Plot Railroading: How much?

[Max_Killjoy]

That's my spell component pouch.

You... might want to wash your hands.

That's funny on multiple levels.

[Cluedrew]

Given that I've gone toe-to-toe with many people in this thread, and happen to know that there's a lot of people in here I vehemently disagree with on any number of topics... I've gotta hear what unified bloc you think everyone else here is in.

Certainly, I disagree with Max_Killjoy on about half the matters I've seen him talk about, I vaguely recall arguing with you about some matter in the "other" sub-form, some of Quertus's opinions some times are so weird I have a hard time even disagreeing with them and I still don't quite trust Honest Tiefling. And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

But still, hugs all around.

PS. For clarification I don't think Honest Tiefling is a lying often, its a name joke.

[kyoryu]

Certainly, I disagree with Max_Killjoy on about half the matters I've seen him talk about, I vaguely recall arguing with you about some matter in the "other" sub-form, some of Quertus's opinions some times are so weird I have a hard time even disagreeing with them and I still don't quite trust Honest Tiefling. And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

But still, hugs all around.

PS. For clarification I don't think Honest Tiefling is a lying often, its a name joke.

Yeah, but even the disagreements generally stay on point, and debate with facts and examples and stuff without devolving into crazy name-calling or random logical fallacies. That's rare.

I see you are a liar, too. That must be how you found Tiefling out. THERE ARE NO JOKES. PLAYGROUND IS SRS BZNSS

[ImNotTrevor]

Yeah, but even the disagreements generally stay on point, and debate with facts and examples and stuff without devolving into crazy name-calling or random logical fallacies. That's rare.

I see you are a liar, too. That must be how you found Tiefling out. THERE ARE NO JOKES. PLAYGROUND IS SRS BZNSS

Heck, I've been blocked by Max and we're on the same page here.

It's kinda telling when you're raising so much of a stink literally everyone else in the room turns their pirchforks at YOU instead of one another. (Even me, who plays a snarky A-hole on the internet for fun.)

[Darth Ultron]

How is the first option on the list not also "The DM decides stuff on a whim"? And how is the first one also not the DM allowing "reasonable" options?

When a railroading DM decides on a solution to an adventure in advance, they do so, at least so I would think, based on what they think is a "reasonable" way to resolve the adventure.

The proposition then is that the DM can wait with deciding what they think is "reasonable" until after the players say what they want to do.

Also, in your "railroading plot" game, how will the players automatically not "get" the goal, as long as they follow the plot?

Well, keep in mind the Dm's whims are impartial, and that counts for a lot.

The DM that is waiting is just cheating the players of...doing anything meaningful. And your against that right? X exists and there is problem y, and the players have to solve the problem. But if there is no x, and just a y problem, there there is nothing to ''solve'' .

There is no guarantee the players will ''get'' anything?

To me, it seems like you are saying "I hate it when the players bully the DM, so to avoid it, instead, I bully the players".

At what point do you see a DM ''bulling'' a player?

So if I asked you, DU, in real life:

"Do you want a chocolate or a strawberry cake for your birthday?"

you would say that this was an illusion of choice?

No, because your not the DM of Real Life.

My question then would be; do you believe in choices at all. What constitutes a choice for you in real life? I mean, in real life, your choices are always constrained by the situation you find yourself in and your general ability. Do those constraints automatically disqualifies the choices as "real" or "free" choices and turn them into illusions? What is a choice to you, in a broader sense?

In real life on one can tell you not to do something or (mostly) make or force you to so something. At any moment in your life you can do (or at least try) anything you ''can'' do. You don't have to ask someones permission, you don't have to follow any rules (or laws or whatever) and no one person is in total control of the whole reality around you.

The Time Zero choice still affects the outcome of all plots encountered during the game. So it's a choice that has an effect on the plots.

It is a bit of a stretch and it is not all that useful to bother saying ''everything (might) effect the plot. And even still, a lot of ''stuff'' won't effect the ''plot''. It, maybe, could effect the characters actions in the plot, but won't effect the ''plot'' itself. Like say in 2016 a player made a character and wrote down ''my character is super greedy''. Ok, now in 2017 that character encounters the plot of ''find the lost treasure of Ra-Toot''. So the player, role playing well, says ''wow, my character really wants to find that treasure as he is so greedy''....but that has no effect ''on'' the plot.

Well, now you might life a different sort of life. Most people, when interacting with their family, friends and other people often need to reach a concept referred to as a compromise.

I guess you might be the type to ''compromise'' if your doing something ''with'' another person.....but are you saying you ''compromise'' on choices you make for your own self in your life? Like to you, um ''compromise'' what you will eat for each meal?

And since one option might get them there on time, whereas the other might not, the choice is kind of important, isn't it?

