as presented in post I quoted, is the canonical example of defined illusionism. It always abrogates agency. There is no way you can take a prepared encounter for one specific location or area/zone, have the players make a choice to have their PC avoid the zone, then move it so the players encounter it anyway, without it being illusionism / abrogating agency.

Okay, but as long as the PCs were not explicitly moving to avoid THAT ogre as a known quantity, it's not violating anyone's agency, is it? If only the DM knows about the ogre, and the ogre happens anywhere they go, who has "suffered"?



Maybe I can phrase it better.
If you make a promise and later can break that promise without anyone knowing, you still broke the promise. Getting caught breaking the promise is not the important part. Breaking the promise is.

So let's say I tell you I am going to run a linear campaign. You join because that sounds fun. In this hypothetical you happen to strongly prefer the structure of a linear game over a sandbox. If I decide to run it as a sandbox, then I broke the expectations I set even if I disguise the sandbox so you never noticed it was not a linear campaign. If you had known that I flagrantly ignored your preferences and betrayed your trust, you might be upset with me over that dishonesty. But are you upset because I was caught or because I was dishonest? Is the moral "Lie all you want, just don't get caught" or "Let's have honest communication".
Well, as someone who values Player Agency, the aforementioned group asked me for "a more structured storyline". And when I asked if they WANTED a Railoroad Plotline, they looked at each other, all nodded and said "we would be fine with that".

I didn't promise that and give a "sandbox", but I gradually introduced them to the idea of Meaningful Choices. I would set up choices for them to make, and have preparation done ahead of time for each choice they could make. At first it was things like "You have Choice A or B", but eventually evolved to "You could choose Option A, but anything you come up with works, too". I weaned them on to the idea of Player Agency in steps. I incorporated a pre-published module (Madness At Gardmore Abbey), one that already involved small "sandboxes" that the players could play in, into my homebrew world and story.

And much later, something amazing happened. My players made an Agency Choice that I was completely unprepared for. I've mentioned it in past threads. Basically it was a LG Paladin of Bahamut as an antagonist. I was all set for a major combat encounter, and had been toying with the idea of having the paladin be on the verge of corruption from a fiend and incorporating that into the boss fight. They shocked the hell out of me when they decided to redeem him instead. I hadn't even been prepared for that possibility, but I was so pleased at their sudden interest in making a meaningful choice for themselves that I dropped all ideas of a reveal about fiendish corruption and made a Skill Challenge they did in the middle of the fight until they managed to both Bloody the paladin and succeed in the Challenge, and which point, he saw the error of his ways.

So, in a way I kind of betrayed that agreement. But I did it in a way that allowed them to have even more fun by upending expectations and really getting in character. Because to me, making decisions based on a emotional response of one's character is the hallmark that the worldcrafting that I, as a DM, have done, has been good enough to draw the player in. At that point, they weren't worried about how linear or open their options were. They wanted to do something because of how their characters felt about this NPC. The world was just tiny bit more real to them, and that mattered more. I call that a success.




That is why there was the dialogue above about Participationism vs Illusionism. They are both railroading and the DM can attempt to hide them (soft railroading). However honest soft railroading is applauded while dishonest soft railroading is denounced even if the con man gets away with it.
And I disagree. Because if the con man truly "gets away with it", then it means the players literally have ZERO idea about these "rails", right?

Then who is really the "victim" of what "con"? I refuse to acknowledge some kind of invisible Authority in regards to things like this that will have no bearing on the fun of my players. I didn't sign some kind of contract or make an oath to never deceive my players. The only invisible authority I recognize is the Aesthetic one. It is my duty as a DM to give my players my best. My duties are to be 1) a fair and neutral arbiter of the rules, 2) a shepherd of the fun of everyone at the table, and 3) a narrator of a story that belongs not only to me, but to them.

It's no different than ditching an actual Random Encounter Table, and instead just planning "random" encounters in advance, and placing them where they will be fun and/or impactful. There's nothing sacred or even "better for players" by giving them ACTUAL randomness. They have the same impact whether they are chosen in advance or not. And if the encounters are more fun when planned in advance, then that is actually BETTER.




Have you asked the players? Also why does there need to be a crime? Plenty of DMs use soft railroading without either crime. They uphold their Aesthetics Standards and they respect their Players' preferences. This is not an either/or scenario.

I agree. Others don't seem to. I say, if the "con man" isn't caught, then there is no crime. If the DM who does worry about this is also the kind who struggles to make good encounters on the fly...only THEN it their conflict between Aesthetic Standards and "illusionism". And in that conflict, adhering to Aethetic Standards, IMHO, is better than adhering to nonexistant standards to some invisible "Illusionism Authority" that doesn't exist and no one cares about.

SiCK_Boy
2020-09-30, 02:06 PM
The quantum ogre as usually presented, and as presented in post I quoted, is the canonical example of defined illusionism. It always abrogates agency. There is no way you can take a prepared encounter for one specific location or area/zone, have the players make a choice to have their PC avoid the zone, then move it so the players encounter it anyway, without it being illusionism / abrogating agency.

Would you have the same view if the DM explicitly stated the ogre in the cave was a different ogre than the ogre in the swamp, who just so happens to have exactly the same stats as his swamp-dwelling brethren? Considering the facts that most monsters are created from a template anyway (the MM stat bloc), and not all DM even choose to roll dice for hp, most monsters will be identical (from a stats perspective) anyway, so where do you draw the line to differentiate one ogre from another?

(This assumes a theater of the mind encounter, obviously; hard to imagine a prepared tactical map being so easily ported from a swamp to a mountain cave.)

kyoryu
2020-09-30, 02:12 PM
To me, it would be a greater crime to give my players something of lower quality.

Why not ask them what they'd prefer? Or be honest about the game you're running and get players whose preferences align with yours?



I agree. Others don't seem to. I say, if the "con man" isn't caught, then there is no crime. If the DM who does worry about this is also the kind who struggles to make good encounters on the fly...only THEN it their conflict between Aesthetic Standards and "illusionism". And in that conflict, adhering to Aethetic Standards, IMHO, is better than adhering to nonexistant standards to some invisible "Illusionism Authority" that doesn't exist and no one cares about.

Yeah, I just can't get behind "if you're not caught, it's okay." On, like, anything.

OldTrees1
2020-09-30, 02:13 PM
And I disagree. Because if the con man truly "gets away with it", then it means the players literally have ZERO idea about these "rails", right?

Then who is really the "victim" of what "con"? I refuse to acknowledge some kind of invisible Authority in regards to things like this that will have no bearing on the fun of my players. I didn't sign some kind of contract or make an oath to never deceive my players. The only invisible authority I recognize is the Aesthetic one. It is my duty as a DM to give my players my best. My duties are to be 1) a fair and neutral arbiter of the rules, 2) a shepherd of the fun of everyone at the table, and 3) a narrator of a story that belongs not only to me, but to them.

The victim of the con is the person you lied to. If you lie to me and I never find out, you still lied to me.

Believing "something is only wrong if you get caught" is not something I can agree with, or even respect.

See the difference between stage 1 and the other stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


Edit: Actually this is probably why you think more people think "railroading is always bad" than actually think that. They are objecting to your "something is only wrong if you get caught" excuse for deceit.

Silly Name
2020-09-30, 02:41 PM
I feel that any comparison between the matter at hand and concepts like cons, crimes and cheating is fundamentally flawed. We have cultural hang-ups about those terms, and generally recognise that a con is carried out to the benefit of the conman at the expense of the conned. Likewise cheating is a breach of a bond of trust and love.

Most RPGs are a social situation, and that necessitates a constant flow of information. While as already stated I agree with kyoryu's opinion that not selling players a false premise is a fundamental part of having a nice, enjoyable shared experience, I also see nothing fundamentally wrong with what RedMage did.

I may argue that RedMage's players didn't truly want a full-blown railroad, but simply a structured game with a plot that helped them make decisions and actions. But that'd not really be fair to either RedMage or their players, because I don't know them that well.

And I certainly don't think we should debate the merits of different ethic systems to evaluate what constitutes a good way to GM and approach players.

The point is, while we can all initially sign up for a specific style of game, there's nothing inherently wrong about experimenting along the way with inserting elements of other styles and perhaps even eventually find an happier mean that works for everyone and which differs from the initial premise. Most RPG systems aren't Risk or Monopoly, boardgames that provide a rigid structure and play experience. Role-playing games usually provide resolution mechanics and mechanics more or less suited to certain narrative genres and settings. But the players (a category that includes GM) are fairly free to interact and react with the game far more freely than how we interact with the Risk board.

So, yes, let's agree that making it clear what kind of game everyone is expecting to play is absolutely important and a necessary premise for making sure everyone is on board and having fun. But nothing forbids us from eventually altering that premise, especially if everyone involved is happy and agrees to the change.

OldTrees1
2020-09-30, 03:25 PM
So, yes, let's agree that making it clear what kind of game everyone is expecting to play is absolutely important and a necessary premise for making sure everyone is on board and having fun. But nothing forbids us from eventually altering that premise, especially if everyone involved is happy and agrees to the change.

Most agree with this.

But the reason people bring in terms like con or cheating is because the objection is about the DM ignoring the players' preferences and deceiving them. When that is not happening then it is all just a matter of preferences. However if the DM is breaking the trust the players placed in them, and justifies it to themselves as "well as long as I don't get caught", then I think that is objectionable. Regardless of whether the action is to add more railroading, more agency, or <insert absurd example>.

Railroading? What do the players think?
Sandbox? What do the players think?
Soft railroading? What do the players think?
Trolley Tracks? What do the players think?
Road system? What do the players think?
<insert absurd example>? What do the players think?
DM breeches the bond of trust the players placed in them? Unnecessary, dishonest, and disrespectful.

Even if they don't get caught? Yes

Pex
2020-09-30, 04:24 PM
Would you have the same view if the DM explicitly stated the ogre in the cave was a different ogre than the ogre in the swamp, who just so happens to have exactly the same stats as his swamp-dwelling brethren? Considering the facts that most monsters are created from a template anyway (the MM stat bloc), and not all DM even choose to roll dice for hp, most monsters will be identical (from a stats perspective) anyway, so where do you draw the line to differentiate one ogre from another?

(This assumes a theater of the mind encounter, obviously; hard to imagine a prepared tactical map being so easily ported from a swamp to a mountain cave.)

If the players specifically avoided the swamp to avoid the ogre but encountered an ogre anyway, any DM excuse on how it's a different ogre is male bovine. That's a railroad. That's a DM nullifying player choice. Encountering the ogre no matter where the players go is only ok by me when the players never knew there would be an ogre to decide to never encounter it by not going to where it is. Players making the decision is all the difference.

kyoryu
2020-09-30, 04:25 PM
If the players specifically avoided the swamp to avoid the ogre but encountered an ogre anyway, any DM excuse on how it's a different ogre is male bovine. That's a railroad. That's a DM nullifying player choice. Encountering the ogre no matter where the players go is only ok by me when the players never knew there would be an ogre to decide to never encounter it by not going to where it is. Players making the decision is all the difference.

Yeah.

Just 'using prepared stuff' is insufficient to tell if it's nullifying choice or not.

I mean... imagine there's two routes from place A to B. One goes through the Ogre Pass, and the other goes through the fantasy forest.

In the Ogre Pass there's a 100% chance that the characters will encounter an Ogre.

In the Fantasy Forest, there's a 5% chance.

The players choose the Forest to avoid the Ogres, but the GM rolls the random encounter and it comes up "Ogre" anyway. The players tried to avoid ogres, but ran into one anyway. And yet I'd argue that agency was maintained. They just got unlucky.

OTOH, there's the "fight the Ogre, and get the pointer to the bandit cave" scenario, where the players fight hte Ogre no matter where they go, because they need to get the plot ticket to the next bit. That's absolutely a linear game and, if the players are unaware of it, illusionism.

