Railroading vs linear gameplay vs something else

[clash]

I had a thought that had to do with my dm style which I'll call something else for right now. But first in going to throw out some definitions of linear gameplay and railroading.

Linear gameplay is only providing the players with one plot hook or story to move along.

Railroading on the other hand is forcing the players to take the single plot hook or storyline. Sometimes this is done deceptively such as giving them three options that they never know all result in the exact same set of encounters. Sometimes it's blatant where everything else they try to do is immediately shut down.

Now given those assumptions let's talk about my something else. Players are presented with options of what they could do which in theory leads down different campaign paths. However, very little of the campaign is written beyond the current encounter. So the content for the choices don't actually exist until they choose which means only the choice they choose actually exists at all.

Two questions to get a discussion started.
1. What do you call that style of dming.
2. Do you agree with it?

Go.

[Dualight]

DM-ing by the seat of your pants, is what I'd call it. (Strictly speaking, since even slow session usually include more than one encounter, the style you describe is outright to pure improv.)
As for my opinion on it: it is basically what I did when I DMed. I practically only prepared one session in advance, except those times the players were slower than I anticipated and had material left over from the previous session.

[Chaos Jackal]

I'd call it a form of sandbox. With a rather undefined world, sure, but still similar to a sandbox.

As to whether I agree with it... You're essentially doing improv and a lot of last minute developing, seeing as apparently you're making up the plotline as you go. If you're up for the strain of so many unprepared decisions and it doesn't translate to the game feeling rushed and full of plotholes or to the world beyond 100ft of the party feeling like a formless blob, sure. I know DMs who would absolutely crumble in a situation like this and produce a disjointed mess, so I definitely wouldn't be recommending it, but if you can pull it off, it certainly sounds like it would give the feeling of a sandbox without having to spend time on things the players might never get to.

[MoiMagnus]

I had a thought that had to do with my dm style which I'll call something else for right now. But first in going to throw out some definitions of linear gameplay and railroading.

Linear gameplay is only providing the players with one plot hook or story to move along.

Railroading on the other hand is forcing the players to take the single plot hook or storyline. Sometimes this is done deceptively such as giving them three options that they never know all result in the exact same set of encounters. Sometimes it's blatant where everything else they try to do is immediately shut down.

Now given those assumptions let's talk about my something else. Players are presented with options of what they could do which in theory leads down different campaign paths. However, very little of the campaign is written beyond the current encounter. So the content for the choices don't actually exist until they choose which means only the choice they choose actually exists at all.

Two questions to get a discussion started.
1. What do you call that style of dming.
2. Do you agree with it?

Go.

Just because you didn't prepare anything doesn't mean you "intuitive GMing style" isn't linear/railroading.

Even if in mind you think "well, the players have multiple options", but the way you present it the players only see one of those options as being reasonable / actually possible, then you essentially end up on a linear campaign. And if additionally whenever the players make choices that look "weird" to you, you have a knee jerk reaction, and use the hammer of powerful NPCs to put them back into a "better path", you end up with railroading. In both cases, it doesn't really matter if you yourself know where the campaign is going.

But on the contrary, if the players have many opportunities to do meaningful choices, and that you make sure when improvising that those choices have an influence on the campaign, then you're clearly in a open-ended campaign.

As for how much I agree with "full improvisation" style? It's great with a group of friends: in the end, the goal is to have fun together and making full preparation for a game is a lot of work that isn't always necessary, and if anyone think the campaign is not "prepared enough" they should just volunteer to be the next GM.

But if I'm going out of my way for this game, like it's not "just a game night with friends" but I'm at a convention and I potentially paid for the game, then I expect more than that. Additionally, there are some kinds of campaigns that will definitely drop in quality when improvised: It's difficult to have interesting tactical combats that are improvised, it's difficult to have a complex and consistent "conspiracy flowchart" that is improvised, etc.

[Batcathat]

As for how much I agree with "full improvisation" style? It's great with a group of friends: in the end, the goal is to have fun together and making full preparation for a game is a lot of work that isn't always necessary, and if anyone think the campaign is not "prepared enough" they should just volunteer to be the next GM.