Only if ''on time'' is important.

Then you can continue to answer the question of what you do with the character whose player had to leave due to family death.

This is more of a group thing that just a DM thing. I, myself, am against anyone playing another persons character, and I'd much rather just ''pause'' the game and pick up later. The players that are left can do a ''special mini game'' with other characters for example. I love to do little mini games to give the players more information about the normal game . Though if the group wants something else, I'll go along with it.

Basically you are talking about pre-made plots vs. post-made plots. Both are plots, one is made in advance and one in retrospect. Is this correct?

Sort of, but in an RPG the ''post made'' one is not a plot: it is a story. An RPG plot ''active'' (unlike plots in other places) and is in the present and future...it is only in the past once it is over and done.

...and the outcome of the Plot of Saving The Oppressed People Of Ng depends on what actions the players choose to take in my games. How does it work in your games? They've always guaranteed success?

The outcome depends on what the players do, with their limited actions in the game, more or less. The players can try anything their characters might be able to do, but there are no guarantees.

So you expect your players to put up with "unfun", but you would never put up with "unfun" yourself?

Basically what you are saying is that you, yourself, would never be in a game run by DU (that is you).

Yes, were I to ever meet my Good Counterpart from the Mirror Universe, we would not get along.

Uh okay. So... why not do more of this "not railroading" thing to advance the plot then?

Well, like I said, it is not always possible in a normal complex game that makes sense and is pure fiction. Sometimes the DM has to move things along. A DM can ''hide'' railroading behind ''Coincidence'', ''the rules'', ''game logic'', ''setting logic'' and even the ''whims of fate''....but not always.

You DID say that your game is like Chess. And since my game is not your game, logic dictates that you are calling my game the "easy game".

I think your reading way too much into the example.

Oh, please do describe what you think "You" is. This I've gotta hear.

Well, like what I typed above about me and my game?

Could you please ask this "Everyone" with whom you seem to be having a PM that none of the rest of us can see to join us in this thread? I haven't seen his examples of a single player using Player Agency that are expressly not a decision by a group of players. And, given the communication problems we have with you, I am not sure I can trust that you've accurately represented his position to us.

Well, lucky the Player Agency cheerleader had dropped out.

Okay. Now, what if, instead of either of them, you decided to play the characters through your own plot? How would that be different from the game with Alice, Bob, and Charlie?

I'm not really sure what your asking here?

No, no. you don't get to pretend that calling any game other than yours "easy mode" or "tyrant player" or any other sort of dismissive term isn't insulting.

It might help if you simply did not identify with the 'others'...

I'd sympathize, but that's not actually what happens. You're projecting, in fact, as you're the only one who declares yourself right and there to be nothing to debate.

I always want to debate...it is why I'm here.

We respond with, "we didn't say that," because we, in fact, did not. We then clarify precisely what we did say and how it doesn't align with your straw man, and you come back and ignore it and pretend we said something else entirely.

Odd I said the same thing.

Except that's not how the conversations go. You also conflate "simple" with "no effort" and "tyrant player" and "nothing happens but sitting in a tavern doing nothing." Which people accurately state is not representative of their games. And then you ignore this to pretend that they claimed the magically had a game appear out of nowhere because they neither railroaded nor had nothing happen, as if that's impossible. While ignoring the detailed descriptions of how it's possible in favor of your straw men.

Well, I kinda don't get why people can't just accept things like ''simple= no effort''. Though note a ''tyrant player'' is one bulling and forcing the DM to do things.

And when people give examples...they are sneakly vague on the details : ''oh my game was super complex and had no railroading''. Then ask how that was done and the answer is just ''because''.

Because the characters aren't wandering aimlessly nor at random. They also aren't constrained to follow only one path. They have options. And, despite what you like to pretend, the options are legitimately different choices.

Well, you follow a plot or wander...there is nothing ''more'' to the game, unless you go into a Second Life type game.

Seriously, I would probably try to challenge DU to actually run a game on these forums to see how the holy hell his DMing style can actually function, but I doubt he'd acknowledge it just as he hasn't acknowledged anyone's actual argument for nearly 25 pages.

I run a couple games here, so? It is so hard to find good online players that can post like once a day. I'm not sure what an online forum game can ''prove'' though as it is so different then a real life game.

But I'm game for a game. I have not gotten a good group game together in a while.

Maybe: You tried to escape from Carceri the only way you could, by finally giving in and making a deal with a devil. It took a while to negotiate, but in exchange for the location of a portal to Sigil, you agreed to give up your souls...but ONLY if you took your lives by your own hands. Shortly after that, everything went black. When you awoke, you realized what the rat bastard had done: clone your group.