Tanarii
2020-09-30, 04:36 PM
Theres a simple test to find out if a quantum orge is illlusionism and abrogates agency:
If a player theoretically were to ask you "If I had done X instead, would I have still encountered that ogre?" If the answer is Yes, it is. It doesnt matter if they actually ask the question.

Modifying it to account for participationism, something agreed to at least implicitly in advance: "If I had done X, which we hadn't implicitly agreed was a decision that was off the table, would I have still encountered that ogre?"

RedMage125
2020-09-30, 05:05 PM
Why not ask them what they'd prefer? Or be honest about the game you're running and get players whose preferences align with yours?
What makes you think I don't?



Yeah, I just can't get behind "if you're not caught, it's okay." On, like, anything.


The victim of the con is the person you lied to. If you lie to me and I never find out, you still lied to me.

Believing "something is only wrong if you get caught" is not something I can agree with, or even respect.

See the difference between stage 1 and the other stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


Edit: Actually this is probably why you think more people think "railroading is always bad" than actually think that. They are objecting to your "something is only wrong if you get caught" excuse for deceit.

To both of you:

In the Real World, as it applies to things of ethical weight, I agree. I would consider myself Lawful Neutral, in a lot of both the positive and negative ways that applies. My own ethos adheres to the authority I impose on myself of my own honor. This is an authority to me that keeps my integrity at the levels it stands at. To do the Right Thing, even when no one is watching.

HOWEVER...

We're talking about a game. And there's no Authority I owe anything to, other than the finished product my players experience. My personal idiom in Real Life is that I behave as if there IS an authority that judges me, even when no one is looking. The way I run a game does not have that. And because I recognize my own weakness in spontaneity, and only recognize the Aesthetic Authority of the finished product my players receive, that alone is the ethos that guides my actions vis things like "quantum ogres".

Random Encounters, for example. There's nothing holy about having an actual table with a bunch of encounters that I roll on to determine which one the players will face. Players want to travel through the swamp? Cool, I'll design an encounter with some alligators camouflaged as logs that players will come across as they wade through the knee-deep water between mossy hillocks. Maybe another with a lizardfolk hunting party. And some nights will be uneventful, but one night, zombies shambling through the swamp is a nice, creepy night encounter. I don't need to roll to determine whether or not they'll have an encounter (I might roll dice behind the screen to create this perception, because a lot of players expect it), I can decide based on what feels right for the story when these encounters will occur.

That's not a lie. If another DM has those actual tables and ends up rolling the exact same encounters, the experience of the players is the same. For me, the difference is that if I plan the encounter beforehand, I can plan some details that make the encounter more fun, or more dynamic. I know that if I was that other DM using actual tables, the encounters, being thrown together at the last minute, would not be as well-designed.

The finished product that the players receive is the only "authority" I recognize owing any kind of allegiance to. And I think it's silly to act as if I'm being watched by some invisible judge, making sure "random" things are ACTUALLY random.

Like I said, if players are going to take pains to explicitly avoid the territory of a known ogre, then using the ogre encounter is the kind of railroading I do not approve of. That's actually abrogating player agency. But if, let's say, my players have 3 different dungeons they could go head to and explore, all in different directions, and I have a bandit encounter planned for the 2nd day of travel, I think there's nothing wrong with giving them that encounter, no matter which direction they chose first. I never told them that bandits are only on one road. Players aren't privy to everything behind the screen, and I don't think they should be. Nor do I believe I should behave as if they WERE. That's limiting my options and choices for NO REASON.


Theres a simple test to find out if a quantum orge is illlusionism and abrogates agency:
If a player theoretically were to ask you "If I had done X instead, would I have still encountered that ogre?" If the answer is Yes, it is. It doesnt matter if they actually ask the question.

Modifying it to account for participationism, something agreed to at least implicitly in advance: "If I had done X, which we hadn't implicitly agreed was a decision that was off the table, would I have still encountered that ogre?"

Which is why "Soft Railroading" is still a form of Railroading.

I just don't think it's a problem. I don't owe the hypothetical querent of that question anything.

Was the encounter fun? Was it better than something I came up with on the fly? If those answers are "yes", then I have satisfied the only authority I recognize as valid.

Like Pex said, if the players specifically avoided an area they knew to be ogre territory for the express purpose of avoiding ogres, and the DM gives it to them anyway, this is an actual breach of Player Agency, and I do not approve.

kyoryu
2020-09-30, 05:22 PM
What makes you think I don't?

Because when it's been brought up, you seem to have dodged the question a bit and responded with "If I don't get caught, then there's no problem"?

If I misinterpreted that, my apologies.

If you agree "yeah, if you're going to railroad, tell the players so they can make an informed choice about whether to participate or not" then I 100% agree, and all of the things you're talking about are 100% cool in my book (regardless of whether I'd personally join such a game).

OldTrees1
2020-09-30, 06:12 PM
What makes you think I don't?

I hope that means I erroneously inferred. I apologize and offer this explanation.

You replied to a post about Participationism vs Illusionism with the following.


I say, if the "con man" isn't caught, then there is no crime.

Which I (perhaps erroneously?) inferred meant you were okay dishonestly disregarding the preferences of the players as long as you "didn't get caught" because you did not appreciate that trust could be breached even if the victim did not know it.

That in turn lead me to (again perhaps erroneously?) infer you did not go out of your way to avoid something that you did not appreciate the severity of.

Again I assume I erroneously inferred, and I apologize.


Like I said, if players are going to take pains to explicitly avoid the territory of a known ogre, then using the ogre encounter is the kind of railroading I do not approve of. That's actually abrogating player agency. But if, let's say, my players have 3 different dungeons they could go head to and explore, all in different directions, and I have a bandit encounter planned for the 2nd day of travel, I think there's nothing wrong with giving them that encounter, no matter which direction they chose first. I never told them that bandits are only on one road. Players aren't privy to everything behind the screen, and I don't think they should be. Nor do I believe I should behave as if they WERE. That's limiting my options and choices for NO REASON.


Luckily the best path here is to only play with players whose preferences can't be breached without them noticing. Then you will not breach those preferences and their preferences will not overstep your boundaries.

Which I assume is what you already have been doing.

Tanarii
2020-09-30, 06:49 PM
Which is why "Soft Railroading" is still a form of Railroading.Oh. Okay then.


I just don't think it's a problem. I don't owe the hypothetical querent of that question anything.I mean, you sure don't if your players have signed up for that kind of thing. Which is what I originally thought was being proposed as "paticipationism". But then it was explained as something different.


Was the encounter fun? Was it better than something I came up with on the fly? If those answers are "yes", then I have satisfied the only authority I recognize as valid.Personally I recognize my players willingness to sign up for my style of play as a kind of authority. They're also welcome to play elsewhere.

I mean, I hold fudging as unacceptable and wrong from a DM. There are some players that not only accept it, they expect it as right.

I find illusionism and fudging unacceptable for pretty much the same reasons. But I acknowledge theres a difference between doing it with player buy in, and intentionally decieving your players about it.

RedMage125
2020-09-30, 07:52 PM
Because when it's been brought up, you seem to have dodged the question a bit and responded with "If I don't get caught, then there's no problem"?

If I misinterpreted that, my apologies.

If you agree "yeah, if you're going to railroad, tell the players so they can make an informed choice about whether to participate or not" then I 100% agree, and all of the things you're talking about are 100% cool in my book (regardless of whether I'd personally join such a game).


I hope that means I erroneously inferred. I apologize and offer this explanation.

You replied to a post about Participationism vs Illusionism with the following.
I guess that's fair perception, given the information you were dealing with

But I also advocated for establishing player expectations at the outset. Like the game that LED to my group asking for more structure.

I ran a short Evil game. Their old DM (who exclusively ran prepublished modules) was about to transfer to another Duty Station. He passed the reins to me, and I ran an Evil game, which he joined as a player. Now when I do Evil games (by which I mean Players As Villains), I have a very simple structure:

1- Before character creation, everyone agrees on a theme of the game. Basically, what is the Evil Plan they are going to enact? They then make characters who -for whatever reason- are inclined to cooperate with this plan (this cuts down on a lot of the selfish pvp that mars some evil games). This group went with taking over a Theives Guild from within.

2- I set the ECL for them to make character at. In this case, I think I went with 14 or 15. Had some interesting builds.

3- I remind them that Villains Are Proactive, Heroes Are Reactionary. So the onus is on the PLAYERS, and not me, to move the plot forward. They tell me what they want to do, I describe how the world responds to them. In this case, there weren't going to be any heroes showing up to thwart them (as I did once with an Evil Game where the villains overthrew a Paladin Motherhouse and desecrated their altar).

The last one is what created problems. With the options to do literally anything, they were frequently paralyzed with indecision. They'd spend 2 hours deciding what to do next...frequently. Which, I found out later, they found just as agonizing as I did.

But, to be fair, they WERE told this in advance. They just didn't realize the full impact of what that meant, having never played like that before.




Luckily the best path here is to only play with players whose preferences can't be breached without them noticing. Then you will not breach those preferences and their preferences will not overstep your boundaries.

Which I assume is what you already have been doing.

Honestly, either way. I talk with my players about what kind of game we're going to be playing, and I've never had anyone be like "not for me, I'm out".

But again, even though it's not happened to me, personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, if the players don't "see the rails" as it were. To me, it's no different than fudging a die roll behind the screen.


Oh. Okay then.

I mean, you sure don't if your players have signed up for that kind of thing. Which is what I originally thought was being proposed as "paticipationism". But then it was explained as something different.

Personally I recognize my players willingness to sign up for my style of play as a kind of authority. They're also welcome to play elsewhere.

I mean, I hold fudging as unacceptable and wrong from a DM. There are some players that not only accept it, they expect it as right.

I find illusionism and fudging unacceptable for pretty much the same reasons. But I acknowledge theres a difference between doing it with player buy in, and intentionally decieving your players about it.

I mean, you and are on the same page, as far as finding it equivalent to fudging dice rolls. But we have different opinions on fudging, too.

But we both acknowledge that such is a matter of opinion and preference, so even though we disagree, I don't see an argument, really.

Tanarii
2020-09-30, 08:24 PM
I mean, you and are on the same page, as far as finding it equivalent to fudging dice rolls. But we have different opinions on fudging, too.

But we both acknowledge that such is a matter of opinion and preference, so even though we disagree, I don't see an argument, really.
Probably the instinctive negative reaction to the concepts on a personal level. *steps down from soapbox shame-facedly*

Honestly I'm sure there are plenty of players that would be highly upset with me in my last campaign if I didn't make it clear in advance I generally run games where choices can have negative consequences including death, and I'm not going to fudge dice to save them, nor tailor difficulty to their party makeup. It was an open table west marches game so that made plenty of sense in context. But if you have a group of your best buds over for some beer and pretzels and orc murdering, and they walk into a dragon cave and die, they're probably going to have some unkind words. :smallamused:

Duff
2020-09-30, 08:32 PM
I think the objection to Randam Quantum Ogres where the random encounter is rolled and applied to whatever road the PCs decide to take has lost track of the meaningful part of meaningful decisions. The party choose to go through or around the swamp. Both terrains have ogres and ogres are not part of the party's decision making (neither that specific ogre, nor ogre territory in general). The ogres are not part of choosing the path, so the quantum ogre does not affect the meaning of the party's choice. This is especially the case if the GM has rolled the random encounter and then done some work to prepare for the fight before the session. Why throw out work that makes the encounter better (faster to set up, more interesting, better characterisation etc) when the PC's decision making doesn't change this. In fact, players insisting that if the party decide to go around the swamp instead through it, the GM has to re-do any wandering monster rolls, they're requiring the GM to do unnecessary work or do more on-the-fly stuff and not everyone is good at that

Placed Quantum Ogres are also OK. When the Ogre is an important encounter because it has a clue, making it quantum ensures there are no wrong choices. The players can decide whether to cross the swamp or go around based on whether they like swamps or not without having to guess which path leads to the plot.
Better writing might have different encounters on both roads which give different clues, either of which will allow success, that will improve replay value. Better stoytelling might have the Ogre actively tracking the PCs, explaining how the Ogre is on whichever road they choose.

