Plot Railroading: How much?

[Koo Rehtorb]

In any case if the Pc's do defeat a fair challenge, then they do. Your example seems to say ''one fight and there will be no more raiders anywhere ever again''. And sure, that is one way a bad DM might do it; but a good DM can simply have them come back or another group move in or something else.

Thank you. I am finally completely satisfied that this isn't just a definitional problem.

[Darth Ultron]

Ok, so a "My game has no Plot'', from a couple threads ago, example:

Because that is equally inaccurate. As a GM, I play as the World and the NPCs in a way that makes logical sense and will react to players accordingly. There is no set plot or need to string players along on it. They get to prioritize which problems they want to deal with, and how. I, being the world, push back in ways that logically follow. (If the PCs piss off a major warlord, they can expect smashy shooty problems. If they piss off a corporate overlord, they may find themselves in financial or legal troubles. The may piss of neither. They may piss off both. Up to their decisions.

What ends up coming from this style has never been a simple plot. In fact, a lot of what happens is fairly convoluted and nuanced since different NPCs have different relationships with PCs.

And

Not random, but has no plot, either would be correct.
This description is wrong, so I wouldn't use it.
I just don't do a pre-planned plot. Emergent Narrative is my thing.

He did drop out of posting though....

Thank you. I am finally completely satisfied that this isn't just a definitional problem.

Your welcome.

This is a good example of a simple vs comlex game too.

Simple game-''You guys beat the bandits, there will be no more bandits forever''.

Complex game-"you guys beat one group of bandits...but the world is full of bandits and other bad people so anything can happen in the future, but for now you can celebrate.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ok, so a "My game has no Plot'', from a couple threads ago, example:

He's not saying the game is random and stuff just happens. He's saying that he doesn't do much of any pre-plotting* -- it sounds almost entirely reactive and improvisational, which is not the same thing as "random".

( * I specifically use "pre-plotting" here to distinguish what he says he means by "plot" from what he means by "story" or "narrative" -- when he says "plot", he means a course of events that are predetermined and set to happen regardless of that the PCs do, which is I read it the reason he links "plot" with "railroading". )

I don't know how much pre-campaign / pre-session worldbuilding he does, which is a fairly separate question.

The problem you're having is that you continue to press -- against all evidence, testimony, and logic to the contrary -- a position rooted in an excluded middle fallacy: that anything and everything not pre-plotted is "random".

[Darth Ultron]

that anything and everything not pre-plotted is "random".

Ok

Normal game: The DM pre-plans, plots and sets up things in advance.

Random game: The DM just does whatever on a whim.

Other game: They randomly plan not plan, set up not set up, plot and not plot at the same time? So, really this is just a normal game as if there is any thing ''done'' it is not random.

But, yes, if you don't pre-plot something it is random. What other ''middle'' can there be?

Normal Game-The DM makes some bandits outside of town as part of a plot to isolate, overrun and destroy the town. The Pc's leave the town, the bandits attack.

Other Game-The DM makes the town, bandits, and other stuff...but oddly does not connect anything and just lets it sit there. But when the Pc's go outside of town the DM has the 'setting notes'(that they made) tell them that the bandits will attack the Pcs as it makes 'setting sense'(to the DM). Then the Dm tells themselves that the 'setting' attacked the characters and that it was 'the players fault' and they just sat back and watched. So really despite all the crazy fluff, this is a normal game.

[Scripten]

Really the only thing I've learned from this thread is that Darth Ultron is incapable of basic reading comprehension skills and compensates by stuffing every single post with strawmen enough to fill the entire US midwest. (By the way, DU, that sentence was an example of "sarcasm" and "hyperbole".)

Kind of comes across as a waste of everyone's time, to be honest, seeing as how filling this thread doesn't even keep the rampant spewing of hot garbage away from other threads.

[Segev]

Ok, so a "My game has no Plot'', from a couple threads ago, example:

Okay! Progress...though you later squander some of it by pretending that adding the word "random" to your responses to Max_Killjoy's posts means something.

Looking at your quoted examples, these are examples of people saying they have a setting that is well-defined, with well-understood NPCs and environments. They then improvise from those known quantities the consequences of the PCs' actions.

This isn't "random." This is improvisation.

Let's take the "Giant's Treasure at the Hyatt" scenario, and examine the difference:

Random: The PCs decide to buy a plane ticket. The GM randomly determines that zombie apocalypses start and shut down all airports until the PCs can solve the problem. The PCs try to find a cure, only to discover that the GM now has decided it was Old Man Henderson in a mask pretending to be every zombie with his randomly-chosen power of self-duplication.

Improvisation: It is generally not difficult to buy plane tickets for commercial flights, but the players are trying to get tickets from one location to another very quickly. The GM looks at typical flight availabilities, and determines that the options the players have are a flight that takes off in three hours with a stop-over in St. Louis, or a flight that takes off from the next city over but is a straight shot, and leaves later that afternoon. The players decide to take the first option, but try to get on standby for a sooner flight that's currently full but also leaving from the local airport.


In the random game, the GM does just make up...whatever...that has no rhyme nor reason. The improv game relies on the GM's knowledge of how plane travel works and uses it to figure out likely, realistic (within setting) difficulties and opportunities based on the players' actions.

Similarly, a random game where the players decide to hold up a restaurant for the cash register might result in the GM randomly deciding this makes them the honored kings and queens of the city. Why? Because random!

An improv game would have the GM look at the restaurant and figure out what each NPC's personality and resources would have them do. If there's a way to call the cops, one of them probably does. Ultimately, unless the PCs are out fast enough, they wind up facing the police who came to investigate/challenge the armed robbers. If they're out fast enough, they instead have a problem with having to keep the police from connecting them with the crime, or they'll face said police when they come to arrest them for it.

Improv works within the realm of reasonability and uses that to determine what obstacles and opportunities the players will come across based on their actions. Randomness just makes up...whatever.

Since nobody actually has claimed they do randomness, you insisting they do is a straw man, Darth Ultron.

[Darth Ultron]

Since nobody actually has claimed they do randomness, you insisting they do is a straw man, Darth Ultron.

The problem is how crazy everyone got over even just reading the words: Random Game.

But, as I have said, the DM can plan or not plan. "Everyone'', so far, has said they ''plan''. If you don't plan, your game is random....but ''no one'' has claimed this yet.