[Skelechicken]

I am curious as to how deep this idea of railroading as necessary to advance plot goes.

Let's say I have a game where my players are given a simple mission to prove their value to a local thieves guild. They are to break into a poorly guarded museum and steal a treasure of lesser value. My players have been told that they are all eager to join this guild, and the plot I have constructed assumes they will be made members of this guild. The guild is notorious for being able to pull off a job discretely, and some of this reputation comes from the fact that they never give second chances. If you fail them you are out or you are dead.

Now my players are all your idea of a "normal player" which is to say they will be following all of my plot cues and playing in a way that you approve of.

As they break into this museum, however, one of them just happens to roll a one at a crucial moment. They are seen by the one guard currently on duty. It was the player who rolled, so as a DM I cannot fudge this roll in their favor to advance the plot, but again my plot REQUIRES they be made members of this guild.

Established facts say they are out. The guild doesn't do second chances and this job was easy. They are low level being at the start of the campaign, so their options are to kill the guard or run, leaving a witness. There are no other reasonable options that I can see as a DM for the sake of this argument, and everything else smacks of being a little too wacky. My players decide to run.

Darth Ultron, given this scenario in which your "normal" not bad players have through no fault of their own very obviously failed to keep on plot, would you find a way to railroad them back into the thieves guild even though the guild has this established reputation, or do you rewrite your plot?

[Quertus]

some of Quertus's opinions some times are so weird I have a hard time even disagreeing with them

But still, hugs all around.

Sigh. I got pulled into the big hug fest. *extends arms*

Yeah, sometimes my opinions are so odd I have a hard time understanding them. And definitely expressing them, because the normal people haven't provided me handy words to copy to express myself.

But I enjoy the opportunity to try.

[OldTrees1]

-snip-

Let's see if your brain can handle hypotheticals:

You have a campaign and 3 "good" players. You have said yourself that you don't grant choices to the PCs. Imagine 2 parallel timelines:

Timeline A: Darth Ultron runs the campaign with the 3 "good" players. Those players don't get any choices.
Timeline B: Darth Ultron kicks the 3 players out and runs their 3 PCs (as 3 NPCs) through the campaign. The PCs (now as NPCs) still do not get any choices.

How did timeline B differ from A. Is the only difference the number of eyes watching you play with yourself?

I run a couple games here, so? It is so hard to find good online players that can post like once a day. I'm not sure what an online forum game can ''prove'' though as it is so different then a real life game.

But I'm game for a game. I have not gotten a good group game together in a while.

Maybe: You tried to escape from Carceri the only way you could, by finally giving in and making a deal with a devil. It took a while to negotiate, but in exchange for the location of a portal to Sigil, you agreed to give up your souls...but ONLY if you took your lives by your own hands. Shortly after that, everything went black. When you awoke, you realized what the rat bastard had done: clone your group.

You could link to some so we can see if you lie about your tyranny or if you actually are a tyrant. Ones where you decided to kick out a "bad" player are the most likely to sway our opinions (although nigh zero is still nigh zero).

For your example: How many reasonable ways will you accept the PCs solving the encounter with their clones? It took half a second for me to think of 3 reasonable solutions (once you state your count the forum can make a list of 10+ reasonable solutions).

[Alcore]

Oh, please do describe what you think "You" is. This I've gotta hear.

Given that I've gone toe-to-toe with many people in this thread, and happen to know that there's a lot of people in here I vehemently disagree with on any number of topics... I've gotta hear what unified bloc you think everyone else here is in.

My theory is all the DMing has given him a god complex. He believes he is the best out there with nothing new to learn (he has even said so) and is, of course, humble about it. It's sad in that he can no longer grow.


I am an aweful DM and a fool; thus I can grow.

[Lorsa]

Everyone one is much more focused on the selfish actions of a single player using Player Agency.....not a decision by the group of players.

Again, that is YOUR focus. Our concern has always been on the dynamic between "group of players" and "the DM". Single players are important as they are part of the "group", but it's the "group" we are concerned with. The group of players should have Player Agency. If you look back I am sure you can see references to "the players should have agency" or "the players' choices should matter".

However, extending Agency to every player as a single unit will go a long way to make sure the group as a whole has agency.

Brutal, yup that is me. ''Prone to insults'', well I do have a view point not everyone shares, so it is possible for someone to ''be insulted'' if I do or say or don't do or say something. Mature people can accept that, others can't. I'm open and direct. And I do address points, but don't just agree with another's point just because...so.

You don't think "your players are selfish" is an insult?

In my opinion, mature people don't insult others in a healthy discussion. Why is why I asked why you think these insults were helpful to the discussion. A point which you NEVER answered, mind you.

