Choo-Choo yes? Is railroading REALLY that bad?

[animorte]

Also, think a lot of people in this thread are confusing a Quantum Ogre with a Teleporting Ogre. Similar. But they are not the same.

Quantum Physics are not to be trifled with.

[OldTrees1]

Also, think a lot of people in this thread are confusing a Quantum Ogre with a Teleporting Ogre. Similar. But they are not the same.

Yes, they are. However I don't blame them when this is a thread about railroading and the initial Quantum Ogre example on this forum (the one that coined the term for this forum) was a Teleporting Ogre used by a railroading DM.

However, if there is no agency with respect to the Ogre, then the Ogre being a quantum ogre does not negate any agency. It is not railroading, even if some players will still have preferences about it.

[Boci]

I have a feeling that players figure it out by way of their DM just ****ing up, or badly telling a story, or not having a contingency for when things go wrong. If you make it obvious you have no backup plan, then things might get awkward.

This is what I meant earlier when the party can fight an Ogre, or Minotaur Skeleton. The difference is not that meaningful. It's a combat vs. a single Large target either way. But it does help you go that little extra step further to tricking convincing your players that you definitely are not railroading them into encounters. No you don't understand, it's different, because, umm...Undead?

Yes? Undead vs. not undead is a difference, not matter how many times you try to pretend it isn't. The skeleton can be turned or smashed, the ogre can be poisoned, charmed or reasoned with. These are differences.

Yes, its not the biggest difference, but most players won't mind "left = ogre, right = minotaur skeleton" compared to "left = ogre, right = ogre".

[Kane0]

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

Depends on the players and the DM. Its perfectly fine to have a game on the rails if everyone is happy to do that, its just that one of the key appeals of a tabletop RPG is that sense of narrative freedom that other mediums struggle with.

[MoiMagnus]

What are your thoughts about being railroaded?

I'm fine with railroads, they're a good way to set up interesting situation, and they're a good way to avoid situations that should be avoided. They come at a cost, so don't use them everywhere and especially don't use them in situations where you want the player to feel like they deserve the positive/negative consequences of their actions, but they're fine.

I'm fine with illusions. It's a dangerous game as a GM as it's make-or-break for each player, but they can allow you to have your cake and eat it.

I'm not fine with the "emotionally abusive" behaviour of forcing someone to follow a path and then punishing and blaming them for having followed that choice.

Additionally, if your players are actively trying to break the railroads, that probably means that they don't want them. As a GM, you can get a lot of things under "implicit consent", but when peoples explicitly reject them, don't behave as if they still implicitly consent to them. Railroading is a poor excuse to not listen to your players.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, he's very experienced. We've been playing since original D&D in 1974. (OMG 48 years) But this isn't the first time something like this has happened. He sometimes would put in puzzles that he knew the answer to, but didn't understand when the players couldn't figure it out.

How many games stalled out when that came up? We had that happen no few times in our early days.

Spoiler: Putting the grog into grognard

Show

(PS: you've been at this longer than I have, old timer, by a year. Happy to buy the beer -or grog- if we ever meet ).

scenarios

You have nicely described the problem of the video game influence on the RPG gaming culture.

Oh okay. NPCs can't lie. Sure buddy.

At least now there's the insight check; back in the day (yeah, before there was electricity) you just had to guess or figure it out.

[kyoryu]

For the purposes of this thread and post, I will use the following definitions:

1) Linear game: A game where the GM/publisher is responsible for preparing all of the scenes/encounters of the game, and the players play through this prepared content
2) Railroad: A linear game where the players are unaware that the game is linear, and the GM uses various techniques to keep them in the prepared content while not admitting so.

1) There is a world of difference between "player character learns false information" and "DM lie to player".

2) The alternative to Quantum Ogre is to NOT give the players a choice if you're not willing to respect it. As simple as that.

Yes to both of these, with one addendum: Another alternative to the Quantum Ogre is to tell the players that you're going to be doing a linear campaign and keeping them "on the path". If they agree to that, Quantum Ogres are fine.

The issue with any railroading techniques isn't really the technique itself - it's the lie.

Heck, there is nothing wrong with the east road to Tricobalt and the west road to Zamora both having an Ogre attack encounter. That shows the region has an Ogre banditry problem, which can be a plot point in itself. But it doesn't take any serious effort to make the encounters different depending on the road taken. On the east road the Ogre's weapon is an Ogre-sized torch, while on the west road the Ogre and two goblins are attacking a merchant and their bodyguard. Boom, meaningfully no longer the same, for two seconds of thoughts.

The problem with the Quantum Ogre example, as seen time and time again, is that it's out of context. The Ogre isn't really the problem. The problem is that it's usually a Quantum Ogre that has the clue to the Mini MacGuff that is needed to rescue.... and so on and so forth.