Yeah, pretty much this for me too. When I first started GMing (as 11 or 12 years old with literally zero experience of roleplaying) everything was completely improvised, I didn't even have a map of the world and just drew it up as the players traveled. It worked pretty well, but while I'm still pretty improvisation heavy as a GM, I prefer to plan out at least some stuff in advance these days.

[clash]

DM-ing by the seat of your pants, is what I'd call it. (Strictly speaking, since even slow session usually include more than one encounter, the style you describe is outright to pure improv.)
As for my opinion on it: it is basically what I did when I DMed. I practically only prepared one session in advance, except those times the players were slower than I anticipated and had material left over from the previous session.

I wouldn't necessarily call it by the seat of my pants. They started with a world map and I know generally speaking what the bad guys story is assuming the players don't interfere. I also will prepare an entire dungeon at a time, but only after the've already made the choce to go there.


I'd call it a form of sandbox. With a rather undefined world, sure, but still similar to a sandbox.

As to whether I agree with it... You're essentially doing improv and a lot of last minute developing, seeing as apparently you're making up the plotline as you go. If you're up for the strain of so many unprepared decisions and it doesn't translate to the game feeling rushed and full of plotholes or to the world beyond 100ft of the party feeling like a formless blob, sure. I know DMs who would absolutely crumble in a situation like this and produce a disjointed mess, so I definitely wouldn't be recommending it, but if you can pull it off, it certainly sounds like it would give the feeling of a sandbox without having to spend time on things the players might never get to.

This is basically it. It definitely started very linear in terms of play at level 1. But they've reached level 21 and have a world map and an airship and can reach anywhere within the span of an in game day. It's just none of the locations on the map are defined unless they've already been or or have decided to go there.


Just because you didn't prepare anything doesn't mean you "intuitive GMing style" isn't linear/railroading.

Even if in mind you think "well, the players have multiple options", but the way you present it the players only see one of those options as being reasonable / actually possible, then you essentially end up on a linear campaign. And if additionally whenever the players make choices that look "weird" to you, you have a knee jerk reaction, and use the hammer of powerful NPCs to put them back into a "better path", you end up with railroading. In both cases, it doesn't really matter if you yourself know where the campaign is going.


Agreed, and as mentioned it definitely started out very linear, but I like to think not railroading. Anytime the players pursued a different path I would spend time before the next session planning out that option. Not improv so much as making it up just in time I think lol. For example one of the nobles decided to overthrow his uncle and take his seat as one of the 4 most powerful people in the country with an army at his back. It certainly altered the political landscape of the campaign and was not in my plan. At least not until he chose to do it, then my plan was created from that.


Yeah, pretty much this for me too. When I first started GMing (as 11 or 12 years old with literally zero experience of roleplaying) everything was completely improvised, I didn't even have a map of the world and just drew it up as the players traveled. It worked pretty well, but while I'm still pretty improvisation heavy as a GM, I prefer to plan out at least some stuff in advance these days.

Ya I'm the opposite to a degree. As I get more conformable with improv I prepare less, but I still prepare a dungeon or town in advance of them going there or if the timing doesnt work right improv the first half session in the location then plan out the rest.

[Rukelnikov]

I agree with Jackal, I'd consider that a sandbox.

[NichG]

I also use this style primarily.

I think the key distinction of this kind of style doesn't actually have to do with the linear/sandbox sort of space. I might call it 'responsive' or 'reactive' rather than 'anticipatory' GM-ing. A Nobilis HG (system-local term for DM) once described this to me as the bulk of gameplay being made of up dealing with the consequences of things that the players chose to do.

If the world reacts very strongly and directly to what the players do, you're going to end up with something that looks more linear after the fact - each thing tightly follows the thing before it even if the specific way that happens is up to the players. Like, the party happened to do something to piss off a major power in the setting and they aren't playing around with retaliation so now game is going to be about avoiding their reach or stopping them from going after you or becoming too powerful to stop until that is somehow resolved - the party might do almost anything to accomplish that, but it would be hard for the party to decide at that point 'okay, lets go start a business!' or 'lets have a romantic comedy arc!' or something like that. It's not a line laid out in front of you, but looking back after the campaign is done it could have been. It's not that you came to the table thinking 'I'm going to run a game about the party being fugitives', its just that the party rogue decided to steal a royal heirloom and the natural consequences of that mean dealing with that for the next ten sessions or whatever.