I say something. People respond with ''I'm right you are wrong, no debate''. I say, ''what?" and ''you said this.." Then they respond back "I did not!" so....

That is not how it actually goes. First you say "I'm right, no debate" and then people reply with "uhm, no, not really, what about this?" and then you reply with "ah, but THAT is just blahblah and completely nonsensical", missing that the other person didn't say that but this.

If you start your debates in a way that is less "I'm right, no debate", responses will be different. You HAVE to see your own hand in the way the discussion flows. I mean, the rest of us can talk with each other without anyone feeling like someone is saying "I'm right, you're wrong, no debate". That's a problem that occurs in discussions with YOU.

Like I will say ''a simple game needs no Railroading..or really any effort by anyone and is good way to have a Casual game''. Then someone will respond ''my game is not simple or casual and is the greatest game ever''! So, bit of a jump for them.

Except that is not actually what you are saying at all. Now you are misrepresenting your OWN position.

What you say is this "a game will either have railroading or be simple and casual". You provide a dichotomy.

THEN we reply with "no, my game is neither simple/casual or contains railroading". There is, of course, the possibility that if you were in our games, you WOULD consider them simple or casual. It's also possible that if we were in your games, we wouldn't consider you to be railroading. This is why we have these long discussions to try and figure out what you mean by "railroading" and "simple/casual" and whatnot. A process that is made much more difficult as you don't seem to actually engage with us, but rather some imagined position you assume we have.

I WILL give you credit for one thing though. When we say "no, our games are neither simple nor railroading in nature", we DO say it in a way that is "this is how it is no debate". It's because, in our eyes, that is a fact, a truth. The thing you talked so highly about just a few posts ago. We are sharing the truth of our tables with you; and yet you refuse to listen. Why is that?

None of my players have complained that my games are "simple" (in fact they find them very complex), nor are they "casual" (if you don't pay attention to what's going on you'll miss out a lot). None of my players have complained that my games are "railroading" either. In fact, they do the opposite, saying that they are the least railroaded games they've ever played.

Or I say ''ok, so your characters just wander around the setting at random'' and the response is ''My game is not Random!''. So I say, well, ok, ''what do you do?' and they snap back ''oh the characters do aimlessly wander with no reason, but it is not random!" And then we have to get down to ''what is random'', and all.

Yes. Because the word "random" has a specific meaning. You can either use it in its literal sense, in which case you would be wrong to describe their games as such, or you can use it figuratively, in which case your are demeaning and insulting. Which way do you want it?

Also, not many people say their characters aimlessly wander. Sure, some might. More often than not, the characters have a goal, either given to them as the premise of the game, or one selected based on adventure hooks provided in the game. When they wander in search of, or in attempt to fulfill, a goal, you can't really call it aimless anymore, can you?

Way to many people just type a response as if like it is ''the word'' and are like ''the end''. Only if more people would discuss points.

When we describe our games, it can be accurate to say it as "the word". I mean, we know our games better than you, don't we? So I can say "my games are complex and have no railroading". That's a factual statement with its truth value given by the agreement and support of all my players who also feel this way. You can thus either claim I am lying OR that me and all my players are delusional and not experiencing the world "right". The last one is a bit of a stretch though, don't you think?

I do make long posts that would be great to discuss....and they get ignored so people can just type ''DU is wrong" again.

Given how you ignore about half of discussion points people want to engage with you on, can you really blame them?

I mean, I don't think we still have heard a response from you on what you think of the "save the farm" scenario, after several people brought forward reasons why putting out the fire was impossible. It is a line of discussion that, from your side, has been decidedly ignored.

Well, keep in mind the Dm's whims are impartial, and that counts for a lot.

Shouldn't that count for a lot in either scenario then? If say the DM decides the outcome of events after the players declare their actions, the DM is still impartial, right?

The DM that is waiting is just cheating the players of...doing anything meaningful. And your against that right? X exists and there is problem y, and the players have to solve the problem. But if there is no x, and just a y problem, there there is nothing to ''solve'' .

I think the idea has been brought forward on multiple occasions that the DM establishes that X exists and that there is a Y problem for the players to solve is part of what is expected by the DM. That does not make it railroading though. The players can attempt to solve Y using X things, and the result or outcome is determined by the DM. Still that does not require railroading.

In fact, railroading is what effectively robs players of doing anything meaningful. This is what we've been talking about all along.

There is no guarantee the players will ''get'' anything?

So if I follow your plot and rolls decent enough during the encounters, how will I fail the plot?

At what point do you see a DM ''bulling'' a player?

When you said "I hate when a tyrant bully player railroads the DM, so instead, I am going to railroad the players". Otherwise you have to explain how railroading is only bullying when it goes one way but not the other. And/or why you left out the possibility of a player railroading the DM that is not a bullying tyrant player.

No, because your not the DM of Real Life.

What if I, as a DM, gave you, DU, a choice in a game for your character to have chocolate or strawberry cake for their birthday? Would that not be a choice then? Why is it a choice if I present it in real life but not a choice in a game?

In real life on one can tell you not to do something or (mostly) make or force you to so something. At any moment in your life you can do (or at least try) anything you ''can'' do. You don't have to ask someones permission, you don't have to follow any rules (or laws or whatever) and no one person is in total control of the whole reality around you.

Let's leave the metaphysical discussion of if life is a simulation and how you can never know if someone is controlling your reality or not aside.

Or actually, let's not. There is absolutely no way you for you know if your reality is being controlled or not. Your whole experience could be a set of computer parameters in a program set to simulate a conscious mind. Does that mean that you don't actually know if you can make choices in real life or not?

Then we have the "following rules or laws". Did you ever take a science class? Nature is full of restrictions that we need to follow. We typically call them "the laws of nature" and are, in fact, far more constrained than any game rules could ever be.

Lastly, here is a proposition. In a roleplaying game, one can simulate reality as close as possible in regards to choices. That is, the characters can do (or at least try) anything they "can" do. They don't have to ask someones permission, but have to, just as in real life, follow the rules or laws of the world around them.

My point is, in real life your choices are constrained by the world around you. In a RPG, the characters' choices are constrained by the world around them. Whether or not that is a fictional world or not, or is being controlled by a single person or not, is rather pointless to the question of whether or not one can make choices. A choice is, and always will be, making a selection based on a limited number of options.

Railroading occurs when the DM constrains the choices in a non-intuitive way. When the constraints no longer feel "natural" or "logical part of the fictional world". The far end case of this is when the DM constrains the choices to only one, OR make sure that all choices lead to the same outcome (which is again basically no choice).

It is a bit of a stretch and it is not all that useful to bother saying ''everything (might) effect the plot. And even still, a lot of ''stuff'' won't effect the ''plot''. It, maybe, could effect the characters actions in the plot, but won't effect the ''plot'' itself. Like say in 2016 a player made a character and wrote down ''my character is super greedy''. Ok, now in 2017 that character encounters the plot of ''find the lost treasure of Ra-Toot''. So the player, role playing well, says ''wow, my character really wants to find that treasure as he is so greedy''....but that has no effect ''on'' the plot.

Isn't it then the job of the DM to make sure that as many choices as possible that might effect the plot also will do so? The DM can make the players feel as though their choices matter.

I guess you might be the type to ''compromise'' if your doing something ''with'' another person.....but are you saying you ''compromise'' on choices you make for your own self in your life? Like to you, um ''compromise'' what you will eat for each meal?

Are you the type then that never "compromise" when you are doing something with other people?

Well, since I typically eat meals with my domestic partner, yes, I do compromise with that. But let's say which song I play on the piano when I sit all alone just playing for myself? No, I obviously choose that just for myself and no one else.

But RPGs are a group activity. As such, they should involve compromise right? Compromise between player-player and compromise between player-DM?

Only if ''on time'' is important.

Unless the players know, specifically, that time is not a factor, to them, the choice has value. If they know time is not a factor, they probably won't spend much time with the choice anyway...

Also, you can make their choices important as I said above.

This is more of a group thing that just a DM thing. I, myself, am against anyone playing another persons character, and I'd much rather just ''pause'' the game and pick up later. The players that are left can do a ''special mini game'' with other characters for example. I love to do little mini games to give the players more information about the normal game . Though if the group wants something else, I'll go along with it.

Alright, that's fair. You could have just said "I have a policy never to play PCs in my games, if a player is missing we don't play the game" and saved us a lot of back-and-forth.

Sort of, but in an RPG the ''post made'' one is not a plot: it is a story. An RPG plot ''active'' (unlike plots in other places) and is in the present and future...it is only in the past once it is over and done.

Now I am confused again. Didn't you say, early on, that a plot is the sequence of events in a story? I mean, that was your definition right? For that definition, it matters nothing if the plot was pre or post written, if there is a story, it will have a sequence of events and those will constitute the plot.

Do you want to change your definition of plot now? And to what?

The outcome depends on what the players do, with their limited actions in the game, more or less. The players can try anything their characters might be able to do, but there are no guarantees.

Same thing happens in my games. Players can try anything their characters might be able to do, with the outcome being dependent on what they try (and the character's skills). There are no guarantees of success.

Yes, were I to ever meet my Good Counterpart from the Mirror Universe, we would not get along.

You don't see it as a bit problematic that you run games you, yourself wouldn't like to play in? Why do you expect your players to put up with you if you yourself wouldn't put up with you?