It does seem like a lot of DM's like to ''Gotcha'' trick/trap the players and ''defend'' themselves by only reacting to the players, at least for the first game session or two. That is just weird, but would really need it's own thread for ''Why are some DMs like this?"

As I have said, lots of DM's like to do the casual ''let the players randomly wander through the DM's awesome novel setting world''. And they do this for hours, maybe even several whole game sessions. But, eventually, the players will pick something to do or fall for one of the Gotcha trick/traps...and then it will just be a normal game.

[Segev]

The problem is how crazy everyone got over even just reading the words: Random Game.

But, as I have said, the DM can plan or not plan. "Everyone'', so far, has said they ''plan''. If you don't plan, your game is random....but ''no one'' has claimed this yet.

It does seem like a lot of DM's like to ''Gotcha'' trick/trap the players and ''defend'' themselves by only reacting to the players, at least for the first game session or two. That is just weird, but would really need it's own thread for ''Why are some DMs like this?"

As I have said, lots of DM's like to do the casual ''let the players randomly wander through the DM's awesome novel setting world''. And they do this for hours, maybe even several whole game sessions. But, eventually, the players will pick something to do or fall for one of the Gotcha trick/traps...and then it will just be a normal game.

You seem to be the only one who expresses enjoyment for "gotcha"ing players. Nobody else has said so. Nothing in what I've written has had anything to do with that.

Your entire post, here, keeps insisting that people are saying they run a random game. Nobody has said that.

Are you sure you're not a Monty Python Parrot Salesman?

[Cluedrew]

Point of note:

From previous threads I get the impression that Darth Ultron uses the word random to mean "not determined ahead of time". Which is to say almost any game that can end in a position that was not expected due to unknown factors, such as player input, is therefore random.

I'm sure he will correct me on this, I might even be wrong about it, but that is the best I have been able to figure it out so far.

[Darth Ultron]

You seem to be the only one who expresses enjoyment for "gotcha"ing players. Nobody else has said so. Nothing in what I've written has had anything to do with that.

Your entire post, here, keeps insisting that people are saying they run a random game. Nobody has said that.

Plenty of posters seem to like the ''gotcha'' idea, but they don't call it that. But they do ''set up things to spring surprise on the players''. Seems like gotcha to me.

I just wrote everyone, so far, has said they were doing normal games not random games.

I never said ''Posters Bob game is Random''.

From previous threads I get the impression that Darth Ultron uses the word random to mean "not determined ahead of time". Which is to say almost any game that can end in a position that was not expected due to unknown factors, such as player input, is therefore random.

Well, the game is only random if the DM does it all the time. The whole game is not random if one random event happens.

The Pc's open the front door to the Tower of Tok:
1.The DM all ready knows what is there.(plan)
1.5 The DM uses ''note''s or ''common sense'' to improv what is there (plan)
2.The DM just randomly makes something up

[Segev]

Plenty of posters seem to like the ''gotcha'' idea, but they don't call it that. But they do ''set up things to spring surprise on the players''. Seems like gotcha to me.

I haven't seen people, in these discussions, advocate that. When it tends to come up, the most common response on this board is, "You probably shouldn't do that." Because "gotchas" tend to require railroading to bring about, and because they tend to be obnoxious tricks that involve a huge dollop of bait-and-switch.

I just wrote everyone, so far, has said they were doing normal games not random games.

Ah. I parsed what you said as exactly the inverse.

I never said ''Posters Bob game is Random''.

You've said, to those who claim to use improv, things along the lines of, "So you just randomly make things up?" And then gone on to be incredulous that this could be a good game, based on the notion that it takes magic to go from "not railroading->improve->randomly make things up->complex plot." Which isn't a valid logic chain because several of those things don't link, but still.

I suspect, given that you agree most people run "normal" games (albeit we may disagree if you claim those require railroading), that a lot of this is your insistance on using nonstandard terminology and then redefining things. I strongly suggest yo uwork on your communication skills so that you can use language that people agree upon the meaning of to get your points across clearly.

[kyoryu]

Well, it seems to go like:

Me:''So what is Railroading?"
Other:"Like when the mean DM won't let a good player do something and have player agency! Like when my special character tries to pick a lock and the DM says it does not work!"
Me: "Ok, so Railroading is just things a DM does that players don't like?"
Other:"No I did not say that!"

So I'm not actually responding to DU here, but using this as a point.

So, the proper thing to counter this type of logical fallacy is to point out the context. Sometimes you don't pick the lock, for whatever reason, and nobody would claim that any time a player fails in their action it's because of railroading.

So the response to this would be pointing out that it's the context, and that the context is key - failing to pick the lock *is* railroading when it's done to preserver the GM's linear set of things that the GM wants you to do. If you just fail because of bad luck or whatever, it is of course not railroading.

[Max_Killjoy]

In very broad terms, for planning out events and the course of "stuff that happens", you have three options and a continuum between them (and one strawman / red herring that only one person keeps flinging about).

(And this not the same axis, exactly, as how much prep work goes into setting, NPCs, etc.)

1. "This is what will happen -- no matter what."

2. "This is what would happen -- if the PCs were not involved."

3. "I don't know what will happen until the PCs do stuff."

X. "Totally random, man!"


And it's #2 that keeps being ignored / rejected -- the option where the setting is detailed, the NPCs all have their motivations and intentions and plans, and things are happening... but the PCs can change what's going to happen by their very involvement. In other words, a lot like real life in the real world.

So I'm not actually responding to DU here, but using this as a point.

So, the proper thing to counter this type of logical fallacy is to point out the context. Sometimes you don't pick the lock, for whatever reason, and nobody would claim that any time a player fails in their action it's because of railroading.

So the response to this would be pointing out that it's the context, and that the context is key - failing to pick the lock *is* railroading when it's done to preserver the GM's linear set of things that the GM wants you to do. If you just fail because of bad luck or whatever, it is of course not railroading.

And this is the other important point that keeps being ignored / rejected -- the GM's intent matters. Failing at an attempted action because of the dice, or because of a bad player/PC decision,is not the same as failing because success would cause deviation from or invalidation of the GM's pre-detemined course of events. The villain getting away because the PCs all missed their attack rolls is not the same as the villain getting away because the GM decided that the villain had to get away no matter what.