OTOH, it becomes problematic if the PCs go "Swamps are Ogre territory, lets stick to the plains where Ogres don't go" and the ogre stays quantum.
Or they decide to walk around the swamp and the GM makes them go through so they hit the ogre
Or they decide to fly over and the GM makes them land so they can fight the ogre

SiCK_Boy
2020-09-30, 10:03 PM
Placed Quantum Ogres are also OK. When the Ogre is an important encounter because it has a clue, making it quantum ensures there are no wrong choices. The players can decide whether to cross the swamp or go around based on whether they like swamps or not without having to guess which path leads to the plot.
Better writing might have different encounters on both roads which give different clues, either of which will allow success, that will improve replay value. Better stoytelling might have the Ogre actively tracking the PCs, explaining how the Ogre is on whichever road they choose.


The writer clearly forgot the 3-clues rule. If a clue is so crucial that the whole story depends on it, players should have at least 3 different opportunities to obtain it in different forms.

The clue-giving ogre scenario mentioned also discounts the option of "the players miss the clue and continue with their adventurer lives anyway" (allowing for pure failure). I mean, if the clue was the key to saving the world from complete destruction in the next 2 days, maybe those adventurer lives won't last that long, but still. But otherwise, it should not be a "wrong" choice to just miss it; it's just a choice, and from the player's perspective, why would it be wrong? That's the crux of the railroad debates, really; it always starts with a DM who is determine to have "his" story happen in "his" way, and who doesn't have enough imagination to consider that the players may choose to not follow the tracks, or just miss them (by chance, because they misinterpreted the context, etc.).

Quertus
2020-09-30, 10:48 PM
There's a few people here that are letting themselves fall into the trap of "one true way-ism". In their zeal to protect what they see as an integral part of the game, they are denouncing "badwrongfun".

Quertus said it earlier. Railroading, whether soft or even hard railroading, is not necessarily bad. Different people have different values on the subject of player agency. As a DM who has had players LITERALLY REQUEST a railroad plotline (because they hated the absolute freedom of choice a sandbox offered, they were too paralyzed with indecision), I can affirm from experience that this is true.

So, to be clear when I mentioned "Soft Railroading" earlier, the example of the prepared Ogre encounter that the DM uses no matter which road the PCs take...that is Soft Railroading. Provided the players don't ever find out that the ogre was planned no matter what.


Yes, railroading is not necessarily bad (I think that is a nearly universal opinion in this thread). Also, good on you for listening to those player preferences!

That is why there was the dialogue above about Participationism vs Illusionism. They are both railroading and the DM can attempt to hide them (soft railroading). However honest soft railroading is applauded while dishonest soft railroading is denounced even if the con man gets away with it.

I believe these were unstated yet shared premises. Although I also believe from the opening post to the final post nobody said all railroading was bad. Many like Quertus, myself, the OP, and others even explicitly acknowledge the merits of Participationism.

So, apparently, I've misremembered Playground nomenclature from the last "what is Railroading?" thread that I participated in, or I missed a thread and words have been redefined since then. Either way, thank you both for seeing my words in the best light, and interpreting their *meaning*, and then mapping that meaning to your *definitions*.

I believe that, even if it's things that *I* wouldn't consent to, so long as you've got a group of consenting adults, you're not having BadWrongFun.


Okay, but as long as the PCs were not explicitly moving to avoid THAT ogre as a known quantity, it's not violating anyone's agency, is it? If only the DM knows about the ogre, and the ogre happens anywhere they go, who has "suffered"?

Buttons violates Mindy's Agency all the time, generally by relocating her as she crawls towards danger. It doesn't matter whether or not she's aware of the danger.

Not all agency involves understanding or intent. If the PCs board an airship *for the purpose of avoiding swamp terrain*, it should still have the *effect* of effectively removing the Ogre encounter.

But, as I've said, I, personally, am not *completely* opposed to the quantum Ogre. I am only opposed to it when it violates things like the table agreement, or physics-provided agency.


Well, as someone who values Player Agency, the aforementioned group asked me for "a more structured storyline". And when I asked if they WANTED a Railoroad Plotline, they looked at each other, all nodded and said "we would be fine with that".

Senility willing, I'll make a thread about this at some point, so as not to derail this thread.


And I disagree. Because if the con man truly "gets away with it", then it means the players literally have ZERO idea about these "rails", right?

Then who is really the "victim" of what "con"? I refuse to acknowledge some kind of invisible Authority in regards to things like this that will have no bearing on the fun of my players. I didn't sign some kind of contract or make an oath to never deceive my players. The only invisible authority I recognize is the Aesthetic one. It is my duty as a DM to give my players my best. My duties are to be 1) a fair and neutral arbiter of the rules, 2) a shepherd of the fun of everyone at the table, and 3) a narrator of a story that belongs not only to me, but to them.

It's no different than ditching an actual Random Encounter Table, and instead just planning "random" encounters in advance, and placing them where they will be fun and/or impactful. There's nothing sacred or even "better for players" by giving them ACTUAL randomness. They have the same impact whether they are chosen in advance or not. And if the encounters are more fun when planned in advance, then that is actually BETTER.




I agree. Others don't seem to. I say, if the "con man" isn't caught, then there is no crime. If the DM who does worry about this is also the kind who struggles to make good encounters on the fly...only THEN it their conflict between Aesthetic Standards and "illusionism". And in that conflict, adhering to Aethetic Standards, IMHO, is better than adhering to nonexistant standards to some invisible "Illusionism Authority" that doesn't exist and no one cares about.


Yeah, I just can't get behind "if you're not caught, it's okay." On, like, anything.


The victim of the con is the person you lied to. If you lie to me and I never find out, you still lied to me.

Believing "something is only wrong if you get caught" is not something I can agree with, or even respect.

See the difference between stage 1 and the other stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development


Edit: Actually this is probably why you think more people think "railroading is always bad" than actually think that. They are objecting to your "something is only wrong if you get caught" excuse for deceit.

This. "Cheating on your SO" isn't defined by whether or not you get caught. Nor is the morality of the action so defined, at least not in my book.

Satinavian
2020-10-01, 01:48 AM
The quantum ogre as usually presented, and as presented in post I quoted, is the canonical example of defined illusionism. It always abrogates agency. There is no way you can take a prepared encounter for one specific location or area/zone, have the players make a choice to have their PC avoid the zone, then move it so the players encounter it anyway, without it being illusionism / abrogating agency.

The Problem with the quantum ogre is that "ogre" is not particularly linked to a specific location. And preparing a couple of non-localized encounters instead of five times as many localized ones is not really railroading. If PCs travel in an area that has ogres and encounter an ogre without that depending on the exact way they choose, that is not railroading. If they instead decide to stay in town and the DM tries to push them outside so he can have the ogre encounter, that would be railroading.

Now there is a wy to make that nonlocalized ogre still illusionism and bad railroading. By pretending it was localized. There is an old module with two ways and regardless which one the PCs use, they get ambushed by supepowerful Yetis which take all their stuff. And then the module tells the GM to explicitely state that the PCs could have avoided the Yetis if they had taken the other route.

Pelle
2020-10-01, 02:32 AM
I think the objection to Randam Quantum Ogres where the random encounter is rolled and applied to whatever road the PCs decide to take has lost track of the meaningful part of meaningful decisions. The party choose to go through or around the swamp. Both terrains have ogres and ogres are not part of the party's decision making (neither that specific ogre, nor ogre territory in general). The ogres are not part of choosing the path, so the quantum ogre does not affect the meaning of the party's choice.


I agree with this, it is a non-choice for the players. Prepping flexible encounters that could be used wherever, and that the GM can improvise with when suitable is ok. However, what is particulary egregious about quantum ogres is that they are failure to grasp a perfect opportunity to provide players with a meaningful choice. In this situation, the GM could have given the players clues, hints, rumours or even explicit information of the ogre's existence out in the swamp, letting the players make meaningful decisions with consequences, but failed to do so. Big missed opportunity, that's unfortunate.



OTOH, it becomes problematic if the PCs go "Swamps are Ogre territory, lets stick to the plains where Ogres don't go" and the ogre stays quantum.


IMO, the goal of the GM should be to empower the players to make those kind of decisions. Sticking to quantum ogres is a failure to do so. The players get an experience of random things happening to them, instead of menaingful consequences from their own actions. It's not that quantum ogres are bad, it's that they are not good.

kyoryu
2020-10-01, 09:09 AM
The Problem with the quantum ogre is that "ogre" is not particularly linked to a specific location. And preparing a couple of non-localized encounters instead of five times as many localized ones is not really railroading. If PCs travel in an area that has ogres and encounter an ogre without that depending on the exact way they choose, that is not railroading. If they instead decide to stay in town and the DM tries to push them outside so he can have the ogre encounter, that would be railroading.

Now there is a wy to make that nonlocalized ogre still illusionism and bad railroading. By pretending it was localized. There is an old module with two ways and regardless which one the PCs use, they get ambushed by supepowerful Yetis which take all their stuff. And then the module tells the GM to explicitely state that the PCs could have avoided the Yetis if they had taken the other route.

As I've said a few times, i really don't think that "using prepared encounters" is necessarily illusionism. I mean, if you take that to the extreme, random encounters are illusionism, right?

Which is why I get to the fundamental nature of a linear game - it's a specific series of encounters/scenes/etc. that the GM has prepared that the players will play through. Illusionism is, fundamentally, having that structure while claiming that that is not not the structure. And a Quantum Ogre can be used to help achieve that.

And that's why it's hard to define railroading/illusionism by looking too hard at specific details. There's a lot of things that can be used as tools for illusionism that can be used in other contexts, as well. Can fudging be used to support illusionism? Of course! But it can also be used in non-illusionism contexts. Same with prepared encounters.

Like, let's say you have an Ogre in the Cave of Clamminess. Cool, but the players decide not to go to the Cave of Clamminess, but instead go into the Barrow of Blight.... where you know ogres are. If the ogre isn't there for some Important Plot Reason, and you're just using that encounter because you had some cool stuff you want to use? I don't think that's illusionism, especially if the players could have gone to the Plains of Peril and not encountered an Ogre at all.

In this case I'm implying/describing a situation where players have real agency, and the prep is used for convenience because it just happened to slot into what the players were doing. That's different from the GM ensuring that their prep is used to make sure the GM follows the prescribed plot/events.

Oh, and that old module is crap for that. It irks me to no end that illusionism was really the predominant GM advice through the late 80s and all of the 90s.

Damn DragonLance.

Pelle
2020-10-01, 09:27 AM
In this case I'm implying/describing a situation where players have real agency, and the prep is used for convenience because it just happened to slot into what the players were doing. That's different from the GM ensuring that their prep is used to make sure the GM follows the prescribed plot/events.


It's the difference between deciding in advance that no matter what the players decide they will encounter the ogre, and just preparing an ogre encounter that could possibly be used multiple places, but refraining from deciding in advance and leaving it up to improvisation.

Pex
2020-10-01, 09:32 AM
Now there is a wy to make that nonlocalized ogre still illusionism and bad railroading. By pretending it was localized. There is an old module with two ways and regardless which one the PCs use, they get ambushed by supepowerful Yetis which take all their stuff. And then the module tells the GM to explicitely state that the PCs could have avoided the Yetis if they had taken the other route.