Well, like I said, it is not always possible in a normal complex game that makes sense and is pure fiction. Sometimes the DM has to move things along. A DM can ''hide'' railroading behind ''Coincidence'', ''the rules'', ''game logic'', ''setting logic'' and even the ''whims of fate''....but not always.

Did we just get back to the whole discussion of "the DM doing something in the game does not equal railroading"?

I think your reading way too much into the example.

I think you should take more responsibility for how you say things to avoid people reading too much into them.

But alright, I will make a comparison of my own. Running a game with lots of complicated things going on and complex problems the players have to solve, without resorting to railroading is like playing three dimensional Chess where the rules change every fifteen minutes. I mean, Chess is basically a memory game anyway. If you can memorize all the plays that's been before, you can win without actually thinking. Playing in three dimensions, with constant rule change, THAT takes intelligence.

And when people give examples...they are sneakly vague on the details : ''oh my game was super complex and had no railroading''. Then ask how that was done and the answer is just ''because''.

That is because the level of details required are horrendously many and would require hours and hours of writing. EVERYONE else understands how complex games without railroading can happen, BUT you. If you really want us to spend tons of hours writing down details of our games just for you, you have to stop making up strawmans and misrepresenting what we say.

[Darth Ultron]

I am curious as to how deep this idea of railroading as necessary to advance plot goes.

Let's say I have a game where my players are given a simple mission to prove their value to a local thieves guild. They are to break into a poorly guarded museum and steal a treasure of lesser value. My players have been told that they are all eager to join this guild, and the plot I have constructed assumes they will be made members of this guild. The guild is notorious for being able to pull off a job discretely, and some of this reputation comes from the fact that they never give second chances. If you fail them you are out or you are dead.

As they break into this museum, however, one of them just happens to roll a one at a crucial moment. They are seen by the one guard currently on duty. It was the player who rolled, so as a DM I cannot fudge this roll in their favor to advance the plot, but again my plot REQUIRES they be made members of this guild.

Established facts say they are out. The guild doesn't do second chances and this job was easy. They are low level being at the start of the campaign, so their options are to kill the guard or run, leaving a witness. There are no other reasonable options that I can see as a DM for the sake of this argument, and everything else smacks of being a little too wacky. My players decide to run.

Darth Ultron, given this scenario in which your "normal" not bad players have through no fault of their own very obviously failed to keep on plot, would you find a way to railroad them back into the thieves guild even though the guild has this established reputation, or do you rewrite your plot?

Well, this is an example of a bad plot: It has way too much set up to fail, is fragile and can be ruined by a single dice roll. So any game with this plot will run into trouble, sooner or later. So if it is ''if a character is seen by a guard, the plot is over'' that is just a set up for failure....even if all the characters were super exploit stealth builds, there is all ways that chance they ''roll a 1'' and the ''guard rolls a 20''.

Also I should point out that in a normal game a DM can ''change'' the roll of any dice or just ''say'' something happens. Yes, a lot of people don't like this...but the DM can do it. And you can go around in circles and say a DM should only do this ''rarely'', and ok, fine...this would be one of those ''rare'' times.

To ''pull of a job discreetly'' does not ''have'' to mean ''no guard can even catch a glimpse of your character ever". This is where the ''reasonable'' part comes in. I would say it is reasonable to ''not get caught'', and more to the point ''not leave any trace or trail to the thieves guild''. If I was a player, I would not agree with the DM that was sitting on the edge of his chair waiting to make a spot check to ruin the game and chuckling to himself. But, if a DM does want to be ''unreasonable'' and toss out the plot...well, there is not much to do other then leave the game.

And really ''being seen'' by a guard is not ''failure'', it is just a ''loose end''. So as long as the players makes sure ''guard Bob'' can tell what he knows, everything is good. So ''guard Bob'' suddenly dies in a ''horse accident'', or a ''house fire'' or even just ''disappear''. Sure ''everyone'' might think the guild did it, but there will be no proof.

Though even if you ''must'' stick with the ''a guard saw a character so it is an epic irrecoverable fail ", there are still ways to ''save the plot'', if the DM wants too. The one I though of was ''D'rk Starscream, 2nd in command of the guild comes to the characters can is like ''too bad you can't join us...but how about you come and work just for me''. So this sets up the characters as ''not'' in the guild, but still (secretly) part of the guild (as the rest of the guild does not know). And even with them a ''secret guild associates'' the plot can continue.

Let's see if your brain can handle hypotheticals:

You have a campaign and 3 "good" players. You have said yourself that you don't grant choices to the PCs. Imagine 2 parallel timelines:

Timeline A: Darth Ultron runs the campaign with the 3 "good" players. Those players don't get any choices.
Timeline B: Darth Ultron kicks the 3 players out and runs their 3 PCs (as 3 NPCs) through the campaign. The PCs (now as NPCs) still do not get any choices.

