New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 134
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    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.
    Not at all. Or, I mean, it depends on how you do random encounters. Ideally the players should have some idea of what kind of creatures they may encounter randomly in the swamp, general risk of going there etc. And the random encounters should be integrated into the setting/situation, come with clues and plot hooks of their own. The players don't know everything, but should be able to take calculated risks. And it's also completely ok that sometimes things happening to the PCs without the players having a chance to predict it, it is just more fun to make informed decisions and one should strive for that.

    Yes, randomly generating terrain/dungeon as you go sucks, because then you can't telegraph in advance what they might find in different directions. You could generate those in advance, though.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lord Vukodlak's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    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.
    I'm not a fan either, its basically padding out the adventure, one really horrible experence i had was when playing in the Princes Of The Apocalypse campaign. If we hadn't been using milestone experience we'd have been severally over leveled very quickly. It was pretty much every day the DM would roll that we got a random encounter, almost always at midnight. It got to the point where we declared everyone was awake in the hour preceding and following midnight. My rogue started using his hide and survival skills to Camouflage our camp and then create a second fake camp to attract the enemies attention.(the group had no wizard and thus no tiny hut)
    Nale is no more, he has ceased to be, his hit points have dropped to negative ten, all he was is now dust in the wind, he is not Daniel Jackson dead, he is not Kenny dead, he is final dead, he will not pass through death's revolving door, his fate will not be undone because the executives renewed his show for another season. His time had run out, his string of fate has been cut, the blood on the knife has been wiped. He is an Ex-Nale! Now can we please resume watching the Order save the world.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    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.
    The only thing random encounters are by definition, is random. The usage of random encounters as meaningless fodder is a result of both unwillingness and inability to use them as core component of scenario design.

    Badly done, random encounters do reduce player agency to zero, but the same is true of all randomness, including things like rolling to hit. Beyond that, they have nothing to do with railroading.

    --

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelle View Post
    Yes, randomly generating terrain/dungeon as you go sucks, because then you can't telegraph in advance what they might find in different directions. You could generate those in advance, though.
    This is a matter of implementation more than anything. If you're, for example, pulling terrain pieces out of a deck of cards, it's fairly simple to "scout ahead" by peeking at the next two, three etc. cards in response to players seeking out foreknowledge of the terrain. The functional end result of a well-made procedural generator is equivalent to preplanned work.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    EU
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Since I like prepping ahead, I tend to use random encounter tables to get inspiration for what the players may find along the road or in the dungeon. Sometimes I scan over the table until I find something that fits or piques my imagination, other times I roll randomly and adapt the result to the scenario.

    I feel like that using random encounters in the "traditional" way should be reserved for the type of game where they make sense. If we're doing an hexcrawl, it makes sense to roll to decide what's in a certain hex and go along with the results, but I generally find the idea that you should always roll the random encounters table while the PCs travel from one town to another just silly.

    Also, I prefer random encounter tables that don't limit the definition of "encounter" to a combat scenario. A travelling bard, an ancient stone circle, pilgrims in need of help for crossing a river... Those can all be random encounters that add to a journey.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    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.
    "Breaks immersion" will be a fairly subjective criticism, though I completely agree that prepared encounters are generally superior to random encounters.

    As a player, I can be immersed in the Game, so to speak. The Game grants a certain expectation of balance, which means that sometimes *leaving* the Leveling Treadmill can break immersion (at least when "all things being equal" there is no narrative reason to deviate from the treadmill; this isn't a problem if the players are making an informed choice to engage threats above or below their intended CR).

    I would posit this is why there are often so many online threads about monsters whose CR isn't really in line with where it should be on the treadmill. People lose immersion with the game when the game breaks.

    But getting back to railroading and trolleys, leaving the Leveling Treadmill can sometimes be a Railroading Red Flag for players, indicating the GM has attempted to rig the encounter to some degree.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

    Everyone has their own jam.

  6. - Top - End - #96

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Badly done, random encounters do reduce player agency to zero, but the same is true of all randomness, including things like rolling to hit. Beyond that, they have nothing to do with railroading.
    That's not really true. If you know the distribution of random outcomes, you can still have agency. Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.
    Last edited by NigelWalmsley; 2020-10-02 at 10:47 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    That's not really true. If you know the distribution of random outcomes, you can still have agency. Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.
    Well, that's why he said "badly done".

    Done well, random encounters can present a range of possible results of an action (and thus semi-random payouts) without requiring that the GM determine a specific result.