There's a whole linear thing going on, and that's being hidden from the players. Using techniques like QOs to keep players on the path while simultaneously pretending there isn't a path is the problem.

As someone that is pretty staunchly anti-railroad, I wouldn't have much of an issue with the party encountering an ogre if they took to road to Atown or Bville, so long as things went different ways ultimately depending on whether they chose Atown or Bville.

(Also, I'll even play in linear games, if I'm told that's what I'm getting into. Give me the choice and be honest, please).

Also, once again: a published module isn't a railroad. Some published modules do contain instances of railroad (notably the infamous "if the PCs manages to steal the McGuffin from the bad guys at this point, a imp disguised as a bird grabs it from their hand and drop it in the sewer, continue the adventure as planned" bit), but not most of the time and not most of them.

Ehhhh... I tend to think that most published modules are pretty linear. There's some exceptions, but ultimately, published modules have to have encounters, and if there's a series of modules, you have to know where the second one starts, which means that there's some level of coercion to keep consistency.

Yeah, single modules can be non-linear, but that's a style that's pretty much out of fashion now, and very few multi-modules are non-linear. Linear games are ridiculously common, and are probably mostly expected for published adventure paths.

I mean, it's right in the name: adventure path

Yeah sure, a s****y DM can do several things like that. But you asked if Ogre vs. Minotaur Skeleton was that much better than quantum ogre, and the answer is yes. Ogre vs. Minotaur skeleton is basic, but good, dungeon design, whilst quantum ogre is just bad.

And again, I'd say that the ogre isn't the issue. If the path to the left put the players in Mind Flayer territory, while the path to the right took them to the Minotaur clans, then I don't really have as much of an issue with the ogre.

I would, as a matter of principle, prefer the DM have different encounters for different paths.

As a matter of practicality, I'm okay with encountering the same random encounter no matter which path is taken, assuming it makes sense in context. DM's have limited time, so I get it.

Provided the paths you take actually matter, yes.

But if steps are taken to avoid the ogre (the DM tells you that giants are rumoured to roam the northern passage and ogres have been spotted to the east, so you go southwest) and you encounter an ogre arbitrarily anyway... That's an issue.

Ehhhhhh, maybe. If they're told that ogres are NEVER EVER on the southwest road, that's one thing.

Basically, the main issue of a railroad is NEGATION. It's not about linearity, it's about listening to the players say "We don't want this," and responding with "Have it anyway." That is NOT the same as players simply failing a check or something-if the players fall into a pit trap because they flubbed a Perception check, or get ambushed, or fail at negotiations to make peace, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

It's about negation of agency. Usually, historically, when talking about railroading it's in service of a linear game. The term "railroading", while it can be used to imply forcing, also implies "tracks". That's where the term came from in this context - literally being on a railroad.

Agency-negation isn't good in any case.

If the adventure is about the warring city-states, then either start with them already at war, or if you DO want to start with negotiations, tell the players "This is basically an intro scene. No matter what you do, negotiations aren't gonna be enough to avoid war. You can try to make allies, find info, stuff like that-but you aren't stopping the war here." And get them to buy into it!

Which fits in quite nicely with my constant refrain of "linearity is fine, just be honest"

Well, in my case, it's a mater of quality. Things like having terrain, or other interesting factors besides "here's a flat plain with an ogre...maybe a few trees"...they require me to plan in advance. So the quality of the encounter, and how interesting it might be, will be much better if I plan it advance. And I don't adhere to an invisible "authority of principle" in regards to randomness and other "behind-the-screen" factors my PCs are not aware of. Or at, least, I should say that I do adhere to an invisible "authority of aesthetics", which informs my decision to have the "random" encounters for the party planned out in advance.

Well, yes. Anything planned has higher fidelity at the encounter level than improvised things. And the tradeoff is a lack of agency. Players will prefer one or the other based on their gaming preferences, and both are vali

And again. I do believe in maintaining player agency. I just believe that in matters where the agency is not really a factor, it's not really a violation of said agency to have things planned in advance.

It can be even easier - just tell the players what you're doing.

The problem isn't even, really, the lack of agency. It's telling the players they have agency when they don't.

This is part of what I call "soft railroading". Where the players do not see the "rails"

Again, this is fine, if the players know that, essentially, they're running a linear game.

I have a feeling that players figure it out by way of their DM just ****ing up, or badly telling a story, or not having a contingency for when things go wrong. If you make it obvious you have no backup plan, then things might get awkward.

Players figure it out lots of ways. One of the most obvious is alluded to above - pre-prepared content is usually more obviously scripted and has higher fidelity. If no matter where you go or what you choose, you constantly run into set pieces? It's obvious that it's linear. It also becomes obviously pretty quickly that most of your choices have little or no effect.