How did timeline B differ from A. Is the only difference the number of eyes watching you play with yourself?

Um, why do you think I said the players get no choices ever? The ''choice'' being talked about is the Jerk Tyrant Player Choice.

Timeline A-The good players, following the plot must use the game rules, setting information, game details and whatever the DM says to advance the plot

Timeline B-The bad players, reject the ''stupid DMs plot'' and just do whatever they want, and utterly ignore whatever the DM says and make up their own ''way forward'' that they demand the DM use : "Ok, we just go in the secret door that is there!".

For your example: How many reasonable ways will you accept the PCs solving the encounter with their clones? It took half a second for me to think of 3 reasonable solutions (once you state your count the forum can make a list of 10+ reasonable solutions).

Sure, I can think of three.....but after a couple you do get very repative like ''the characters can attack with a sword '' and ''the characters can attack with a club'' can be rolled in to ''the characters attack with a weapon''.

You don't think "your players are selfish" is an insult?

I don't, no.

What you say is this "a game will either have railroading or be simple and casual". You provide a dichotomy.

Well, it is: a normal game, with a plot, needs Railroading, or one of the six alternatives. And note the simple, casual Second Life game is not a normal game.

And yes that is my basic idea: The DM sometimes needs to railroad, or do one of the other things, to advance the plot and make the game ''work''.

THEN we reply with "no, my game is neither simple/casual or contains railroading". There is, of course, the possibility that if you were in our games, you WOULD consider them simple or casual. It's also possible that if we were in your games, we wouldn't consider you to be railroading. This is why we have these long discussions to try and figure out what you mean by "railroading" and "simple/casual" and whatnot. A process that is made much more difficult as you don't seem to actually engage with us, but rather some imagined position you assume we have.

Right, and I wish we could focus on this more and people can explain *how* they do this ''way''.

None of my players have complained that my games are "simple" (in fact they find them very complex), nor are they "casual" (if you don't pay attention to what's going on you'll miss out a lot). None of my players have complained that my games are "railroading" either. In fact, they do the opposite, saying that they are the least railroaded games they've ever played.

Because as with most things you going for some ''baseline''. But reality is not like that. If someone wants a simple casual game, they are not going to ''complain'' the game is simple and casual: they want it that way.

Yes. Because the word "random" has a specific meaning. You can either use it in its literal sense, in which case you would be wrong to describe their games as such, or you can use it figuratively, in which case your are demeaning and insulting. Which way do you want it?

I was not even aware ''random'' was a ''bad word''.

Also, not many people say their characters aimlessly wander. Sure, some might. More often than not, the characters have a goal, either given to them as the premise of the game, or one selected based on adventure hooks provided in the game. When they wander in search of, or in attempt to fulfill, a goal, you can't really call it aimless anymore, can you?

It is very common. The characters randomly wander around the new city they just walked into, for example. Or the characters just leave town and ''go north'' to ''see what is there''.

Sure if the character has ''a goal'', it is not aimless or random: Like character Bob is thirsty, so he has the goal of getting a drink at a bar....so character Bob walks over to a bar, goes inside and orders a drink. So, sure, for a couple seconds, the character ''had a goal''. But really we should just not count ''immediate simple goals'' that take like a minute or two of game time.

Now, if a character does have a big, real goal...well it would be odd for there not to be a plot attached to it. So that would mean the game has a plot.

When we describe our games, it can be accurate to say it as "the word". I mean, we know our games better than you, don't we? So I can say "my games are complex and have no railroading". That's a factual statement with its truth value given by the agreement and support of all my players who also feel this way. You can thus either claim I am lying OR that me and all my players are delusional and not experiencing the world "right". The last one is a bit of a stretch though, don't you think?

Except, everyone does not ''word'' the same. You yourself think ''random'' is like the worst word ever...for some reason. But how is random bad again? See the problem?

I mean, I don't think we still have heard a response from you on what you think of the "save the farm" scenario, after several people brought forward reasons why putting out the fire was impossible. It is a line of discussion that, from your side, has been decidedly ignored.

Well, keep in mind that was an example for only: the players do not know everything about the game. It is not an example for everything.

Though even your comment has the reasonable problem: in your view, no matter what, a barn on fire is just automatically a total loss and no one should ever try and fight the fire, ever. Ok, that is ''your view''. Others, like myself, think ''um, well it is reasonable to fight a barn fire and try and put it out''.

Shouldn't that count for a lot in either scenario then? If say the DM decides the outcome of events after the players declare their actions, the DM is still impartial, right?.