On the other hand, if the party doesn't do something that creates a big response, or if in general the world isn't as persistent at making consequences stick (the party are fugitives in the empire, sure, but the rest of the world doesn't tolerate empire extraditionary forces trying to capture people in their sovereign territory; or the party are fugitives, sure, but tracking them down isn't so easy and changing faces and names isn't that hard so it only matters if they actually reveal their identities) then it's going to look more sandboxy, where looking back at what happened over the course of the campaign you'll be able to see how sometimes the party drops one thing they were doing, does something else, goes back to the one thing, discards it entirely and focuses on a different goal, etc.

But those ends are kind of independent of whether you're a planner or an improviser I think.

[OldTrees1]

I would need some clarification: Do the player's choices matter?

While "little of the campaign is written beyond the current encounter", is there enough written?

Say the party knows there are ruins in the nearby forest and mountains. Is it the same ruin regardless of player choice? Or does the "little written about the campaign" mean the mountain ruin is distinct from the forest ruin because there was enough written to derive the ruin?

Put another way: If the GM had finished writing everything about the mountain ruin and forest ruin before the players made their choice to go to the mountain ruin, would it be the same mountain ruin as the mountain ruin the GM finished preparing after the players made their choice?

If "yes, there is enough written" then you are in an efficient prep sandbox.

[clash]

I would need some clarification: Do the player's choices matter?

While "little of the campaign is written beyond the current encounter", is there enough written?

Say the party knows there are ruins in the nearby forest and mountains. Is it the same ruin regardless of player choice? Or does the "little written about the campaign" mean the mountain ruin is distinct from the forest ruin because there was enough written to derive the ruin?

Put another way: If the GM had finished writing everything about the mountain ruin and forest ruin before the players made their choice to go to the mountain ruin, would it be the same mountain ruin as the mountain ruin the GM finished preparing after the players made their choice?

If "yes, there is enough written" then you are in an efficient prep sandbox.

I would say yes the players choices matter. They not only can choose the plot to some degree, their choices also generate the world to some degree.

Using your example I would say that if both ruins had been written in advance then the mountain ruin would be different than the forest ruin. Additionally the mountain ruin that is created after they choose to go to it would be different than what is created for the forest ruin after they go to it. However, the mountain ruin created after they choose to go to it is also different from the mountain ruin would have been if it was created far in advance. The one that is created "just in time" is tailored to the current story, characters, goals etc. Which is very different than having one say from a campaign module.

[Psyren]

1. What do you call that style of dming.

Sandbox / Procedural Generation.


2. Do you agree with it?

I mean, what matters is whether your players agree with it (and the openness of that style isn't burning you out), not what some stranger on the internet thinks. Having said that, it's not for me. I (and my players) prefer set modules with a critical plot path. There can be multiple routes to experience that plot, but there is still a set sequence of events or locations that have to be experienced in a general order.

Using Baldur's Gate 3 as an example - no matter what you do or don't do in the 1st Act or which route(s) you take, you will eventually end up at Moonrise Towers in the 2nd Act, because that's the critical path. NPCs you talk to (e.g. Halsin, Raphael, Minthara, Jaheira etc.) will even blatantly tell you in character that they expect you'll end up there eventually, based on all of their own eyewitness accounts, research and directives.

Now, whether the party ends up there as vengeful conquerors, willing toadies, or sly double-agents is entirely up to you - but actually avoiding it is not an option. 27 million gamers were okay with that, and it's still widely considered one of the best D&D campaigns ever made, so I'm okay with their approach.

[Atranen]

Procedural DMing is a good name for it, and it's similar to what I do. The key imo is to have lots of random tables to help the path along. As long as you have major factions, their relationshis, goals, and a few NPCs...and then random encounters that tie to those factions...I find you can run with pretty minimal preparation. It results in a sandboxy game. I like it in particular because I, as the DM, get to find out the story during play. I like it as a player because my choices feel much more impactful. If I want a linear story, videogames are better for that.

[Slipjig]

Well, okay, I'd definitely call it a sandbox, in the sense that you don't have every session planned out before the campaign starts like an adventure path.