This is what I meant earlier when the party can fight an Ogre, or Minotaur Skeleton. The difference is not that meaningful. It's a combat vs. a single Large target either way. But it does help you go that little extra step further to tricking convincing your players that you definitely are not railroading them into encounters. No you don't understand, it's different, because, umm...Undead?

When it's 'Ogre, or different Ogre', some players might smell a rat - whether one is there or not.

I have yet to see a group where the players don't figure it out, eventually. You can hide it for a bit, but eventually it becomes obvious.

At that point there's usually a second layer of deceit - the players are just going along with it, doing what the GM wants rather than trying to exert agency.

I find this pretty dysfunctional, personally. Because now the game for the players is "figure out where the GM wants us to go, but don't tell him we've caught on."

Additionally, if your players are actively trying to break the railroads, that probably means that they don't want them. As a GM, you can get a lot of things under "implicit consent", but when peoples explicitly reject them, don't behave as if they still implicitly consent to them. Railroading is a poor excuse to not listen to your players.

I really just think the best solution is to tell the players what type of game you're running up front, and let them either choose to be a part of it or not. Some people like linear games, some people like more open-ended ones. Why not just be up front about it, so people can make a good choice about what they're doing and how they're spending their time?

[The Glyphstone]

Purely for discussion - if the Quantum Ogre is less the problem specifically, does that mean a 'Quantum Ogre' could in fact not always be an ogre? For example, if the plot requires that the party find information about the Mini MacGuff; they encounter an ogre if they go east, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, and they encounter a giant if they go north, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, would this be a Quantum Ogre problem? Their decision has changed things in the short term, but the plot moves on despite this illusion.

[Easy e]

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice. It's the DMs job to guide the players down the path of the campaign while making it seem like it was their choice to do so.

Golly, I remember being skewered alive here for saying the exact same thing!

[JNAProductions]

Golly, I remember being skewered alive here for saying the exact same thing!

Because it’s wrong.

Players like me want the ability to make choices and have those choices matter.
Other players might just want a guided story experience.
Neither preference is wrong-but the DM lying to their players is.

[kyoryu]

Purely for discussion - if the Quantum Ogre is less the problem specifically, does that mean a 'Quantum Ogre' could in fact not always be an ogre? For example, if the plot requires that the party find information about the Mini MacGuff; they encounter an ogre if they go east, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, and they encounter a giant if they go north, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, would this be a Quantum Ogre problem? Their decision has changed things in the short term, but the plot moves on despite this illusion.

To me, yes. It's basically the same thing as "fire ogres if you go south, ice ogres if you go north". It's a palette swap, or just slightly more than a palette swap.

People bring up random encounter tables when discussing QOs for this reason, and they're not really wrong. It's not just the ogre, it's the larger context of why the ogre is unavoidable.

Like let's come up with a situation. The PCs are in Starttown, and they're dealing with a coming orc invasion. Or whatever. They have a few options - they can go to A-ville to try and convince the lord there to lend troops, or they can to to B-ton to try to get the mages guild there to give them some artifacts. (Arguably, they could avoid the whole thing and just leave, too, but...)

Getting troops or getting artifacts, in theory, leads to very different ways of handling the orc invasion, and the game will play out differently either way. However, they've gotta get there first, and the territory is hostile.

The GM can do a few things:

1. Either way, they encounter an ogre. It is known that ogres are in the area.
2. There's a random encounter table, which contains ogres. They'll roll a random encounter
3. If they go A-ville, there's an ogre. If they go to B-ton, there's a giant.

Honestly? I don't really care, and I hate railroading. The primary agency we're dealing with is how the problem is being dealt with, and that is retained. Neither the GM nor the players know how things are going to play out at the start of the game, especially if there are other choices from there.

Let's look at another situation.

Same basic setup - the PCs are in Startton, orc invasion, blah blah blah.

However, unbeknownst to the players, what's really going on is that the orcs are trying to start a ritual. The GM has the whole plotline filled out - Startton is actually kind of irrelevant. What is relevant is that the PCs get the information on this so that they can start following the breadcrumbs.

So, either way they go, they find the ogre, who has the letter or whatever mentioning the first thing that the players need to deal with. Now, a good GM will probably do this in a way that following this is the Obvious Correct Choice, so now the PCs need to follow the clue to go and get the first artifact that will actually destroy Startton - mages and armies won't matter, blah blah blah.

So here, the choice (armies vs artifacts) is irrelevant. It's a false choice, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the PCs get the clue that puts them on the path.