    This can be done either by making a roll on the random encounter table a result of a different decision (do you stay longer and keep trying to pick the lock? If so, I'm rolling to see if there's a random encounter) or by making it part of the context of another choice (Friendly Forest has less nasty enemies but is slower, Menacing Mountains has more menacing enemies but is faster).

    Plus it's a great way to introduce some simulation into your game if that's your thing.

    Badly done is just one table, and the players have no choice but to roll on it. That impacts agency because there's no way to make any kind of informed choice, and all chocies have the same output.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    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.
    How about "the party meets a sketchy character with initials 'D.M.'. Later, he gets arrested. If the party visits him in jail, they learn these facts."?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    The Game grants a certain expectation of balance, which means that sometimes *leaving* the Leveling Treadmill can break immersion (at least when "all things being equal" there is no narrative reason to deviate from the treadmill; this isn't a problem if the players are making an informed choice to engage threats above or below their intended CR).
    It took me several times reading this to *think* I understood what you were saying.

    So, the level treadmill provides a predictable "background hum", and it's noticeable when the tempo suddenly changes? Is that close?

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    It took me several times reading this to *think* I understood what you were saying.

    So, the level treadmill provides a predictable "background hum", and it's noticeable when the tempo suddenly changes? Is that close?
    Sounds about right, but let's add the important caveat.

    A tempo change can be exciting, or a relief from a breakneck pace. Up tempo or down.

    A bizarre or illogical change of tempo can create whiplash.

    It is satisfying, and to some extent, the actual purpose of the game, that players can change the tempo through good and bad choices. It can rise and fall with the roll of the dice.

    We keep talking about players making informed choices. I guess my point is that CR is supposed to be implied as the default difficulty players should expect to face. Their choices should generally find that level of success/failure rate.

    When it doesn't, it should make logical sense why. Players getting in over their head through their own choices makes sense.

    Running into an overwhelming encounter that couldn't have reasonably have been predicted for no reason besides making otherwise normal and logical choices can create that sense that the game is no longer running on a logical progression of events and choices.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

    Everyone has their own jam.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    That's not really true. If you know the distribution of random outcomes, you can still have agency. Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.
    Bad randomness doesn't involve choice from the player in any meaningful part of the chain - it's just one die roll that leads to another die roll. In such cases, knowing the distributions only reveals your lack of agency, because the game you're playing is glorified Snakes & Ladders.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Bad randomness doesn't involve choice from the player in any meaningful part of the chain - it's just one die roll that leads to another die roll. In such cases, knowing the distributions only reveals your lack of agency, because the game you're playing is glorified Snakes & Ladders.
    Not all Fireballs are Maximized.

    OK, so, Wizards have a huge array of spells, which give them the agency to attempt many possible solutions to problems. One such solution is violence, epitomized by Fireball. "Fireball coming online".

    Fireball - in every most RPGs where I've seen it appear - involves rolling a small handfull of d6's to calculate damage.

    Sometimes, that damage won't be as much as you need. Theoretically, you might even roll all 1's.

    But that does not change the fact that you had the agency to attempt that solution.

    Knowing that something is a gamble does not mean that you have no agency. Even "win buttons" like Invisibility are gambles: are there dogs or other creatures with scent? Will they hear you, or spot your footprints? Will a random bird poop on you, and spoil your invisibility?

    There are very few "moves" in RPGs that is actually 100% guaranteed to change the state of an RPG in completely predictable ways. But that doesn't mean that removing those moves does not reduce the players agency.

    Not everything has a guaranteed outcome. Not all Fireballs are Maximized. But such complete predictability is not required for non-zero agency. Choosing between different probabilities of success and different fail states is agency. "Buy candybar (but they might be out)" and "steal candybar (but they might be out, or you might get caught" are distinctly different options, and there is agency in being able to choose between them.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Bad randomness doesn't involve choice from the player in any meaningful part of the chain - it's just one die roll that leads to another die roll. In such cases, knowing the distributions only reveals your lack of agency, because the game you're playing is glorified Snakes & Ladders.
    Randomization does not mean you don't have agency.

    Randomization where you have no input denies agency. But being able to choose which set of random results you pick from (for instance) retains agency.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    But that does not change the fact that you had the agency to attempt that solution.
    You're fishing for examples of where you have agency despite randomization, which serve as counter-examples to exactly nothing I said. There are cases where randomization doesn't drop player agency to zero, but this does not preclude cases where they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Randomization does not mean you don't have agency.

    Randomization where you have no input denies agency. But being able to choose which set of random results you pick from (for instance) retains agency.
    I didn't say randomization means you have no agency. I said that badly done randomization reduces player agency to zero. The reason why it does that is because when you have a particular string of die rolls, you do not actually pick anything.

