Choo-Choo yes? Is railroading REALLY that bad?

[Spo]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.

To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

[Witty Username]

It is definitely a playgroup thing. The primary complaint is player agency, some people prefer to choose the adventure, others prefer to choose their actions in the adventure. But as long as you are aware of what kind of choices the group wants to make, and they have the amount of agency they want you are doing it right.

I don't mind rails as much when I am playing, but prefer to run my games sandboxy. with NPC directions if the party locks up.

[animorte]

This is one thing that PCs having a backstory really helps out with. This is made much easier since most characters tend to have a tragic history.

I bring in some events and NPCs that they care about. A lot of times I don't mind riding the tracks as long as there's a lot to do on the train. Overall I think railroads are designed more for newer players, obviously with some assistance from a trusted NPC or two. It can sometimes take a long while for players to come online and take initiative.

[Catullus64]

Railroading is not the same thing as a linear adventure. An adventure can have a clear A to B structure from which the players are discouraged from deviating, while still presenting them with meaningful choices and fun, engaging challenges. I tend to use the term 'railroading' more narrowly to mean when a DM overrules and pushes against player choices to make the story and gameplay conform to his pre-selected outcomes. People instead tend to use the term to refer to any time the DM tries to impose structure or pacing constraints on the game.

[False God]

Depends on how good the story is.

If the story is engaging, you'll barely notice the rails. You'll WANT to ride the train.

But it's very dependent on the quality story.

It's the same issue AAA gaming suffers from. An open world offers far more content, but most of it is shallow and over quickly. It makes the story seem longer because you get distracted from it every 10 paces. But often in open-world games the core story is also short and shallow.

[animorte]

Railroading is not the same thing as a linear adventure. An adventure can have a clear A to B structure from which the players are discouraged from deviating, while still presenting them with meaningful choices and fun, engaging challenges. I tend to use the term 'railroading' more narrowly to mean when a DM overrules and pushes against player choices to make the story and gameplay conform to his pre-selected outcomes. People instead tend to use the term to refer to any time the DM tries to impose structure or pacing constraints on the game.
That's a very good point actually. I really haven't played with that environment enough to have thought of it from personal experience. Lucky me, I guess.


It's the same issue AAA gaming suffers from. An open world offers far more content, but most of it is shallow and over quickly. It makes the story seem longer because you get distracted from it every 10 paces. But often in open-world games the core story is also short and shallow.
Yeah, I figured that out a long time ago. I had too much fun on my forever playthrough the first go (and this is with many games). I decided to run the straight story and not get distracted on the second playthrough just to rapidly find myself debating how to approach the third take, if at all.

[Sigreid]

It depends on your party really. I chafe under railroading because I don't like feeling like there's no choices to be made in my escapism. But then I'll set goals for my character talk with the DM and other players about what they are and start taking action based on what goals I and my party have, adjusting how I approach my goals based on feedback from the DM/world. I do this without straight refusing to go on an adventure though. Part of pursuing my goals is keeping allies tight enough that they'll bleed with me when needed. Part of that is also helping them with what they want.

Other people don't have a clue what they should do without a script. They'll be quite happy to be railroaded. Heck, sometimes when I DM I'll tell the group I have a particular adventure I want to run and ask them to kindly get on the train. As long as it isn't all the time, I'll get on the train myself from time to time. I just don't feel like I'm not the master of my own destiny.

[DarknessEternal]

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice. It's the DMs job to guide the players down the path of the campaign while making it seem like it was their choice to do so.

[Greywander]

I think this is a false dichotomy, the result of misunderstanding what's actually going on. It's this misunderstanding that leads to DMs railroading their players and thinking they're doing a good thing.

What's really going on is that the DM needs to provide direction to the players. "You wake up in an open field. There are no trees or animals or any landmarks nearby. You can see for miles around you, just more empty, open field. What do you do?" What can they do in such a scenario? There's nothing to engage with. That's the real problem.

I always found Terraria to be more engaging than Minecraft, for the simple reason that Terraria does provide clear goals that Minecraft mostly lacks. Minecraft promises the freedom to do anything, but after building a house and finding diamonds, you find that there isn't really anything left to do. Terraria, on the other hand, has a clear progression for both bosses and equipment, so you're always searching for the things you need to defeat the next boss, and there are quite a few bosses. Terraria doesn't force you to acquire equipment or fight bosses in a particular order, though; you can often skip entire equipment tiers, and only a few bosses are actually mandatory to beat the game.

So the DM needs to provide the players with direction so that they have something to engage with. That's not the same as railroading. Railroading is you force the players to follow a preset story path. Some players are less bothered by railroading, as it does provide direction, but you don't need to railroad. If the players decide to strike off on their own to achieve some goal they set for themselves (PC backstories can be a good source for this), or if they fixate on a minor detail you didn't intend to be important, you can choose to change your focus and provide them with new direction for these new goals. But if you're railroading, then you would instead try to redirect the players away from those goals and back toward your railroad.

Basically, the "railroad" is only needed when the players aren't engaged and don't know what to do. If the players are "derailing" the "railroad", it's no longer needed, and continuing to enforce it creates an actual railroad. Build a new railroad that aligns with what the players want to do, and give them direction to keep them focused on their goals. The players, not the DM, are the protagonists, and as such they are primary determiners of where the story goes. The DM's role is mostly one of facilitation, providing interesting content for the players to engage with and fulfill the adventure that they seek. The players aren't there to play the DM's adventure, the DM is there to facilitate the player's adventure. Now, the DM is a player, too, so they participate in the adventure through NPCs, including important ones like the BBEG, but the PCs are the primary drivers of the story.

[Tawmis]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.
To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.
What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

I will say, this is why - as a DM, I prefer to homebrew adventures. Despite having... (counts on fingers several times)... Uh, let's just say many years of being a DM...
When I ran a group of good friends (all family members, and pretty much family to me) through Horde of the Dragon Queen - there's a portion with a flying castle (won't spoil too much), but it's pretty important to be stealthy. The party wasn't. They were murdering cultists every time they lured them away. They were being creative, so I didn't want to punish them. But realistically, at some point someone would have been like, "Hey, has anyone seen Larry, Moe and Curly lately?"

So I had the castle go down, and chaos ensue - and the party escapes. And just left the rest of the adventure and homebrewed from there on for that session. Because modules expect you to do certain things, hit certain beats, and don't allow for veering off - essentially eventually forcing the DM to "railroad." Now you can still "railroad" but do it in a manner that seems like it was their choice, but you're still taking the choice away from the party because the module calls for them to do XYZ.


This is one thing that PCs having a backstory really helps out with. This is made much easier since most characters tend to have a tragic history.


Agreed, on all accounts. And if ye need a good backstory written... well, just check my signature! I'll write backgrounds for your characters, if ye want. :)


Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice. It's the DMs job to guide the players down the path of the campaign while making it seem like it was their choice to do so.

And this is where I will disagree. Other than my one attempt at HotDQ, I homebrew - and so many times, I don't even "plan" my adventures anymore. I will jot down some ideas. But my players (and I count myself so fortunate) will spend time just RPing and creating really fun and silly things, despite them being on a haunted island where there's clearly a horror theme - but we still have fun and laugh, because of how things turn out. I've improvised so much now, that planning isn't something I do.

First session for notes I had - "goblin, beach, haunted house."

I knew I wanted the adventure to take place on an island. Thought, maybe they encounter some goblins on the beach? They talk about a haunted house?
The haunted house turned out to be a manor, now.
In that manor, a murdered female ghost who is trying to find out who killed her.
Her love, was murdered upstairs - his heart ripped out and his body turned to stone.
No idea, what I am doing with this - just creating things as I go and the players are reacting and having a blast.

[OldTrees1]

Are the rails contrary to the players' playstyle preferences?
Is the GM tricking the players into playing a game they don't want to play?

Railroading has a generally negative connotation because it usually only comes up in conversation if it fails the 1st test (the players wanted to try XYZ and the GM wanted to prevent that despite of the players' preferences). When the conversation deepens you get some individuals that argue tricking people into playing a game they don't want to play is okay (thus failing the 2nd test).

However when you are that deep into the conversation, you will also have heard that A) There is a sandbox - linear game continuum and B) player preference matters and sometimes a sandbox is too much freedom for those preferences. As long as there is player buy in, then any amount of freedom or linearity is okay for that group.



Personally I prefer things towards the sandbox and high verisimilitude side of the sandbox-linear continuum. I am okay with the party relying on their character's goals, and encountering whatever conflict arises from that, rather than needing the party to be gifted a goal. On the other hand I am also okay with the party being given a goal. If the party is given a goal, I prefer enough guidance to see some possible routes to avoid feeling like the assigned task is impossible. However even then I want there to be many possible routes and the freedom to carve our own path.

In the end these are my preferences, I know of players that prefer much more linear games than this. I know of players that prefer the party to be given a goal rather than rely on their character's goals. I know of players that dislike "wasted time" and thus like the GM railroading if the party finds a red herring. I have heard of players that care about narrative beats enough that they wanted them preserved with railroading retcons rather than risk accidentally messing them up.

Even as, or especially as, the GM, you should acknowledge and accept the players' preferences on how much linearity / agency they want. If you do that, then you have no need to be concerned.

[Cheesegear]

Terraria, on the other hand, has a clear progression for both bosses and equipment, so you're always searching for the things you need to defeat the next boss, and there are quite a few bosses.

DM: A group of Evil NPCs assaulted the town, stole a McGuffin, and killed several Good NPCs.
Players: We should go punish the NPCs after they did the bad thing.
DM: Excellent. Here's all these notes I prepared.
Players: ...Wait. I feel like this is a railroad.
DM: Well, it's not. You made a choice to do what I wanted you to do. Is that a problem?


Railroading is you force the players to follow a preset story path. Some players are less bothered by railroading, as it does provide direction, but you don't need to railroad. If the players decide to strike off on their own to achieve some goal they set for themselves (PC backstories can be a good source for this), or if they fixate on a minor detail you didn't intend to be important, you can choose to change your focus and provide them with new direction for these new goals.

Players: OMG. We did Bandits last adventure. Alright. This Town has just been sacked and looted and is in a bad place. Let's go to the next Town that isn't ruined and see if we can find something good, there.
DM: ...Umm...You can't. You have to do the Bandits.
Players: FFS.


Build a new railroad that aligns with what the players want to do, and give them direction to keep them focused on their goals.

This really only works if the DM is very quick on their feet and the players don't change their minds constantly. Not all DMs can improvise well. I understand that for some DMs, having a pre-planned, pre-written adventure is basically the only way they can play - WotC wouldn't keep publishing modules if people didn't buy them. I understand that for some players - especially the indecisive, ones - they need pre-determined goals otherwise they don't know what to do; 'You wake up in a field with amnesia with no discernible landmarks...Aaand go.'

The problem is that a lot of DMs not only pre-determine the destination, they pre-determine the journey, as well, and I think that's where the bigger problem comes in.

'No matter what a player rolls, they can't perform an impossible task.'
Sweet. That means that the DM can make anything that isn't their pre-written solution, impossible. It's in the rules.

DM: You are travelling down the road and see a couple of Ogres sitting around eating and pooping. They haven't noticed you.
Players: Can we stealth?
DM: No, you have to fight.
Players: One of us is a Goliath and speaks Giant. Can we try diplomacy?
DM: No, you have you to fight.
Players: If we let them eat our horses, will they let us past?
DM: No, you have to fight.
Players: **** it. We we take a 90-degree turn and simply disengage and walk off.
DM: ...The Ogres notice you and run to catch you. Roll Initiative.
Players: So even when we actively disengage from the scenario, you make us do it anyway?

[Unoriginal]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.

To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

Yes, it is REALLY that bad.

There is no "proper" railroading.

Railroading isn't "the choices are limited between A, B, or C". Nor is it "the adventurers have to go on the adventure for anything to happen".

Railroading is "no matter if A, B or C is chosen, the same thing happens" (known as the "Quantum Ogre" school of railroading) or "the DM decides what happens for the players".

And that is bad. Always.

We're here to play a game, not to be unpaid actors in the theatrical adaptation of the DM's novel.

[Sigreid]

I think it should also be noted that it is not railroading if the players make a series of choices that narrow their options down further and further as a consequence of their decisions.

[Pildion]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.

To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

To me, being "railroaded" isn't the DM having a linear story, its when the DM doesn't allow the players to make their own choices and just tells them nope, going to do this now. To bad if you wanted to do anything else or go anywhere else...

[Cheesegear]

Railroading is "no matter if A, B or C is chosen, the same thing happens" (known as the "Quantum Ogre" school of railroading) or "the DM decides what happens for the players".

I mean...Theoretically the DM is always deciding what happens to the players.

Railroading is two things.

1. The DM wants to run an adventure, and telegraphs such to the players, and the players don't want to do it.
As per my previous post:
- If the DM can set things up in such a way that the players want to kill Bandits, there's no problem. Players often wont see the rails, if they actually want to ride them in the first place.
- If the players don't want to kill Bandits, there's a problem.

2. The DM presents two - or more - choices, but regardless of what the players pick, the result is the same ("Quantum Ogre").
- The players take the right path; They face an Ogre.
- The players take the left path; They face an Ogre.

IMO, Quantum Ogre'ing is acceptable most of the time...Unless for some ****ing reason you're giving your players your notes and telegraphing to them that you didn't plan for anything else. There are often many solutions to the same outcome, and I find it weird that there's such a...Stigma...Towards Quantum Ogre'ing.

I think I have a pretty cool scenario, I want my players to play it. I want my players to meet a particular NPC. I'm not going to waste my time writing scenarios that my players wont play. If they don't go to where I put it...I'll put it somewhere else. Unless I tell them 'Here is [X]', and they actively avoid going to [X]. But again, unless my players are doing something really specific, I'm not going to tell them about things they haven't encountered yet. If they haven't encountered them yet, I can put them anywhere I want. There shouldn't be a problem with Quantum Ogre'ing unless you straight up tell your players you're doing it...And why would you ever do that?

3. Sandbags and Roadblocks.
This is the most obvious form of railroading, and therefore usually the most egregious. Sometimes players want to be on the rails. Sometimes the players wont notice teleporting monsters (again, why should they notice?). But they will notice sandbags and roadblocks.

Sandbags. No matter what the players suggest, the DM will find a way to cancel them out. Antimagic Fields where there logically shouldn't be any is a great sandbag. Hostiles that are straight up immune to several players' gimmicks when they shouldn't be is another red flag. Whatever you want to try that isn't the DM's approved solution will have an excuse for why it doesn't work. If the DM is dropping 'You can't roll to perform impossible tasks.' on you, you might be being sandbagged. Similar with Quantum Ogre'ing, a good DM can make sandbags work if they're actually justified:
'No...You can't just Divine Sense for a Shapechanging Fiend, because the Fiend has been around a long time, has fought Paladins before, and is smarter than you and has a permanent Nystul's Magic Aura, which yes, really is something the spell can do. You can check the rules.' Is a great example of a hard-counter sandbag that makes total sense, both mechanically and narratively.

Roadblocks. Roadblocks are straight up when the DM just says 'No.' No rules lawyering. No in-narrative excuse. Just no. At least with Sandbags the DM is trying to justify why you can't do something - even if it doesn't make sense.

And then there's the melted ice-cream soft railroading where the DM is just a good planner, and knows his group well, and knows what they're going to do in any situation. For example, I usually plan on my group(s) solving an encounter one of four ways. I will have something prepped if they choose one of the four options that I know they normally choose (Talk, Fight, Stealth, Disengage). Only if they choose something else (e.g; Start a fire for no reason) do I actually have to improvise.

Is planning for your group railroading? ...Maybe. But then using your player's backstories to plan an adventure is also railroading. We don't want to go down that (rail)road. If DMs can't plan anything, ever, we're in for a bad time.

[Unoriginal]

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice.

Whoa.

{Scrubbed}



I mean...Theoretically the DM is always deciding what happens to the players.

Yes, the DM is always deciding what happens TO the players. But they should not decide what happens FOR the players, which is what I was talking about.

The DM control the world. They should NOT control the players' choices.



1. The DM wants to run an adventure, and telegraphs such to the players, and the players don't want to do it.


That is not railroading, this is players who don't follow their part of the "we're playing a game together" implicit contract.

If the DM has explained what the adventure is about, the players agreed to play, and when it's time for the game session the players go "no, thanks, we're going to do something else", then the players are the ones at fault.

Railroading is when the DM acts as if they're opening a choice (ex: you can go hunt bandits or you can help this old gnome inventor with their work for the upcomig contest) and then does not respect the choice the players went for.



IMO, Quantum Ogre'ing is acceptable most of the time...Unless for some ****ing reason you're giving your players your notes and telegraphing to them that you didn't plan for anything else.

[...]

There shouldn't be a problem with Quantum Ogre'ing unless you straight up tell your players you're doing it...And why would you ever do that?

[...]

Sometimes the players wont notice teleporting monsters (again, why should they notice?).

Most players aren't stupid. Despite some DMs thinking that players only want the "illusion of choice" and that they can somehow flawlessly fool them, most players can see what's going on quickly enough, and especially since a DM who believes you can hide that kind of stuff from players is likely to do it repeatedly, letting players see the pattern.

Also, not getting found out for doing X has no incidence if X is bad or not. "There shouldn't be a problem with me cheating at poker unless I straitght up tell the other players I do it... and why would I ever do that" is not a defense for the positive nature of cheating at poker.




I think I have a pretty cool scenario, I want my players to play it. I want my players to meet a particular NPC. I'm not going to waste my time writing scenarios that my players wont play. If they don't go to where I put it...I'll put it somewhere else. Unless I tell them 'Here is [X]', and they actively avoid going to [X]. But again, unless my players are doing something really specific, I'm not going to tell them about things they haven't encountered yet. If they haven't encountered them yet, I can put them anywhere I want.

If the players must meet [particular NPC], then doing give them the choice between A, B or C.

The only reason to give the A, B or C choice is if the consequences of A, the consequences of B and the consequences of C are meaningful. A, B, and C having the same outcome is wasting everyone's time, energy and brainpower.

In other word, if you want to linearly have the "PCs meet this NPC" step be required for the adventure, it's not a bad thing. If you tell the PCs "you could go to X tavern (where the NPC is) or to Y tavern (where nothing plot-relevant happens for the moment)" and if the PCs choose Y you think "yeah, no, they're meeting NPC whether they want it or not", then yeah, it's bad. Respecting your players enough for making their choice matters (be it with positive or negative consequences) WHEN a choice is given is an important part of DMing.



Sandbags. No matter what the players suggest, the DM will find a way to cancel them out. Antimagic Fields where there logically shouldn't be any is a great sandbag. Hostiles that are straight up immune to several players' gimmicks when they shouldn't be is another red flag. Whatever you want to try that isn't the DM's approved solution will have an excuse for why it doesn't work.



Sandbags. No matter what the players suggest, the DM will find a way to cancel them out. Antimagic Fields where there logically shouldn't be any is a great sandbag. Hostiles that are straight up immune to several players' gimmicks when they shouldn't be is another red flag. Whatever you want to try that isn't the DM's approved solution will have an excuse for why it doesn't work.

I recall talking online with a DM, a few years ago, who admitted he gave all of his bad guys teleportation rings so that the PCs would never be able to catch them when they fled, and that if the PCs somehow caught one of them they wouldn't be able to loot the teleportation ring.

Or to use a more televised example: during Critical Role's second season, several bosses and mooks were wrecked by the team's Monk. As a result, Matt Mercer made most of the bosses in the later half of the campaign outright immune to the Stunned condition, most of the time without any possible justification, and quite a few fights had a "whenever you hit X enemy in melee, you take Y damage" effect (which naturally affected the Monk more, as she was the one doing the highest number of melee attacks per combat). That is poor form.

A DM has unlimited power over the monsters and circumstances, that just makes abusing said power to not let a PC shine is just childish at best.


a good DM can make sandbags work if they're actually justified:
'No...You can't just Divine Sense for a Shapechanging Fiend, because the Fiend has been around a long time, has fought Paladins before, and is smarter than you and has a permanent Nystul's Magic Aura, which yes, really is something the spell can do. You can check the rules.' Is a great example of a hard-counter sandbag that makes total sense, both mechanically and narratively.

If the Fiend is a being who would have the power and ressources and means to get such power and the DM gave them that in advance to make the encounter more interesting, it's presenting a situation where an antagonist took measures to avoid something that would foil their scheme, it's not sandbagging or railroading.

If the DM doesn't want their planned encounter to go any way but the way they imagined, needs to retcon things on the spot to go "nu-hu", and it doesn't make sense for the entity to have such power, then yeah it's poor form.



If the DM is dropping 'You can't roll to perform impossible tasks.' on you, you might be being sandbagged.

I'd argue it's more "when the DM starts declaring X task is impossible at some places despite the same task elsewhere is possible, you're probably being sandbagged".



And then there's the melted ice-cream soft railroading where the DM is just a good planner, and knows his group well, and knows what they're going to do in any situation. For example, I usually plan on my group(s) solving an encounter one of four ways. I will have something prepped if they choose one of the four options that I know they normally choose (Talk, Fight, Stealth, Disengage). Only if they choose something else (e.g; Start a fire for no reason) do I actually have to improvise.

Is planning for your group railroading? ...Maybe. But then using your player's backstories to plan an adventure is also railroading. We don't want to go down that (rail)road. If DMs can't plan anything, ever, we're in for a bad time.

That's not railroading, it's DMing.

Railroading would be to make the choices meaningless.

[heavyfuel]

One of the groups I play in is very railroady. When I first started playing with this group, I hated it, but I've learned to not care that much. I make a mechanically complex character and just enjoy the ride. Combat is fun and it's also like half the play time with this group. Since we play in VTT, I just use the play time to do chores around the house :smallbiggrin:

[RedMage125]

Yes, it is REALLY that bad.

There is no "proper" railroading.

Railroading isn't "the choices are limited between A, B, or C". Nor is it "the adventurers have to go on the adventure for anything to happen".

Railroading is "no matter if A, B or C is chosen, the same thing happens" (known as the "Quantum Ogre" school of railroading) or "the DM decides what happens for the players".

And that is bad. Always.

We're here to play a game, not to be unpaid actors in the theatrical adaptation of the DM's novel.
I disagree that it's "always bad". Because some players dislike absolute agency and sandbox style.

I once took over from another DM, because he was going to be transferring to another duty station soon. This DM usually ran pre-published modules that were very linear. For the first few weeks I was DMing, that guy was going to be able to be around and be a player, so we did a short mini-campaign. A Villain game, where the PCs were Evil and accomplishing their Evil plan.

Now, when I do this, I make it clear to my players that villains are proactive, and heroes are reactionary. So they needed to decide what to do, and I would describe how the world reacted to them. This group was often paralyzed by the absolute freedom of choice, often taking 45+ minutes to decide what to do next.

After that storyline wrapped up, and we got ready for the next game, the rest of the players approached me, and told me that they would like a "more structured storyline". I was pretty shocked. I said "are you asking me to give you a railroad plot line?". They confered with each other a moment and said "we would be fine with that".

Maybe that was a niche experience, but I've shared that story a bunch of times and had others chime in with similar experiences. My whole point is that "railroading is always bad" is too much of a blanket statement to possibly be true.

"The only wrong way to play D&D is when the people at the table are not having fun". If railroading is something that frustrates your players, and makes them feel disrespected, angry, or sad...then yes, it is certainly bad.

I'm sorry if this seems pedantic, but having lived experience with people who prefer being railroaded made me realize this caveat is kind of important.



Yes, the DM is always deciding what happens TO the players. But they should not decide what happens FOR the players, which is what I was talking about.

The DM control the world. They should NOT control the players' choices.
100% agree.



That is not railroading, this is players who don't follow their part of the "we're playing a game together" implicit contract.

If the DM has explained what the adventure is about, the players agreed to play, and when it's time for the game session the players go "no, thanks, we're going to do something else", then the players are the ones at fault.
I've been in groups like this. And sometimes, it's hard to say who's at fault. I've had a DM who does a lot of great worldbuilding and details, and a lot of our fellow players keep getting sidetracked by minor details, and the DM caters to that. The DM also seems to be easily distracted, and engages all these "ooh, shiny!" tangents. Which can be frustrating, because the plot we were following was very "we have 3 days to get teh McGuffin, or people die", and no one (not even the DM) wants to stay on course.

Railroading is when the DM acts as if they're opening a choice (ex: you can go hunt bandits or you can help this old gnome inventor with their work for the upcomig contest) and then does not respect the choice the players went for.
Yes, that specific kind of railroading I will agree is "always bad". Don't give the players a choice that has all the appearance of being significant, only to take it away.



Most players aren't stupid. Despite some DMs thinking that players only want the "illusion of choice" and that they can somehow flawlessly fool them, most players can see what's going on quickly enough, and especially since a DM who believes you can hide that kind of stuff from players is likely to do it repeatedly, letting players see the pattern.

Also, not getting found out for doing X has no incidence if X is bad or not. "There shouldn't be a problem with me cheating at poker unless I straitght up tell the other players I do it... and why would I ever do that" is not a defense for the positive nature of cheating at poker.
I don't see that as a good parallel. Poker is a game where a certain amount of randomness and fairness is required. Cheating at poker actively harms others. You're taking their money.

The "Quantum Ogre", as it is usually presented, is an example of a term I have coined, which is "soft railroading". That is, to say, when the players never actually "see the rails". And I think that, generally, is acceptable. Now, if the players were aware of ogres, and took specific steps to avoid the ogres, and still get ogres no matter what...that's different. That I am not showing support for.

For me, personally, as a DM, there are things I can improvise well. And there are things I cannot. If I were to randomly generate a combat encounter on the fly, for example, there would be almost no interesting terrain. Not a whole lot besides "wide open area with maybe a few trees and monsters". So I prepare even "random" encounters in advance. Given even just a little bit of time to plan, I can have the encounter be more memorable and fun. And I can prepare several in advance. So "if the players go into the mountains, there's an ogre with a group of orcs that has set up spiky barricades on the mountain path that force players through a winding gauntlet to reach them". And "In the swamp, there's a hydra partially submerged in the water, disguised among floating logs". Or "on the main road to the city, there's an overturned merchant wagon, currently being used to hide bandits planning an ambush". But if my players go into the mountains, they will get that encounter, same with the swamp, main road, etc.

I'm not advocating abrogating meaningful choices for the players. But I don't think it's problematic to have some things that can happen irrespective of player choice, because players were never actually making a choice about that thing.



In other word, if you want to linearly have the "PCs meet this NPC" step be required for the adventure, it's not a bad thing. If you tell the PCs "you could go to X tavern (where the NPC is) or to Y tavern (where nothing plot-relevant happens for the moment)" and if the PCs choose Y you think "yeah, no, they're meeting NPC whether they want it or not", then yeah, it's bad. Respecting your players enough for making their choice matters (be it with positive or negative consequences) WHEN a choice is given is an important part of DMing.
Agreed, if "going to meet this NPC" is a choice they actively and knowingly avoided. If the NPC was someone they hadn't heard of or met yet, who is looking for them to tell them "McGuffin", then it doesn't really matter, does it? Because meeting that NPC wasn't something they chose to exercise their agency over.



If the DM doesn't want their planned encounter to go any way but the way they imagined, needs to retcon things on the spot to go "nu-hu", and it doesn't make sense for the entity to have such power, then yeah it's poor form.
Funny story, that group that asked me to railroad them? Over the following year, I occasionally gave them opportunities to exercise agency. Usually in small doses (like 2 options to start with), and then gave them "limited sandboxes" as part of the campaign they were on.

Well...I had this one encounter planned, as a side plot that had been going along the main one. Had a LG paladin of Bahamut as the antagonist. He had morphed from ally, to patron, and finally to antagonist (he had become kind of a "benevolent" tyrant). I had him statted up for combat. I was ready to have there be this big fight when they confronted him. I was kind of going with the idea that he had this "angelic guide" that was actually a disguised fiend, who had been tempting him.

Well, these players shocked the hell out of me. They liked this NPC. And when they went to confront him, they started working on a plan to redeem him. I completely scrapped the "tempting fiend" idea, and threw together a Skill Challenge to be done in concert with the fight (hey, I did stat him up, after all). Once they finished the Skill Challenge and had him bloodied, he yielded. They convinced him that he had strayed off the path too far, and he went to go on a sabbatical to commune with Bahamut and pray.

So I had the "please railroad us" people show a level of agency that shocked the crap out of me. To the point that I scrapped what I had planned to make their agency count for something. I was just so pleased that these players finally realized the power of making decisions for themselves.

[Sigreid]

Railroading is pretty easy to avoid really. At least in groups of friends. All you need to do is ask what motivates their characters/what their goals are, get agreement that they're aid each other with their respective goals (reasonable for friends/allies) and generally shape your adventures/adventure hooks to catch the interests at hand. Personally, I tend to have just a couple of outlines of different things they can pursue and work from there.

[kyoryu]

Depends on how good the story is.

If the story is engaging, you'll barely notice the rails. You'll WANT to ride the train.

But it's very dependent on the quality story.

It's the same issue AAA gaming suffers from. An open world offers far more content, but most of it is shallow and over quickly. It makes the story seem longer because you get distracted from it every 10 paces. But often in open-world games the core story is also short and shallow.

I heavily disagree with this. AAA open world games are shallow because the computer can only do so much. Having an intelligent GM gets rid of that restriction.

But, at any rate, the amount of linearity/openness that a game provides is definitely a table preference. Some people want more, some people want less, some people can be flexible, especially if they know what they're getting into.

The only issue is really when the style of the game is miscommunicated - saying a game is open when it's not, or the other way around.

And, no, it's not really dependent on the quality of the story. I play RPGs primarily for that ability to impact things and make decisions, and taking that away directly impacts my enjoyment. I can deal with that if I know it up front, but don't promise me one thing and give me another.


I disagree that it's "always bad". Because some players dislike absolute agency and sandbox style.

Agreed!


After that storyline wrapped up, and we got ready for the next game, the rest of the players approached me, and told me that they would like a "more structured storyline". I was pretty shocked. I said "are you asking me to give you a railroad plot line?". They confered with each other a moment and said "we would be fine with that".

I do think there's a wide range between "railroad" and "complete open world". A common structure is "here's the problem the PCs are expected to deal with, but how you deal with it is up to you". That doesn't require the PCs to come up with their own agendas, but it does give them a much wider level of freedom than a "railroad".


"The only wrong way to play D&D is when the people at the table are not having fun". If railroading is something that frustrates your players, and makes them feel disrespected, angry, or sad...then yes, it is certainly bad.

One. Hundred. Percent.


I'm sorry if this seems pedantic, but having lived experience with people who prefer being railroaded made me realize this caveat is kind of important.

Absolutely. Linear/railroad games are fine if people are into that. The issue is when you tell people that it's one style when it's really another. THat's the only thing I push against.



The "Quantum Ogre", as it is usually presented, is an example of a term I have coined, which is "soft railroading". That is, to say, when the players never actually "see the rails". And I think that, generally, is acceptable. Now, if the players were aware of ogres, and took specific steps to avoid the ogres, and still get ogres no matter what...that's different. That I am not showing support for.

Here I disagree. I think if you're going to run a linear game, you should be honest about it. Why not? If people are down with it, they're down with it. And if not, they should be able to opt in or out.

Now, I think that if people know that they're in a linear game, it makes sense to do so as subtly as possible most of the time. Even if people know there are rails, smacking into them is no fun.


I'm not advocating abrogating meaningful choices for the players. But I don't think it's problematic to have some things that can happen irrespective of player choice, because players were never actually making a choice about that thing.

Ehhhhh..... depends. "The city is going to get invaded" is one thing. "The PCs will meet this particular NPC/etc." is another. Mostly because it implies that it's important that they do, which implies a high degree of linearity. Which is fine if it's a linear game, but if you're promising a non-linear game, bad.


So I had the "please railroad us" people show a level of agency that shocked the crap out of me. To the point that I scrapped what I had planned to make their agency count for something. I was just so pleased that these players finally realized the power of making decisions for themselves.

A lot of times people are expected to make decisions in a vacuum, and that's hard. Context and information can often help.

[Willie the Duck]

It seems that when the term "railroad" is brought up, it is often sneered at and associated with bad module design or lazy DM'ing. Although conceptionally I understand the appeal of an open world sandbox environment, the majority of the players I have gamed with are oftentimes frozen with indecision on what they should be doing. This could be attributed to shyness, inexperience or simply not being invested enough to care what happens next.

To illustrate the above, I recall doing the first several levels of Mad Mage and the beginning of Heist, if our group was guided by an external force, whether it be a guide/event/invitation, our group would just "sit in a tavern and drink" until adventure found them." However, with the proper railroading by the GM, gameplay was more exciting and the pace of play kept more of us engaged.

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

I think a large part of this is going to be definitional. You often don't start calling something a subcategory until it notably fits into a category. Thus, whatever larger term railroading fits into (I will use the term 'DM provided direction') doesn't start getting the term 'railroading' affixed to it until it is egregious or problematic, etc. Simply having an adventure idea and making it easy for the players to jump on that plot (if they so desire) is generally just thought of as non-railroad (but also not sandbox) play -- i.e. the messy middle. The question really comes down to--what happens if the PCs don't follow the script (or even 'what happens if events change such that the expected situations for the next coming scene/plot point no longer make sense?') -- if the DM forces things to stick to the plan, that's on rails. Otherwise, it's just a DM provided plot.

Look, obviously you are right that there are people that would enjoy an adventure hook put in front of them -- pre-published adventures exist in the first place, right? It's really when they veer off into forcing (or just falling apart if something doesn't happen) that things start getting badmouthed. Some early AD&D adventures like the original Dragonlance modules and the Time of Trouble Forgotten Realms adventures got this reputation -- certain NPCs had to survive to situation X and do the thing Y, and if they didn't didn't really give any guidance on how to roll it (other than, in some cases, suggesting not to let certain NPCs die even if the dice indicated they should have).

[Unoriginal]

I think a large part of this is going to be definitional.

This.

Even in this thread, a lot of people seem to define "railroading" as "having a non-sandbox adventure".

There is a realm between a linear adventure and railroading.

So obviously there is an issue in communication when some people use Term X to mean [donkey hole behavior] and others use Term X to mean [practice which may maybe become donkey hole behavior if pushed to the extreme].

And then there is the people who do use Term X to mean [donkey hole behavior], but will actively defend acting as a donkey hole toward people who agreed to play a RPG with you.

[JLandan]

In general, I disagree with railroading by the DM.

But sometimes a party can get in a quagmire (metaphorically). Then the DM has to guide them out. If the DM doesn't, the game becomes unfun.

For example: I'm currently playing in a group running an urban adventure that is very sandbox. We rescued a pregnant girl from an attack by cultists. Cool start. Were the cultists after her or the baby for some weird religious reason? No, they were hired. Who by? Cultists don't know or won't tell. We can't torture it out of them, we're not evil. Dead end.

She gets attacked again; this time by assassins. They won't talk either and get killed trying to escape. We find their lair and wipe 'em out except for the leader. He won't say anything but some noble hired them. Turns out the girl has a way expensive necklace given to her by some noble. Is he the father? She won't say. Is the noble's family trying to rub her out? She won't say.

We ask our city contacts, which we generated as part of our character creation, if there may be some clue. Street urchins gang knows nothing, church leader knows nothing, powerful noble family (different one) knows nothing, arcane guild knows nothing, city watch knows nothing.

At this point (4 sessions in and still 2nd level), my character no longer has interest in this girl's wellbeing and wants to find something else to do. Some of the other PCs won't give up. We have no clue and we cannot obtain a clue. We just keep rescuing this girl. It's boring.

The DM is my best friend, but his sandbox adventure has no structure to continue this adventure and I don't want to play anymore. I would, at this time, prefer a little railroad; just to get somewhere.

[Unoriginal]

In general, I disagree with railroading by the DM.

But sometimes a party can get in a quagmire (metaphorically). Then the DM has to guide them out. If the DM doesn't, the game becomes unfun.