[Pleh]

Plenty of posters seem to like the ''gotcha'' idea, but they don't call it that. But they do ''set up things to spring surprise on the players''. Seems like gotcha to me.

The only time I ever consider it acceptable to use gotcha tactics at my table, my plan is to set them up to have the last laugh.

This doesn't work so well if I then close off most of their methods for doing so.

It's actually pretty important that I *not* overplan their responses here. I try to think of a few valid responses that should reasonably work, but especially if I pulled a rug out from under them, I then give back a bit by accepting a bit more of their breaking off script than I might normally.

I'm not even going to pretend this is the best of my work as a DM. It's just the only way gotcha tactics become reasonable.

[Darth Ultron]

I haven't seen people, in these discussions, advocate that. When it tends to come up, the most common response on this board is, "You probably shouldn't do that." Because "gotchas" tend to require railroading to bring about, and because they tend to be obnoxious tricks that involve a huge dollop of bait-and-switch.

Yes, ''gotchas'' do require Railroading, or one of the other six ways I listed.

The DM makes the setting and the DM makes the goblin bandits in the Cold Rock Wastelands. Though for this example the DM does not make an encounter, and maybe only half the time fully stats out the bandits(because if you do that, you might as well make the whole encounter too). Then the DM just lets the bandits sit there and not do any acts against the Pcs, but they can still do background stuff at the DM's whim. If the PCs, for whatever reason, go to the Cold Rock Wastelands, they will, on the DM's whim encounter the goblin bandits and go ''gotcha!''. But the DM will wave his notes in front of him like a shield and say it was not ''them'' that ''got the PCs'' it was the ''setting''.

You've said, to those who claim to use improv, things along the lines of, "So you just randomly make things up?" And then gone on to be incredulous that this could be a good game, based on the notion that it takes magic to go from "not railroading->improve->randomly make things up->complex plot." Which isn't a valid logic chain because several of those things don't link, but still.

Well, most of my improv comments are about:
1.You simply can not have a complex game plot with tons of improv. You can sprinkle a little in on the edges, but not too much.
2.Most improv is a bit more 'planned' then 'pure random'
3.Using improv a DM can railroad by changing things in the game on a whim. This leads to the ''improv is wrongbadfun''.

I suspect, given that you agree most people run "normal" games (albeit we may disagree if you claim those require railroading), that a lot of this is your insistance on using nonstandard terminology and then redefining things. I strongly suggest yo uwork on your communication skills so that you can use language that people agree upon the meaning of to get your points across clearly.

Yes, my point would be a normal game requires railroading, or one of the six other ways. I'm still waiting for ''other other'' way that does not fit into any of mine.

1. "This is what will happen -- no matter what."

2. "This is what would happen -- if the PCs were not involved."

3. "I don't know what will happen until the PCs do stuff."

X. "Totally random, man!"

I don't see why you make 1 and 2 different. The Dark Dagger group wants to rob the First Bank. The PC's bump into a Dark Dagger thug at a bar....so the Dark Dagger, somehow, radically change everything about who and what they are for no reason. Like say Pc's are on a beach with a tidal wave coming. A) The PCs dig a five by five hole in the sand...and it has no effect on the tidal wave as strikes the beach. B)The PCs dig a mile long trench one hundred feet deep and one hundred feet wide...and this disperses the tidal wave before it hits the beach.

1.An event, assuming it is a big one, will likely happen no matter what (like sci-fi time travel fictional lore, you can't stop destiny)
2.The PC can effect and influence and event, but unless the PC's are demigods or really, really, really dedicate their existence to doing it, won't be able to stop the event.

So yes, the PCs can stop small ''local'' things: like 10 bandits. But taking out the Bandit Kingdom is a huge major undertaking. The Pc's can stop ''Assassin Joe''' of the Dark Dagger, but that does not cause the whole group to explode(and they can send Assassin Bob too).

But this is also simple vs complex.

1.Simple. The PCs stop one assassin in an evil group. The evil group gives up for ever the idea of ever assinating that target. Again like cartoons.
2.Coplex. The PCs stop one assassin in an evil group. The evil group does not give up so easy and takes actions like(but not limited to) sending more assailants, taking out the PCs or tricking someone else to do the dirty work for them.

And this is the other important point that keeps being ignored / rejected -- the GM's intent matters. Failing at an attempted action because of the dice, or because of a bad player/PC decision,is not the same as failing because success would cause deviation from or invalidation of the GM's pre-detemined course of events. The villain getting away because the PCs all missed their attack rolls is not the same as the villain getting away because the GM decided that the villain had to get away no matter what.

I don't ignore this ''intent matters'' Is ''if the players like it''. The players are the ONLY ones that care about ''intent''(aka what they like).

Really, this just falls under ''Bad DM'', take ''the bad guy escapes":

1) The DM/bad guy knows the rules well and uses a perfectly valid rules legal way to escape that will hold up in ''hostile player court''. Like ''Zork was a 11th level wizard, so he had the spell teleport memorized''.
2)The DM/bad guy pre plans and role plays an escape. The classic here is something like the bad guy has a trap of ''quicksand'' or a ''tentacle monster'' and then makes their escape while the characters are suck in the trap

And the Bad DM
3)HAHA the bad guy gets away and there is nothing you can do about it Hahahahahahahaha!


But there is also the tricky 1.5. So the DM made the villain but not the combat stats. So when the fight starts the DM needs to improv what the villain has/can do. Most everyone agrees this is ''ok''. So 11th level wizard...DM improv's ''he casts magic missile''....perfectly reasonable.

BUT, when the DM improv's ''the 11th level wizard has teleport and escapes'', then the cries of ''intent'' and ''railroading'' start.

And also note the really tricky bit: A DM can make anything any time...but not everyone agrees on that. So if the DM made the 11th level wizard on June 1st, but did not write down the spell teleport in his spellbook then some people say that character is ''locked'' and can't ever be changed. But, that makes no sense. The DM can make a character out of nothing in a couple seconds: ok. If the DM takes an old character they can not 'give the character a scroll or change anything".

[OldTrees1]

I don't ignore this ''intent matters'' Is ''if the players like it''. The players are the ONLY ones that care about ''intent''(aka what they like).

Your worst misrepresentation yet.

