Plot Railroading: How much?

[Max_Killjoy]

Excerpt the problem is if the character does not succeed, then the player will cry railroad, right?

Already addressed in a multitude of replies by many posters.

Did they not succeed because of the outcome of the mechanical resolution and/or the pre-established circumstances? Or did they not succeed because you stonewalled them in support of your favored outcome?

How about the vampire one above? DM makes a unique vampire foe with a weakness. The players utterly ignore that, go with ''in general sunlight hurts vampires'' and then demands that work.

Ahem. You also mentioned fire, and the vampire example was addressed on that axis.

Do try to actually read the things you're replying to.

Fire is a common vulnerability for most things, even if the vampire doesn't have a special added weakness to it. (It's kinda like a stake through the heart... it stops most things, vampire or not.)

If the PCs do their research and make their rolls well, and vampires are widely reported as being extra-vulnerable to fire, the players might feel a bit lied to when the vampire they're fighting is immune to fire, but with a solid grounded explanation as to why/how forthcoming, most players will be OK with it. Throw a little tidbit into their research of a folk tale or legend of one vampire who was also a fire mage or something... and you've laid the groundwork of expectations and setting-facts.

Keep throwing these GOTCHA! moments at them, however, and they're going to stop bothering with research, stop engaging with the setting at all, and stop caring.

Based on your exhaustive commentary, I suspect that the "jerk players" you're driving away are the ones who actually want to play their characters in the common meaning of "playing an RPG character", rather than just show up, shut up, and passively watch Darth Ultron Dinner Theater. That is, these "jerk players" are probably the ones who see through your little act, and aren't going to be bullied by a tinpot DM.

As for the rest of your post... I find the best way to make my point about your stance is to keep you talking about it.

[2D8HP]

Excerpt the problem is if the character does not succeed, then the player will cry railroad, right?

I explicitly stated that I want a perception that both success and failure are possible. If there's only successes than that destroys that perception, if there's only failures, that also destroys that perception.

To be fun (for me as a player) I want a perception that both success and failure are possible.

Like sure if the player rolls a one they will '''fool themselves'' as say ''ok, you gave me a chance to be super agency player and I failed randomly so it is ok." But and ''high'' roll (to the player) that they will ''expect'' to automatically succeed. So if the player gets like a ''40'' and the DM shrugs and says ''your character fails'', then it's right back to the whine and cry of railroading, right?.

If there's No chance for success or failure DON'T HAVE DICE ROLLS!

if it looks like the dice rolls didn't actually matter (I roll what clearly looks like a success or failure but the GM narrates something else) and events seem "scripted" than the illusion is broken making it less fun for me.

My perception is what is important to me, whatever the "facts" are.

I'm not pleading that "rolls be made for walking", as that would be tedious, I actually want some "skip ahead to awesome" narration, but I like to roll dice and perceive that they matter,

I thought that I was clear about what seems like being "railroaded" to me:

"Locked into Lameness" i.e. being forced to fight a conga-line of antagonists in an arena for an audience, and healing between bouts is provided to drive home the utter pointlesssness of your battles.", which feels like a "railroad".

Locked into Lameness Railroad =
Being captured and enslaved and forced to fight in a gladiatorial arena. Especially if the PC's are forced to fight each other. LAME!





Please hide the rails.

Please hide thin facades

"World" to explore = Not railroad

"Conga-line" of pointless fights that can't be escaped = Railroad.

Clear?

[Mordaedil]

Must suck to be a player at Darth Ultron's table, where even the bardic knock spell doesn't work somehow.

[Pleh]

Or if you must go all ''rules'':
GM: "There are two guards by the door"
Player: "Okay, my character casts the spell fear on them"
GM: "The guards chuckle a bit and tell your character to get lost." (as before their shift the guards eat a hero's feast that makes them immune to fear for hours...but the player don't know this, of course).

For me, this is going to really depend on a lot of things.

I'm not making my player eat a spell slot for no benefit like this unless I absolutely prepped this ahead of time.

I will never improvise a method to counteract their chosen strategy. The only exception is when I'm acting as an NPC in an opposed contest, where I am limited to actions the NPC can take.

If I prepped that my guards all ate a hero's feast ahead of time, I probably had a narrative reason for it and can describe the scenario with clues to signal the players that these are not plain vanilla guards.

"You see a pair of guards laughing heartily and speaking loudly while telling jokes. They seem to be in exceptionally good spirits."

If the players want to explore the clues before rushing in, I say,

"Make a Knowledge (Local) check.

[The Rogue passes the check.]

You know the local church provides Hero Feasts for the guards before every shift to help keep the town safe."

Now the spell fizzle only hits them if either A) I fail to provide hints that there is more to this encounter than meets the eye or B) the players disregard the hints.
---
BUT, if I didn't prep this kind of thing ahead of time, what gives me the right to use a Quantum Hero's Feast with the only point being to deny the players from doing something?

Why not just let the Fear spell work? After all, the guards still get will saves. They might only be shaken. What benefit is ANYONE getting from improvising a way to say, "that doesn't work" if the reason did not actually exist before the player chose to use their spell?

[Alcore]

What do you feel qualifies as 'plot railroading', and do you think it's good/neccessary, or evil/abusable? Provide your opinions!

Frodo gets stabbed on Weathertop (cr inappropriate encounter too). Wraithdom beckons. He is saved temporarily. We find out how temporary at the end when we learned his wound never really healed and he needed to go to the Undieing Lands. Future Wraithdom implied if he doesn't.

Railroading is a set of predetermined points. What happens between can be player choice but game over if the player misses a point in the rails. Belkar is currently on a set of rails... leading right to the grave.


It is nessicary and abusable. Good and evil varies on intent and perception.


When I was a DM (PbP only on the Weave) i had bad luck with players and had many 'choice paralysis' so rails were nessicary to get anything done. I once had a party whose response to a moral delema was to stand and drool. No posts on the OOC thread, no questions of any kind.

Unless i get a DM or a (shudder) problem player in the party initiative is in short supply. Often regulated to one member. Roy Greenhilt and friends

Beware of the difference between railroading (only to ever be used to get the players to the first adventure) and Neting.

having never heard of the term in a RPG i can't even know the difference, nor is there a school for RPGs to learn the proper terms. I also balk at the use of the word 'only'. Absolutes are generally your enemy when not used with care!

Serious sarcasm aside from your example netting is a plot hook they can't say no to; like being in the town when collapsed. But you don't say were the party is so it could be an event that happens regardless of what the players do; they lose their favorite town but are not nessisarily in the hole.

Nets are fine and are interesting, what do you do if the city you are running a guild in goes to war?

why do anything? Will the war be a good thing? A bad thing? What kind of guild? The answer? Any number of things depending on any number of other variables. Your question is not really answerable due to asymmetrics. Like warfare the question has no rails and implies a sandbox structure.



Time running low will provide an experience later...

[ImNotTrevor]

Sorry, I did not realize you thought time travel was real.

>mfw this dude thinks you have to believe time travel is actually happening to know there are scientific theories about it
>mfw this dude apparently has no concept of what Theory or Theoretical mean.
>mfw his attempted snark makes him look even more ignorant
>mfw the best reply is meme arrows.

Not exactly ''secret''. I'm not the one that ''says I won't do it 1,000 times''....and then does it anyway. I'm honest about it, All aboard...the locomotion, the locomotion.

>mfw dude can't spell "all aboard the LOCOMOTIVE" and/or bungles a reference to a Carole King song
>mfw dude hasn't even been honest about what other people are saying and expects me to believe he's honest anywhere else.

Um you eat cake or you don't...is very straightforward.

>mfw this dude doesn't understand that birthday cakes are shared between the guests AND the individual being celebrated
>mfw he'll bungle a metaphor before acknowledging a middle ground
>mfw there's this much bait in the water


>mfw

[Scripten]

Excerpt the problem is if the character does not succeed, then the player will cry railroad, right? Like sure if the player rolls a one they will '''fool themselves'' as say ''ok, you gave me a chance to be super agency player and I failed randomly so it is ok." But and ''high'' roll (to the player) that they will ''expect'' to automatically succeed. So if the player gets like a ''40'' and the DM shrugs and says ''your character fails'', then it's right back to the whine and cry of railroading, right?