Oh, and that old module is crap for that. It irks me to no end that illusionism was really the predominant GM advice through the late 80s and all of the 90s.

Damn DragonLance.

And people wonder where I got all my rage against tyrannical DMing. :smallyuk:

kyoryu
2020-10-01, 09:52 AM
IMO, the goal of the GM should be to empower the players to make those kind of decisions. Sticking to quantum ogres is a failure to do so. The players get an experience of random things happening to them, instead of menaingful consequences from their own actions. It's not that quantum ogres are bad, it's that they are not good.

Well..... for some kinds of games. Typically, for the types of games I want to play for sure.

But some people really don't care about that kind of high level decision making, and mostly care about going through encounters and leveling up and having combats. So, you know, good for them, and I'm truly happy that there are games that cater to that. They're just not really games for me.

Duff
2020-10-01, 06:32 PM
Now there is a wy to make that nonlocalized ogre still illusionism and bad railroading. By pretending it was localized. There is an old module with two ways and regardless which one the PCs use, they get ambushed by supepowerful Yetis which take all their stuff. And then the module tells the GM to explicitely state that the PCs could have avoided the Yetis if they had taken the other route.

Yeah, that's pretty bad all right. Captured despite best efforts is iffy. Telling the GM to lie is bad advise. That lie in particular is rubbing salt in the wounds



I agree with this, it is a non-choice for the players. Prepping flexible encounters that could be used wherever, and that the GM can improvise with when suitable is ok. However, what is particulary egregious about quantum ogres is that they are failure to grasp a perfect opportunity to provide players with a meaningful choice. In this situation, the GM could have given the players clues, hints, rumours or even explicit information of the ogre's existence out in the swamp, letting the players make meaningful decisions with consequences, but failed to do so. Big missed opportunity, that's unfortunate.

This reads to me more as an objection to random encounters than anything. Random encounters are more-or-less by definition meaningless and it's fair to see that as a problem.

I don't generally like them because they slow the party from getting to the next part of the story and if they're level appropriate they hilight the level treadmill. It creates a big neon sign that the characters live in a world that is at their challenge rating. It's fine to take on quests and choose enemies at your level, but when random encounters and random terrain features like cliffs are also at you level that breaks immersion.

Pex
2020-10-01, 11:42 PM
It was a hard lesson for me to learn as DM not to autocapture the party. I had a particular adventure arc in my campaign where being arrested was necessary. It was to introduce an important to the plot NPC they needed to meet at the jail and have the party encounter the evil sect of a Church that has three - good, neutral, evil. Autocapture was done often in my 2E years as a player, so I thought it ok at the time. I ran this adventure in 2E and then 3E without much trouble from the players. The idea is when the players encounter 5 bad guys surrounding the party demanding surrender you're supposed to fight them. When it's 20 bad guys you surrender because it's only a plot device. However, the last time I ran it, in a Pathfinder game 10 years or so ago, a player got really upset. He was going to fight them all head on or just run away, far away from the city and the adventure.

This was a major pet peeve of his, refusing to accept the plot device. I let his character escape, and he reunited with the party when they were finally released from custody. At the time I thought he overreacted, but later I saw it - how bad it was for a player. It was the last vestige of 2E DMing I had that I thought was proper. I promised myself I would never run this adventure arc again. The party has to be arrested. I can't get it to work any other way to put the important pieces in place, so I scrapped it from my campaign.

Pelle
2020-10-02, 03:29 AM
This reads to me more as an objection to random encounters than anything. Random encounters are more-or-less by definition meaningless and it's fair to see that as a problem.


Not at all. Or, I mean, it depends on how you do random encounters. Ideally the players should have some idea of what kind of creatures they may encounter randomly in the swamp, general risk of going there etc. And the random encounters should be integrated into the setting/situation, come with clues and plot hooks of their own. The players don't know everything, but should be able to take calculated risks. And it's also completely ok that sometimes things happening to the PCs without the players having a chance to predict it, it is just more fun to make informed decisions and one should strive for that.

Yes, randomly generating terrain/dungeon as you go sucks, because then you can't telegraph in advance what they might find in different directions. You could generate those in advance, though.

Lord Vukodlak
2020-10-02, 04:15 AM
I don't generally like them because they slow the party from getting to the next part of the story and if they're level appropriate they hilight the level treadmill. It creates a big neon sign that the characters live in a world that is at their challenge rating. It's fine to take on quests and choose enemies at your level, but when random encounters and random terrain features like cliffs are also at you level that breaks immersion.
I'm not a fan either, its basically padding out the adventure, one really horrible experence i had was when playing in the Princes Of The Apocalypse campaign. If we hadn't been using milestone experience we'd have been severally over leveled very quickly. It was pretty much every day the DM would roll that we got a random encounter, almost always at midnight. It got to the point where we declared everyone was awake in the hour preceding and following midnight. My rogue started using his hide and survival skills to Camouflage our camp and then create a second fake camp to attract the enemies attention.(the group had no wizard and thus no tiny hut)

Vahnavoi
2020-10-02, 04:59 AM
This reads to me more as an objection to random encounters than anything. Random encounters are more-or-less by definition meaningless and it's fair to see that as a problem.

The only thing random encounters are by definition, is random. The usage of random encounters as meaningless fodder is a result of both unwillingness and inability to use them as core component of scenario design.

Badly done, random encounters do reduce player agency to zero, but the same is true of all randomness, including things like rolling to hit. Beyond that, they have nothing to do with railroading.

--



Yes, randomly generating terrain/dungeon as you go sucks, because then you can't telegraph in advance what they might find in different directions. You could generate those in advance, though.

This is a matter of implementation more than anything. If you're, for example, pulling terrain pieces out of a deck of cards, it's fairly simple to "scout ahead" by peeking at the next two, three etc. cards in response to players seeking out foreknowledge of the terrain. The functional end result of a well-made procedural generator is equivalent to preplanned work.

Silly Name
2020-10-02, 05:12 AM
Since I like prepping ahead, I tend to use random encounter tables to get inspiration for what the players may find along the road or in the dungeon. Sometimes I scan over the table until I find something that fits or piques my imagination, other times I roll randomly and adapt the result to the scenario.

I feel like that using random encounters in the "traditional" way should be reserved for the type of game where they make sense. If we're doing an hexcrawl, it makes sense to roll to decide what's in a certain hex and go along with the results, but I generally find the idea that you should always roll the random encounters table while the PCs travel from one town to another just silly.

Also, I prefer random encounter tables that don't limit the definition of "encounter" to a combat scenario. A travelling bard, an ancient stone circle, pilgrims in need of help for crossing a river... Those can all be random encounters that add to a journey.

Pleh
2020-10-02, 08:07 AM
I don't generally like them because they slow the party from getting to the next part of the story and if they're level appropriate they hilight the level treadmill. It creates a big neon sign that the characters live in a world that is at their challenge rating. It's fine to take on quests and choose enemies at your level, but when random encounters and random terrain features like cliffs are also at you level that breaks immersion.

"Breaks immersion" will be a fairly subjective criticism, though I completely agree that prepared encounters are generally superior to random encounters.

As a player, I can be immersed in the Game, so to speak. The Game grants a certain expectation of balance, which means that sometimes *leaving* the Leveling Treadmill can break immersion (at least when "all things being equal" there is no narrative reason to deviate from the treadmill; this isn't a problem if the players are making an informed choice to engage threats above or below their intended CR).

I would posit this is why there are often so many online threads about monsters whose CR isn't really in line with where it should be on the treadmill. People lose immersion with the game when the game breaks.

But getting back to railroading and trolleys, leaving the Leveling Treadmill can sometimes be a Railroading Red Flag for players, indicating the GM has attempted to rig the encounter to some degree.

NigelWalmsley
2020-10-02, 10:47 AM
Badly done, random encounters do reduce player agency to zero, but the same is true of all randomness, including things like rolling to hit. Beyond that, they have nothing to do with railroading.

That's not really true. If you know the distribution of random outcomes, you can still have agency. Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.

kyoryu
2020-10-02, 11:22 AM
That's not really true. If you know the distribution of random outcomes, you can still have agency. Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.

Well, that's why he said "badly done".

Done well, random encounters can present a range of possible results of an action (and thus semi-random payouts) without requiring that the GM determine a specific result.

This can be done either by making a roll on the random encounter table a result of a different decision (do you stay longer and keep trying to pick the lock? If so, I'm rolling to see if there's a random encounter) or by making it part of the context of another choice (Friendly Forest has less nasty enemies but is slower, Menacing Mountains has more menacing enemies but is faster).

Plus it's a great way to introduce some simulation into your game if that's your thing.

Badly done is just one table, and the players have no choice but to roll on it. That impacts agency because there's no way to make any kind of informed choice, and all chocies have the same output.

Quertus
2020-10-02, 03:42 PM
It was the last vestige of 2E DMing I had that I thought was proper. I promised myself I would never run this adventure arc again. The party has to be arrested. I can't get it to work any other way to put the important pieces in place, so I scrapped it from my campaign.

How about "the party meets a sketchy character with initials 'D.M.'. Later, he gets arrested. If the party visits him in jail, they learn these facts."?


The Game grants a certain expectation of balance, which means that sometimes *leaving* the Leveling Treadmill can break immersion (at least when "all things being equal" there is no narrative reason to deviate from the treadmill; this isn't a problem if the players are making an informed choice to engage threats above or below their intended CR).

It took me several times reading this to *think* I understood what you were saying.

So, the level treadmill provides a predictable "background hum", and it's noticeable when the tempo suddenly changes? Is that close?

Pleh
2020-10-02, 07:10 PM
It took me several times reading this to *think* I understood what you were saying.

So, the level treadmill provides a predictable "background hum", and it's noticeable when the tempo suddenly changes? Is that close?

Sounds about right, but let's add the important caveat.

A tempo change can be exciting, or a relief from a breakneck pace. Up tempo or down.

A bizarre or illogical change of tempo can create whiplash.

It is satisfying, and to some extent, the actual purpose of the game, that players can change the tempo through good and bad choices. It can rise and fall with the roll of the dice.

We keep talking about players making informed choices. I guess my point is that CR is supposed to be implied as the default difficulty players should expect to face. Their choices should generally find that level of success/failure rate.

When it doesn't, it should make logical sense why. Players getting in over their head through their own choices makes sense.

Running into an overwhelming encounter that couldn't have reasonably have been predicted for no reason besides making otherwise normal and logical choices can create that sense that the game is no longer running on a logical progression of events and choices.

Vahnavoi
2020-10-03, 05:17 PM
That's not really true. If you know the distribution of random outcomes, you can still have agency. Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.
Bad randomness doesn't involve choice from the player in any meaningful part of the chain - it's just one die roll that leads to another die roll. In such cases, knowing the distributions only reveals your lack of agency, because the game you're playing is glorified Snakes & Ladders.

Quertus
2020-10-03, 10:47 PM
Bad randomness doesn't involve choice from the player in any meaningful part of the chain - it's just one die roll that leads to another die roll. In such cases, knowing the distributions only reveals your lack of agency, because the game you're playing is glorified Snakes & Ladders.

Not all Fireballs are Maximized.

OK, so, Wizards have a huge array of spells, which give them the agency to attempt many possible solutions to problems. One such solution is violence, epitomized by Fireball. "Fireball coming online".

Fireball - in every most RPGs where I've seen it appear - involves rolling a small handfull of d6's to calculate damage.

Sometimes, that damage won't be as much as you need. Theoretically, you might even roll all 1's.

But that does not change the fact that you had the agency to attempt that solution.

Knowing that something is a gamble does not mean that you have no agency. Even "win buttons" like Invisibility are gambles: are there dogs or other creatures with scent? Will they hear you, or spot your footprints? Will a random bird poop on you, and spoil your invisibility?