For example: I'm currently playing in a group running an urban adventure that is very sandbox. We rescued a pregnant girl from an attack by cultists. Cool start. Were the cultists after her or the baby for some weird religious reason? No, they were hired. Who by? Cultists don't know or won't tell. We can't torture it out of them, we're not evil. Dead end.

She gets attacked again; this time by assassins. They won't talk either and get killed trying to escape. We find their lair and wipe 'em out except for the leader. He won't say anything but some noble hired them. Turns out the girl has a way expensive necklace given to her by some noble. Is he the father? She won't say. Is the noble's family trying to rub her out? She won't say.

We ask our city contacts, which we generated as part of our character creation, if there may be some clue. Street urchins gang knows nothing, church leader knows nothing, powerful noble family (different one) knows nothing, arcane guild knows nothing, city watch knows nothing.

At this point (4 sessions in and still 2nd level), my character no longer has interest in this girl's wellbeing and wants to find something else to do. Some of the other PCs won't give up. We have no clue and we cannot obtain a clue. We just keep rescuing this girl. It's boring.

The DM is my best friend, but his sandbox adventure has no structure to continue this adventure and I don't want to play anymore. I would, at this time, prefer a little railroad; just to get somewhere.

That's not a sandbox problem, though, and giving you something to do wouldn't be railroading.

Your DM has established a clueless mystery, and you eventually lost interest in it after being told "nope, no clue there either" over and over. Even in a sandbox, or some would say *especially* in a sandbox, it is crucial for the DM to provide enough clues to keep the mystery alive, or at least to have other things happening while the mystery is on hold due to a trail getting cold.

In fact, I would argue that by going "nope, no clue here" and providing no alternative for you to pursue, your DM is railroading you while acting as if you were in a sandbox. As Cheesegear pointed out earlier, that typical of railroading DMs who want the PCs to not succeed no matter what they try, as it keeps them on the railroad the DM has established.

[JLandan]

That's not a sandbox problem, though, and giving you something to do wouldn't be railroading.

Your DM has established a clueless mystery, and you eventually lost interest in it after being told "nope, no clue there either" over and over. Even in a sandbox, or some would say *especially* in a sandbox, it is crucial for the DM to provide enough clues to keep the mystery alive, or at least to have other things happening while the mystery is on hold due to a trail getting cold.

In fact, I would argue that by going "nope, no clue here" and providing no alternative for you to pursue, your DM is railroading you while acting as if you were in a sandbox. As Cheesegear pointed out earlier, that typical of railroading DMs who want the PCs to not succeed no matter what they try, as it keeps them on the railroad the DM has established.

It isn't that he doesn't want us to succeed. It's that he has confused avoiding railroading with providing no structure at all, while at the same time confusing a sandbox setting as being a complete adventure. Rumors abound in the setting, but if the PCs follow one, the DM must kill it early or provide a complete adventure surrounding it. That can be hard to do on the fly.

What this DM has done is instead of providing an adventure with options (sandbox) or an adventure with no options (railroad), he has provided options with no adventure (sandbox or railroad).

[animorte]

What this DM has done is instead of providing an adventure with options (sandbox) or an adventure with no options (railroad), he has provided options with no adventure (sandbox or railroad).

This is a very rare and difficult situation. I experienced this once with a new DM (fairly recently actually) and I talked to him about it later, trying to assist him in focusing the narrative a bit. Is the DM you're experiencing this with new?

[Slipjig]

For DMs who don't feel like they improvise well but still want to be somewhat sandboxy, a pretty solid practice is to ask the players at the end of the session what they want to do next time (with a fair degree of specificity, particularly in WHERE they are going). e.g. "We think the Duke is sus, we're going to investigate his manor" allows the DM to create the manor and populate it with guards and NPCs. If the DM has the space and it's inhabitants already planned pre-session, it's much easier to create a to whatever lunatic scheme the PCs come up with for gaining access.

Even if the players change their mind and decide to investigate his warehouse in the docks instead, it's okay for the DM to tell them to talk amongst themselves for a few minutes while he sketches out a floorplan and converts some of his clues, NPCs, and encounters to the new location.

[JNAProductions]

If you define railroading as "A linear adventure" then it's fine, provided everyone at the table is chill with it.

The definition I see most commonly used, though, is railroading is when the DM forces the players along a certain path. That's a problem.

[Demonslayer666]

It irks me when people refer to a linear adventure as railroading.

The players are not losing any agency when presented with an adventure. How they do it is completely up to them. When the DM shoots down all their ideas and makes them "fight the ogre", that's railroading.

Players making the DM design the adventure ad hoc is railroading the DM.

[strangebloke]

If you define railroading as "A linear adventure" then it's fine, provided everyone at the table is chill with it.

The definition I see most commonly used, though, is railroading is when the DM forces the players along a certain path. That's a problem.
Or to put it another way, if it's good and everyone is chill with it, it's not railroading to begin with, because definitionally railroading includes the DM forcing players to do something they don't want to do.

Railroading is bad by definition

[JNAProductions]

Or to put it another way, if it's good and everyone is chill with it, it's not railroading to begin with, because definitionally railroading includes the DM forcing players to do something they don't want to do.

Railroading is bad by definition

Pretty much, yee.

[Sparky McDibben]

Railroading is not the same thing as a linear adventure. An adventure can have a clear A to B structure from which the players are discouraged from deviating, while still presenting them with meaningful choices and fun, engaging challenges. I tend to use the term 'railroading' more narrowly to mean when a DM overrules and pushes against player choices to make the story and gameplay conform to his pre-selected outcomes. People instead tend to use the term to refer to any time the DM tries to impose structure or pacing constraints on the game.

This. While I dislike linear adventures (because they don't deliver experiences I find as enjoyable as others), I think that railroading should only refer to when the DM actively subverts player actions and choices. A railroad is just a bad linear adventure. Framing them as identical is a disservice to what is noxious about railroading (destroying player trust and removing their agency), and craps on linear adventures in total.

[Drascin]

Honestly, I feel people are often way too worried about "railroading", to the point of kinda fetishizing Total Player Agency and Playing To Find Out and stuff even when it doesn't particularly bring anything of value.

Personally I have never been in a sandbox game that I would term as all that great. Most RPG campaigns I've been in that I remember years later were the ones that were quite linear, with explicitly given objectives from the word go, and often a very definite set of genre expectations for players to act inside of. These usually end up having strong throughlines and thematic resonance that cause them to be much more memorable than just running around picking up quests.

Heck, in one freeform game I was in, not only were chapters planned, you as a player had to give the GMs a list of some Events that would happen with your character. If it was on the list and the GMs approved it, it would eventually happen, straight up, whatever anyone else did. Which would have most people that complain about railroading on the internet up in arms, I'm pretty sure, but boy did that game result in some fun stuff :smalltongue:.

[JLandan]

This is a very rare and difficult situation. I experienced this once with a new DM (fairly recently actually) and I talked to him about it later, trying to assist him in focusing the narrative a bit. Is the DM you're experiencing this with new?

No, he's very experienced. We've been playing since original D&D in 1974. (OMG 48 years) But this isn't the first time something like this has happened. He sometimes would put in puzzles that he knew the answer to, but didn't understand when the players couldn't figure it out.

That's why when 5e came out, I created a mechanic called the Clue Save. When a PC reaches a point of cluelessness, they may make a DC 13 save, of whatever stat fits best, usually Wis or Int, success requires the DM to provide a real clue; nothing clever, coy or cryptic; a real clue or outright information. The cost of using this feature being that any XP for the puzzle is reduced or lost completely.

[JLandan]

For DMs who don't feel like they improvise well but still want to be somewhat sandboxy, a pretty solid practice is to ask the players at the end of the session what they want to do next time (with a fair degree of specificity, particularly in WHERE they are going). e.g. "We think the Duke is sus, we're going to investigate his manor" allows the DM to create the manor and populate it with guards and NPCs. If the DM has the space and it's inhabitants already planned pre-session, it's much easier to create a to whatever lunatic scheme the PCs come up with for gaining access.

Even if the players change their mind and decide to investigate his warehouse in the docks instead, it's okay for the DM to tell them to talk amongst themselves for a few minutes while he sketches out a floorplan and converts some of his clues, NPCs, and encounters to the new location.

I would just have some NPC at the warehouse say "Nothing goes on down here, all the Duke's shady stuff goes on at the manor."

[Cheesegear]

The "Quantum Ogre", as it is usually presented, is an example of a term I have coined, which is "soft railroading". That is, to say, when the players never actually "see the rails". And I think that, generally, is acceptable. Now, if the players were aware of ogres, and took specific steps to avoid the ogres, and still get ogres no matter what...that's different. That I am not showing support for.

Correct.

Player: What's left?
DM: ...You don't know.
Player: What's right?
DM: ...Again, you don't know.
Player: ...Alright we go right.
DM: Ogre.

Most players are going to assume that the Ogre was a result of them going right, think nothing of it, and continue the adventure.

Player: ...Okay, I rolled an 11 on my Survival.
DM: Cool. To your left, you see the tracks of a Large Humanoid, perhaps a smaller Giant.
Player: ...And right?
DM: Nothing.
Player: Alright, we don't really want to fight an Ogre, so we'll take our chances with the right path.
DM: Ogre.

Most players will likely feel cheated in this scenario.
The DM could potentially say that in order to see the tracks on the right, they needed a Survival of 15+. But yeah. Point is that this situation is not the same as the first one, even though the DM, on their part, did exactly the same thing in both scenarios.


Agreed, if "going to meet this NPC" is a choice they actively and knowingly avoided. If the NPC was someone they hadn't heard of or met yet, who is looking for them to tell them "McGuffin", then it doesn't really matter, does it? Because meeting that NPC wasn't something they chose to exercise their agency over.

Again, agreed.

If the players take active steps to avoid something they know about, and they look the DM in the eyes and say 'We don't want to do [X].', and the DM makes them encounter [X] anyway, there's a problem.

If the players don't know about something, they can't avoid it. Whatever happens to them is simply part of the adventure that they'll have to deal with. In my experience, if you cover the rails with a few leaves, maybe some snow, players just aren't going to see the rails.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, I feel people are often way too worried about "railroading", to the point of kinda fetishizing Total Player Agency and Playing To Find Out and stuff even when it doesn't particularly bring anything of value.

Personally I have never been in a sandbox game that I would term as all that great. Most RPG campaigns I've been in that I remember years later were the ones that were quite linear, with explicitly given objectives from the word go, and often a very definite set of genre expectations for players to act inside of. These usually end up having strong throughlines and thematic resonance that cause them to be much more memorable than just running around picking up quests.

Heck, in one freeform game I was in, not only were chapters planned, you as a player had to give the GMs a list of some Events that would happen with your character. If it was on the list and the GMs approved it, it would eventually happen, straight up, whatever anyone else did. Which would have most people that complain about railroading on the internet up in arms, I'm pretty sure, but boy did that game result in some fun stuff :smalltongue:.

You seem to be using the “railroad as linear game” definition.

Which is not the common usage-those games sound fun, but they also sound like they consisted of DM and players working together. Not the DM forcing a certain path on you against your actions.

Railroads are linear. But not all linear games are railroads.

[JLandan]

Correct.

Player: What's left?
DM: ...You don't know.
Player: What's right?
DM: ...Again, you don't know.
Player: ...Alright we go right.
DM: Ogre.

Most players are going to assume that the Ogre was a result of them going right, think nothing of it, and continue the adventure.

Player: ...Okay, I rolled an 11 on my Survival.
DM: Cool. To your left, you see the tracks of a Large Humanoid, perhaps a smaller Giant.
Player: ...And right?
DM: Nothing.
Player: Alright, we don't really want to fight an Ogre, so we'll take our chances with the right path.
DM: Ogre.

Most players will likely feel cheated in this scenario.
The DM could potentially say that in order to see the tracks on the right, they needed a Survival of 15+. But yeah. Point is that this situation is not the same as the first one, even though the DM, on their part, did exactly the same thing in both scenarios.



Again, agreed.

If the players take active steps to avoid something they know about, and they look the DM in the eyes and say 'We don't want to do [X].', and the DM makes them encounter [X] anyway, there's a problem.

If the players don't know about something, they can't avoid it. Whatever happens to them is simply part of the adventure that they'll have to deal with. In my experience, if you cover the rails with a few leaves, maybe some snow, players just aren't going to see the rails.

If the DM really wants them to fight the ogre, just have the ogre attack them.

[Sparky McDibben]

Some of y'all need Jesus. Or Oprah. One of those two. But since I've gotta run to catch a flight, here's Justin Alexander's arguments on railroading, which might help:

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

[Pex]

The ok railroading I like is what I call Trolley Tracks. It's a linear campaign. Player buy in is you will do the Campaign Plot. You will do whatever adventure arc the DM is running. This can be a published module or the DM's own adventures. Player agency comes in as the players can Solve whatever the issues are as they choose. The DM through NPCs may offer options. The players are free to choose which one to support or do their own thing to save the day. The DM can apply consequences, good and bad as warranted, as the world reacts to whatever the players do, but the players decide how to proceed given they will continue to Solve the Plot as opposed to leaving it all behind to do whatever else that has nothing to do with anything the DM came up with.

Edit: I stand by saying a linear campaign is a Railroad, but that's why I call it a Trolley. The tracks are there because the only option for not doing the adventure is not playing at all.

[animorte]

I think of linear campaigns as playing a video game like Mass Effect or Dragon Age. You can choose whatever you want to to and what you want to say, but you are still essentially limited to walking down that particular path to follow the thing you need to follow. I would assume you play it and are invested in the story.

I think of railroad campaigns a little closer to platformers where you don't even have 3 dimensions to work with and any talking that happens is just super-scrolling through text that will always be the same no matter how many times and how many ways you go through it. This also applies to the majority of Pokemon games though and you can move about freely in those...

Not a very good point, I guess. Moving along...

[Sparky McDibben]

I think of linear campaigns as playing a video game like Mass Effect (snip)

Sorry, flight got delayed again, so I'm being pedantic on the Interwebz.

I would argue Mass Effect actually railroads (negates player choices) at several stages. One big one is the rachni queen. If you choose to save her, she shows up in Mass Effect 3! (And sends you the world's weirdest e-mail in ME2, but that's another story). And if you kill her in ME1...she still shows up in ME3. Well, a cloned remnant the Reapers found shows up, but it's the same thing. Why? Because they designed this cool encounter, and you're going to play it whether you want to or not!

Quite blatant and very irritating. Still makes my jaw ache when I play ME3.

[animorte]

Sorry, flight got delayed again, so I'm being pedantic on the Interwebz.

Quite blatant and very irritating. Still makes my jaw ache when I play ME3.

Sister-in-law's flight also was delayed... Hmm...

Anyway, I love pedantic!
And I have noticed a lot that games of that nature have attempted (and failed in some aspects) to become more linear and less railroad as the franchise continues.

[Drascin]

You seem to be using the “railroad as linear game” definition.

Which is not the common usage-those games sound fun, but they also sound like they consisted of DM and players working together. Not the DM forcing a certain path on you against your actions.

Railroads are linear. But not all linear games are railroads.

No, it is absolutely the common usage. One can try to make the argument that because railroading is bad, therefore only things that people don't like are railroading, but that is kind of tautological, and doesn't really bear out the general usage of the term. General usage is far more extensive, and in fact the tendency to accuse everything that reduces player agency even a bit of railroading is kind of what I was getting at with the whole "people are way too worried about railroading" thing.

Things that are regularly accused of railroading include "the GM has some events preplanned that are going to happen whatever the players do", "the GM says no-you-can't-do-that when a player says they want to **** off to a completely different locale than where the adventure is happening", "the GM will drop sudden ninjas (or insert appropriate-for-game equivalent to ninjas here) if players refuse to take the plot hooks to force them to interact with the adventure", and so on.

[Cheesegear]

Things that are regularly accused of railroading include "the GM has some events preplanned that are going to happen whatever the players do"...

I have been accused of railroading - at the table - because I had the audacity to include Galeb Duhrs. This was one of my first times introducing my players to a creature with False Appearance, an ability that almost guarantees that a creature gets a Surprise round.

Can the party spot the Galeb? No. False Appearance.
Can the party stealth? No. Tremorsense.
Can the party interact? No. The Galeb only speaks Terran.

If the players attempt to find the druid's sundial, they're going to come across the Galeb - an elemental bound to defend the sundial from...Well, people exactly like the players.

I must be railroading the players because I 'forced' them to fight a Galeb Duhr.
It was the right CR. It has the right location. It had the creature characteristics of a thing I was looking for. I looked at its statistics; 'Oh this looks fuuun.'

'Nooo...My player agency. I must always be in control at all times and know everything about everything or the DM is being unfair and railroading...Surprises that we can't do anything about aren't faaair...'
...What D&D are you playing? What DMs have you had that never surprise you?

I can't imagine DMing a table where I'm not allowed to surprise my players. I'm not allowed to 'force situations' onto them. Creatures with False Appearance are now my favourite kinds of creatures to use. I just have to be careful with them lest my players become paranoid and start bogging down gameplay. It's the same with Traps. Traps absolutely should be part of the game...But if you use too many of them it can make your players start doing weird things which might become a problem.

You walk down the tunnel...and are attacked suddenly by Shadows.
'BS railroad no I refuse waaahhh. I didn't see the Shadows coming so this is unfair.'

I really feel like some people are of the mind that 'If I don't control what's happening to my character (at all times) then it's a railroad.', which...I don't know. I couldn't DM that table. That's not what railroading is. But I definitely feel like some people in this thread actually do think that it is. Someone earlier said 'Fetishising Player Agency', and I couldn't agree more.

Reminds me of the time when I had a player that told me that NPCs can't ever lie, or simply be wrong about something, because then it's confusing. ...Oh okay. NPCs can't lie. Sure buddy.

[Unoriginal]

No, it is absolutely the common usage.

Do you have anything showing that the common usage for "railroading" is to mean "linear adventure"? Because it is not my experience.


I have been accused of railroading - at the table - because I had the audacity to include Galeb Duhrs. This was one of my first times introducing my players to a creature with False Appearance, an ability that almost guarantees that a creature gets a Surprise round.

Can the party spot the Galeb? No. False Appearance.
Can the party stealth? No. Tremorsense.
Can the party interact? No. The Galeb only speaks Terran.

If the players attempt to find the druid's sundial, they're going to come across the Galeb - an elemental bound to defend the sundial from...Well, people exactly like the players.

I must be railroading the players because I 'forced' them to fight a Galeb Duhr.
It was the right CR. It has the right location. It had the creature characteristics of a thing I was looking for. I looked at its statistics; 'Oh this looks fuuun.'

'Nooo...My player agency. I must always be in control at all times and know everything about everything or the DM is being unfair and railroading...Surprises that we can't do anything about aren't faaair...'
...What D&D are you playing? What DMs have you had that never surprise you?

Players reacting like that is pretty bull manure, indeed.

Especially because the Galeb Duhr only speaking Terran wouldn't have been an obstacle for many PC group.




I really feel like some people are of the mind that 'If I don't control what's happening to my character (at all times) then it's a railroad.', which...I don't know. I couldn't DM that table. That's not what railroading is. But I definitely feel like some people in this thread actually do think that it is. Someone earlier said 'Fetishising Player Agency', and I couldn't agree more.

IMO people who use "railroading" to mean that are just as much misusing the term than people using it to mean "an adventure that is linear".



Reminds me of the time when I had a player that told me that NPCs can't ever lie, or simply be wrong about something, because then it's confusing. ...Oh okay. NPCs can't lie. Sure buddy.

Whoa, that's a big one. Don't think I would keep playing with someone who think that.


I'll amend my statement to "railroading is always bad, but there is a lot of things that aren't railroading which get called as such".

[Cheesegear]

Whoa, that's a big one. Don't think I would keep playing with someone who thinks [that NPCs can't lie or simply be wrong].

Like I said, it comes from a place very similar to what some people have touched on:

"Players can't make choices, unless those choices are informed choices; And, by 'informed', they mean 'all of the information.'"

That is, the DM effectively forces players to make decisions without giving them complete and/or reliable information. If the players have to make choices that aren't necessarily in their (complete) control, it must be a railroad.


DMG, pg 245; Determining Characteristics
A[n Insight] check that fails by 10 or more might misidentify a characteristic, so [the DM] should provide a false characteristic or invert one of the creature's existing characteristics.

The DM is forcing me to make bad choices by lying to me. Effectively, the DM is cheating.

Similar to Traps;
Player: I roll Investigation...14.
DM: You don't see any Traps.

Everyone who has every played D&D ever, knows that 'You don't see any traps', is not the same as 'There are no traps.'

Player: I perform [Action].
DM: Okay...Just after you do, you hear a *click* as you step on a pressure plate.
Player: ...What? I rolled a 14. You said there are no traps.
DM: I know you rolled a 14, and no I didn't.
Player: ...Railroad.

[Azuresun]

Honestly, I feel people are often way too worried about "railroading", to the point of kinda fetishizing Total Player Agency and Playing To Find Out and stuff even when it doesn't particularly bring anything of value.

Personally I have never been in a sandbox game that I would term as all that great. Most RPG campaigns I've been in that I remember years later were the ones that were quite linear, with explicitly given objectives from the word go, and often a very definite set of genre expectations for players to act inside of. These usually end up having strong throughlines and thematic resonance that cause them to be much more memorable than just running around picking up quests.

Agreed, my own experience of sandbox games hasn't been great. They usually degenerated into my character stumbling around trying to find a plot hook to tug on, while the other PC's were blowing up boats and fighting assassins.

I think even with a sandbox, you need a linear plot at the start to get the PC's invested with the setting and familiar with the choices they can make. There's a reason that even most "sandbox" video games don't just drop you into the world with no guidance, and have an introductory arc to ease you into the setting and the things going on in it.

[Reynaert]

For example: I'm currently playing in a group running an urban adventure that is very sandbox. We rescued a pregnant girl from an attack by cultists. Cool start. Were the cultists after her or the baby for some weird religious reason? No, they were hired. Who by? Cultists don't know or won't tell. We can't torture it out of them, we're not evil. Dead end.

She gets attacked again; this time by assassins. They won't talk either and get killed trying to escape. We find their lair and wipe 'em out except for the leader. He won't say anything but some noble hired them. Turns out the girl has a way expensive necklace given to her by some noble. Is he the father? She won't say. Is the noble's family trying to rub her out? She won't say.

We ask our city contacts, which we generated as part of our character creation, if there may be some clue. Street urchins gang knows nothing, church leader knows nothing, powerful noble family (different one) knows nothing, arcane guild knows nothing, city watch knows nothing.

At this point (4 sessions in and still 2nd level), my character no longer has interest in this girl's wellbeing and wants to find something else to do. Some of the other PCs won't give up. We have no clue and we cannot obtain a clue. We just keep rescuing this girl. It's boring.

If you had described this exact scenario as an example of being railroaded, nobody would have batted an eyelid; it is a perfect example of the "only the solution the DM came up with will work" trope.

[RedMage125]

Like I said, it comes from a place very similar to what some people have touched on:

"Players can't make choices, unless those choices are informed choices; And, by 'informed', they mean 'all of the information.'"

That is, the DM effectively forces players to make decisions without giving them complete and/or reliable information. If the players have to make choices that aren't necessarily in their (complete) control, it must be a railroad.
That's more of an example of player entitlement. And they're using a loaded term that's almost certain to get a reaction as hyperbole, in order to garner sympathy. Because they believe in "virtue via victimhood", and painting the DM with that brush makes them "in the right".

But they're not. Sometimes players don't have all the information because it wasn't available. Sometimes they missed a clue. Sometimes, monsters/NPCs have abilities that specifically circumvent a player's ability, because that's the monster's schtick, like the galeb duhr example.

That's not "railroading". Real railroading can be problematic. Players are not necessarily entitled to "all of the information".



The DM is forcing me to make bad choices by lying to me. Effectively, the DM is cheating.

Similar to Traps;
Player: I roll Investigation...14.
DM: You don't see any Traps.

Everyone who has every played D&D ever, knows that 'You don't see any traps', is not the same as 'There are no traps.'

Player: I perform [Action].
DM: Okay...Just after you do, you hear a *click* as you step on a pressure plate.
Player: ...What? I rolled a 14. You said there are no traps.
DM: I know you rolled a 14, and no I didn't.
Player: ...Railroad.

Not a railroad at all. Player missed the DC.

This exact reason is why I (and several other DMs) frequently make the "search for traps" roll for the players. I ask what their modifier is, and roll behind the screen. This is because I've had scenarios like the following:

Player: (rolls to search for traps, gets a 14 on the die) I got a 25
Me: You find no traps
Player: Okay, I go ahead and open it.

vis

Player: (rolls to search for traps, gets a 4 on the die) I got a 15
Me: you find no traps
Player: Well, I'm not confident there's really no traps, I'm gonna back away and let the paladin open it, he's got better armor and saves.

Them being privvy to the die roll often leads to meta gaming like this. Which, I mean...it's human nature. It's not always easy to make character decisions based on what your character believes when you know you got a bad roll. You immediately want to be more cautious. That's totally normal. And not every player will do this. But to avoid the situation, my house rule is that I (the DM) make those rolls. So when I say "you find no traps", the players continue to act as if they're confident in their search result.

Of note, because this is similar: One of my other house rules is that if a player wants to make a Sense Motive/Insight check, I will always allow them to roll. And I will always roll a Bluff/Deception check behind the screen, no matter what. Even if the NPC is telling the truth. My house rule is that "Any NPC who believes that they are telling the truth gets a +30 circumstance bonus to this roll". And my response if the NPC beats the player on this opposed roll (ties favor the players) has become something of my catch phrase at my tables, "you trust him/her implicitly". This has worked well for me, and my players have gotten used to the idea that a "failed" Sense Motive/Insight check means that the NPC is to be trusted.

Worked out really great during a higher-level adventure once (Age of Worms adventure path). The players were interacting with an NPC who was helping them (actually a polymorphed vampiric silver dragon, in league with the enemy, but helping the PCs because they were taking out her rival). That NPC actually had a phenomenal Bluff modifier. My players, being suspicious, asked for a Sense Motive check, and the NPC only beat their roll by like 3 or 4 points (NPC wasn't getting the house-ruled +30, as she was, in fact, lying about the thing they were asking about). They continued to trust her, making the eventual reveal awesome.

Point is, there are times when, due to the story and the way the dice land, players are not going to be privvy to all the information. That can make the game more fun. The adventure path has advice for what to do if the players make their checks against this NPC and how to proceed, I just didn't need to use it. Having agency doesn't mean the players are supposed to "always know when NPCs lie" automatically. It means that they have an opportunity to figure it out, and that the DM will respect it and adjust if they do. If I had made the Bluff check succeed regardless of what the roll was, it would have been railroading. That's why I brought up the story. The NPC legitimately and fairly beat them on an opposed check.

Case in point: it would actually have technically been railroading if I allowed their check to succeed despite not making the roll, because that was the way I, the DM, preferred to proceed. Any time you modify the results of something to carry out a pre-determined plan instead of respecting the actions and choices of players respective to that plan, you're overriding agency.

[Pex]

If you had described this exact scenario as an example of being railroaded, nobody would have batted an eyelid; it is a perfect example of the "only the solution the DM came up with will work" trope.

This is the DM who never wants his players to know anything. They are pawns in his world. The less cynical answer is a DM who thinks this is how a mystery is supposed to work. NPCs may never tell players anything. The players have to find the clues all on their own. They are in specific places and nowhere else. If the players never go there they never find the clues. Back to cynical, and it's the players' fault for not going there despite not having a clue, pun intended, they should actually go there.

[Sparky McDibben]

OK, I've slept, and been re-caffeinated, and I've got some thoughts on this topic.

One: railroading is defined as "press (someone) into doing something by rushing or coercing them." And according to Google Trends, it started showing up in 1850, so I think we can take the common usage as something that predates RPGs. The RPG-specific form of railroading is when the DM nullifies player decisions to get some preplanned thing.

That's the definition of a railroad. The player has made a choice, and the DM has made that choice meaningless because the player's choice would threaten an outcome the DM wants.

Railroads are not linear adventures, they're not what players are kvetching about this week; railroads are when the DM negates a player choice.

And yes, in an RPG, railroads are BAD.

It doesn't matter if the players don't notice the DM behind the curtain pulling levers, or are simply too polite to mention their feet poking out from behind the curtain. RPG railroads are by definition, bad.

The reason for this is that a role-playing game is about making choices as your character; you are playing a role. If the DM is negating choices, making your decisions meaningless and irrelevant, then you are no longer role-playing. You're now an unpaid extra in the DM's sh!tty version of Masterpiece Theatre. Railroading takes away the thing that makes RPGs unique as a medium for stories - the empowerment of player decisions. If you cannot handle your players making decisions, then either get better or stop DMing.

When you railroad them, you're just damaging their experience for what the game is - you're setting some other DM for a really hard time when their players start desperately looking for railroad tracks, and flailing around to find "what does the DM want us to do?" I've had to deal with this, and while it was delightful to watch that player come out of their shell, it was sad for the first several sessions to watch them talk to every NPC to find out which one was the DMPC that would lead the party to adventure. I wound up having a chat with them, and they straightened out pretty quick once they knew there were no railroad tracks.

In summation, a railroad is when the DM is nullifying a player choice to ensure a predetermined event. And railroads are TERRIBLE because they undermine the unique strengths of RPGs as a medium, destroy player trust in the game world, and warp player's decision-making processes.

[OldTrees1]

In summation, a railroad is when the DM is nullifying a player choice to ensure a predetermined event. And railroads are TERRIBLE because they undermine the unique strengths of RPGs as a medium, destroy player trust in the game world, and warp player's decision-making processes.

If the players asked the DM to preserve a predetermined outcome or otherwise gave player buy-in for the preservation of that predetermined outcome, would nullifying a player choice that endangered that outcome A) still be railroading? B) still be bad?

I know this situation is rather unusual/extreme and does not contradict the general verdict.

[Composer99]

I'm going to say that a lot of the definitions of railroading here are IMO not entirely correct. And in fact I have to disagree pretty thoroughly with Sparky. Most people who are playing a role in any context outside of RPGs are doing so in the service of a particular scripted story, from which there is little to no deviation. When most folk go to watch someone "play the role" of Macbeth or Maria von Trapp, they're most assuredly not going in the hopes that that someone makes "in character decisions" that will suddenly change the outcome of the story - quite the opposite for the most part. So insisting on a frankly idiosyncratic definition of "playing a role" and working out a definition of railroading based on this idiosyncrasy is, IMO, mistaken. (What matters isn't that I'm playing a role - it's that I'm playing a game in which the decisions I make while playing a role are supposed to matter to the outcome of the game.)

Instead, like most DM/GM sins, the issue with railroading is that the DM/GM is breaking a promise made in their capacity as DM/GM to the players in their capacity as fellow human beings sharing the gaming table with respect to how important the players' choices for their characters are in determining the outcome of gameplay. When you are railroading, you are breaking a promise you've made to the players about the gameplay experience you're delivering: you're either selling the players on one sort of gameplay experience and are actually delivering a different one, or you are openly and blatantly refusing to deliver the gameplay experience the players tell you that they want through their gameplay decisions without the open and honest discussion required to legitimise such refusals. (*) That's what's bad about railroading - in fact, that's what makes it railroading in the first place!

(Note that this is very different, in the context of in the emergent and unfolding fiction that occurs in gameplay, from NPCs lying to the player characters, or NPCs not knowing everything, or the PCs otherwise working off of incomplete or even inaccurate information. These all are - or at least ought to be - a normal and acceptable part of gameplay.)

If you want your players to be what amounts to an audience more than an active participant in a game or at best actors reading off a script, tell them so, openly and honestly, to their faces. If they're still down with your game, well and good. What is more, you're no longer railroading, because you're being honest about the gameplay experience you intend to deliver, even if it's not a gameplay experience I'd care to take part in, nor is it one I think many here would enjoy either. Indeed, to be honest, I daresay very few DMs/GMs who run games this way and were actually this upfront about their games would actually find many willing players - and for good reason.

Broadly speaking, I'm in favour of DMs/GMs being upfront about the kind of gameplay experience they want to deliver, and the techniques they prefer using to that end. They don't necessarily have to say "I'm doing this DM trick right this very instant", but it should at least be clear that's how they roll. Then, the players can decide for themselves what they enjoy, what they're willing to live with, and what they can't abide, and DMs/GMs and players, working together, while keeping the gameplay experience intended/assumed by the game system they're using in mind, can come up with gameplay experiences that are as satisfactory/fun/enjoyable for themselves and for each other as possible.

(*) Here I should note that not all open and blatant refusals to deliver a particular gameplay experience are bad. If I know a player has a severe phobia, I would flatly refuse to entertain requests for a gameplay experience that triggers that phobia. This is a game, not a therapy session. What's more, if the phobic player asked me to keep the phobia secret, I would respect that request.


As a bit of a parenthetical I very strongly disagree that "quantum ogre", as such, qualifies as railroading in and of itself.

In order for "quantum ogre" to be railroading, it has to be done in the service breaking your promise to your players about gameplay experiences as described above.

Outside of that context, the "quantum ogre" is indistinguishable from the player perspective from any other means of determining what random encounter happens. When I'm on the player side of a DM/GM screen and a random encounter occurs, I don't know whether the DM/GM is using a random encounter table in Xanathar's, a table of their own devising, a table they cribbed from another game or book, or is improvising based on off-the-top-of-their head whimsy or some amount of knowledge/fiat about what creatures might dwell in the part of the setting I'm currently occupying - and for the most part, I don't care. (That said, some players can and do care, as we can see in this thread. Well and good - this is why DMs/GMs should be upfront about their techniques, so such players can decide how much they care.)

Where I will agree that "quantum ogre" is unambiguously railroading is when the player characters want to avoid random encounters generally, and either spend character resources (in-fiction or meta-level) that would guarantee such avoidance but for your forcing the situation, or, in the absence of such a guarantee, roll well enough to avoid an encounter. If the game gives them the possibility of avoiding random encounters by choice or by good fortune, and they haven't already agreed to allow you to "house-rule" those possibilities away, it's railroading not to respect that - you are not delivering the gameplay experience they have clearly indicated they wanted.

[JLandan]

If you had described this exact scenario as an example of being railroaded, nobody would have batted an eyelid; it is a perfect example of the "only the solution the DM came up with will work" trope.

I don't mind an only solution situation, so long as I, as a player, am able to find said solution. Clearly the DM has a solution in mind, and clearly he thinks that there are clues enough to find it, and clearly he is incorrect. There are four very experienced mature players and a fifth of moderate experience with a variety of PCs mostly with very good Int and Wis scores, but we are clueless. And in the name of NOT railroading, the DM will not just give it up. To me, the game is at an impasse.

[strangebloke]

Too much ink spilled on a topic that could very easily be summed up as:

A good DND experience is one where the players and the DM both agree upon what kinds of things will happen. If a DM tries to enforce something the players don't want, this is railroading. Sometimes this is the DMs fault because they're being a control freak. At other times the player is being unreasonable in their demands ("I interrupt the king by SHOOTING HIM IN THE FACE. Chaotic Neutral!") Generally 'railroading' refers to when its the DM's fault.

The linearity of a campaign has nothing to do with railroading. A very linear campaign can be very lovely and enjoyable to all involved. An openworld campaign can be full of railroady encounters that heavily punish you the instant you do something the DM doesn't want. ("Well, you kicked that merchant and now the Harpers are after you!")

[Sorinth]

Put me on the side that linear adventures are different from railroading, and that railroading is inherently bad and comes from a lack of communication between DM/Players. It's also something you should try to fix it with an out of game conversation. Something as simple as the DM saying, "I made this haunted house I want to show off can you guys just do that quest instead of wandering off in the nearby woods?", even "Look I'm not really good/comfortable coming up with interesting stuff on the fly, let's do this haunted house this session and I'll prepare something next session for you where you can explore the woods".

