New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 134
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    IOW, the difference between participationism and illusionism is the difference between polyamory and infidelity.
    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Usually it's more done in advance.

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

    If you don't have an agreement that it's okay to go out and fool around, it's still infidelity, even if you're forgiven after the fact.
    Gotta say, this is probably the best and clearest explanation of the topic. Kudos!

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    I've also coined the term "soft railroading" for incidents when the players do not see the "rails".

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

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

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

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

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

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    I've also coined the term "soft railroading" for incidents when the players do not see the "rails".

    As long as they are genuinely unaware, they do not feel that their agency has been impinged.
    Be very careful with this. Hidden Participationism? People can like that. Hidden Illusionism? Don't backstab people like that. Just because it is possible to make someone unaware of a trespass, does not mean it was not a trespass. Get player buy in and then disguise the act like a stage magician. Don't act like a con man.

    Players prefer different degrees of agency along the spectrum from total to zero. And soft railroading can make participationism more immersive.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-09-28 at 07:13 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    I've also coined the term "soft railroading" for incidents when the players do not see the "rails".

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    Be very careful with this. Hidden Participationism? People can like that.
    This feels confused to me. How can you have participationism if the participant is unaware of it?

    Soft railroading, to me, is like wrapping a present for a friend. Sure, there is participation in the activity of a gift exchange, but it's somewhat implied you are hiding something from them. This kind of disallows them from specifically approving the gift, unless you never wrap it and just take them shopping.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

    Everyone has their own jam.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    This feels confused to me. How can you have participationism if the participant is unaware of it?
    When I go see a stage magician I am volunteering for certain kinds of sleight of hand but I probably won't notice when it happens. Even if it is Penn and Teller, and they tell me exactly what they are going to do, they are still good enough that sometimes I don't notice it.

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

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


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


    Player Buy In
    Participationism
    Player Deceived
    Illusionism
    Player noticed Ok Bad
    Player did not notice
    Soft Railroading
    Ok Bad
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-09-29 at 02:02 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    So RedMage125 was defining "Soft Railroading = Railroading when Players don't notice" and I said, yes but that can be Participationism (consent granted) or Illusionism (no consent).

    ...
    It's almost like consent is the main argument against illusionism. Probably because it is.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    A little too hard-line on the "consent" angle.

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

    There are lots of ways to game. And you should be careful before declaring one of them "badwrongfun".
    Last edited by Democratus; 2020-09-29 at 03:38 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    A little too hard-line on the "consent" angle.

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

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

    Just tell people what you're doing so they can decide to join your game or not.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

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

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

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

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
    Question on what people would consider to be railroading. There was an example given that people would need to cross the swamp, fight an ogre, and scale a cliff, although how they did it wouldn't matter. Some took that as railroading, some as trolley tracks.
    Well yes, a Square is both a Rectangle and a Kite. Although for this case it would be a bit more apt to say a Square is both a Quadrilateral and a Parallelogram.

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

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

    Is that illusionism, railroading, trolley tracks, or what? Am I the only DM who would not even consider this to be a bad thing, even if the players later found out that I set up an encounter in advance and then moved it to where they would encounter it?
    Total Sandbox vs Road system vs Trolley Tracks vs Total Railroad:
    1) Okay they can avoid the swamp. So you are not railroading them into encountering the swamp.
    2) You are going to plop the ogre encounter. So you are railroading them into the ogre encounter.
    So that is some amount of railroading. However since you are letting them avoid the swamp, this is on the less railroading/more sandboxing side of Trolley Tracks. Probably still best described by that term but it has a continuum inside.

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


    There are players that are okay with the DMs using this kind of quantum ogre. You basically rolled for random encounters and stored the result until the next time they traveled. As a player I usually dislike / hate quantum ogres but this is palatable. However if your players would not mind it, then it is not a bad thing. The only value judgement comes in if the players would have minded X and the GM decides to do X anyways.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-09-29 at 04:27 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