There are very few "moves" in RPGs that is actually 100% guaranteed to change the state of an RPG in completely predictable ways. But that doesn't mean that removing those moves does not reduce the players agency.

Not everything has a guaranteed outcome. Not all Fireballs are Maximized. But such complete predictability is not required for non-zero agency. Choosing between different probabilities of success and different fail states is agency. "Buy candybar (but they might be out)" and "steal candybar (but they might be out, or you might get caught" are distinctly different options, and there is agency in being able to choose between them.

kyoryu
2020-10-03, 11:29 PM
Bad randomness doesn't involve choice from the player in any meaningful part of the chain - it's just one die roll that leads to another die roll. In such cases, knowing the distributions only reveals your lack of agency, because the game you're playing is glorified Snakes & Ladders.

Randomization does not mean you don't have agency.

Randomization where you have no input denies agency. But being able to choose which set of random results you pick from (for instance) retains agency.

Vahnavoi
2020-10-04, 01:27 AM
But that does not change the fact that you had the agency to attempt that solution.

You're fishing for examples of where you have agency despite randomization, which serve as counter-examples to exactly nothing I said. There are cases where randomization doesn't drop player agency to zero, but this does not preclude cases where they do.


Randomization does not mean you don't have agency.

Randomization where you have no input denies agency. But being able to choose which set of random results you pick from (for instance) retains agency.

I didn't say randomization means you have no agency. I said that badly done randomization reduces player agency to zero. The reason why it does that is because when you have a particular string of die rolls, you do not actually pick anything.

The classic example, as far as random encounters go, is a model where you have flat % chance for the same encounters. Go down the road? Same % to meet a monster. Go through the forest? Same % to meet a monster. Your agency, your choice over which path to take, is illusory, because it doesn't actually effect the outcome.

As far as other game design goes: you have a choice of two attacks: one that has 25% chance of hitting but 75% chance of penetrating armor, and another which has 75% chance of hitting but 25% chance of penetrating armor. So which do you pick? If you have cursory understanding of probability, you'll realize it doesn't actually matter, because these two forms of attack have identical total chance of being succesful. The choice is illusory, because the two things you're picking from are mechanically indistinct.

Roleplaying games are full of non-choices of the latter kind, simply because a designer couldn't do the math. If players feel like they have agency, they couldn't do the math either. Put enough of such non-choices in a row, and you get effectively a zero player game: the players are there just to roll dice, they don't really make decisions about where the game goes. You could replace them with a rudimentary rollbot and the end result would be much the same.

Quertus
2020-10-04, 07:00 AM
That's not really true. If you know the distribution of random outcomes, you can still have agency. Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.


Bad randomness doesn't involve choice from the player in any meaningful part of the chain - it's just one die roll that leads to another die roll. In such cases, knowing the distributions only reveals your lack of agency, because the game you're playing is glorified Snakes & Ladders.


You're fishing for examples of where you have agency despite randomization, which serve as counter-examples to exactly nothing I said. There are cases where randomization doesn't drop player agency to zero, but this does not preclude cases where they do.



I didn't say randomization means you have no agency. I said that badly done randomization reduces player agency to zero. The reason why it does that is because when you have a particular string of die rolls, you do not actually pick anything.

The classic example, as far as random encounters go, is a model where you have flat % chance for the same encounters. Go down the road? Same % to meet a monster. Go through the forest? Same % to meet a monster. Your agency, your choice over which path to take, is illusory, because it doesn't actually effect the outcome.

As far as other game design goes: you have a choice of two attacks: one that has 25% chance of hitting but 75% chance of penetrating armor, and another which has 75% chance of hitting but 25% chance of penetrating armor. So which do you pick? If you have cursory understanding of probability, you'll realize it doesn't actually matter, because these two forms of attack have identical total chance of being succesful. The choice is illusory, because the two things you're picking from are mechanically indistinct.

Roleplaying games are full of non-choices of the latter kind, simply because a designer couldn't do the math. If players feel like they have agency, they couldn't do the math either. Put enough of such non-choices in a row, and you get effectively a zero player game: the players are there just to roll dice, they don't really make decisions about where the game goes. You could replace them with a rudimentary rollbot and the end result would be much the same.

But that was not the scenario that you were responding to. As is plainly apparent, you were responding to two noticeably different probabilities:

Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.

Even if you had then brought up this notion of 25% chance of hitting and 75% chance of penetrating armor vs 75% chance of hitting and 25% chance of penetrating armor, there would be differences between these attacks. Yes, there would. Some are roleplaying differences (does your character care about looking skilled, or looking strong), some are 5d chess differences (what information are you giving away to those who can perceive you), some are teamwork differences (different attack forms may perform differently in the final equation with different buffs). And that's just the basics of the differences, and doesn't even get into anything more complicated, like insanely using the low-penetration attack against a stationary dummy. Or choosing between a *balanced* SoD attack vs a damaging attack.

Yes, many game developers fail at math. We're not going to disagree with you there. However, this particular failure both seems oddly contrived, doesn't necessarily result in the complete lack of agency that you think it does, and has nothing to do with the example to which you were responding.

So, given this, what would you really like to say?

Vahnavoi
2020-10-04, 09:15 AM
But that was not the scenario that you were responding to. As is plainly apparent, you were responding to two noticeably different probabilities:

Nigel was responding to my earlier post; I was NEVER talking specifically about the case Nigel outlined. Like you, Nigel was talking past me by picking an example that didn't fit the criteria I outlined, but doesn't in any way prove that what I said doesn't or can't happen.


Even if you had then brought up this notion of 25% chance of hitting and 75% chance of penetrating armor vs 75% chance of hitting and 25% chance of penetrating armor, there would be differences between these attacks. Yes, there would. Some are roleplaying differences (does your character care about looking skilled, or looking strong), some are 5d chess differences (what information are you giving away to those who can perceive you), some are teamwork differences (different attack forms may perform differently in the final equation with different buffs). And that's just the basics of the differences, and doesn't even get into anything more complicated, like insanely using the low-penetration attack against a stationary dummy. Or choosing between a *balanced* SoD attack vs a damaging attack.

You're engaging in a form of fallacy where you take a purposefully simplified example and start inventing new details to support your argument. How about you actually entertain my argument in good faith for a moment, by realizing that for every way there supposedly is agency in choosing between mechanically indistinct options, there can be something further in the rules that renders that supposed form of agency moot?

kyoryu
2020-10-04, 12:01 PM
I didn't say randomization means you have no agency. I said that badly done randomization reduces player agency to zero.

Badly done game design reduces agency to zero. The only issue with randomization in that case is that it provides something for designers to focus on and not realize that their design is bad.


The reason why it does that is because when you have a particular string of die rolls, you do not actually pick anything.

Well, presuming one "choice" leads to a string of rolls, correct.

Complexity in system does not equal to complexity or depth in decision making. The same would be true for a mathematically complex system with no randomization, but a lot of math steps.


The classic example, as far as random encounters go, is a model where you have flat % chance for the same encounters. Go down the road? Same % to meet a monster. Go through the forest? Same % to meet a monster. Your agency, your choice over which path to take, is illusory, because it doesn't actually effect the outcome.

Well, unless at a higher level the path had other impacts down the road.


As far as other game design goes: you have a choice of two attacks: one that has 25% chance of hitting but 75% chance of penetrating armor, and another which has 75% chance of hitting but 25% chance of penetrating armor. So which do you pick? If you have cursory understanding of probability, you'll realize it doesn't actually matter, because these two forms of attack have identical total chance of being succesful. The choice is illusory, because the two things you're picking from are mechanically indistinct.

Right. More game designers need to take an introductory Game Theory course.


Roleplaying games are full of non-choices of the latter kind, simply because a designer couldn't do the math. If players feel like they have agency, they couldn't do the math either. Put enough of such non-choices in a row, and you get effectively a zero player game: the players are there just to roll dice, they don't really make decisions about where the game goes. You could replace them with a rudimentary rollbot and the end result would be much the same.

RPG designers are often overly enamored of their complex systems, and view things from a "systems-first" perspective rather than a "player-first" perspective.

And, yeah, I agree. Which is why I find a lot of RPG combat super dull.

But, really, that's a fault of bad design, not randomization. Randomization just enables the bad design to an extent because it makes it look like there's some meat there, but the meat is really illusory. The real "meat" in any game is all about what decisions are being made, not the system to resolve the decisions after the fact.

RedMage125
2020-10-04, 12:12 PM
I believe that, even if it's things that *I* wouldn't consent to, so long as you've got a group of consenting adults, you're not having BadWrongFun.

Always the most important factor.



Buttons violates Mindy's Agency all the time, generally by relocating her as she crawls towards danger. It doesn't matter whether or not she's aware of the danger.

Not all agency involves understanding or intent. If the PCs board an airship *for the purpose of avoiding swamp terrain*, it should still have the *effect* of effectively removing the Ogre encounter.

But, as I've said, I, personally, am not *completely* opposed to the quantum Ogre. I am only opposed to it when it violates things like the table agreement, or physics-provided agency.
Agreed.

And props for the extremely dated reference. I loved Animaniacs as a kid. Although, to be fair, those shorts are about Buttons. Mindy is less a participant with Agency, and more of the continually morphing challenge/obstacle that BUTTONS must overcome. But that might be a bit pedantic, so I'll not pursue it further...



Senility willing, I'll make a thread about this at some point, so as not to derail this thread.

I would love to participate.



This. "Cheating on your SO" isn't defined by whether or not you get caught. Nor is the morality of the action so defined, at least not in my book.

Entirely agreed. But that's also Real Life, where actual Honor and Integrity have meaning. Like I said, when I DM a game, I try and be a fair and neutral arbiter of the rules for my players. Beyond that, the only Authority I recognize as valid is an Aesthetic one. I don't recognize any invisible authority that demands I behave as if there was transparency between my players and my decisions. What matters is what they receive as a finished product.* Real Life is much different. My own Integrity IS an authority that informs my behavior (for example, not cheating on my wife, even if she would never know). When I run a game, I bow to no such ethical authority. Think of it like warriors from 2 wildly different cultures meeting in battle. To Warrior A, Warrior B fights in an uncouth and dishonorable manner. But Warrior B's culture DOES have it's own code of honor, and he adheres to that very strictly. When I DM, I simply follow a very different authority that informs my choices.

*This actually might be part and parcel with my defense of 4e in previous threads. Yes, 4e quite often felt like the mechanics were very game-y and distinct from the fluff to me, the DM. But I managed it in such a manner that, to my players, it STILL felt like D&D. They didn't see those strings and lines of code. Skill Challenges felt just like making Skill Checks as part of normal RP, just like in 3.xe. And honestly, those distinctions made 4e WAY easier to DM. To date, I will still maintain that 4e was easier to DM than 5e, which is easier than 3.xe.

Duff
2020-10-04, 07:34 PM
To me, if you're going to go to the trouble of making the random encounter a meaningful or important event, you may as well drop the "random". I mean, use a table as inspiration if you want, but make it a placed encounter.

This is the sort I object too...
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0210.html

Vahnavoi
2020-10-05, 02:53 AM
Badly done game design reduces agency to zero. The only issue with randomization in that case is that it provides something for designers to focus on and not realize that their design is bad.


We're not in disagreement. My original remark was about how "random" doesn't mean "meaningless", with caveat that badly done randomization will reduce agency just as surely as railroading. The rest has been me clarifying how randomization can reduce agency, because apparently it needed clarifying.

Moving on.

---


To me, if you're going to go to the trouble of making the random encounter a meaningful or important event, you may as well drop the "random". I mean, use a table as inspiration if you want, but make it a placed encounter.