[animorte]

Put me on the side that linear adventures are different from railroading, and that railroading is inherently bad and comes from a lack of communication between DM/Players. It's also something you should try to fix it with an out of game conversation. Something as simple as the DM saying, "I made this haunted house I want to show off can you guys just do that quest instead of wandering off in the nearby woods?", even "Look I'm not really good/comfortable coming up with interesting stuff on the fly, let's do this haunted house this session and I'll prepare something next session for you where you can explore the woods".

What's that I hear? Communication?

Seriously, communication can solve a lot of issues in and out of the game (just between players or including the DM). I understand mysteries or following clues to discover the legitimate path. I understand DMs have really cool ideas a lot of the time. I also know that from the DM perspective everything just seems so obvious. With that in mind, I try to reward creative thinking and every once in a while (if the party seems stuck for too long) I like to invent creative ways myself to point them in the right direction without being completely direct.

[kyoryu]

I find a lot of the ever-more-detailed discussions about terminology on this subject to be, frankly, a bit bad-faith.

Regardless of the terms you use, be clear about the type of game you're running. If you're running the players from pre-prepared scene to pre-prepared scene, then be honest about that. If you're just winging it, be honest about that.

"Is technique xyz okay?"

Simple answer - if you think your players would be mad if they found out, don't do it.

That's really the entire discussion. Right there.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Put me on the side that linear adventures are different from railroading, and that railroading is inherently bad and comes from a lack of communication between DM/Players. It's also something you should try to fix it with an out of game conversation. Something as simple as the DM saying, "I made this haunted house I want to show off can you guys just do that quest instead of wandering off in the nearby woods?", even "Look I'm not really good/comfortable coming up with interesting stuff on the fly, let's do this haunted house this session and I'll prepare something next session for you where you can explore the woods".

What I've tried to do, which seems to work, is structure choices so that they happen at the end of a session. Players can commit to A or B... or C, but they go away then come back and I've spent more time prepping whatever choice they made. Doesn't always work out timing wise, but as much as possible getting info from your players when you have time to prep is easier to deal with than on the fly.

[ciopo]

To me, it depends a lot on already established motive for my character.

I'm generally easy to buy in, I want plot to happen and I dislike open world.

But the plot has to make sense.

Example : recently in one of my games my party had a teleportation mishap when leaving one of the hells, and found ourselves in a completely different continent than our usual haunts. Party being 7th level, we don't have easy access to teleportation, so this make an easy and nice hook for a coming home adventure with maybe ship/pirate related shenanigans, I'm all for it.
But in this other continent there is a war brewing between empire this and kingdom that, and I feel the gm is kind of pushing us to go partecipate in that in some major way, and I'm like "I don't give a rat ass about this conflict, my priority is getting back home before rent is due and the owlbear cub starve after our servants leave". I will be kind of bummed if we end up conscripted. I'm 100% ready to derail ala "ok we go hunt for dangerous prey in the jungle" aka grind xp until our wizard learns teleportation circle

[kingcheesepants]

I don't mind an only solution situation, so long as I, as a player, am able to find said solution. Clearly the DM has a solution in mind, and clearly he thinks that there are clues enough to find it, and clearly he is incorrect. There are four very experienced mature players and a fifth of moderate experience with a variety of PCs mostly with very good Int and Wis scores, but we are clueless. And in the name of NOT railroading, the DM will not just give it up. To me, the game is at an impasse.

I'm confused as to how only allowing one pre-set solution to work and not allowing any of the players plans or ideas to reveal info (especially as the things that you mentioned seem pretty plausible, to the point that not letting any of them work seems like an artificial constraint to keep players on the DMs pre-set track) is in any way conducive to not railroading. This sounds exactly like railroading to the point that If you repeated your statement and removed the word NOT from before railroading it would make more sense to me.

Basically not railroading means allowing player freedom and respecting player choice and working with players to take the narrative in unexpected directions. This DM is giving players freedom (they can talk to whoever or go wherever and do whatever) but he isn't working with the players choices to forward the narrative since everything they try to do in order to get info leads to a brick wall and only the DMs planned ideas will result in a conclusion.

[elros]

If you define railroading as "A linear adventure" then it's fine, provided everyone at the table is chill with it.

The definition I see most commonly used, though, is railroading is when the DM forces the players along a certain path. That's a problem.
I agree with that definition, and would add that the worst railroading forced the players in a way that is inconsistent with the adventure. If I want my players to go to a location, I may use the “carrot and stick” method to get them to move there, but I would not magically transport them or kidnap a party member (which I have seen happen, BTW).
The goal is to move players somewhere that will be more fun, and not make the players feel like game pieces. And if the players won’t move? Figure out why and go with it.

[Sorinth]

What I've tried to do, which seems to work, is structure choices so that they happen at the end of a session. Players can commit to A or B... or C, but they go away then come back and I've spent more time prepping whatever choice they made. Doesn't always work out timing wise, but as much as possible getting info from your players when you have time to prep is easier to deal with than on the fly.

Yeah that's good advice, and even as a player you should want to give the DM some idea of what your planning because it's only going to help make whatever comes next more interesting/fun/immersive.

[The Glyphstone]

The only time I've ever 'railroaded', it was as much tongue in cheek as anything - we were playing through an extremely linear module, and the bits where it pulled a But Thou Must (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust) were gleefully lampshaded by everyone.

[Sorinth]

To me, it depends a lot on already established motive for my character.

I'm generally easy to buy in, I want plot to happen and I dislike open world.

But the plot has to make sense.

Example : recently in one of my games my party had a teleportation mishap when leaving one of the hells, and found ourselves in a completely different continent than our usual haunts. Party being 7th level, we don't have easy access to teleportation, so this make an easy and nice hook for a coming home adventure with maybe ship/pirate related shenanigans, I'm all for it.
But in this other continent there is a war brewing between empire this and kingdom that, and I feel the gm is kind of pushing us to go partecipate in that in some major way, and I'm like "I don't give a rat ass about this conflict, my priority is getting back home before rent is due and the owlbear cub starve after our servants leave". I will be kind of bummed if we end up conscripted. I'm 100% ready to derail ala "ok we go hunt for dangerous prey in the jungle" aka grind xp until our wizard learns teleportation circle

I totally get how you might want one direction and the DM is planning for another direction. But rather then sit there ready to derail the game why not talk to the DM about your concerns and see if there isn't a way to get the two of you (And the other players) on the same page so that the game doesn't get derailed and everyone has fun?

As a DM I would much rather a player come to me and say they aren't feeling the storyline for reasons X, Y, Z as it will allow me to adjust things to either address the concerns, or develop a different/divergent storyline that will. In your example there might be a way to actually get your character to care about the empire/kingdom, did you have a little sister that just went missing one day, what if she turns up married to the King. Now not only do you have an investment in one side over the other, but there's a mystery to be solved of what actually happened to your sister.

[ciopo]

Oh, I've had the out of session talk, I was illustrating a point. Sorry if I've made you worry about bratty player behavior.

(Funnily enough, we're jungling for dragons anyway because bounty on problematic poison over yonder brings honorary citizenship therefore access to the mercantile guilds on the richer side of nearest port city)

(We totally have the squirrel GM and we are equally squirrely)

[Sorinth]

Oh, I've had the out of session talk, I was illustrating a point. Sorry if I've made you worry about bratty player behavior.

(Funnily enough, we're jungling for dragons anyway because bounty on problematic poison over yonder brings honorary citizenship therefore access to the mercantile guilds on the richer side of nearest port city)

(We totally have the squirrel GM and we are equally squirrely)

Good to hear. Those out of game talks really go a long way to making sure everyone at the table is having fun and is the best way of handling pretty much everything.

[RedMage125]

Outside of that context, the "quantum ogre" is indistinguishable from the player perspective from any other means of determining what random encounter happens.

This is exactly what I mentioned in my first post. An example of what I call "soft railroading". So, like as you put it, when it's indistinguishable. Which means the players don't "see the rails".

And it's really only that because some encounters/events have been predetermined by the DM, but as things that the players' agency doesn't factor in to.

However, the reason I'm still willing to call it any for of "railroading" is only because some purists out there seem to believe that if there weren't different possible outcomes from each decision point (for example, players could go west, north, or east), then their agency has somehow been "infringed upon".

[Cheesegear]

But they're not. Sometimes players don't have all the information because it wasn't available.

I've had people on this forum call me a bad DM because I don't give my players all the information they need. Or, if I'm not a bad DM, at least they wouldn't want to play at my table(s).

'Choices must be informed choices, or they are not choices.' - Someone on this forum, probably. I don't know if that person or those people have been seen in this specific thread. But it's definitely been said to me.

...I can't count the number of times my players have spent at least 10 minutes or more, deciding on what to do about a closed door. If you want to find out what's on the other side, if you want to find out whether it's trapped and you just didn't find one...Just open the damn door. But I can't open the door because I don't know what's on the other side. :smallsigh:


Players are not necessarily entitled to "all of the information".

Correct.


Not a railroad at all. Player missed the DC.

But it was the DM's choice to set the DC.
It was the DM's choice to place the Galeb Duhr where it was.

Players need to roll dice, players need to ask the DM's permission. What DM ever asks their players' permission to do something? A DM places something in the world, sets the DC, and tells the players to deal with it...Sometimes, the players don't deal with it and disengage. Sometimes, the players engage and can't deal with it and maybe a character dies.

There's an inherent power imbalance. New (and/or bad) players wont see that as part of the game. They'll see that as the DM 'cheating.' Anything the players don't get a say on, anything that happens outside the players' control, anything that happens without the players' foreknowledge...Must be railroading. Because railroading is where you take away player agency, and player agency is the most important thing in the whole wide world.

Sometimes the players just forget that they definitely have the solution and they just don't use it:

DM: You know you could've cast Detect Thoughts to find the Galeb Duhr, maybe even interacted with it on some level using the same spell.
Player: Wait, I have that?
DM: You have a Helm of Telepathy. I remember 'cause I keep track of who has what magic items.
Player: *Stares blankly*
DM: You forgot what it does, didn't you?

[Pex]

A quantum ogre is not a bad railroad. It's only bad when it's no longer quantum. It's no longer quantum once the ogre is placed. If the party knows the ogre is at some location or direction and they choose to go in another direction to avoid it, encountering the ogre anyway is bad form.

It might be a bad railroad if because the party went in another direction they encounter a troll instead even if they didn't know a troll was there. The troll could have Honest True been there, but a repeated pattern of PCs avoiding something only to encounter it anyway with a different label of identification exposes the train tracks.

[Cheesegear]

A quantum ogre is not a bad railroad. It's only bad when it's no longer quantum. It's no longer quantum once the ogre is placed.

I've said this numerous times; If the players don't know where the Ogre is, then the Ogre is anywhere the DM wants it to be, until the players find it.

If they go right, Ogre.
If they go left, Ogre.

But the issue that I've been presented - in other threads - is:

Their choices are meaningless! But how can players trust the DM, if either way they go, they face an Ogre?

Given that earlier I totally supported DMs outright lying to players when they fail Insight checks (per the rules), I totally support making a distinction between 'You find no traps', and 'there are no traps', and in multiple threads - including this one - I stated my predilection for using creatures with False Appearance.

I don't really think that trust should be an issue when playing D&D. Or, at least you should expect your DM to try and trick and double-think you.

I don't really think that the issue with Quantum Ogre'ing is the railroad. As per several times in the thread; If players know they're on a railroad (e.g; a published module), they can choose to engage or disengage at will. That's fine.

The problem with Quantum Ogre'ing is that it's a hidden railroad, and that if players found out they were on a railroad that they didn't know that they were on, they'd be mad. Which again, ties back to 'trust' - as though it matters. The issue with Quantum Ogre'ing is that players don't know that they're on the railroad, and that makes people mad. They weren't told. They weren't given the information. They were lied to. But then what's the difference between a DM who plans an encounter ahead of time, and a published module? I dunno.

But unfortunately the only alterative to Quantum Ogre'ing isn't actually that much better:

You go left; Ogre.
You go right; Minotaur Skeleton.

Ahh...Now the players should feel so much better, because it's totally different now! Is that really want people want? Is this meaningful? :smallconfused:

[Unoriginal]

I've said this numerous times; If the players don't know where the Ogre is, then the Ogre is anywhere the DM wants it to be, until the players find it.

If they go right, Ogre.
If they go left, Ogre.

But the issue that I've been presented - in other threads - is:

Their choices are meaningless! But how can players trust the DM, if either way they go, they face an Ogre?

Given that earlier I totally supported DMs outright lying to players when they fail Insight checks (per the rules), I totally support making a distinction between 'You find no traps', and 'there are no traps', and in multiple threads - including this one - I stated my predilection for using creatures with False Appearance.

I don't really think that trust should be an issue when playing D&D. Or, at least you should expect your DM to try and trick and double-think you.

I don't really think that the issue with Quantum Ogre'ing is the railroad. As per several times in the thread; If players know they're on a railroad (e.g; a published module), they can choose to engage or disengage at will. That's fine.

The problem with Quantum Ogre'ing is that it's a hidden railroad, and that if players found out they were on a railroad that they didn't know that they were on, they'd be mad. Which again, ties back to 'trust' - as though it matters. The issue with Quantum Ogre'ing is that players don't know that they're on the railroad, and that makes people mad. They weren't told. They weren't given the information. They were lied to. But then what's the difference between a DM who plans an encounter ahead of time, and a published module? I dunno.

But unfortunately the only alterative to Quantum Ogre'ing isn't actually that much better:

You go left; Ogre.
You go right; Minotaur Skeleton.

Ahh...Now the players should feel so much better, because it's totally different now! Is that really want people want? Is this meaningful? :smallconfused:


1) There is a world of difference between "player character learns false information" and "DM lie to player".

2) The alternative to Quantum Ogre is to NOT give the players a choice if you're not willing to respect it. As simple as that.

If you're giving your players a choice between left and right, there must be a difference. Be it in the end result (ex: you arrive at somewhere different) or in the other consequences (ex: you arrive at the same place, but on the left you had a chance to find someone's lost bag, which may be relevant later).

If there is no difference between A and B, then the DM should stop wasting the players' and their own time and just go "there is A, you go through there".

Quantum Ogre is bad because you're wasting time presenting false choices. There is nothing wrong with an adventure where the PCs must travel west to the city of Zamora. But if you've opened the possibility to go either west to Zamora, or east to the city of Tricobalt, then making both choice end up identical (as in, PCs end up in (basically) the same tavern talking to the same NPC who will give the same quest) is a waste of effort, time, brainpower, and also trust if your players realize it.

Heck, there is nothing wrong with the east road to Tricobalt and the west road to Zamora both having an Ogre attack encounter. That shows the region has an Ogre banditry problem, which can be a plot point in itself. But it doesn't take any serious effort to make the encounters different depending on the road taken. On the east road the Ogre's weapon is an Ogre-sized torch, while on the west road the Ogre and two goblins are attacking a merchant and their bodyguard. Boom, meaningfully no longer the same, for two seconds of thoughts.

Also, once again: a published module isn't a railroad. Some published modules do contain instances of railroad (notably the infamous "if the PCs manages to steal the McGuffin from the bad guys at this point, a imp disguised as a bird grabs it from their hand and drop it in the sewer, continue the adventure as planned" bit), but not most of the time and not most of them.

[da newt]

I don't mind a railroad / obvious linear path as long as I (the Player / PC) have the option to get off and do something that I'm motivated to do, and I hate it when there is only one way to achieve objective X even if there are several perfectly logical other approaches that 'should' work just as well if not better. I like to chose my own adventure, but find it best when there are a few well place bread crumbs to follow. Completely open sand lots can be detrimental - if there is nothing more interesting than finding a cheap bar and getting drunk, you might as well start farming. Give me something worth caring about.

[Boci]

But unfortunately the only alterative to Quantum Ogre'ing isn't actually that much better:

You go left; Ogre.
You go right; Minotaur Skeleton.

Ahh...Now the players should feel so much better, because it's totally different now! Is that really want people want? Is this meaningful? :smallconfused:

Yes?

Those are two different opponent, not the biggest difference, they're both largely melee bruisers, but one is an undead, who a divine heavy party may favour that, whilst the others is living, so if a party member favours poison, they might prefer the ogre, or maybe they want to try and bribe the ogre, which wouldn't work against a skeleton. As the players trust the DM, and the DM allows them to interact with the world through scouting, appropriate skill checks and other abilities, that is good dungeon design. Basic, but good.

[Cheesegear]

If you're giving your players a choice between left and right, there must be a difference.

Partial disagree.


If there is no difference between A and B, then the DM should stop wasting the players' and their own time [...] Quantum Ogre is bad because you're wasting time presenting false choices.

Again, partial disagree. It's only a false choice if the players backtrack and realise that there's nothing there in the alternate path. And from one DM to all the others...I sincerely hope you're faster than your players, and can backfill once they start going backwards.

There's a series of adventure/survival video games, which started famously started with Until Dawn, and then began their own Dark Pictures games which have gotten worse and worse with each release. Which present the player with a series of choices. Infamously, it is known that some of those 'choices' give you the same result either way, including when you choose the 'Do Nothing' choice (probably why they keep getting worse). How is this known?
- The internet exists, you can look it up.
- You can replay the game for yourself, make different choices, and see the same result for yourself.

D&D, isn't a video game, it is very rarely replayable, and it's almost impossible to look up your DM's homebrew unless you know where your DM hangs out, or you're somehow able to hack their cloud. Or you're silly, and drop your notes and one of your players picks up a sheet of paper and squints and says 'Heeey...? This piece of paper just says 'OGRE!!!' The DM is a phoney! Phoooneeey!'

If the players go right, and encounter an Ogre, they are going to think that encountering the Ogre, is a result of them going right. During the fight, the Ogre can make a mistake and cause a cave-in. You can present another door in the Ogre room. You can entice - or straight up pressure - the players into going forwards after they've already made the decision to go right. Whatever happens after that, is a consequence of them choosing the right path.

IME, players are unlikely to backtrack to a place they've already been, if you subtly - or overtly - tell them that there's nothing back the way they came (e.g; 'I can't believe you chose the right door! The other door leads to a kitchen with nothing in it. It's fine we can keep going.').

If you're homebrewing, players can't look up what they missed. Everything you have, is either in your head, or on your hard drive, or wherever you want your notes to be. If you are telling your players that you're Quantum Ogre'ing them, that's on you.

Player: We go right.
DM: Cool, Ogre.
Player: I guess we picked the wrong door? Roll Initiative?

Player: We go right.
DM: Cool, Ogre.
Player: Damn. Wrong door. Roll Initiative?
DM: No matter which way you chose you would've ran into an Ogre.
Player: That's a false choice...Booo...

The second isn't even a bad DM. That's a stupid DM.


There is nothing wrong with an adventure where the PCs must travel west to the city of Zamora. But if you've opened the possibility to go either west to Zamora, or east to the city of Tricobalt, then making both choice end up identical (as in, PCs end up in (basically) the same tavern talking to the same NPC who will give the same quest) is a waste of effort, time, brainpower, and also trust if your players realize it.

I mean, my players would have several questions about both cities that I would be forced to differentiate between the two. Scouting Asking the DM questions is a hard-counter to Quantum. If you know what's ahead, you can choose to avoid it. If you know what's ahead, you can choose how, when or even if you want to interact with it.

Quantum Ogre'ing can only work if the players either don't scout ask questions, or get wrong answers by asking the wrong questions - and/or failing any number of dice rolls. Once something is placed in the world, it's really, really, really difficult to unplace it without being glaringly obvious what you're doing.


As the players trust the DM, and the DM allows them to interact with the world through scouting, appropriate skill checks and other abilities, that is good dungeon design. Basic, but good.

See above. If the players are scouting and using abilities and doing what they're supposed to in any environment, Quantum Ogre'ing is more or less off the table. However, and here's the tricky part, even if the players do everything they're supposed to, if they fail dice rolls, you can Quantum Ogre and you can justify it as the players just didn't spot the Ogre.

[Boci]

ee above. If the players are scouting and using abilities and doing what they're supposed to in any environment, Quantum Ogre'ing is more or less off the table. However, and here's the tricky part, even if the players do everything they're supposed to, if they fail dice rolls, you can Quantum Ogre and you can justify it as the players just didn't spot the Ogre.

Yeah sure, a s****y DM can do several things like that. But you asked if Ogre vs. Minotaur Skeleton was that much better than quantum ogre, and the answer is yes. Ogre vs. Minotaur skeleton is basic, but good, dungeon design, whilst quantum ogre is just bad.

[RedMage125]

2) The alternative to Quantum Ogre is to NOT give the players a choice if you're not willing to respect it. As simple as that.

If you're giving your players a choice between left and right, there must be a difference. Be it in the end result (ex: you arrive at somewhere different) or in the other consequences (ex: you arrive at the same place, but on the left you had a chance to find someone's lost bag, which may be relevant later).


I think people are beginning to talk past each other. And it may be because of some assumptions along the way.

The first assumption from the "Quantum Ogre is bad" crowd seems to be that "ogre" is somehow the destination.

What I am advocating for is a certain level of prepared things that can happen anywhere irrespective of player choice, but the players have no reason to ever know that.

Example:
DM: if you take the west road, you'll reach the city of Tel Ranar, and further past that, the foothills of the Silver Mountains. The east road will take you to the small town of Leetah, beyond which is the vast Sylvanwood.
Players: We go [x direction]
DM: Okay. About 6 hours on the road, you encounter an Ogre.

In this example, the PC's choice does matter, because where they eventually get to will be different. But the DM prepared an Ogre encounter for the "travel encounter", and that's going to happen no matter what road the players took. They still have agency, but there was a plot-inconsequential Ogre that was going to happen, regardless.

THAT is what I am saying is okay.

[Boci]

I think people are beginning to talk past each other. And it may be because of some assumptions along the way.

The first assumption from the "Quantum Ogre is bad" crowd seems to be that "ogre" is somehow the destination.

But is that even quantum ogre, if its just a random encounter? Doesn't the set up of quantum ogre strongly imply that is it a choice of the passage taken?

[RedMage125]

But is that even quantum ogre, if its just a random encounter? Doesn't the set up of quantum ogre strongly imply that is it a choice of the passage taken?

That's the point. It doesn't have to be. If the players never know that the other choice would have also had an Ogre, then they never see any "rails". They still have agency in which road to take, their destination will be different.

Why does it matter of different inconsequential encounters were set up for each route?

[Boci]

That's the point. It doesn't have to be. If the players never know that the other choice would have also had an Ogre, then they never see any "rails". They still have agency in which road to take, their destination will be different.

Why does it matter of different inconsequential encounters were set up for each route?

Of course these kind of questions can often be flipped back round: if its inconsequential, why is the DM insisting the players much meet an ogre, and nothing else, for their random encounter on the road?

But fine, let's say the DM didn't have time to make one of six to randomly generate and just choose ogre. I would still say there is a minor difference, between portraying it as a random encounter (i.e. a wondering ogre), and a fixed encounter directly resulting from the path the players chose to take.

[JNAProductions]

That's the point. It doesn't have to be. If the players never know that the other choice would have also had an Ogre, then they never see any "rails". They still have agency in which road to take, their destination will be different.

Why does it matter of different inconsequential encounters were set up for each route?

I would, as a matter of principle, prefer the DM have different encounters for different paths.

As a matter of practicality, I'm okay with encountering the same random encounter no matter which path is taken, assuming it makes sense in context. DM's have limited time, so I get it.

But if steps are taken to avoid the ogre (the DM tells you that giants are rumoured to roam the northern passage and ogres have been spotted to the east, so you go southwest) and you encounter an ogre arbitrarily anyway... That's an issue.

Basically, the main issue of a railroad is NEGATION. It's not about linearity, it's about listening to the players say "We don't want this," and responding with "Have it anyway." That is NOT the same as players simply failing a check or something-if the players fall into a pit trap because they flubbed a Perception check, or get ambushed, or fail at negotiations to make peace, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Let me put a concrete example down. The players are trying to negotiate peace between two warring city-states.
If the players try to intimidate both sides to stand down, the check is incredibly tough (because while the PCs in this case are competent, they aren't gods or anything) and will make other avenues impossible, since you just tried scaring them off the bat. The players fail the check, negotiations break down, and war starts. That's fine-if the players had tried using logical arguments, appeals to their better nature, and more good-natured Charisma checks, they could've made peace.
But, if the players try all that, roll well, make good arguments, all that... But the DM wanted war to break out anyway, so they just say that everything fails, and war breaks out, that's a problem.

If the adventure is about the warring city-states, then either start with them already at war, or if you DO want to start with negotiations, tell the players "This is basically an intro scene. No matter what you do, negotiations aren't gonna be enough to avoid war. You can try to make allies, find info, stuff like that-but you aren't stopping the war here." And get them to buy into it!

[animorte]

I think people are beginning to talk past each other.

I tend to remedy this by keeping open 2 tabs of the same thread, one I'm typing my reply in. The other to refresh the page so I can keep up with what has been added while I've been forming my (likely unnecessarily detailed) response. Sometimes even setting up another reply so I can copy/paste the additional quote I intend to respond to. Rinse/repeat.

[RedMage125]

I would, as a matter of principle, prefer the DM have different encounters for different paths.

As a matter of practicality, I'm okay with encountering the same random encounter no matter which path is taken, assuming it makes sense in context. DM's have limited time, so I get it.
Well, in my case, it's a mater of quality. Things like having terrain, or other interesting factors besides "here's a flat plain with an ogre...maybe a few trees"...they require me to plan in advance. So the quality of the encounter, and how interesting it might be, will be much better if I plan it advance. And I don't adhere to an invisible "authority of principle" in regards to randomness and other "behind-the-screen" factors my PCs are not aware of. Or at, least, I should say that I do adhere to an invisible "authority of aesthetics", which informs my decision to have the "random" encounters for the party planned out in advance.

And again. I do believe in maintaining player agency. I just believe that in matters where the agency is not really a factor, it's not really a violation of said agency to have things planned in advance.

This is part of what I call "soft railroading". Where the players do not see the "rails"


But if steps are taken to avoid the ogre (the DM tells you that giants are rumoured to roam the northern passage and ogres have been spotted to the east, so you go southwest) and you encounter an ogre arbitrarily anyway... That's an issue.
Well, they're "seeing the rails" then, aren't they?

I actually specifically covered this a few pages ago, but the thread is getting long. But yes, I agree. If the players have taken steps to avoid that specific ogre, and (barring some kind of actual failure, like blowing a Stealth check) they get one anyway, then agency has been violated, and that's not the kind of thing I support.


I tend to remedy this by keeping open 2 tabs of the same thread, one I'm typing my reply in. The other to refresh the page so I can keep up with what has been added while I've been forming my (likely unnecessarily detailed) response. Sometimes even setting up another reply so I can copy/paste the additional quote I intend to respond to. Rinse/repeat.

I actually meant "talking past each other" in terms of subject. One group of people is discussing oranges, another is discussing tangerines. Similar...related, even. But not quite on the same page. So I don't think the people arguing necessarily disagree, but they seem to, because of a miscommunication somewhere.

[Boci]

Well, in my case, it's a mater of quality. Things like having terrain, or other interesting factors besides "here's a flat plain with an ogre...maybe a few trees"...they require me to plan in advance. So the quality of the encounter, and how interesting it might be, will be much better if I plan it advance. And I don't adhere to an invisible "authority of principle" in regards to randomness and other "behind-the-screen" factors my PCs are not aware of. Or at, least, I should say that I do adhere to an invisible "authority of aesthetics", which informs my decision to have the "random" encounters for the party planned out in advance.

I find that boring when I DM. Plus, its a random encounter, so I don't plan those in advance like that, I have a list of 6-12 to randomly choose from, unless the story and setting makes sense to have a specific encounter. For example when my players where near a mountain range which was patrolled by alchemist monstrosities. Between their flight and the lack of cover, they were going to fight one unless they took extremely paranoid levels of pre-cuation, which they didn't.

[Cheesegear]

DM: You're walking down the path.
Player: Cool. I'd like to sent my Owl Familiar above the treeline and have a look around. Do I need the Owl to make a Perception check?
DM: Not really. It's broad daylight, and the woods aren't that dense. Off in the distance your Owl says it can see smoke, likely from some kind of fire.
Player: Okay. I want to warg my Owl, and I tell it to fly closer to the fire. Roll Stealth now?
DM: You see an Ogre having a fire, cooking what appears to be a Large animal.
Player: Okay Owl, come back. We don't really want to fight the Ogre, so let's get off the path - about 500 ft. - and continue in the direction we're heading. Group Stealth?
DM: Nah. Don't worry about it. While you're walking through the woods, an Ogre comes barreling towards you.
Player: The one from the fire? That we specifically tried to avoid? That you told us not to roll Stealth for?
DM: ...Uhh...Yes.

If this is what you think Quantum Ogre'ing is... No it isn't. What the players did actually counters Quantum Ogre, and the DM is terrible for railroading his players, because the players can obviously see the tracks, that they specifically tried to avoid. This above is a case of straight up railroading. Not a Quantum Ogre.

The DM could, however, make it so that there are two Ogres, one is hunting, whilst the other is cooking. But that would depend on the party's level and Stealth and Perception rolls would likely have to be enforced. That becomes a planned encounter, then, where the DM has anticipated that the players might want to go 'round, and has already taken that into account as part of the planned encounter. If you go 'round, you still fight an Ogre, but also a different Ogre - that can potentially call for the other one.

However, what if the party goes 500 ft. left? Do they still fight the roving Ogre?
What if the party goes 500 ft. right? Do they still fight the roving Ogre?

If the party doesn't know about the roving Ogre (failed Perception and/or Survival checks), and fights the Ogre in the woods - but it's a different Ogre to the one at the fire - no matter which direction they go. That's Quantum.

Ogre 1. Can't be a Quantum Ogre, because the party knows of its existence. The party has 'opened the box' and seen whether the Ogre is there or not there.
Ogre 2. Can be a Quantum Ogre, because the party doesn't know of its existence. If the party makes Perception rolls, Survival rolls, whatever, they can discern the second, sure. But what if they don't and/or fail? If they don't look - or fail the look - then Ogre 2 is anywhere the DM decides that it is.

There. Everyone understands?

Finally, we get to what really seems to be the problem with Quantum Ogre'ing:

Players would be angry if they found out their choices weren't meaningful.
...How would they find out? :smallconfused:

[strangebloke]

Players would be angry if they found out their choices weren't meaningful.
...How would they find out? :smallconfused:

This is where the posters go "oh I always know" based off one time where they did figure it out. But in reality every DM does this and players almost never notice because... Geez, it's a game! Conservation of detail is a thing! I'm not a DND computer who has active grids showing where the hunting ogre is. That's a lot of work that accomplishes very little in terms of everyone's actual enjoyment. And as far as that goes, pretty much everyone accepts this kind of thing as a matter of course. If you bump into a random NPC you met five months ago in the next city, nobody seriously thinks the DM has been careful tracking that NPC up to this point. The DM clearly just decided it'd be fun to bring them back, and saw a way to justify it.

What's really taking, I think, is that not even video games take this absurd simulator approach, at least not most of the time.

[OldTrees1]

Players would be angry if they found out their choices weren't meaningful.
...How would they find out? :smallconfused:
This is where the posters go "oh I always know" based off one time where they did figure it out.

I disagree. This is where posters go

"If you know the players would be angry 'IF' they found out, then why try to hide behind that 'IF'? Different players have different playstyle preferences. It is better to respect those preferences than to try to get away with something you know they would be angry about if they found out."

Now for some cases you will find the players preference similar to "I prefer if ___ was not quantum but I understand if DM logistics make it necessary." but for other cases the preference is much stronger and similar to "I would be angry if a significant plot piece was made quantum.". Instead of hiding behind Illusionism, just respect your players have preferences and don't try to excuse behavior with "but if nobody finds out then it never happened bwahaha".

This holds true the other way too. If the players prefer more linear games and would be angry if I tricked them into playing a sandbox, it does not matter if I get away with the deception. That would have been disrespectful and bad GMing.

[Cheesegear]

This is where the posters go "oh I always know" based off one time where they did figure it out.

I have a feeling that players figure it out by way of their DM just ****ing up, or badly telling a story, or not having a contingency for when things go wrong. If you make it obvious you have no backup plan, then things might get awkward.

This is what I meant earlier when the party can fight an Ogre, or Minotaur Skeleton. The difference is not that meaningful. It's a combat vs. a single Large target either way. But it does help you go that little extra step further to tricking convincing your players that you definitely are not railroading them into encounters. No you don't understand, it's different, because, umm...Undead?

When it's 'Ogre, or different Ogre', some players might smell a rat - whether one is there or not.

Also, think a lot of people in this thread are confusing a Quantum Ogre with a Teleporting Ogre. Similar. But they are not the same.

[animorte]

Also, think a lot of people in this thread are confusing a Quantum Ogre with a Teleporting Ogre. Similar. But they are not the same.

Quantum Physics are not to be trifled with.

[OldTrees1]

Also, think a lot of people in this thread are confusing a Quantum Ogre with a Teleporting Ogre. Similar. But they are not the same.

Yes, they are. However I don't blame them when this is a thread about railroading and the initial Quantum Ogre example on this forum (the one that coined the term for this forum) was a Teleporting Ogre used by a railroading DM.

However, if there is no agency with respect to the Ogre, then the Ogre being a quantum ogre does not negate any agency. It is not railroading, even if some players will still have preferences about it.

[Boci]

I have a feeling that players figure it out by way of their DM just ****ing up, or badly telling a story, or not having a contingency for when things go wrong. If you make it obvious you have no backup plan, then things might get awkward.

This is what I meant earlier when the party can fight an Ogre, or Minotaur Skeleton. The difference is not that meaningful. It's a combat vs. a single Large target either way. But it does help you go that little extra step further to tricking convincing your players that you definitely are not railroading them into encounters. No you don't understand, it's different, because, umm...Undead?

Yes? Undead vs. not undead is a difference, not matter how many times you try to pretend it isn't. The skeleton can be turned or smashed, the ogre can be poisoned, charmed or reasoned with. These are differences.

Yes, its not the biggest difference, but most players won't mind "left = ogre, right = minotaur skeleton" compared to "left = ogre, right = ogre".

[Kane0]

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?
Depends on the players and the DM. Its perfectly fine to have a game on the rails if everyone is happy to do that, its just that one of the key appeals of a tabletop RPG is that sense of narrative freedom that other mediums struggle with.

[MoiMagnus]

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

I'm fine with railroads, they're a good way to set up interesting situation, and they're a good way to avoid situations that should be avoided. They come at a cost, so don't use them everywhere and especially don't use them in situations where you want the player to feel like they deserve the positive/negative consequences of their actions, but they're fine.

I'm fine with illusions. It's a dangerous game as a GM as it's make-or-break for each player, but they can allow you to have your cake and eat it.

I'm not fine with the "emotionally abusive" behaviour of forcing someone to follow a path and then punishing and blaming them for having followed that choice.

Additionally, if your players are actively trying to break the railroads, that probably means that they don't want them. As a GM, you can get a lot of things under "implicit consent", but when peoples explicitly reject them, don't behave as if they still implicitly consent to them. Railroading is a poor excuse to not listen to your players.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, he's very experienced. We've been playing since original D&D in 1974. (OMG 48 years) But this isn't the first time something like this has happened. He sometimes would put in puzzles that he knew the answer to, but didn't understand when the players couldn't figure it out. How many games stalled out when that came up? We had that happen no few times in our early days. (PS: you've been at this longer than I have, old timer, by a year. Happy to buy the beer -or grog- if we ever meet :smallsmile:).

scenarios You have nicely described the problem of the video game influence on the RPG gaming culture.
Oh okay. NPCs can't lie. Sure buddy. At least now there's the insight check; back in the day (yeah, before there was electricity) you just had to guess or figure it out.