Changing the ogre to a giant if they go on one path doesn't change this fact. Even letting it be a random roll doesn't change this path - the purpose of the encounter is to get the PCs moving in the desired direction. From the GM's standpoint, their plot point they're going to have happen is "the players fight a monster and get the info that leads them to the Dungeon of Darkness to try to get the Wand of Startton-Blowing-Up". Or whatever. And that forces the players down a particular path, the path the GM wants them on. Whether you play it on a different battle map, or make it a giant instead of an ogre, or do a palette swap is all secondary. That's not what the GM is really trying to enforce here. They need the players to get the info to get them "on the path".

(What happens if the PCs don't take the bait is a bit beyond the point of this example).

That's the issue. That's where the "railroading" really comes into play, the majority of the time. It's getting and keeping the players on the desired, pre-plotted path. It's A->B->C->D->.....->Z. Maybe there's an optional one in there, maybe some things can be slightly reordered, etc. But you're going to end up at Z, you're going to do the things in the middle, and the choices you make aren't really going to change circumstances very much along the way.

And to be clear, that's a fine way to run a game. Lots of people like it! Lots of people prefer it to more open games! But lots of people don't like it, so being honest about that is, I think, the right way to handle that. Even if someone would be okay with either, if they know it's linear, there's less chance for weird power struggles along the way if they players are bought into that linearity.

Because it’s wrong.

Players like me want the ability to make choices and have those choices matter.
Other players might just want a guided story experience.
Neither preference is wrong-but the DM lying to their players is.

Exactly this.

I think this is a false dichotomy, the result of misunderstanding what's actually going on. It's this misunderstanding that leads to DMs railroading their players and thinking they're doing a good thing.

What's really going on is that the DM needs to provide direction to the players. "You wake up in an open field. There are no trees or animals or any landmarks nearby. You can see for miles around you, just more empty, open field. What do you do?" What can they do in such a scenario? There's nothing to engage with. That's the real problem.

Yeah, my preferred structure is something like "okay, as players, we've agreed this is the problem the game is about, and you're going to solve it. Cool! However, how you do so is up to you. Go!"

That avoids both the linearity of the linear/adventure path game, as well as the "blank field" problem of the "pure" sandbox. But I'm not holding it up as a platonic ideal, just something that works for me on both sides of the table.

[Boci]

Purely for discussion - if the Quantum Ogre is less the problem specifically, does that mean a 'Quantum Ogre' could in fact not always be an ogre? For example, if the plot requires that the party find information about the Mini MacGuff; they encounter an ogre if they go east, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, and they encounter a giant if they go north, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, would this be a Quantum Ogre problem? Their decision has changed things in the short term, but the plot moves on despite this illusion.

That's just good DMing though. Multiple DMing guides will give you the rule of 3 approach, give players 3 clues or 3 ways to access information they need for the plot, then once they find one retroactively delete the other two, to ensure the plot doesn't stall because the players missed a key piece of information.

And again, I'd say that the ogre isn't the issue. If the path to the left put the players in Mind Flayer territory, while the path to the right took them to the Minotaur clans, then I don't really have as much of an issue with the ogre.

If the party is going to meet the ogre whichever way they go, why not just place the ogre encounter BEFORE the split in the roads between the mindflayers and the minotaurs?

[Jay R]

Most games are neither a sandbox nor a railroad.

A railroad is a sequence of events, each of which must be met in order, and solved with the single pre-set solution. If you never think to touch the purple hilt of your sword to the chartreuse spot on the door, you will never pass through the door, never find the Mace of Guffin needed to travel to where the BBEG is, and thus, you will never go further in the one and only adventure.

The railroad track goes through that door, and the purple hilt is your ticket to the depot with the Mace of Guffin..

I've seen many adventures in which there's a moderately well-structured story the GM has written, but any clever solution might work. This does not feel like a railroad to me.

[OldTrees1]

Purely for discussion - if the Quantum Ogre is less the problem specifically, does that mean a 'Quantum Ogre' could in fact not always be an ogre? For example, if the plot requires that the party find information about the Mini MacGuff; they encounter an ogre if they go east, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, and they encounter a giant if they go north, who has the information about the Mini MacGuff, would this be a Quantum Ogre problem? Their decision has changed things in the short term, but the plot moves on despite this illusion.

In this example the "ogre" is the encounter with tip #32 about the Mini MacGuff. An easy improvement is having one path have tip #21 instead of #32. Let the tip of rule of 3 have you make more clues and allow clues to be missed.

[Yora]

Railroading negates player agency. And without agency, why bother with game rules? It's reading out a story with lots of weird hoops for the listeners to jump through.

[kyoryu]

Railroading negates player agency. And without agency, why bother with game rules? It's reading out a story with lots of weird hoops for the listeners to jump through.

Some people really just want the setpiece battles and character advancement, and don't care about plot-level decision making.

I mean, that's how most video games work, realistically.

I've seen many adventures in which there's a moderately well-structured story the GM has written, but any clever solution might work. This does not feel like a railroad to me.

It does to me. If I'm going to go A->B->...->Z, the fact that several solutions to B exist doesn't really change it much in my view. It's the structure I'm objecting to. Or, at least want to be aware of.

Typically, I want Z to be unknown. I want A->(B1-20)->(C1/1-C20/20) and so on and so forth. An expanding set of possibilities at each step. I want everyone to be at least a little surprised at how things turn out. ANd I want to know that how things turned out is significantly impacted by what I do.

Mass Effect is still a railroad. You make some choices, sure, and have some optional things to do, and can choose some ordering - but at the end of the day, every story ends almost exactly the same way.

In this example the "ogre" is the encounter with tip #32 about the Mini MacGuff. An easy improvement is having one path have tip #21 instead of #32. Let the tip of rule of 3 have you make more clues and allow clues to be missed.

I think the three clue rule still is effectively a linear game. It just provides more options so that people don't get trivially blocked.

[JNAProductions]

Some people really just want the setpiece battles and character advancement, and don't care about plot-level decision making.

I mean, that's how most video games work, realistically.

To the second bit, videogames have similarities to TTRPGs, but they're not the same.

And to the first, that's true! But if you have players like that, why bother pretending they can make choices? Just have a linear game, and have fun.

[kyoryu]

To the second bit, videogames have similarities to TTRPGs, but they're not the same.

Agreed! And there are some things computers can't do that people can. Those are the interesting spaces for TTRPGs, to me.

But, a lot of people have expectations informed by videogames, as well.

And to the first, that's true! But if you have players like that, why bother pretending they can make choices? Just have a linear game, and have fun.

Exactly! I could not agree more. Communicate with your players about the type of game you're running, be honest about it, and let people decide to play or not. Then everybody can do what they have fun with, and it's all good.

The only thing I really argue against is pretending your game isn't linear when it actually is. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BRC]

The only thing I really argue against is pretending your game isn't linear when it actually is. Nothing more, nothing less.

In my experience, there usually isn't much in the way of an Intentional Deception going on with railroaders. Railroading isn't a decision the DM makes, it's a reaction to something unexpected.


The PC's need to get a relic for a ritual to stop a demonic invasion. The Relic is currently held by a Dragon as part of it's horde.

The DM probably isn't saying "Heh, the players may think they can approach this scenario a bunch of different ways, but I HAVE CUNNINGLY DESIGNED IT SO THEY MUST KILL THE DRAGON! THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!"

They're probably building the scenario, thinking about how they would approach it, and simply not thinking of anything besides "Kill the Dragon".


Then, when the Players decide to Approach the dragon, offering the borrow the Relic for the ritual, handing over something else as collateral, and then return it, since the Dragon doesn't want the demons to invade either, The GM panics because They're Supposed To Kill The Dragon and, without a good reason for the Dragon to turn down the deal, they come up with bad reasons in order to force the fight.

[kyoryu]

In my experience, there usually isn't much in the way of an Intentional Deception going on with railroaders. Railroading isn't a decision the DM makes, it's a reaction to something unexpected.

The PC's need to get a relic for a ritual to stop a demonic invasion. The Relic is currently held by a Dragon as part of it's horde.

The DM probably isn't saying "Heh, the players may think they can approach this scenario a bunch of different ways, but I HAVE CUNNINGLY DESIGNED IT SO THEY MUST KILL THE DRAGON! THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!"

They're probably building the scenario, thinking about how they would approach it, and simply not thinking of anything besides "Kill the Dragon".

Then, when the Players decide to Approach the dragon, offering the borrow the Relic for the ritual, handing over something else as collateral, and then return it, since the Dragon doesn't want the demons to invade either, The GM panics because They're Supposed To Kill The Dragon and, without a good reason for the Dragon to turn down the deal, they come up with bad reasons in order to force the fight.

If you've already decided the plan the players are going to do, then you've decided on a linear game.

There's some level of unintentional railroading that happens as well. Like, the GM has prepped and so has some level of bias towards using their prep, or they have a preconception of how things should work, and so any solutions that don't align just become harder. That can often be a tricky position because even the GM may not be aware of how much control they're exerting over the situation.

But things like quantum ogres? Those are intentional. A lot of techniques talked about are absolutely, 100% intentional. When people say things like "players don't want agency, they want the illusion of agency" (a quote from this thread), then that's intentional. When GMs have a series of encounters for the players to go through, in order? That's intentional.

[Easy e]

Because it’s wrong.

Players like me want the ability to make choices and have those choices matter.
Other players might just want a guided story experience.
Neither preference is wrong-but the DM lying to their players is.

A DM giving the "Illusion of choice" is not lying to the players, they are facilitating a game in which the GM is the ultimate authority (Rule 1).

Every time you sit down to play an RPG you are participating in the illusion of choice as the GM has all ready planned everything around you, or is going to improv everything around you. The only choice you have is if you are going to participate or not.

The leads you find in game, are only there because the GM put them there. The things you decide to go do, only become available as the GM improvs them. Your choices are all illusion. GMs even decide the rules of reality in RPGs, the books are pretty explicit about that too.

It sounds more like people do not like railroading because it sheds the ultimate illusion of RPGs, that players have agency outside of the GMs control. Players do not.

[kyoryu]

Practically speaking, yes, the GM can override anything they want. They have sufficient power that it's kind of hard to avoid that.

Realistically, there are a wide variety of games, and GMs approach them very differently. Just because you may not have "complete" agency, does not mean that you can't have a wide variety of effective levels of agency.

I've run in games, and run games, where the outcomes were not what I expected.

I've run in games, and run games, where the outcomes were not what the GM wanted.

I often run games where what happens is not according to any plan of mine.

To say that agency is meaningless because the GM always has the ability to shift things, and probably unconsciously puts their finger on the scale a bit, is to deny the existence of a large swath of games, and the very meaningful differences people find in them. It's a strawman argument, at best.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Realistically, there are a wide variety of games, and GMs approach them very differently. Just because you may not have "complete" agency, does not mean that you can't have a wide variety of effective levels of agency.

This. No one has complete agency in anything, if by "complete agency" you mean "is not limited by a fixed and finite set of options." But we all have enough agency to matter, or should, anyway, at least at the game level. Agency is not binary, it's a continuum.

In addition, if your scope of choice[1] is reduced at time T due to the consequences of the actions you chose at time T0 < T1, that's not an agency denial on anyone else's part. If you make the agency-full[2] choice to walk through the one-way portal, you can't claim that not being able to trivially get back is a denial of agency. In fact, if the DM said that you could trivially walk backward through the one-way portal, that would be a (partial) denial of agency, because consequences are part of agency. Our scope of choice varies dynamically as a necessary and proper consequence of our previous choices.

[1] the component of agency describing the set of possible choices in world-state X(T) for actor A.
[2] ie knowing enough to reasonably predict the consequences, with an option to do something else. This does not include "a random portal opens up and you are sucked through without a save/option to say no" cases. In this case, I'll even stipulate to "you knew it was a one-way portal before you entered it".

[King of Nowhere]

Not at all. The players only want the illusion of choice, not the actual choice. It's the DMs job to guide the players down the path of the campaign while making it seem like it was their choice to do so.

That's... so wrong.
I mean, technically yes, the players will be perfectly happy with the illusion of choice as long as they don't realize it's an illusion.
But in the same way, you'd be perfectly fine buying and eating a flavored piece of plastic that looks like real food, as long as you don't realize it's not real food. Does that mean you don't want real food but just the illusion? It's the same with all illusory goods; just because you can keep someone fooled for a while, it doesn't mean you're giving them what they want. and it's not gonna go well when they realize the scam.

For the purposes of this thread and post, I will use the following definitions:

1) Linear game: A game where the GM/publisher is responsible for preparing all of the scenes/encounters of the game, and the players play through this prepared content
2) Railroad: A linear game where the players are unaware that the game is linear, and the GM uses various techniques to keep them in the prepared content while not admitting so.

I wanted to disagree with this definition, but there's actually something good there. in a healty linear game, there is player buy-in. the players accept that it's going to be a linear game.
On the other hand, even in a linear game players can make decisions that will have consequences. A railroad negates player choice. One can have a linear game and be just fine, but at some point the players want to do something different (and sensible; if they do something stupid and fail, it's not railroading). At this point, the dm can accept the change, or he can push things back into the rail - in which case it stopped being a linear game and it became a railroad.

I would also point out that a plot can be linear in the large scale but sandbox in the details, and it's hard to draw a line. I mean, my games do have a linear structure on the macroscale, because I know who the end game villain will be, the villain will have a plan that will be set in motion regardless of what the pcs do, and will be defeated by a final confrontation with the party, which will be the only group of people capable of standing a chance there. What the players do won't change that.
But it's sensible; the villain has lots of resources, and he's been prepared for a while. it makes sense that at some point he will strike. Maybe what the heroes do will change the timing; he will be discovered early and will strike early, or his preparation will be messed with and he will lack some asset. but he's invested enough into this plan that he will strike.
Everything else, though, is open. Whole factions in the world can be enemies or allies or wiped out completely, depending on the players' actions.

You mentioned mass effect, which I think is a great example of that. you called it a railroad, because you can do a lot of different stuff but "every story ends almost exactly the same way". I beg to disagree. Sure, at the end of the day you have a massive confrontation with the reapers to use the superweapon you've been preparing. what else were you expecting? of course that's gonna happen.
But everything else changes. The quarians could have gone extinct. Or maybe the geth. Or maybe both. Or no, you got them to make peace and they both live! That was one of the most rewarding things I ever did in a videogame, and it's the kind of golden ending I try to prepare for my players; sure, the villain will be defeated by design - unless you screw up real badly - but there are a lot of other details that may or may not go your way. And to get the best outcome, you have to put some good effort.
And then the krogan may be cured of the genophage and on course to integrate with the rest of the galaxy, or they may be cured of the genophage and ruled by a warlord about to launch a war of conquest, or they may still have the genophage. The citadel government may take a fascist turn, or not. So many things that depend on your actions.
If you think the story "ends the same way", you probably never cared about the setting. in which case there is no point in making decisions. It is my experience that when the players understand how a setting works and get emotionally invested in it, they WANT to make meaningful decisions and impact it. and even if the end of the game is always guaranteed - you defeat the villain and save the day, is there really any other possible outcome? - you'll have changed the campaign world. and that's where players can exercise their freedom the most.

[Boci]

Every time you sit down to play an RPG you are participating in the illusion of choice as the GM has all ready planned everything around you, or is going to improv everything around you. The only choice you have is if you are going to participate or not.

No, you're not? This is known by players, that DMs will either have notes prepared or be improvising, and some DMs, shock and horror, and actually talk to players after the game as fellow human beings about which parts they had prepared notes for and which parts were improvised. Its fun and useful for both sides. DMs can learn how good they are at covering their improvising, and players get to see what its like to run the game.

[animorte]

No, you're not? This is known by players, that DMs will either have notes prepared or be improvising, and some DMs, shock and horror, and actually talk to players after the game as fellow human beings about which parts they had prepared notes for and which parts were improvised. Its fun and useful for both sides. DMs can learn how good they are at covering their improvising, and players get to see what its like to run the game.

Hold on, wait wait. You mean to tell me DMs are human? I didn't realize I was human until I finally got the chance to play again for the first time in 2 years. It was this weird out-of-construct experience. I thought I was only human temporarily because the being a player thing.

I do appreciate this though, really. I've always prepared very detailed maps, a basic outline for events, and a huge list of random NPC names (that I would apply where necessary and make notes). I've never had a problem laughing with the group afterwards about the weird moments where they caught me off-guard or completely derailed whatever was happening. Sometimes even revealing, "yeah there was this dangerous circumstance that I didn't expect you guys to completely avoid like that, or run right into so blindly."

It provides a mutual sense of respect for each other and appreciation of what is required from both sides of the table.

[OldTrees1]

I think the three clue rule still is effectively a linear game. It just provides more options so that people don't get trivially blocked.

I was giving an example of how to turn a 1 quantum clue into multiple clues where any could be missed but 1 would be encountered. In that usage the game remains linear. All that changed was 1 quantum -> multiple non-quantum.

Obviously in other contexts the "put 3x the number of clues that your omniscient perspective incorrectly under estimates" is a tool orthogonal to the sandbox-linear continuum.

However yes, in the context of that post and my reply, it remained a linear game.


This of course all ties back to "Players can have playstyle preferences. Be honest about what game you are going to run. The players will decide if they want to play" --several people in this thread including you and me. It is nice that it is that simple at the root.

[Duff]

People use the term "railroading" when they've been given too much direction and not enough options.
But what the right balance is varies from game to game, table to table and person to person.

Give me and my friends an Ars Magica game, describe the local area, people, fae, monsters etc and we can probably play for years without the GM having to drive the plot as we work through our plans, interact with each other with some cooperation and some competition.

But if you run a 3 hour one shot Feng Shui (Hong Kong actin movie game), I want to start with a fight, chase the bad guys or follow the clues to the social encounter, a bit of investigation which leads me to the boss fight, and I will cheerfully follow your very linear plot.

[Pauly]

Approaching it from a different direction.
What’s wrong with open sandbox campaigns?
- Lack of purpose or reason to do anything. As soon as you create a BBEG the players must deal with, then you’re laying tracks.
- you need a much bigger world to be fleshed out, and sometimes the players go nowhere near the place you put a lot of work into creating.
- You can’t always trust your players to be responsible. In railroads the DM sets the tone and environment, in sandboxes the players do. Let’s just say that not all players just want to see the world burn.

There has to be so e tradeoff in the continuum between pure railroad and pure sandbox to make a game engaging It’s why open world sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign. Some of it based on the maturity and agency of the players. Experienced players who grab the world and make their own fun are different to inexperienced players who need some hand holding.

[Saintheart]

Approaching it from a different direction.
What’s wrong with open sandbox campaigns?
- Lack of purpose or reason to do anything. As soon as you create a BBEG the players must deal with, then you’re laying tracks.
- you need a much bigger world to be fleshed out, and sometimes the players go nowhere near the place you put a lot of work into creating.
- You can’t always trust your players to be responsible. In railroads the DM sets the tone and environment, in sandboxes the players do. Let’s just say that not all players just want to see the world burn.

There has to be so e tradeoff in the continuum between pure railroad and pure sandbox to make a game engaging It’s why open world sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign. Some of it based on the maturity and agency of the players. Experienced players who grab the world and make their own fun are different to inexperienced players who need some hand holding.

I did want to offer some challenges to those propositions - please take these in the spirit they are offered...


- Lack of purpose or reason to do anything. As soon as you create a BBEG the players must deal with, then you’re laying tracks.

This is why in open world sandbox adventures you switch emphasis from what some NPC needs to what the PCs' needs, motivations, and goals are. Because the answers to these questions generate purpose and reason. Sometimes the character backstory provides a mine of details for these purposes, sometimes it doesn't, because a world in which your brother's cousin's sister's former roommate comes seeking you out for your head might not quite be a railroad, but offends suspension of disbelief. Also, note the words in there "a BBEG the players must deal with" ... that's the joy of an open world game where the players aren't the centre of said world, the BBEG could triumph and all the players have to do about it is move house if it's not part of their interests.


- you need a much bigger world to be fleshed out, and sometimes the players go nowhere near the place you put a lot of work into creating.

This is the DM falling into the unintentional trap that every DMG back to third edition has set with its infinite tables setting out proportions of how many X-levelled characters there should be per Y-levelled characters in a given settlement. It is utterly unnecessary. It is verisimilitude for the enjoyment of the DM, not the players he has to contend with. In the open sandbox, particularly so for really open world systems, less so for defined canon settings like Eberron or Faerun, the only world that needs to be defined for a playing group is the world likely to be encountered in the next session. The golden rule of session-based DMing is that you never prepare more than you need to get through the next session. And the two key focii for that prep work are (1) what the party's likely to want to do next session based on how things came out at the end of this one and (2) keeping consistent with what happened in previous sessions.

The party could, of course, turn on a dime and go in a different direction. The vast majority of the time, they don't. Especially if you plant the psychological seeds at the end of the session by recapping from the party what they're going to be doing next time round. But it's also why it's a good practice to leaf through MMs so you can pull a session's worth of materials out of your Hammerspace in the very unlikely event it's needed.


- You can’t always trust your players to be responsible. In railroads the DM sets the tone and environment, in sandboxes the players do. Let’s just say that not all players just want to see the world burn.

This depends on what we mean by the players being "responsible". I'll take it from that word we are basically trying to encapsulate the DM's fear that "I don't know what to do if the players decide to decapitate King Aragong the quest giver rather than take up his generous job offer and then sail for Al-Ripoffqaba rather than stick around here in Minus Marinade."

Players can set the tone. Players can try to set the environment. What they can't set is timing. Or the steps required to do something. Or an increasing chance of mishaps. So having killed King Aragong, the party escapes Minus Marinade and heads for the nearest port. Is there a ship they can board? Well, there's a couple of options. You could risk outright stealing a ship, which is a high-risk venture but likely to get you out of here quickly. Alternatively, you could try and go to ground in the port's hovels and wait for the heat to die down before bribing some local merchant to smuggle you out of the city. Which do you do?"


It’s why open world sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign. Some of it based on the maturity and agency of the players. Experienced players who grab the world and make their own fun are different to inexperienced players who need some hand holding.

I suggest there are three reasons sandbox CRPGs have a master campaign: limitations on hard drive space, limitations of the medium, and different types of enjoyment they are catering to.

CRPGs have to be linear railroads, even if the rails are hidden under piles of leaves. Computers can't ever replicate a TTRPG. A computer cannot suddenly switch the direction of a campaign without extensive programming. All the possibilities and possible combinations have to be accounted for when the game is released. (The equivalent meme to the TTRPG Railroad is the CRPG 30 second speedrun. Both are the consequence of flawed execution of the game's intended algorithm, for want of a better expression.)

But videogame designers have known for almost 20 years that there are different types of fun to be triggered in the right combinations. CRPGs can't deliver endless Discovery, so they balance Discovery out with Narrative, and lean on Challenge and Sensory Pleasure. The balance of sidequests to main quests in a CRPG is balanced to ping the Discovery and Narrative mechanics enough to keep the player interested. TTRPGs do not operate in the same way, or have different balances of these forms of pleasure available to them.