There's a Lamentation of the Flame Princess module, God that Crawls, that illustrates why you'd use random elements even with a main antagonist. Simply, it has a monster that chases the characters through a fairly intricate maze. The module proposes two models for implenting this: the hard and the easy way. The hard way is that you track the exact location of the monster and each character individually, using by-the-book movement rates. The easy way is that there's a random chance for the monster to appear from a viable direction, which goes up with character actions that'd draw attention.

Both obviously work, but the first requires several on-the-spot calculations each turn, while the second gets away with one or two. A more universal example would be weather: you could plot a calendar for your campaign, deciding beforehand which days it rains. Or you could roll a die when the characters go outside. Both work, one is less work, you get most of the same results either way.


This is the sort I object too...
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0210.html

There's two distinct things that comic calls out. One is that it's foolish of a GM to put encounters in a game that have nothing to do with what players are supposed to do in the game. The second is player monomania, where they don't ask questions about what's happening right now because they're too fixated on pursuing their own goals. It's illustrative of faulty use of random encounters, but close examination shows it's not the "random" part that's the issue.

Democratus
2020-10-05, 09:20 AM
Much depends on which game you are playing.

In the Old School Essentials (D&D B/X) campaign I'm running, random encounters are an essential part of the mechanics of the game.

They are a cornerstone of the resource management puzzle for an adventuring party: do you spend another turn searching for a suspected secret door, risking more interruption by wandering monsters, or do you press on to clear more rooms before you run out of torches?

Duff
2020-10-05, 05:31 PM
There's a Lamentation of the Flame Princess module, God that Crawls, that illustrates why you'd use random elements even with a main antagonist. Simply, it has a monster that chases the characters through a fairly intricate maze. The module proposes two models for implenting this: the hard and the easy way. The hard way is that you track the exact location of the monster and each character individually, using by-the-book movement rates. The easy way is that there's a random chance for the monster to appear from a viable direction, which goes up with character actions that'd draw attention.

Both obviously work, but the first requires several on-the-spot calculations each turn, while the second gets away with one or two. A more universal example would be weather: you could plot a calendar for your campaign, deciding beforehand which days it rains. Or you could roll a die when the characters go outside. Both work, one is less work, you get most of the same results either way.


Much depends on which game you are playing.

In the Old School Essentials (D&D B/X) campaign I'm running, random encounters are an essential part of the mechanics of the game.

They are a cornerstone of the resource management puzzle for an adventuring party: do you spend another turn searching for a suspected secret door, risking more interruption by wandering monsters, or do you press on to clear more rooms before you run out of torches?

You're both right here - these are good examples where random encounters do have value. In these cases though, the table is specific to what is in effect one long scene. In the first, it's part of what is effectively a minigame of maze running.
In the 2nd it adds suspense to the search - To me an important difference is that the entries on the table won't be "An Owlbear". It'll be "The Owlbear from room Q is looking for food and sweeps through the area the players occupy". It wont be "2d10 Goblins" It'll be "A patrol of 5 goblin warriors led by a 2nd level Goblin fighter. As soon as they see the PCs, 2 warriors will try to run away and alert others while the others try to keep the party there".

Ixtellor
2020-10-28, 03:08 PM
Just finished the whole thread.

As a fan of both player agency and 'realism' in my campaigns my thoughts are about the idea of 'illusionism'.

(Caveat anything players have fun doing is OK even if it isn't what I consider good gaming)

First, I don't think it matters if the players are unaware of the quantum ogre.

If someone makes an Ogre encounter to gain piece X of the puzzle, and the players choose to go another route and ignore that option, and the DM puts the Ogre encounter in regardless --- its perfectly fine provided it still makes sense (as in there is a realistic reason there would be an ogre there) and upon success they PC's do NOT get "piece X" of their puzzle. The Ogre in the swamp was the place to get X, and if the players choose to avoid it, even if you still use the ogre, X isn't there.

I can't even fathom a scenario where players have a fun series of adventures, learn that encounter #5 from 3 weeks ago was actually a quantum ogre, and get upset.

Secondly, I hate the idea of adventures that have premade solutions in order, as was described earlier.
At the same time --- its realistic in many instances. If I have the goal of being a D&D monster manual artist --- I can't go out and start an apple farm and hope it all works out. Getting the skills, getting the attention, meeting the right people, in real life there are 'railroad' situations provided the PC, or person in RL, has decided on the goal. Additionally, people don't get to always choose what happens to them. Sometimes people rob you, sometimes a car hits your dog.
Therefore...

If I design a campaign with the big bad guy (The baron) and I lay the groundwork of what the PC's know and what has already occurred, including "the baron murdered your family" ---- provided I don't force the characters to follow the 'adventure' and allow them the freedom to work for the baron, or go be apple farmers, or anything else they come up with (sandbox) --- The DM still reserves the right to have the world move on --- which might included these PC apple farmers having the barons men burn down their apple orchard. If you live in a dangerous world, bad things happen, and as long as you let the players choose their actions --- this is perfectly acceptable. (The players join the fighters and become professional apple farm hunters, works for me). If the players want to 'leave' the area --- no problem. But again, if I as an American just got up and moved to Mexico to resolve my issues, it might turn out worse for me and its not 'railroading' that would get me back in America --- it might just be a realistic turn of events and not a removal of player agency.

In summary, the DM can lay the groundwork for adventure X and still maintain perfect player agency even if events seem to lead back to adventure X. There are countless real life examples. The kid who wants to travel the world --- and ends up living at home because it turns out the world is expensive and we dont' have as many choices as we would like to believe. (Last example: "Screw this Texas oil worker adventure, lets be cartel meth dealers --- easily leads right back to living in Texas and working in an oil field")

Pleh
2020-10-30, 07:55 AM
If someone makes an Ogre encounter to gain piece X of the puzzle, and the players choose to go another route and ignore that option, and the DM puts the Ogre encounter in regardless ---

This isn't illusionism, just railroading. The players knew about an ogre, attempted to avoid the ogre, and it was foisted upon them despite their choice purely because it was what the DM wanted to do. Why did the DM ever imply they had a choice to begin with?


its perfectly fine provided it still makes sense (as in there is a realistic reason there would be an ogre there) and upon success they PC's do NOT get "piece X" of their puzzle. The Ogre in the swamp was the place to get X, and if the players choose to avoid it, even if you still use the ogre, X isn't there.

Still isn't illusionism, but note that the Railroading that players may get upset over comes at the point they decided not to fight an ogre and it gets forced on them regardless.

Players can accept failing to avoid an ogre that was seeking them out, but that is not a Quantum Ogre scenario. That's a Homing Ogre, wherever it is, it is seeking you out. It's also not a Quantum Ogre for there to be a different Ogre on every path the PCs take. That's heavy handed, close to Railroading, but sometimes the adventure is in Ogre territory and fighting lots of Ogres is a basic campaign premise.

But note that the Ogre Country scenario and Homing Ogre scenario are not equivalent to a Quantum Ogre. A Quantum Ogre is a single Ogre that appears wherever it needs to in order to fit into the story.

Personally, I would say player agency is not negated if they do not know a quantum ogre is in play. It only begins to infringe on player agency if players become aware that an ogre is on the path ahead, at which point they can attempt to avoid it. If the DM negates their choice by using the Ogre's quantum nature to invalidate the information the players used to make a legal choice, they have had agency taken away by Railroading. I can see a lot of reason to be upset by this.


In summary, the DM can lay the groundwork for adventure X and still maintain perfect player agency even if events seem to lead back to adventure X. There are countless real life examples. The kid who wants to travel the world --- and ends up living at home because it turns out the world is expensive and we dont' have as many choices as we would like to believe. (Last example: "Screw this Texas oil worker adventure, lets be cartel meth dealers --- easily leads right back to living in Texas and working in an oil field")

The fact that this can be done without infringing on player agency doesn't justify (or become) Illusionism or Railroading.

I think it is a mark of Good DMing to be able to modify your campaign to bring the best of both worlds to the table. Player set out on a completely different quest, then the DM finds a way to incorporate that into the plot prepared. That isn't Illusionism or Railroading in itself. That's what a DM should always strive to do. You aren't tricking them or forcing them into something you wanted and they didn't. You're letting them pursue their individual interests while playing out the campaign plot in direct response to their decisions. That's good gameplay.

To use your Texas Oil Field scenario, Railroading might be the players getting betrayed by a drug deal gone bad, rocks fall and everyone gets arrested, then suddenly they have prison labor in an oil field, just so the DM can finally run the encounters they prepared.

Defining the difference between Good DMing and Illusionism can be tricky, because by its nature, Illusionism wants to look like Good DMing. But the fundamental difference a DM needs to make in their mind to avoid Illusionism is to check their responses to player choices. Are they trying to undermine what the players are trying to accomplish, or to find a way to incorporate it into the plot?

Is the DM trying to manipulate and edit the PC responses to make it fit their plot,

Or are they manipulating and editting their plot to fit the players' choices?

Good DMing is the latter. Trying to succeed at the former without getting caught is Illusionism.

The only time it is acceptable to try and modify how the players play is to talk to them out of game and ask them to stop disrupting the plot. This is not illusionism or railroading, because you are respecting their agency by asking them to cooperate.

Yes. Life sometimes railroads people as well. But this is a fantasy game for a reason. The Rule of the Game is we are here to have fun and life on a railroad usually isn't very fun, unless we choose to hop on the train to see where it would take us.

DMs should use real life analogs to derail player plans sparingly. Minor setbacks and reasonable challenges are perfectly fair play, but when you start conspiring as the DM to curate player choices to fit your plot, you are guilty of denying the players agency, because the players are being denied the choice to ignore the plot.

Democratus
2020-10-30, 08:56 AM
This isn't illusionism, just railroading. The players knew about an ogre, attempted to avoid the ogre, and it was foisted upon them despite their choice purely because it was what the DM wanted to do. Why did the DM ever imply they had a choice to begin with?

It is illusionism if the players did not know about the ogre ahead of time.

Normally, illusionism takes place out of the view of the players - that's why it's an illusion and not a lie.

Two paths, neither of which have "ogre this way" painted on a sign. The characters can take path A or path B and they will encounter the quantum ogre. The players will never know if that ogre was specifically on the path they took or if they were going to encounter it no matter what path was taken. That's the way illusionism works.

OldTrees1
2020-10-30, 09:27 AM
This isn't illusionism, just railroading. The players knew about an ogre, attempted to avoid the ogre, and it was foisted upon them despite their choice purely because it was what the DM wanted to do. Why did the DM ever imply they had a choice to begin with?

Still isn't illusionism, but note that the Railroading that players may get upset over comes at the point they decided not to fight an ogre and it gets forced on them regardless.

Players can accept failing to avoid an ogre that was seeking them out, but that is not a Quantum Ogre scenario. That's a Homing Ogre, wherever it is, it is seeking you out. It's also not a Quantum Ogre for there to be a different Ogre on every path the PCs take. That's heavy handed, close to Railroading, but sometimes the adventure is in Ogre territory and fighting lots of Ogres is a basic campaign premise.

But note that the Ogre Country scenario and Homing Ogre scenario are not equivalent to a Quantum Ogre. A Quantum Ogre is a single Ogre that appears wherever it needs to in order to fit into the story.

From Ixtellor's example, the players might not have known about the Ogre in the swamp. They might or might not have known about the puzzle piece. They did know about the swamp. They chose between "swamp route" and "not swamp route". Ixtellor's hypothetical DM then moved/copied the Ogre into their path but did not move the puzzle piece.


Personally, I would say player agency is not negated if they do not know a quantum ogre is in play. It only begins to infringe on player agency if players become aware that an ogre is on the path ahead, at which point they can attempt to avoid it. If the DM negates their choice by using the Ogre's quantum nature to invalidate the information the players used to make a legal choice, they have had agency taken away by Railroading. I can see a lot of reason to be upset by this.

The fact that this can be done without infringing on player agency doesn't justify (or become) Illusionism or Railroading.