    The classic example, as far as random encounters go, is a model where you have flat % chance for the same encounters. Go down the road? Same % to meet a monster. Go through the forest? Same % to meet a monster. Your agency, your choice over which path to take, is illusory, because it doesn't actually effect the outcome.

    As far as other game design goes: you have a choice of two attacks: one that has 25% chance of hitting but 75% chance of penetrating armor, and another which has 75% chance of hitting but 25% chance of penetrating armor. So which do you pick? If you have cursory understanding of probability, you'll realize it doesn't actually matter, because these two forms of attack have identical total chance of being succesful. The choice is illusory, because the two things you're picking from are mechanically indistinct.

    Roleplaying games are full of non-choices of the latter kind, simply because a designer couldn't do the math. If players feel like they have agency, they couldn't do the math either. Put enough of such non-choices in a row, and you get effectively a zero player game: the players are there just to roll dice, they don't really make decisions about where the game goes. You could replace them with a rudimentary rollbot and the end result would be much the same.
    Last edited by Vahnavoi; 2020-10-04 at 01:28 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    That's not really true. If you know the distribution of random outcomes, you can still have agency. Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Bad randomness doesn't involve choice from the player in any meaningful part of the chain - it's just one die roll that leads to another die roll. In such cases, knowing the distributions only reveals your lack of agency, because the game you're playing is glorified Snakes & Ladders.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    You're fishing for examples of where you have agency despite randomization, which serve as counter-examples to exactly nothing I said. There are cases where randomization doesn't drop player agency to zero, but this does not preclude cases where they do.



    I didn't say randomization means you have no agency. I said that badly done randomization reduces player agency to zero. The reason why it does that is because when you have a particular string of die rolls, you do not actually pick anything.

    The classic example, as far as random encounters go, is a model where you have flat % chance for the same encounters. Go down the road? Same % to meet a monster. Go through the forest? Same % to meet a monster. Your agency, your choice over which path to take, is illusory, because it doesn't actually effect the outcome.

    As far as other game design goes: you have a choice of two attacks: one that has 25% chance of hitting but 75% chance of penetrating armor, and another which has 75% chance of hitting but 25% chance of penetrating armor. So which do you pick? If you have cursory understanding of probability, you'll realize it doesn't actually matter, because these two forms of attack have identical total chance of being succesful. The choice is illusory, because the two things you're picking from are mechanically indistinct.

    Roleplaying games are full of non-choices of the latter kind, simply because a designer couldn't do the math. If players feel like they have agency, they couldn't do the math either. Put enough of such non-choices in a row, and you get effectively a zero player game: the players are there just to roll dice, they don't really make decisions about where the game goes. You could replace them with a rudimentary rollbot and the end result would be much the same.
    But that was not the scenario that you were responding to. As is plainly apparent, you were responding to two noticeably different probabilities:
    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Choosing "I want the outcome that has a 75% chance of succeeding but a really bad failure state" over "I want the outcome that has a 50% chance of succeeding but a mild failure state" is a choice, and as long as it's an informed choice it preserves player agency.

    Even if you had then brought up this notion of 25% chance of hitting and 75% chance of penetrating armor vs 75% chance of hitting and 25% chance of penetrating armor, there would be differences between these attacks. Yes, there would. Some are roleplaying differences (does your character care about looking skilled, or looking strong), some are 5d chess differences (what information are you giving away to those who can perceive you), some are teamwork differences (different attack forms may perform differently in the final equation with different buffs). And that's just the basics of the differences, and doesn't even get into anything more complicated, like insanely using the low-penetration attack against a stationary dummy. Or choosing between a *balanced* SoD attack vs a damaging attack.

    Yes, many game developers fail at math. We're not going to disagree with you there. However, this particular failure both seems oddly contrived, doesn't necessarily result in the complete lack of agency that you think it does, and has nothing to do with the example to which you were responding.