If your players are regularly rolling 40's and are failing the check, then the problem is yours.

You are doing one or several of the following:
1) Failing to establish what actions are reasonable to attempt in your world
2) Failing to make clear how difficult actions are before the player attempts them
3) Failing to arbitrate when dice rolls are needed (As 2D8HP mentioned)
4) Failing to set reasonable DCs

If you avoid doing the above, then you will rarely, if ever, run into a "jerk player" and, even if you do, they will figure out the gist of the world after a session or two. There are very few actions that cannot be gauged by the PC before attempting them. The players should know fairly well how hard it will be to pass by the guard unnoticed, and why, as well as how difficult the door is to enter, if they really want to. If you establish, before the players act, that the guards are hyper-alert, magically buffed, and that the door is made of solid steel with a complex lock, then it shows the players that the attempt to enter said door will be very difficult, depending on their power level. (Change the circumstances to adjust for higher or lower level character.)

But even if the door is locked tight and the guards are hyper-aware, there should be some chance of success if the players are asked to roll any dice. Otherwise, you're being a "jerk DM", which I can gather by your attitude here is a common occurrence.

Odd, as everyone is saying that:

1.Players MUST be given an Infinite number of ways/chances to do everything
2.Players MUST have a ''reasonable'' chance(to the players, so this is like ''all the time'') to succeed.

Only from your backwards viewpoint, DU. I've played with probably (I've never counted) dozens or hundreds of different players. I've never, in all that time, with all those people, ever come across someone who expected or argued for what you are claiming. Much less "everyone".

You know who expects their plans to succeed all the time and who throws temper tantrums when people tell them that they aren't perfect special snowflakes? DMs like you.

Also, quit putting words in people's mouths. Again.

It is because we see the game differently.

Yes, you're right. I see the game as a game, where success is part planning and part luck of the die, while you see it as a game of "guess which tracks the DM has laid for you, and get ready for hazing if you guess wrong". Let's not mince words. The posts you've made and the language you use make it very clear exactly how you feel about and treat other people in your games.

I understand that ''solving a hard problem through game play'' is not your idea of fun, but that does not mean other people don't like it. Sure, some games(maybe yours) are like ''the players just sit there and roll a d20 and get a high number and say DM tell us the weakness. Then they go kill the monster in 2.5 rounds and get the loot and high five each other.''

Nice ad hom and strawman. Shame it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, as usual.

Guessing what the DM has planned for you and following the railroad tracks isn't anything like "solving a hard problem through gameplay". Let's not forget, my example has the players going to do research on the vampire and finding information about the weaknesses of vampires. That's gameplay, bucko. And you also added that they found information on this specific vampire. All of this information is disseminated by you, the DM. Once they've done that legwork, it is reasonable to assume that they have all the information they need, assuming you have not indicated otherwise, because their only window into the world is through the DM and, maybe, through materials in the books, but rarely is that the case.

If you turn around and spring "Gotcha!" on your players after those interactions, you're not just being a railroading "jerk DM", you're also being a pretty giant jerk in general.

See how the players are the problem as they are demanding to take control of the game and have their stuff always work?

And if you never indicate that the vampire is anything other than an average vampire and the players exhaust their resources in finding out information about that vampire, then no, they are not the problem.

So in ''your odd reality'' do the guards like leave the door unguarded for like an hour while they change the guard? How does you ''clever plan'' work?

No, but it's a distraction. Or in "your odd reality", are basic guards superhumans who never miss anything? You must have a very warped view of reality if you think that every single guard is absolutely perfect and always hyper-aware in every way.

News flash: People sneak past security guards and even things like cameras all the time, and that's foregoing magic and other fantasy elements.

Um you eat cake or you don't...is very straightforward.

I guess we now know that Darth Ultron has never shared a cake with other people before in his life. Birthdays must have been dreadful, especially when you start feeling sick from eating literally all the cake.

How about the vampire one above? DM makes a unique vampire foe with a weakness. The players utterly ignore that, go with ''in general sunlight hurts vampires'' and then demands that work.

If you don't indicate that there is a "supah secret weakness" and wait until the players have invested time (likely RL hours) into finding out everything they can about said vampire before going "Hurr hurr it's not a normal vampire, stupid jerks! Guess you're all dead now! Should have just followed my amazing plotline!", then you've done nothing but wasted everyone's time.

Railroading is not only preparing a non-standard weakness for a monster. It's also shooting down everything except your special beautiful story point where the players do exactly what you tell them to do to exploit that weakness. The example earlier with the silver box is a very good illustration of that point. Which you've also misinterpreted, so... *shrug*

I find this only negatively effects the bad players. So it is win win.

If nothing else, eventually you will run out of "bad" players and be left with only yourself, so that's somewhat a win-win.

Here's hoping you don't drive all of those people away from the hobby beforehand.

[Thinker]

Already addressed in a multitude of replies by many posters.

Did they not succeed because of the outcome of the mechanical resolution and/or the pre-established circumstances? Or did they not succeed because you stonewalled them in support of your favored outcome?

I don't think that the guard example is very good for illustrating either side of the argument. You can go back and forth all day about whether the GM planned for the guards to be immune to fear or if there are other ways to circumvent them. The clever GM could have thought of everything that a clever player could.

It's better to go with an example adventure in my opinion. The railroad GM will decide a list of encounters that the party must overcome to complete the adventure, something like:

• The party will meet the old woodsman who has been hunting undead in this part of the forest and he'll tell them about the ancient tomb that's creating undead.
• The party will visit the tomb and find out that they cannot get in because it's been sealed with magic. (optional)
• The party goes back to town to find out more information about the tomb. If they didn't find out about the seal before, they find out now. They also learn that they require a magical chalice to enter the tomb, which is guarded by a dangerous gang of trolls which also controls a small orc army.
• The party ventures off toward the location of the trolls.
• The party fights an orc patrol, which tells them that they are close to the ogre gang.
• The party tracks the (now deceased) patrol back to the ogre camp.
• The party enters the ogres' lair and has a boss fight with the ogres. After victory, they find the chalice in one of the ogres' belongings.
• The party returns to the tomb and unseals the door.
• etc.

To a railroad GM:
If a clever player says that they are going to use Phase Shift to bypass the ogre scenario, they'll be told it's magically sealed. If they try to dispel magic, they'll be told that they cannot as it's too powerful. If they try to scry on the ogres to learn their location, it will fail until they've met the orc patrol. If they try to sneak into the ogres' lair and search it without being detected, they'll be found. To the railroad GM, there is no adventure except as has been prescribed by the GM.

[Segev]

Ultimately, this all boils down to Darth Ultron not being able to appreciate that there's a difference between "Players' choices can be meaningful beyond guessing the GM's designated win condition," and "Players will always succeed at anything they say they do no matter how ridiculous or trivial."

Here's a hypothetical we can use to illustrate it, perhaps. Let's say that the Giant in the Playground reveals that he's made so much money off his web site that he wants to reward his fans with a massive treasure hunt. Through the magic of the internet, we've all figured out that the treasure - a chest filled with gold and gems worth ten million united states dollars - is in a hotel room at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare, and the first person to ask at the front desk for the room key to room 1337 will get it and be able to go up there and claim the prize.

We have discovered it as of the moment you read this post. How do you secure the loot for yourself?



I choose this example because it opens a lot of possibilities with a reasonable measure of how well various methods would succeed: we all know the real world, since we live here.

It should be clear that not "just anything" will work. I can't say, "I hack into the Hyatt with my TI-89 calculator and program the room to make the treasure actually appear in my home office," because that's nonsense. I also probably will fail if, say, I declare that I walk there from where I'm currently sitting (which is in Texas). Somebody is likely to beat me there. Not to mention all the logistical problems of such a walk!