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

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

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

    I specifically went with the ogre because it was brought up earlier and it was close to something I just had. I had a dire wolf encounter in a cave they would be passing by. They saw the tracks, and decided to just bug out. Later, they were trying to convince a Lord of the Manor to sell them a painting, which was his fathers so not his to sell. I spur of the moment decided to make an encounter, where the Lord was trying to find out what had been attacking his people, and would be willing to put in a word for them with his father if they helped him solve the problem. They decided to help, and pretty quickly started to talk about the cave they passed on with the wolf tracks and headed there. I added in a couple of werewolves to lead the dire wolves so that it would fit the power level with the lord and his retainers along, and used the cave that I had previously set up. I did not consider this railroading, but was wondering if others would consider reusing something to be so, as a player could take it as me just really wanting them to use that cave. And yet, in the end, they never even went in the cave as they instead set up a fire at the entrance, surrounded by bear traps, and smoked them out into a killing field.
    Last edited by Darth Credence; 2020-09-29 at 04:43 PM. Reason: saw the answer to part of this after posting

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

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

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

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

    Also, random encounters shouldn't necessarily mean "roll initiative" and they pretty definitely shouldn't mean "kill or die". It means you encounter them. That can mean seeing evidence of them, seeing them from a distance, etc. And think of the world.... the ogre or whomever doesn't just materialize in front of them, right? Where do they see them? How? Who sees who first? Do they engage, and if so, in what way? Can they run? They should be able to!
    Last edited by kyoryu; 2020-09-29 at 04:46 PM.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
    I'm would drop in the ogre encounter because they want to have encounters, and it can fit anywhere. I wouldn't drop in the ogre's swamp if they avoided the swamp, but if they go somewhere by a cave and I've already determined that an ogre is the appropriate challenge rating for the party, then I'd use it. What would it take to not be railroading? Would a table of encounters that I have made that are the right challenge level, then randomly selecting one when they get to a good place for an encounter fit the bill? As a note, I used a random encounter table recently without making sure it balanced the party, and nearly killed a couple of them. EDIT: I believe you answered this in your last paragraph.
    Yes a random encounter table would not be railroading. However which do your players prefer? They might prefer the balance of your carefully selected random encounters over the minute loss of agency compared to an environment based random encounter table. Based upon context and other threads, I suspect, but don't known, that your players prefer your selected encounters over using a random encounter table.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
    As to what my players expect, we had a session 0 where we discussed everything, and how open we wanted it to be. I gave them the option of an intrigue based campaign that would have a lot of interlocking parts they could go through in any order, a traditional good vs evil that has a definite end game and story beats, but flexibility in how they get to and past those story beats, and a sandbox game where we all play it like a jam session and see what happens. They unanimously wanted the good vs evil campaign where I get them to specific story beats. While I never specifically discussed something like quantum ogre, I would take that session to have meant they would be fine with it as long as they have flexibility in the way they deal with any challenges.
    Communication is key and you know your players' preferences better than I do. You might want to ask them about how you do these travel encounters, however I suspect you have a rough idea already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
    I specifically went with the ogre because it was brought up earlier and it was close to something I just had. I had a dire wolf encounter in a cave they would be passing by. They saw the tracks, and decided to just bug out. Later, they were trying to convince a Lord of the Manor to sell them a painting, which was his fathers so not his to sell. I spur of the moment decided to make an encounter, where the Lord was trying to find out what had been attacking his people, and would be willing to put in a word for them with his father if they helped him solve the problem. They decided to help, and pretty quickly started to talk about the cave they passed on with the wolf tracks and headed there. I added in a couple of werewolves to lead the dire wolves so that it would fit the power level with the lord and his retainers along, and used the cave that I had previously set up. I did not consider this railroading, but was wondering if others would consider reusing something to be so, as a player could take it as me just really wanting them to use that cave. And yet, in the end, they never even went in the cave as they instead set up a fire at the entrance, surrounded by bear traps, and smoked them out into a killing field.
    That does not sound like railroading. You placed a direwolf den in the world and the PCs only encountered the den because the players choose to go there. You did decide the direwolf den, located near a Manor, would indicate the nearby people had been attacked before by the wolves, but that is not railroading. That is deriving information about your world from the facts you had established.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-09-29 at 05:28 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    Soft railroading, to me, is like wrapping a present for a friend. Sure, there is participation in the activity of a gift exchange, but it's somewhat implied you are hiding something from them. This kind of disallows them from specifically approving the gift, unless you never wrap it and just take them shopping.
    I quite like this as a metaphor, In a similar way, most games require the players to discover things the GM already knows*. And the process is expected to be fun
    But
    There needs to be a degree of trust. The GM needs to trust that the gift will be opened and the effort appreciated even if it's not actually as well chosen a gift as they hope. Otherwise they aren't going to the effort next time.
    The player needs to trust that the gift will not be harmful and that the GM is not going to make them use the thing in a particular way. It's ok for the GM to suggest the player put the vase on the mantlepiece. It's not OK for the GM to yell at the player for putting it on the table instead.