When someone says "GM Intent matters in determining if it was railroading or not", you have the audacity to pretend they said "If the players liked the outcome determines if it was a railroad or not".

It is almost like you are trying to confuse the reader as to where the GM and Players brains are located. GM Intent is located in the GM's brain and not located in the Players' brains.

Railroading is when the DM decides to railroad the players into only having the DM's pet solution(s) as an allowed solution and invalidates other otherwise valid solutions merely because they are not the DM's pet solution(s). Notice the definition includes both GM Action & GM MOTIVE but not anything on the Player side.

Railroading =/= The players distrusting the DM enough to call out "railroad!". That is a separate issue (that also frequently occurs at Jerk DMing tables like your own).

[Alcore]

It sounds railroady, to me.

The main quest is primarily scripted. There's a few alternate paths, but it does sound, primarily, like the major points are set in stone.

Which, to me, is just about every adventure path ever made for Pathfinder. Kingmaker is the only one i know where i can change, or cut out, large segments of main quest and still have the story support itself.

That's okay.

That's specifically okay because you're upfront about it. If I get into your game, I know what I'm getting into, and I know not to push too hard when finding the kind of subtle push-back that often occurs in railroad adventures. "Okay, it's a railroad, he doesn't want us going there, cool." We can totally have a decent game doing that, if that's a game I'm willing to get into. And you're giving me the up-front information necessary to make that decision.

Railroads aren't bad. Giving people railroads when you're telling them you're doing something else is.

yep. It's okay. That is what they say. They go from point A to point B to point C and get chills at every option i give them. Their standing on eggshells you see; fearing that, like Targuin, I'll have a 'villainous breakdown' if things fail to follow procedure. They'll kill the dragon because they think that's what they are supposed to do without spending more than a regret thought on other options they don't dare choose.


By the end the magic has died a bit. So no. A clearly defined start and end is made and told of. Railroad however is not used.


I don't mind the train running aground from player choice. It's okay. I have 24-48 hours to get rails under the train due to the blessings of PBP. If it happens repeatedly then a sublte push to determine if they truly want the dragon at the end. A resounding no leads to an existential problem for current game.

The problem is how crazy everyone got over even just reading the words: Random Game.

..............


It does seem like a lot of DM's like to ''Gotcha'' trick/trap the players and ''defend'' themselves by only reacting to the players, at least for the first game session or two. That is just weird, but would really need it's own thread for ''Why are some DMs like this?"

As I have said, lots of DM's like to do the casual ''let the players randomly wander through the DM's awesome novel setting world''. And they do this for hours, maybe even several whole game sessions. But, eventually, the players will pick something to do or fall for one of the Gotcha trick/traps...and then it will just be a normal game.

crazy is a running theme of this thread... From post 1

..........

The one "Gotcha" moment i clearly remember is from skyrim. Retrieving the horn of jurgan windcaller. Turns out the blades took it already leaving just a note after all that effort getting there. Boy was i pissed. To date i have still not helped the blades unless i had to and killed those i could. Fortunately it was console not tabletop.


That is not a normal game. That is the DM vs Players setup. Not healthy let alone normal. So could you better define the gatcha moment?

[Segev]

Well, most of my improv comments are about:
1.You simply can not have a complex game plot with tons of improv. You can sprinkle a little in on the edges, but not too much.
2.Most improv is a bit more 'planned' then 'pure random'
3.Using improv a DM can railroad by changing things in the game on a whim. This leads to the ''improv is wrongbadfun''.

That's not what's meant by improv. Improv is explicitly not "changing things in the game on a whim." It's extrapolation from what the DM has established to determine how the world and the NPCs in it react to the players in as believable, in-character a fashion as they can.

Improv is being given an outline of a character that tells you that Miss Mindy is a bar maid who has romanticized notions of what adventurers do and who dreams of being a princess rescued by an adventurous paladin. Then, when the PC fighter comes in and talks up his noble deeds, you use improv to determine what she'll do in response. Since he fills her fantasy of a noble knight adventurer, she's probably pretty nice to him and wants to spend time attending him. If he hits on her, she's probably fairly receptive. On the other hand, if a PC rogue comes in and starts acting like a cad, you might improv based on her mental image of adventurers that she doesn't even believe he IS one.

"Changing things on a whim" would be deciding that she's secretly a powerful shapeshifting dragon who is out to kidnap a noble knight.

Do you see the difference?

I don't see why you make 1 and 2 different. The Dark Dagger group wants to rob the First Bank. The PC's bump into a Dark Dagger thug at a bar....so the Dark Dagger, somehow, radically change everything about who and what they are for no reason. Like say Pc's are on a beach with a tidal wave coming. A) The PCs dig a five by five hole in the sand...and it has no effect on the tidal wave as strikes the beach. B)The PCs dig a mile long trench one hundred feet deep and one hundred feet wide...and this disperses the tidal wave before it hits the beach.

1.An event, assuming it is a big one, will likely happen no matter what (like sci-fi time travel fictional lore, you can't stop destiny)
2.The PC can effect and influence and event, but unless the PC's are demigods or really, really, really dedicate their existence to doing it, won't be able to stop the event.

So yes, the PCs can stop small ''local'' things: like 10 bandits. But taking out the Bandit Kingdom is a huge major undertaking. The Pc's can stop ''Assassin Joe''' of the Dark Dagger, but that does not cause the whole group to explode(and they can send Assassin Bob too).

The Dark Dagger group may likely not change its plans based on one member meeting the PCs, unless the PCs told him something that made it so that he convinces the group to change their plans. But if the PCs do nothing, the Dark Daggers rob the bank. If the PCs lie in wait at the bank, having learned of it but not tipped off the guy they talked to, then they might thwart it (a change from what happens if they don't even (know to) try). If the PCs trail the guy back to the group and attack them in their base, the Dark Daggers won't even be around to rob the bank (assuming the PCs do enough damage to make doing so unwise). If the PCs warn the guard and set up a blatantly obvious rota of heavily-armed patrol, the Dark Dagger group may well decide it's not worth the risk, now.

None of which is necessarily something the GM explicitly planned ahead of time, because he may not have thought of some of these party actions.

1.Simple. The PCs stop one assassin in an evil group. The evil group gives up for ever the idea of ever assinating that target. Again like cartoons.
2.Coplex. The PCs stop one assassin in an evil group. The evil group does not give up so easy and takes actions like(but not limited to) sending more assailants, taking out the PCs or tricking someone else to do the dirty work for them.