But I bet that there are at least as many solutions to this that have at least a reasonable chance - something one could play out in an RPG - of success as there are posters on this forum.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ultimately, this all boils down to Darth Ultron not being able to appreciate that there's a difference between "Players' choices can be meaningful beyond guessing the GM's designated win condition," and "Players will always succeed at anything they say they do no matter how ridiculous or trivial."

A near-constant in his arguments is that they're based on yes-no either-or binaries, often falsely excluding any middle ground or nuance.

Here's a hypothetical we can use to illustrate it, perhaps. Let's say that the Giant in the Playground reveals that he's made so much money off his web site that he wants to reward his fans with a massive treasure hunt. Through the magic of the internet, we've all figured out that the treasure - a chest filled with gold and gems worth ten million united states dollars - is in a hotel room at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare, and the first person to ask at the front desk for the room key to room 1337 will get it and be able to go up there and claim the prize.

We have discovered it as of the moment you read this post. How do you secure the loot for yourself?



I choose this example because it opens a lot of possibilities with a reasonable measure of how well various methods would succeed: we all know the real world, since we live here.

It should be clear that not "just anything" will work. I can't say, "I hack into the Hyatt with my TI-89 calculator and program the room to make the treasure actually appear in my home office," because that's nonsense. I also probably will fail if, say, I declare that I walk there from where I'm currently sitting (which is in Texas). Somebody is likely to beat me there. Not to mention all the logistical problems of such a walk!

But I bet that there are at least as many solutions to this that have at least a reasonable chance - something one could play out in an RPG - of success as there are posters on this forum.

Me, I'd probably go get in my car and directly there as fast as I could get away with, hoping that anyone more local than where I am (MI) would miss the post or read it too late to beat me there.

Humorously, there are Amtrak stations not so far from here, so we might say our hypothetical railroading GM would only accept driving to the train station, taking the next train, then hailing a taxi to get to the hotel. Can't have the "players" missing that encounter with the aggressive pan-handler at the depot, after all.

Heaven forbid that one of the "players" has a private plane and a pilot's license...

[Tinkerer]

But I bet that there are at least as many solutions to this that have at least a reasonable chance - something one could play out in an RPG - of success as there are posters on this forum.

Ooh, I give my friend who lives in the area a shout and get them to pick up the key. Sure they will most likely take the lions share of the loot, possibly even all of it (I only know them moderately well and that's a lotta green), however my odds of getting something is much higher than if I have to book a flight and go through customs etc... not to mention much cheaper. Assuming of course that this is one of those hypotheticals where you know that the offer is genuine.

[Darth Ultron]

I actually wanted to highlight that part, because the "no-selling"/bouncing off the rails seems to be a big part of the larger railroading ... formula? With the "someone grabs you and flings you along the plot (being tied to the trail, to continue the metaphor) seems to happen only as a last resort. Most railroading GMs seem to want to pretend that the reason the party has to do this to move forward is that nothing else makes sense and wouldn't move it forward. See the SUE Files as an example.

I can get that some people mistakenly think this....but it does not really make any sense, and it goes back to ''railroading is always wrong so let me think of a way it is always wrong after I say it is". Why would railroading only be a last resort? The very idea feels full of negativity.....like to ''prove'' railroading is bad, people will say ''well only a bad DM would use it as a last resort'' to just ''prove more'' how badwrong fun it is.

But this is a "not related" situation, that both just happen to involve two magically enchanted guards by a door and a fear spell.

Well, my example is pointing out a rules way that a jerk player would cry railroad: the player tries a ''wacky player agency plan'' and it does not work. Now the player has no idea why their plan did not work, just that it failed. And the ''only'' reason, to them, that could happen is if the DM is railroading. ''Oh, the DM made the guards super immune demi gods so I could not get through the door!"

So I will ask again, what is your answer here:
GM: "There are two guards by the door."
Player: "I cast detect magic on them."
GM: "You see they have some enchantment."
Player: "Okay, my character casts the dispel magic and then the spell fear on them."
GM: ??

Well, setting aside that the character is somehow casting lots of spells and the guard somehow does not know...

Dispel Magic, in a normal game, does not automatically get rid of ''anything the player does not like''. So there is a dispel check here, that the magic might or might not be dispelled. And then he guard will likely get a save vs the fear spell too.

But even if everything rolls out good for the player, so what? It won't effect my game either way.

And while we are on answers, or rather questions, why don't we go back to judging cases on their own merit instead of banning everything because you are worried about the slippery slope? Would you like to say more on that, because as it stands, right now your only reason to prevent "use" is to prevent "misuse" and that is at least as problematic as misuse it prevents.

What are you talking about banning?

Already addressed in a multitude of replies by many posters.

Did they not succeed because of the outcome of the mechanical resolution and/or the pre-established circumstances? Or did they not succeed because you stonewalled them in support of your favored outcome?

Well, this goes back to my point of: How does the player know. The player has a character try something. Dice are rolled. The DM says the character fails and describes what happens. The player has no idea for sure why or how the character failed. Sometimes they might be able to use an in-game ability to try and get at least a clue, but most of the time they are clueless.

So you keep coming back to ''it is wrong if I don't like it"

Ahem. You also mentioned fire, and the vampire example was addressed on that axis.

Are you sure I mentioned fire?

"Conga-line" of pointless fights that can't be escaped = Railroad.

Well, Trapped in the Arena of Doom is one of my Classic Horror Game Events. This goes back years, and was made infamous on the way long lost Wizard Chat Rooms(such good memories). On the plane of Acheron sits just such an arena and it is all ways lots of fun. Poor characters get captured and forced to fight meaningless fights, get somewhat healed/drained/cursed/controlled/fixed up...and then fight some more. It is very Hard Fun(tm). And the vast majority of players that have been through the horror will readily say it was the worst.

But they did have fun. And that is the point: it was fun. All the horror and bad times and everything else was fun. Now if asked any player would say no to a ''horrible trapped in an arena of horror adventure'', but amazingly most of the players that played through it had fun, even if they did not like every second(aka Hard Fun).

And there is the Rocky Moment. One of the greatest feelings fiction can give you. Your poor character is trapped in a horrible place beyond all horror (so bad it can't even be described here) for say two hours of real time. Everything is bad and bleak and you wonder why you even do anything.....and then you get a small chance, maybe, to maybe do something. Do you sit in your chair half asleep and roll a d20 and be like ''whatever'' or to you jump up and sit on the edge of your chair and role play like a gaming god? Well, I hope for the second one. And it is great.

Bit, it is a very, very ''you can't see a rainbow unless you get a little rain'' type of thing. The escape is only worth it and meaningful as the arena is so bad. Players (and characters) are very, very, very motivated to do anything to escape. And it makes for a great focused game.

Come on, shake your body baby, do the conga
I know you can't control yourself any longer
Come on, shake your body baby, do the conga

Must suck to be a player at Darth Ultron's table, where even the bardic knock spell doesn't work somehow.

Eh, only for the bad players that don't even get my classic ''doors have three locks'' old trick...lol

If your players are regularly rolling 40's and are failing the check, then the problem is yours.

A lot of bad players cheat/optimize, it is just who they are.

If you avoid doing the above, then you will rarely, if ever, run into a "jerk player" and, even if you do, they will figure out the gist of the world after a session or two.

The problem is all the other games. The vast majority of other games are run much differently then my game. Most players can't grasp that idea. It is bad enough they think the dumb houserules ''DM Roy'' had are real rules("I thought all sorcerers got Eschew Materials for free?" but it is worse when they think ''DM Roy'' s playstyle is universal (''but Roy all ways let us take an hour to decide what spell to cast in the middle of combat?").

The real classic here is the player with an awesome dragon killer character that has ''killedz a dragon of every color!'' and thinks they are like the greatest player ever. Yet five minutes in my game fighting a dragon and thier character is dead. Why? Because in my game the dragon did not walk up to the character and stop five feet away and let the super special character act first.

Yes, you're right. I see the game as a game, where success is part planning and part luck of the die, while you see it as a game of "guess which tracks the DM has laid for you, and get ready for hazing if you guess wrong". Let's not mince words. The posts you've made and the language you use make it very clear exactly how you feel about and treat other people in your games.