[kyoryu]

For the purposes of this thread and post, I will use the following definitions:

1) Linear game: A game where the GM/publisher is responsible for preparing all of the scenes/encounters of the game, and the players play through this prepared content
2) Railroad: A linear game where the players are unaware that the game is linear, and the GM uses various techniques to keep them in the prepared content while not admitting so.


1) There is a world of difference between "player character learns false information" and "DM lie to player".

2) The alternative to Quantum Ogre is to NOT give the players a choice if you're not willing to respect it. As simple as that.

Yes to both of these, with one addendum: Another alternative to the Quantum Ogre is to tell the players that you're going to be doing a linear campaign and keeping them "on the path". If they agree to that, Quantum Ogres are fine.

The issue with any railroading techniques isn't really the technique itself - it's the lie.


Heck, there is nothing wrong with the east road to Tricobalt and the west road to Zamora both having an Ogre attack encounter. That shows the region has an Ogre banditry problem, which can be a plot point in itself. But it doesn't take any serious effort to make the encounters different depending on the road taken. On the east road the Ogre's weapon is an Ogre-sized torch, while on the west road the Ogre and two goblins are attacking a merchant and their bodyguard. Boom, meaningfully no longer the same, for two seconds of thoughts.

The problem with the Quantum Ogre example, as seen time and time again, is that it's out of context. The Ogre isn't really the problem. The problem is that it's usually a Quantum Ogre that has the clue to the Mini MacGuff that is needed to rescue.... and so on and so forth.

There's a whole linear thing going on, and that's being hidden from the players. Using techniques like QOs to keep players on the path while simultaneously pretending there isn't a path is the problem.

As someone that is pretty staunchly anti-railroad, I wouldn't have much of an issue with the party encountering an ogre if they took to road to Atown or Bville, so long as things went different ways ultimately depending on whether they chose Atown or Bville.

(Also, I'll even play in linear games, if I'm told that's what I'm getting into. Give me the choice and be honest, please).


Also, once again: a published module isn't a railroad. Some published modules do contain instances of railroad (notably the infamous "if the PCs manages to steal the McGuffin from the bad guys at this point, a imp disguised as a bird grabs it from their hand and drop it in the sewer, continue the adventure as planned" bit), but not most of the time and not most of them.

Ehhhh... I tend to think that most published modules are pretty linear. There's some exceptions, but ultimately, published modules have to have encounters, and if there's a series of modules, you have to know where the second one starts, which means that there's some level of coercion to keep consistency.

Yeah, single modules can be non-linear, but that's a style that's pretty much out of fashion now, and very few multi-modules are non-linear. Linear games are ridiculously common, and are probably mostly expected for published adventure paths.

I mean, it's right in the name: adventure path


Yeah sure, a s****y DM can do several things like that. But you asked if Ogre vs. Minotaur Skeleton was that much better than quantum ogre, and the answer is yes. Ogre vs. Minotaur skeleton is basic, but good, dungeon design, whilst quantum ogre is just bad.

And again, I'd say that the ogre isn't the issue. If the path to the left put the players in Mind Flayer territory, while the path to the right took them to the Minotaur clans, then I don't really have as much of an issue with the ogre.


I would, as a matter of principle, prefer the DM have different encounters for different paths.

As a matter of practicality, I'm okay with encountering the same random encounter no matter which path is taken, assuming it makes sense in context. DM's have limited time, so I get it.

Provided the paths you take actually matter, yes.


But if steps are taken to avoid the ogre (the DM tells you that giants are rumoured to roam the northern passage and ogres have been spotted to the east, so you go southwest) and you encounter an ogre arbitrarily anyway... That's an issue.

Ehhhhhh, maybe. If they're told that ogres are NEVER EVER on the southwest road, that's one thing.


Basically, the main issue of a railroad is NEGATION. It's not about linearity, it's about listening to the players say "We don't want this," and responding with "Have it anyway." That is NOT the same as players simply failing a check or something-if the players fall into a pit trap because they flubbed a Perception check, or get ambushed, or fail at negotiations to make peace, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

It's about negation of agency. Usually, historically, when talking about railroading it's in service of a linear game. The term "railroading", while it can be used to imply forcing, also implies "tracks". That's where the term came from in this context - literally being on a railroad.

Agency-negation isn't good in any case.


If the adventure is about the warring city-states, then either start with them already at war, or if you DO want to start with negotiations, tell the players "This is basically an intro scene. No matter what you do, negotiations aren't gonna be enough to avoid war. You can try to make allies, find info, stuff like that-but you aren't stopping the war here." And get them to buy into it!

Which fits in quite nicely with my constant refrain of "linearity is fine, just be honest"


Well, in my case, it's a mater of quality. Things like having terrain, or other interesting factors besides "here's a flat plain with an ogre...maybe a few trees"...they require me to plan in advance. So the quality of the encounter, and how interesting it might be, will be much better if I plan it advance. And I don't adhere to an invisible "authority of principle" in regards to randomness and other "behind-the-screen" factors my PCs are not aware of. Or at, least, I should say that I do adhere to an invisible "authority of aesthetics", which informs my decision to have the "random" encounters for the party planned out in advance.

Well, yes. Anything planned has higher fidelity at the encounter level than improvised things. And the tradeoff is a lack of agency. Players will prefer one or the other based on their gaming preferences, and both are vali


And again. I do believe in maintaining player agency. I just believe that in matters where the agency is not really a factor, it's not really a violation of said agency to have things planned in advance.

It can be even easier - just tell the players what you're doing.

The problem isn't even, really, the lack of agency. It's telling the players they have agency when they don't.


This is part of what I call "soft railroading". Where the players do not see the "rails"

Again, this is fine, if the players know that, essentially, they're running a linear game.


I have a feeling that players figure it out by way of their DM just ****ing up, or badly telling a story, or not having a contingency for when things go wrong. If you make it obvious you have no backup plan, then things might get awkward.

Players figure it out lots of ways. One of the most obvious is alluded to above - pre-prepared content is usually more obviously scripted and has higher fidelity. If no matter where you go or what you choose, you constantly run into set pieces? It's obvious that it's linear. It also becomes obviously pretty quickly that most of your choices have little or no effect.


This is what I meant earlier when the party can fight an Ogre, or Minotaur Skeleton. The difference is not that meaningful. It's a combat vs. a single Large target either way. But it does help you go that little extra step further to tricking convincing your players that you definitely are not railroading them into encounters. No you don't understand, it's different, because, umm...Undead?

When it's 'Ogre, or different Ogre', some players might smell a rat - whether one is there or not.

I have yet to see a group where the players don't figure it out, eventually. You can hide it for a bit, but eventually it becomes obvious.

At that point there's usually a second layer of deceit - the players are just going along with it, doing what the GM wants rather than trying to exert agency.

I find this pretty dysfunctional, personally. Because now the game for the players is "figure out where the GM wants us to go, but don't tell him we've caught on."



Additionally, if your players are actively trying to break the railroads, that probably means that they don't want them. As a GM, you can get a lot of things under "implicit consent", but when peoples explicitly reject them, don't behave as if they still implicitly consent to them. Railroading is a poor excuse to not listen to your players.

I really just think the best solution is to tell the players what type of game you're running up front, and let them either choose to be a part of it or not. Some people like linear games, some people like more open-ended ones. Why not just be up front about it, so people can make a good choice about what they're doing and how they're spending their time?

[The Glyphstone]

Purely for discussion - if the Quantum Ogre is less the problem specifically, does that mean a 'Quantum Ogre' could in fact not always be an ogre? For example, if the plot requires that the party find information about the Mini MacGuff; they encounter an ogre if they go east, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, and they encounter a giant if they go north, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, would this be a Quantum Ogre problem? Their decision has changed things in the short term, but the plot moves on despite this illusion.

[Easy e]

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice. It's the DMs job to guide the players down the path of the campaign while making it seem like it was their choice to do so.

Golly, I remember being skewered alive here for saying the exact same thing!

[JNAProductions]

Golly, I remember being skewered alive here for saying the exact same thing!

Because it’s wrong.

Players like me want the ability to make choices and have those choices matter.
Other players might just want a guided story experience.
Neither preference is wrong-but the DM lying to their players is.

[kyoryu]

Purely for discussion - if the Quantum Ogre is less the problem specifically, does that mean a 'Quantum Ogre' could in fact not always be an ogre? For example, if the plot requires that the party find information about the Mini MacGuff; they encounter an ogre if they go east, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, and they encounter a giant if they go north, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, would this be a Quantum Ogre problem? Their decision has changed things in the short term, but the plot moves on despite this illusion.

To me, yes. It's basically the same thing as "fire ogres if you go south, ice ogres if you go north". It's a palette swap, or just slightly more than a palette swap.

People bring up random encounter tables when discussing QOs for this reason, and they're not really wrong. It's not just the ogre, it's the larger context of why the ogre is unavoidable.

Like let's come up with a situation. The PCs are in Starttown, and they're dealing with a coming orc invasion. Or whatever. They have a few options - they can go to A-ville to try and convince the lord there to lend troops, or they can to to B-ton to try to get the mages guild there to give them some artifacts. (Arguably, they could avoid the whole thing and just leave, too, but...)

Getting troops or getting artifacts, in theory, leads to very different ways of handling the orc invasion, and the game will play out differently either way. However, they've gotta get there first, and the territory is hostile.

The GM can do a few things:

1. Either way, they encounter an ogre. It is known that ogres are in the area.
2. There's a random encounter table, which contains ogres. They'll roll a random encounter
3. If they go A-ville, there's an ogre. If they go to B-ton, there's a giant.

Honestly? I don't really care, and I hate railroading. The primary agency we're dealing with is how the problem is being dealt with, and that is retained. Neither the GM nor the players know how things are going to play out at the start of the game, especially if there are other choices from there.

Let's look at another situation.

Same basic setup - the PCs are in Startton, orc invasion, blah blah blah.

However, unbeknownst to the players, what's really going on is that the orcs are trying to start a ritual. The GM has the whole plotline filled out - Startton is actually kind of irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PCs get the information on this so that they can start following the breadcrumbs.

So, either way they go, they find the ogre, who has the letter or whatever mentioning the first thing that the players need to deal with. Now, a good GM will probably do this in a way that following this is the Obvious Correct Choice, so now the PCs need to follow the clue to go and get the first artifact that will actually destroy Startton - mages and armies won't matter, blah blah blah.

So here, the choice (armies vs artifacts) is irrelevant. It's a false choice, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the PCs get the clue that puts them on the path.

Changing the ogre to a giant if they go on one path doesn't change this fact. Even letting it be a random roll doesn't change this path - the purpose of the encounter is to get the PCs moving in the desired direction. From the GM's standpoint, their plot point they're going to have happen is "the players fight a monster and get the info that leads them to the Dungeon of Darkness to try to get the Wand of Startton-Blowing-Up". Or whatever. And that forces the players down a particular path, the path the GM wants them on. Whether you play it on a different battle map, or make it a giant instead of an ogre, or do a palette swap is all secondary. That's not what the GM is really trying to enforce here. They need the players to get the info to get them "on the path".

(What happens if the PCs don't take the bait is a bit beyond the point of this example).

That's the issue. That's where the "railroading" really comes into play, the majority of the time. It's getting and keeping the players on the desired, pre-plotted path. It's A->B->C->D->.....->Z. Maybe there's an optional one in there, maybe some things can be slightly reordered, etc. But you're going to end up at Z, you're going to do the things in the middle, and the choices you make aren't really going to change circumstances very much along the way.

And to be clear, that's a fine way to run a game. Lots of people like it! Lots of people prefer it to more open games! But lots of people don't like it, so being honest about that is, I think, the right way to handle that. Even if someone would be okay with either, if they know it's linear, there's less chance for weird power struggles along the way if they players are bought into that linearity.


Because it’s wrong.

Players like me want the ability to make choices and have those choices matter.
Other players might just want a guided story experience.
Neither preference is wrong-but the DM lying to their players is.

Exactly this.


I think this is a false dichotomy, the result of misunderstanding what's actually going on. It's this misunderstanding that leads to DMs railroading their players and thinking they're doing a good thing.

What's really going on is that the DM needs to provide direction to the players. "You wake up in an open field. There are no trees or animals or any landmarks nearby. You can see for miles around you, just more empty, open field. What do you do?" What can they do in such a scenario? There's nothing to engage with. That's the real problem.

Yeah, my preferred structure is something like "okay, as players, we've agreed this is the problem the game is about, and you're going to solve it. Cool! However, how you do so is up to you. Go!"

That avoids both the linearity of the linear/adventure path game, as well as the "blank field" problem of the "pure" sandbox. But I'm not holding it up as a platonic ideal, just something that works for me on both sides of the table.

[Boci]

Purely for discussion - if the Quantum Ogre is less the problem specifically, does that mean a 'Quantum Ogre' could in fact not always be an ogre? For example, if the plot requires that the party find information about the Mini MacGuff; they encounter an ogre if they go east, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, and they encounter a giant if they go north, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, would this be a Quantum Ogre problem? Their decision has changed things in the short term, but the plot moves on despite this illusion.

That's just good DMing though. Multiple DMing guides will give you the rule of 3 approach, give players 3 clues or 3 ways to access information they need for the plot, then once they find one retroactively delete the other two, to ensure the plot doesn't stall because the players missed a key piece of information.


And again, I'd say that the ogre isn't the issue. If the path to the left put the players in Mind Flayer territory, while the path to the right took them to the Minotaur clans, then I don't really have as much of an issue with the ogre.

If the party is going to meet the ogre whichever way they go, why not just place the ogre encounter BEFORE the split in the roads between the mindflayers and the minotaurs?

[Jay R]

Most games are neither a sandbox nor a railroad.

A railroad is a sequence of events, each of which must be met in order, and solved with the single pre-set solution. If you never think to touch the purple hilt of your sword to the chartreuse spot on the door, you will never pass through the door, never find the Mace of Guffin needed to travel to where the BBEG is, and thus, you will never go further in the one and only adventure.

The railroad track goes through that door, and the purple hilt is your ticket to the depot with the Mace of Guffin..

I've seen many adventures in which there's a moderately well-structured story the GM has written, but any clever solution might work. This does not feel like a railroad to me.

[OldTrees1]

Purely for discussion - if the Quantum Ogre is less the problem specifically, does that mean a 'Quantum Ogre' could in fact not always be an ogre? For example, if the plot requires that the party find information about the Mini MacGuff; they encounter an ogre if they go east, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, and they encounter a giant if they go north, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, would this be a Quantum Ogre problem? Their decision has changed things in the short term, but the plot moves on despite this illusion.

In this example the "ogre" is the encounter with tip #32 about the Mini MacGuff. An easy improvement is having one path have tip #21 instead of #32. Let the tip of rule of 3 have you make more clues and allow clues to be missed.

[Yora]

Railroading negates player agency. And without agency, why bother with game rules? It's reading out a story with lots of weird hoops for the listeners to jump through.

[kyoryu]

Railroading negates player agency. And without agency, why bother with game rules? It's reading out a story with lots of weird hoops for the listeners to jump through.

Some people really just want the setpiece battles and character advancement, and don't care about plot-level decision making.

I mean, that's how most video games work, realistically.



I've seen many adventures in which there's a moderately well-structured story the GM has written, but any clever solution might work. This does not feel like a railroad to me.

It does to me. If I'm going to go A->B->...->Z, the fact that several solutions to B exist doesn't really change it much in my view. It's the structure I'm objecting to. Or, at least want to be aware of.

Typically, I want Z to be unknown. I want A->(B1-20)->(C1/1-C20/20) and so on and so forth. An expanding set of possibilities at each step. I want everyone to be at least a little surprised at how things turn out. ANd I want to know that how things turned out is significantly impacted by what I do.

Mass Effect is still a railroad. You make some choices, sure, and have some optional things to do, and can choose some ordering - but at the end of the day, every story ends almost exactly the same way.


In this example the "ogre" is the encounter with tip #32 about the Mini MacGuff. An easy improvement is having one path have tip #21 instead of #32. Let the tip of rule of 3 have you make more clues and allow clues to be missed.

I think the three clue rule still is effectively a linear game. It just provides more options so that people don't get trivially blocked.

[JNAProductions]

Some people really just want the setpiece battles and character advancement, and don't care about plot-level decision making.

I mean, that's how most video games work, realistically.

To the second bit, videogames have similarities to TTRPGs, but they're not the same.

And to the first, that's true! But if you have players like that, why bother pretending they can make choices? Just have a linear game, and have fun.

[kyoryu]

To the second bit, videogames have similarities to TTRPGs, but they're not the same.

Agreed! And there are some things computers can't do that people can. Those are the interesting spaces for TTRPGs, to me.

But, a lot of people have expectations informed by videogames, as well.


And to the first, that's true! But if you have players like that, why bother pretending they can make choices? Just have a linear game, and have fun.

Exactly! I could not agree more. Communicate with your players about the type of game you're running, be honest about it, and let people decide to play or not. Then everybody can do what they have fun with, and it's all good.

The only thing I really argue against is pretending your game isn't linear when it actually is. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BRC]

The only thing I really argue against is pretending your game isn't linear when it actually is. Nothing more, nothing less.

In my experience, there usually isn't much in the way of an Intentional Deception going on with railroaders. Railroading isn't a decision the DM makes, it's a reaction to something unexpected.


The PC's need to get a relic for a ritual to stop a demonic invasion. The Relic is currently held by a Dragon as part of it's horde.

The DM probably isn't saying "Heh, the players may think they can approach this scenario a bunch of different ways, but I HAVE CUNNINGLY DESIGNED IT SO THEY MUST KILL THE DRAGON! THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!"

They're probably building the scenario, thinking about how they would approach it, and simply not thinking of anything besides "Kill the Dragon".


Then, when the Players decide to Approach the dragon, offering the borrow the Relic for the ritual, handing over something else as collateral, and then return it, since the Dragon doesn't want the demons to invade either, The GM panics because They're Supposed To Kill The Dragon and, without a good reason for the Dragon to turn down the deal, they come up with bad reasons in order to force the fight.

[kyoryu]

In my experience, there usually isn't much in the way of an Intentional Deception going on with railroaders. Railroading isn't a decision the DM makes, it's a reaction to something unexpected.

The PC's need to get a relic for a ritual to stop a demonic invasion. The Relic is currently held by a Dragon as part of it's horde.

The DM probably isn't saying "Heh, the players may think they can approach this scenario a bunch of different ways, but I HAVE CUNNINGLY DESIGNED IT SO THEY MUST KILL THE DRAGON! THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!"

They're probably building the scenario, thinking about how they would approach it, and simply not thinking of anything besides "Kill the Dragon".

Then, when the Players decide to Approach the dragon, offering the borrow the Relic for the ritual, handing over something else as collateral, and then return it, since the Dragon doesn't want the demons to invade either, The GM panics because They're Supposed To Kill The Dragon and, without a good reason for the Dragon to turn down the deal, they come up with bad reasons in order to force the fight.

If you've already decided the plan the players are going to do, then you've decided on a linear game.

There's some level of unintentional railroading that happens as well. Like, the GM has prepped and so has some level of bias towards using their prep, or they have a preconception of how things should work, and so any solutions that don't align just become harder. That can often be a tricky position because even the GM may not be aware of how much control they're exerting over the situation.

But things like quantum ogres? Those are intentional. A lot of techniques talked about are absolutely, 100% intentional. When people say things like "players don't want agency, they want the illusion of agency" (a quote from this thread), then that's intentional. When GMs have a series of encounters for the players to go through, in order? That's intentional.

[Easy e]

Because it’s wrong.

Players like me want the ability to make choices and have those choices matter.
Other players might just want a guided story experience.
Neither preference is wrong-but the DM lying to their players is.

A DM giving the "Illusion of choice" is not lying to the players, they are facilitating a game in which the GM is the ultimate authority (Rule 1).

Every time you sit down to play an RPG you are participating in the illusion of choice as the GM has all ready planned everything around you, or is going to improv everything around you. The only choice you have is if you are going to participate or not.

The leads you find in game, are only there because the GM put them there. The things you decide to go do, only become available as the GM improvs them. Your choices are all illusion. GMs even decide the rules of reality in RPGs, the books are pretty explicit about that too.

It sounds more like people do not like railroading because it sheds the ultimate illusion of RPGs, that players have agency outside of the GMs control. Players do not.

[kyoryu]

Practically speaking, yes, the GM can override anything they want. They have sufficient power that it's kind of hard to avoid that.

Realistically, there are a wide variety of games, and GMs approach them very differently. Just because you may not have "complete" agency, does not mean that you can't have a wide variety of effective levels of agency.

I've run in games, and run games, where the outcomes were not what I expected.

I've run in games, and run games, where the outcomes were not what the GM wanted.

I often run games where what happens is not according to any plan of mine.

To say that agency is meaningless because the GM always has the ability to shift things, and probably unconsciously puts their finger on the scale a bit, is to deny the existence of a large swath of games, and the very meaningful differences people find in them. It's a strawman argument, at best.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Realistically, there are a wide variety of games, and GMs approach them very differently. Just because you may not have "complete" agency, does not mean that you can't have a wide variety of effective levels of agency.


This. No one has complete agency in anything, if by "complete agency" you mean "is not limited by a fixed and finite set of options." But we all have enough agency to matter, or should, anyway, at least at the game level. Agency is not binary, it's a continuum.

In addition, if your scope of choice[1] is reduced at time T due to the consequences of the actions you chose at time T0 < T1, that's not an agency denial on anyone else's part. If you make the agency-full[2] choice to walk through the one-way portal, you can't claim that not being able to trivially get back is a denial of agency. In fact, if the DM said that you could trivially walk backward through the one-way portal, that would be a (partial) denial of agency, because consequences are part of agency. Our scope of choice varies dynamically as a necessary and proper consequence of our previous choices.

[1] the component of agency describing the set of possible choices in world-state X(T) for actor A.
[2] ie knowing enough to reasonably predict the consequences, with an option to do something else. This does not include "a random portal opens up and you are sucked through without a save/option to say no" cases. In this case, I'll even stipulate to "you knew it was a one-way portal before you entered it".

[King of Nowhere]

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice. It's the DMs job to guide the players down the path of the campaign while making it seem like it was their choice to do so.

That's... so wrong.
I mean, technically yes, the players will be perfectly happy with the illusion of choice as long as they don't realize it's an illusion.
But in the same way, you'd be perfectly fine buying and eating a flavored piece of plastic that looks like real food, as long as you don't realize it's not real food. Does that mean you don't want real food but just the illusion? It's the same with all illusory goods; just because you can keep someone fooled for a while, it doesn't mean you're giving them what they want. and it's not gonna go well when they realize the scam.

For the purposes of this thread and post, I will use the following definitions:

1) Linear game: A game where the GM/publisher is responsible for preparing all of the scenes/encounters of the game, and the players play through this prepared content
2) Railroad: A linear game where the players are unaware that the game is linear, and the GM uses various techniques to keep them in the prepared content while not admitting so.


I wanted to disagree with this definition, but there's actually something good there. in a healty linear game, there is player buy-in. the players accept that it's going to be a linear game.
On the other hand, even in a linear game players can make decisions that will have consequences. A railroad negates player choice. One can have a linear game and be just fine, but at some point the players want to do something different (and sensible; if they do something stupid and fail, it's not railroading). At this point, the dm can accept the change, or he can push things back into the rail - in which case it stopped being a linear game and it became a railroad.

I would also point out that a plot can be linear in the large scale but sandbox in the details, and it's hard to draw a line. I mean, my games do have a linear structure on the macroscale, because I know who the end game villain will be, the villain will have a plan that will be set in motion regardless of what the pcs do, and will be defeated by a final confrontation with the party, which will be the only group of people capable of standing a chance there. What the players do won't change that.
But it's sensible; the villain has lots of resources, and he's been prepared for a while. it makes sense that at some point he will strike. Maybe what the heroes do will change the timing; he will be discovered early and will strike early, or his preparation will be messed with and he will lack some asset. but he's invested enough into this plan that he will strike.
Everything else, though, is open. Whole factions in the world can be enemies or allies or wiped out completely, depending on the players' actions.

You mentioned mass effect, which I think is a great example of that. you called it a railroad, because you can do a lot of different stuff but "every story ends almost exactly the same way". I beg to disagree. Sure, at the end of the day you have a massive confrontation with the reapers to use the superweapon you've been preparing. what else were you expecting? of course that's gonna happen.
But everything else changes. The quarians could have gone extinct. Or maybe the geth. Or maybe both. Or no, you got them to make peace and they both live! That was one of the most rewarding things I ever did in a videogame, and it's the kind of golden ending I try to prepare for my players; sure, the villain will be defeated by design - unless you screw up real badly - but there are a lot of other details that may or may not go your way. And to get the best outcome, you have to put some good effort.
And then the krogan may be cured of the genophage and on course to integrate with the rest of the galaxy, or they may be cured of the genophage and ruled by a warlord about to launch a war of conquest, or they may still have the genophage. The citadel government may take a fascist turn, or not. So many things that depend on your actions.
If you think the story "ends the same way", you probably never cared about the setting. in which case there is no point in making decisions. It is my experience that when the players understand how a setting works and get emotionally invested in it, they WANT to make meaningful decisions and impact it. and even if the end of the game is always guaranteed - you defeat the villain and save the day, is there really any other possible outcome? - you'll have changed the campaign world. and that's where players can exercise their freedom the most.

[Boci]

Every time you sit down to play an RPG you are participating in the illusion of choice as the GM has all ready planned everything around you, or is going to improv everything around you. The only choice you have is if you are going to participate or not.

No, you're not? This is known by players, that DMs will either have notes prepared or be improvising, and some DMs, shock and horror, and actually talk to players after the game as fellow human beings about which parts they had prepared notes for and which parts were improvised. Its fun and useful for both sides. DMs can learn how good they are at covering their improvising, and players get to see what its like to run the game.

[animorte]

No, you're not? This is known by players, that DMs will either have notes prepared or be improvising, and some DMs, shock and horror, and actually talk to players after the game as fellow human beings about which parts they had prepared notes for and which parts were improvised. Its fun and useful for both sides. DMs can learn how good they are at covering their improvising, and players get to see what its like to run the game.

Hold on, wait wait. You mean to tell me DMs are human? I didn't realize I was human until I finally got the chance to play again for the first time in 2 years. It was this weird out-of-construct experience. I thought I was only human temporarily because the being a player thing.

I do appreciate this though, really. I've always prepared very detailed maps, a basic outline for events, and a huge list of random NPC names (that I would apply where necessary and make notes). I've never had a problem laughing with the group afterwards about the weird moments where they caught me off-guard or completely derailed whatever was happening. Sometimes even revealing, "yeah there was this dangerous circumstance that I didn't expect you guys to completely avoid like that, or run right into so blindly."

It provides a mutual sense of respect for each other and appreciation of what is required from both sides of the table.

[OldTrees1]

I think the three clue rule still is effectively a linear game. It just provides more options so that people don't get trivially blocked.

I was giving an example of how to turn a 1 quantum clue into multiple clues where any could be missed but 1 would be encountered. In that usage the game remains linear. All that changed was 1 quantum -> multiple non-quantum.

Obviously in other contexts the "put 3x the number of clues that your omniscient perspective incorrectly under estimates" is a tool orthogonal to the sandbox-linear continuum.

However yes, in the context of that post and my reply, it remained a linear game.


This of course all ties back to "Players can have playstyle preferences. Be honest about what game you are going to run. The players will decide if they want to play" --several people in this thread including you and me. It is nice that it is that simple at the root.

[Duff]

People use the term "railroading" when they've been given too much direction and not enough options.
But what the right balance is varies from game to game, table to table and person to person.

Give me and my friends an Ars Magica game, describe the local area, people, fae, monsters etc and we can probably play for years without the GM having to drive the plot as we work through our plans, interact with each other with some cooperation and some competition.

But if you run a 3 hour one shot Feng Shui (Hong Kong actin movie game), I want to start with a fight, chase the bad guys or follow the clues to the social encounter, a bit of investigation which leads me to the boss fight, and I will cheerfully follow your very linear plot.

[Pauly]

Approaching it from a different direction.
What’s wrong with open sandbox campaigns?
- Lack of purpose or reason to do anything. As soon as you create a BBEG the players must deal with, then you’re laying tracks.
- you need a much bigger world to be fleshed out, and sometimes the players go nowhere near the place you put a lot of work into creating.
- You can’t always trust your players to be responsible. In railroads the DM sets the tone and environment, in sandboxes the players do. Let’s just say that not all players just want to see the world burn.

There has to be so e tradeoff in the continuum between pure railroad and pure sandbox to make a game engaging It’s why open world sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign. Some of it based on the maturity and agency of the players. Experienced players who grab the world and make their own fun are different to inexperienced players who need some hand holding.

[Saintheart]

Approaching it from a different direction.
What’s wrong with open sandbox campaigns?
- Lack of purpose or reason to do anything. As soon as you create a BBEG the players must deal with, then you’re laying tracks.
- you need a much bigger world to be fleshed out, and sometimes the players go nowhere near the place you put a lot of work into creating.
- You can’t always trust your players to be responsible. In railroads the DM sets the tone and environment, in sandboxes the players do. Let’s just say that not all players just want to see the world burn.

There has to be so e tradeoff in the continuum between pure railroad and pure sandbox to make a game engaging It’s why open world sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign. Some of it based on the maturity and agency of the players. Experienced players who grab the world and make their own fun are different to inexperienced players who need some hand holding.

I did want to offer some challenges to those propositions - please take these in the spirit they are offered...


- Lack of purpose or reason to do anything. As soon as you create a BBEG the players must deal with, then you’re laying tracks.

This is why in open world sandbox adventures you switch emphasis from what some NPC needs to what the PCs' needs, motivations, and goals are. Because the answers to these questions generate purpose and reason. Sometimes the character backstory provides a mine of details for these purposes, sometimes it doesn't, because a world in which your brother's cousin's sister's former roommate comes seeking you out for your head might not quite be a railroad, but offends suspension of disbelief. Also, note the words in there "a BBEG the players must deal with" ... that's the joy of an open world game where the players aren't the centre of said world, the BBEG could triumph and all the players have to do about it is move house if it's not part of their interests.


- you need a much bigger world to be fleshed out, and sometimes the players go nowhere near the place you put a lot of work into creating.

This is the DM falling into the unintentional trap that every DMG back to third edition has set with its infinite tables setting out proportions of how many X-levelled characters there should be per Y-levelled characters in a given settlement. It is utterly unnecessary. It is verisimilitude for the enjoyment of the DM, not the players he has to contend with. In the open sandbox, particularly so for really open world systems, less so for defined canon settings like Eberron or Faerun, the only world that needs to be defined for a playing group is the world likely to be encountered in the next session. The golden rule of session-based DMing is that you never prepare more than you need to get through the next session. And the two key focii for that prep work are (1) what the party's likely to want to do next session based on how things came out at the end of this one and (2) keeping consistent with what happened in previous sessions.

The party could, of course, turn on a dime and go in a different direction. The vast majority of the time, they don't. Especially if you plant the psychological seeds at the end of the session by recapping from the party what they're going to be doing next time round. But it's also why it's a good practice to leaf through MMs so you can pull a session's worth of materials out of your Hammerspace in the very unlikely event it's needed.


- You can’t always trust your players to be responsible. In railroads the DM sets the tone and environment, in sandboxes the players do. Let’s just say that not all players just want to see the world burn.

This depends on what we mean by the players being "responsible". I'll take it from that word we are basically trying to encapsulate the DM's fear that "I don't know what to do if the players decide to decapitate King Aragong the quest giver rather than take up his generous job offer and then sail for Al-Ripoffqaba rather than stick around here in Minus Marinade."

Players can set the tone. Players can try to set the environment. What they can't set is timing. Or the steps required to do something. Or an increasing chance of mishaps. So having killed King Aragong, the party escapes Minus Marinade and heads for the nearest port. Is there a ship they can board? Well, there's a couple of options. You could risk outright stealing a ship, which is a high-risk venture but likely to get you out of here quickly. Alternatively, you could try and go to ground in the port's hovels and wait for the heat to die down before bribing some local merchant to smuggle you out of the city. Which do you do?"


It’s why open world sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign. Some of it based on the maturity and agency of the players. Experienced players who grab the world and make their own fun are different to inexperienced players who need some hand holding.

I suggest there are three reasons sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign: limitations on hard drive space, limitations of the medium, and different types of enjoyment they are catering to.

CRPGs have to be linear railroads, even if the rails are hidden under piles of leaves. Computers can't ever replicate a TTRPG. A computer cannot suddenly switch the direction of a campaign without extensive programming. All the possibilities and possible combinations have to be accounted for when the game is released. (The equivalent meme to the TTRPG Railroad is the CRPG 30 second speedrun. Both are the consequence of flawed execution of the game's intended algorithm, for want of a better expression.)

But videogame designers have known for almost 20 years (https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf) that there are different types of fun to be triggered in the right combinations. CRPGs can't deliver endless Discovery, so they balance Discovery out with Narrative, and lean on Challenge and Sensory Pleasure. The balance of sidequests to main quests in a CRPG is balanced to ping the Discovery and Narrative mechanics enough to keep the player interested. TTRPGs do not operate in the same way, or have different balances of these forms of pleasure available to them.

[kyoryu]

That's... so wrong.
I mean, technically yes, the players will be perfectly happy with the illusion of choice as long as they don't realize it's an illusion.
But in the same way, you'd be perfectly fine buying and eating a flavored piece of plastic that looks like real food, as long as you don't realize it's not real food. Does that mean you don't want real food but just the illusion? It's the same with all illusory goods; just because you can keep someone fooled for a while, it doesn't mean you're giving them what they want. and it's not gonna go well when they realize the scam.

And it's, you know, lying to your friends.


I wanted to disagree with this definition, but there's actually something good there. in a healty linear game, there is player buy-in. the players accept that it's going to be a linear game.
On the other hand, even in a linear game players can make decisions that will have consequences. A railroad negates player choice. One can have a linear game and be just fine, but at some point the players want to do something different (and sensible; if they do something stupid and fail, it's not railroading). At this point, the dm can accept the change, or he can push things back into the rail - in which case it stopped being a linear game and it became a railroad.

Pretty much exactly. Any style of game is fine if everybody is okay with it


I would also point out that a plot can be linear in the large scale but sandbox in the details, and it's hard to draw a line. I mean, my games do have a linear structure on the macroscale, because I know who the end game villain will be, the villain will have a plan that will be set in motion regardless of what the pcs do, and will be defeated by a final confrontation with the party, which will be the only group of people capable of standing a chance there. What the players do won't change that.

If you zoom out enough, sure. I think it's mostly useful to look at it on the scene/encounter level. Are you going to go through the same set of scenes/encounters no matter what? Railroad.

Maybe what you do changes where you confront the villain, or how. Or maybe you build up enough resources that he gets sieged and choked out. Lots of things can happen.

A goal is not a linear game so long as the path to achieve the goal isn't set.


You mentioned mass effect, which I think is a great example of that. you called it a railroad, because you can do a lot of different stuff but "every story ends almost exactly the same way". I beg to disagree. Sure, at the end of the day you have a massive confrontation with the reapers to use the superweapon you've been preparing. what else were you expecting? of course that's gonna happen.

In fairness, I didn't finish 3, though I did complete (and I mean COMPLETE) 1 and 2 a few times.

Either way, you're still going through the same scenes/encounters. Some minor details in them might change (are you talking to Wrex or Grunt?) but, the main plotline you play through is necessarily similar. The things you can change are mostly told not shown, since the game has to shuttle you through the same stuff as it would otherwise.

Yes, they do a pretty good job of allowing some choices within the constraints that they have, but they're still necessarily constrained. You have little or no choice on the path you take, except for some ordering and optional stuff. And I think that qualifies as a railroad.


Approaching it from a different direction.
What’s wrong with open sandbox campaigns?
- Lack of purpose or reason to do anything. As soon as you create a BBEG the players must deal with, then you’re laying tracks.
- you need a much bigger world to be fleshed out, and sometimes the players go nowhere near the place you put a lot of work into creating.
- You can’t always trust your players to be responsible. In railroads the DM sets the tone and environment, in sandboxes the players do. Let’s just say that not all players just want to see the world burn.