"I throw out some hooks, and the players tell me what they want to do next session (which may or may not involve those hooks), and I build next week's adventure around that" just sounds like a normal D&D campaign to me, especially if you throw in a, "and here's what happens if the players don't get involved in [given plot arc]".

[OldTrees1]

I would say yes the players choices matter. They not only can choose the plot to some degree, their choices also generate the world to some degree.

Using your example I would say that if both ruins had been written in advance then the mountain ruin would be different than the forest ruin. Additionally the mountain ruin that is created after they choose to go to it would be different than what is created for the forest ruin after they go to it. However, the mountain ruin created after they choose to go to it is also different from the mountain ruin would have been if it was created far in advance. The one that is created "just in time" is tailored to the current story, characters, goals etc. Which is very different than having one say from a campaign module.

2. Do I agree with it?
Yes. It is still ambiguous about whether it would be a sandbox or a linear branching game, but it would be reasonable in either case.

If it were a sandbox, I would ask for a bit more player buy-in the more the "just in time" ruins differed from the "what would it have been if it was fleshed out before the player chose to go there" ruins. However there are players that would prefer the just in time tailoring to the current story, characters, goals etc.

Personally I prefer to run my sandbox campaigns with high party mobility and agency, and that necessitates efficient preparation. However I also prefer the verisimilitude that comes from the world existing prior to the player choices, even if not written prior to the player choices. So, depending on player choices, I either use my prep, or I use "just in time" to create what I would have prepared if I had prepared it beforehand. However what you describe is also a reasonable way to run a sandbox.

1. What do you call that style of dming?
I would call it 3 things:
1) Efficient sandbox preparation. You are avoiding excessive depth based prep on areas the Players have not chosen to go to.
2) Hmm. Tailored world? I don't have a good term for this but it is similar to combat as sport. You are having the world update (via delayed prep) to remain tailored to the party's story, character, and goals.
3) However at this DMing style is flexible enough to run a sandbox or a linear branching game. Who asked the players about forest vs mountain? If it was the players that created the question, then it is a sandbox. (NichG gives some good examples above) If it is the GM that created the question, then it is probably linear branching. If it was a group effort, then somewhere in the middle.

[Skrum]

Life is funny sometimes; the group I'm with right now is set up pretty close this "something else" style, and I find myself more and more dissatisfied with it.

Some context -
The group is large, and roughly half of the group will DM regularly. Everyone in the group has multiple characters, with players switching roles or characters game to game. The basic structure of how games are written is -

1) Players post their character info; things like what their character is up to, where they'd like to see their character's arc go (narratively speaking), or what they'd like to accomplish (personal goals)
2) A DM writes a game that both has plot points the DM want to do while also incorporating a character's arc/goals. Ideally, several characters are progressed at the same time in the same game. It looks something like "I'm running X, and I'd like character A, B, C, and D there."
3) DM and relevant players discuss as needed, and set a date

My issue: I feel like spontaneity is being removed from the game. A player says "my character has this going on with them now, but I'd like to see them confront this person, and perhaps come to some conclusion." A DM will pick that up, incorporate it into whatever story they're trying to tell, and make it happen. The result IMO is the game is being written like a novel - it's no longer a game where we don't know what's going to happen next. There's a huge level of player input, but it's almost entirely on the narrative level. It's not in the form of "I want to travel 45 miles east and see what's there." While the group is full of excellent RP'ers and the individual scenes are great, the game lacks moment to moment choice or any real sense of random outcomes. There's a hollowness to it.

[Hairfish]

If you enjoy improv DMing, I'd encourage you to check out systems that are designed to encourage it. D&D is not, much as I enjoy it. I've had such good times DMing Dungeon World, that while I'm happy to play D&D, I won't run it anymore

[clash]

Life is funny sometimes; the group I'm with right now is set up pretty close this "something else" style, and I find myself more and more dissatisfied with it.


I wouldn't say I go anywhere near that far. I definitely enjoy surprising my players too much.


If you enjoy improv DMing, I'd encourage you to check out systems that are designed to encourage it. D&D is not, much as I enjoy it. I've had such good times DMing Dungeon World, that while I'm happy to play D&D, I won't run it anymore

Tbh I don't actually play dungeons and dragons with my group just something close enough (vanguards and villains) that the point merits the same discussion. Do you have a link to dungeon world though? I wouldn't mind checking it out?