I'd say ''don't think of this like a lame game like others, try and immerse yourself totally in the fantasy world.

No, but it's a distraction. Or in "your odd reality", are basic guards superhumans who never miss anything? You must have a very warped view of reality if you think that every single guard is absolutely perfect and always hyper-aware in every way.

Of course not, I have always said ''some times'' or ''some guards''. My point has allw asy been that sometimes things are hard/near impossible/impossible.

Your said is the said saying ''nothing is impossible ever and you will always have a good chance of doing anything!''

I guess we now know that Darth Ultron has never shared a cake with other people before in his life. Birthdays must have been dreadful, especially when you start feeling sick from eating literally all the cake.

Please, I always let the peasants eat cake, but then the cake is a lie.

[Segev]

Assuming of course that this is one of those hypotheticals where you know that the offer is genuine.

In this hypothetical, Rich Berlew has made the announcement. You at least know it's him that made it, by whatever mechanisms he chooses to use to prove his identity. Whether you think he's the sort to make a false announcement about something like this is part of your decision-making process for approaching the problem. ;)

[Darth Ultron]

It's better to go with an example adventure in my opinion. The railroad GM will decide a list of encounters that the party must overcome to complete the adventure, something like:

Sounds like a good adventure.

And this comes back to the question I have all ways asked, but no one ever answers: If your a DM that does not railroad, how do you do any sort of complex game play.

I have my list:

• Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
• Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
• OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
• Player By In. Players want to do X, the DM just tosses out X and says ''here''.
• Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.
• You simply have a dull, boring game where nothing much happens.

Though most just type insults and crazy words and don't answer the question...other then to say they have some sort of amazing way they do it that is perfect, but they can't explain it.

Take something as simple as buried treasure. A normal DM in a normal classical game will pick a spot and make that the ''official x'' spot where the treasure is located. Then the normal DM in a normal classical game will make clues, hints, and details around spot X. And when the gameplay starts, the players will be trying to find spot x.

But to even have a chance to find spot x, the players will need at least half of the clues/hints/details. And this is where a DM would railroad to make sure that happens.

Yet, many will cry they never railroad. Ok, I say, well then how do your players characters find spot x then? The answer I get is ''they do and it is awesome!'' So, ok, how?

The characters have randomly found two clues (not quite enough to pin point a spot) and are at location y...right next to spot x(but the players don't know that, of course) and they walk away from that. So, what if anything does the DM do? If it is not railroading, or one of the other six ways, what does the DM do?

Ultimately, this all boils down to Darth Ultron not being able to appreciate that there's a difference between "Players' choices can be meaningful beyond guessing the GM's designated win condition," and "Players will always succeed at anything they say they do no matter how ridiculous or trivial."

The point of contention is: I think sometimes in the game play the players won't have the option/chance to make a meaningful thing. And everyone else saying that all players all the time must all ways make all the meaningful decisions for the whole game world game play all the time and the DM must sit there and just watch and do the players bidding.

Here's a hypothetical we can use to illustrate it,

But I bet that there are at least as many solutions to this that have at least a reasonable chance - something one could play out in an RPG - of success as there are posters on this forum.

In general, there are slightly more choices for a vague, big, general thing like ''how will you get the treasure'' then a more direct thing like ''how will you open that door?'' But, still, as you said there are not ''dozens and dozens '' of ways to do everything.

So, assuming posters that do not live in Chicago, or within say 100 miles:

Really, the ONLY way to get to the Windy City quicky is to go by plane. That is it. Period. There is no other way. This is a race and if your more then a State away, a plane is the only way to get their fast. Even a ''close'' place like Detroit is a four hour drive(assuming no traffic, weather, and such). So it is take a plane or you loose.

As I have always said this is a perfect example of ''only one way'', and it is only a chance.

(after all it is likely at least one poster does live in Chicago and can get to the spot in like less then 30 minutes)

And I'd have a good shot of getting the money. I work for an airline..and can fly to Chicago for free once an hour all day, taking an hour to get there. Plus I know at least one person who works ORD(that is airline talk for ''O'Hare'') and that I trust and she could grab the treasure in a couple minutes once I called her. And as I am a good person, I'd split it with her (really one mill and I'm set for life).

[OldTrees1]

The point of contention is: I think sometimes in the game play the players won't have the option/chance to make a meaningful thing. And everyone else saying that all players all the time must all ways make all the meaningful decisions for the whole game world game play all the time and the DM must sit there and just watch and do the players bidding.



In general, there are slightly more choices for a vague, big, general thing like ''how will you get the treasure'' then a more direct thing like ''how will you open that door?'' But, still, as you said there are not ''dozens and dozens '' of ways to do everything.

So, assuming posters that do not live in Chicago, or within say 100 miles:

Really, the ONLY way to get to the Windy City quicky is to go by plane. That is it. Period. There is no other way. This is a race and if your more then a State away, a plane is the only way to get their fast. Even a ''close'' place like Detroit is a four hour drive(assuming no traffic, weather, and such). So it is take a plane or you loose.

As I have always said this is a perfect example of ''only one way'', and it is only a chance.

(after all it is likely at least one poster does live in Chicago and can get to the spot in like less then 30 minutes)

And I'd have a good shot of getting the money. I work for an airline..and can fly to Chicago for free once an hour all day, taking an hour to get there. Plus I know at least one person who works ORD(that is airline talk for ''O'Hare'') and that I trust and she could grab the treasure in a couple minutes once I called her. And as I am a good person, I'd split it with her (really one mill and I'm set for life).

There are dozens of ways for someone living multiple states away to still be the first one to get the money. Attempting to fly there ASAP is only one of the options.

• John Hones decides to call the front desk and talk to the receptionist
• Jackie Smith calls on a friend that lives in town
• Eric Ford issues a bomb threat on the hotel to remove the receptionist from the lobby
• Mike Aries decides to alter the original post so most people see the wrong keyword
• Jane Goodman sends a forged change of instructions to the receptionist
• Sally Forth calls one of the local businesses and cuts a deal over the phone
• Richard Bourne decides to pressure the contest to be called off or else _insert threat_.
• ...

The DM will likely only have foreseen a few of the possible solutions when they were doing their prep. One of the differences between Railroading and not is how the DM reacts to the Players coming up with another valid solution that was not one of the solutions the DM expected. The Railroading (Jerk) DM would reject every valid plan unless it was one of their predetermined plans. The reasonable DM would allow the Players to make the attempt and let the strength/weakness of the plan speak for itself.

I didn't think of it therefore it fails = Railroading
Whether I thought of it or not is irrelevant to whether it will work or not = Reasonable

[Cluedrew]

But even if everything rolls out good for the player, so what? It won't effect my game either way.

That is literally the problem. If a player can't effect the game, they aren't a player they are an observer and you aren't even running a game, which requires interactivity.

[Friv]

That is literally the problem. If a player can't effect the game, they aren't a player they are an observer and you aren't even running a game, which requires interactivity.

Please stop validating him by pretending this is a debate. It's not a debate. It's just a petty bully with delusions of competency tilting at windmills and wasting everyone's time.

[Darth Ultron]

The Railroading (Jerk) DM would reject every valid plan unless it was one of their predetermined plans. The reasonable DM would allow the Players to make the attempt and let the strength/weakness of the plan speak for itself.

Except this, sadly once again, hinges all on ''if the players like it to not''.

That is literally the problem. If a player can't effect the game, they aren't a player they are an observer and you aren't even running a game, which requires interactivity.

I guess this statement feels good, but it makes no sense. Though I do know a lot of DMs do let players just ruin the game. After all the boards are full of ''my players did x and I sat there and did nothing while it happened, how can I act and save my game now?"'

And most of the DM's that are not just the lazy, causal types that let players wreck games, don't let the players wreck the game....even though they say they ''let the players do anything''.

The problem is that ''everyone'' is stuck on the crazy idea that players must be demigods that can alter the reality of the gameworld on a whim every second of the game. And that just makes no sense. It's like a football team saying ''ok, each inning our team will get 100 points no matter what'' or someone saying ''I will only play the lotto if I win''.

[Mordaedil]

I guess this statement feels good, but it makes no sense. Though I do know a lot of DMs do let players just ruin the game. After all the boards are full of ''my players did x and I sat there and did nothing while it happened, how can I act and save my game now?"'

And most of the DM's that are not just the lazy, causal types that let players wreck games, don't let the players wreck the game....even though they say they ''let the players do anything''.

The problem is that ''everyone'' is stuck on the crazy idea that players must be demigods that can alter the reality of the gameworld on a whim every second of the game. And that just makes no sense. It's like a football team saying ''ok, each inning our team will get 100 points no matter what'' or someone saying ''I will only play the lotto if I win''.

The answer to this shouldn't be "I grant players no autonomy" though, that's what railroading entails. And most people that ask on these boards for help aren't asking "how do I return my campaign to status quo", that's really ****ing easy, they are asking for brainstorming ideas on "how do I move forward with the players having done this?" it's a matter of reading between the lines.

I mean, at what point are you playing a table top game and at what point are you just playing a strategical board game? There is a difference and it's not "nobody else wrote this before me".

Most people responding to you in these threads, DU, aren't replying out of malice or some sort of self-justified "there is only one way to play the game", they are actually pitying you because you are selling the game short of its potential. I'm sure you are having fun running your games, but it's a far-cry from the kind of fun you could be having and people just want you to see that, even as you refuse to see things from their perspective.

There is no argument to be had, you run the game as you wish, but you stubbornly refuse to budge on seeing things from a new, different perspective. That is just sad.

We all hope you lighten up and play the game in the way it could be played, but we're not going to make you. No, we can't make you. Only you can do that.

[OldTrees1]

Except this, sadly once again, hinges all on ''if the players like it to not''.

Nope.

Railroading is railroading regardless of player reaction or even knowledge of the event.

When Darth Ultron decides something doesn't work merely because it was not a Darth Ultron idea, that is Railroading and Jerk DMing.

Of course the worst kind of Jerk DM will project that failure onto their players rather than own their own mistake and failure.

[Quertus]

Humorously, there are Amtrak stations not so far from here, so we might say our hypothetical railroading GM would only accept driving to the train station, taking the next train, then hailing a taxi to get to the hotel. Can't have the "players" missing that encounter with the aggressive pan-handler at the depot, after all.

I know this was snark, but I think it brings up a good point. What if the GM's plot is fragile, and requires that the PCs take the train to meet the aggressive pan-handler, else they miss the important clue, and the whole thing falls apart?

Yes, the obvious answer is to follow the rule of 3, and make sure that the PCs have at least 3 opportunities to learn any given clue, and at least 3 clues about any given thing that you "need" them to know "for the plot".

And then there's my answer, where I couldn't care less whether or not the players get any particular clue, or figure any particular thing out. The game is whatever the players make of it.

So, ignoring more robust plots or proper sand boxes, and looking exclusively at fragile plots, how much railroading is worth not leaving the game an incomprehensible mess, because the players missed a vital clue?

The problem you might be having is you really do think of the Rules as Almighty. Page 12 of book one has rule 22 and you must do that and you bow down and do so. Or you might just be one of the people that just oddly say something, but then don't exactly follow through on it all the time. After all, just about every gamer has changed at least one thing. But you might be that one guy that is like ''your character picked up a rock, remember to adjust your encumbrance''.

Or you might not get that not changing ''rules'' like HP, levels and Bab is different then adding a new spell to the game and ''changing the rules''.

The rules of Monopoly say you collect $200 when you pass go. The rules of chess say white goes first, players move one piece on their turn, and that pieces move a certain way. Changing those rules rarely makes the game better. Changing those rules in an RPG is taken about as well by me as attempting to change the definition of words like "railroading" is taken by the Playground. Because, as the Playground is fond of saying, learning those rules is the equivalent of a 4-year degree. Invalidating that effort to make the game worse is just being a ****.

Again, you might be stuck on the idea that ''the DM is changing things to effect the outcome'' again. Think of an encounter in spot X, the players by ''natural game flow'' are going right past it, so the DM uses a bit of DM Agency to have the characters got to spot X. The characters ''will have'' the encounter, but there is no set outcome.

Well... this isn't something I'd put under the umbrella of "GM Agency". This sounds like a different kind of beast. Because, here, you've stated that you know the outcome (players will go right past spot X), and that the GM is willfully altering reality in order to affect that outcome (players will have the encounter at spot X).

Why does it matter if the players reach spot X now, or later, or never? Why change things to remove player agency to reach that spot or not on their own merits? Why invalidate their choices?

Except it is more the game play, but not ''the rules''. The ''rules'' don't say ''what do the two guards to the back door of Castle Doom do at 11 pm ". That is all just the ''DM's call''.

And you get the jerk player who has their character say, cast charm person on an npc. The DM says ''it does not work'' and the player scrams ''railroad!'' pulls out the ''rules'' and demands that the charm person spell works ''just like the rules say it does''. Though there are plenty of reasons, even ''in the rules'' why anything might not work.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons in the rules why Charm Person might not work. And, yes, it's up to the GM to determine guard routines in most games (let's hear it for GM Agency).

But your post history suggests that you are playing D&D in name only. Someone who sits down at your table, expecting D&D, is going to be sorely disappointed. And you're not going to have that player buy-in, that trust, that is necessary to run the custom content heavy style of game you prefer. Instead, your violation of their initial expectations is going to make them question everything you do, so that they can understand just what the **** kind of game that they're in. This is not the result of a jerk player, this is just the natural consequence of the situation that you've put them in.

Now, you can respond to this by building trust, which you could do by a) explaining things to them; b) having them learn the explanations for things in character, the same session, sometimes ahead of time; c) having the other players explain things to them with that stockpile of metagaming player knowledge you love. Do some combination of these repeatedly until they get their feet under then, and understand what type of game they are playing. Or you can respond to this be being a **** about it, and labeling then a jerk. May I suggest you consider one of my alternative strategies?

Except, maybe you don't. Take the yard example. You set up and create your yard to look like ''natural beauty''. Then you would say you ''just let it grow''. And you can ''let it grow'', but only to a point. The ''real'' natural way things happen might not all ways meet your ''idea natural way''. Like if the bushes grow too high, they will block most of the view of the yard, so naturally you trim the bushes to below that level. If a storm or a deer destroys some plants do you just shrug or do you replace them? Take a garden. You could drop some seeds, let them grow naturally, and come back after a while and see what food grew. Or you could plant them, water them, care for them as they grow and get a good food crop.

The game is the same. The games artificial nature must be maintained.

Well, the lawn example does fall apart here somewhat, but, while most lawns need constant maintenance, most games don't.

This bit might go a bit beyond the yard analogy. It is easy when a group of people all agree that X should be done. The tricky part is when only one person knows why X should be done and everyone in the group does not have the same power level and knowledge of all things.

Interesting point. However, can you give an example of why this should matter - why an event could be catastrophic to the plot in a way only visible to those with hidden knowledge - if you're following the rule of three instead of running a fragile plot?

And this is even more true once you set aside the ''rules'', sigh again, and focus on the Role Play more. And in role play, somethings will always be impossible.

And why, when things need to be rolled / evaluated, should you use random GM arbitration rather than switching back to the known rules?

I disagree with this (to a point).

It's the GM's responsibility to allow meaningful choices to be made.

it's the player's responsibility to make choices that lead to something fun happening.

My group might seem a bit railroad-ey to some, but we enjoy it as we accept that taking the intro to an adventure the GM gives us is a reasonable compromise. We're trading a certain level of 'freedom' for a a better chance of doing something cool.

While, in theory, I don't disagree, there are a few problems here. As DU pointed out, due to hidden knowledge, the players are not in a good position to accurately judge the outcome of their actions in the grand scheme. That is, they should generally be good at judging the outcomes of their actions on a small scale - and, on the rare occasions when their judgement is wrong, it's a good indication that there might be something worth investigating going on.

But knowing that their actions will lead to something fun happening? That seems beyond what one should expect of players.

And this comes back to the question I have all ways asked, but no one ever answers: If your a DM that does not railroad, how do you do any sort of complex game play.

I have my list:

• Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
• Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
• OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
• Player By In. Players want to do X, the DM just tosses out X and says ''here''.
• Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.
• You simply have a dull, boring game where nothing much happens.

Though most just type insults and crazy words and don't answer the question...other then to say they have some sort of amazing way they do it that is perfect, but they can't explain it.

Take something as simple as buried treasure. A normal DM in a normal classical game will pick a spot and make that the ''official x'' spot where the treasure is located. Then the normal DM in a normal classical game will make clues, hints, and details around spot X. And when the gameplay starts, the players will be trying to find spot x.

But to even have a chance to find spot x, the players will need at least half of the clues/hints/details. And this is where a DM would railroad to make sure that happens.

Yet, many will cry they never railroad. Ok, I say, well then how do your players characters find spot x then? The answer I get is ''they do and it is awesome!'' So, ok, how?

The characters have randomly found two clues (not quite enough to pin point a spot) and are at location y...right next to spot x(but the players don't know that, of course) and they walk away from that. So, what if anything does the DM do? If it is not railroading, or one of the other six ways, what does the DM do?

How do my PCs find spot X? The GM doesn't do anything. The players find it when/if they find it.

The point of contention is: I think sometimes in the game play the players won't have the option/chance to make a meaningful thing. And everyone else saying that all players all the time must all ways make all the meaningful decisions for the whole game world game play all the time and the DM must sit there and just watch and do the players bidding.

When the PC gets a "40" on, say, an Open Lock check, it's a good sign that they can open any lock in the game. At this point, the lock should open.

Of course, this will do the players little good if the door is welded shut. Or a mimic. But most locks should just be locks, and most locks should open just fine on a 40.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, this goes back to my point of: How does the player know. The player has a character try something. Dice are rolled. The DM says the character fails and describes what happens. The player has no idea for sure why or how the character failed. Sometimes they might be able to use an in-game ability to try and get at least a clue, but most of the time they are clueless.

So you keep coming back to ''it is wrong if I don't like it"

First, it doesn't matter if the player knows. The DM is still engaged in the disingenuous behavior.

Second, the players will figure it out when things their characters try -- that are utterly reasonable in the context of rules and setting and circumstances -- are repeatedly failing for no apparent reason. The veneer will wear away and expose the incongruity. In most people's experience, why something they tried didn't work is often evident... and being told "It didn't work because I said so" doesn't go that far.

As noted previously by others, it's most likely that these "jerk" players who "ruin" games in your perception are the ones who figure out that you're not adjudicating situations based on the context of rules and setting and circumstances, but rather on whether they align with your predetermined course of events.

And that seems to be the core disconnect... by your own statements, you believe that players who aren't forced to follow along with the story you're trying to tell are "allowed to do anything"... and no matter how many times or how many ways it's explained, you refuse to even entertain the possibility that PC's actions can have any limits other than that.

Meanwhile, 1000s upon 1000s of other GMs are running games where they focus not on planning out the whole story in advance, but working out the setting and NPCs such that the PCs have a world to interact with in a way that's similar to how real people interact with the real world, and the PCs actions are limited by the "fictional reality" and its "physics" and "metaphysics", and by the NPCs having their own agendas, in the same way real people's actions are limited by the real world and by other people they interact with having their own agendas.

When the "fictional reality" is robust and the possibility and probability of PC's attempted actions is based on the context of rules and setting and circumstances, the GM can adjudicate along those lines and avoid having to force anything. The story emerges, rather than being preset.

Short version: when you claim that it's either the sort of limits you advocate, or no limits at all with the players doing whatever they want... you are wrong.

Are you sure I mentioned fire?

Yes, you mentioned fire. Helpfully quoted and linked:

Example from above: DM makes a vampire with a secret weakness for the characters to find and use (DM's choice). Player demands that ''our super clever idea of using fire is not only possible but automatically works!''(Player's choice).

[BRC]

Not to butt into Darth Ultron vs The Forum, Volume XIV, But I'd like to bring up a question/point of debate.


We've settled on the idea that a DM railroads when they cut the PC's off from what should be reasonable courses of action in a given scenario, but how far does it go when the GM crafts the scenario to cut off courses of action. At what point does that become Railroading?

Lets say I'm thinking about my next session, I've come up with the problem, and several solutions pop into my mind, one of which I don't want to happen.

Let's start with a scenario: A group of Goblins has moved in, and have started raiding a local village. The Goblins are being commanded by a Bugbear.


There are plenty of options, Storm the Goblin's camp, assassinate the Bugbear, convince the goblins to overthrow the bugbear, ect.

There's ALSO an option where the PC's mobilize the villagers into a militia and lead them against the Goblins.

I, as the GM, don't want this to happen. Maybe I just don't want to run a mass battle, maybe I don't want to run a campaign where the PC's use the villagers as meatshields, whatever my reasons.

So, I change the scenario. There is a Disease in the village so there are not enough able bodies to form such a militia, the Villagers belong to a pacifistic religion,The Villagers don't want to leave their homes abandoned in case the Goblins attack while they're heading out, whatever.


As the GM, it's in my power to craft a scenario where the "perfectly reasonable" options are very limited. It's not a matter of improvising down the line to cut off options, but crafting the scenario to limit those options from the start. Where is the Line drawn, at what point does that become Railroading?

[Thinker]

Sounds like a good adventure.

And this comes back to the question I have all ways asked, but no one ever answers: If your a DM that does not railroad, how do you do any sort of complex game play.

And the answer is simple, which I'm sure has been answered before. The GM plans a situation and decides what would happen if the party never gets involved. Divide that situation into 3 to 7 linear events. That takes about 5 minutes, including the time it takes to come up with what sort of dangers are associated with the situation and some quick notes about the behavior of important NPCs. After that, you see how the players react to the situation and adjust the plan as play happens. Usually you start after the first event or as it's about to happen. Maybe the players disrupted the hand-off at the docks and now the villain doesn't have the ingredient he needs to make his super drug. Now, the villain's next plan is to recover the drug from the players or the police. That becomes the situation's new step 2 and puts off the villain's plans that much longer. When the players fail, the consequences are that the plot takes a step further. They tried to muddle up the dock hand-off, but due to poor tactics and a couple of bad rolls, the mooks got away with the super drug. At least the players are aware of the super drug now and can react to it. When the players look like they're not sure what to do next, throw danger at them or something they care about or hint about danger on the horizon. Give them clues. If they decide that this isn't their fight, let them walk away (unless they've really pissed off the villain, then he might come looking for them, which is a whole separate situation).

[Max_Killjoy]

I know this was snark, but I think it brings up a good point. What if the GM's plot is fragile, and requires that the PCs take the train to meet the aggressive pan-handler, else they miss the important clue, and the whole thing falls apart?

Yes, the obvious answer is to follow the rule of 3, and make sure that the PCs have at least 3 opportunities to learn any given clue, and at least 3 clues about any given thing that you "need" them to know "for the plot".

And then there's my answer, where I couldn't care less whether or not the players get any particular clue, or figure any particular thing out. The game is whatever the players make of it.

So, ignoring more robust plots or proper sand boxes, and looking exclusively at fragile plots, how much railroading is worth not leaving the game an incomprehensible mess, because the players missed a vital clue?

I hope this doesn't seem dismissive, but... don't run fragile plots.

Fragile plots in authorial fiction only "work" because all the characters do whatever the author(s) tell them to. (And they almost always make for bad fiction full of inconsistent characterization, excesses of sketchy coincidence, and the idiot ball being handed around like mad.)

An RPG campaign is not authorial fiction, and some of the characters don't do what you wanted them to. A planned sequence of events that relies on the PCs doing exactly what the GM expects them to do is doomed to either fail or get heavily railroaded (which is also failure).

The rest of the players around the table are not the GM's audience, they're the GM's fellow players.

If the GM needs the PCs to run into the aggressive pan-handler, then the GM should have him somewhere the PCs need to go, not along one optional route of many. If the GM needs the PCs on the train, then the GM should give them a reason to specifically want to get on the train.

If the GM just presumes that the PCs will take the train, and then the players decide that their PCs drive instead, that doesn't make the players "jerks" and the players are not "ruining" the game. The GM set up a fragile plot and has no one to blame but himself.

[Thinker]

Not to butt into Darth Ultron vs The Forum, Volume XIV, But I'd like to bring up a question/point of debate.


We've settled on the idea that a DM railroads when they cut the PC's off from what should be reasonable courses of action in a given scenario, but how far does it go when the GM crafts the scenario to cut off courses of action. At what point does that become Railroading?

Lets say I'm thinking about my next session, I've come up with the problem, and several solutions pop into my mind, one of which I don't want to happen.

Let's start with a scenario: A group of Goblins has moved in, and have started raiding a local village. The Goblins are being commanded by a Bugbear.


There are plenty of options, Storm the Goblin's camp, assassinate the Bugbear, convince the goblins to overthrow the bugbear, ect.

There's ALSO an option where the PC's mobilize the villagers into a militia and lead them against the Goblins.

I, as the GM, don't want this to happen. Maybe I just don't want to run a mass battle, maybe I don't want to run a campaign where the PC's use the villagers as meatshields, whatever my reasons.

So, I change the scenario. There is a Disease in the village so there are not enough able bodies to form such a militia, the Villagers belong to a pacifistic religion,The Villagers don't want to leave their homes abandoned in case the Goblins attack while they're heading out, whatever.


As the GM, it's in my power to craft a scenario where the "perfectly reasonable" options are very limited. It's not a matter of improvising down the line to cut off options, but crafting the scenario to limit those options from the start. Where is the Line drawn, at what point does that become Railroading?

The point where you eliminate all solutions except for a series of linear events is where it becomes a railroad. Bonus points for hiding information from the players that makes it not work (or coming up with justifications on the fly) Using your example:

The villagers are sick so there won't be a mass battle. OK. That's fine and it was presented as information beforehand. There is justification presented before the players even act so it seems reasonable to me. Now, let's say that as the GM you want to have the goblins fought first and then the bugbear. The players might try to track down the bugbear to sneak in and assassinate him, but the GM says that his tracks are too well covered or there's too many other tracks to pick up a trail. The players persist and the GM relents and says OK, you found where the bugbear lives, but it's guarded by the goblin camp. The players try to sneak in, but are confronted with an impenetrable fortress that can only be opened by a lodestone that is held by one of the goblins. It's not specified which one so simply stealing the lodestone isn't an option. Once they fight the goblins, they get the lodestone and are allowed to fight the bugbear.

In my opinion, it restricts the problem solving and forces the players to think the same way as the GM. Instead of playing to find out what happens, you're playing to complete a specific scenario.

[Tinkerer]

Let's start with a scenario: A group of Goblins has moved in, and have started raiding a local village. The Goblins are being commanded by a Bugbear.

There are plenty of options, Storm the Goblin's camp, assassinate the Bugbear, convince the goblins to overthrow the bugbear, ect.

There's ALSO an option where the PC's mobilize the villagers into a militia and lead them against the Goblins.

I, as the GM, don't want this to happen. Maybe I just don't want to run a mass battle, maybe I don't want to run a campaign where the PC's use the villagers as meatshields, whatever my reasons.

So, I change the scenario. There is a Disease in the village so there are not enough able bodies to form such a militia, the Villagers belong to a pacifistic religion,The Villagers don't want to leave their homes abandoned in case the Goblins attack while they're heading out, whatever.

As the GM, it's in my power to craft a scenario where the "perfectly reasonable" options are very limited. It's not a matter of improvising down the line to cut off options, but crafting the scenario to limit those options from the start. Where is the Line drawn, at what point does that become Railroading?

Well that just sounds like good scenario crafting. It's a part of the scenario which you've laid out and will most likely be flavouring the situation. The disease and pacifistic scenarios in particular will have obvious signs. When it comes to presenting the situation you've got free reign (well you've always got free reign it's a question of if you should use it), it's when dealing with how the players react to that situation that you need to keep your hands off. In fact limited scenarios are when players usually really get the chance to shine. They don't get to have credit for overcoming adversity without adversity after all.

This ties back to something I brought up several threads ago. I sometimes like to present my players with a behind the scenes peek after the campaign has ended. Of course not the entirety of it but several portions which include pieces that they missed (which I'm not planning to reuse later) and other things so they can look at it and go "Oh, that's why that plan didn't work out" or "Oh hey there was this little thing just over here which would've changed our whole outlook on the adventure!". It's gone over surprisingly well and has encouraged a few more players to pick up the screen.

[kyoryu]

Not to butt into Darth Ultron vs The Forum, Volume XIV, But I'd like to bring up a question/point of debate.

I don't think there's necessarily a bright line division here.

But, that said, my loose definition of railroading is when the GM is the one determining the specific order and content of encounters/scenes.

So, cutting off one option isn't railroading, providing others are available.

Even more generally, if you're willing to allow for a solution/path that you haven't thought of, you are pretty well by definition not railroading. Making some solutions non-viable isn't railroading. Limiting the available solutions/paths/etc. to one pre-determined one *is*.

Now, as I said, it's not a bright line. Even the most non-railroaded games will often have situations where the next thing that happens is totally dictated by the GM, whether it's the GM springing something on the players, or whether it's just a natural result of the occurrences of the game - not railroading. And if you constantly offer a choice of two solutions, which conveniently lead to the next two solutions... pretty railroady, even though you're arguably never forcing the next encounter.

If you, as the GM, don't know what's going to happen, you're not railroading.

I hope this doesn't seem dismissive, but... don't run fragile plots.

Yeah.

If the entire thing relies on meeting one specific NPC, then there's an issue. Either the problem isn't big enough that the PCs will notice it, it isn't tied into the PCs enough, or the potential path is too restrictive. I mean, i can tell you how I'd fix some of these things given an actual example scenario (like, why do they have to meet the beggar?)

[Segev]

Sounds like a good adventure.

And this comes back to the question I have all ways asked, but no one ever answers: If your a DM that does not railroad, how do you do any sort of complex game play.

I have answered this question repeatedly. Please acknowledge it this time by quoting it and detailing the issues you have with it, as you either have missed it every time or are claiming it is inadequate without actually spelling out why.

You create a complex game by having a lot of moving parts. A computer game designer has to make it complex by intentionally designing a large number of levers, unless it is a particular kind of game (e.g. Minecraft). A tabletop RPG GM doesn't have that restriction, and can get away with just making up the scenario. What IS going on, absent the players? Then throw the players in, and see how they change what would have happened.

You keep making assertions that allowing this without having a very specific set of actions the PCs must take as the only effective way to advance a linear plot that is built around holes they are expected to fill translates to allowing the PCs to make up abilities not on their sheets and make up mechanics for the rest of the setting willy-nilly. This is an absurd assertion. I expect you know this, and are making it so that you can claim a false dichotomy that leaves only your preferred hardcore railroad as the non-ludicrous option.

This, however, is fraudulent. Flawed. Either a gross myopia or a deliberate cognitive ignorance.

Charitably, I am allowing that you might be that myopic.

I shall endeavor to paint the difference. In fact, I already have, with the "Giant's Treasure" hypothetical set in pretty-much-the-real-world.

The point of contention is: I think sometimes in the game play the players won't have the option/chance to make a meaningful thing. And everyone else saying that all players all the time must all ways make all the meaningful decisions for the whole game world game play all the time and the DM must sit there and just watch and do the players bidding.

The key is "sometimes."

No, the players can't flap their arms and fly faster than light to Chicago from wherever they happen to be in the world. No mechanics suggest they should be able to. But likewise, they have numerous ways to get there. Trains, planes, automobiles, walking or running, paying somebody else to do so, partnering with somebody already there who can drive or walk the shorter distance, etc.

In general, there are slightly more choices for a vague, big, general thing like ''how will you get the treasure'' then a more direct thing like ''how will you open that door?'' But, still, as you said there are not ''dozens and dozens '' of ways to do everything.

I never said there weren't "dozens and dozens" of anything. I didn't use that phrase at all, and I certainly outright stated that there were such a large number that "dozens and dozens" would probably be at least not an underestimate. (I think we probably have dozens and dozens of posters here, and a large number of non-posting readers, as well.)

So, assuming posters that do not live in Chicago, or within say 100 miles:

Really, the ONLY way to get to the Windy City quicky is to go by plane. That is it. Period. There is no other way. This is a race and if your more then a State away, a plane is the only way to get their fast. Even a ''close'' place like Detroit is a four hour drive(assuming no traffic, weather, and such). So it is take a plane or you loose.

As I have always said this is a perfect example of ''only one way'', and it is only a chance.

(after all it is likely at least one poster does live in Chicago and can get to the spot in like less then 30 minutes)

And yet, people have voiced alternatives. Trains, for one. Calling a friend to split the loot by letting him know to head in to do this, for another.

If some poster happens to have a private jet or helicopter, he could take that. And that is definitely a different path than somebody who is taking a commercial airliner. People have different ways they'll try to GET the flights, too. Rushing in to the airport for a standby for the earliest flight is a risky proposition that might yield a sooner flight than reserving a seat on the next flight with available seating. What do they pack? How do they plan to get from the airport to the hotel? Do they call the front desk first and try to arrange a room?

Maybe some posters try to bribe the desk clerk to go get it, himself, risking the clerk keeping it all rather than splitting it according to a deal or taking the bribe but delivering the loot. Maybe another knows somebody on the cleaning staff and calls THEM.

There are more outlandish approaches, with varying degrees of reasonability, legality, and likelihood of success.

And then there's the question of how you handle it if you see another forumite heading to the front desk as you get there. Do you race them? Do you argue with them at the desk for why the clerk should give YOU the key? Do you race to the elevator and try to find a way in anyway, getting there first but without the key so you have to break in? Do you pickpocket the key off of him on the elevator?

Do you Mission Impossible down the outside of the building and glass-cut into the room ahead of those using the stairs due to having sabotaged the elevators?

Again, some have greater likelihoods of working, and depend greatly on the capabilities of the players involved.

And I'd have a good shot of getting the money. I work for an airline..and can fly to Chicago for free once an hour all day, taking an hour to get there. Plus I know at least one person who works ORD(that is airline talk for ''O'Hare'') and that I trust and she could grab the treasure in a couple minutes once I called her. And as I am a good person, I'd split it with her (really one mill and I'm set for life).

Well, you're more looking at whether she's a good person who'd split it with YOU, as she'd get there first. But yes, see, you came up with several things that, if I were a GM with a specific plan in mind, I would look at your broken powers that you want to use to shortcut my brilliant complicated plot and call you a "jerk player" for invoking. Or I'd railroad reasons why your airline wasn't flying there in time, and your ORD contact is home sick and not taking calls today, and... and...

See how the railroad is constructed to ensure that you actually take the plane like any other commercial airline passenger, and thus will run into the problems I had in mind that an employee wouldn't?

There are dozens of ways for someone living multiple states away to still be the first one to get the money. Attempting to fly there ASAP is only one of the options.

• John Hones decides to call the front desk and talk to the receptionist
• Jackie Smith calls on a friend that lives in town
• Eric Ford issues a bomb threat on the hotel to remove the receptionist from the lobby
• Mike Aries decides to alter the original post so most people see the wrong keyword
• Jane Goodman sends a forged change of instructions to the receptionist
• Sally Forth calls one of the local businesses and cuts a deal over the phone
• Richard Bourne decides to pressure the contest to be called off or else _insert threat_.
• ...

The DM will likely only have foreseen a few of the possible solutions when they were doing their prep. One of the differences between Railroading and not is how the DM reacts to the Players coming up with another valid solution that was not one of the solutions the DM expected. The Railroading (Jerk) DM would reject every valid plan unless it was one of their predetermined plans. The reasonable DM would allow the Players to make the attempt and let the strength/weakness of the plan speak for itself.

I didn't think of it therefore it fails = Railroading
Whether I thought of it or not is irrelevant to whether it will work or not = Reasonable

Pretty much this.

A complex, non-railroad plot has a world to interact with. Not all your imaginations must come true, but your actions should still have meaning. Darth Ultron would fly and benefit from advantages of easier scheduling and cheaper travel by being an employee with an airline. Or call ahead to a known contact right there who could go to the Hyatt practically next door and get the loot fast.

Max_Killjoy would take the Amtrack and hope it got there faster than anybody else could see it and react.

Etc.

The complex plot probably has more moving parts than this, but the concept is the same: player characters have certain abilities. The world has certain DCs. These DCs should be set based on an idea of simulation of realistic expectations. Players make their characters do things, and success or failure is fairly judged for each action in their efforts to achieve something.

If players do something unexpected, a complex, robust plot will have enough detail for the GM to figure out what the consequences are. Yes, if their "unexpected" thing is one of Darth Ultron's silly examples, it probably won't work. That only becomes railroading if one pre-defines any unexpected action as "silly."

If Darth Ultron and his fellow party members were in this race for the loot, and Darth Ultron remembered his friend at O'Hare Airport and called her up, but the GM was anticipating an exhausting race with numerous obstacles and no way to get the loot without being there, personally, the railroading GM (who forgot about that ally) would have her suddenly unavailable. The GM who isn't railroading but isn't certain she'd be there would come up with a reasonable set of odds that she's available, based on what facts he can piece together about her. The odds would be pretty high, honestly, because most people aren't usually so far from where they work that this would be a problem. (I am assuming she's an O'Hare local worker, not an airline employee who flies around based out of O'Hare.)

Personally, unless I had a good reason she PROBABLY wouldn't be there, I'd assume she was, if I were the GM. Congrats, player (Darth Ultron), you surprised me, but yeah, that's a valid solution. Now the struggle is in her hands, and I have to figure out what happens. She'll probably contact you later, unless she absconded with it all.



If that doesn't answer the question you, Darth Ultron, accuse "nobody" of answering in the first bit I quote, please explain why it does not. I would like to actually remove that complaint from your armoury, because its powder is spent and its barrel is warped.

[Pleh]

@BRC

Part of the DM's job is to say, "no" sometimes to other players, but its just as their job much to help them understand why their solution doesn't work.

Like earlier when I responded to DU's "hero feast guards" scenario, I pointed out that the DM can make their intentions (e.g. "the guards are immune to fear") better communicated ("the guards seem to be in exceptionally good spirits"). This (supposedly) removes the "gotcha" moment when their solution fails.

So when I limit player options, I make sure there is some hint of a limitation being present and let them play the game of investigating their scenario with character skills and abilities. Now my railroads are not only concealed for posterity, but they actually become an easter egg: discovering the limitations of the scenario is actually a clue to narrowing down the field of possible solutions and they get to feel clever for investing in skills that help them avoid pitfalls.

So, yes, putting walls and rails in are great techniques when you invite the other players to take advantage of them. They are deplorable if they specifically target the PCs to counter their tactics.

Back to your scenario with goblin raids and recruiting villagers, most PCs would accept the, "they're too sick" explanation and abandon that route. But if I had one hero (a bard and/or marshal who emphasizes diplomacy and inspiring leadership) they might feel that their niche is being targeted.

In that case, I'd meet them halfway and give them up to 4 warriors representing the village's strongest men, which is all they can spare. I'd also make it clear to the player that the village needs these men to survive the battle, as they are needed for the village to thrive after the battle as well. This way, my "rails" are flexible, honoring the spirit behind their construction (no mass battles) and the spirit of the PC's construction (leads others into battle) through a compromise (the village risks losing their best men in exchange for survival, while the PC gains minions at the risk of failing as a leader).