There has to be so e tradeoff in the continuum between pure railroad and pure sandbox to make a game engaging It’s why open world sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign. Some of it based on the maturity and agency of the players. Experienced players who grab the world and make their own fun are different to inexperienced players who need some hand holding.

You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions - primarily that a non-linear game has to be "whatever the players want to do, nothing set by the GM". My typical setup, as mentioned before, is more like "here's the problem you're dealing with, but how you deal with it is up to you." It's not linear because I don't know how they will approach the problem, but it negates all of the points you've made.

Now, to be clear, some people want "here's a world, go explore", and more power to them. Some people want "I've got the story handled, you just play through the encounters". And both of those are valid. But they're not the only options.

[Easy e]

I know everyone is targeting the "Illusion of Choice" but I actually have the least linear game of them all as I don't even know what will happen and I typically invite the players to tell me about stuff in the game.

That said, every game session has a beginning, a middle, and an end of the session. The beginning is the only part I have known, and typically it is only a single scene that the players need to react to. The rest? No idea at all. I am a very lazy GM! Frequently, the game goes a very different direction then I would have expected to take it.

Yet, this type of game is still an illusion of choice. Why, because the players actions have no relevant impact on the game. As GM, I tell them what they need to succeed, I tell them which rules apply, I tell them the consequences* of success/failure on the game, I tell them who they can interact with and what is there to interact with, and I tell them when a roll is needed. The only relevant choices are on the side of the GM.

Now, the illusion is letting players feel like their choices matter, but ultimately the GM decides if what they introduce or not matters at all to the emergent game play. Players actually have no power in an RPG, and therefore everything they do is an illusion of choice. To have choice, you need power and players have no actual power in an RPG.

Now, perhaps I am looking at "Illusion of Choice" at too high of a level or the wrong way for this discussion, but RPGs are by definition an "Illusion of Choice" activity. The rest is a discussion about good techniques and best practices to hide it.



*= For clarity, I often let them tell me what a success or failure looks like or even achieves. However, I decide how this impacts the flow of the game, not them.

[Boci]

Now, the illusion is letting players feel like their choices matter, but ultimately the GM decides if what they introduce or not matters at all to the emergent game play. Players actually have no power in an RPG, and therefore everything they do is an illusion of choice. To have choice, you need power and players have no actual power in an RPG.

Players absolutely have power, D&D is a co-operative game, everyone is there by choice. Furthermore myself and most if not all DMs I've had will listen to players objections to their rulings or decisions for the story and if they make a good case go with that they propose instead.

[kyoryu]

"A GM is involved in the interpretation loop, therefore players only have the agency the GM allows, therefore they have no agency."

I mean, technically maybe? But since 99% of RPGs have GMs, it's kind of unavoidable.

And even if that's technically true, we still have a wide variety of games - from ones where the players will follow the preprepared path, to one where there is no path, and often the game goes in very different places than the GM anticipates.

And while the players will never have complete agency, so long as the GM is not completely railroading, in most cases the result is a combination of inputs from a number of people, including the GM.

So while perhaps technically true, I don't think that your definition is useful in this context.

[Easy e]

So while perhaps technically true, I don't think that your definition is useful in this context.

Fair enough.

Railroading is a tool that has its place in good RPG. It is not bad by definition.

Creating the illusion of choice is also a tool that has its place in RPG. It is not bad by definition.

[JNAProductions]

Fair enough.

Railroading is a tool that has its place in good RPG. It is not bad by definition.

Creating the illusion of choice is also a tool that has its place in RPG. It is not bad by definition.

Railroading, when using the common definition of “Forcing players to follow your story against their wishes” is bad.

The illusion of choice, also known as lying to your players, is bad as well.

Linearity is 100% fine. As are sandbox-style games. Just so long as you’re being honest and everyone buys into it.

[kyoryu]

Fair enough.

Railroading is a tool that has its place in good RPG. It is not bad by definition.

Creating the illusion of choice is also a tool that has its place in RPG. It is not bad by definition.

I would amend those statements to say "in some RPGs".

They are bad if you have told your players you're not doing that.

If the players are into it, by all means, go ahead.

Literally the point I've made this whole thread - be honest with your players about the type of game that you're running. If they're into it, do it. If not, either don't, or have them not play with you, or get them to agree to accept it.


Railroading, when using the common definition of “Forcing players to follow your story against their wishes” is bad.

The illusion of choice, also known as lying to your players, is bad as well.

Linearity is 100% fine. As are sandbox-style games. Just so long as you’re being honest and everyone buys into it.

Slight disagreement. If players have agreed to a linear game, using various illusionism tricks to hide the rails is fine.

What's less fine is "there are totally no rails!" <illusionism commences>

That disagreement may come down to terminology and definitions, however.

[Slipjig]

I don't mind an only solution situation, so long as I, as a player, am able to find said solution. Clearly the DM has a solution in mind, and clearly he thinks that there are clues enough to find it, and clearly he is incorrect. There are four very experienced mature players and a fifth of moderate experience with a variety of PCs mostly with very good Int and Wis scores, but we are clueless. And in the name of NOT railroading, the DM will not just give it up. To me, the game is at an impasse.

Sounds like it's time for you to tell the repeat victim (and through her, the DM), "Look, if you don't tell us what's going on, we're just going to assume you're carrying Demogorgon's baby and we should let the next group of assassin's get you." A little harsh, sure, but if a genuinely innocent person had multiple teams of assassins sent after them, they'd be falling over themselves to tell their story to anybody who might be able to help.

[Easy e]

Railroading, when using the common definition of “Forcing players to follow your story against their wishes” is bad.

The illusion of choice, also known as lying to your players, is bad as well.

Linearity is 100% fine. As are sandbox-style games. Just so long as you’re being honest and everyone buys into it.

If Railroad and Illusion of Choice is inherently bad, how are boxed modules even a thing?

An absolute like "It is always bad" is a bit extreme and is self-limiting. Of course, that is your prerogative to limit yourself in ways you wish to. I am sorry you had a bad experience with railroading and illusion of choice in the past.

If players stop buying into your game, then it is over. That doesn't matter if it is Linear, Sandbox, Improv Theatre, or something else entirely.

[Boci]

If Railroad and Illusion of Choice is inherently bad, how are boxed modules even a thing?

Because boxed modules have neither. Definitions of railroading vary, and some allow for box modules to not becomes that, and illusion of choice especially don't apply, because its not pretending to be more. If I sit down to play Thunderspire Labyrinth, I know that the story will take place there, and so if my character refuses to go there, then the DM is either going to ask me OOC to stop it, or IC something will happen to take my character there anyway. That's not illusion of choice, because there was not pretence otherwise.

[Easy e]

Because boxed modules have neither. Definitions of railroading vary, and some allow for box modules to not becomes that, and illusion of choice especially don't apply, because its not pretending to be more. If I sit down to play Thunderspire Labyrinth, I know that the story will take place there, and so if my character refuses to go there, then the DM is either going to ask me OOC to stop it, or IC something will happen to take my character there anyway. That's not illusion of choice, because there was not pretence otherwise.

So, it's a railroad? You either go there or there is no game.

The illusion of choice in a boxed module is that your choices in the module matter at all. Really they do not. Eventually, you get to the end set-piece (even if it is your 15th character). The illusion of choice in a nutshell.

[Boci]

So, it's a railroad? You either go there or there is no game.

Not everyone defines railroad the same way you do, a risk when a term is coined by a community to describe gametypes within itself.


The illusion of choice in a boxed module is that your choices in the module matter at all. Really they do not. Eventually, you get to the end set-piece (even if it is your 15th character). The illusion of choice in a nutshell.

Its not really an illusion of choice if I know that. Illusion requires there to a pretense otherwise.

[JNAProductions]

Easy E, what do you not get about lying being bad?

If I run Hoard of the Dragon Queen, the players know that it's gonna be a pretty linear path through to eventually dealing with Tiamat, if I go on to the sequel module. They can agree to the game, in all its linearity, and make PCs that go along with the story; or they can decide they'd rather not play it.

But notice that at no point am I being deceptive-I'm not saying it's a sandbox. I'm not saying I'll modify the path to open up more choices. I'm just running HotDQ-that's it. If that's what they're interested in or will have fun with, that's what we'll do. If not, they can choose to not play.

You seem to be actively advocating for lying to your players-which should be noted as a bad thing.

[OldTrees1]

Slight disagreement. If players have agreed to a linear game, using various illusionism tricks to hide the rails is fine.

Even in a linear game I think your point about honesty applies. If the players agree to a linear game AND agree to various tricks that disguise the linearity, then those tricks are fine. Which was also your point.

I mention this less as "telling you what you already know" and more as elaborating your point to head off semantic misunderstandings of others (ones that might arise from common definitions of illusionism that include inherent dishonesty).


Literally the point I've made this whole thread - be honest with your players about the type of game that you're running. If they're into it, do it. If not, either don't, or have them not play with you, or get them to agree to accept it.

Yup.

[Cheesegear]

Now, the illusion is letting players feel like their choices matter, but ultimately the GM decides if what they introduce or not matters at all to the emergent game play. Players actually have no power in an RPG, and therefore everything they do is an illusion of choice.

In short; The DM holds all of the cards, all the time, in such a way that the DM can see all the cards, and the DM actually gets to choose what gets dealt and to whom.

If the DM doesn't want you to encounter anything, you wont.
If the DM wants you to encounter something, you will.

There are 5 Orcs...Two...Twenty...No Orcs at all. No wait, the Orcs are a Major Illusion. No wait the Orcs are Ethereal and shifting between planes. No wait the Orcs are actually demons using Change Shape...Actually I changed my mind the Orcs are Goblins. Also there's Worgs. And an Ogre. Plus some Bugbears...No wait I meant Hobgoblins.

The players have no control over what the DM does, ever. The DM throws scenarios at the players, and they deal with it however they see fit.

You're right. The whole game is an illusion of choice; The only winning move is not to play. Uhh...Maybe let's not go that far.

[Vahnavoi]

"A GM is involved in the interpretation loop, therefore players only have the agency the GM allows, therefore they have no agency."

I mean, technically maybe? But since 99% of RPGs have GMs, it's kind of unavoidable.

It's funny you wrote the distilled argument and still didn't spot how and where it becomes fallacious.

"A GM is involved in the interpretation loop, therefore players only have the [amount of] agency the GM allows" is where the correct argument stops. "Therefore [the players] have no agency" is a non-sequitur because it's not established anywhere that game masters only ever allow zero agency. It's refuted by the preceding statement whenever a GM allows for more than zero agency.

There is no incentive for anyone anywhere to consider that non-sequitur "technically" correct, because it is, especially in the technical sense, false. Don't unnecessarily entertain incorrect conclusions from people you disagree with.

---


If Railroad and Illusion of Choice is inherently bad, how are boxed modules even a thing?

Why did a defective product get made and sold? Because someone who didn't know or care enough wanted to profit from another who didn't care or know better. It isn't even necessary to defend boxed modules, because it isn't much of a bullet to bite to accept that all of them contain inherently bad parts that an end user would be better off rejecting.

---


In short; The DM holds all of the cards, all the time, in such a way that the DM can see all the cards, and the DM actually gets to choose what gets dealt and to whom.

That breaks down utterly when you realize it's literally false for entire games: there are card-based RPGs where the deck is shuffled and dealt using same principles as any other card game, meaning the game master doesn't always know who has which cards. Similarly, in a dice-based game, the game master does not actually know what individual die rolls will be before rolling. Confusing referee veto powers for actual perfect information does not benefit anybody. There are a lot of genuinely unknown and unpredictable things in a roleplaying game even to a game master, and that's what generates appeal for railroading and illusionism: they're attempts at controlling what other rules suggest is outside your control.

[MoiMagnus]

Its not really an illusion of choice if I know that. Illusion requires there to a pretense otherwise.

I'd say it depends how much you internalise this knowledge.
When you sit to watch a magic trick, you know there will be illusions, but you still fall for them.

When you sign up for a one-shot or a module, you know you likely won't be able to go outside of what is planned for you, but some modules or one-shots might have multiple endings, or the GM might improvise something outside of what is written. Some peoples will remain in a sceptical and assume that they have zero choice even when they might had some, while other will fall to the illusion of choice by thinking that they have more choices and possibilities than what they truly had.

There is no "betrayal of trust" since you were warned in advance that the content was preplanned. But there might still be "illusion of choice" if you let yourself to be immersed in the game and don't try to metagame which choices might have some influence and which choices are necessarily illusions.

[elros]

A TTPRG is a chance for a group of people to spend time together in a pretend world. That means everyone has to give up something for the good of the group. From some of the comments, some people think that each player should be able to do whatever they want, and the GM and other players just have to deal with it. That makes it impossible for the GM to run the game!
As an example: supposed I want to GM "Red Hand of Doom," and one player decides that he wants to use the advancing army as an opportunity to exploit Brindol by stealing war supplies and selling them on the black market. Another player decides that he wants his PC to team up with the Ghostlord and take over Elsir Vale. A third player decides to escape to the Elven lands and avoid the conflict altogether.
Each of those players in enjoying "agency," but it is a horror of a game!

If you want to play a game where you can do whatever you want, and you can find a GM to support that, great for you! But don't dismiss an adventure as "defective" just because people enjoy it differently than you do.

[Vahnavoi]

When you sit to watch a magic trick, you know there will be illusions, but you still fall for them.

You are correct that simply knowing there is an illusion does not make a person immune to them. Optical illusions serve as even better examples. However, once you've observed this fact, it's good to remember that in addition to illusion of choice, there also exist the reverse: illusion of no choice. Which people do cause on themselves either due to not reviewing their options honestly or by assuming they have no choice (as you noted). In a game of imperfect information, it's not necessarily obvious how many choices there are and which of them matter, so which choices are real may require specific training to spot.

[MeimuHakurei]

Required Reading (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto)

[Vahnavoi]

That's already been linked to earlier in this thread.

[King of Nowhere]

In fairness, I didn't finish 3, though I did complete (and I mean COMPLETE) 1 and 2 a few times.

Either way, you're still going through the same scenes/encounters. Some minor details in them might change (are you talking to Wrex or Grunt?) but, the main plotline you play through is necessarily similar. The things you can change are mostly told not shown, since the game has to shuttle you through the same stuff as it would otherwise.

Yes, they do a pretty good job of allowing some choices within the constraints that they have, but they're still necessarily constrained. You have little or no choice on the path you take, except for some ordering and optional stuff. And I think that qualifies as a railroad.



I see; we were looking at different things. I was looking at consequences on the plot and the world in general, and you were looking at consequences on the actual gameplay. Both are layers that can be considered.
I'd also surmise that mass effect didn't make you care much for the setting; because my experience is that if people do care for the setting, then they will care about consequences for it more than they care for how the adventure plays - and viceversa. I was hooked by the mass effect setting, and I loved being able to make a difference in it; if the combat encounters are always the same, it's not a problem. But someone who doesn't care as much whether the geth live of die will only see the chance of getting more or less war assets.

I would argue that the second kind of railroading - you affect the world, but the combat is always the same, also known as the quantum ogre - is a lot milder, because it has a good justification: dm preparation time.
Some dm can just get away with slapping a monster from the manual there and call it a day. some cannot. I run a high powered group, a standard monster would get obliterated and it wouldn't even be fun; it takes me hours to stat up encounters properly. If the party can travel north, south, east or west, preparing 4 different encounters when they're only going to play one of them would be way too much pointless preparation work. Since the dm is doing it for free and his time is valuable, then some level of quantum ogres is acceptable.
Although at my table we "brilliantly" solved this conundrum by simply putting those kind of choices at the end of a session. Or discussing it by messaging. SO that I know they will go north in advance, and I can prepare only what will be needed.
Or sometimes i show up at a table with a poorly conceived plot hook and i candidly tell my players "sorry guys, I stumbled through a creative block and this is all I could come up with; you either take this, or I have nothing else prepared". And soemtimes the players take the hook, and sometimes they decide to instead explore randomly - and by doing so, sometimes they manage to ask the right questions that let me get past the creative block and figure out something.
It's also worth noting that the quantum ogre can be justified or not. The players can pick up a fight with the evil nation of nerullia, seat of nerull, who is kidnapping people and sacrificing them; or they can pick up a fight against the forces of the evil nation of despotonia, seat of hextor, who is invading other countries. Both nations use war golems, though, so I can use the golem stats in both cases. But if they instead decide to contact the dragons and persuade enough of them to help, then if I still had them face golems it would be silly.

Most people wouldn't call any of that railroad, anyway. Railroading implies malice and subterfuge, and that's why we hate railroading. If it's not a subterfuge done with malice, then we generally call it something else.

[Cheesegear]

If it's not a subterfuge done with malice, then we generally call it something else.

It's called being a DM.

[Easy e]

Easy E, what do you not get about lying being bad?


Because it isn't..... in some cases it is good. What do you not get about this?

Being a DM involves an element of showmanship, and showmen do not put all the cards on the table all the time, they keep them up their sleeves. You can make a really great adventure and session when the players and characters believe X to be true, but it isn't true at all.

I think of a famous CoC (Call of Cthulhu) game where in the end, everyone was a spirit and all ready dead. If you tell the players "what kind of game it is" you ruin this game completely. Transparency is great.... until it isn't great for the game. The GM is always trying to look out for what is best for the game and the players enjoyment of it.

Sometimes, that means lying to the players about the game itself! Granted, it is not a 100% do it all the time thing. It is simply one tool in a GMs toolbox. A tool that should only be used when needed, and never more.

You have a black and white stance, while mine is a grey stance. Our disagreement is simply one of style and preference. You do you.



That breaks down utterly when you realize it's literally false for entire games: there are card-based RPGs where the deck is shuffled and dealt using same principles as any other card game, meaning the game master doesn't always know who has which cards. Similarly, in a dice-based game, the game master does not actually know what individual die rolls will be before rolling. Confusing referee veto powers for actual perfect information does not benefit anybody. There are a lot of genuinely unknown and unpredictable things in a roleplaying game even to a game master, and that's what generates appeal for railroading and illusionism: they're attempts at controlling what other rules suggest is outside your control.

Except, who tells you when to roll that dice to get a random result? When to flip your cards? When a test is needed or it is not needed? Who determines if your random roll is a success or the difficulty in the first place? Who determines the outcome and results of whatever card you flip? The GM does.

The dice and the cards are just RNG, and have no bearing on the outcome of anything, well except for you to feel like things are "fair". Which they are not, because players have 0 power in an RPG.

In a game without an umpire, the rules are where the power is. In RPGs, the rules give the power to the GM as rule 1, but also the responsibility to use that power wisely and for good.

Which is fine, you can still have a lot of fun seeing how things play out and how the GM manages it all. I prefer the power with a fellow player rather than the rules. I love being a player just as much as a GM, because everyone does it so differently and each game/session is a unique experience. Some people are closer to RAW, others are RAI, and others are in a different galaxy far, far away; and that is great!

[King of Nowhere]

Because it isn't..... in some cases it is good. What do you not get about this?

Being a DM involves an element of showmanship, and showmen do not put all the cards on the table all the time, they keep them up their sleeves. You can make a really great adventure and session when the players and characters believe X to be true, but it isn't true at all.

I think of a famous CoC (Call of Cthulhu) game where in the end, everyone was a spirit and all ready dead. If you tell the players "what kind of game it is" you ruin this game completely. Transparency is great.... until it isn't great for the game. The GM is always trying to look out for what is best for the game and the players enjoyment of it.

Sometimes, that means lying to the players about the game itself! Granted, it is not a 100% do it all the time thing. It is simply one tool in a GMs toolbox. A tool that should only be used when needed, and never more.

You have a black and white stance, while mine is a grey stance. Our disagreement is simply one of style and preference. You do you.

there is a similarity between lies and showmanship. there is also a huge difference.
pulling a reveal like "oh, you have been ghosts all the time!" can be neat. pulling a reveal like "actually, it didn't matter which decision you made, it would all work out the same" is not. you confuse a plot revelation with a metagame revelation.
A good test is to think of how would the players react if they did discover your big secret ahead of time. for the ghost thing, they'd probably be excited that they figured it out. for the lack of agency, they'd be bummed.
well, act as if you would likely be discovered. because the price of lies is that, once you are discovered, people will stop trusting you.




Except, who tells you when to roll that dice to get a random result? When to flip your cards? When a test is needed or it is not needed? Who determines if your random roll is a success or the difficulty in the first place? Who determines the outcome and results of whatever card you flip? The GM does.

The dice and the cards are just RNG, and have no bearing on the outcome of anything, well except for you to feel like things are "fair". Which they are not, because players have 0 power in an RPG.

that is a completely wrong approach. just because you are allowed to do everything, it doesn't mean you will abuse your power.
consider an absolute monarch. the king does what he wants. he listens to the counselors, but he has the sole right of decision. so the counselors have no power? not at all, they are very powerful, because a wise king will listen to experts. an unwise king will screw up with the economy, will inimicate the people, and will fall in a revolution, or he will be assassinated, or he will be deposed in a war that he'll lose by his incompetence.
in the same way, a dm can make decisions, but if he does not appease the players, they are going to leave the group. or they are going to sabotage his game whenever possible. I had one such dm once, and I took absolute delight in making seemingly innocent questions that would expose his deep plot holes. and then the group just stopped meeting, because nobody cared to keep going.
So, even though technically a dm has all the power, a wise dm will give power to his players, and will accept the power coming from the players. an unwise dm will find himself without players.

[kyoryu]

The problem with "lying is just a tool to be used when it's appropriate" is that that very easily translates into "lying is okay as long as I have a reason."

And people usually don't lie unless they have a reason, so that turns into "lying is okay."

"Oh, it's okay to lie about putting together a surprise party, because they'll enjoy it."

"Oh, it's okay to lie about cheating, because it'll make me happier and that will improve our marriage."

Both of those can be justified by "it's better in the long run."

There's a very, very easy litmus test for whether lying is okay or not. It's just "how will they react, after the fact, if they find out?"

For a surprise party? They'll probably be fine with it, surprise parties are fun!

For the cheating? Not so much.

So if we use that as the test for "okayness" vs "it'll be better for them", then "party" passes, but "cheating" doesn't.

[Alcore]

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

I am perfectly fine with it. Every published adventure ever is a railway. Even kingmaker, book 1, has a railroad in it; step A arrive and defend outpost (you can ignore it but you likely lose the only shop in a weeks ride), step B follow tracks to the bandit outpost. Step C arrive at the fort and kill final boss. (Hopefully prisoners were taken otherwise you must stop at B until you find C)


At the shortest the party will engage the final boss two levels short and if they played their cards right it won’t matter; they’ll win with casualties.


Things is that railroads are bad when the GM fails to let the PCs go off the rails; onto a different rail pre preped by the GM.


See, to me, as it has been described; a railroad is a linear series of events that bring you from the beginning of the story to the end. It is good to have as many rails made as possible with as many stops as possible. The players may destroy a stop (or a whole bridge) or miss a clue or something else.


It is only lazy, and bad, to have a single uninterruptible line that allows no creativity or failure.

[Easy e]

that is a completely wrong approach. just because you are allowed to do everything, it doesn't mean you will abuse your power.

consider an absolute monarch. the king does what he wants. he listens to the counselors, but he has the sole right of decision. so the counselors have no power? not at all, they are very powerful, because a wise king will listen to experts. an unwise king will screw up with the economy, will inimicate the people, and will fall in a revolution, or he will be assassinated, or he will be deposed in a war that he'll lose by his incompetence.

In the same way, a dm can make decisions, but if he does not appease the players, they are going to leave the group. or they are going to sabotage his game whenever possible. I had one such dm once, and I took absolute delight in making seemingly innocent questions that would expose his deep plot holes. and then the group just stopped meeting, because nobody cared to keep going.
So, even though technically a dm has all the power, a wise dm will give power to his players, and will accept the power coming from the players. an unwise dm will find himself without players.

So we at least admit that the GM has all the power.

Your counselors in the story have the illusion of power, because the King could simply turn around and do whatever he wants to them. Many kings did just that, and ended up just fine in history.

You are right in the fact that the players have one card that they can play. Not play. However, by the time they sit down and decide that they WILL play, they have played their last card. The RPG itself gives them no power and is only the illusion of choice. They either like the illusion and wish to continue, or they do not and end the illusion.

The GM acting like the "wise king" in your story is giving them the illusion of choice for the benefit of the game. The very thing I have been advocating yet people seem focused on disproving. Hence, my confusion on this topic.



The problem with "lying is just a tool to be used when it's appropriate" is that that very easily translates into "lying is okay as long as I have a reason."

And people usually don't lie unless they have a reason, so that turns into "lying is okay."

"Oh, it's okay to lie about putting together a surprise party, because they'll enjoy it."

"Oh, it's okay to lie about cheating, because it'll make me happier and that will improve our marriage."

Both of those can be justified by "it's better in the long run."

There's a very, very easy litmus test for whether lying is okay or not. It's just "how will they react, after the fact, if they find out?"

For a surprise party? They'll probably be fine with it, surprise parties are fun!

For the cheating? Not so much.

So if we use that as the test for "okayness" vs "it'll be better for them", then "party" passes, but "cheating" doesn't.

I think this is an excellent example. It is okay to give your players a "surprise party".

The question in RPGs is, if the players found out that the GM never rolled a dice, used a stat block, used quantum Ogres, or set up a railroad; would they think of it as cheating OR would they think of the fun they had along the way?

I think that depends a lot on the players in question and how much fun they had along the way and how skillfully the GM managed it. A terrible and boring linear story/sandbox world can be just as unfulfilling as a very poorly-done Railroad, and a strong railroad can be as rewarding as a strong linear/open world.

[kyoryu]

So we at least admit that the GM has all the power.

I'd say the GM has the ability to take all the power. They do not necessarily exercise that.


I think this is an excellent example. It is okay to give your players a "surprise party".

The question in RPGs is, if the players found out that the GM never rolled a dice, used a stat block, used quantum Ogres, or set up a railroad; would they think of it as cheating OR would they think of the fun they had along the way?

Well, exactly.


I think that depends a lot on the players in question

100%.


and how much fun they had along the way and how skillfully the GM managed it.

Maybe. Some people just don't like linear games, no matter how well-done they are.


A terrible and boring linear story/sandbox world can be just as unfulfilling as a very poorly-done Railroad, and a strong railroad can be as rewarding as a strong linear/open world.

And some people will prefer a meh sandbox over a great linear game, and some people will take a meh linear game over a great sandbox.

I'm hammering on this because otherwise the conversation becomes "learn to railroad better, then your players won't mind". And some will.

[Vahnavoi]

Except, who tells you when to roll that dice to get a random result? When to flip your cards? When a test is needed or it is not needed? Who determines if your random roll is a success or the difficulty in the first place? Who determines the outcome and results of whatever card you flip? The GM does.

And? It's literally possible for me just on my own, design a card game, shuffle a deck and then deal the cards face down so that I don't know which card is where. Plenty of solitaires work on just this principle and it isn't somehow impossible to apply it to tabletop roleplaying games. Again: confusing referee veto powers for complete information doesn't help anybody. Confusing a game designer's ability to decide how a game works, even less so.

The idea that players have zero power does not follow from anywhere - they have as much power as the game master gives them. All your argument does is show that you don't understand such fundamental things as a game master's ability to decide how a game goes including ability to decide to hide information from themselves, ability to decide to leave an outcome up to random chance or to the players, ability to decide to be fair, and ability to delegate power to other people.

[RedMage125]

The problem with "lying is just a tool to be used when it's appropriate" is that that very easily translates into "lying is okay as long as I have a reason."

And people usually don't lie unless they have a reason, so that turns into "lying is okay."

"Oh, it's okay to lie about putting together a surprise party, because they'll enjoy it."

"Oh, it's okay to lie about cheating, because it'll make me happier and that will improve our marriage."

Both of those can be justified by "it's better in the long run."

There's a very, very easy litmus test for whether lying is okay or not. It's just "how will they react, after the fact, if they find out?"

For a surprise party? They'll probably be fine with it, surprise parties are fun!

For the cheating? Not so much.

So if we use that as the test for "okayness" vs "it'll be better for them", then "party" passes, but "cheating" doesn't.

I feel like these are bad examples, but only because there are certain commitments, adherence to various ethos, and impact that aren't equitable to each other.

The very nature of a "surprise party" depends on deception or at least a measure of subterfuge, with the intent of an eventual reveal, which by its nature is a part of the enjoyment. The subterfuge, by its nature, is going to end, and that's the point.

Cheating on one's marriage is a violation of the commitment one avowed upon commencing the marriage ("forsaking all others"). It's a violation of that trust and breaking one's word, irrespective of the partner finding out. You explicitly told your partner "I will not do this", and they have a reasonable expectation that you will keep your word. In the world of Marriage and Family Therapy, infidelity is considered a form of emotional abuse.

Contrast both of those to DMing a game. Now, as discussed if you do make things clear with your players, and then break your word, this is not okay, and no one has been arguing in favor of it.

However, there isn't always full transparency between what the DM does, and what players are privy to. A very common D&D accessory is a DM Screen, which highlights that a certain amount of opacity is assumed by default. Of course, some DMs do have more transparency than others (rolling in the open, etc), but not all. The illusion being advocated for is about things for which such transparency is not the case. If there is no transparency, then in regards to those types of elements, the Players have no way of perceiving whether or not something is, or could have been, different had there been transparency. That's the illusion.

This is what I mean by "soft railroading". When, due to what the players are and are not privy to, the distinction between following a previously decided on element, vis switching tacks and making a change due to a player choice, being moot, and so not worrying about adhering to it. In my personal case, I will provide better, more interesting and engaging encounters if I plan them in advance. So to me, the "Authority of Aesthetics", which is, the quality of the finished product of game elements my players experience, is a higher authority than any kind of "invisible authority" of actually acting like there's full transparency when there isn't. This is nothing like the example of "cheating on a spouse". Because the authority I acknowledge there is my own code of ethics and honor code. Which is further supported and reinforced by my love and devotion to my wife. And also, that's real life, with real consequences for a real person. D&D is a game. And making the game more fun is more important than adhering to an invisible authority where I somehow take pride in how actually random or different things are, which my players will never know (and likely never care) about. Especially when it means bland, boring encounters vis ones that actually mix things up and engage them (in my specific case).

No one is actually advocating for actual abrogation of player agency. Even most of us in favor of the "Quantum Ogre" acknowledge that Players taking actual steps to avoid an ogre should be validated in some way, that forcing such an encounter anyway is bad.

[Easy e]

Ultimately, Kyoryu has been right all along. Of course it comes down to preferences and what works with your table. However, since that is the case 99.9% of the time in these discussions his stance would instantly end threads because there is nothing to talk about beyond that point.

Thanks all for letting me poke the bear a bit. :smile:

[Cheesegear]

However, since that is the case 99.9% of the time in these discussions his stance would instantly end threads because there is nothing to talk about beyond that point.

OP: Problem.
Reponse: Well it depends.
OP: ...Thanks? :smallconfused:

Almost every thread, ever, could be solved in three posts. That's...Not what you want.

[Morgaln]

So we at least admit that the GM has all the power.

Your counselors in the story have the illusion of power, because the King could simply turn around and do whatever he wants to them. Many kings did just that, and ended up just fine in history.

You are right in the fact that the players have one card that they can play. Not play. However, by the time they sit down and decide that they WILL play, they have played their last card. The RPG itself gives them no power and is only the illusion of choice. They either like the illusion and wish to continue, or they do not and end the illusion.

The GM acting like the "wise king" in your story is giving them the illusion of choice for the benefit of the game. The very thing I have been advocating yet people seem focused on disproving. Hence, my confusion on this topic.



I disagree to some extent. Yes, ultimately all power lies with the GM. They can technically do anything and everything they want, so the power lies with them. But among those powers is the ability to give real choices to the players. If the choice of the players informs the actions of the GM, then that is not an illusion. That is a real choice with impact on the game. Said impact does translate into the ability to affect the game, so players do have power. The difference is, the GM has power and choice, period. The players have the powers and the choices the GM lets them have (that sounds far more negative than it is). This is actually very relevant to the topic at hand; a GM that doesn't let his players have any powers is railroading, as he is deciding everything without taking player input into consideration. A GM that isn't railroading is, by definition, handing some power to his players.

As an analogy, consider this: a parent decides the family will have ice cream for dessert. The children have the choice between chocolate and vanilla. The children didn't have the choice what they want for dessert; they couldn't go for cake or fruit or anything else, it has to be ice cream. But the choice between the flavors is still a real choice and not an illusion and gives power to the children. Similarly, The analogy is imperfect, since the dynamics between parents and children is not the same as the one between GM and players, but it is close enough.

[Cheesegear]

As an analogy, consider this: a parent decides the family will have ice cream for dessert. The children have the choice between chocolate and vanilla. The children didn't have the choice what they want for dessert; they couldn't go for cake or fruit or anything else, it has to be ice cream. But the choice between the flavors is still a real choice and not an illusion and gives power to the children.

Then a child says 'But I want peppermint.' throws a tantrum, quits the household, and tells the other kids that Dad is lame and they should start a new house without Dad...With peppermint ice cream.

[elros]

I've been thinking about this issue some more, and I think that there is a difference between players ignoring the adventure that the GM has set up, versus the players dealing with the adventure differently than the GM intended.
I find that GMing can be hard because it is impossible to prepare for everything players can think to do. Conflicts often arise when GMs are pushed outside of their comfort zone, and that depends a lot on what the GM wants to handle.
If players are trying to be disruptive, that is on the players. But if players think of things that are creative and fun, but different than what the GM prepared, that is on the GM to handle.

[Saintheart]

Then a child says 'But I want peppermint.' throws a tantrum, quits the household, and tells the other kids that Dad is lame and they should start a new house without Dad...With peppermint ice cream.

And despite having a fridge full of peppermint ice cream, upon which the children gorge every week, for some reason it just doesn't taste anywhere as good as the chocolate or vanilla they were getting.

The kids don't know why this is. They go for years trying peppermint ice cream in tubs, cones, bowls, even on plates. It all doesn't taste as good as the other guy's chocolate or vanilla. They try new improved brands of peppermint, different companies, nope, still lousy peppermint. They even try making their own peppermint, which tastes the worst of the lot. And eventually they give the whole ice cream thing away.

Not that this bothers the guy who offers chocolate or vanilla on his terms. Because guys who offer a choice without giving in to every whim of their audience will always find an appreciative group of ice cream fans.

[Cheesegear]

I find that GMing can be hard because it is impossible to prepare for everything players can think to do. Conflicts often arise when GMs are pushed outside of their comfort zone, and that depends a lot on what the GM wants to handle.

I have it good authority that GMs are replaceable, and any player can just fill their shoes, and it will be no problem finding a good GM. If you don't like the way that a GM runs their game - or doesn't run their game - just replace them - it's so easy!

[KorvinStarmast]

Typically, I want Z to be unknown. In a game with a referee, a crucial part of the enjoyment is that fact of 'the unknown' - and part of that includes deceptive or shady NPCs who may or may not tell the truth to the PCs/players, rumors that are true, partly true, or false, and prophecies that may or may not turn out as phrased. And, importantly (the CoC example Easy e gives was a good one), the act of discovery is a significant contributor to the fun. I very much support your point about the desirability of The Unknown.
FWIW:
I found the introduction of "lying to the PCs" as a shrill accusation to be a detractor to this conversation, but you didn't do it.

I think the three clue rule still is effectively a linear game. It just provides more options so that people don't get trivially blocked. Without a goal - a mystery to resolve, a villain to capture, a jewel to steal - a manuscript to find, why are the players even bothering? But I think I see what you are getting at. With that said, games where what the players do next builds off of what decision they just made, with a bare framework/skeleton of a structure can be loads of fun.

Experienced players who grab the world and make their own fun are different to inexperienced players who need some hand holding. That is my experience.