[Rukelnikov]

I wouldn't say I go anywhere near that far. I definitely enjoy surprising my players too much.



Tbh I don't actually play dungeons and dragons with my group just sometimes close enough (vanguards and villains) that the point merits the same discussion. Do you have a link to dungeon world though? I wouldn't mind checking it out?

If you like improv style and don't mind player getting some agency in the plot, give Tenra Bansho Zero a try.

[Hairfish]

Tbh I don't actually play dungeons and dragons with my group just sometimes close enough (vanguards and villains) that the point merits the same discussion. Do you have a link to dungeon world though? I wouldn't mind checking it out?

https://dungeon-world.com/

[Derges]

I had a thought that had to do with my dm style which I'll call something else for right now. But first in going to throw out some definitions of linear gameplay and railroading.

Linear gameplay is only providing the players with one plot hook or story to move along.

Railroading on the other hand is forcing the players to take the single plot hook or storyline. Sometimes this is done deceptively such as giving them three options that they never know all result in the exact same set of encounters. Sometimes it's blatant where everything else they try to do is immediately shut down.

Now given those assumptions let's talk about my something else. Players are presented with options of what they could do which in theory leads down different campaign paths. However, very little of the campaign is written beyond the current encounter. So the content for the choices don't actually exist until they choose which means only the choice they choose actually exists at all.

Two questions to get a discussion started.
1. What do you call that style of dming.
2. Do you agree with it?

Go.

1. Sandbox.
2. Yes, Depending on what you mean when you say very little is written. Areas can be mapped, plotlines defined, and triggers established well in advance but usually pinning down the specifics of a session isn't done until an arc or session gets close.

[Pex]

As a player I prefer a linear campaign. I feel a sense of progress and accomplishment. I can play a sandbox campaign, but with each plot point finished it won't matter anymore. What I did before has no effect on what I will do later. A linear campaign gives me continuity.

As a DM I run a linear campaign since I don't have the time or inclination to create numerous plot hooks plus add on whatever things the players want to do I might not even enjoy running.

Avoiding the railroad is whatever the linear plot hook is, the players decide how to deal with it. It is always their choice. I've run Dragon Heist twice. The first group made friends with their Trollskull neighbors and fought against all the factions. The second group ignored their neighbors and allied with the Zhentarim, my world's version of it. The first group doing Mad Mage went south on the first dungeon level. The second group just started it and went north, so already the consequences of what happens on the first dungeon level will be different.

[Keravath]

I'd agree with the other folks ... your "Something else" is a Sandbox or a "Game World" if you like since even a Sandbox has boundaries and a game world can be limitless.

However, in terms of the players interacting with the events of the game world and then choosing what they want to do based on those events, including choosing to not get involved with those events and instead go take a look at whatever might be over the next hill ... that is a Sandbox.

Whether the DM has already prepared content for "over the next hill" or whether they make it up on the spot in response to player decisions is irrelevant to the style of game since they are identical from the player perspective. How the DM creates the content is a DM style question.

How the DM allows the players to interact with the stories in the game world - that is the style of game.

Railroading and linear gameplay are extremely similar. They have more to do with HOW the DM makes the players engage with the content, rather than the actual content or game structure. In one case, the DM makes the choices for the players since there is only one way for the plot to move, in the other the DM is gentler and allows the players to decide to go in the direction they want them to but since the DM hasn't provided any other options, the players typically don't have much choice. Both cases have a singular plot line, the difference has more to do with DM attitude and how they get the players to follow that plot line than the structure of the game itself.

[RazorChain]

For me Railroading and is just an extension of the Linear Plot, the difference is you are being forced instead of doing it by consent.

Most of the time when people play an adventure path or a module the consent is from the beginning that the GM has this module and the group is going to play through it. So if the groups agrees on playing Waterdeep: Dragonheist and the group just decides to steal a ship and become pirates then the group is breaking that agreement.

Adventure modules are at best like pick a path books where you might be presented with option A, B or C....sometimes there is only option A to continue. The GM or the module might present some sidequests or sidecontent to appear not too linear.