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


    * Where a GM can be considered to "know" things they haven't actually made up yet but can, and will if they have to
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  15. - Top - End - #45
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

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

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

    Is that illusionism, railroading, trolley tracks, or what? Am I the only DM who would not even consider this to be a bad thing, even if the players later found out that I set up an encounter in advance and then moved it to where they would encounter it?
    It's a type of railroad that has been called All Roads Lead To Rome. It has also been published advice to DMs in D&D past. It's mileage varies territory whether one thinks it good or bad. If the players never knew there would have been an ogre encounter it's ok with me. Location didn't matter. The encounter is for fun and/or the party is meant to learn important information from it. For some players this still would be distasteful. It is a direct railroad problem if the party knew there was an ogre in the swamp and purposely avoided the swamp so as not to encounter the ogre. The DM is forcing the encounter against their wishes.

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

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Usually it's more done in advance.

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

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

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

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

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

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
    I wouldn't drop in the ogre's swamp if they avoided the swamp, but if they go somewhere by a cave and I've already determined that an ogre is the appropriate challenge rating for the party, then I'd use it. What would it take to not be railroading?
    I'd say it depends on how you presented the choice to go through the swamp or not.

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

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

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Game however you want.

    Just tell people what you're doing so they can decide to join your game or not.
    Absolutely not. That would be like telling someone that I'm having a surprise party for them. Completely spoils the point.

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

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

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

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    EU
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    Absolutely not. That would be like telling someone that I'm having a surprise party for them. Completely spoils the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Well that's a very different thing then. You're just agreeing to take choices off the menu, instead of presenting apparently meaningful choices that aren't actually choices. IMO they're completely unrelated. Willing constraints don't remove player agency.
    Yes, precisely.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    Absolutely not. That would be like telling someone that I'm having a surprise party for them. Completely spoils the point.

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

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

    Forty years in and I haven't had any complaints yet.
    If your players know that you're doing this, overall? Then they're on board with it and you're doing exactly what I'd suggest.

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

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

    In other words, while in general surprise parties are ok, if you had a friend that you know absolutely hates surprise parties, it wouldn't be very nice to throw her one.
    Exactly. Especially since most people like surprise parties, making it a somewhat poor analogy. It's more like.... feeding someone real hamburgers when you know they're a vegetarian, and claiming that they're some kind of plant-based protein. Maybe the vegetarian would choose to come to your cookout anyway, and just eat sides or hangout. Maybe they would skip. Maybe they'd even have one and deal with it. But that should be thier choice, not yours. Claiming that they're really actually plant based protein when they're actually meat is a jerk move, even if they enjoy it.
    Last edited by kyoryu; 2020-09-30 at 08:54 AM.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

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

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    EU
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    It's illusionism. And unfortunately you're not the only DM who doesn't think it is a bad thing. Some are hard core advocates for it. Players who value agency, the ability to make meaningful choices, suffer because it's all too common.
    On the other hand, illusionism is sometimes necessary to keep the game going forward. I, as a GM, have limited time and resources to create a game, so if I have a perfectly serviceable encounter at the ready and the players happen to decide to visit an area that's underprepared, I can use that planned encounter to provide them with some content.

    MoiMagnus spelled it out pretty well upthread:

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

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

    However, if the choice swamp vs cave had nothing to do with avoiding some specific kind of enemies, that's fair to put the ogre in both situations.
    Respecting player agency necessitates understanding what choices they're making and why. It's bad form to put the ogre in the cave if the players went into the cave to avoid the swamp ogre, because then I'd be negating player agency by fundamentally making their choices irrelevant.

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

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Silly Name View Post
    On the other hand, illusionism is sometimes necessary to keep the game going forward.
    No, it's not.