@Ixtellor, you may have noticed, or will notice that there are a few different definitions of player agency. These vary in how broad/strict they are. In truth they are a bunch of very closely related concepts that all share the same term name. Also there is a difference between the definition of agency and what constitutes a negation /reduction of it.

I bring this up because Pleh and I use slightly different standards because we are examining slightly different angles of this elephant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant).

I usually see agency as choices given to the player where the player's decision will impact the consequences, and the player is sufficiently informed about those consequences. From this definition there are 3 ways to remove /reduce the agency from a choice:
1) Remove the information. If trolls tend to live in swamps and hill giants tend to live outside the swamp, then a choice to go around the swamp to avoid trolls / seek giants sounds like an informed decision. If the ogre lives anywhere, then it reduces / removes the informed part. This is even more apparent if it were "Larry the likeable lizardman" instead of a generic ogre.
2) Disconnect the consequence. A choice is only between the differing consequences. As you disconnect consequences you decrease the impact of that choice. In the swamp case the choice could have been between "swamp + troll + puzzle piece" vs "hills + no encounter + no puzzle piece". Changing it to always be an ogre is similar (in this specific way) to copying the puzzle piece to both locations. You reduce the impact of the choice by disconnecting one of the consequences.
3) Remove the choice. This is self explanatory, if the player is not involved in the choice, they don't have agency.

I also see agency as a continuum, each choice can have more/less agency and each situation can have more/less choices. In a sandbox I expect more agency than in a module. Likewise different groups will have different ranges they prefer (which can vary based on campaign or even smaller details too).

When information was already removed from a choice, disconnecting the uninformed consequences move it further from being agency, but it was not agency at the time. You will notice this is a slightly different but very similar conclusion than Pleh's because we are talking about very similar but not exactly the same thing.

zlefin
2020-10-30, 02:59 PM
Spinning off from a modules discussion to talk about railroading in general.

I don't mind games where the DM sets up the plot, and the players deal with it. The opposite of the sandbox, the plot is the game. There's the overall Campaign Plot which is not necessarily revealed in Session 1 but eventually becomes the final goal. Meanwhile there are a series of adventure arcs that can take a few sessions before defeating the BBEG of that mini-story and go on to the next one. The DM creates the crises the players solve. Playing a module is a type of this trolly track.

What prevents it being a railroad is player freedom to solve the crisis the way they want to. Talk or fight. Go left or go right. Ignore the named NPC but like and care about random person #3 and have drama that has nothing to with the Plot. Maybe the players think of something the DM has not, but it's fun and cool so the DM goes with it. We're the PCs so of course we have to save the world. We're doing it, case closed, but we get to say how.

while I get the point you're making, I'm not so clear on the terminology etymology backing of it. From what I can see, railroads and trolleys (the actual physical ones), are both equally bound to predetermined routes. So I'm not seeing a distinction between a trolley track and a railroad track (at least not one that's pertinent to the point you're making)

NorthernPhoenix
2020-10-30, 03:20 PM
In my personal experience, liberal application of "quantum ogre" works better than anything else. You just have to design each of the "puzzle pieces" that make up your vision to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate this.

That said, I've never had to deal with complete player "derailing" in the first place, because I've never played with people who's enjoyment stems from rejecting the basic premise of the game.

Pex
2020-10-30, 08:53 PM
while I get the point you're making, I'm not so clear on the terminology etymology backing of it. From what I can see, railroads and trolleys (the actual physical ones), are both equally bound to predetermined routes. So I'm not seeing a distinction between a trolley track and a railroad track (at least not one that's pertinent to the point you're making)

Just meaning the railroad isn't heavy handed. Trolleys don't have walls and run on light rails. The tracks are still there - the players are doing the plot the DM placed before them. The DM doesn't say how they do it, so players get to enjoy the breeze and sights.

zlefin
2020-10-31, 06:58 AM
I get the feeling it might be a linguistic difference (ie slightly different usages for the terms around the world), because locally railroads don't have walls, and a lot of the rail IS light rail.
at any rate, your explanation explains the intent behind it, so that's clear and thanks, the rest is just differences in how the real world stuff is setup.

Spiderswims
2020-11-03, 11:21 AM
What prevents it being a railroad is player freedom to solve the crisis the way they want to. Talk or fight. Go left or go right. Ignore the named NPC but like and care about random person #3 and have drama that has nothing to with the Plot. Maybe the players think of something the DM has not, but it's fun and cool so the DM goes with it. We're the PCs so of course we have to save the world. We're doing it, case closed, but we get to say how.

Maybe a river metaphor works better? Like the players are in a boat, going down a river. The river is full of encounters and obstacles. The players can choose to smash through them (fight), go around them, talk their way past them, sneak around them or even leave the river and walk along the edge and get back in the river later.

OldTrees1
2020-11-03, 12:29 PM
Maybe a river metaphor works better? Like the players are in a boat, going down a river. The river is full of encounters and obstacles. The players can choose to smash through them (fight), go around them, talk their way past them, sneak around them or even leave the river and walk along the edge and get back in the river later.

Sidenote: We have seen many metaphors over the years at giantitp.
Railroad
Trolley
Boat / River (new)
Car / Branching road system
Offroad (sandbox)

zarionofarabel
2020-11-03, 11:12 PM
All predetermined plots are "railroads" in my humble opinion. If the module says it's about the PCs defeating an ancient vampire that lives in a caste, that's what's going to happen. What happens if the players decide they don't care about defeating the vampire? The module is now useless. Same goes for a plot designed by the DM. Either the players go along with the plot or all that prep is now useless.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-04, 12:07 AM
All predetermined plots are "railroads" in my humble opinion. If the module says it's about the PCs defeating an ancient vampire that lives in a caste, that's what's going to happen. What happens if the players decide they don't care about defeating the vampire? The module is now useless. Same goes for a plot designed by the DM. Either the players go along with the plot or all that prep is now useless.

But how far ahead do things have to be to be "predetermined"? I notoriously don't plan more than a session or so ahead, and don't plan outcomes (although I can predict with fair accuracy after a few sessions what that outcome will be).

And to me, railroads are more about not having a choice as to method than outcome--I generally assume the protagonists will win (unless something goes seriously sideways). But how they win...that's open in a non-railroad.

Quertus
2020-11-04, 12:13 AM
But how far ahead do things have to be to be "predetermined"? I notoriously don't plan more than a session or so ahead, and don't plan outcomes (although I can predict with fair accuracy after a few sessions what that outcome will be).

And to me, railroads are more about not having a choice as to method than outcome--I generally assume the protagonists will win (unless something goes seriously sideways). But how they win...that's open in a non-railroad.

What about *what* they will win? Like if they decide to *ally with* or *profit off* the vampire, rather than defeating them?

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-04, 12:37 AM
What about *what* they will win? Like if they decide to *ally with* or *profit off* the vampire, rather than defeating them?

I'm 90% sure (based on my self-selected player-base and my own stated-at-session-0 dislike for evil campaigns) that that's an unlikely outcome. But if it happens...well...that's interesting. And not off the table, as long as they can do so without breaking my OOC non-negotiable rules (basically, don't squick me out or go murderhobo). I've had several where they resolved the forked path quite differently than I had expected (basically took neither option) and several where their focus was quite different than I imagined.

But really, the general thrust of how they'll resolve the situation is usually quite predictable in advance, just from paying attention to the group. So the parts I build are based on how they've gone so far in that arc. So it's somewhat circular--I call it "self-laying railroad tracks"--they can go anywhere, but the trajectory is (mostly) fixed at the session-to-session level with branch points. They tend to tackle one problem, solve it one way or another, then move on to another. And it's pretty predictable when they're going to switch.

One thing is that I don't plan campaigns, I run at the arc level. For example, my current arc is expected to run from level 1 to about level 4 or 5 and has 4 major factors in their overarching arc goal[1], of which they've sort-of dealt with one (faster than I expected, but not by much, and about in the way I expected them to). The next session will involve learning about those other factors and deciding which one to tackle next. So I'm building out the high-level ideas as to what exactly is involved with those other factors, estimating that they'll hit them (if they do) somewhere in that level 2-level 5 band. I think I know which one they'll go for next, but :shrug:.

Edit: another way of putting it is that in hindsight, the eventual outcome was always going to happen. But no one including me knew what that outcome would be in advance. By building JIT, it makes it look like it's a smooth arc always pointing to the outcome, even though if you'd have predicted it at any instant you may have been wrong. Some groups are predictable well in advance--I've had some where there was no question from day 1 where they were going to go with that arc. And I've had some that were...very much less so.

[1] In theory there's a main quest for the first arc, one of a bunch that they chose to tackle at session 0. But really (and explicitly so out of character) it's just an excuse to put them somewhere in the path of adventure. Where they go from there and what they do is really up to them.

zarionofarabel
2020-11-04, 02:09 AM
I guess for me it's the predetermined end point that makes it a railroad. Long ago I tried my best to prep actual plotted adventures in advance, at the request of my players no less. Then, right at the beginning of the plot arc my players took a course of action that completely invalidated the preplanned ending. So, after that, I decided it best to just make up **** on the spot as the game was played.

Of course, when pulling **** out of my ass on the fly moment by moment as the game is being played at the table, it is restricted to the agreed upon premise of the campaign. So if it's a campaign about Roman soldiers in Gaul, I'm not going to have a UFO with Vulcans show up cause that would be stupid. I try to stick to things that would logically make sense within the already established narrative.

I do realize that most GMs don't do this, and that is fine. But I do feel that if the GM decided at the beginning of the campaign, or session, that my PC will ABSOLUTELY fight the vampire in the castle no matter what! That is THE definition of a railroad because no matter what I do, I will have to fight the vampire, thus I have no agency to change my fate.

I am in no way the norm when it comes to GMing as I believe most GMs use published adventures, or at least plots they created in advance. This is IMHO perfectly fine!

****, I still play computer RPGs knowing full well that it is 100% a railroad as I have absolutely no chance of changing the story. I may get the red glow at the end cause I was evil instead of the green glow the good guys get, but the plot points for both are identical!

Pleh
2020-11-04, 08:52 AM
I guess for me it's the predetermined end point that makes it a railroad.

I think it will vary based on how self motivated the players are.

Let's treat it with a matrix.
Case 1: Neither the GM nor the players have a specific goal in mind. This kind of game probably least resembles a railroad, but can sometimes have trouble with the blank canvas and lack of overarcing vision.
Case 2: The GM has a goal, but the players don't. This begins to resemble railroading, but often is the softest and most acceptable form. As long as the players are enjoying the ride and haven't rejected the destination, these tend to be good games as well.
Case 3: The GM has no specific goal, but the players do. Basic description of Sandbox. It's probably the scenario with the fewest potential problems within the group, but the GM has their work cut out for them keeping up with player antics.
Case 4: Both the GM and the players are pursuing specific goals. This isn't inherently bad for the game. These games tend to have higher stakes as everyone at the table is invested in the outcome. That is what makes the game turn sour quickly if any or all players are not respecting each other's goals or playing fairly. This is where you start to see accusations of railroading or derailing the game, but it can also be highly effective and gratifying when it works out that everyone is able to achieve their goals together.

So, to me, "predetermined end" is not enough to color something a railroad.

True railroading is actually a conflict of interests between players at the table.

OldTrees1
2020-11-04, 08:54 AM
All predetermined plots are "railroads" in my humble opinion. If the module says it's about the PCs defeating an ancient vampire that lives in a caste, that's what's going to happen. What happens if the players decide they don't care about defeating the vampire? The module is now useless. Same goes for a plot designed by the DM. Either the players go along with the plot or all that prep is now useless.


But how far ahead do things have to be to be "predetermined"? I notoriously don't plan more than a session or so ahead, and don't plan outcomes (although I can predict with fair accuracy after a few sessions what that outcome will be).