If Railroad and Illusion of Choice is inherently bad, how are boxed modules even a thing? While Vahnavoi's answer isn't a bad one, they do a variety of things (or can) in terms of providing a DM with a lot of prep work already done, a variety of choices (Tome of Annihilation for D&D 5e has some plot points and a lot of "well, go here and run into random stuff") that allows for a bunch of different ways to enjoy that campaign. Into the Unknown was well built as a DM tutorial. (Lost Mines of Phandelver wasn't bad in that regard). Published adventures grew from pre built adventures that allowed for tournament and Convention play to proceed with a scoring of points for how far your group got into the module/adventure before time expired. <= that aspect is sometimes forgotten. And, they give DM's some ideas on stuff they might want to do, either within that module or in their own game world with the module's good points applied with some twists.

There are a lot of genuinely unknown and unpredictable things in a roleplaying game even to a game master, and that's what generates appeal for railroading and illusionism: they're attempts at controlling what other rules suggest is outside your control. Thanks for the whole post, but in particular for that thought.

A TTPRG is a chance for a group of people to spend time together in a pretend world. That means everyone has to give up something for the good of the group. From some of the comments, some people think that each player should be able to do whatever they want, and the GM and other players just have to deal with it. That makes it impossible for the GM to run the game! Correct. This goes beyond game technique and enters into small group dynamics, 101.

Our Wednesday Group has, over time, become basically desirous of a railroad since they are not particularly invested in the game world. (Myself and my nephew excluded). Our game has been on tracks since level 1. I have encouraged my brother (The DM for the main campaign) to develop the capital city where we've known that we are going to try and dethrone the usurper for nearly a RL year, and he has still not built that content. So, we wander all over the world when the group gets together and have nights with only travel and social encounters, which bores the hell out of two of the players, and sometimes combat/chase/pursuit encounters.

He's not got the time to do as I have encouraged, so I have been DMing for a bit and I use published adventures (Tales of the Yawning Portal) since I can afford to buy them on roll20 (reduces my overhead immensely) and I can adapt/modify/flesh out each of them as I see fit. I also throw in stuff that I come up with, and a few random encounters, so that they really don't know what's coming next, but they usually do know what their broad objective is.

Which takes us back to the key issue, which is The Unknown.

The players got a lot of "wow, that was different" in how I deployed a succubus in The Forge of Fury. They completely fell for her sob story about being held prisoner. She was in fact behind a completely fraudulent effort at creating a human / dwarf half breed race in a town of mostly humans and dwarves in the mountains of my brother's world. (He and I run groups in different sectors of the world, depending on his DMing capacity based on RL constraints). I dropped a few clues, but the reveal at the end when the dwarf who had been the quest giver turns out to have been the succubus in disguise, who had impregnated two local acolytes while in dwarf form (succubus is a deceiver by nature, as are hags), whose 'demons in the womb' event turned into a hell of a battle in the stables of the inn where they were staying, got more or less applause from the whole group.

As to the claim that the GM should not "lie to the players."
That is strictly untrue. The unknown, and minor deceptions, in character are necessary for a variety of adventures in the D&D (and related) genre. I think it's mandatory in CoC.
Heck, the existence of illusions and illusion spells require misrepresentation on the part of the DM.

[OldTrees1]

OP: Problem.
Reponse: Well it depends.
OP: ...Thanks? :smallconfused:

Almost every thread, ever, could be solved in three posts. That's...Not what you want.

OP: Is there a problem with doing X instead of Y?
Response: There is not a problem with X, there is a problem with A instead of B. XA is a problem. ZA is also the same problem but less common. If you want X, try XB instead.
OP: Thanks. :smallcool:

There is nothing wrong with linear games or sandboxes as long as the players are okay with it. The problem is sometimes a GM ignores/discounts the player preferences for various excuses. Sometimes the GM lies to the players to deceive them into playing something they do not want to play. Sometimes the GM makes lies the players are not okay with. It happens enough that the internet has terms that differentiate this critical distinction.

Sure this thread could be solved in 3 posts, but so can most questions with simple answers. Once the simple answer is resolved, then OP could ask for example personal preferences and the reasons behind what makes it A or B for that player.

For example:

I don't like overly linear games because I like to make meaningful choices in the game. I am fine with an agreed upon destination (I often play hardcovers adapted to have more agency).
I do like Sandboxes provided the characters have access to enough information to make choices. I can provide self motivated characters that can find something to do.
I don't like GMs lying about the type of game on the Sandbox-Linear continuum. This is especially true if it takes be outside my preference range, but remains true for large enough lies within my preference range. If you tell me it is a sandbox that need self motivated PCs, don't reveal that those motivations can't be meaningfully acted upon. If you tell me the party will be given a goal, give me at least a week's head's up before requiring the PCs have their own sizable agendas to find things to do.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sometimes the GM lies to the players to deceive them into playing something they do not want to play. Your post has an odd tone to it.

In particular, I am dismayed with how you present your issue as regards the "lying" about where a game is on the sandbox/railroad spectrum (which in the first place is an unnecessarily narrow axis IMO) - your position comes off as selfish, if my experience is anything like a useful guide.
A given game/campaign can vary where it is along that spectrum as it evolves through play.
How dare the GM lie to you by not being able to predict that.

[JNAProductions]

Your post has an odd tone to it.

In particular, I am dismayed with how you present your issue as regards the "lying" about where a game is on the sandbox/railroad spectrum (which in the first place is an unnecessarily narrow axis IMO) - your position comes off as selfish, if my experience is anything like a useful guide.
A given game/campaign can vary where it is along that spectrum as it evolves through play.
How dare the GM lie to you by not being able to predict that.

It doesn't read that way to me.

It reads as some DMs actively and intentionally deceive their players, and that's bad. Not that sometimes games evolve, so what was said at the start might no longer be accurate.

[King of Nowhere]

I have it good authority that GMs are replaceable, and any player can just fill their shoes, and it will be no problem finding a good GM. If you don't like the way that a GM runs their game - or doesn't run their game - just replace them - it's so easy!

not so easy. dming requires time, commitment, creativity, system mastery.
additional appreciated qualities include good recitation, literary skills, leadership...
a gaming group is lucky to have one good dm.

[KorvinStarmast]

It reads as some DMs actively and intentionally deceive their players, and that's bad. About what? That comes off (to my eye) as bringing your baggage with you to the post.

[JNAProductions]

About what? That comes off (to my eye) as bringing your baggage with you to the post.

DMs who intentionally hide the rails, and claim it's for the players' own good.

We've had several posters in this very thread advocate for that.

[OldTrees1]

As to the claim that the GM should not "lie to the players."
That is strictly untrue. The unknown, and minor deceptions, in character are necessary for a variety of adventures in the D&D (and related) genre. I think it's mandatory in CoC.
Heck, the existence of illusions and illusion spells require misrepresentation on the part of the DM.

I can run all of that without lying to the players. Trivially. Just tell the players that their characters see/hear/observe XYZ.

The hardest example would be doing a genre bait & switch (Initially the players are fighting werewolves and ghouls but eventually discover Lovecraftian horrors). In this case I would discuss with the players in session -2 that I would like to run a horror game and I want to know what horror elements they A) would enjoy B) any taboos to avoid. I would also tell them the world might not be as it appears and that their characters grew up in a world where it was common knowledge that XYZ. I would monitor their characters to see if any of them would be out of place when I switch from XYZ horror elements they enjoy to UVW horror elements they enjoy. Optionally, ask them previously about how they felt about genre bait & switches.

No lying needed. No trying to trick the players into playing something they don't want to play. Being honest that there may be secrets and not all is as it appears.

However perhaps we should scope that claim down to the context of the thread. It was talking about lying about the rails or otherwise trying to trick the player into playing a game. Some players would object to those lies and thus those lies to those players are bad even if the liar does not get caught.


Your post has an odd tone to it.

In particular, I am dismayed with how you present your issue as regards the "lying" about where a game is on the sandbox/railroad spectrum (which in the first place is an unnecessarily narrow axis IMO) - your position comes off as selfish, if my experience is anything like a useful guide.
A given game/campaign can vary where it is along that spectrum as it evolves through play.
How dare the GM lie to you by not being able to predict that.

1) Narrow axis
The sandbox to linear game spectrum is a rather narrow axis but so is the thread. I was limiting my reply to the relevant context (A: There is no wrong game on that spectrum and B: But trying to deceive your players into playing something they would not want to play is what one* of the things that gives Railroading a negative connotation compared to Linear game.)

*Railroading does not necessarily involve this deceit, but it comes up common enough to cause the negative connotation.

2) Tone
The tone I wrote might be a different tone than the one you heard. Would you agree that people should not be tricked into playing games they don't want to play? I don't do this. You probably don't do this. It is trivial to run a game, even one that varies on the spectrum, that does not do this. However one of the reasons Railroading has a negative connotation (in contrast to Linear Game) is there are GMs that want to run an extremely Linear game regardless of if the players want to play that kind of game, and then they lie to the players to deceive them into playing anyways. (These are the "It is okay if you don't get caught" excuses)

This type of lie is relevant because it can make a game bad. If I tried to trick someone into playing a sandbox with more agency than the player would enjoy, that would be bad. I should not try to trick a player into a game they would not enjoy. The same is true for linear games. If the GM is honest about the type of game, then they will get player buy-in from the players that want to play that type of game. That is how some extremely linear games can still be good games.

3) Selfish
There is nothing selfish about me wanting everyone in the game to only play if they want to play.

4) Inability to predict
It is not really a lie if the GM couldn't predict it. If the campaign makes a wrong turn and some players don't want to play anymore, that is a different issue for a different thread.

[Easy e]

I know this forum has a heavy bias toward player agency, but GM agency is never really discussed. Ultimately, it is up to the GM to try and build content that the players would enjoy; and the GM is a player too.

I feel that we talk about player agency so much, because GMs all ready have a lopsided balance of power in the first place; so it is easier for a GM to abuse their power. The pushback is naturally to emphasize player agency to out weigh GM Power.

[OldTrees1]

I know this forum has a heavy bias toward player agency, but GM agency is never really discussed. Ultimately, it is up to the GM to try and build content that the players would enjoy; and the GM is a player too.

I feel that we talk about player agency so much, because GMs all ready have a lopsided balance of power in the first place; so it is easier for a GM to abuse their power. The pushback is naturally to emphasize player agency to out weigh GM Power.

This is a good theory for why we see the frequency we do. I want to add one bullet point:

Often when talking about player preferences you will see a comment like "GMs are players too" or "All the players, including the GM". If a GM is in a game they don't enjoy, that is an issue just like when a player is in a game they don't enjoy. So whenever I see a post talking about player preferences, I include the GM as one of the players whose preferences matter.

Luckily this is not a zero-sum game. All the players can enjoy the game as long as all of the players have their preferences considered.

[MoiMagnus]

I feel that we talk about player agency so much, because GMs all ready have a lopsided balance of power in the first place; so it is easier for a GM to abuse their power. The pushback is naturally to emphasize player agency to out weigh GM Power.

Yes and no.

We talk much more about the issues caused by a Munckin player than the issues caused by a Munchkin GM, but similar issues exists too (e.g. it can be annoying for some players to see NPCs exploiting game mechanics, and being answering "you can do it too" doesn't solve the issue for everyone).

Problems that are talked about are likely to simply be the most present problems on the average table. The average GM has a lot more chance to be someone wanting to be an author of a perfectly planned story than someone wanting to throw the most OP glitch in the face of his players. And that's the other way around for the players.

[kyoryu]

Quick question for those of those on the "pro-linear game and hiding that fact from your players" side:

Why? What do you gain by doing this rather than telling your players up-front that the game will be linear?


OP: Problem.
Reponse: Well it depends.
OP: ...Thanks? :smallconfused:

Almost every thread, ever, could be solved in three posts. That's...Not what you want.

Except it's not "well, it depends." It's "figure out what you want to run. Figure out what your players are happy with. Be honest, and let people decide what they want to play or not play."


Then a child says 'But I want peppermint.' throws a tantrum, quits the household, and tells the other kids that Dad is lame and they should start a new house without Dad...With peppermint ice cream.

The issue is usually that "dad" is saying "this is totally peppermint!" while actually serving up chocolate ice cream.

Portraying people that don't share preferences as children throwing a tantrum is.... odd.


And despite having a fridge full of peppermint ice cream, upon which the children gorge every week, for some reason it just doesn't taste anywhere as good as the chocolate or vanilla they were getting.

The kids don't know why this is. They go for years trying peppermint ice cream in tubs, cones, bowls, even on plates. It all doesn't taste as good as the other guy's chocolate or vanilla. They try new improved brands of peppermint, different companies, nope, still lousy peppermint. They even try making their own peppermint, which tastes the worst of the lot. And eventually they give the whole ice cream thing away.

Not that this bothers the guy who offers chocolate or vanilla on his terms. Because guys who offer a choice without giving in to every whim of their audience will always find an appreciative group of ice cream fans.

It seems like your implication here is that sandbox games are inherently inferior and unsatisfying. Given that I don't think anyone has said the opposite (they've stated preference, not absolute "better/worse"), how does this advance the conversation?


In a game with a referee, a crucial part of the enjoyment is that fact of 'the unknown' - and part of that includes deceptive or shady NPCs who may or may not tell the truth to the PCs/players, rumors that are true, partly true, or false, and prophecies that may or may not turn out as phrased. And, importantly (the CoC example Easy e gives was a good one), the act of discovery is a significant contributor to the fun. I very much support your point about the desirability of The Unknown.

The PCs absolutely can and get bad information. That's a different thing than the GM being dishonest to the players on a meta level.


FWIW:
I found the introduction of "lying to the PCs" as a shrill accusation to be a detractor to this conversation, but you didn't do it.

I've mentioned it several times. Telling the players it's a sandbox when it's not is lying to the players. Linear games are cool. Be honest.


Without a goal - a mystery to resolve, a villain to capture, a jewel to steal - a manuscript to find, why are the players even bothering? But I think I see what you are getting at. With that said, games where what the players do next builds off of what decision they just made, with a bare framework/skeleton of a structure can be loads of fun.
That is my experience.

Goals do not mean linear games. It is entirely possible to have goals and story-based games without having linear games. I do it all the time. I'm also not stating anything on the "sandbox-linear" spectrum is bad. People have different preferences for lots of reasons, and I am 100% in favor of people playing the way that they find to be fun.


Which takes us back to the key issue, which is The Unknown.

The players got a lot of "wow, that was different" in how I deployed a succubus in The Forge of Fury. They completely fell for her sob story about being held prisoner. She was in fact behind a completely fraudulent effort at creating a human / dwarf half breed race in a town of mostly humans and dwarves in the mountains of my brother's world. (He and I run groups in different sectors of the world, depending on his DMing capacity based on RL constraints). I dropped a few clues, but the reveal at the end when the dwarf who had been the quest giver turns out to have been the succubus in disguise, who had impregnated two local acolytes while in dwarf form (succubus is a deceiver by nature, as are hags), whose 'demons in the womb' event turned into a hell of a battle in the stables of the inn where they were staying, got more or less applause from the whole group.

Nobody is claiming that all information given to the characters should be accurate or true.


As to the claim that the GM should not "lie to the players."
That is strictly untrue. The unknown, and minor deceptions, in character are necessary for a variety of adventures in the D&D (and related) genre. I think it's mandatory in CoC.
Heck, the existence of illusions and illusion spells require misrepresentation on the part of the DM.

Bolded for emphasis. Nobody is arguing that characters should be given 100% accurate information.

"Yes, this is a very open game, you will have the choice of how to tackle problems. I don't know how you're going to go about things, there's no linear path, I don't prep scenes" when you actually plan on running a linear game is very different from "an old man walks up to you" when you know it's a transformed dragon.


OP: Is there a problem with doing X instead of Y?
Response: There is not a problem with X, there is a problem with A instead of B. XA is a problem. ZA is also the same problem but less common. If you want X, try XB instead.
OP: Thanks. :smallcool:

There is nothing wrong with linear games or sandboxes as long as the players are okay with it. The problem is sometimes a GM ignores/discounts the player preferences for various excuses. Sometimes the GM lies to the players to deceive them into playing something they do not want to play. Sometimes the GM makes lies the players are not okay with. It happens enough that the internet has terms that differentiate this critical distinction.

Sure this thread could be solved in 3 posts, but so can most questions with simple answers. Once the simple answer is resolved, then OP could ask for example personal preferences and the reasons behind what makes it A or B for that player.

For example:

I don't like overly linear games because I like to make meaningful choices in the game. I am fine with an agreed upon destination (I often play hardcovers adapted to have more agency).
I do like Sandboxes provided the characters have access to enough information to make choices. I can provide self motivated characters that can find something to do.
I don't like GMs lying about the type of game on the Sandbox-Linear continuum. This is especially true if it takes be outside my preference range, but remains true for large enough lies within my preference range. If you tell me it is a sandbox that need self motivated PCs, don't reveal that those motivations can't be meaningfully acted upon. If you tell me the party will be given a goal, give me at least a week's head's up before requiring the PCs have their own sizable agendas to find things to do.


All of this.


Your post has an odd tone to it.

In particular, I am dismayed with how you present your issue as regards the "lying" about where a game is on the sandbox/railroad spectrum (which in the first place is an unnecessarily narrow axis IMO) - your position comes off as selfish, if my experience is anything like a useful guide.
A given game/campaign can vary where it is along that spectrum as it evolves through play.
How dare the GM lie to you by not being able to predict that.

There's still a fundamental difference. Even in an open game that collapses to linear for a while, it's typically because of in-world reasons (you went on a ship). Or even just say "yeah, the games I run typically have sections that vary in how linear/sandboxy they are."

[KorvinStarmast]

It was talking about lying about the rails or otherwise trying to trick the player into playing a game. Who actually does this?

4) Inability to predict
It is not really a lie if the GM couldn't predict it. If the campaign makes a wrong turn and some players don't want to play anymore, that is a different issue for a different thread. Ok, agreed, and now I better understand the scope of your previous post.

[JNAProductions]

Who actually does this?
Ok, agreed, and now I better understand the scope of your previous post.

Korvin, people in this thread have advocated for hiding the rails or giving players the :illusion of choice". As-in, tell your players that what they're doing matters and has impact on the game world when it really doesn't.

[OldTrees1]

Ok, agreed, and now I better understand the scope of your previous post.

Nice. I am glad I clarified.


Who actually does this?

It seems to be very few people. I mostly encounter them in threads where they bring a position of "Railroading is victimless because the players never know. It doesn't matter if they don't want to play this type of game, as long as I disguise it, then it is okay.". You might encounter some of these positions upthread.*

*Although I do distinguish it as positions (because devil's advocate is possible) and as "might" because there was miscommunication in this thread.

Since the common response to threads is that linear games are fine as long as the players know and want to play, the outlier position is the one arguing the players don't need to know (ignoring that prerequisite for the player to communicate whether they want to play).

So it does happen but it is an unforced error. If OP is honest to the players about what type of game they want to run, then the players will communicate if they want to play. That results in player buy-in and then even the most restrictive of linear game or the most hands off sandbox are viable good games.



Korvin, people in this thread have advocated for hiding the rails or giving players the :illusion of choice". As-in, tell your players that what they're doing matters and has impact on the game world when it really doesn't.

To be perfectly fair:
If a GM is honest about wanting to run an extremely linear game, with rails, and hide the rails during the game, there is the opportunity for player buy-in to that type of game. Many posts upthread from many positions were very unclear about if they referenced/were aware of this edge case (although that might be me giving the benefit of a doubt).

[kyoryu]

It seems to be very few people. I mostly encounter them in threads where they bring a "Railroading is victimless because the players never know. It doesn't matter if they don't want to play this type of game, as long as I disguise it, then it is okay.". You might encounter some of these positions upthread.*

I mean, in the 90s and 00s that was standard GM advice. And part of the 80s.



To be perfectly fair:
If a GM is honest about wanting to run an extremely linear game, with rails, and hide the rails during the game, there is the opportunity for player buy-in to that type of game. The many posts upthread from many positions were very unclear about if they referenced this edge case (although that might be me giving the benefit of a doubt).

Personally, I'm perfectly clear with "hiding" the rails if I've agreed to a linear game already. Some people might not, so why not disclose that you're doing that, but I think it's pretty benign. "Oh, you said you were running a linear game, seems like you're negating our choices to..... create a linear game. Yeah. Just like you said you would. Cool."

I mean, no harm in over-disclosing there.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's still a fundamental difference. Even in an open game that collapses to linear for a while, it's typically because of in-world reasons (you went on a ship). Or even just say "yeah, the games I run typically have sections that vary in how linear/sandboxy they are."
I am not convinced that this level of meta detail is even necessary in the vast majority of groups. It seems to me that only among a small group of elitist RPGers is this being argued about as a hard requirement.

Me: Who actually does this?
You: It seems to be very few people.

Indeed, this conversation seems to be a case of carping at the margins, at best.

If there was ever a position for "monsters under the bed" this is a candidate for office.

[Theoboldi]

I am not convinced that this level of meta detail is even necessary in the vast majority of groups. It seems to me that only among a small group of elitist RPGers is this being argued about as a hard requirement.

Me: Who actually does this?
You: It seems to be very few people.

Indeed, this conversation seems to be a case of carping at the margins, at best. .

If there was ever a position for "monsters under the bed" this is a candidate for office.

So what, is your claim that wanting to know what kind of game I am playing is some kind of thing restricted to elitists?

[MoiMagnus]

I mean, no harm in over-disclosing there.

Over-disclosing can make it harder for peoples to buy-in. Like if you go see a film and it starts with "dear watchers, in this film we will use this specific music *music playing* to make battle scenes feel more tense than they truly are" you might have more difficulty forgetting about that fact when the battle scene starts, which can ruin the effect.

But yeah I'd say that unless you constantly re-disclose it at the beginning of every session of the campaign or something like that, it'll be difficult to really "over-disclose" to the point where it ruins the effect. Though sensibilities can varies.

[OldTrees1]

I mean, in the 90s and 00s that was standard GM advice. And part of the 80s.
I am ever more appreciative of my own path of learning.


Personally, I'm perfectly clear with "hiding" the rails if I've agreed to a linear game already. Some people might not, so why not disclose that you're doing that, but I think it's pretty benign. "Oh, you said you were running a linear game, seems like you're negating our choices to..... create a linear game. Yeah. Just like you said you would. Cool."

I mean, no harm in over-disclosing there.

This was more about pointing out that hiding rails can have player buy in.

Often in these threads the technique of "hiding the rails during play" only comes up as a tool to hide the type of game from the players. This can lead to an overreaction against the technique. So to be perfectly fair I wanted to point out an edge case with unambiguous player buy in for the technique.

[kyoryu]

I think a lot of people don't because they typically play with groups that have similar assumptions on what gaming "is".

This is all session zero stuff, and should be discussed at least broadly there. Part of the pitch should be what the game is, and what the game isn't. Level of agency, mortality, frequency of failure, availability of "wish list items", how "tailored" difficulty of encounters is, etc. should all be covered.

Because people play RPGs very differently, and when they collide is when there's issues.


I am ever more appreciative of my own path of learning.

Me too!


This was more about pointing out that hiding rails can have player buy in.

Often in these threads the technique of "hiding the rails during play" only comes up as a tool to hide the type of game from the players. This can lead to an overreaction against the technique. So to be perfectly fair I wanted to point out an edge case with unambiguous player buy in for the technique.

Oh, 100%. And good callout. My point, from the start has just been "get buy-in". If everybody is okay with something, then it's okay. But I can see how that might have been lost at various points in the thread.


Over-disclosing can make it harder for peoples to buy-in. Like if you go see a film and it starts with "dear watchers, in this film we will use this specific music *music playing* to make battle scenes feel more tense than they truly are" you might have more difficulty forgetting about that fact when the battle scene starts, which can ruin the effect.

But yeah I'd say that unless you constantly re-disclose it at the beginning of every session of the campaign or something like that, it'll be difficult to really "over-disclose" to the point where it ruins the effect. Though sensibilities can varies.

"Yeah, this game will have some linear sections, and some less-than-linear sections. During the linear sections, I might use various techniques to keep you on the tracks in more subtle ways than 'you can't go there'. I think that makes those sections feel better, overall. If you're into that, cool!"

I think that's a pretty good balance.

[OldTrees1]

I am not convinced that this level of meta detail is even necessary in the vast majority of groups. It seems to me that only among a small group of elitist RPGers is this being argued about as a hard requirement.

Me: Who actually does this?
You: It seems to be very few people.

Indeed, this conversation seems to be a case of carping at the margins, at best.

If there was ever a position for "monsters under the bed" this is a candidate for office.

I am ignoring the context about finer and finer detail about how much the game varies on the spectrum. I just want to address why it is a good idea to inform the players so they can decide if they want to play the extremely linear game (or play the extremely hands off sandbox game). If they are informed then they can tell you if they want to play.

At a gun range there is a hard requirement to not point your gun at anyone.
Who actually does this? Very few people.
Who cares about it? Most people, that is why very few do it.

Letting the players know that you want to run an extremely linear game will let them decide if they want to play the game. The concept of "tell the potential players about the game so they can decide if they want to play" is rather common sense so you would hope the bad actors are rare. The bad actors being (hopefully) rare does not mean we should stop granting potential players the ability to make an informed choice about whether they want to play or not.

So when someone creates a thread asking about "are linear games really that bad", the dominant answer is "If you inform the players, those that want to play will and thus you have player buy-in. Have fun!".

Who actually does this deceit? Hopefully very few people. I have only seen them show up in threads.
Who cares about it? Probably most people. It is rather common sense that players should be allowed to choose whether they want to play.

There is a deeper discussion on "How do I know what information these specific players need for them to make an informed choice about if they want to play the game?" and that discussion is subjective and a lifelong study. However merely from the negative connotation around "Railroad" or "Illusionism" you can see that people care about being able to play the games they want to play rather than be tricked into a game they don't want to play.

[KorvinStarmast]

So what, is your claim that wanting to know what kind of game I am playing is some kind of thing restricted to elitists? How well do you know the people at your table? That's step 1 in how you approach 'what game are we playing?'. You then explore, if necessary, 'what kind of game we are playing' as the group of people embark on a game of make believe.
Is there any further value for me in this thread?
The simple answer is no. There's no monster under the bed.

[OldTrees1]

How well do you know the people at your table? That's step 1 in how you approach 'what game are we playing?'. You then explore, if necessary, 'what kind of game we are playing' as the group of people embark on a game of make believe.
Is there any further value for me in this thread?
The simple answer is no. There's no monster under the bed.

Knowing the people at your table, including the preferences and the types of games they run, is a convenient way of having players be informed about the game and thus able to decide if they want to play.

Yes, I suspect your group already satisfies the "well let the players know the type of game" part without needing to speak. This is common for long running groups with good communication.

[Theoboldi]

How well do you know the people at your table? That's step 1 in how you approach 'what game are we playing?'. You then explore, if necessary, 'what kind of game we are playing' as the group of people embark on a game of make believe.
Is there any further value for me in this thread?
The simple answer is no. There's no monster under the bed.

What does that have to do with what I asked? I do make an effort to know who I am playing with and what they want up-front. I'd like to play a game I enjoy with the limited free time and energy that I have.

How is that looking for monsters under the bed when I just would like people not to lie about that? Especially when there's people in this thread saying that its not bad to lie about this? How is it exclusive to elitists?

It's not like I'm jumping at the shadows, fearing anyone might lie to me about the game they play and run. I even tend to trust people to mean what they say. That does not mean that disliking people who do lie about it is in any way irrational. There being few of them does not make their attitude any less presumptuous.

[kyoryu]

Knowing the people at your table, including the preferences and the types of games they run, is a convenient way of having players be informed about the game and thus able to decide if they want to play.

Yes, I suspect your group already satisfies the "well let the players know the type of game" part without needing to speak. This is common for long running groups with good communication.

This is exactly why the concept of Session 0 gets more pushback from long-term gamers who play with their friend groups, especially if they've done so for years or decades.

They don't need it. There's enough shared understanding that rehashing it is pointless.

[Theoboldi]

This is exactly why the concept of Session 0 gets more pushback from long-term gamers who play with their friend groups, especially if they've done so for years or decades.

They don't need it. There's enough shared understanding that rehashing it is pointless.

Absolutely. It's one of those places where personal experience counterintuitively makes it more difficult to approach a different take on the same topic.

It's not a matter of anyone being wrong in how they do things. Only when it becomes a matter of someone acting like their experiences mean they've seen all opinions of relevance and they can figure out which of them others have, and they start interacting with those who do not hold those same opinions, does it become a source of trouble and friction.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ya know what? NVM.

[Theoboldi]

Ya know what? NVM.

Fair enough.

Did not see your post before you deleted it, so in any case I do want to clarify that what I said in my last post was not talking about you, but rather just the kind of people we were talking about. Just in case that was expressed muddily on my part, and I came across passive-aggressive.

[Easy e]

I have two groups I play with.

Group 1 are people I play with people who have no idea what an RPG is and refer to every RPG as D&D. I am not entirely sure they even know what D&D is an acronym for. Typically, they are one-off sessions with no connection to previous sessions at all. They have little interest in the type of game as the session is impromptu and they will play whatever. They MIGHT give me a genre to play with IF they have an opinion on playing a game. However, they know they want to participate in an RPG session even if they can not put it into words. These folks prefer the 3 Act approach, because otherwise the scope of choices is too great for them. However, the illusion of choice is what they like as if I gave them a true sandbox.... they would flounder. These folks spent 2 hours trying to cross a stream before.

Group 2 are a very experienced D&D 5e group who has been playing 5e since it came out and played 3.5 before. They have strong system knowledge and half of them have GMed themselves. They prefer D&D 5e to other systems, but will branch out for one-shots and the like. This group I have seen struggle in a sandbox environment with getting their hands around what to do and where to go. We have had two GMs (other than me) try sandbox, and we ended up spinning, spinning, and spinning. This group also seems to prefer linear games with a 3-act set-up in the session.

Working with both of these groups, I can see why I feel "The Illusion of Choice" is a thing because both of these groups respond positively to it. If you ask them, "Do you like a linear plot game?" the first group would say "What?" and the second would say, "Yes, I want to know what I am trying to accomplish." In those spaces, the illusion of choice is welcomed much more than if they wanted a Sandbox experience. Both groups generally want a guard railed experience.

[KorvinStarmast]

Did not see your post before you deleted it, so in any case I do want to clarify that what I said in my last post was not talking about you, but rather just the kind of people we were talking about. Just in case that was expressed muddily on my part, and I came across passive-aggressive. No worries, the conversation continues. :smallsmile:

Both groups generally want a guard railed experience. That's a well put thought. Thank you.

[kyoryu]

I find most "I don't know what to do" issues are caused by lack of information.

Plopping new players into a "sandbox" is a great example. They don't know what RPGs are like. They're told "do stuff". They don't know what they can do, they don't know where they can go, they don't know the likely results of their actions.

So that's a conversation. Give them more information, until they have enough to know what the choices are and why they might choose them, and what possible results are.

[JNAProductions]

I find most "I don't know what to do" issues are caused by lack of information.

Plopping new players into a "sandbox" is a great example. They don't know what RPGs are like. They're told "do stuff". They don't know what they can do, they don't know where they can go, they don't know the likely results of their actions.

So that's a conversation. Give them more information, until they have enough to know what the choices are and why they might choose them, and what possible results are.

I mean, it could be that Easy E's players just straight-up prefer linear games. That's totally fine.

I notice, though, that E didn't say in their post "I tell them it's a sandbox game and then run it as a linear one." They just... Run it as a linear game.

[Cheesegear]

I notice, though, that E didn't say in their post "I tell them it's a sandbox game and then run it as a linear one."

It sounds odd when you say it, but that's kind of exactly how it happens.

DM: You can do anything you want.
Players: Cool. We want to fight some Orcs.
DM: *Plans the next four sessions about storming an Orc Stronghold.*

Players have infinite possibilities...At the start of the game.
Once players make a choice of what to do, that choice becomes locked in.

At the end of the Orc Stronghold, the DM puts some sort of story bait; Fiends or a Dragon are go-to's.

Cool. Now the players want to follow up on the Fiends. They want to deal with the Dragon.
Players: We'll go the Fiends first.
DM: Great. He's a few sessions about Fiends, along the way you meet an NPC.
Players: Let's see what the NPC wants.
DM: ...Am I railroading you guys?
Players: What rails?
DM: *Looks at his stack of pre-planned adventure notes since the players started with 'Let's fight some Orcs'.*

It's more like...Branching paths. The players start at a junction. They take the railroad to the next junction. They choose to go left or right. They continue down the railroad to the next junction. The DM plans out every section of rails.

How do you 'sandbox' a dungeon? Wouldn't the whole thing have to be pre-planned? The players don't really have any choices inside a dungeon - except to leave, I guess. I honestly don't even know what a 'sandbox game' even is, at this point. At least, I don't understand this particular forum's conception of one.

DM: You can go North, South, East or West. It's a sandbox.
Player: We go North.
DM: You have chosen the North rails.
Player: You said this was a sandbox.
DM: And here's my notes for the north rail that you chose.

[JNAProductions]

Have notes that aren't a 100% pre-planned adventure.
Have people and places and monsters, with general notes on how they interact, and what they might do if one of their rivals is destroyed/allies are attacked/treasure is stolen/whatever.

It's certainly EASIER to make a guided linear experience than it is to run a proper sandbox, but to say it's impossible seems rather nonsensical.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have notes that aren't a 100% pre-planned adventure.
Have people and places and monsters, with general notes on how they interact, and what they might do if one of their rivals is destroyed/allies are attacked/treasure is stolen/whatever.

It's certainly EASIER to make a guided linear experience than it is to run a proper sandbox, but to say it's impossible seems rather nonsensical.

This. Although for me, it's way easier to not do a guided linear experience. I can't say it's a "real" sandbox, but it's certainly not planned out anything like in advance. Because I'm better at doing things improv from a strong setting foundation. Basically all of my prep except immediately before a session is situations and "what's over there", with huge chunks left blank until they get close.

If the players look back, it looks like I had a plan all along (or maybe I delude myself into thinking that). But I didn't. I was mostly making it up on the spot. With lots of "ok, where are you going next session?" anytime they'd finished one chunk of content (which sometimes takes a couple sessions).

I do expect (out of politeness) that they'll generally engage with a scenario until it's done one way or another (although it can end in ways I never expected), because otherwise they'll have a really short session. You can bail, but it just means I'm going to be more sketchy than normal instead of having prepared maps (playing online).

When I tried to do fully planned adventures (not even campaigns, just planning multiple sessions and plot lines ahead of time), it never worked well. The events never made sense that way after they'd started to play out without forcing them down paths. I absolutely give suggestions and guidance about what's out there, both OOC and IC. I trust the players not to try to metagame. And am confident that if they do, I'll have a wild brain wave and change things enough to keep it interesting anyway.

[Pex]

To me a sand box game is a game without an overall campaign plot. Players can choose among hooks the DM provides or make their own. Then an adventure arc takes place until such time that situation is resolved. It's ok the DM plans for something next game session that deals with that arc. Once that adventure is resolved rinse and repeat. These adventure arcs have no relation to each other. The game can become linear if through this play the players decide a particular thing is really important and they want to pursue further the theme of adventure arc. They save the town from orcs. Continuing the sand box the players might go on a boat for a sea voyage. Becoming linear instead the players decide they care about why the orcs were there bothering people and want to know who was really behind the orcs attacking. Player choice made a campaign plot exist.

[Cheesegear]

To me a sand box game is a game without an overall campaign plot. Players can choose among hooks the DM provides or make their own. Then an adventure arc takes place until such time that situation is resolved. It's ok the DM plans for something next game session that deals with that arc. Once that adventure is resolved rinse and repeat.

You've just described a linear adventure...That the players chose to be on.
This goes all the way back to the start of the thread; Is it a railroad if the players choose to be on it?


These adventure arcs have no relation to each other.