That's not simple vs. complex. That's just a matter of tenacity and characterization. Both are actually pretty simple.

Complexity arises from lots of moving parts. Five factions vie for power in the city. The Dark Daggers are planning to rob the First Bank because the First of the Faithful who run it are using it to fund their political aspirations, which include a stronger law-and-order mentality and would undermine the Dark Daggers' efforts to rule the underworld. The Legitimate Gentlemen's Club vies with the Dark Daggers for control of the Underworld, but maintains a front that convinces the First of the Faithful that they are good businessmen, and want the First of the Faithful to succeed because they use their First Bank for housing their laundered cash. The Sheriff is a minor noble who feels that the Legitimate Gentelmens' Club is trying to undermine the nobility, while the Dark Dagger group is more likely to keep to the status quo. A status quo he can keep a lid on without letting the underworld take over the city. But he also values the First of the Faithful for their law and order attitude, even if he thinks them naïve for thinking they can "solve crime" by the methods they advocate.

All of these groups have their plans, and the GM even knows how things will evolve if the PCs do nothing. But he can also improvise from his knowledge of each of these groups and individuals as to what their likely reactions to various developments would be. So, when the PCs disrupt the Dark Daggers, the Sheriff is pleased...ish...but now wants to turn the party on the Legitimate Gentlemen's Club for fear that they will capitalize on the vacuum.

Complexity arises from all the moving parts, not from one tenacious group.

I don't ignore this ''intent matters'' Is ''if the players like it''. The players are the ONLY ones that care about ''intent''(aka what they like).

Nope. You're 100% missing the point, here.

The GM's intent is in the GM's own head. You keep talking about the GM having to "defend" himself from accusations of "railroading." The reason intent matters, though, isn't to defend against accusations. In general, he will run a game where players are more satisfied that they have influence on it if he's not railroading. Railroading becomes obvious over time, no matter how "good" you think you are at it.

If players are going to accuse you of it even when you're not...there's nothing to be done about it. Run the game, and if they have fun, great. If they don't, well, maybe they shouldn't play. By all means, heed feedback, but YOU KNOW if you're railroading or not. If you think you're not but are being accused of it, do consider it. Maybe ask for outside perspective. But the biggest question is this: would anything you hadn't planned for have even had a chance of working?

The importance isn't to convince the players. The importance is to not railroad because, if you're not...the players will eventually figure out that their choices matter. If you are, players will eventually notice. Will players miss it sometimes when you do it, or see it when you're not at other times? Sure. But that's not the point.

[kyoryu]

Which, to me, is just about every adventure path ever made for Pathfinder. Kingmaker is the only one i know where i can change, or cut out, large segments of main quest and still have the story support itself.

Totally, 100% agreed. And clearly lots of people like Adventure Paths, so clearly railroads are okay with a good number of people.

yep. It's okay. That is what they say. They go from point A to point B to point C and get chills at every option i give them. Their standing on eggshells you see; fearing that, like Targuin, I'll have a 'villainous breakdown' if things fail to follow procedure. They'll kill the dragon because they think that's what they are supposed to do without spending more than a regret thought on other options they don't dare choose.

When it's not okay is when people say "I don't want to play in a railroad" and you tell them "oh, it's not a railroad" but then you run a railroad anyway.

but YOU KNOW if you're railroading or not.

I agree with everything else you've said, and mostly agree with this statement as well. But only mostly.

I totally think it's possible to railroad without realizing it, if you're super-excited about things going a certain way, and have a really cool scene set up, it's very easy to start trying to push the players into it without even really consciously realizing what you're doing.

Which is why I agree the part about introspection if accused of railroading - think back on what's happened, and see if you were really, unintentionally, pushing things towards a preferred resolution.

In some ways, this type of railroading is more easily detected by the players than the GM. They see all the pushback on various things, and when they finally relent, they get some cool obviously well-designed setpiece.

[Friv]

Really the only thing I've learned from this thread is that Darth Ultron is incapable of basic reading comprehension skills and compensates by stuffing every single post with strawmen enough to fill the entire US midwest. (By the way, DU, that sentence was an example of "sarcasm" and "hyperbole".)

Kind of comes across as a waste of everyone's time, to be honest, seeing as how filling this thread doesn't even keep the rampant spewing of hot garbage away from other threads.

I find it absolutely interesting that, in 14 solid pages of useless back-and-forth, there has only been one moment in which DU has given up on his usual attitude of mixing smug self-superiority with deliberate incomprehension. One time that, instead of random misrepresentations and putting words into other people's mouths, he dropped the act and went for a series of deliberate insults.

It was when he was told he wasn't special.

Kind of says it all, really.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not what's meant by improv. Improv is explicitly not "changing things in the game on a whim." It's extrapolation from what the DM has established to determine how the world and the NPCs in it react to the players in as believable, in-character a fashion as they can.

Improv is being given an outline of a character that tells you that Miss Mindy is a bar maid who has romanticized notions of what adventurers do and who dreams of being a princess rescued by an adventurous paladin. Then, when the PC fighter comes in and talks up his noble deeds, you use improv to determine what she'll do in response. Since he fills her fantasy of a noble knight adventurer, she's probably pretty nice to him and wants to spend time attending him. If he hits on her, she's probably fairly receptive. On the other hand, if a PC rogue comes in and starts acting like a cad, you might improv based on her mental image of adventurers that she doesn't even believe he IS one.

"Changing things on a whim" would be deciding that she's secretly a powerful shapeshifting dragon who is out to kidnap a noble knight.

Do you see the difference?

As much as I normally smile politely and move on when someone says "you should take improv classes to improve your gaming", I think in this case the DM in question could stand to learn some things from improv.

As I understand it, one of the rules of improv is that you don't countermand or no-sell the other actor's input mid-performance... you never retcon or ditch what went before. It's not random, it's extrapolation -- you build on what's already been established.

This is the vast space between "pre-plotted, set in stone" and "totally random, man!" that said DM doesn't want to acknowledge. In that vast space, the setting, the NPCs, and the PCs past actions all inform what comes next, they're the already-established stuff that's built on in the present... and the future of the game isn't set in stone.

[Max_Killjoy]

In very broad terms, for planning out events and the course of "stuff that happens", you have three options and a continuum between them (and one strawman / red herring that only one person keeps flinging about).

(And this not the same axis, exactly, as how much prep work goes into setting, NPCs, etc.)

1. "This is what will happen -- no matter what."

2. "This is what would happen -- if the PCs were not involved."

3. "I don't know what will happen until the PCs do stuff."

X. "Totally random, man!"


And it's #2 that keeps being ignored / rejected -- the option where the setting is detailed, the NPCs all have their motivations and intentions and plans, and things are happening... but the PCs can change what's going to happen by their very involvement. In other words, a lot like real life in the real world.

I don't see why you make 1 and 2 different. The Dark Dagger group wants to rob the First Bank. The PC's bump into a Dark Dagger thug at a bar....so the Dark Dagger, somehow, radically change everything about who and what they are for no reason. Like say Pc's are on a beach with a tidal wave coming. A) The PCs dig a five by five hole in the sand...and it has no effect on the tidal wave as strikes the beach. B)The PCs dig a mile long trench one hundred feet deep and one hundred feet wide...and this disperses the tidal wave before it hits the beach.

1.An event, assuming it is a big one, will likely happen no matter what (like sci-fi time travel fictional lore, you can't stop destiny)
2.The PC can effect and influence and event, but unless the PC's are demigods or really, really, really dedicate their existence to doing it, won't be able to stop the event.

So yes, the PCs can stop small ''local'' things: like 10 bandits. But taking out the Bandit Kingdom is a huge major undertaking. The Pc's can stop ''Assassin Joe''' of the Dark Dagger, but that does not cause the whole group to explode(and they can send Assassin Bob too).

No one is expecting that PCs to stop the Dark Daggers' plan to rob the bank just by bumping into one of them in a bar -- you keep offering up these ridiculous caricature examples as if they're in some way representative of what other people are talking about.

#1 is "The Dark Daggers rob the bank no matter what the PCs do". The Railroad.

#2 is "The Dark Daggers have a plan to rob the bank, and there exists a possibility that through their actions the PCs may somehow thwart that plan -- but this requires the PCs to somehow learn of the plan or that the bank is a target, succeed in their investigation or other efforts, and actually best the Dark Daggers... all while the Dark Daggers are working against them, the locals don't all trust the PCs, etc." Nothing is guaranteed either way, everyone's efforts (PCs and NPCs) are up against the sniff test of plausibility within the context at hand, and the future is up for grabs.

#1 has the fictional world bending and contorting to maintain the predetermined course of events.

#2 has the fictional world working more like a "real" world.

But this is also simple vs complex.

1.Simple. The PCs stop one assassin in an evil group. The evil group gives up for ever the idea of ever assinating that target. Again like cartoons.
2.Coplex. The PCs stop one assassin in an evil group. The evil group does not give up so easy and takes actions like(but not limited to) sending more assailants, taking out the PCs or tricking someone else to do the dirty work for them.

#1 -- simple, the events the GM wants to happen, happen, no matter what... a straight line. A single track. A railroad.

#2 -- complex, the events are not set in stone and the world and the NPCs actually respond to what happens, including what the PCs are up to and the effects of their actions.

#1 -- the Dark Daggers rob the bank at the 2nd hour of the 17th day, no matter what.

#2 -- one of the PCs flubs a Streetwise roll, the Dark Daggers get word that someone is snooping around, and so they move up the date of the robbery to the 15th day, and/or send some thugs to rough up the PCs, and/or use their contacts in the city bureaucracy to have the PCs accosted for their weapon permits the evening before the heist.

NOTE that the changing circumstances here come from the PCs NOT getting what they want, but from their failure -- we've seen how you like to caricature any non-railroad as "the players getting whatever they want and the DM just giving it to them".

[BRC]

I find it useful to think of an RPG session in three steps: Scenario, Action, and Conclusion.

The Scenario is the state of the world (At least the parts relevant to this adventure) at the moment play begins, including any events or plans currently in motion. A Scenario can, and often should, be highly influenced by things PCs did in earlier sessions, but in the end the Scenario is dictated entirely by the DM. The act of establishing the scenario is, in itself, NEVER railroading. The Scenario is dictated by established facts about the world, actions the PCs took in previous sessions, and, yes, the whim of the DM.

"The Dark Daggers are planning to rob the bank in 12 days" is the Scenario. Even though the Robbery itself has not yet occurred, it flows from the scenario that, if nothing stops them, the Daggers will rob the bank in 12 days.

DM Improv usually means fleshing out the Scenario after play begins.



Step 2 is the Action: This is the meat of the session. The Action is directed by the PCs and informed by the Scenario. Attempts by the DM to dictate the Action, either by rules adjudications, altering the scenario on the fly, or having created an extremely limiting scenario ahead of time, are Railroading. The Action is the PC's interacting with the scenario, responding to it, and it responding to them.

For example, part of the Scenario might be that Billy "Big Ears" is scoping out the bank for the Daggers every evening, then going to their hideout to report what he saw. Spotting him and tailing him back to the Daggers hideout would be part of the Action, as would be him running away if he spots the tail.

Billy spotting the PC's, getting away, and the Daggers changing their plan is ALSO part of the Action.

While the PC's drive the action, they do not Dictate it (Which is the point where DU seems to be getting confused). Saying "We want to stop the robbery" is not enough by itself. The PC's need to do things within the Scenario that lead to the Robbery being stopped.

Step 3 is the Conclusion, the final state of thing when the dice are put away. This should be a straightforwards logical interpretation of the events of the Action step. If the GM attempts to pre-determine the conclusion, either by controlling the Action, or by declaring the Action irrelevant, then they are Railroading.

For example, if the Scenario is that the Dark Daggers are planning to rob the bank on the 12th, and the PC's have no way of learning this, so the Daggers rob the bank, that's Railroading.

If the PC's learn about the robbery, inform the Watch, storm the Dagger's hideout, and capture all the members, only for all the captured members to break out of Watch custody, then go rob the bank anyway without giving the PC's a chance to stop them, that's also railroading, since the Action step was made irrelevant.



