Venting about Metagaming and Railroading

[Galithar]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Kaptin Keen]

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

[Galithar]

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

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

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


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

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

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

[CombatBunny]

Your venting has been heard.

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

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

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

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

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

[Droid Tony]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

[King of Nowhere]

Frankly, if you had dealt more damage, the BBEG would have had more HP.

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

[EggKookoo]

Beginners try to make unkillable BBEGs by boosting HP or fudging die rolls.

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

[Galithar]

Well with the forums being down this is well in the past. Multiple sessions have happened, including the resolution of the campaign. Strahd is dead, as is the werewolf that was allowed to escape when he should have died.

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

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

[icefractal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, YMMV, and since these tropes are commonly seen in media obviously a number of people do enjoy them.

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

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

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

[Pleh]

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

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

[Friv]

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

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

How do you think a stage magician works?

[MoiMagnus]

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

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

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

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

[Pleh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

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

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

[Friv]

How do you think a stage magician works?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

It has nothing to do with trust.

[Pleh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Drascin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MrSandman]

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

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

But to each their own, I guess.

[prabe]

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

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

[prabe]

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

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

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

[Pleh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

I have that as a DM guideline? I mean, it's a good guideline, but I'm not sure I ever said it. :P

[prabe]

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

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

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

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

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

[HeraldOfExius]

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

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