I think the biggest problem here is that there is only supposed to be
A) Linear Plot
B) Raildroading
C) Something else

That "Something else" encompasses such a huge variety of gamestyles. I mean troupe style like was introduced in Ars Magica that evolved into the more collaborative Storytelling style of White Wolf. The episodic style of Theatrix where players can alter the plot or introduce a plot with plot points to the whole indy movement that often tackles GMing totally different than oldschool GMing.

Sadly DnD focuses and teaches most GM's only the Linear Plot....or to some degree sandbox, though it could be called a Linear Sandbox where you are supposed to follow the main plot but there is some side content in the box that the players can engage with.

Then it begs the question, does DnD teach new DM's to make their own dungeons and make their own adventures? I may be old, jaded and cynical but if I was a corporate overlord it would be in my best interest to have my customers reliant on my products.

Does DnD teach new DM's the difference of a raid, heist and dungeoncrawl? How to draw and key dungeons? The difference between Hexcrawl, Streetcrawl, Dungeoncrawl and Pointcrawl? What jaquaying a dungeon is?

[Sigreid]

I tend to do more of a middle ground sandbox. Meaning I ask the players to keep me informed of what their characters goals are and kind of rough out what I think they various things that they could do are and what kinds of reactions might happen. So I have a rough idea how things might work out, but stay ready to change if they take an unexpected action.

That or if I don't have the time or inclination to think that trough, they just go down into undermountain. :smallbiggrin:

[Sorinth]

Then it begs the question, does DnD teach new DM's to make their own dungeons and make their own adventures? I may be old, jaded and cynical but if I was a corporate overlord it would be in my best interest to have my customers reliant on my products.

Does DnD teach new DM's the difference of a raid, heist and dungeoncrawl? How to draw and key dungeons? The difference between Hexcrawl, Streetcrawl, Dungeoncrawl and Pointcrawl? What jaquaying a dungeon is?

Well they do have a revenue stream coming from stuff like DMs Guild where they can profit off customers creating their own content. And then of course even someone creating their own adventures are still buying splat books so keeping them in the system even without them buying pre-made adventures is still important revenue wise. So I don't think there's some nefarious purpose behind lots of adventure style stuff not being in the DMG, I think it's much more a case of only so much content that can be put in the DMG while maintaining it's purpose as a "core" book. And it's not like a cursory overview of the that stuff would actually be super worthwhile, it would need to go more in depth to be of actual use.

What D&D could really use is some sort of D&D Academy where they can go more in depth into various styles, methods, tips & tricks, etc... to teach the more "advanced" stuff. A video format on youtube for example would probably both work well and provide some monetization.

[Laserlight]

Just because you didn't prepare anything doesn't mean you "intuitive GMing style" isn't linear/railroading.

Even if in mind you think "well, the players have multiple options", but the way you present it the players only see one of those options as being reasonable / actually possible, then you essentially end up on a linear campaign. And if additionally whenever the players make choices that look "weird" to you, you have a knee jerk reaction, and use the hammer of powerful NPCs to put them back into a "better path", you end up with railroading. In both cases, it doesn't really matter if you yourself know where the campaign is going.

But on the contrary, if the players have many opportunities to do meaningful choices, and that you make sure when improvising that those choices have an influence on the campaign, then you're clearly in a open-ended campaign.

As for how much I agree with "full improvisation" style? It's great with a group of friends: in the end, the goal is to have fun together and making full preparation for a game is a lot of work that isn't always necessary, and if anyone think the campaign is not "prepared enough" they should just volunteer to be the next GM.

But if I'm going out of my way for this game, like it's not "just a game night with friends" but I'm at a convention and I potentially paid for the game, then I expect more than that. Additionally, there are some kinds of campaigns that will definitely drop in quality when improvised: It's difficult to have interesting tactical combats that are improvised, it's difficult to have a complex and consistent "conspiracy flowchart" that is improvised, etc.

I concur, except I'd say "it's *adequate* with a group of friends", not "great".

[Psyren]

I stumbled across and shamelessly stole tentatively borrowed this graphic from the Beyond forums:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1203958917411905566/3HynBO3.png

I think this image has flaws, but to the extent that I agree with it I'd put my tables more in the episodic and dungeon crawler boxes (the former more than the latter.)