The DM should DICTATE the Scenario. It may be informed by player actions in previous sessions, but only the DM gets direct input on the scenario. This doesn't have to be exact. Something like "The Woods are full of bandits, who will attack the PC's as they travel" is a perfectly valid type of scenario. You don't necessarily need to plot out every Bandit gang in the forest, and which ones will attack when if the PC's do X Y and Z.

The DM should Prepare for the Action. The Players drive the action, but players are a pretty predictable sort, and you can have some thoughts in mind for how things will play out if faced with certain choices. For example, "If the PC's don't do something to stop themselves from being tracked, the Bandits will attack when they make camp" or "If they try to use the Bridge, Bandits lying in wait on either side will attack". But, Preparing for the action is not the same as dictating it. Anything the DM does during the Action should always be a response to the Players choices, whether it's a response the DM has improvised, or one that they had thought of ahead of time, but it should be a response to the PC's actions (And yes, "Doing nothing" is an action that can be responded to). Preparing for the action means that the DM is able to make the whole experience more engaging, since they're not just making things up on the spot.

And yes, baking stuff like encounter design into the scenario counts as Preparing for the Action. "If the PC's enter this room, they will be attacked by these ogres"

The DM should, at most, Speculate on the Conclusion. There's no real practical purpose to doing so, except that it's kind of inevitable barring some sort of incredible mental control. In the end, the Conclusion should be a logical interpretation of the events of the Action. "This is what happened, so this is how things are now".



Okay, got all that? and now

Yes, ''gotchas'' do require Railroading, or one of the other six ways I listed.

The DM makes the setting and the DM makes the goblin bandits in the Cold Rock Wastelands. Though for this example the DM does not make an encounter, and maybe only half the time fully stats out the bandits(because if you do that, you might as well make the whole encounter too). Then the DM just lets the bandits sit there and not do any acts against the Pcs, but they can still do background stuff at the DM's whim. If the PCs, for whatever reason, go to the Cold Rock Wastelands, they will, on the DM's whim encounter the goblin bandits and go ''gotcha!''. But the DM will wave his notes in front of him like a shield and say it was not ''them'' that ''got the PCs'' it was the ''setting''.

This is an example of the DM dictating the Scenario. That's fine.

But there is also the tricky 1.5. So the DM made the villain but not the combat stats. So when the fight starts the DM needs to improv what the villain has/can do. Most everyone agrees this is ''ok''. So 11th level wizard...DM improv's ''he casts magic missile''....perfectly reasonable.

BUT, when the DM improv's ''the 11th level wizard has teleport and escapes'', then the cries of ''intent'' and ''railroading'' start.

And also note the really tricky bit: A DM can make anything any time...but not everyone agrees on that. So if the DM made the 11th level wizard on June 1st, but did not write down the spell teleport in his spellbook then some people say that character is ''locked'' and can't ever be changed. But, that makes no sense. The DM can make a character out of nothing in a couple seconds: ok. If the DM takes an old character they can not 'give the character a scroll or change anything".

This is where things DO get more complicated.


So, the important thing, from my perspective, is that the PC's get to substantially influence the Conclusion.

If the PC's goal is to catch the Wizard, and they are given no chance to stop him from casting Teleport, then that is railroading. The Conclusion is divorced from the Action, as nothing the PC's could do would stop him from teleporting away, they might as well have just stayed home.

However, that same conclusion (The Wizard Teleports Away), CAN be acceptable in one of two circumstances.
1) The PC's were given a reasonable chance to stop it (Told that he can Teleport, given access to Dimensional Anchor)
2) The PC's DID get to influence a different aspect of the conclusion.

If, for example, the Evil Wizard was trying to steal an artifact, the PC's stop him, and he Teleports away, that's probably fine. The PCs got to influence the important part of the conclusion: Stopping the theft of the Artifact. Actually catching the Wizard was secondary, even if they didn't have an especially practical way to do so.

Now, if the PC's DID do something that should have stopped him from teleporting away, and he just teleported away ANYWAY (He has Super teleport! that isn't stopped by Dimensional Anchor!) then that's another story.

[Darth Ultron]

Notice the definition includes both GM Action & GM MOTIVE but not anything on the Player side.

Ok, but your answer is a theoretical one? Like the DM does an action with a motive...no one knows this except the DM, but it ''did'' happen.

So the players should just sit there and play the game? And sure, at any second the DM could railroad in some sort of ''official cosmic way'', but the players will never know so...game on?

So could you better define the gatcha moment?

Normal game DM says "Hello players, as part of the game I will be making, creating , crafting and running and controlling all sorts of things directly at your characters as part of the fun." So this DM is specifically making some goblin bandits and putting them at spot X to attack the characters.

Other DM says "Hello fellow players, I'm just here to adjudicate rules and make the setting". Then this DM randomly makes something like bandits, puts them in spot X, and then just waits for a character to walk over and trigger it, then go ''gottcha!''.

That's not what's meant by improv. Improv is explicitly not "changing things in the game on a whim." It's extrapolation from what the DM has established to determine how the world and the NPCs in it react to the players in as believable, in-character a fashion as they can.

Woah, you are really making up a definition for improv here.

Improv is being given an outline of a character that tells you that Miss Mindy is a bar maid who has romanticized notions of what adventurers do and who dreams of being a princess rescued by an adventurous paladin. Then, when the PC fighter comes in and talks up his noble deeds, you use improv to determine what she'll do in response. Since he fills her fantasy of a noble knight adventurer, she's probably pretty nice to him and wants to spend time attending him. If he hits on her, she's probably fairly receptive. On the other hand, if a PC rogue comes in and starts acting like a cad, you might improv based on her mental image of adventurers that she doesn't even believe he IS one.

What you call ''improv'' is more like pre planning or even a plot.

When you have a 'box of text' describing something and use that 'block of text' as a basis for what the thing in question does....that is more of a plot.

Improv is more like...well, have you ever watched Who's Line is it Anyway?

"Changing things on a whim" would be deciding that she's secretly a powerful shapeshifting dragon who is out to kidnap a noble knight.

Do you see the difference?

Well, your saying:

1)A DM is ''sort of'' free to make anything, but once it is make it is locked and the Dm can never, ever, ever change anything.

2)The DM has to vagely pre make and pre plan and pre plot everything in the game world, so that id they need to use it later they can go back to the notes they made...and only the notes they made..to use the thing.