Sounds...Incredibly lame. There's a reason that TV shows have moved heavily into serialised story-telling, and away from episodic monster-of-the-week. Hell, that was happening before streaming services.

People like knowing that they affect the world. People like seeing NPCs they've seen before. People like world-building.

People like continuity.


Continuing the sand box the players might go on a boat for a sea voyage.

To where? For what purpose? Okay now the DM has to plan something for this 'sea voyage', and now we're on a new set of rails. Hey, you know what...What if the DM somehow connected a Dragon Turtle to the Orcs? So all of this has a point? Like the PCs aren't just walking around being murder-hobos.

[elros]

When I tried to do fully planned adventures (not even campaigns, just planning multiple sessions and plot lines ahead of time), it never worked well. The events never made sense that way after they'd started to play out without forcing them down paths. I absolutely give suggestions and guidance about what's out there, both OOC and IC. I trust the players not to try to metagame. And am confident that if they do, I'll have a wild brain wave and change things enough to keep it interesting anyway.
I had the same experience with fully planned adventures. In particular, one of my friends always wanted to try different things, but he did it in a way that was consistent with his character. It could be a pain, but my other friends liked it so I learned to deal with it. For example, when I planned an exploration into an old tomb, my friend wanted to find remnants of the sect and see if they would join the group (and serve as meat shields). So I had to improv a seer who knew history of the sect, and was willing to help find them in return for any texts found in the temple. And after they found people from the sect, they had to promise to hand over everything they found, in addition to a tithe. Which lead the party to completely screw everyone over when they kept everything for themselves, so instead of being heroes we had to play out them being pariahs to these groups.
It ended up being a lot more fun for the players than for me, but the PCs did go through the Temple, but not in the way I planned.
I never had a player who tried to meta game, so I consider myself lucky.

[Easy e]

It honestly feels like a really thin line between what is "good" and what is "bad". Probably like pornography, you know it when you see it at your table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thinking about this whole "sandbox vs railroad" thing--

I think there are a whole lot more distinct gradiations. I'll stick with vehicular metaphors:

Ballistic Missile: This one has no choices at all once you sit down inside. Once it launches, you don't have any options to even get off the ride. All you can do is blow up the whole ride. This is where movies and books are--nothing you can do can influence anything about it.

Guided Rail Tour: This one has stops where you can get off and poke around, but you'll be bundled back on the train toward a fixed destination. At most you can make cosmetic differences. Most JRPGs are in this category.

Railway Destination Trip: Here you're going somewhere specific--the outcome is fixed. But how you get there and how long it takes is up to you...within a few, predetermined branching paths. Many modules are in this mode.

Car Destination Trip: This is basically the previous with a bit more freedom (more different paths). You can even start out going in a different direction entirely or drive around in circles for a while. Sandboxy (but with a fixed end state) modules fit into this mode

Car Wandering: Here you might have a destination when you set out each day, but they're not set in advance. You're still stuck on the roads though. Most sandboxes are like this, I think.

Journey into the unknown: No map, no destination, No roads, just...moving.

Down the rabbit hole Everything is procedurally generated...and the generator is set to maximum entropy. Best leave your sanity or expectations of coherence at the door.

[Cheesegear]

It honestly feels like a really thin line between what is "good" and what is "bad". Probably like pornography, you know it when you see it at your table.

Yes. The main problem is definitional.

Everyone thinks they know what something is.
So when an author says something, the reader interprets something else, according to their own definition - not what the author intended or meant.

When someone says linear path, someone reads railroad,
When someone says sandbox, someone reads multiple linear paths,
When someone says Quantum Ogre, someone reads Teleporting Ogre,
When someone says 'Illusion of Choice', someone reads the game is rigged,
When someone says the DM is in control at all times, someone reads that the DM is a malicious actor,
When someone says the the DM has planned a scenario, someone reads that the DM is going to force a conclusion.

Now, all of those things might be true, anecdotally at somebody's table, it is somebody's experience.

But it's just not what people are saying, and people are reading their own definitions and projecting their own emotions and experiences into what is - and isn't - being written... Which is the nature of almost any text-based forum.


Guided Rail Tour: This one has stops where you can get off and poke around, but you'll be bundled back on the train toward a fixed destination. At most you can make cosmetic differences. Most JRPGs are in this category.

Railway Destination Trip: Here you're going somewhere specific--the outcome is fixed. But how you get there and how long it takes is up to you...within a few, predetermined branching paths. Many modules are in this mode.

Car Destination Trip: This is basically the previous with a bit more freedom (more different paths). You can even start out going in a different direction entirely or drive around in circles for a while. Sandboxy (but with a fixed end state) modules fit into this mode

All of these feel the same to me. The DM makes a bunch of scenarios and you engage - or don't. Or the DM just Quantum Ogres you into the scenario.


Car Wandering: Here you might have a destination when you set out each day, but they're not set in advance. You're still stuck on the roads though. Most sandboxes are like this, I think.

Journey into the unknown: No map, no destination, No roads, just...moving.

When, or how, does the DM decide what you encounter?
If the DM is deciding what you encounter, the DM is still in control.


Down the rabbit hole Everything is procedurally generated...and the generator is set to maximum entropy.

Similar to the above.
Who makes the generator? WTF is maximum entropy? Does that mean the players encounter an Ancient White Dragon at Level 2 who murders them instantly? ...This is fun? :smallconfused:

[kyoryu]

Have notes that aren't a 100% pre-planned adventure.
Have people and places and monsters, with general notes on how they interact, and what they might do if one of their rivals is destroyed/allies are attacked/treasure is stolen/whatever.

It's certainly EASIER to make a guided linear experience than it is to run a proper sandbox, but to say it's impossible seems rather nonsensical.

Is it? I don't find it to be so. I've got some pretty good guidelines on doing improv games, maybe I'll type it up some time.

It's certainly a skill, and a different one, but I don't think it's some arcane black art.


This. Although for me, it's way easier to not do a guided linear experience. I can't say it's a "real" sandbox, but it's certainly not planned out anything like in advance. Because I'm better at doing things improv from a strong setting foundation. Basically all of my prep except immediately before a session is situations and "what's over there", with huge chunks left blank until they get close.

If the players look back, it looks like I had a plan all along (or maybe I delude myself into thinking that). But I didn't. I was mostly making it up on the spot. With lots of "ok, where are you going next session?" anytime they'd finished one chunk of content (which sometimes takes a couple sessions).

I do expect (out of politeness) that they'll generally engage with a scenario until it's done one way or another (although it can end in ways I never expected), because otherwise they'll have a really short session. You can bail, but it just means I'm going to be more sketchy than normal instead of having prepared maps (playing online).

This is very close to what I do. Very, very close. My personal analogy is something more like a Jeep trip - you're heading to a destination, but it's more of an area than a particular place. How you get there is up to you - there's no roads, you can forge your own trails. Some ways of getting there might be harder. You might get in over your head. That's all fine.

It also seems like, based on this thread, that many people don't understand that you can have "story" without having strongly pre-planned games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All of these feel the same to me. The DM makes a bunch of scenarios and you engage - or don't. Or the DM just Quantum Ogres you into the scenario.


They're quite different in how much your actions matter. And how many decision points you have. All of these assume good faith on all parts--a DM that QO you into specific scenarios is lying to you about what kind of campaign you're in. And is probably running a Guided Railway Tour at the most agency-filled. I assume with all of these that the decisions are actual decisions.

In a Guided Railway Tour, you don't really have any choices. Consider a JRPG. None of the dialogue makes any difference. The only thing you control is your actions...but everything comes down to either "you succeed? Great, game continues. You fail? Try again." At the end of the game, the only way to tell the difference between playthroughs is by looking at the XP value or items gathered.

At the other end of this group, a Car Destination Trip is like most "sandboxy" adventure paths. The destination is fixed, mostly. If you finish the books, you'll end up in one of a few pre-set end states. And the starting state is pretty well fixed. There might be some checkpoints along the way where you will necessarily pass through, but the order of events within each of those "chapters" is up to you. And in principle you can do a bunch of things along the way.

Sure, both end up in the same place. But they do so in very different ways, and that difference matters. Lots of people like one but not the other.



When, or how, does the DM decide what you encounter?
If the DM is deciding what you encounter, the DM is still in control.


The DM is always ultimately in control. But that doesn't mean the players don't have agency or that the players and the DM can't collaborate on what they want to see. I know that many times I've been genuinely surprised by how they approached things and the attendant consequences and fundamentally what they wanted to do[1]. I create scenarios that they can engage with in any way...including not at all. And I build scenarios based on what they (or their characters) are telling me they want to do. My current game has a few fundamental "things going on"--some timey-wimey/parallel timeline stuff, some elemental corruption (producing aberrations), and some issues with dragons and devils. That's because I have
1) a player playing a "time mage"
2) a player playing a custom aberration class (like a mutant/shapeshifter)
3) a player playing a custom dragon knight
4) and a player playing a oath of the watchers paladin
And most importantly, because that all fit the area's history in the setting. Which was chosen because it fit (it's an eternal circle). And most of the map only has the most notional markings on what's there--they get filled in as they go places, based on what comes up. Which usually isn't anything like I exactly planned--I'm rather improv-heavy. So I get surprised by what comes out of my own mouth a lot. But it makes more sense than when I try to plan it out in detail, so there's that.

The difference between these two is that with a road trip between choices, you're fixed to a course (whether by fiat or by table agreement) and have a destination in mind for each segment. Once you head into a dungeon, you're there until the end; if you abandon it you abandon it. When you're Wandering, you don't even know where you're going. Personally, I find Wandering to be the "empty sandbox" pathological case--you don't have enough information to set a course so you wander around poking at things. An analogy might be someone just wandering through Skyrim ignoring all the quests. Poking into dungeons here or there, picking flowers, talking to people. No real intent, no real goal, just...playing to play.



Similar to the above.
Who makes the generator? WTF is maximum entropy? Does that mean the players encounter an Ancient White Dragon at Level 2 who murders them instantly? ...This is fun? :smallconfused:

This one is a bit tongue in cheek, to be sure. Maximum Entropy means yes, you might encounter an Ancient White Dragon at level 2. Or might have an encounter with a single goblin at level 20. The simplest such generator is to throw every published monster into a big table with equal probability and roll a few times. But you can go beyond that, where the state of the world is procedurally generated on demand. What's over the hill? No one knows until you get there, and then it's randomly generated. Oh, it's a house. How many windows does it have? Mu, until you ask the question, and then I'll roll a random number in the range 1-N.

Would this be fun for me? No. Not at all. But it's a theoretical point on the space.

[Cheesegear]

I'll give some examples:

Hoard of the Dragon Queen. If you deviate from the path even slightly, buying the module was a waste of time. This is 100% a railroad, and the module doesn't even give you suggestions on what you can - or should - do if players want to spend an extended time in Neverwinter or Waterdeep. The story runs on a time crunch, and the players have few - if any - options about how to proceed at all. If the players decide that they don't really like the adventure and don't want to participate anymore; The world basically ends - yes, that's what happens.

Storm King's Thunder. The story is a railroad with a few branching paths. However, the module also provides a ****ton of locations that the players can travel to, with both inspiration for that location, and fixed encounters that suit the place. So that if players deviate from the path, you can have a few sessions away - you can make it up or go on rails - but you can eventually steer them back.

Candlekeep Mysteries. As an anthology, you can stick an adventure in your world wherever you want. However, once you start running the adventure - or QO your players into doing it - it's all rails until it ends.

Dungeon of the Mad Mage. As a dungeon... It's a railroad by default. However, there's enough stuff to do that it might not feel like a railroad, as the Dungeon contains multiple quests inside the dungeon itself, plenty of NPCs and several roleplaying opportunities. You can hang out in Skullport for a while, and at the end of the day, you can just go back up to Waterdeep and do whatever you want whenever you would normally. Mad Mage doesn't feel like your typical 'dungeon', so most players don't even see the rails. Especially 'cause at a certain point you can start skipping floors.

Rime of the Frostmaiden. It's no secret. Icewind Dale is my favorite module, and it's what inspired me to basically start homebrewing an adventure; The opening starts with 12 random quests. Some of them are plot-relevant (for later), some of them aren't. The players can choose which ones interest them and which ones don't. But everything is planned out. Here are 12 choices...Choose six. Chapter 2 is very similar; Here are 13 quests, choose six. By the time that the players have done 10+ quests, been to a lot of places and seen a lot of things, they should be more than invested enough in the story that they don't even see the rails in the later half of the module.
However, if they don't engage with the rest of the module, the locations and random encounters provide more than enough inspiration for any DM to be able to whip something up in Icewind Dale.

[JNAProductions]

Modules are, generally speaking, more linear than a homebrew, on-the-fly adventure.

But if you continue to use "Railroad" to mean "Linear" you're not communicating very effectively.

As I've said before-if you're clear with your players about what you're doing, like saying "I'm gonna run Hoard of the Dragon Queen," then the players are free to accept the game or not. If they do accept the game, it's with the knowledge that it's a linear game.

[kyoryu]

Dungeons are not necessarily linear. Early megadungeons, especially, were very non-linear and basically "constrained sandboxes". Running them was as much about figuring out how the denizens would react as anything, and playing them is an exercise in planning.

It's a heist, not an extermination mission.

That said, a lot of "dungeons" in more modern modules do tend to be highly linear.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll give some examples:

1. Hoard of the Dragon Queen. If you deviate from the path even slightly, buying the module was a waste of time. This is 100% a railroad, and the module doesn't even give you suggestions on what you can - or should - do if players want to spend an extended time in Neverwinter or Waterdeep. The story runs on a time crunch, and the players have few - if any - options about how to proceed at all. If the players decide that they don't really like the adventure and don't want to participate anymore; The world basically ends - yes, that's what happens.

2. Storm King's Thunder. The story is a railroad with a few branching paths. However, the module also provides a ****ton of locations that the players can travel to, with both inspiration for that location, and fixed encounters that suit the place. So that if players deviate from the path, you can have a few sessions away - you can make it up or go on rails - but you can eventually steer them back.

3. Candlekeep Mysteries. As an anthology, you can stick an adventure in your world wherever you want. However, once you start running the adventure - or QO your players into doing it - it's all rails until it ends.

4. Dungeon of the Mad Mage. As a dungeon... It's a railroad by default. However, there's enough stuff to do that it might not feel like a railroad, as the Dungeon contains multiple quests inside the dungeon itself, plenty of NPCs and several roleplaying opportunities. You can hang out in Skullport for a while, and at the end of the day, you can just go back up to Waterdeep and do whatever you want whenever you would normally. Mad Mage doesn't feel like your typical 'dungeon', so most players don't even see the rails. Especially 'cause at a certain point you can start skipping floors.

5. Rime of the Frostmaiden. It's no secret. Icewind Dale is my favorite module, and it's what inspired me to basically start homebrewing an adventure; The opening starts with 12 random quests. Some of them are plot-relevant (for later), some of them aren't. The players can choose which ones interest them and which ones don't. But everything is planned out. Here are 12 choices...Choose six. Chapter 2 is very similar; Here are 13 quests, choose six. By the time that the players have done 10+ quests, been to a lot of places and seen a lot of things, they should be more than invested enough in the story that they don't even see the rails in the later half of the module.
However, if they don't engage with the rest of the module, the locations and random encounters provide more than enough inspiration for any DM to be able to whip something up in Icewind Dale.

Judging from your descriptions only (having not played them)--

1. This is a classic Guided Railway Tour. Your choices are basically limited to what color of damage you do.
2. Either a Railroad Destination or a Car Destination (the differences are in how much you can tolerate deviation). Probably Car Destination.
3. This one is a Road Trip--each individual adventure is locked in, but you don't have to do them in any order and you don't have to do them all.
4. Another Road Trip. How much and where you engage is really up to you. Although it could shade into a Car Destination, depending on how much the end goal matters (I don't know the module very well).
5. A Car Destination trip. The end and beginning are fixed, but you can take a bunch of different paths through each chapter. But which ones you do...don't really matter. As long as you hit your quota, the next part starts at a pre-determined point.

I'd say those are quite a significant spectrum.

But you can apply the same analysis at the smaller scale (to the pieces within each one of those. Are the individual quests that make up #5 scripted? Do you have to do step A to do step B? Do you have to do them in a particular fashion? You can have an overall Destination campaign made up of (at a finer resolution) much more free events. As long as the endpoints are fixed (which is not uncommon for module play, by its nature).

[Pex]

You've just described a linear adventure...That the players chose to be on.
This goes all the way back to the start of the thread; Is it a railroad if the players choose to be on it?

Players choosing where to go to do stuff is the sand box. A linear campaign is where the DM decides what the plot is and the players follow it. A sand box game does not require a DM improv everything. The DM does in the beginning since he doesn't know what the players will do, but when the game session ends and that particular plot isn't over the DM can plan something for next game session. The sand box becomes linear when the players decide to continue on one particular plot for the game.



Sounds...Incredibly lame. There's a reason that TV shows have moved heavily into serialised story-telling, and away from episodic monster-of-the-week. Hell, that was happening before streaming services.

People like knowing that they affect the world. People like seeing NPCs they've seen before. People like world-building.

People like continuity.

You don't have to like it. That doesn't mean others must not like it either.




To where? For what purpose? Okay now the DM has to plan something for this 'sea voyage', and now we're on a new set of rails. Hey, you know what...What if the DM somehow connected a Dragon Turtle to the Orcs? So all of this has a point? Like the PCs aren't just walking around being murder-hobos.

To go where ever the players feel like going or react to whatever improvisation the DM comes up with. That's the sand box. The DM's job is still to create the adventure, but the plot is player driven. The players decide what's important to them to deal with it. The DM responds giving that adventure plot. That's sand box. A linear campaign is one long plot that takes up the entire campaign of however long it takes to play out where the DM creates the plot either through running a module or his own imagination. When a sand box becomes linear because the players chose to pursue that plot of the moment due to interest forsaking all others, then the DM develops the rest of the campaign around it.

[Cheesegear]

HotDQ. This is a classic Guided Railway Tour. Your choices are basically limited to what color of damage you do.

One of the many reasons that Hoard is one of the worst-reviewed products for D&D 5e.


Rime. A Car Destination trip. The end and beginning are fixed, but you can take a bunch of different paths through each chapter. But which ones you do...don't really matter. As long as you hit your quota, the next part starts at a pre-determined point.
[...]
Are the individual quests that make up [Rime] scripted? Do you have to do step A to do step B? Do you have to do them in a particular fashion? You can have an overall Destination campaign made up of (at a finer resolution) much more free events. As long as the endpoints are fixed (which is not uncommon for module play, by its nature).

Did you ever play Fallout 3? Early-game Rime is a lot like that.

You have your major, over-arching plot that defines the entire region (e.g; Find Dad, Auril has blotted out the Sun), and you can sort of bee-line the 'main' quest if you want to, but you're not really under any time constraints - unlike HotDQ. Yes, the DM can make things happen in the world if you take too long. But nothing so bad as 'Oops, you took three weeks to meet Auril, the world is dead now.'

You can more-or-less go anywhere you want. However, certain things are soft-locked in the fact that you may - or may not - know that hostile creatures in that location are far above your level (e.g; Old Olney, an Ancient White Dragon). You can go to places...You'll probably die, though. There's also lots of little locations strewn about that you can do to level up before you do the hard stuff.


The sand box becomes linear when the players decide to continue on one particular plot for the game.

Okay. We're agreed. You can say that something is a sandbox in the beginning, but it quickly isn't, because very few DMs are going to improvise everything.


The DM's job is still to create the adventure, but the plot is player driven.

...So it's the players who decide that the Duke is a Lich? :smallconfused:


The players decide what's important to them to deal with it.

Sure. But it kind of reminds me of the Alex Verus series, and the way that Divination is conceptualised:

There are countably infinite strands of fate, you can pick any one you want. But once you pick one...You've picked one. You can't unmake a choice you've made - potentiality becomes actuality.

That's what this is:
Level 1-3; You can fight Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs or, y'know, just wild beasts. Or ignore all that and just roleplay around the town doing fetch quests and courier runs or whatever. Doesn't matter. It's an RPG. Do whatever you want. There are countably infinite things your players could choose to do at any given time. Maybe the player says '**** it', scraps there character in the first session and rolls a new one - their character gets alcohol poisoning and dies.

But once you've decided on what you want? Once you've decided on a course of action? The other potential stories the DM could potentially make up, the other choices the players potentially could've made, no longer matter. The sandbox becomes a linear adventure...Because it kind of has to? Because if it doesn't, you're walking into Teleporting Ogre territory; 'We want to fight the Goblins to the north.', just kidding the Orcs to the East are where the Goblins are...I'm making you fight Orcs.

Consider a rail station:
You can get on any train you want, at any time. Not all of them go to the same place. Some trains are Express, some stop-at-all-stations. Some go all the way to the end of the line. Some trains only move between major stations and go forwards and backwards somewhere in the middle. You should know where most of the lines go, there'll be signs and maps. You may have even heard of some the places on the map. You may even know someone, or want to go to one of the places on the map. Maybe the rail station is underfunded and there are no maps in the stand, and the signs are busted and nothing works and you kind of have to guess which train you're getting on.

Get on any train you want. Any time (well, not in the real world...Train timetables are fairly precise for a reason).

But once you're on that train, you can't get off until you reach a new station. You can stay in the train if you want, you can transfer trains, you can get on the inverse train and just go straight back to where you came from. But, there's a whole bit in the middle, between stops, where you can't get off the train.

[Vahnavoi]

@Cheesegear: your problem, to me, seems to be that you are not distinquishing between game elements versus game sequence.

Let's think of a very simple game: I draw a circle on the ground and then toss a handful of different candies in it. I then tell you have 60 seconds to gather as many candies as you want.

I have defined game space and game elements, but I have not defined game sequence nor game tactics and even some of game strategy is up in the air. I especially have not predetermined game outcome. Specifically, I have determined the area you have to move in and what you can find in it, but I have not determined exact placement of the candies, I have not determined which order you find them in, I have not determined whether you will find them all, I have not determined which candies are most desireable to you, and I have not determined the optimum path for collecting the candies.

It's trivially easy to craft a dungeon that has all relevant qualities of this simple game. Replace circle on the ground with sufficiently interconnected floorplan for the imaginary location, replace candies with randomly placed monsters guarding treasure, replace real time limit with turn limit enforced by the structure being on verge of flooding etc. There, done.

What about this strikes you as "railroading"?

[Easy e]

Modules are, generally speaking, more linear than a homebrew, on-the-fly adventure.

But if you continue to use "Railroad" to mean "Linear" you're not communicating very effectively.

As I've said before-if you're clear with your players about what you're doing, like saying "I'm gonna run Hoard of the Dragon Queen," then the players are free to accept the game or not. If they do accept the game, it's with the knowledge that it's a linear game.

If you told me that you were playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen, I would have no idea what type of game that meant I was in for.


What about this strikes you as "railroading"?

So you have a game, and now you told me I have to collect the candy. What if I wanted to collect rocks instead? Why did you railroad me into the candy? I want the rocks in the circle instead!

Ultimately, all games are a bit of a compromise between what the players (including GM) want to do if the game is going to continue. The question is where and how the compromises are made and if they are agreeable to the people playing.

The very vague nature of this topic is what makes it fun to talk about, even if there are no actual answers; just discussion points and preferences.

[kyoryu]

Okay. We're agreed. You can say that something is a sandbox in the beginning, but it quickly isn't, because very few DMs are going to improvise everything.

Maybe we're using terms differently.

I don't improvise everything in a game. But at no point do I ever determine a sequence of events the players are going to do.

I prep NPCs, their agendas and relationships, and the map. But how the players are going to tackle a problem is up to them. I don't know what path they're going to take, what complications may be added, or what their overall approach to the problem is.

I don't think that qualifies as a railroad or a linear game.

[Vahnavoi]

So you have a game, and now you told me I have to collect the candy. What if I wanted to collect rocks instead? Why did you railroad me into the candy? I want the rocks in the circle instead!

This is called "refusing to play the game" and has jack squat to do with railroading.

[Alcore]

Quick question for those of those on the "pro-linear game and hiding that fact from your players" side:

Why? What do you gain by doing this rather than telling your players up-front that the game will be linear?


I don’t usually hide anything. If I say we are going to slay a dragon and rescue a princess we are, eventually, going to arrive at a dragon who has a princess. Jokes on them; they were both dragons…


Mainly structure and stability.


See bad GMing and worse railroads often leaves players exhibiting “abused gamer syndrome” which is bad. At one end you have player A’s who will latch on to the hook for dear life to avoid getting punished and the other B; who will try to burn the track down to carve player agency in. Both are treatable (it helps if at least one is a C; a normal unabused gamer who will “become the train”. Thus forcing me to rely on my setting and unconnected substations for sane content.) but it takes work and the absence of rails makes both worse.

If I get a bunch of As I go through the motions (it’ll be bland at first) but the important thing is to get them out of their shell. Since its rails they have been trained to get to the next point; try to get them to care about the setting (and don’t kill what they like). B is harder but asking what they want from the game and providing it will help.



Always try to provide more than one rail line in case of fires.



Occasionally they will all just want to relax and enjoy a ride. Those days are perfect for one shots with rails, lampshades and fourth walls. Regardless the objective is for everyone to have fun.

[Vahnavoi]

Maybe we're using terms differently.

I don't improvise everything in a game. But at no point do I ever determine a sequence of events the players are going to do.

A bigger problem is that people equate "railroading" with "planning ahead" and the juxtapose it with "improvising" because they didn't really get the idea of planning literally everything else that isn't a sequence of events.

[kyoryu]

This is called "refusing to play the game" and has jack squat to do with railroading.

And even more so, the point is to have that conversation OOC. If everyone says "let's play a game about hunting monsters in a monster of the week type thing" and then the first session comes and someone brings a character that doesn't want to hunt monsters, they're being a jerk.

Ultimately, the argument about "railroading" boils down to:

1. Agree what kind of game you're going to play
2. Play that kind of game

In the "I'm not picking up candy" case, it's the player not doing that. In the railroading case, it's the GM not doing it. It's the same fundamental problem.

(Games can drift, of course, and if the monster of the week game turns organically into something else, cool)


A bigger problem is that people equate "railroading" with "planning ahead" and the juxtapose it with "improvising" because they didn't really get the idea of planning literally everything else that isn't a sequence of events.

Yeah. I really wanna write that post on running improv-based games, which will go into the planning I do actually do.

Also, it's pretty okay to plan a sequence of events for the NPCs, so long as you're willing to adjust it as things change. It's just planning events for PCs that ruffles some peoples' feathers.

[Easy e]

This is called "refusing to play the game" and has jack squat to do with railroading.

No, perhaps you do not know your operational definitions as well as you want us to believe. If I was refusing to play the game I would collect nothing and only stand there and look at you with a blank expression on my face.

In the scenario you created, you are telling me the objective of the game. That is a railroad as I did not create the objective, it is not player driven, and you have taken my agency. Why are you forcing an objective on me? Isn't the difference between a sandbox and a railroad the exact same thing? The railroad forces the results, while a sandbox allows players to determine the scope and objectives of a game? Forcing me to collect candy, when I want to collect rocks is a railroad.

[Morgaln]

No, perhaps you do not know your operational definitions as well as you want us to believe. If I was refusing to play the game I would collect nothing and only stand there and look at you with a blank expression on my face.

In the scenario you created, you are telling me the objective of the game. That is a railroad as I did not create the objective, it is not player driven, and you have taken my agency. Why are you forcing an objective on me? Isn't the difference between a sandbox and a railroad the exact same thing? The railroad forces the results, while a sandbox allows players to determine the scope and objectives of a game? Forcing me to collect candy, when I want to collect rocks is a railroad.

I think it's a matter of what level of the game you are using the analogy for. If rocks equal to "find the lost artifact of doom" and candy equals to "rescue the princess" then forcing you to look for candies instead of rocks is railroading. If candies is "medieval fantasy" and rocks is "space opera", then it's not railroading, it's a completely different game and not railroading as it works on a different level.

[kyoryu]

No, perhaps you do not know your operational definitions as well as you want us to believe. If I was refusing to play the game I would collect nothing and only stand there and look at you with a blank expression on my face.

In the scenario you created, you are telling me the objective of the game. That is a railroad as I did not create the objective, it is not player driven, and you have taken my agency. Why are you forcing an objective on me? Isn't the difference between a sandbox and a railroad the exact same thing? The railroad forces the results, while a sandbox allows players to determine the scope and objectives of a game? Forcing me to collect candy, when I want to collect rocks is a railroad.

I feel like this is twisting the focus of the example.

The point of the example was that you can define a game and a setting and have constraints, while not being a "railroad".

You moved the topic to the choice of game in the first place. So, yes, in that case, it shouldn't be the GM dictating "THIS IS THE GAME WE'RE PLAYING". It should be "let's play the candy-picking-up game". And if the player says "sure" and then doesn't, he's a jerk.

[Vahnavoi]

No, perhaps you do not know your operational definitions as well as you want us to believe. If I was refusing to play the game I would collect nothing and only stand there and look at you with a blank expression on my face.

Humbug. Your described reaction was exactly identical to a 7-year-old refusing to play a game explained to them. Pretending mine is a semantic argument serves no-one.


In the scenario you created, you are telling me the objective of the game. That is a railroad as I did not create the objective, it is not player driven, and you have taken my agency. Why are you forcing an objective on me? Isn't the difference between a sandbox and a railroad the exact same thing? The railroad forces the results, while a sandbox allows players to determine the scope and objectives of a game? Forcing me to collect candy, when I want to collect rocks is a railroad.

Even more humbug. Railroading, whether generally in a social sense or specifically in the roleplaying sense, is about negating choice to enforce outcome preferred by the railroading party. As already noted, the simple game does not actually do that. Seeking the objective is not enforced by the game master, it is enforced by desire of the players to have candy. There isn't one set outcome, multiple are possible based on what players choose to do. You choosing to collect rocks is not doing something different in the game. It's again, just refusal to play.

---


I think it's a matter of what level of the game you are using the analogy for. If rocks equal to "find the lost artifact of doom" and candy equals to "rescue the princess" then forcing you to look for candies instead of rocks is railroading. If candies is "medieval fantasy" and rocks is "space opera", then it's not railroading, it's a completely different game and not railroading as it works on a different level.

I'm asking you to literally imagine the simple game before you do anything else, because it showcases the very basics of game design for making a game where players have real choices.

The roleplaying equivalent was literally explained in the same post. It's not an analogy for some other kind of game, it's instructions for how to create one.

[Easy e]

Candy vs rocks is you (The game master) telling me (the player) that I am not playing the game the right way, and therefore negating my choice to search for rocks. That is a railroad, when the GM decides that the player choices is not playing the game they want and forcing them to play the game the GM wants to play despite the players choices.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of railroad again? It seems to shift based on the preference of the poster. Like I have said before, I am sure being in a Railroad game at a table is like seeing pornography at your table, you know it when you see it.

Perhaps I have twisted the example, but it is in effort to make sure we can define when player agency matters, and when Power is gained or lost by players. Choosing not to play a game is a very different situation then being on a railroad game. I think we have all been in plenty of social situations where people have chosen NOT to play an RPG and do something else instead. To claim I do not like the objectives in an RPG is equivalent to not playing the game is false. It is the GM telling me I am playing their game "wrong".

[OldTrees1]

Perhaps I have twisted the example, but it is in effort to make sure we can define when player agency matters, and when Power is gained or lost by players. Choosing not to play a game is a very different situation then being on a railroad game. I think we have all been in plenty of social situations where people have chosen NOT to play an RPG and do something else instead. To claim I do not like the objectives in an RPG is equivalent to not playing the game is false. It is the GM telling me I am playing their game "wrong".


There is a reason I discuss a sandbox-linear game spectrum. Most games have some limitations and some agency. The players agree beforehand on what type of game they want to play. That sets the limitations.

If the group agreed to play a candy collecting game, then a high agency version of that game would be one where the players had lots of agency in how they decided to collect candy. It does make sense for the players to ascribe to that objective since they agreed to it before the game. In this case a player that decided to collect rocks instead might be rejecting the one the group agreed upon (like grabbing a soccerball with your hands or tackling a golfer). On the other hand a player that decided to collect rocks as their method for collecting candy is a bit fuzzy of a situation and depends on what game that group agreed to play (some groups agree on minimum levels of competence and other groups are fine with roleplaying ineffective methods).

On the other hand if the group agreed to play a game without setting an objective of collecting candy. Then a player that decided to collect rocks would be playing the agreed upon game.

A GM that negates the agency of player would have in the agreed upon game is Railroading. Sometimes Railroading is used in a broader definition (to include low agency games) but we all understand language is fluid and this is a reasonable definition to explain the candy game miscommunication.

In the candy game, it appears like Vahnavoi is assuming it is a game the players agreed upon a successfully "collect candy" objective as part of the limitations of the game. Just like 5E doesn't let you use a GURPS character sheet, this game would not include agency to not engage with collecting candy. Thus the GM acted as a referee when the player decided to reject the agreed upon game. However it would have been fine with the players doing anything that also collected candy. Vahnavoi was not dictating which way the candy was collected.

In the candy game, it appears like Easy e is assuming it is a game where the players did not set an objective as part of the limitations of the game. Thus the players had agency to not collect candy and the GM was railroading when insisting the players must collect candy.

Vahnavoi was making a point to Cheesegear about game sequence vs game elements. Given the context of the miscommunication maybe I can repair the example.



I draw a circle on a gravel road and then toss a handful of different candies in it. I then tell you the game is limited to the circle and you have 60 seconds.

The game elements (gravel road, boundary, candies, air, you) are defined but the game sequence (what will Easy E choose to do? how will they do it? what will they do as parts of how they do it? how will they do those parts? ...) is not defined.

Given Easy e's previous response, maybe they decide to collect all the white stones & red pebbles while pushing the candy out of the way into piles. That is a perfectly reasonable response to the game we agreed upon.



This mirror's Vahnavoi's point that creating the game elements (Including, for example, there is a Duke that is a Lich with these motivations) is not the same as determining the game sequence (What do the players choose to do within the limitations of the game).

[Vahnavoi]

Candy vs rocks is you (The game master) telling me (the player) that I am not playing the game the right way, and therefore negating my choice to search for rocks. That is a railroad, when the GM decides that the player choices is not playing the game they want and forcing them to play the game the GM wants to play despite the players choices.

Humbug. The rocks aren't part of the simple game. They don't and can't even come up before someone refuses to play the game as described. The entire set-up has literally nothing to do with the rocks, if a player refuses to pick up the candies, the game master can literally take their candies and go home & it won't impact the unrelated activity of collecting rocks in any way or form.

That's what you don't seem to get. The simple game is not a metaphor for some other kind of game. The rules I described are literally all there is to it. By refusing to engage those rules, you are refusing to play the game.


Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of railroad again? It seems to shift based on the preference of the poster. Like I have said before, I am sure being in a Railroad game at a table is like seeing pornography at your table, you know it when you see it.

I described one of the simplest game possible that gives players real choice, and you're still claiming it's a railroad. At that level, just having rules is railroading and you are arguing like a contrarian 7-year-old who doesn't understand how games work.


Perhaps I have twisted the example, but it is in effort to make sure we can define when player agency matters, and when Power is gained or lost by players. Choosing not to play a game is a very different situation then being on a railroad game. I think we have all been in plenty of social situations where people have chosen NOT to play an RPG and do something else instead. To claim I do not like the objectives in an RPG is equivalent to not playing the game is false. It is the GM telling me I am playing their game "wrong".

Refusal to engage with defined core objectives of a game is refusal to play regardless of what kind of game is in question. Even saying you're in a game rings hollow at that point, because you are willfully choosing to not engage. Game objectives are not railroading. They are core components of a game that define what a player is supposed to do in the game as opposed to non-game activities. Every roleplaying game includes at least one: playing a character. Showing up to tabletop roleplaying game, saying you don't want to play a character, is refusal to play just like coming to the simple game saying you don't want to pick up candy is. Whatever else you might be willing to do instead does not change that.