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

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

    MoiMagnus spelled it out pretty well upthread:

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

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

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

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

    The problem is when:

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

    So, if the GM has decided that:

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

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

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

    I mean, otherwise at the extreme case you can say that random encounter tables are illusionism, which seems silly.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    A little too hard-line on the "consent" angle.

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

    There are lots of ways to game. And you should be careful before declaring one of them "badwrongfun".
    Kantian ethics includes the notion that that is ethical to which adults have, in principal, given consent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That is to say,
    Quote Originally Posted by MoiMagnus View Post
    I'd say it depends on how you presented the choice to go through the swamp or not.

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

    However, if the choice swamp vs cave had nothing to do with avoiding some specific kind of enemies, that's fair to put the ogre in both situations.
    If the stated action logically should have the desired consequences, yes, negating their efforts is Railroading.

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

    And I consider all forms of Railroading to be bad.

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

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Silly Name View Post
    On the other hand, illusionism is sometimes necessary to keep the game going forward.
    Citation needed. Unless we're defining our terms differently, I believe I've seen (and run!) plenty of games which disprove that statement.

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

    If the decision to go through the cave was due to the fact that the players wanted to avoid environmental hazards (bad terrain, quicksand, bugs and sickness, etc), then meeting an ogre in the cave doesn't really do anything to undercut that decision.
    I disagree. If the players take an airship, for the express purpose of moving faster / avoiding terrain hazards / whatever, even without considering avoiding monsters in general let alone ogres in particular, and you force them to have the ogre encounter, it's still an abridgment of their agency to undercut the logical consequences of their actions.

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

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

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

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

    If the decision to go through the cave was due to the fact that the players wanted to avoid environmental hazards (bad terrain, quicksand, bugs and sickness, etc), then meeting an ogre in the cave doesn't really do anything to undercut that decision.
    That's one of the things that random encounters can do - they can list out the dangers that the players might encounter, putting the onus of risk management on the players.

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

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

    That all requires the use of prepared encounters, and some of the encounters might be possible for both FF and MM. But it's in no way illusionism by any definition I can think of.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    EU
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Citation needed. Unless we're defining our terms differently, I believe I've seen (and run!) plenty of games which disprove that statement.
    I think I may be misunderstanding how others have used "illusionism" in regard to discrete scenarios, so let's just say that statement of mine is probably wrong.


    I disagree. If the players take an airship, for the express purpose of moving faster / avoiding terrain hazards / whatever, even without considering avoiding monsters in general let alone ogres in particular, and you force them to have the ogre encounter, it's still an abridgment of their agency to undercut the logical consequences of their actions.
    I should have probably put more emphasis on this, but what I meant by "perfectly serviceable encounter" is that the encounter also makes sense in the context. Of course I agree ogres raining from the sky is ridicolous, and the players taking an airship require a different approach rather than the players going through a cave.

    Ogre in a cave, otoh, is fine in my book. Even if, in ignorance, the PCs chose the cave thinking it would reduce the odds of encountering Ogres. The PCs are allowed to be wrong; the PCs are allowed to fail. Their choices can be dumb, or otherwise not have their intended effects.
    Agreed, although I'm also of the opinion that a scenario in which the PCs "fail" because the GM has decided they fail a priori is still not ideal. I'd rather the failure come about because of faulty logic, choices that, in retrospect, were poorly made, and lack of research. I.E., if they had stopped to ask more questions or look up information on ogres, they may have been able to find out that ogres live in caves too.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Silly Name View Post
    Of course I agree ogres raining from the sky is ridicolous, and the players taking an airship require a different approach rather than the players going through a cave.

    Agreed, although I'm also of the opinion that a scenario in which the PCs "fail" because the GM has decided they fail a priori is still not ideal. I'd rather the failure come about because of faulty logic, choices that, in retrospect, were poorly made, and lack of research. I.E., if they had stopped to ask more questions or look up information on ogres, they may have been able to find out that ogres live in caves too.
    I have no disagreement with any of this.

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

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    It's illusionism. And unfortunately you're not the only DM who doesn't think it is a bad thing. Some are hard core advocates for it. Players who value agency, the ability to make meaningful choices, suffer because it's all too common.
    I am not sure their example is illusionism. It is a quantum ogre but it might be participationism. Would you double check and elaborate?
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2020-09-30 at 11:27 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

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

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

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

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

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

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

    To me, it would be a greater crime to give my players something of lower quality.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •