Choo-Choo yes? Is railroading REALLY that bad?

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, agency requires a few things
1. An actual choice between 2+ different things. You don't have agency in your choice of encounters in a linear MMO dungeon. You will fight <trash pack A> before you fight <trash pack B>--there's a wall (invisible or not) stopping you from progressing until that pack dies. You do have agency is whether you continue at all or abandon the dungeon, however.

Note that you don't need all the choices or unlimited choices. Having pre-committed agency often means reduced scope-for-choice later.

2. Consequences for that choice that relate in a meaningful way to the choice made. The "door close" buttons in elevators are (mostly) only connected when you turn an emergency key. You can choose to hit it or not...but it won't change a darn thing either way. A child given the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream who will always get vanilla (because they're out of chocolate or for whatever reason) doesn't really have a choice in the matter, because no matter what they choose the outcome is pre-determined.

Note that a lot of procedural generation engines fail at this stage--the "next thing" has nothing to do with your choice, only the random outcome of the generation method.

3. Enough information to make an informed decision (ie to tell the consequences apart). This is not perfect information. But a blind choice isn't really a meaningful choice at all. If you have two empty dungeon corridors and have to choose without any information, you don't really have agency in that choice. Now if there's cold air coming from down one and a blast of heat from the other, you have agency. If you go down the heat-blast one and run directly into an ice cavern, that's a violation at the consequence stage (#2)--the information you got and the consequences were disjoint.

There's room for deception at this stage, but it should be the environment lying to the characters, not the DM lying to the players about the things experienced by the PCs. Unless, of course, there's mind-manipulation effects (illusion, etc) in play and they failed to detect it. This point is the squishiest.

But generally, if you want to promote agency, you have to
1) give choices
2) enforce consequences[1] that flow from the choice in some reasonable fashion
3) give enough information to distinguish the likely consequences.

Bait and switch (giving information suggesting one thing and then giving something else) is a diminishment of agency. Hiding information the characters would have is a diminishment of agency. Choosing what's there (consistent with the information you've given) is not a diminishment of agency.

So in one way, it's easier to uphold agency if you plan and don't just make up everything on the fly--you can give more truthful information (point #3). But too much planning can (but does not always) lead to attachment to your long-term plans, which makes #1 and #2 harder psychologically (can't enforce the natural consequences of them going off script or things break, so have to give them other consequences instead to keep them in the "approved path).

[1] this is a neutral term. Getting loot is a possible consequence of winning a D&D encounter. As is taking damage because you walked into that trap.

[KorvinStarmast]

Side B: You will eat your vegetables, and you will like them!

As a parent, I can get behind this. (And I have found that parmesan cheese added to many a veggie turns the tide).

Something to recall as this conversation slogs on: no DM/GM is required to provide infinite content. They aren't paid enough to do that.

There is thus a limit to what the players can experience based on the finite amount of content that the DM / GM has to hand. Granted, one can use the RNG to gin up encounters (in some games) but even those (encounter-table-based) content items are finite.

[JNAProductions]

As a parent, I can get behind this. (And I have found that parmesan cheese added to many a veggie turns the tide).

Something to recall as this conversation slogs on: no DM/GM is required to provide infinite content. They aren't paid enough to do that.

There is thus a limit to what the players can experience based on the finite amount of content that the DM / GM has to hand. Granted, one can use the RNG to gin up encounters (in some games) but even those (encounter-table-based) content items are finite.

No one is asking for infinite content, though. That seems quite the non-sequitur.

[kyoryu]

There is thus a limit to what the players can experience based on the finite amount of content that the DM / GM has to hand. Granted, one can use the RNG to gin up encounters (in some games) but even those (encounter-table-based) content items are finite.

You're presuming that improvisation does not exist.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're presuming that improvisation does not exist.

You would be wrong about that. Improvisation comes about during the course of play with great frequency in a variety of systems.

Now and again, one needs to stop behaving like a spoiled child and engage with the content that someone has put the effort into providing. Sometimes, the GM delivers a 6, sometimes a 2, some times a 9.5. But the GM delivers. And then the whole group riffs off of that basic pillar of play, or doesn't, as the session progresses.

There's a bit too much polarity going on in this conversation.

[JNAProductions]

You would be wrong about that. Improvisation comes about during the course of play with great frequency in a variety of systems.

Now and again, one needs to stop behaving like a spoiled child and engage with the content that someone has put the effort into providing. Sometimes, the GM delivers a 6, sometimes a 2, some times a 9.5. But the GM delivers. And then the whole group riffs off of that basic pillar of play, or doesn't, as the session progresses.

There's a bit too much polarity going on in this conversation.

I mean, yeah. I can't recall anyone in this thread saying "Linear games are bad."

I have seen a lot of people say "If you, as a DM, want to run a linear game, you should tell your players that."
I've also seen a lot of people say they prefer less linear gameplay.

But I haven't seen anyone acting how you describe.

[kyoryu]

Now and again, one needs to stop behaving like a spoiled child and engage with the content that someone has put the effort into providing. Sometimes, the GM delivers a 6, sometimes a 2, some times a 9.5. But the GM delivers. And then the whole group riffs off of that basic pillar of play, or doesn't, as the session progresses.

There's a bit too much polarity going on in this conversation.

I'm not sure where you got that. My point was that you set up a false dilemma between "engaging with the prepared content" and "the GM has to prepare infinite content".

The way you make non-linear games isn't to pre-prepare infinite content. You run non-linear games by improvising encounters.

That's the point I was making.

My stance has been pretty clear, and I'll even expand it a little bit.

When playing a game, people should be clear about what type of game they're playing, and agree to that. If the group decides to run a linear game, cool, and I expect the players to engage with the linear content.

If the group decides to run a more directed sandbox (there's a goal/mission/theme, but players approach it how they like), then I expect the GM to prepare accordingly, and to improvise, but I expect the players to engage with that goal/mission/theme.

If the group decides to run a "pure" sandbox, then cool, I expect the players and GM to run accordingly.

There's nothing wrong with any style of game. The only thing that I, or most others on the "anti-railroad" side have been saying is simply let people know what they're getting into so they can make an informed opinion about whether or not to play that game or not.

That's it.

GM says "I'm running linear!" Players say "Cool!". GM runs linear, players engage in linear content. Happy fun times.

GM says "I'm running non-linear!" Players say "cool!" GM runs non-linear, players engage with whatever level of stated premise is made. Jolly enjoyment!

GM says "I'm running non-linear!" Players say "cool!" GM runs linear, players get mad. Not fun! Sadness abounds! Gm should do what they say!

GM says "I'm running linear!" Players say "cool!" Gm runs linear, players decide not to engage in the content. Badness happens! Players should do what they said!

I don't think "be honest about what type of game you're running" should be contentious. It doesn't need logical tricks. It doesn't need to "prove" a game preference. It just needs.... honesty. Why is this a problem?

You wanna run linear? GO FOR IT! I'm all in favor of that! Just be honest with your potential players so they can choose to play, or not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it should be said that there are gradations to all of these things. It's not a full sandbox/total linear dichotomy, it's shades of sandbox/linearity. And you can be linear in some things and sandboxy in others. You can have a linear JRPG plot while how the party approaches things is fully up to them, for instance.

[Cheesegear]

Side B: "No. I'll give you whatever I want to give you. I know what you want more than you do."

My dog really, really, really loves maple bacon. My dog gets bacon every other week and for some reason doesn't get covered in ticks anymore. How dare I trick my dog into eating pills that prevent tick paralysis and lyme disease.

Oooh...I know multiple people at work:

One day; Tomato is gross.
At the Deli; I'll take a BLT please.

Turns out the trick to get people - and animals - to eat stuff they don't want, is bacon. Who knew?

[OldTrees1]

My dog really, really, really loves maple bacon. My dog gets bacon every other week and for some reason doesn't get covered in ticks anymore. How dare I trick my dog into eating pills that prevent tick paralysis and lyme disease.

Oooh...I know multiple people at work:

One day; Tomato is gross.
At the Deli; I'll take a BLT please.

Turns out the trick to get people - and animals - to eat stuff they don't want, is bacon. Who knew?

I don't get it.

Are you trying to pretend potential players are like pet dogs and thus the masters should decide what the pet dogs consume?

Or do you recognize that those example people that order a BLT know it has tomato, but would not be okay with someone hiding tomato in their salad sans tomato. People get to order what they eat and restaurants get in trouble if they decide they should overwrite the customer's order.*

* PS although very very rare, there are cases of customers being poisoned by arrogant jerks that were "skeptical" about food allergies and decided they knew better than the customer. So they added the allergen that the customer did not order.

[Vahnavoi]

Well. No. It wasn't a conversation I had with a new player. I think it was second session, or third maybe? She knew mostly what D&D was by that point. She was getting mad that 'I seemed to be able to make stuff up as I go along', which of course is 100% true. That's exactly what I do (or maybe I don't ). But, when does she get to decide what happens to herself? How come I get to decide everything that happens?

That just means she didn't get how the game works one or two games back, and you aren't helping by doing a poor job at explaining it two or three games in. The questions in your dialogue are classic new player questions, and your answers are classic answers to a newbie - too bad they're not good answers.

She is sort of in control of herself, she can go anywhere she wants, and do anything she wants - within reason and within the rules (the fact that the I could just make up DCs [in D&D] to prevent her from doing things blew her mind. 'Well now I know that, why don't you just make everything 25s.' ...Uhh...Not really how that's supposed to work. I could. But you just have to trust that I wont do that). The DM is in charge of everything else. The player doesn't get to really choose anything, at least in regards to what's where when they get there, and she definitely doesn't get to choose how the world reacts when she does something.

'You can't choose what happens, you can only choose how you react.' - some quote from somebody.

That doesn't seem fair. It's almost like all of the power is in the hands of the DM. Huh. Weird, that.

Did it not cross your mind at any point when writing this, that one reason why a dungeon master would not make every target number arbitrarily high is giving players a fair chance?

From a game theoretical viewpoint, the metagame situation between a potential game master and a potential player can be seen as a version of the Ultimatum game. The game master pitches a game, any kind of game they'd want, but the player can refuse to play, leading to there being no game. Based on what we know of the Ultimatum game and findings of human psychology, we can then predict that the ability of a game master to get players to actually play depends on the game master's ability to pitch a fair game.

It's sad that you can sort of see the game is "not really supposed to" work in a blatantly unfair way, but cannot explain why to a player challenging you on the issue .

Related, understanding the metagame situation between a potential game master and a potential player in terms of the Ultimatum game also puts railroading, illusionism and all purportes justifications for them in clear light: they are attempts to get a potential player to accept a lop-sided deal or to renege on a deal already offered. Which, in light of what we know of human psychological reactions to the Ultimatum game, is a great way to LOSE all trust from the potential player, so going from admitting you are engaging in said behaviour to "you just have to trust me bro" is blatantly manipulative and absurd.

---

However, you only have the illusion of choice, because you do not have limitless agency.

Here we go again with the blatant non-sequiturs. Limited agency is not the same as no agency, and limited choice is not the same thing as illusory choice. No amount of correct observations will fix your arguments when they are not linked to your conclusions by anything resembling logic.

Something to recall as this conversation slogs on: no DM/GM is required to provide infinite content. They aren't paid enough to do that.

There is thus a limit to what the players can experience based on the finite amount of content that the DM / GM has to hand. Granted, one can use the RNG to gin up encounters (in some games) but even those (encounter-table-based) content items are finite.

No-one needs to provide infinite content to provide real choices and agency. Finite content for finite choices and agency is enough for a game. But the discussion never moves to analyzing game designs to figure out what would efficiently generate choices and agency, because some parties keeps insisting that limited amount of choice is the same as no choice, limited agency is the same as no agency, and then using this to justify railroading and active deception. Just see above.

The reality of the matter is that it is not hard to design a game that has real choices. Literal children's games will teach how to do it once you analyze their components to see how they work. I showed how pages ago. Basic game theory and well-known board and card games work just as well. But there is little evidence of pro-railroading parties ever learning that lesson. They justify railroading and deception by saying it would take so much work to create a non-railroaded, honest game, but it's not clear any of them know a different way to craft a game in the first place.

[KorvinStarmast]

GM says "I'm running linear!" {snip the rest}

I have never had to have that kind of esoteric discussion, either as a player or as a GM.

Just out of curiosity, do you tend to play with back seat GMs?

Checking back on my calendar, I was 18 not quite 19 when I first GM'd. (I ran EPT before I ran a D&D game).
People kept coming back, and I kept doing it. And I played, also, and I learned by watching from other GMs and DMs, from getting ideas during conversations or from reading books or magazines.
We did a lot of procedurally generated content. Sometimes a small town or fishing village would more or less spring up on the map during play where there was nothing before since the situation called for it.
I guess you might call that 'reactive' world building, in terms of responding to something that the players do.

Somehow, the games were enjoyable, and usually broke up when RL scheduling, moving, or something like that ended the group's cohesion. Never did that conversation even need to happen.

I wonder at why it is even necessary.

[OldTrees1]

I have never had to have that kind of esoteric discussion, either as a player or as a GM.

Did you ever inform a potential new player about anything about the campaign you wanted to run?
Did you ever have a returning player correctly assume things about a new campaign based on the last campaign?
Also consider the heavy lifting that matching assumptions do. The extremes tend to not be assumed by new players.

You might just not recognize the discussion when it is made as a blunt online example rather than infused within normal discussion. Matching assumptions and other linguistic shortcuts allows a lot more information to be communicated without overt discussion.

Just out of curiosity, do you tend to play with back seat GMs?

Nope.

I wonder at why it is even necessary.

If a potential player cares about XYZ, then it is relevant for the GM to inform them about XYZ so the player can decide if they want to play.

• For example an arachnophobe might care to know if there will be spiders in "Desent into Menzoberranzan". They will probably be informed when you describe is as a campaign going into the drow city Menzoberranzan. (Example picked to demonstrate indirect communication)
• Or a potential player might be obsessed with dragons and want to know if they will encounter any in the campaign. You might inform them that the campaign is not dragon centric but there are some dragons that could be encountered. (Example picked to demonstrated positive reaction / liking something)

Some potential players dislike sandboxes enough to want to avoid them. Some potential players dislike extremely linear games (to such a degree that "Railroading" has a negative connotation for forcing extreme linearity) and want to avoid them. If I wanted to run "Curse of Strahd" as a sandbox then I would like to inform potential players that care to know. I included it in my description of the campaign I wanted to run.

Edit: Thrudd's post immediately below is another really good answer.

[Thrudd]

People who have years of experience playing with the same group of friends, or with other people equally experienced in RPGs, don't often have these sorts of conversations and don't need them, it is true. However, there are many new people interested in RPGs these days, and many with fairly little experience, and many of them may have expectations formed by watching streams like Critical Role, and/or by playing video games. I think it is reasonable, when dealing with brand new players, that a GM make a point of explaining their methods in general, for the particular system they are using, and for the upcoming campaign in particular. Clearly describe what you view as the GM's role, what sort of decisions the players will be able to make, what sort of things you will leave up to chance and what will be directed, etc. Not because you expect they might not want to play...but just so they can have reasonable expectations about what the game is really like.

We get used to the way our own long-term groups do things and take a lot for granted, especially when we mostly just play one RPG system. But given the large variety of different game systems, and the variety of different GM styles that can be used even with the same system, I think it is worthwhile for a GM to reflect on their own preferred style and methods and figure out a good way to communicate that to new players honestly. Even if someone doesn't play with new players very often, this sort of self reflection and awareness will help improve their GMing, imo.

That's not to say that a GM is locked-in to whatever method or philosophy they first describe. Obviously, things can change any time, if players or GM aren't enjoying how things are going, or the GM just wants to do something different...but if they choose to change their style, for whatever reason, they can/should be able to communicate what they will be changing and why, assuming it is a large enough change.

Almost every complaint and conflict described on this forum boils down to "player expectations". There's no "wrong" way to do roleplaying...but it is clear that people's preferences and expectations vary enough that it is worthwhile to attempt nipping that source of conflict in the bud whenever you consider playing with someone you don't know. Or even if you are with a long-time group who maybe have never thought about or communicated the fact that they have different preferences and expectations for games. Everyone getting on the same page can only make the game better.

[Cheesegear]

I have never had to have that kind of esoteric discussion, either as a player or as a GM.

People show up to my table, I run teach them to play. A player occasionally has a problem with the way the game works, I resolve the issue in less then three minutes ('Why can't I just, y'know, cast a spell quietly?' Because that's what Subtle Spell is, and you don't have that). We move on. They stay.

I've had two players leave my table with hostile intent:
i) Because I'm not Matt Mercer and D&D isn't fun because it's not like what he saw on YouTube. (Whole 'nother discussion that infuriates me)
ii) A disagreement with me, where I'm an a*hole. Probably fair. I don't know. Everyone else stayed at the table so it's probably personal. It didn't have anything to do with the game.

I wonder at why it is even necessary.

This thread tells me why it's necessary; There are apparently players in the world who say 'DM the way I want you to, or I'm not playing.'

I've seen it on this forum, in this thread; 'Fetishising Player Agency.'

Like the DM can't plan anything? As I said many, many pages ago. I've had people say to my face that the Surprise mechanic, and Traps, are railroading (but the players should get to Stealth have get Surprise rounds all the time, right?). I've had people tell me that NPCs lying to the players - or straight up just being wrong - isn't allowed. I've had players tell me that the DM isn't allowed to use Charm spells against PCs. You know how most RPGs let you customise hostiles, even create them from scratch? You know how some DMs create hostiles for their players to create challenging scenarios that don't get one-rounded? Nup. All of that is railroading. The DM can't ever plan anything, because that infringes on player agency. And infringing on player agency, is railroading.

Hell, you know what's great.

Player A: 'My backstory has a Fiend in it.'
DM: Alright, I'll make sure that Fiends are part of the narrative.
Player B, C, D: *Boo, Hiss* That's a railroad, we don't want nothing to do with Fiends.
DM: Oh I guess backstories don't inform the narrative anymore, because the second I take that into consideration, I'm planning, and that's a railroad.

There it is. Found it. After 9 pages I think I found it; Some players are just babies. A lot of players seem to believe that railroading is simply the DM exercising their game-given total control over the world.

What is a railroad? At it's core, a railroad removes Player Agency. Player Agency is removed all the time. If you're telling me, that as a DM, I can only ever do things that the players expect, that the players are aware of and must be able to react to on their own terms...No. I will railroad remove your agency whenever I feel like it, and yes, you are going to 'take it', because I'm allowed to. Goblins are allowed to Hide, beat your Perception, and attack you. And no, you wont see it coming and you wont be able to stop it, because that's actually the rules. Would you prefer that I wrote down that Goblins were on this path on a piece of paper that I reveal to you that I planned this out ahead of time and this isn't a random got'chya? Or would you prefer to believe that the Goblins are just...Here, because that's the encounter that I just made up right now? Or would you like to believe that I'm maliciously punishing you with ambushing Goblins because I'm trying to force you to fight Goblins?

Any of those can potentially be correct. Or, perhaps the worst case; The players must witness the DM rolling on a random encounter table, get Goblins and roll Stealth. That way none of it was up to the DM at all? But then who decided the random encounter table? How was that populated? This thread gave me the idea of the 'Entropy Dragon.' I don't know what that is, but it certainly sounds cool. I don't even know what a maximum entropy table even looks like. Do you just put all the monsters from the Monster Manual in a spreadsheet and use a RandBetween()? ...Well. Yes. That's probably exactly how you would do it.

'I must to agree to let you take away my player agency. I must agree to the linear campaign, and/or railroad, or whatever.' I see what you think you're saying. But that's not how it works.

I will tell you that 'Your choices matter, and the world will react to the choices you makes. Do whatever you want, whenever you want within the limitations based on the mechanics of the game, and maybe with a few narrative limitations that I, personally have - no Furries.'

However, that's not really how a DM'd game - nor I, personally - works. Narratively, sometimes, your choices don't matter, and your actions will have the same consequences no matter what you do. Sometimes, I'll be making stuff up off the top of my head, especially if you do something I don't expect (e.g; Outside of FROST), or if your character says or does something incredibly stupid to an incredibly high-ranking and/or powerful NPC. Sometimes I'll have a fun encounter or scenario that I just want you to do, and I'm going to engineer it so that you have that encounter. Sometimes I'll be kind of stuck for ideas and I'll let you guys talk amongst yourselves for 15 minutes and if any of you say anything interesting during roleplaying I might get an idea off of that. Sometimes your backstories inspire me...Although honestly they usually don't. Sometimes, I'm going to have to plan two, three maybe even a month's worth of sessions in advance and it's going to be a railroad for the next month while we run the idea that you guys chose to do. Sometimes I'll roll a random encounter out of a splatbook just to fill time and fill out the world, because 'You travel for five days' is kind of boring and not entirely realistic. Sometimes you'll drive the story. Sometimes I will. Worst case, dice will drive the story, but that's the worst way to do it and then you'll know you've truly thrown me for a loop because you've made choices so crazy and so insane that I just don't know how to react anymore and I need a dice to tell me...But that's unlikely.

You can do whatever you want within the limitations of the game. I already said that. However, mechanically, I, the DM, am under no such restrictions at all. I can create a custom hostile that ignores a mechanic of the game. I can just give hostiles the magic items that I want to give them so that I can ignore huge swathes of your abilities - you can potentially loot those items, sure...But the encounter is already done. I can set the DCs to anything I want, up to and including setting it high enough that you can't pass. I'm not saying a particular skill is impossible...I'm saying that you, specifically can't do it because I kind of felt like not letting you. I can give my hostiles Fire Resistance so your Fireballs don't work. I can give my hostiles Counterspell so you can't cast Fireball at all. Anything, you, the player can do, I can also do as DM...However I get way more custom powers on top of what you can do. Who does the customising? I do. It's all me, baby. Sometimes, it wont even be me. I'll ask a weird forum what to do and I'll just go with something the mob says that makes sense - it wont even be my ruling! Crazy!

You're just going to have to trust me, that I in good faith am trying to make a good experience for you, that is also fun for me (and as little work on my end, as possible, I DM two more tables and also have real life), and, you're going to have to trust that just because I can do anything I want...I wont. Or maybe I will, but only rarely and usually for a good reason.

...But I'm not going to say that to my players, because that would be pretty asinine.

Anyway, I've exhausted all the points I have for this thread. The main one being:

Is railroading bad? ...It depends.
The DM can do whatever they want, including removing player agency.
The players have to trust the DM wont abuse that power. But, the players must also accept that the DM will use that power, more than never.

I'm out.

[JNAProductions]

People show up to my table, I run teach them to play. A player occasionally has a problem with the way the game works, I resolve the issue in less then three minutes ('Why can't I just, y'know, cast a spell quietly?' Because that's what Subtle Spell is, and you don't have that). We move on. They stay.

I've had two players leave my table with hostile intent:
i) Because I'm not Matt Mercer and D&D isn't fun because it's not like what he saw on YouTube. (Whole 'nother discussion that infuriates me)
ii) A disagreement with me, where I'm an a*hole. Probably fair. I don't know. Everyone else stayed at the table so it's probably personal. It didn't have anything to do with the game.

This thread tells me why it's necessary; There are apparently players in the world who say 'DM the way I want you to, or I'm not playing.'

I've seen it on this forum, in this thread; 'Fetishising Player Agency.'

Like the DM can't plan anything? As I said many, many pages ago. I've had people say to my face that the Surprise mechanic, and Traps, are railroading (but the players should get to Stealth have get Surprise rounds all the time, right?). I've had people tell me that NPCs lying to the players - or straight up just being wrong - isn't allowed. I've had players tell me that the DM isn't allowed to use Charm spells against PCs. You know how most RPGs let you customise hostiles, even create them from scratch? You know how some DMs create hostiles for their players to create challenging scenarios that don't get one-rounded? Nup. All of that is railroading. The DM can't ever plan anything, because that infringes on player agency. And infringing on player agency, is railroading.

Hell, you know what's great.

Player A: 'My backstory has a Fiend in it.'
DM: Alright, I'll make sure that Fiends are part of the narrative.
Player B, C, D: *Boo, Hiss* That's a railroad, we don't want nothing to do with Fiends.
DM: Oh I guess backstories don't inform the narrative anymore, because the second I take that into consideration, I'm planning, and that's a railroad.

There it is. Found it. After 9 pages I think I found it; Some players are just babies. A lot of players seem to believe that railroading is simply the DM exercising their game-given total control over the world.

What is a railroad? At it's core, a railroad removes Player Agency. Player Agency is removed all the time. If you're telling me, that as a DM, I can only ever do things that the players expect, that the players are aware of and must be able to react to on their own terms...No. I will railroad remove your agency whenever I feel like it, and yes, you are going to 'take it', because I'm allowed to. Goblins are allowed to Hide, beat your Perception, and attack you. And no, you wont see it coming and you wont be able to stop it, because that's actually the rules. Would you prefer that I wrote down that Goblins were on this path on a piece of paper that I reveal to you that I planned this out ahead of time and this isn't a random got'chya? Or would you prefer to believe that the Goblins are just...Here, because that's the encounter that I just made up right now? Or would you like to believe that I'm maliciously punishing you with ambushing Goblins because I'm trying to force you to fight Goblins?

Any of those can potentially be correct. Or, perhaps the worst case; The players must witness the DM rolling on a random encounter table, get Goblins and roll Stealth. That way none of it was up to the DM at all? But then who decided the random encounter table? How was that populated? This thread gave me the idea of the 'Entropy Dragon.' I don't know what that is, but it certainly sounds cool. I don't even know what a maximum entropy table even looks like. Do you just put all the monsters from the Monster Manual in a spreadsheet and use a RandBetween()? ...Well. Yes. That's probably exactly how you would do it.

'I must to agree to let you take away my player agency. I must agree to the linear campaign, and/or railroad, or whatever.' I see what you think you're saying. But that's not how it works.

I will tell you that 'Your choices matter, and the world will react to the choices you makes. Do whatever you want, whenever you want within the limitations based on the mechanics of the game, and maybe with a few narrative limitations that I, personally have - no Furries.'

However, that's not really how a DM'd game - nor I, personally - works. Narratively, sometimes, your choices don't matter, and your actions will have the same consequences no matter what you do. Sometimes, I'll be making stuff up off the top of my head, especially if you do something I don't expect (e.g; Outside of FROST), or if your character says or does something incredibly stupid to an incredibly high-ranking and/or powerful NPC. Sometimes I'll have a fun encounter or scenario that I just want you to do, and I'm going to engineer it so that you have that encounter. Sometimes I'll be kind of stuck for ideas and I'll let you guys talk amongst yourselves for 15 minutes and if any of you say anything interesting during roleplaying I might get an idea off of that. Sometimes your backstories inspire me...Although honestly they usually don't. Sometimes, I'm going to have to plan two, three maybe even a month's worth of sessions in advance and it's going to be a railroad for the next month while we run the idea that you guys chose to do. Sometimes I'll roll a random encounter out of a splatbook just to fill time and fill out the world, because 'You travel for five days' is kind of boring and not entirely realistic. Sometimes you'll drive the story. Sometimes I will. Worst case, dice will drive the story, but that's the worst way to do it and then you'll know you've truly thrown me for a loop because you've made choices so crazy and so insane that I just don't know how to react anymore and I need a dice to tell me...But that's unlikely.

You can do whatever you want within the limitations of the game. I already said that. However, mechanically, I, the DM, am under no such restrictions at all. I can create a custom hostile that ignores a mechanic of the game. I can just give hostiles the magic items that I want to give them so that I can ignore huge swathes of your abilities - you can potentially loot those items, sure...But the encounter is already done. I can set the DCs to anything I want, up to and including setting it high enough that you can't pass. I'm not saying a particular skill is impossible...I'm saying that you, specifically can't do it because I kind of felt like not letting you. I can give my hostiles Fire Resistance so your Fireballs don't work. I can give my hostiles Counterspell so you can't cast Fireball at all. Anything, you, the player can do, I can also do as DM...However I get way more custom powers on top of what you can do. Who does the customising? I do. It's all me, baby. Sometimes, it wont even be me. I'll ask a weird forum what to do and I'll just go with something the mob says that makes sense - it wont even be my ruling! Crazy!

You're just going to have to trust me, that I in good faith am trying to make a good experience for you, that is also fun for me (and as little work on my end, as possible, I DM two more tables and also have real life), and, you're going to have to trust that just because I can do anything I want...I wont. Or maybe I will, but only rarely and usually for a good reason.

...But I'm not going to say that to my players, because that would be pretty asinine.

Anyway, I've exhausted all the points I have for this thread. The main one being:

Is railroading bad? ...It depends.
The DM can do whatever they want, including removing player agency.
The players have to trust the DM wont abuse that power.

I'm out.

Quoting this in full.

Because... It's just full of wrongness.

Not one person has said "You can't ever have characters in the world deceive the players' characters."
Not one person has said "You can't ever plan anything in advance."
Not one person has said "My PC should be able to do literally anything at any time."

You have advocated for deceiving the players-not the characters, the actual, real people sitting at the table with you, who are presumably your friends, or at least friendly acquaintances.
You have likened that to feeding your pet medication-treating the players at your table as something not even human, I can fully understand if you realize that might not have been the best comparison, but it's still one you made.

It really seems like you're feeling attacked by a lot of the posts here, and that would really only be the case if you have an interest in lying to your players.
Because, again-no one here has said linear games are bad. There's been plenty of people who've said "They aren't to my liking," but that just means they've different preferences to players at your table.

The only thing that's been decried here is deceiving players, or running roughshod over their wants.

[OldTrees1]

Cheesegear you posted that to the wrong thread. It does not match what was discussed in this thread at all. Or maybe that was intentional misrepresentation and fabrication.

I honestly hope you have a good day.

You have advocated for deceiving the players-not the characters, the actual, real people sitting at the table with you, who are presumably your friends, or at least friendly acquaintances.
You have likened that to feeding your pet medication-treating the players at your table as something not even human, I can fully understand if you realize that might not have been the best comparison, but it's still one you made.

It really seems like you're feeling attacked by a lot of the posts here, and that would really only be the case if you have an interest in lying to your players.
Because, again-no one here has said linear games are bad. There's been plenty of people who've said "They aren't to my liking," but that just means they've different preferences to players at your table.

The only thing that's been decried here is deceiving players, or running roughshod over their wants.

This is a much better summary of the contentious argument Cheesgear made and the critiques of that argument.

Cheesegear argued that "If I don't get caught, then it is okay to do things that the players are not okay with". The counter argument is "Why not be honest and play games with players that are okay with it? Tricking potential players into playing a game they don't want to play seems bad prima facie."

[kyoryu]

And it should be said that there are gradations to all of these things. It's not a full sandbox/total linear dichotomy, it's shades of sandbox/linearity. And you can be linear in some things and sandboxy in others. You can have a linear JRPG plot while how the party approaches things is fully up to them, for instance.

I'm not so sure about that. I get what you're saying, but ultimately, I think there's a difference between a game where the GM prepares every encounter/scene (or at least every meaningful encounter/scene) and one where the GM creates scenes/encounters that make sense for what the players are doing.

Again, Mass Effect. Every player of the game goes through a subset of the same content. There's no way to do something that wasn't prepared in advance (and most published or personally written "modules" offer much less freedom). You can't have a political negotiation with the Reapers - that's just not part of it. You can't solve the Quarian/Geth issue by grafting them together somehow (though that's kinda one of the endings, but I digress). You can't go to a pirate citadel that wasn't part of the original "script".

Some people are fine with that. Some people aren't - they want the ability to really decide how they're going to tackle issues, and for the world to change (significantly in scope if not in scale) to what they do.

My dog really, really, really loves maple bacon. My dog gets bacon every other week and for some reason doesn't get covered in ticks anymore. How dare I trick my dog into eating pills that prevent tick paralysis and lyme disease.

Oooh...I know multiple people at work:

One day; Tomato is gross.
At the Deli; I'll take a BLT please.

Turns out the trick to get people - and animals - to eat stuff they don't want, is bacon. Who knew?

A) You've gone from comparing players to children to comparing them to dogs.

B) In the BLT example, the person is opting in to something they normally avoid, but find okay in that particular context. There's nothing wrong there - it's about giving them the choice. They can order a BLT, or not. That's an entirely different thing than "I don't want tomatoes on my hamburger" and then trying to hide the tomato in the burger so they don't see it, because you know they really want it.

While I don't prefer railroad games, I've agreed to play them on occasion because a friend was running it, and preferred to run a linear game (for whatever reason). When I agreed, I engaged with the content appropriately, didn't whine about it being linear, didn't try to break the rails, etc. And that was fine, because I knew what I was getting into.

I have never had to have that kind of esoteric discussion, either as a player or as a GM.

I don't consider it esoteric at all, and I have it with almost every new player.

"I'm running Fate. Some things you need to know - this is what the game's about, and I expect characters to be made that would/could/want to deal with that kind of thing. You're expected to engage with the premise. However, how you deal with it is up to you - I don't prepare out a plot or set of scenes, and any reasonable thing you have will have a chance of succeeding. Don't look for the rails, there are none. The world will move on without you, though, and NPCs have their own agendas. Also be aware that though character death will be pretty rare, as Fate isn't a game where you "accidentally" die, you will fail a lot. That just means that the story goes the way you didn't want to at that point. Also, while death isn't normally a thing, that doesn't prevent you from dying if you do things that are obviously suicidal, or if I warn you that continuing will lead to death. But it won't be because of a random critical hit."

But, I think there's a few types of games, and it's useful to be on board with what you're doing.

1) Dungeon/Hexcrawl exploration games
2) Full sandbox
3) "Story"/linear games
4) "Narrative" sandboxes or "story" sandboxes (what I typically run)
5) Neo-classical or almost a kind of collaborative OC fiction campaign

These are all very different, and if people have expectations for one of them and get the other, it usually doesn't end great. If this works for you, it's probably because everyone around you has similar expectations and so you run into it - given how common linear/story games are, this is the likely "style" of game.

A friend of mine and I were running a shared world for a while. We both said similar things, but in practice we actually ran things very differently - he had very prepared encounters/sessions (while claiming he didn't, at one point another player even said "come on, it's obvious this is what he's planned, let's just do it", heh.) I ran a more simulation-style.

He got pissy when I didn't adjust world things to fit the party, and the game wasn't about "his character's story". I got dissatisfied when I realized how hard he was railroading (took about three scenes in the game). Neither of us was wrong. We had misaligned expectations, and both of us had dissonance because of that.

Somehow, the games were enjoyable, and usually broke up when RL scheduling, moving, or something like that ended the group's cohesion. Never did that conversation even need to happen.

I wonder at why it is even necessary.

You had a group or community that had similarly aligned expectations, and so it didn't happen. Usually it's long-term groups or communities that are most dismissive of "Session Zero" and the like, because they don't really need them.

When dealing with new players not from that community, it's very helpful, to make sure people are aligned.

I have absolutely seen games crater because of misaligned expectations. I have absolutely seen people eject from groups for the same reason, often with "wow what a jerk" from the remaining players. Usually the player isn't a jerk - if that player was playing with similarly aligned people they'd be fine, and the group members from the ejecting group would probably have similar issues if playing with a group that had alignment with the player that got ejected.

People who have years of experience playing with the same group of friends, or with other people equally experienced in RPGs, don't often have these sorts of conversations and don't need them, it is true. However, there are many new people interested in RPGs these days, and many with fairly little experience, and many of them may have expectations formed by watching streams like Critical Role, and/or by playing video games. I think it is reasonable, when dealing with brand new players, that a GM make a point of explaining their methods in general, for the particular system they are using, and for the upcoming campaign in particular. Clearly describe what you view as the GM's role, what sort of decisions the players will be able to make, what sort of things you will leave up to chance and what will be directed, etc.

We get used to the way our own long-term groups do things and take a lot for granted, especially when we mostly just play one RPG system. But given the large variety of different game systems, and the variety of different GM styles that can be used even with the same system, I think it is worthwhile for a GM to reflect on their own preferred style and methods and figure out a good way to communicate that to new players honestly. Even if someone doesn't play with new players very often, this sort of self reflection and awareness will help improve their GMing, imo.

That's not to say that a GM is locked-in to whatever method or philosophy they first describe. Obviously, things can change any time, if players or GM aren't enjoying how things are going, or the GM just wants to do something different...but if they choose to change their style, for whatever reason, they can/should be able to communicate what they will be changing and why, assuming it is a large enough change.

Almost every complaint and conflict described on this forum boils down to "player expectations". There's no "wrong" way to do roleplaying...but it is clear that people's preferences and expectations vary enough that it is worthwhile to attempt nipping that source of conflict in the bud whenever you consider playing with someone you don't know. Or even if you are with a long-time group who maybe have never thought about or communicated the fact that they have different preferences and expectations for games. Everyone getting on the same page can only make the game better.

All of this.

Which is why the majority of statement from the anti-railroading people has just been "be honest about how you're running the game". That way people can decide to play, or not, and adjust expectations accordingly.

[Cheesegear]

It really seems like you're feeling attacked by a lot of the posts here, and that would really only be the case if you have an interest in lying to your players.

Of course I lie to my players. I would've thought every DM did.
The problem is that people in this thread seem to believe that I only lie to my players, which just isn't true.
And that doing it is always bad. Which I just don't believe.

[OldTrees1]

Of course I lie to my players. I would've thought every DM did.
The problem is that people in this thread seem to believe that I only lie to my players, which just isn't true.
And that doing it is always bad. Which I just don't believe.

People in this thread don't believe you are incapable of telling the truth. They believe you have been advocating tricking potential players into playing games they would not want to play and then excusing it with "As long as I don't get caught, it does not matter if the players are not okay with something, I can ignore the players children pets on this. As long as I don't get caught, everything my players children pets are not okay with is perfectly okay. Oh and other GMs should do this too.".

That claim is the part being critiqued.

• It is not about lies to the characters.
• It is not about lies to the players that they would be okay with.
• It is about lies to the players that they are not okay with and you trying to excuse it with "If I don't get caught then it is okay regardless of the players not being okay with it".
• As things continued, it also included you comparing potential players to children and then dogs to justify your perceived superiority and flimsy excuse.

[kyoryu]

The counter argument is "Why not be honest and play games with players that are okay with it? Tricking potential players into playing a game they don't want to play seems bad prima facie."

I have asked, and will ask again:

What is the benefit of lying about the linearity of your game, in comparison to being honest about the linearity of your game?

IOW, given the two statements:

A: "Hey, I wanna run a game. I've got the story planned out, and a lot of cool encounters. It's pretty linear, but I can promise the prep I've gone into it makes it worth it. You in?"

B: "Hey, I wanna run a game. It's not linear, you can do whatever you want! You in?" (while secretly running the linear game above)

What advantage does B possibly have?

Let's imagine 3 players getting these pitches, X, Y, and Z. X hates linear games and doesn't want to play them, ever. Y doesn't care for them, but might play in one if they know. Z loves linear games and hates sandboxes.

If you pitch A, X will decline your game, and Y and Z will join. Everyone will be happy.

If you pitch B, X and Y will join your game, while Z will opt out. Since typically (see tales in this thread) people find this out eventually, X will eventually get mad about it, and Y will get mad about being deceived when they could have been happy.

Even if you can maintain the deception, you've excluded Z who would really really like your game, and have to go through extra efforts to maintain the deception to keep X in. Why not just relieve the stress, and tell people what's going on?

The only advantage I see to the deception is the deception itself, and the feelings of cleverness that a GM might get for "successfully" pulling off that deception.

[Cheesegear]

They believe you have been advocating tricking potential players into playing games they would not want to play...

As I said the last time. I reject your phrasing.

I've been leaning (my) players into games, it turns out, they do want to play - even if they say it's not actually they want at the start...Until they get it. Maybe some DMs can't do that. Are lies involved? Maybe. Their choices and their actions absolutely do matter...Unless sometimes maybe they don't. Well how often is that? Question mark.

'But how can I trust my DM?' ...You're just going to have to.

Oh and other GMs should do this too.

Other DMs can try. I can't count the number of times that someone has said in regards to anything; You do your table.
Try something. If it works; Keep doing it.
If it doesn't work; Stop doing it.

As things continued, it also included you comparing potential players to children and then dogs...

What DM circles have you been in where you've never heard of it being referred to as 'herding cats'?

This isn't the first time you've heard players compared to animals. Especially the players with NE and CN - and CE - alignments. Surely, right? Is this really the first time. Okay.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not so sure about that. I get what you're saying, but ultimately, I think there's a difference between a game where the GM prepares every encounter/scene (or at least every meaningful encounter/scene) and one where the GM creates scenes/encounters that make sense for what the players are doing.

Again, Mass Effect. Every player of the game goes through a subset of the same content. There's no way to do something that wasn't prepared in advance (and most published or personally written "modules" offer much less freedom). You can't have a political negotiation with the Reapers - that's just not part of it. You can't solve the Quarian/Geth issue by grafting them together somehow (though that's kinda one of the endings, but I digress). You can't go to a pirate citadel that wasn't part of the original "script".

Some people are fine with that. Some people aren't - they want the ability to really decide how they're going to tackle issues, and for the world to change (significantly in scope if not in scale) to what they do.

But here's the thing. You can do both at different times. Some number of "fixed" scenes (will happen with only limited variation, often including the entry sequence, possibly length 1) and a bunch that depend critically and intrinsically on the game state at T-1. And that's very different than either a "fixed sequence of fixed scenes" or "no fixed scenes at all". And with the wonders of Just In Time planning, you can have prepared scenes that also make sense for what the players are doing. And there are any number of possibilities. Given two fixed points in abstract space, there are an infinite number of distinct paths between those two points (a priori). A linear campaign states that only one of those paths is valid, effectively defining an infinite (or large) number of checkpoints along the way. But you can alter the number of checkpoints (fixed points in abstract space)--the minimum is really 1 (the starting point, which is chosen before the game begins). And as you relax your control over how precisely you define your checkpoints (so instead of a point they become a region), you can get a whole bunch of different styles. And they're meaningfully different.

Mass Effect has a bunch of checkpoints (the Priority Missions in 3, for example), but was designed so that there are a choice of four end points that are trivially connected by fixed paths from the final checkpoint (the "last boss" as much as it is). They're gated based on your meter value though, so any given play through may only see 1+. All that differences in stuff along the way make at the end point is raising (or not) your meter value. On the other hand, you get very different feelings during the journey. Playing a full Renegade and a full Paragon games feel different, despite the ending being quite similar or even the same (if you chose the same path). Doing or not doing some of the side quests changes how the game feels. Effectively, you have a fixed start point, a bunch of other fixed points, but between those points you have a spread of paths you can take, including doubling back (ie the order isn't fixed).

Compare that with, say, an on-rails JRPG. Where not only are the end points fixed, you don't really have any choices along the way. FFXIV lampshades this with dialog choices like "It doesn't really matter what I say here, does it?" or "...". Often your response doesn't even change the ensuing response! Those are quite different.

And compare that yet again to Skyrim, where really none of the points are fixed (because mods). Even in the base game, really only the Prisoner sequence is forced. You can completely ignore the main quest and even all the other major side quests and spend your time picking flowers. It's still partially linear, because as a computer game it has limits. But it's much less so than a JRPG.

Linear vs sandbox is not a dichotomy. It's a choice in a multi-dimensional space. And people can like and prefer a bunch of different regions of that space. Reducing it to a dichotomy makes people think "well, I can't handle a full sandbox, so I'm just going to force them down this one path" (which often ends up turning into a hard-walled railroad). Or alternatively "I don't want to railroad, so I'm going to have to set up a full sandbox." (and usually do it poorly, since full sandboxes are hard to do and take particular mindsets that most people don't have). Which means most people (who prefer things in between the extremes) aren't satisfied.

Better to talk about the full range of options, IMO.

Spoiler

Show

Let's take my current campaign as an example, because I don't believe I'm running either a sandbox or a linear campaign. I don't know what will happen in any detail beyond the next session (and am horribly behind in planning for that). But I know the broad-strokes things that will likely happen. And I plan every scene--there's no procedural generation. While I may improv the details, I know what is in all the areas that they can reach at any given time. If you look backward, it looks linear. But the direction at any one time may vary--there are no prospective trackways. No real "main plot". Or even sidequests. But as things happen, the set of "plausible changes" will be filtered heavily to adapt to what the party is interested in and their backstories.

For instance, currently they're doing timey-wimey stuff. Entering bubbles of fractured time (some past, some present, some future, many from completely different timelines) and dealing with what they find. Each bubble (and I know where all the bubbles are in this shattered-time city and what point in the timelines they come from) has a core situation. Resolving that situation (in any number of ways, but many of which will involve killing things) causes the bubble to "pop", which usually puts the contents of the bubble anachronistically in the "main" timeline. But has effects on the other bubbles as well. So everything they do is significant with knock-on effects based on what they did, but all the scenes are pre-planned at the time they get to them. Even if the plans change and evolve depending on the order of encounter and what they do at each step.

[kyoryu]

Big snip

I think you're losing the main point. You're describing a lot of ways to give various levels of agency in a game where you are limited to predefined content (or at least fairly trivial procedural content). Those are all true, and are good techniques.

What I'm ultimately talking about is really simple: Can you engage in a meaningful scene that wasn't pre-prepared? That's pretty yes/no.

Example, in a game I ran I hadn't decided if there would be mage guilds or not. Just didn't cross my mind. One of my players assumed there was and went to the mage's guild. Cool! I ran with it, and set up a scene to see if they could get the help they were looking for.

That wasn't pre-prepared, it was completely spontaneous. And that's what matters to me, because once you lean into that, pre-prepared content becomes quickly irrelevant as nobody knows what will happen - not in mostly "off-screen" stuff, not in changing meters, not in taking branch A instead of branch B, but overall. If I start a game with "prevent the wizard from casting the demon summoning spell!" then there's a chance that the demon summoning spell won't be stopped. And then the players have to deal with that, and how they move forward in terms of the overall "plot" changes radically, and trying to predict that and plan ahead is probably a waste of time.

That's what I want in TTRPGs. I want my decisions to change the path so significantly that the path is not predictable. And, yeah, I pretty much do think that's binary.

(Skyrim, btw, I'd say is a good example of the "theme park" model. There's a big open space you can wander that is mostly static, and then you get on a ride and ride its rails for a while).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you're losing the main point. You're describing a lot of ways to give various levels of agency in a game where you are limited to predefined content (or at least fairly trivial procedural content). Those are all true, and are good techniques.

What I'm ultimately talking about is really simple: Can you engage in a meaningful scene that wasn't pre-prepared? That's pretty yes/no.

Example, in a game I ran I hadn't decided if there would be mage guilds or not. Just didn't cross my mind. One of my players assumed there was and went to the mage's guild. Cool! I ran with it, and set up a scene to see if they could get the help they were looking for.

That wasn't pre-prepared, it was completely spontaneous. And that's what matters to me, because once you lean into that, pre-prepared content becomes quickly irrelevant as nobody knows what will happen - not in mostly "off-screen" stuff, not in changing meters, not in taking branch A instead of branch B, but overall. If I start a game with "prevent the wizard from casting the demon summoning spell!" then there's a chance that the demon summoning spell won't be stopped. And then the players have to deal with that, and how they move forward in terms of the overall "plot" changes radically, and trying to predict that and plan ahead is probably a waste of time.

That's what I want in TTRPGs. I want my decisions to change the path so significantly that the path is not predictable. And, yeah, I pretty much do think that's binary.

I don't think it's binary. And it all depends on how you classify a "scene" (ie what level of granularity you're looking at). I freely mix "prepared" scenes with completely improv scenes.

At one end, you have nothing but prepared scenes, in a fixed (or known) order. At the other end, you have neither prepared scenes nor a fixed (or even known) order. In between, you can have any combination of prepared and improv scenes, with segments having a fixed order and other segments just layering in freely. You can mix set-piece battles with completely ad hoc encounters.

Basically, preparation and linearity are separate things. Not completely orthogonal, but separate. It's actually pretty easy to do a very linear (at a higher level) campaign made out of entirely improv scenes--every bit of the improv is designed to answer the question "how do I keep them on the path". All it requires is not planning scenes, but planning outcomes. And you can do a fully-sandbox game with entirely prepared material. Usually via massively over-preparing. The latter is exhausting, however.

And you can have scenes that are partially prepared and partially improvised. In fact, those tend, in my experience, to work best for every (ok, 99.999% conservatively) of all playstyles. There's a lot of ground between "everything is prepared in advance and moves robotically" and "nothing is set in advance and everything is on the fly." And that's where every successful campaign I've ever heard of has lived.

I've found that campaigns naturally flow into alternating "they'll keep doing what they're doing until it resolves one way or another" (which ends up being quite linear at the higher scale, with predictable "next scenes" most of the time) with "now they have to decide what to do next" (which is naturally non-linear). The broad-scale outcome is not known in advance, but the "what are they doing next session" thing is quite predictable (within limits). Either because they're in the middle of a scene that has momentum or because they told you at the end of the last session what they're planning to do next session. And part of the art of good DM'ing is adjusting the timing (whether of prepared or improv content) so that the big decision points fall naturally at or near the end of a session. This is JIT planning, and how much detail you plan depends on your personal style (with wide variations).

[BRC]

What I'm ultimately talking about is really simple: Can you engage in a meaningful scene that wasn't pre-prepared? That's pretty yes/no.

Example, in a game I ran I hadn't decided if there would be mage guilds or not. Just didn't cross my mind. One of my players assumed there was and went to the mage's guild. Cool! I ran with it, and set up a scene to see if they could get the help they were looking for.

That wasn't pre-prepared, it was completely spontaneous. And that's what matters to me, because once you lean into that, pre-prepared content becomes quickly irrelevant as nobody knows what will happen - not in mostly "off-screen" stuff, not in changing meters, not in taking branch A instead of branch B, but overall. If I start a game with "prevent the wizard from casting the demon summoning spell!" then there's a chance that the demon summoning spell won't be stopped. And then the players have to deal with that, and how they move forward in terms of the overall "plot" changes radically, and trying to predict that and plan ahead is probably a waste of time.

That's what I want in TTRPGs. I want my decisions to change the path so significantly that the path is not predictable. And, yeah, I pretty much do think that's binary.

(Skyrim, btw, I'd say is a good example of the "theme park" model. There's a big open space you can wander that is mostly static, and then you get on a ride and ride its rails for a while).

So, we need to split things up into a few levels here. Let's call them Supermicro, Micro, Macro, and Supermacro.
Let's also define 3 axis: Planned (The thing is immutab), Flexible (The GM has defined a potential/most likely path, but isn't going to enforce that if something else makes sense), and Improv (There is no plan at all)


Supermacro is, well, setting details and campaign premise.
"This campaign takes place in the world of Generica. The PC's are a group of Heroes tasked by the King with stopping the Demon Ritual". That's the Supermacro of the campaign. That's what you pitch to the Players, and shapes the overall campaign. If the campaign is centered around some specific threat, pitching it ahead of time is usually a good idea so that the players arrive invested in the idea of fighting that threat.
A player who resists Supermacro planning, especially if told about it ahead of time, is where "Unreasonable Player" territory happens. If you're told "This game is about stopping a demon ritual", but you want to go off and be a Pirate, I'd say the problem is with you, not the game.


Macro is the general shape of the story. The Plot Synopsis.
"The Heroes go to Portsburg where smugglers are selling the Cultists demonic relics looted from the ruins of the Old Empire. They will stop the smugglers, then follow the Cultist's trail to Bloodstone Manor, where Cult Scholars are studying the relics to assemble a lexicon of the Ancient Demon Language that they need to construct the Ritual. After raiding Bloodstone Manor, they find information that leads them to the Cult's Headquarters on Mount Deathskull, where they confront the Evil Wizard and stop the Ritual."
This, I think, is the sort of thing you're talking about wanting to be able to change. Maybe the PC's convince the Smugglers to betray the Cultists, or they just burn Bloodstone Manor to the ground and find the cult HQ some other way? Or they steal the Lexicon and hold it hostage to make the Evil Wizard come to them?

You can run a good game with a pre-planned Macro level, but that's usually where preference comes in. Some players want to be able to control the Macro, others don't mind if the overall shape of the campaign is pre-set. Planned, Flexible, and Improv macro are all acceptable playstyles.

Then there's the Micro, The session plan. "In this session, the PC's will meet with and battle the Smugglers". This is the sort of thing that every GM roughly Plans, but no smart GM gets too attached to. This is where "Build scenarios, not Stories" comes in. When a DM tries to strictly control the Micro, that's where most players start to feel the tracks under their feet. Some players may be okay with Planned Micro, but unless you have a DMPC giving them orders every step of the way, or just do linear dungeon crawls, Planned Micro is really hard to pull off. Even if the players are trying to stay on the tracks they can stray.

Then you have the Supermicro, the path of an individual scene. Any DM who thinks they can script this is a fool, with the one exception being Exposition. "This is the Information the NPC is going to tell the PC's". You can often get away with that, because players usually want information, so if the NPC wants to give the PC's info, that usually works just fine.

[kyoryu]

So, we need to split things up into a few levels here. Let's call them Supermicro, Micro, Macro, and Supermacro.
Let's also define 3 axis: Planned (The thing is immutab), Flexible (The GM has defined a potential/most likely path, but isn't going to enforce that if something else makes sense), and Improv (There is no plan at all)

I think that's a reasonable framework for talking about htis.

And, yes, "Supermacro" is the "if you don't wanna, don't play" level. If you join the game, you should buy into that. It's the "movie trailer".

What I personally want is more improv at the Macro and below levels.

The thing is, even as a GM, that's how I run. That doesn't mean I don't plan. What it does mean is that I plan differently - I set up the world, and I set up the NPCs, and what they plan on doing (though that will get changed, I usually like to set up NPCs with mutually exclusive agendas as a trick to make sure I don't get too attached). In your description, you talked about planning PC actions, and my preference is the GM doesn't plan those.

(That's another interesting angle - is the GM planning PC actions or NPC actions?)

How and what you plan for various types of games is a very interesting discussion. A lot of "pro linear" arguments do seem to boil down to "how else do you prep?" IOW, it seems like a lot of people run linear games because they don't know how to do other types of games (which is understanding since published modules really are almost all primarily linear since the mid '80s or so)

But again, this is a larger discussion, and my point remains do what you want, but tell the players what style of game you're running. In no way am I trying to say that linear/planned games at any level are wrong.

I'm not saying you're saying that either, but I think you're trying to help by creating a framework that allows for more meaningful discussion of preferences, and I think you're on something pretty useful.

[KorvinStarmast]

Did you ever inform a potential new player about anything about the campaign you wanted to run?

Yes.

Did you ever have a returning player correctly assume things about a new campaign based on the last campaign?

Question is incoherent.

You might just not recognize the discussion when it is made as a blunt online example rather than infused within normal discussion. Matching assumptions and other linguistic shortcuts allows a lot more information to be communicated without overt discussion.

That's not a bad point to make, in terms of what needed to get across came across without getting into some esoteric meta discussion.

If a potential player cares about XYZ, then it is relevant for the GM to inform them about XYZ so the player can decide if they want to play.

Then speak up, if it matters. (and a lot of this can be brought up in session 0).

Some potential players dislike sandboxes enough to want to avoid them.

But nobody is required to classify the game they are playing in these esoteric terms. It's a meta term.

I've seen it on this forum, in this thread; 'Fetishising Player Agency.'

That's a way to characterize it, I suppose.

Sometimes, I'll be making stuff up off the top of my head, especially if you do something I don't expect (e.g; Outside of FROST){snip} Sometimes I'll be kind of stuck for ideas and I'll let you guys talk amongst yourselves for 15 minutes and if any of you say anything interesting during roleplaying I might get an idea off of that. Sometimes your backstories inspire me. {snip} Sometimes I'll roll a random encounter out of a splatbook just to fill time and fill out the world, because 'You travel for five days' is kind of boring and not entirely realistic. Sometimes you'll drive the story. Sometimes I will. Worst case, dice will drive the story, but that's the worst way to do it and then you'll know you've truly thrown me for a loop because you've made choices so crazy and so insane that I just don't know how to react anymore and I need a dice to tell me...But that's unlikely.

All of these crop up, sure.

If the players and DM don't establish a trust relationship, it will eventually surface and the game / campaign becomes at risk. How the small group resolves that trust relationship doesn't need the term "sandbox" and it doesn't need the term "linear". It needs a normal conversation.

What is the benefit of lying about the linearity of your game, in comparison to being honest about the linearity of your game?

And I'll repeat that that key word isn't even a necessary conversational topic.

I concur with your concern, though, about a lack of a trust relationship between players and GMs. Where there isn't one, the game is at risk. In extreme cases, friendships may be at risk.

[BRC]

I'm not saying you're saying that either, but I think you're trying to help by creating a framework that allows for more meaningful discussion of preferences, and I think you're on something pretty useful.

That's what I'm trying to do.
Because, I think that part of the confusion here, and the answer to the question of "Why lie to your players", is that it's hard to communicate the level of a game.


To use my system above as a reference, one person may say "It's somewhat Linear, but you get to choose how you approach things", and be talking about a Flexible Macro with improvised Micro.

Another person may hear the same thing and think it's a planned micro with flexible super micro.


If you say "My game is Linear", people are going to assume you're talking about, at least, Planned Micro, because D&D culture is full of stories of Railroading DMs who lock their players into a strict script, because "I did a Planned Macro, Flexible Micro game and everybody had a good time" stories don't get told.

Also, from the Player's perspective, you only really notice linearity when it starts to be a problem. It can be hard to differentiate between "Planned", "Flexible but we happened to go for the DM's main plan" and "Improv, but the DM was good at rolling with what we said". You don't see the rails until you start to leave them, so if somebody pitches a "Linear Game", you're going to imagine Rails That You Want To Leave, because that's the main context you're going to have.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, from the Player's perspective, you only really notice linearity when it starts to be a problem. It can be hard to differentiate between "Planned", "Flexible but we happened to go for the DM's main plan" and "Improv, but the DM was good at rolling with what we said". You don't see the rails until you start to leave them, so if somebody pitches a "Linear Game", you're going to imagine Rails That You Want To Leave, because that's the main context you're going to have.

Thanks for crystalizing a point that was floating around in my brain but I wasn't getting into good words.
Put another way, it's not a problem until it's a problem.