Equating saying you're refusing to play game, to saying you're playing a game wrong, is again approaching the whole issue on the level of a contrarian 7-year-old. It shows inability to entertain that a game could have rules defined by someone else and as something else than just what you want to do this second.

[Cheesegear]

But at no point do I ever determine a sequence of events the players are going to do.
[...]
I don't know what path they're going to take

I came up with an acronym in the shower - The FROST system: Fight, Run, Observe, Stealth, Talk

If you assume that your players are going to do one of those five things (I actually added one to make the acronym work...Usually I would only assume four of those things), you can in fact, determine the five most likely outcomes for any scenario you make. No improvisation is needed. I do know what paths my players will take, because I know how the game is played. I know that really, my players can't actually do anything they want, and they actually only have a finite amount of things they can actually do, within the mechanics of the game (all of which are only at my discretion, because I'm the DM and apparently I can change the mechanics or set DCs to whatever I want).

Now, because you're the DM, you're well aware of your players and their characters. Their characters only have available to them, fairly specific abilities or traits, that you know that they have, with which to overcome any scenario. You're the DM. You know what special/magic items the party has. If you had to guess, I'm sure you could work out the five most likely conclusions for any scenario, and what's more, you could work out how each player achieves those five most likely conclusions.

Very little improvisation is needed. If the DM isn't improvising...Is it all planned, then?

No. Of course you have choices. But a good DM is going to know the choices you make before you make them - or he's going to have a number of contingencies - providing that you're reasonable.

The only way to truly put a 'good' DM off their shoes, is to be deliberately unreasonable; Set fire to things, kill major NPCs, ignore every plot hook. Anything the DM says or does, is a potential railroad linear adventure waiting to happen, and it's your responsibility to use your player agency to it's fullest. My player agency is the most important thing ever, and the DM is not my Dad - he can't tell me what to do. #CE4Lyf.

'You start in a town.' ...I burn the town. My player agency, my narrative. I'm not part of the DM's system.

Now, how do I get the other players at the table to also sandbag the DM?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Being able to predict and plan for player actions does not diminish their agency at all, unless your planning is about how to turn any action into the same outcome.

Agency isn't a contest between players and DM, isn't about trying to trick or surprise someone. It's about choosing from a non-single-valued set of options (not an infinite set either, just at least 2 options) and having effects flow from those in something like a predictable manner.

As a teacher, I could predict how certain students would answer some questions. That didn't force them to answer that way, even if I predicted 100% correctly. Knowledge does not constrain choice.

[Cheesegear]

Agency isn't a contest between players and DM, isn't about trying to trick or surprise someone.
[...]
unless your planning is about how to turn any action into the same outcome.

There we go.

1. The DM can do anything they want, but they must agree to act in good faith.
2. The players can do anything they want, but they must agree to act in the good faith.

I haven't had a 'Session 0' in the last...Seven (?) years. I DM two or three groups at a time. Many players have come in and out and I've never had to 'talk to' any of them. You sit at my table. I will treat you as fairly as I can, and you will treat me as fairly as you can.

I designed this scenario because I had a fun idea.
I Quantum Ogre'd you into the scenario because I want you to have fun with the thing I designed (and also so I didn't waste my time and/or ideas).
I designed this scenario with several solutions, because I hate Moon Logic and I know you do too. You might even have a solution I didn't think of, and I'll try and roll with that as best I can.
I designed this scenario in such a way that I know you can 'beat' it, because I know your characters' abilities...Unless I don't know your characters' abilities and you solve it using some bulls*** rule from a book I've never read.

If you don't have fun, you're gonna have to trust that I didn't do it on purpose and I'll think of something else - Nobody likes underwater combat. Got it.

It's so weird. Multiple times in this thread I've seen; 'Tell your players what kind of campaign you'll be running.'

'...Uhh...I'll try and think of some fun ideas, there'll be as much roleplaying as you the party wants, most of the rules of the game involve combat actions, so there's probably going to be a lot of that - or not, you can roleplay your way out of combat at least half the time...If you want, and you roll well. I wont treat you like a jerk. You wont treat me like a jerk. There's no DM screen so you can see all of my dice rolls - if you die, you die, and I can't wont fudge it. Here's a starting location if you want to work out your backstories - sooner is better. Backstories at least tell me what you're interested in, as a player (there's no guarantee that I - as DM - give a **** about your backstory...But that depends on how good it is). No furries. See you next week.'

Is that a Session 0 is? Because that's what I tell my players. It's worked well for...Well, seven years, give or take, at multiple tables, with many different players.

[Satinavian]

'...Uhh...I'll try and think of some fun ideas, there'll be as much roleplaying as you the party wants, most of the rules of the game involve combat actions, so there's probably going to be a lot of that - or not, you can roleplay your way out of combat at least half the time...If you want, and you roll well. I wont treat you like a jerk. You wont treat me like a jerk. There's no DM screen so you can see all of my dice rolls - if you die, you die, and I can't wont fudge it. Here's a starting location if you want to work out your backstories - sooner is better. Backstories at least tell me what you're interested in, as a player (there's no guarantee that I - as DM - give a **** about your backstory...But that depends on how good it is). No furries. See you next week.'

Is that a Session 0 is? Because that's what I tell my players. It's worked well for...Well, seven years, give or take, at multiple tables, with many different players.

Underlined is stuff that indeed is regularly topic of session 0s. So kinda yes.


So yes, agency is missing in that list. But it is not like your game seems to be at the extreme ends of the scale, so there are like not that many wrong expectations and also players tend to notice soon how much agency they get and if they stay after the first 2 sessions, they are likely OK with it.


Personally i tend to tell other things in session 0/campaign pitch and as a player i might ask about other things as well.

[Vahnavoi]

@Cheesegear: you should really take a deeper look at real perfect information games, like Chess, before you talk about how easy it is for a game master to predict their players. Yes, any game master who knows anything about games will try to predict their players, but predictions are a far cry from actually knowing what will happen. Even a small amount of mutually exclusive branching in a game tree will cause exponential growth in number of sequences and outcomes.

Let's take your abstracted "FROST" framework as example. So, at each decision node, your players have at least 5 legal moves. So even for just two decision nodes, that's 5^2=25 possible sequences. Saying "I know what my players will do, it's one of those 25 paths!" is disingenous. It's exactly the same as saying "I know what this d6 will roll next, it's a number from 1 to 6!". You don't know what the players will do and you don't know what the die will roll, you just know the boundaries of a particular probability space. Again, sequence and space are distinct.

Now, 25 is still a small enough number that you could plausibly preplan outcome of each sequence. An much smarter way is to set up your game so that you can generate those outcomes as part of the process of play, in reaction to what your players actually did do. This is how perfect information games like Chess are truly played. Yes, you could theoretically calculate every possible game from initial position, but no-one does that - the sheer amount of possibilities makes that physically unviable. Instead, people look at moves of other and think a small number of turns ahead to work out a strategy. But even that is unnecessary to just play, because even without thinking ahead, the rules of the game give you a list of options to choose from. Nobody needs to know the future just to make a legal move in the moment.

[kyoryu]

The interesting thing about the "FROST" framework is that it mostly applies once an encounter/scene is started.

Most of the agency that interests me is in the "where do we go now?" parts of the game.

Yes, if you know the sequence of scenes/encounters, you can probably predict what people will do in each of them, or at least cover the contingencies. What's harder to predict, if you give people the option, is how they're going to solve a particular problem at the macro scale.

If the party needs to defeat the Evil Duke, and they start by going to the guard tower, then the inner courtyard, and so on, and this is the path you've designed, then FROST can apply to each of those encounters.

If the party needs to defeat the Evil Duke, and they can do this by sneaking in and assassinating him, or by starting a military coup, or by getting his political rivals to start a war against him, or by starting a popular revolt, or.... then it becomes much harder to be in a situation where you don't have to improvise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The interesting thing about the "FROST" framework is that it mostly applies once an encounter/scene is started.

Most of the agency that interests me is in the "where do we go now?" parts of the game.

Yes, if you know the sequence of scenes/encounters, you can probably predict what people will do in each of them, or at least cover the contingencies. What's harder to predict, if you give people the option, is how they're going to solve a particular problem at the macro scale.

If the party needs to defeat the Evil Duke, and they start by going to the guard tower, then the inner courtyard, and so on, and this is the path you've designed, then FROST can apply to each of those encounters.

If the party needs to defeat the Evil Duke, and they can do this by sneaking in and assassinating him, or by starting a military coup, or by getting his political rivals to start a war against him, or by starting a popular revolt, or.... then it becomes much harder to be in a situation where you don't have to improvise.

I agree. Encounter-level ('micro') agency is nice. But macro level agency is more interesting in my opinion. Lots of times there's an obvious "best" solution to a scene, and the individual decisions aren't all that interesting. But which scenes to do encounter? Not just order of fixed scenes, but how do the effects of taking that approach affect what comes next? Does starting a coup lead to a set of scenes you wouldn't see if you'd tried to assassinate him and vice versa? Do those scenes depend on your actions at the micro scale (recruit that group vs the other group)? Those sorts of things are what makes a campaign or adventure less predictable and more interesting. And it's one reason I don't like modules--all of those macro decisions are basically fixed. Sure, you can re-order the scenes or do different sets of them...but you can't fundamentally break out of the "do 6 of these 13 fixed things" paradigm.

[Cheesegear]

Most of the agency that interests me is in the "where do we go now?" parts of the game.

The DM doesn't control that.
Don't know how you could railroad that without it being blatantly obvious. That's why I'm never really talking about that kind of railroading.

The players always control where they go,
The DM controls what they see when they get there,
The game controls what they can do, after they see it,
The DM controls the reaction after the players have done something.

- No matter where the players go, they see the same thing.
- No matter what the players do, the world reacts the same way.
It might be railroading, it might not be. Quantum Ogre applies. How are the players supposed to know what difference - if any - their choices make until after they make them? This is where the conversation is fuzzy - and therefore interesting - to me. 'But you're lying!'...Great conversation. Sometimes, I am lying to my players Is it really that bad? What is a 'Noble Lie?' See thread title. Perfect. More of this please.

If the DM controls where the players go, that's railroading. However, I will admit that I prefer to give the players choices of where they can go, and they can choose the one that interests them the most, and I'll run with that (e.g; Here's 12, choose 6. Or, I know all of you have backstories, but I can't plot them all at the same time). Dragons of Icespire Peak does it too, but arguably in the laziest way possible. But, at least DIP is designed for new players and to a lesser extent, new DMs, so I'm okay with DIP being...Not great when it comes to maximising player agency.
Again, semi-sandbox that turns linear. Great. Not really sure how you can play the game any other way. But here we are.

If the DM controls what the players can do, that's railroading (e.g; Why can't I climb the tower? Don't I just make an Athletics check? I might fail, sure...But you're telling me I can't roll at all?). If a player can point to a rule in the book, and without even breaking into semantics, says that they can do a thing, and the DM says 'No.', that's blatant, and obviously bad.
Player: You said I'm Grappled, can I roll Acrobatics to escape?
DM: No. You have to watch.
Player: ...What? :smallyuk:
This is obviously the bad kind of railroad used by bad DMs. Usually to facilitate DMPCs or to 'tell a story', instead of playing a game. We know this DM. We all know this DM.


But macro level agency is more interesting in my opinion.

As above, if the DM controls where the players go and what they can do, that's overt railroading and definitely bad. There's no conversation there for me. So I generally ignore macro-level agency and I just assume that everyone knows that 'In D&D you can choose to do anything (within - and rarely without - the rules of the game).'

[Vahnavoi]

@Cheesegear: the only way to make the lie "noble" for purposes of the game is to explain how it benefits game design. But fixating on what the players don't know in the single moment of making a decision already demonstrates only skin-deep understanding of games with imperfect information, so that alone makes it suspect if the person wanting to lie can do anything useful with it. To wit:

1) your players might not know the difference in the moment, but you do, as does everyone who you explained your game to.
2) you knowing makes a difference in your behaviour - you're relying on your Poker face to keep the lie going.
3) Your players can use after-the-fact knowledge to deduce they've been lied to.
4) Your players can use after-the-fact knowledge to predict what might happen in the game in the future, including what their game master might do.
5) People can and do carry metagame information of players across games, so once your players start suspecting you of lying, it won't be limited to a single game. If they associate lying with position of a game master, it won't even be limited to a single person, polluting all games those players are part of.

This leads to what the Alexandrian says in their railroading manifesto, linked to earlier in this thread. To quote briefly:


In practice, however, railroads warp the decision-making process of the players. When you systematically strip meaningful choice from them, they stop making choices and instead start looking for the railroad tracks.

[. . . ]

I suspect that GMs who habitually railroad have difficulty seeing this warping of the decision-making process because it’s the only thing they’re used to. But it becomes glaringly obvious whenever I get the players they’ve screwed up: Nothing is more incoherent than a player trying to figure out where the railroad is when there’s no railroad to be found.

Better approach to imperfect information from a game design viewpoint, starts with acknowledging that players can use after-the-fact information of whether their choices mattered to deduce whether their future choices will matter, and then seques into thinking of how to integrate information gathering and information evaluation into the game.

[kyoryu]

The DM doesn't control that.
Don't know how you could railroad that without it being blatantly obvious. That's why I'm never really talking about that kind of railroading.

The players always control where they go,
The DM controls what they see when they get there,
The game controls what they can do, after they see it,
The DM controls the reaction after the players have done something.

- No matter where the players go, they see the same thing.
- No matter what the players do, the world reacts the same way.
It might be railroading, it might not be. Quantum Ogre applies. How are the players supposed to know what difference - if any - their choices make until after they make them? This is where the conversation is fuzzy - and therefore interesting - to me. 'But you're lying!'...Great conversation. Sometimes, I am lying to my players Is it really that bad? What is a 'Noble Lie?' See thread title. Perfect. More of this please.

Uh, yeah. People that don't like railroading won't like that. We don't want the same scene/encounter with a different backdrop. We want different encounters.

Again, if you don't want to do that, cool! Just be honest.


If the DM controls where the players go, that's railroading. However, I will admit that I prefer to give the players choices of where they can go, and they can choose the one that interests them the most, and I'll run with that (e.g; Here's 12, choose 6. Or, I know all of you have backstories, but I can't plot them all at the same time). Dragons of Icespire Peak does it too, but arguably in the laziest way possible. But, at least DIP is designed for new players and to a lesser extent, new DMs, so I'm okay with DIP being...Not great when it comes to maximising player agency.

Most modules are fairly high on the railroad side. It's kind of inherent. Again, fine if everybody is into that and knows what they're getting into.


Again, semi-sandbox that turns linear. Great. Not really sure how you can play the game any other way. But here we are.

And yet, it can totally be done in another way.


As above, if the DM controls where the players go and what they can do, that's overt railroading and definitely bad. There's no conversation there for me. So I generally ignore macro-level agency and I just assume that everyone knows that 'In D&D you can choose to do anything (within - and rarely without - the rules of the game).'

Yet you seem to be in favor of "sure, the players can choose where they go, but it doesn't really matter becuase they'll run into the same stuff".

That's a difference that shouldn't be ignored.

[Cheesegear]

Better approach to imperfect information from a game design viewpoint, starts with acknowledging that players can use after-the-fact information of whether their choices mattered to deduce whether their future choices will matter, and then seques into thinking of how to integrate information gathering and information evaluation into the game.

To put it bluntly; Players actions are always meaningful...After they take them. Because making decisions changes the story, changes the scenarios.

A great example is the Ogre and Minotaur Skeleton. To me - the DM - it doesn't matter which direction the players pick - either way it's a CR2 encounter. Nothing is really different, in terms of player choice, especially if the players don't know about the Ogre or Skeleton. It doesn't really matter which one they pick because the outcome - in terms of relative balance - is the same. Which is what I care about as the DM - making balanced encounters, that are also (relatively) fun.

However, the point was made, that Ogres and Minotaur Skeletons are very different creatures. Wasn't really to my point then, but it works, now. Once the players know whether they have to deal with an Ogre or Skeleton, their choices will differ significantly. Their agency determined what choices they would make in the future. Do you choose the Giant adventure, or the Skeleton adventure? Their choices absolutely determine the consequences in the world. However, their consequences were already planned out.

Then of course the players doing a Thunderwave - at any time - can drastically change almost everything. Thunderwave is 'I cause a disturbance; The spell.'


We don't want the same scene/encounter with a different backdrop. We want different encounters.

I'm not sure you understand what Quantum Ogreing is (it's not a Teleporting Ogre), or what I've been talking about for the last several pages; But straight off the bat I'll tell you that I don't run the same encounters twice.


Again, if you don't want to do that, cool! Just be honest.

Is Santa Claus real?
If not, what role does Santa Claus play? Why is he important? Is he important? Why lie?
** Don't answer this. I know you probably know all the answers and so do I. The questions are only illustrative. The answers are real-world stuff. But it does serve my point. **

[Chauncymancer]

No, perhaps you do not know your operational definitions as well as you want us to believe. If I was refusing to play the game I would collect nothing and only stand there and look at you with a blank expression on my face.

In the scenario you created, you are telling me the objective of the game. That is a railroad as I did not create the objective, it is not player driven, and you have taken my agency. Why are you forcing an objective on me? Isn't the difference between a sandbox and a railroad the exact same thing? The railroad forces the results, while a sandbox allows players to determine the scope and objectives of a game? Forcing me to collect candy, when I want to collect rocks is a railroad.

Because the rest of us are operating on the unspoken assumption that I asked you, person to person, what you wanted to do in the game, and you said "Collect candy".

[OldTrees1]

Is Santa Claus real?
If not, what role does Santa Claus play? Why is he important? Is he important? Why lie?
** Don't answer this. I know you probably know all the answers and so do I. The questions are only illustrative. The answers are real-world stuff. But it does serve my point. **

Are there players that care about XYZ? Are there players that don't want to play games with XYZ? Are those players in the playgroup?

Are there GMs that don't care that the potential players don't want to play a game with XYZ? Are there GMs trying to excuse lying to the potential players as if it were some "Noble Lie"?

How hard is it to inform potential players about everything those specific potential players deem is relevant to determine whether they want to play?

**Don't answer those rhetorical questions. The questions are only illustrative.**

Why lie? Tricking a potential player into playing a game they would not want to play is a lie, but it is not noble. Such deceit belies a GM more concerned with having a campaign than with having the game be one that is played by players that would enjoy the game.

The answer? Be honest. Inform the potential players about the aspects of the game they care about. If you don't know what aspects they care about, then ask, although you can also assume they care about aspects that are common to care about. Don't decide that your non-telepathic fallible self knows better than the potential player about which games the potential player should be tricked into playing.


Sorry if making this generic makes it obviously common sense. Of course we are not arrogant enough to try to trick potential players into playing games they would not play if given an informed choice. That would be absurd. That is why honesty is valuable.

[Vahnavoi]

To put it bluntly; Players actions are always meaningful...After they take them. Because making decisions changes the story, changes the scenarios.

I was writing about games with imperfect information in general. I have no idea what you are writing about, because in the context of what I wrote, you are placing emphasis on an objectively wrong statement. In games with imperfect information, it isn't all that uncommon for there to be apparent choices that turn out to be false, and hence meaningless, after the fact. My point is about acknowledging that players will use after-the-fact information of whether their choices mattered to predict whether their future choices will matter.

The rest of your post largely fails to deal with that. You aren't thinking of how the path your players chose affects decisions they make next time they come to a branching path.

---


Because the rest of us are operating on the unspoken assumption that I asked you, person to person, what you wanted to do in the game, and you said "Collect candy".

That's entirely unnecessary. The simple game takes maybe 30 seconds to explain in its entirety and a potential player is just as capable of deciding whether to play after hearing the rules. The point I'm making to Easy E is that simply refusing to play after hearing the rules has jack squat to do with railroading.

[kyoryu]

I'm not sure you understand what Quantum Ogreing is (it's not a Teleporting Ogre), or what I've been talking about for the last several pages; But straight off the bat I'll tell you that I don't run the same encounters twice.

I don't know how you got that from anything I've said. If you're seeing that after what I've read, I don't know how to get on the same page for discussion.

[Easy e]

Because the rest of us are operating on the unspoken assumption that I asked you, person to person, what you wanted to do in the game, and you said "Collect candy".

At no point in the sequence that V set-up did he ask me to play a game. He just drew a circle on the ground and told me what to do. Perhaps V needed a session 0? :)

Perhaps this another example about the need for Session 0, but in my decades of playing RPGs, Session 0 was never any more advanced than, we are going to play an RPG, in this genre, with these characters. Go.

Once you agree to play an RPG, you are submitting to the idea that as a player, the GM will craft the world around you. Therefore, you have no real agency in that world except what the GM allows. Sure, a GM may allow you a great deal of agency; but that is the essence of illusion of choice. You believe you have agency because he let's you have it. Players believe the world reacts to their choices, and it does because the GM makes them believe that it does. That is the essence of the illusion of choice.

Does a choose your own adventure book give you agency? Does a branching path TV show? Does an RPG world?

The cake is a lie.


Once you realize that all RPGs are simply the illusion of choice as a GM, you can liberate yourself from the illusion of control as well. You can hand the reigns back to your players and engage in a truly cooperative experience. You do not need to control anything, and neither do they. There is no player agency or GM fiat, there is only playing the game and having fun.

[Vahnavoi]

@Easy E: As noted above, I don't need to specifically ask anyone if they want to play the simple game before explaining rules of the simple game - the rules take maybe 30 seconds to explain and a potential player can make up their mind after hearing them.

Similarly, most board games and simple roleplaying games don't take an entire session to explain to potential players. That's what's misleading about using "session zero" for game set-up. There are roleplaying games deliberately made so that reading all the rules, explaining them to participants and then agreeing on the themes and content of the game takes less than 15 minutes. Some games make agreeing on the theme (etc.) direct part of gameplay by having players compete or vote on the matter (etc.).

So what does this got to do with railroading? Nothing, because nobody is railroaded simply by having a set of game rules explained to them. Your rant on how all choices in roleplaying games are illusionary is, once again, a non-sequitur.

[kyoryu]

@Easy E: As noted above, I don't need to specifically ask anyone if they want to play the simple game before explaining rules of the simple game - the rules take maybe 30 seconds to explain and a potential player can make up their mind after hearing them.

Similarly, most board games and simple roleplaying games don't take an entire session to explain to potential players. That's what's misleading about using "session zero" for game set-up. There are roleplaying games deliberately made so that reading all the rules, explaining them to participants and then agreeing on the themes and content of the game takes less than 15 minutes. Some games make agreeing on the theme (etc.) direct part of gameplay by having players compete or vote on the matter (etc.).

So what does this got to do with railroading? Nothing, because nobody is railroaded simply by having a set of game rules explained to them. Your rant on how all choices in roleplaying games are illusionary is, once again, a non-sequitur.

Your point was to show a set of pre-defined elements, and to extrapolate how they could be viewed as similar to a dungeon, but without requiring linearity or railroading.

Shifting to "what if I didn't agree to that game, HUH?" is deflection, pure and simple.

[Easy e]

Your point was to show a set of pre-defined elements, and to extrapolate how they could be viewed as similar to a dungeon, but without requiring linearity or railroading.

Shifting to "what if I didn't agree to that game, HUH?" is deflection, pure and simple.

Okay, if you guys say so.

However, a big theme of this thread has been to make sure that everyone knows what type of game it is before you start playing. You know, transparency. That is how you avoid railroading. V did not do that in his example. Hence, it doesn't seem like deflection to me, but what do I know. <shrug>

So, we have established that railroads and the illusion of choice are bad because they take away player agency, and the only way to avoid that is transparency in the type of game you are playing.

[Vahnavoi]

What, pray tell me, is a greater level of transparency for a game than explaining all its rules?

[Cheesegear]

Nearly a Real Conversation I've Had
Player: How do I play?

DM: You can go anywhere you want. Do anything you want.

Player: Okay, if I go somewhere, who decides what I find?

DM: I do.

Player: Anything you want?

DM: Yes.

Player: That seems unfair. What about what I want?

DM: That's up to my discretion.

Player. :smallyuk: Okay. How do I do something?

DM: You roll a d20 and add the relevant modifier.

Player: How do I know if I succeed at something?

DM: I tell you.

Player: So you decide whether or not I succeed at something?

DM: Yes.

Player: How?

DM: I pick a number in my head and you have to beat it.

Player: How do I know what that number is?

DM: You don't.

Player: So from what I understand, you decide what I see? How do I know my choices matter?

DM: You don't.

Player: So if I have a +4 modifier, and roll a max. 20, for a total of 24...Can you set the number in your head to 25? More?

DM: Yes.

Player: ...This game seems unfair. Why do people play this?

DM: Cooperative storytelling with random outcomes is fun?

[elros]

Nearly a Real Conversation I've Had
Player: How do I play?

DM: You can go anywhere you want. Do anything you want.

Player: Okay, if I go somewhere, who decides what I find?

DM: I do.

Player: Anything you want?

DM: Yes.

Player: That seems unfair. What about what I want?

DM: That's up to my discretion.

Player. :smallyuk: Okay. How do I do something?

DM: You roll a d20 and add the relevant modifier.

Player: How do I know if I succeed at something?

DM: I tell you.

Player: So you decide whether or not I succeed at something?

DM: Yes.

Player: How?

DM: I pick a number in my head and you have to beat it.

Player: How do I know what that number is?

DM: You don't.

Player: So from what I understand, you decide what I see? How do I know my choices matter?

DM: You don't.

Player: So if I have a +4 modifier, and roll a max. 20, for a total of 24...Can you set the number in your head to 25? More?

DM: Yes.

Player: ...This game seems unfair. Why do people play this?

DM: Cooperative storytelling with random outcomes is fun?
There are games with no GM, where each player takes turns describing what they do and what happens. I saw them online on some forums, and they relied on each person contributing to the story. Those campaigns could actually last years.

There are also some RPGs that don’t have GMs, either, but I am not as familiar with them.

[Cheesegear]

There are games with no GM, where each player takes turns describing what they do and what happens.

The point is that games with GMs tend to be inherently unfair, and in D&D specifically, it's actually written in the rules, that it's unfair, and a lot of players simply are unwilling or unable to reconcile that. You have to trust that your DM wont simply just shaft you.

Therefore, players should expect the GM to lie cheat do whatever they want, in some capacity - DM screens implicitly enable the DM to cheat straight up. If you expect your DM to shaft you, then the real questions are:
a) How often are they doing it?
b) To what end?

That's why the outrage against Quantum Ogre ('Soft Railroading') baffles me:
'But you're lying!'
...So?

[MoiMagnus]

Nearly a Real Conversation I've Had

I know you're trying to make a point with that conversation, but the DM could have been a little more collaborative in his explanations.



Player: How do I play?

DM: You can go anywhere you want. Do anything you want.

Player: Okay, if I go somewhere, who decides what I find?

DM: I do.

Player: Anything you want?

DM: Yes.

...but my goal if for your to feel like this is reasonable for you to find what you find where you find it. Either through following some guidelines from those books, or by building a consistent universe, or a consistent narrative, or on relying on stereotypes, etc. You'll probably understand as we play together, but feel free to ask more questions along the way.



Player: That seems unfair. What about what I want?

DM: That's up to my discretion.

...but we can talk about it outside of the session. For practical reason, arguing with the DM during a session tends to ruin the fun of everyone, but we can have some mature discussion in between sessions.



Player. :smallyuk: Okay. How do I do something?

DM: You roll a d20 and add the relevant modifier.

Player: How do I know if I succeed at something?

DM: I tell you.

Player: So you decide whether or not I succeed at something?

DM: Yes.

Player: How?

DM: I pick a number in my head and you have to beat it.

Player: How do I know what that number is?

DM: You don't.

...But you can ask me how difficult the action seems to be. In general, you can ask me more information about the current situation in which your character is, that should help you to understand if I'll put a big number or a small ones. A lot of those numbers will remain the same along the session so you'll know them eventually.



Player: So from what I understand, you decide what I see? How do I know my choices matter?

DM: You don't.

...But the game is more interesting if you think they do. And I'll try my best to make them matter within my other constraints. Trust me, you'll not be a kid yelling at the TV for Dora to act, I'll actually listen to you and react.



Player: So if I have a +4 modifier, and roll a max. 20, for a total of 24...Can you set the number in your head to 25? More?

DM: Yes.

...But if you asked more about the situation beforehand I probably would have told you that the action seems impossible.



Player: ...This game seems unfair. Why do people play this?

DM: Cooperative storytelling with random outcomes is fun?
But it's not actually supposed to be a "game" in the sense of "you're here to win and it's supposed to be a fair competition like Chess". It's more alike playing with action figures when you were younger. We've added some math and more complex systems because some of us find them fun to play with to. Sure, it'll be less chaotic that whatever battles you had with your action figures because as grown-ups we learnt to like consistency and coherence, but the rules are still fuzzy and arbitrary. And like with action figures, if you think the kid you're playing with is ruining your fun, you should take your toys and go play with other peoples that better match your taste.

[Cheesegear]

I know you're trying to make a point with that conversation, but the DM could have been a little more collaborative in his explanations.

As I said, it's nearly a real conversation I've had before about a players' expectations of the game.

More or less;
Q. 'When does [a player] have power?'
A. Never, really.

Which has previously been brought up. When the player understands that the DM can effectively do whatever they want, and the players get no say, things can get pretty dicey (pun unintended) unless the player can accept that. It's up to the DM to not abuse the power that they have - which they can, and clearly have done at countless tables all over the world. Myself included. The difference is that when I do it, I try and go for the Sandbag approach; If I don't want a player to do something, there will usually be an in-narrative reason that makes sense for why they can't perform an action.

Is Railroading really that bad?
I feel like people have lost the train (again, pun unintended) of thought, and the only reason that this thread has gone on so long, is because people are forgetting the thesis question.

Of course railroading is okay...As long as your players are either a) Okay with it, or b) Don't find out.

If the players are okay with it? Thread over. Keep doing what you're doing.

A lot of players are okay with being on a railroad. But, the problem is that if they know they're on a railroad, they can look for the tracks and try to 'solve' the DM. If they don't know they're on a railroad, they're far, far, far less likely to try and solve the scenarios. Then of course there are players who are not okay with being on a railroad... But seriously DMing is a lot of work so let's just believe I haven't thought all of this through in advance and we can both be happy.

Now let's have a discussion about how a DM can hide the tracks. How can a DM hide the fact that they literally hold all of the cards, all of the time, facing themselves? Whilst still having an engaging, fun adventure?
- How do you make sure you create sandbags or hurdles, and not straight-up roadblocks?
- How do you Quantum Ogre? Can you make a variation Quantum Ogre, where the party encounters the same thing, but differently? This is very important to be able to do if you find you're leaving options open for your players to backtrack or they tend to scout a lot. You don't really want the choices to be 'Ogre or Nothing', because that's not hiding your tracks and that's overtly telling your players that their choice is Ogre or nothing.*
- How do you create engaging hostiles that your power-gaming party doesn't just one-round-KO it?
- How many sessions do - or should - you plan ahead?
- If the DM plans out five core player reactions (e.g; FROST), to any scenario, they can stay one step ahead of the players, the majority of the time. But the players will still feel like they have agency, even though the DM already planned for the five most likely things that they're going to do and already have their hand on the junction box controls ready to shift tracks.

*As I've previously said; Scouting and backtracking is a hard counter to the DM Quantum Ogre'ing you.



Player: So from what I understand, you decide what I see? How do I know my choices matter?

DM: You don't.

...But the game is more interesting if you think they do. And I'll try my best to make them matter within my other constraints.

...So we agree? Perfect.
The game is more interesting - and fun - if the players believe - rightly or wrongly - that their choices matter, and the DM's job, one way or another, to convince them of that. That's an argument in favour of the Quantum Ogre. Which is also the method of railroading that I'm most in favour of, because it's the version of railroading that most preserves the players' belief in their own agency. It's the version of the railroad that lets players believe - at least a little bit - that the DM doesn't hold all the cards, all the time, facing themselves.

I mentioned earlier that TTRPGs are not video games; The Dark Pictures anthology of video games tells you in the opening screen tells you that your choices totally matter. However, being a video game you can reply it, you can watch YouTube videos of other playthroughs, you can read Guides. It's obvious that in TDP video games, there are many, many, many instances where your choices absolutely don't matter.

D&D, isn't that. The players are going to think the Quantum Ogre they encountered was a result of them going left. They can't replay it. They can't reload. They can't read what other people did (at least, outside of a module): The party goes left, they encountered an Ogre. That's all there is to it. The party chose left, they chose to encounter the Ogre. The only way that the players ever - ever - find out that their choices didn't matter...Is if they read the DM's notes. Is it they get other information. What notes? What other information? There is no information except what's in the DM's head...Which the players simply are not privy to.


But it's not actually supposed to be a "game" in the sense of "you're here to win and it's supposed to be a fair competition like Chess".

It is a game. No, you can't 'win' or 'lose' in the strict definition. But there are definitely success and failure states.

A good success state is that the DM closes out the campaign, and everyone more or less finishes adventuring with a stack of magic items, a few thousand gold and some sort of defining Reputation and Renown that will set them up until that character dies of natural causes. The Lich is dead. Campaign over. We did it. Everybody claps. This is, more or less, the 'win' state of RPGs.

The vast majority of players - and even some DMs - will see a TPK near-universally - or even just a single character-death - as a failure state. A loss.

[OldTrees1]

Is Railroading really that bad?
I feel like people have lost the train (again, pun unintended) of thought, and the only reason that this thread has gone on so long, is because people are forgetting the thesis question.

Of course railroading is okay...As long as your players are either a) Okay with it, or b) Don't find out.

If the players are okay with it? Thread over. Keep doing what you're doing.

A) If the players are okay with it, then it is okay. Being honest lets you know when they are okay with it.
B) If the players are not okay with it, then it is not okay regardless of whether they find out.

"B" is the arrogant invalid excuse of a GM that does not care about whether the potential players are okay with a campaign before trying to trick them into playing a game they don't want to play.

[Satinavian]

Is Railroading really that bad?
I feel like people have lost the train (again, pun unintended) of thought, and the only reason that this thread has gone on so long, is because people are forgetting the thesis question.

Of course railroading is okay...As long as your players are either a) Okay with it, or b) Don't find out.

b) is what many people just don't agree with. That is why this thread is so long.

Aside from that i don't have much expectation about the abilities of GMs hiding railroading. Usually when one does seem to do so for a longer time, all his players actually know it and accept it and expect it and the only person the GM successfully fools is himself.



It is a game. No, you can't 'win' or 'lose' in the strict definition. But there are definitely success and failure states.

A good success state is that the DM closes out the campaign, and everyone more or less finishes adventuring with a stack of magic items, a few thousand gold and some sort of defining Reputation and Renown that will set them up until that character dies of natural causes. The Lich is dead. Campaign over. We did it. Everybody claps. This is, more or less, the 'win' state of RPGs.

The vast majority of players - and even some DMs - will see a TPK near-universally - or even just a single character-death - as a failure state. A loss.
One of the problems with railroading is that by moving all the power from the players to the GM, one also moves all the responsibility as well. There is no winning or losing. The GM just decides to have a TPK or a PC victory. The players don't have to try for victory anymore. Instead of trying to find a winning strategy, they better use their time roleplying their characters and have the story unfold.

[Cheesegear]

B) If the players are not okay with it, then it is not okay regardless of whether they find out.

Again, if the question you're really asking, is 'When is it okay to lie? Is it okay to lie at all?' We can't go down that road on this forum.

The most board-safe example that I don't have to explain, is Santa Claus.


trick them into playing a game they don't want to play.

If they're sitting at my table, they want to play.
If, after say, three months, they're still sitting at my table, they still want to play.

Either:
a) They're okay with the occasional Quantum Ogre and that I'm FROSTing every scenario, or
b) They didn't find out.

I haven't brought it up and neither have they; The system works.