And to me, railroads are more about not having a choice as to method than outcome--I generally assume the protagonists will win (unless something goes seriously sideways). But how they win...that's open in a non-railroad.


I guess for me it's the predetermined end point that makes it a railroad. Long ago I tried my best to prep actual plotted adventures in advance, at the request of my players no less. Then, right at the beginning of the plot arc my players took a course of action that completely invalidated the preplanned ending. So, after that, I decided it best to just make up **** on the spot as the game was played.

I am running Curse of Strahd and I don't know if the PCs will try to defeat the vampire. They probably will, but I am uncertain. However their other actions have caused me to start expanding the module with new content to handle the consequences of some of their actions. Although I would say the CoS module is still very useful, and is helping me write the new content. This is not true for all modules. Personally I really like the uncertainty because it is evidence that the players are controlling the PCs.

However I think I can bridge these two perspectives on railroading:
Who is controlling the PC? / Who is making the choices the PC faces?

If I predetermine the PCs will defeat the vampire, then I am controlling the PC either by controlling what goals the PC adopts, or by twisting the outcome of their actions to the same overall result.
If I control how the PCs will defeat their foes, then I am controlling the PC either by controlling which actions the PC takes, or by twisting the outcomes of those actions to the same overall result.

This is why I usually use "railroading" as a verb because both of those moments of control are forms of railroading. The absolute purest railroad (an author writing a novel) includes both. You move towards sandbox on the continuum as you cede more and more control of the PCs to the players.


I think it will vary based on how self motivated the players are.

Let's treat it with a matrix.
Case 1: Neither the GM nor the players have a specific goal in mind. This kind of game probably least resembles a railroad, but can sometimes have trouble with the blank canvas and lack of overarcing vision.
Case 2: The GM has a goal, but the players don't. This begins to resemble railroading, but often is the softest and most acceptable form. As long as the players are enjoying the ride and haven't rejected the destination, these tend to be good games as well.
Case 3: The GM has no specific goal, but the players do. Basic description of Sandbox. It's probably the scenario with the fewest potential problems within the group, but the GM has their work cut out for them keeping up with player antics.
Case 4: Both the GM and the players are pursuing specific goals. This isn't inherently bad for the game. These games tend to have higher stakes as everyone at the table is invested in the outcome. That is what makes the game turn sour quickly if any or all players are not respecting each other's goals or playing fairly. This is where you start to see accusations of railroading or derailing the game, but it can also be highly effective and gratifying when it works out that everyone is able to achieve their goals together.

So, to me, "predetermined end" is not enough to color something a railroad.

True railroading is actually a conflict of interests between players at the table.

"color something a railroad"? Players have comfort ranges on the sandbox to railroad continuum. Some of them prefer campaigns with more railroading. As someone that runs near the sandbox end of the continuum, there has been a time the players wanted more railroading (adjustments were made).

A predetermined end makes something more of a railroad, but it is a continuum, and a campaign can have more railroading than just a predetermined end. Consider Oedipus, who had a predetermined end and tried to flee it, but was forced to that outcome. That feels like railroading to me.

Pleh
2020-11-04, 09:53 AM
A predetermined end makes something more of a railroad, but it is a continuum, and a campaign can have more railroading than just a predetermined end. Consider Oedipus, who had a predetermined end and tried to flee it, but was forced to that outcome. That feels like railroading to me.

Then let's consider when a predetermined end does not imply a railroad.

"Predetermined" does not preclude the ending also being Conditional.

"BBEG is plotting Big Bad Evil Scheme and will succeed IF players do not manage to prevent this outcome."

See how the outcome is both predetermined, but also conditional. Players are not confined to any particular response, as Quertus pointed out, they could try and Join the BBEG or to Profit From the Scheme.

No railroads, but it still has a predetermined end.

Another example, minus the conditional nature.

The world is ending. Players have a sandbox at the precipice of the apocalypse and choose how to spend their final years. No, they can't stop the world from ending, and that may seem like a railroad, but even Sandboxes usually have a couple walls and constraints. Sure, you can leave a sandbox to play in a different sandbox, but that doesn't magically turn the two sandboxes into one bigger sandbox (doing that requires extra work of weaving the box walls together and filling in the gap with sand).

Sandboxes still have walls to hold the sand in. You can put one of the walls on the ending and it doesn't transform from a sandbox to a railroad. This is because the ending isn't always related to what the players do in the game. It isn't always a consequence of their agency. Having a timer on playtime in the sandbox doesn't suddenly force you to travel through the sandbox on a predetermined path. It just means whatever you are doing stops at a certain point.

Sandboxes don't inherently lack definitions. They just tend to have a background scale of limitations, with minimal control of small scale interactions and choices.

OldTrees1
2020-11-04, 12:03 PM
Then let's consider when a predetermined end does not imply a railroad.

"Predetermined" does not preclude the ending also being Conditional.



Good point about "predetermined" being a bad word choice. Technically an infinite possibility sandbox has an infinite number of unknown predetermined conditional endings.



Another example, minus the conditional nature.

The world is ending. Players have a sandbox at the precipice of the apocalypse and choose how to spend their final years. No, they can't stop the world from ending, and that may seem like a railroad, but even Sandboxes usually have a couple walls and constraints.

That is the conditional nature again but with a lot more possibilities. Will it end in a climatic battle to overthrow a kingdom? Or in an exodus to another plane? Or time travel shenanigans effectively but not actually extending the deadline. Or a few years running a tavern?

I think the meaning intended was more along the lines of "The PCs will overthrow the duke" which is railroading them to that end. It might have a lot of agency between now and then. Maybe/probably enough to be called a sandbox. However we can still acknowledge the GM deciding what the PCs will eventually do, is a form of railroading.

Although we also can acknowledge that a sandbox can contain railroading without having enough railroading to be called a classical railroad (much less a pure railroad).

farothel
2020-11-04, 01:56 PM
This is the way you play whenever you have your players in an hierarchy where the leaders of said hierarchy are NPCs. Star Trek is the one that immediately comes to mind, but I'm sure there are other examples. The players are ordered to do something, but have a lot of leeway on how they do it. And it's not a given that they will succeed.

I've GMed a Star Trek campaign and I just plot out the basic mission I want the players to go on and then a few key points along the way. Everything else depends on what the players do and even my main plot points can still change depending on the players. But they will at least start the mission as I planned it, because the captain (in this case Admiral, as they are on a station) said so.

Pleh
2020-11-04, 03:11 PM
That is the conditional nature again but with a lot more possibilities. Will it end in a climatic battle to overthrow a kingdom? Or in an exodus to another plane? Or time travel shenanigans effectively but not actually extending the deadline. Or a few years running a tavern?

I would argue none of those are the End. The End is the predetermined apocalyptic cease and desist of reality. The End is the unmaking of whatever the players made of the time they had. Climactic battles, planar exoduses, time travel shenanigans, going out to the winchester, having a pint, and waiting for it all to blow over are all things that happen BEFORE the End.


However we can still acknowledge the GM deciding what the PCs will eventually do, is a form of railroading.

Yes, but I don't see a Predetermined End as being *intrinsically* a way of having a GM decide what the PCs will do. Rather, it is a declaration of what happens to the PCs as the game concludes.

I suppose there is room for us to debate and clarify the difference between what constitutes an Ending, and what constitutes an Epilogue. Is the Ending whatever actions the players last take before the game is retired? Is it the continuing consequences of whatever actions they took in the game?

I would contend that "rocks fall and everyone dies" isn't actually railroading, because it isn't dictating what the PCs do, but rather what happens to them. It is an example of stopping the train entirely, not forcing players along a path.

"You are taken prisoner" may be a better example of Railroading, though it begins to blur the line between what the characters do and what merely happens to them. The point that it becomes railroading is the fact that any time a character is taken prisoner, being taken prisoner may be something that is happening to them, but there isn't usually much reason they couldn't still attempt to do something to stop it from continuing to happen to them. Escape may not be in their power, but generally the premise of the game is that PCs shouldn't be forced to choose to surrender, nor should it be possible to knock them unconscious or manipulate their minds without following the rules for overwhelming them by force. Give them a Fortitude or a Will save to resist the compulsion that wants to strip their freedom.

Railroading as a verb is about the point at which something that happens to the PCs begins to rather illegally infringe on their ability to do things.

The telltale signs usually crop up around the question of justification. WHY couldn't the party evade the rocks that are falling, possibly surviving by minimizing the damage received? WHY couldn't the party resist arrest and fight to the death instead of surrendering to overwhelming force? When the answer typically devolves to, "the plot needs this to happen" or "the GM is tired of your antics," we see the Conflict of Interests between players that I was talking about earlier. The GM starts heavy handidly making things happen to the PCs so as to limit what they can do.

But I feel it is important to bear in mind that not everything that happens to PCs is Railroading, just because players aren't always fully in control of it. It really starts to become the Offense we refer to as Railroading when the justifications are based in what the GM wants to accomplish rather than in the logical consequences of the PCs actions.

Note that this also describes the contention between players who don't want GM charity, preferring rolls to kill them if the rules say so, and the GMs who try to fudge rolls in favor of the party so as not to spoil the fun. The conflict of interests motivates the GM to modify what happens to the PCs so it no longer reflects the cause and effect of what the PCs do and now are instead framed around what the GM wants the game to be like.

And again, it only becomes a problem when the goals one player is pursuing prohibit the other players from achieving the goals they are pursuing.

Which touches on Illusionism. If the player doesn't like the GM helping their PC with helpful dice fudging, but the GM figures, "what they don't know won't hurt them," the GM might get away with it, but that doesn't make it okay, because you are still undermining the goals the other player is pursuing, which in this case is to win or lose by their own merits. It is still a bad thing.

OldTrees1
2020-11-04, 03:40 PM
I would argue none of those are the End. The End is the predetermined apocalyptic cease and desist of reality. The End is the unmaking of whatever the players made of the time they had. Climactic battles, planar exoduses, time travel shenanigans, going out to the winchester, having a pint, and waiting for it all to blow over are all things that happen BEFORE the End.

Yes, but I don't see a Predetermined End as being *intrinsically* a way of having a GM decide what the PCs will do. Rather, it is a declaration of what happens to the PCs as the game concludes.

I am still talking about zarionofarabel's usage of the words. I already agreed with you that "predetermined end" is a poor word choice. However I am talking about what zarionofarabel meant by it. Their example was "The DM deciding the PCs will slay the vampire". I agree the words can be used to mean something else. But zarionofarabel's meaning is describing the GM deciding what the PCs will, eventually, do.


Railroading as a verb is about the point at which something that happens to the PCs begins to rather illegally infringe on their ability to do things.

As a sandbox GM I have learned that we need a neutral connotation verb rather than restricting it to only "illegally infringe". When sandbox GMs goes too far the players ask for more railroading. So I have adopted a neutral connotation to that verb. Since they are asking "to reduce the player agency" because they have more than they prefer, therefore that is how I have started to define the verb railroading. This neutral definition can still describe the tyrant DM while also describing what the players ask for when a sandbox GM goes too far.

As usually, I agree with the rest of the post.

zarionofarabel
2020-11-04, 04:01 PM
The End means, well, The End!

You know, when the adventure ends...

Let's take the Mass Effect Trilogy as an example. It has an ending...The End!

Play a good guy and save the universe! The End! Play a bad guy and...save the universe?!?...The End!

All I got to do was change the color of the special effects at the ending of the game...The End!

It, like all computer RPGs is 100% on the rails. Sure I got to change the color of The End! but that's about it.

Published modules are the same. They come with a predetermined ending. Like Mass Effect. Sure you can stab the vampire, or burn the vampire, or magic the vampire, or bore the vampire to death, but you have to defeat that vampire! If you choose to not do that then the module is useless.

The End!

Or is it...