    So, given this, what would you really like to say?
    Last edited by Quertus; 2020-10-04 at 07:03 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    But that was not the scenario that you were responding to. As is plainly apparent, you were responding to two noticeably different probabilities:
    Nigel was responding to my earlier post; I was NEVER talking specifically about the case Nigel outlined. Like you, Nigel was talking past me by picking an example that didn't fit the criteria I outlined, but doesn't in any way prove that what I said doesn't or can't happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus
    Even if you had then brought up this notion of 25% chance of hitting and 75% chance of penetrating armor vs 75% chance of hitting and 25% chance of penetrating armor, there would be differences between these attacks. Yes, there would. Some are roleplaying differences (does your character care about looking skilled, or looking strong), some are 5d chess differences (what information are you giving away to those who can perceive you), some are teamwork differences (different attack forms may perform differently in the final equation with different buffs). And that's just the basics of the differences, and doesn't even get into anything more complicated, like insanely using the low-penetration attack against a stationary dummy. Or choosing between a *balanced* SoD attack vs a damaging attack.
    You're engaging in a form of fallacy where you take a purposefully simplified example and start inventing new details to support your argument. How about you actually entertain my argument in good faith for a moment, by realizing that for every way there supposedly is agency in choosing between mechanically indistinct options, there can be something further in the rules that renders that supposed form of agency moot?

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    I didn't say randomization means you have no agency. I said that badly done randomization reduces player agency to zero.
    Badly done game design reduces agency to zero. The only issue with randomization in that case is that it provides something for designers to focus on and not realize that their design is bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The reason why it does that is because when you have a particular string of die rolls, you do not actually pick anything.
    Well, presuming one "choice" leads to a string of rolls, correct.

    Complexity in system does not equal to complexity or depth in decision making. The same would be true for a mathematically complex system with no randomization, but a lot of math steps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The classic example, as far as random encounters go, is a model where you have flat % chance for the same encounters. Go down the road? Same % to meet a monster. Go through the forest? Same % to meet a monster. Your agency, your choice over which path to take, is illusory, because it doesn't actually effect the outcome.
    Well, unless at a higher level the path had other impacts down the road.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    As far as other game design goes: you have a choice of two attacks: one that has 25% chance of hitting but 75% chance of penetrating armor, and another which has 75% chance of hitting but 25% chance of penetrating armor. So which do you pick? If you have cursory understanding of probability, you'll realize it doesn't actually matter, because these two forms of attack have identical total chance of being succesful. The choice is illusory, because the two things you're picking from are mechanically indistinct.
    Right. More game designers need to take an introductory Game Theory course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Roleplaying games are full of non-choices of the latter kind, simply because a designer couldn't do the math. If players feel like they have agency, they couldn't do the math either. Put enough of such non-choices in a row, and you get effectively a zero player game: the players are there just to roll dice, they don't really make decisions about where the game goes. You could replace them with a rudimentary rollbot and the end result would be much the same.
    RPG designers are often overly enamored of their complex systems, and view things from a "systems-first" perspective rather than a "player-first" perspective.

    And, yeah, I agree. Which is why I find a lot of RPG combat super dull.

    But, really, that's a fault of bad design, not randomization. Randomization just enables the bad design to an extent because it makes it look like there's some meat there, but the meat is really illusory. The real "meat" in any game is all about what decisions are being made, not the system to resolve the decisions after the fact.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  17. - Top - End - #107
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    Always the most important factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    Agreed.

    And props for the extremely dated reference. I loved Animaniacs as a kid. Although, to be fair, those shorts are about Buttons. Mindy is less a participant with Agency, and more of the continually morphing challenge/obstacle that BUTTONS must overcome. But that might be a bit pedantic, so I'll not pursue it further...

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Senility willing, I'll make a thread about this at some point, so as not to derail this thread.
    I would love to participate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    Entirely agreed. But that's also Real Life, where actual Honor and Integrity have meaning. Like I said, when I DM a game, I try and be a fair and neutral arbiter of the rules for my players. Beyond that, the only Authority I recognize as valid is an Aesthetic one. I don't recognize any invisible authority that demands I behave as if there was transparency between my players and my decisions. What matters is what they receive as a finished product.* Real Life is much different. My own Integrity IS an authority that informs my behavior (for example, not cheating on my wife, even if she would never know). When I run a game, I bow to no such ethical authority. Think of it like warriors from 2 wildly different cultures meeting in battle. To Warrior A, Warrior B fights in an uncouth and dishonorable manner. But Warrior B's culture DOES have it's own code of honor, and he adheres to that very strictly. When I DM, I simply follow a very different authority that informs my choices.

    *This actually might be part and parcel with my defense of 4e in previous threads. Yes, 4e quite often felt like the mechanics were very game-y and distinct from the fluff to me, the DM. But I managed it in such a manner that, to my players, it STILL felt like D&D. They didn't see those strings and lines of code. Skill Challenges felt just like making Skill Checks as part of normal RP, just like in 3.xe. And honestly, those distinctions made 4e WAY easier to DM. To date, I will still maintain that 4e was easier to DM than 5e, which is easier than 3.xe.
    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.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    To me, if you're going to go to the trouble of making the random encounter a meaningful or important event, you may as well drop the "random". I mean, use a table as inspiration if you want, but make it a placed encounter.

    This is the sort I object too...
    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0210.html
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  19. - Top - End - #109
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Badly done game design reduces agency to zero. The only issue with randomization in that case is that it provides something for designers to focus on and not realize that their design is bad.
    We're not in disagreement. My original remark was about how "random" doesn't mean "meaningless", with caveat that badly done randomization will reduce agency just as surely as railroading. The rest has been me clarifying how randomization can reduce agency, because apparently it needed clarifying.

    Moving on.

    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    To me, if you're going to go to the trouble of making the random encounter a meaningful or important event, you may as well drop the "random". I mean, use a table as inspiration if you want, but make it a placed encounter.
    There's a Lamentation of the Flame Princess module, God that Crawls, that illustrates why you'd use random elements even with a main antagonist. Simply, it has a monster that chases the characters through a fairly intricate maze. The module proposes two models for implenting this: the hard and the easy way. The hard way is that you track the exact location of the monster and each character individually, using by-the-book movement rates. The easy way is that there's a random chance for the monster to appear from a viable direction, which goes up with character actions that'd draw attention.

    Both obviously work, but the first requires several on-the-spot calculations each turn, while the second gets away with one or two. A more universal example would be weather: you could plot a calendar for your campaign, deciding beforehand which days it rains. Or you could roll a die when the characters go outside. Both work, one is less work, you get most of the same results either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff
    This is the sort I object too...
    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0210.html
    There's two distinct things that comic calls out. One is that it's foolish of a GM to put encounters in a game that have nothing to do with what players are supposed to do in the game. The second is player monomania, where they don't ask questions about what's happening right now because they're too fixated on pursuing their own goals. It's illustrative of faulty use of random encounters, but close examination shows it's not the "random" part that's the issue.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Much depends on which game you are playing.

    In the Old School Essentials (D&D B/X) campaign I'm running, random encounters are an essential part of the mechanics of the game.

    They are a cornerstone of the resource management puzzle for an adventuring party: do you spend another turn searching for a suspected secret door, risking more interruption by wandering monsters, or do you press on to clear more rooms before you run out of torches?

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    There's a Lamentation of the Flame Princess module, God that Crawls, that illustrates why you'd use random elements even with a main antagonist. Simply, it has a monster that chases the characters through a fairly intricate maze. The module proposes two models for implenting this: the hard and the easy way. The hard way is that you track the exact location of the monster and each character individually, using by-the-book movement rates. The easy way is that there's a random chance for the monster to appear from a viable direction, which goes up with character actions that'd draw attention.

    Both obviously work, but the first requires several on-the-spot calculations each turn, while the second gets away with one or two. A more universal example would be weather: you could plot a calendar for your campaign, deciding beforehand which days it rains. Or you could roll a die when the characters go outside. Both work, one is less work, you get most of the same results either way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Democratus View Post
    Much depends on which game you are playing.

    In the Old School Essentials (D&D B/X) campaign I'm running, random encounters are an essential part of the mechanics of the game.

    They are a cornerstone of the resource management puzzle for an adventuring party: do you spend another turn searching for a suspected secret door, risking more interruption by wandering monsters, or do you press on to clear more rooms before you run out of torches?
    You're both right here - these are good examples where random encounters do have value. In these cases though, the table is specific to what is in effect one long scene. In the first, it's part of what is effectively a minigame of maze running.
    In the 2nd it adds suspense to the search - To me an important difference is that the entries on the table won't be "An Owlbear". It'll be "The Owlbear from room Q is looking for food and sweeps through the area the players occupy". It wont be "2d10 Goblins" It'll be "A patrol of 5 goblin warriors led by a 2nd level Goblin fighter. As soon as they see the PCs, 2 warriors will try to run away and alert others while the others try to keep the party there".
    Last edited by Duff; 2020-10-05 at 05:37 PM.
    I love playing in a party with a couple of power-gamers, it frees me up to be Elan!


  22. - Top - End - #112
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Just finished the whole thread.

    As a fan of both player agency and 'realism' in my campaigns my thoughts are about the idea of 'illusionism'.

    (Caveat anything players have fun doing is OK even if it isn't what I consider good gaming)

    First, I don't think it matters if the players are unaware of the quantum ogre.

    If someone makes an Ogre encounter to gain piece X of the puzzle, and the players choose to go another route and ignore that option, and the DM puts the Ogre encounter in regardless --- its perfectly fine provided it still makes sense (as in there is a realistic reason there would be an ogre there) and upon success they PC's do NOT get "piece X" of their puzzle. The Ogre in the swamp was the place to get X, and if the players choose to avoid it, even if you still use the ogre, X isn't there.

