Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

[Faily]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I relate very strongly to this!

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

And that's the key.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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

Yes the ogre is a good example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RedMage125]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SiCK_Boy]

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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

See the difference between stage 1 and the other stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawren...al_development


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

[Silly Name]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

Most agree with this.

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

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

Even if they don't get caught? Yes

[Pex]

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

[RedMage125]

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

What makes you think I don't?

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

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

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

See the difference between stage 1 and the other stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawren...al_development


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

To both of you:

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

HOWEVER...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

What makes you think I don't?

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

If I misinterpreted that, my apologies.

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

[OldTrees1]

What makes you think I don't?

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

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

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

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

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

Again I assume I erroneously inferred, and I apologize.

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

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

Which I assume is what you already have been doing.

[Tanarii]

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

Oh. Okay then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RedMage125]

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

If I misinterpreted that, my apologies.

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

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

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

I guess that's fair perception, given the information you were dealing with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which I assume is what you already have been doing.

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

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

Oh. Okay then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

Probably the instinctive negative reaction to the concepts on a personal level. *steps down from soapbox shame-facedly*

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

[Duff]

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

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

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

[SiCK_Boy]

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

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

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

[Quertus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

See the difference between stage 1 and the other stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawren...al_development


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

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

[Satinavian]

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

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

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

[Pelle]

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damn DragonLance.

[Pelle]

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

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

[Pex]

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

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

Damn DragonLance.

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

[Duff]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pex]

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

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