3)The DM can't just ''make stuff'' espcialy in the game...they must always pre make stuff and then use what they have pre made.

None of which is necessarily something the GM explicitly planned ahead of time, because he may not have thought of some of these party actions.

My point was the whole dark group won't just explode if one member meets a PC, or if the PC's stop one thug.

The GM's intent is in the GM's own head. You keep talking about the GM having to "defend" himself from accusations of "railroading." The reason intent matters, though, isn't to defend against accusations. In general, he will run a game where players are more satisfied that they have influence on it if he's not railroading. Railroading becomes obvious over time, no matter how "good" you think you are at it.

The players can never know unless the DM tells them. Only the DM and the ''great cosmic power'' know if the DM Railroaded.

I wonder why you think railroading becomes obvious over time?

If players are going to accuse you of it even when you're not...there's nothing to be done about it. Run the game, and if they have fun, great. If they don't, well, maybe they shouldn't play. By all means, heed feedback, but YOU KNOW if you're railroading or not. If you think you're not but are being accused of it, do consider it. Maybe ask for outside perspective. But the biggest question is this: would anything you hadn't planned for have even had a chance of working?

As I've said, good railroading (DM agency) is not about outcomes.

This is the vast space between "pre-plotted, set in stone" and "totally random, man!" that said DM doesn't want to acknowledge. In that vast space, the setting, the NPCs, and the PCs past actions all inform what comes next, they're the already-established stuff that's built on in the present... and the future of the game isn't set in stone.

Except so far everyone has presented ''Improv'' as ''set in stone pre plotted'' (maybe even railroading?).

Lets take two examples: A, DM makes something up before the game:

A1)So the DM makes Dron the dwarf tavenkeeper, and gives him and appearance, history and personality (and the normal DM makes Doen part of the plot, the other DM is just randomaly making npcs, but this does not matter for this example). So based off the classic ''dwarves don't like elves" the DM has Dorn hate elves. Then Dorn just sits and waits in game limbo to be used.

A2)Later in the game, the Pc's come into Dorn's tavern, and the DM grabs the notes and describes the tavern and Dorn. All good so far.

A3)Player Amy has a elf character Celesta. So the DM looks at the notes, and sees Dorn hates elves. The DM can't change or alter the All-might notes, so the DM should have Dorn reacted badly to Celesta and do hatefully things (the stuff online board posters do..lol). Except Celesta is the party Face, so a by the notes Dorn makes that hard or impossible. So you'd just sit back and say ''well, building off my all might notes that I can never change Dorn must hate Celesta as she is an elf."

That just seems so odd to me. I' would have Dorn be a Pink Dragon of Ill Omen, or anything else I wanted him to be on a whim. But you'd be set in stone?

Example B, whatever do you do when you really make up a real thing by pure Improv?

B1)Ok, so, once again as you say happens all the time in your games the amazing players have yet again hoodwinked the poor DM with some wacky crazy plan they never saw coming and have ''turned left''. The the poor DM is in a panic as ''the left'' is blank as they never though the players would ever, ever, ever go there. But they are....

B2) So the DM has to do REAL Improv...that is make nothing out of nothing at all..with nothing to base anything on.

B3)So with no notes or anything else telling you want to do...what do you do?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Ok, but your answer is a theoretical one? Like the DM does an action with a motive...no one knows this except the DM, but it ''did'' happen.

So the players should just sit there and play the game? And sure, at any second the DM could railroad in some sort of ''official cosmic way'', but the players will never know so...game on?

And the wife can have an affair and if the husband never finds out about it then it's like it doesn't count, right? So long as he never knows then no harm's being doing, right? That was sort of the entire point of my analogy upthread.

[ImNotTrevor]

DU has officially never seen Whose Line Is It Anyway, since he can't comprehend Improv not being also scripted.

Which is.... hilarious.
And probably explains why he's so salty.

Someone link this man some Whose Line!

[GreatKaiserNui]

Darth Ultron really is a Sith.

[Darth Ultron]

And the wife can have an affair and if the husband never finds out about it then it's like it doesn't count, right? So long as he never knows then no harm's being doing, right? That was sort of the entire point of my analogy upthread.

Yes.

Like if you ''do something'' it is not a crime unless you get caught.

DU has officially never seen Whose Line Is It Anyway, since he can't comprehend Improv not being also scripted.

But everyone else is the ones saying Improv is scripted and based off something....

I'm the one saying that it is just pure random made up goodness.

Me:I can make up Dorn the barkeep on the spot.

Others:They ''must'' consult their setting notes and do what the notes tell them to do, all ways.

[BRC]

Yes.

Like if you ''do something'' it is not a crime unless you get caught.



But everyone else is the ones saying Improv is scripted and based off something....

I'm the one saying that it is just pure random made up goodness.

Me:I can make up Dorn the barkeep on the spot.

Others:They ''must'' consult their setting notes and do what the notes tell them to do, all ways.

Surprise, IT'S BOTH!

Improv is literally anything made up on the spot! Whether it's prompted by/based on something previously written or not.
Scenario: The PC's enter the tavern, Dorn the Barkeeper is talking to the guard captain, he says "Welcome to my Inn. Have a seat, I'll be there in a moment".


Was this Improv? Let's consult the DM's Notes!
Not Improv: Dorn the Barkeep will greet the party by saying "Welcome to my Inn. Have a seat, I'll be there in a moment", then return to his conversation with the guard captain.

Improv: Dorn the Barkeep is talking with the guard captain when the party arrives. He'll say something to them, then return to his conversation. (DM Improvised the exact conversation)

Improv: The Barkeep's name is Dorn. (DM Improvised the captain and the exact line)

Improv: There is a Barkeep. (DM improvised Dorn's name, that he was talking to the captain, and what he said)

Improv: The Barkeep's name is Titus, he will be arguing with a drunken wizard when the PC's enter (The DM threw this out and improvised the above scenario).

Improv: No notes, just a drawing of a cat.


Improv simply means unscripted. Most improv comes from a prompt, either one pre-determined, chosen randomly, or given from the audience. Unless the exact words and actions are pre-planned, it's improv to at least some degree.

[ImNotTrevor]

But everyone else is the ones saying Improv is scripted and based off something....

Literally who?


So close to comprehension, then right back to willfull ignorance and strawmen.

Why do we entertain this with replies, again?