    I can't even fathom a scenario where players have a fun series of adventures, learn that encounter #5 from 3 weeks ago was actually a quantum ogre, and get upset.

    Secondly, I hate the idea of adventures that have premade solutions in order, as was described earlier.
    At the same time --- its realistic in many instances. If I have the goal of being a D&D monster manual artist --- I can't go out and start an apple farm and hope it all works out. Getting the skills, getting the attention, meeting the right people, in real life there are 'railroad' situations provided the PC, or person in RL, has decided on the goal. Additionally, people don't get to always choose what happens to them. Sometimes people rob you, sometimes a car hits your dog.
    Therefore...

    If I design a campaign with the big bad guy (The baron) and I lay the groundwork of what the PC's know and what has already occurred, including "the baron murdered your family" ---- provided I don't force the characters to follow the 'adventure' and allow them the freedom to work for the baron, or go be apple farmers, or anything else they come up with (sandbox) --- The DM still reserves the right to have the world move on --- which might included these PC apple farmers having the barons men burn down their apple orchard. If you live in a dangerous world, bad things happen, and as long as you let the players choose their actions --- this is perfectly acceptable. (The players join the fighters and become professional apple farm hunters, works for me). If the players want to 'leave' the area --- no problem. But again, if I as an American just got up and moved to Mexico to resolve my issues, it might turn out worse for me and its not 'railroading' that would get me back in America --- it might just be a realistic turn of events and not a removal of player agency.

    In summary, the DM can lay the groundwork for adventure X and still maintain perfect player agency even if events seem to lead back to adventure X. There are countless real life examples. The kid who wants to travel the world --- and ends up living at home because it turns out the world is expensive and we dont' have as many choices as we would like to believe. (Last example: "Screw this Texas oil worker adventure, lets be cartel meth dealers --- easily leads right back to living in Texas and working in an oil field")

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Ixtellor View Post
    If someone makes an Ogre encounter to gain piece X of the puzzle, and the players choose to go another route and ignore that option, and the DM puts the Ogre encounter in regardless ---
    This isn't illusionism, just railroading. The players knew about an ogre, attempted to avoid the ogre, and it was foisted upon them despite their choice purely because it was what the DM wanted to do. Why did the DM ever imply they had a choice to begin with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ixtellor View Post
    its perfectly fine provided it still makes sense (as in there is a realistic reason there would be an ogre there) and upon success they PC's do NOT get "piece X" of their puzzle. The Ogre in the swamp was the place to get X, and if the players choose to avoid it, even if you still use the ogre, X isn't there.
    Still isn't illusionism, but note that the Railroading that players may get upset over comes at the point they decided not to fight an ogre and it gets forced on them regardless.

    Players can accept failing to avoid an ogre that was seeking them out, but that is not a Quantum Ogre scenario. That's a Homing Ogre, wherever it is, it is seeking you out. It's also not a Quantum Ogre for there to be a different Ogre on every path the PCs take. That's heavy handed, close to Railroading, but sometimes the adventure is in Ogre territory and fighting lots of Ogres is a basic campaign premise.

    But note that the Ogre Country scenario and Homing Ogre scenario are not equivalent to a Quantum Ogre. A Quantum Ogre is a single Ogre that appears wherever it needs to in order to fit into the story.

    Personally, I would say player agency is not negated if they do not know a quantum ogre is in play. It only begins to infringe on player agency if players become aware that an ogre is on the path ahead, at which point they can attempt to avoid it. If the DM negates their choice by using the Ogre's quantum nature to invalidate the information the players used to make a legal choice, they have had agency taken away by Railroading. I can see a lot of reason to be upset by this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ixtellor View Post
    In summary, the DM can lay the groundwork for adventure X and still maintain perfect player agency even if events seem to lead back to adventure X. There are countless real life examples. The kid who wants to travel the world --- and ends up living at home because it turns out the world is expensive and we dont' have as many choices as we would like to believe. (Last example: "Screw this Texas oil worker adventure, lets be cartel meth dealers --- easily leads right back to living in Texas and working in an oil field")
    The fact that this can be done without infringing on player agency doesn't justify (or become) Illusionism or Railroading.

    I think it is a mark of Good DMing to be able to modify your campaign to bring the best of both worlds to the table. Player set out on a completely different quest, then the DM finds a way to incorporate that into the plot prepared. That isn't Illusionism or Railroading in itself. That's what a DM should always strive to do. You aren't tricking them or forcing them into something you wanted and they didn't. You're letting them pursue their individual interests while playing out the campaign plot in direct response to their decisions. That's good gameplay.

    To use your Texas Oil Field scenario, Railroading might be the players getting betrayed by a drug deal gone bad, rocks fall and everyone gets arrested, then suddenly they have prison labor in an oil field, just so the DM can finally run the encounters they prepared.

    Defining the difference between Good DMing and Illusionism can be tricky, because by its nature, Illusionism wants to look like Good DMing. But the fundamental difference a DM needs to make in their mind to avoid Illusionism is to check their responses to player choices. Are they trying to undermine what the players are trying to accomplish, or to find a way to incorporate it into the plot?

    Is the DM trying to manipulate and edit the PC responses to make it fit their plot,

    Or are they manipulating and editting their plot to fit the players' choices?

    Good DMing is the latter. Trying to succeed at the former without getting caught is Illusionism.

    The only time it is acceptable to try and modify how the players play is to talk to them out of game and ask them to stop disrupting the plot. This is not illusionism or railroading, because you are respecting their agency by asking them to cooperate.

    Yes. Life sometimes railroads people as well. But this is a fantasy game for a reason. The Rule of the Game is we are here to have fun and life on a railroad usually isn't very fun, unless we choose to hop on the train to see where it would take us.

    DMs should use real life analogs to derail player plans sparingly. Minor setbacks and reasonable challenges are perfectly fair play, but when you start conspiring as the DM to curate player choices to fit your plot, you are guilty of denying the players agency, because the players are being denied the choice to ignore the plot.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

    Everyone has their own jam.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virtual Austin

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    This isn't illusionism, just railroading. The players knew about an ogre, attempted to avoid the ogre, and it was foisted upon them despite their choice purely because it was what the DM wanted to do. Why did the DM ever imply they had a choice to begin with?
    It is illusionism if the players did not know about the ogre ahead of time.

    Normally, illusionism takes place out of the view of the players - that's why it's an illusion and not a lie.

    Two paths, neither of which have "ogre this way" painted on a sign. The characters can take path A or path B and they will encounter the quantum ogre. The players will never know if that ogre was specifically on the path they took or if they were going to encounter it no matter what path was taken. That's the way illusionism works.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    This isn't illusionism, just railroading. The players knew about an ogre, attempted to avoid the ogre, and it was foisted upon them despite their choice purely because it was what the DM wanted to do. Why did the DM ever imply they had a choice to begin with?

    Still isn't illusionism, but note that the Railroading that players may get upset over comes at the point they decided not to fight an ogre and it gets forced on them regardless.

    Players can accept failing to avoid an ogre that was seeking them out, but that is not a Quantum Ogre scenario. That's a Homing Ogre, wherever it is, it is seeking you out. It's also not a Quantum Ogre for there to be a different Ogre on every path the PCs take. That's heavy handed, close to Railroading, but sometimes the adventure is in Ogre territory and fighting lots of Ogres is a basic campaign premise.

    But note that the Ogre Country scenario and Homing Ogre scenario are not equivalent to a Quantum Ogre. A Quantum Ogre is a single Ogre that appears wherever it needs to in order to fit into the story.
    From Ixtellor's example, the players might not have known about the Ogre in the swamp. They might or might not have known about the puzzle piece. They did know about the swamp. They chose between "swamp route" and "not swamp route". Ixtellor's hypothetical DM then moved/copied the Ogre into their path but did not move the puzzle piece.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    Personally, I would say player agency is not negated if they do not know a quantum ogre is in play. It only begins to infringe on player agency if players become aware that an ogre is on the path ahead, at which point they can attempt to avoid it. If the DM negates their choice by using the Ogre's quantum nature to invalidate the information the players used to make a legal choice, they have had agency taken away by Railroading. I can see a lot of reason to be upset by this.

    The fact that this can be done without infringing on player agency doesn't justify (or become) Illusionism or Railroading.
    @Ixtellor, you may have noticed, or will notice that there are a few different definitions of player agency. These vary in how broad/strict they are. In truth they are a bunch of very closely related concepts that all share the same term name. Also there is a difference between the definition of agency and what constitutes a negation /reduction of it.

    I bring this up because Pleh and I use slightly different standards because we are examining slightly different angles of this elephant.

    I usually see agency as choices given to the player where the player's decision will impact the consequences, and the player is sufficiently informed about those consequences. From this definition there are 3 ways to remove /reduce the agency from a choice:
    1) Remove the information. If trolls tend to live in swamps and hill giants tend to live outside the swamp, then a choice to go around the swamp to avoid trolls / seek giants sounds like an informed decision. If the ogre lives anywhere, then it reduces / removes the informed part. This is even more apparent if it were "Larry the likeable lizardman" instead of a generic ogre.
    2) Disconnect the consequence. A choice is only between the differing consequences. As you disconnect consequences you decrease the impact of that choice. In the swamp case the choice could have been between "swamp + troll + puzzle piece" vs "hills + no encounter + no puzzle piece". Changing it to always be an ogre is similar (in this specific way) to copying the puzzle piece to both locations. You reduce the impact of the choice by disconnecting one of the consequences.
    3) Remove the choice. This is self explanatory, if the player is not involved in the choice, they don't have agency.

    I also see agency as a continuum, each choice can have more/less agency and each situation can have more/less choices. In a sandbox I expect more agency than in a module. Likewise different groups will have different ranges they prefer (which can vary based on campaign or even smaller details too).

    When information was already removed from a choice, disconnecting the uninformed consequences move it further from being agency, but it was not agency at the time. You will notice this is a slightly different but very similar conclusion than Pleh's because we are talking about very similar but not exactly the same thing.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    Spinning off from a modules discussion to talk about railroading in general.

    I don't mind games where the DM sets up the plot, and the players deal with it. The opposite of the sandbox, the plot is the game. There's the overall Campaign Plot which is not necessarily revealed in Session 1 but eventually becomes the final goal. Meanwhile there are a series of adventure arcs that can take a few sessions before defeating the BBEG of that mini-story and go on to the next one. The DM creates the crises the players solve. Playing a module is a type of this trolly track.

    What prevents it being a railroad is player freedom to solve the crisis the way they want to. Talk or fight. Go left or go right. Ignore the named NPC but like and care about random person #3 and have drama that has nothing to with the Plot. Maybe the players think of something the DM has not, but it's fun and cool so the DM goes with it. We're the PCs so of course we have to save the world. We're doing it, case closed, but we get to say how.
    while I get the point you're making, I'm not so clear on the terminology etymology backing of it. From what I can see, railroads and trolleys (the actual physical ones), are both equally bound to predetermined routes. So I'm not seeing a distinction between a trolley track and a railroad track (at least not one that's pertinent to the point you're making)
    A neat custom class for 3.5 system
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94616

    A good set of benchmarks for PF/3.5
    https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2...y-the-numbers/

    An alternate craft point system I made for 3.5
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...t-Point-system

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    In my personal experience, liberal application of "quantum ogre" works better than anything else. You just have to design each of the "puzzle pieces" that make up your vision to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate this.

    That said, I've never had to deal with complete player "derailing" in the first place, because I've never played with people who's enjoyment stems from rejecting the basic premise of the game.
    Last edited by NorthernPhoenix; 2020-10-30 at 03:28 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by zlefin View Post
    while I get the point you're making, I'm not so clear on the terminology etymology backing of it. From what I can see, railroads and trolleys (the actual physical ones), are both equally bound to predetermined routes. So I'm not seeing a distinction between a trolley track and a railroad track (at least not one that's pertinent to the point you're making)
    Just meaning the railroad isn't heavy handed. Trolleys don't have walls and run on light rails. The tracks are still there - the players are doing the plot the DM placed before them. The DM doesn't say how they do it, so players get to enjoy the breeze and sights.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    I get the feeling it might be a linguistic difference (ie slightly different usages for the terms around the world), because locally railroads don't have walls, and a lot of the rail IS light rail.
    at any rate, your explanation explains the intent behind it, so that's clear and thanks, the rest is just differences in how the real world stuff is setup.
    A neat custom class for 3.5 system
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94616

    A good set of benchmarks for PF/3.5
    https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2...y-the-numbers/

    An alternate craft point system I made for 3.5
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...t-Point-system

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Banned
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2020

    Default Re: Railroad Bad, Trolly Tracks Good

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    What prevents it being a railroad is player freedom to solve the crisis the way they want to. Talk or fight. Go left or go right. Ignore the named NPC but like and care about random person #3 and have drama that has nothing to with the Plot. Maybe the players think of something the DM has not, but it's fun and cool so the DM goes with it. We're the PCs so of course we have to save the world. We're doing it, case closed, but we get to say how.
    Maybe a river metaphor works better? Like the players are in a boat, going down a river. The river is full of encounters and obstacles. The players can choose to smash through them (fight), go around them, talk their way past them, sneak around them or even leave the river and walk along the edge and get back in the river later.

Posting Permissions

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