Yes, assuming they were so during the rest of the game.

I think the idea has been brought forward on multiple occasions that the DM establishes that X exists and that there is a Y problem for the players to solve is part of what is expected by the DM. That does not make it railroading though. The players can attempt to solve Y using X things, and the result or outcome is determined by the DM. Still that does not require railroading.

In fact, railroading is what effectively robs players of doing anything meaningful. This is what we've been talking about all along.

Except ''meaningful'' is a ''meaningless'' word, as it only means: whatever the players like. Anything the characters do, don't do, or at least try to do or not do, will effect the game....this is basic. But that ''anything'' might not have ''meaning'' every time. Ever single action a character takes does not alter reality. Some times ''nothing really happens'' or ''very little happens'', so that would not have ''meaning'', right?

So if I follow your plot and rolls decent enough during the encounters, how will I fail the plot?

Not sure what you mean here?

When you said "I hate when a tyrant bully player railroads the DM, so instead, I am going to railroad the players". Otherwise you have to explain how railroading is only bullying when it goes one way but not the other. And/or why you left out the possibility of a player railroading the DM that is not a bullying tyrant player.

Because, again, DMs and players are different. A DM can say ''the lazy back door guards are asleep'' or ''the guards are awake and alert'' (or anything else he wants (all most)) on a whim. The DM has this power in the game: it is even in the rules. The players don't. The players can't just ''say stuff', that is not how the game works.

What if I, as a DM, gave you, DU, a choice in a game for your character to have chocolate or strawberry cake for their birthday? Would that not be a choice then? Why is it a choice if I present it in real life but not a choice in a game?

You lost me with all the deserts.....how about, no choice made by the players in a game with a DM is real.

Lastly, here is a proposition. In a roleplaying game, one can simulate reality as close as possible in regards to choices. That is, the characters can do (or at least try) anything they "can" do. They don't have to ask someones permission, but have to, just as in real life, follow the rules or laws of the world around them.

Except the game has a DM...right there who can say or do anything they want.

My point is, in real life your choices are constrained by the world around you. In a RPG, the characters' choices are constrained by the world around them. Whether or not that is a fictional world or not, or is being controlled by a single person or not, is rather pointless to the question of whether or not one can make choices. A choice is, and always will be, making a selection based on a limited number of options.

Ok, you want to count ''all'' choices as ''meaningful'' I guess? So as long as a player can pick from at least two things..your happy? It does not matter to you if you *only* have the two choices given to you by someone....any choice counts. So the character can't say, fight a goblin...but as long as they can choose to wear their black or brown boots...your happy?

Railroading occurs when the DM constrains the choices in a non-intuitive way. When the constraints no longer feel "natural" or "logical part of the fictional world". The far end case of this is when the DM constrains the choices to only one, OR make sure that all choices lead to the same outcome (which is again basically no choice).

Where does ''natural'' and ''logic'' come from? Sure a very bad Jerk DM will do such stuff...be anything else is ''possible'', so....

Isn't it then the job of the DM to make sure that as many choices as possible that might effect the plot also will do so? The DM can make the players feel as though their choices matter.

Nope, that is just your personal view.

[QUOTE=Lorsa;22504940]
Are you the type then that never "compromise" when you are doing something with other people?
[QUOTE]

Well, compromises are things for hostile people...as my friends and family are not hostile, no compromises are needed.

[QUOTE=Lorsa;22504940]
Now I am confused again. Didn't you say, early on, that a plot is the sequence of events in a story? I mean, that was your definition right? For that definition, it matters nothing if the plot was pre or post written, if there is a story, it will have a sequence of events and those will constitute the plot.

Do you want to change your definition of plot now? And to what?[QUOTE]

Note your taking like a couple words from a paragraph...ignoring the rest...and then overly high lighting the couple words.

As I have said...the plot must come before any actions.

[ScaryTerry]

DU, I think the core of the disagreement here is your apparent belief that any choice the DM presents to the players is an illusory choice by virtue of the fact that the DM controls the reality. But I would argue, and I think most of the posters here who are contradicting you would agree, that these choices are still meaningful because they can have consequences within the game world and change the players’ experience of the game. And by consequences I don’t mean the kind of petty thing where the DM makes a dragon appear to attack the players because they didn’t do what he wants – I mean consequences that will alter the reality of the game world in ways that players can foresee and evaluate (at least to some degree).

I’ll give you an example: the players are working to destroy the evil demon prince D’aynn Khook, and they are getting ready to venture into the Haunted Tombs of Aggro to retrieve the lost scimitar of Billy Mays which is reputed to have the power to slice and dice fiends twice as efficiently as the competing brand. But then they receive word that one of D’aynn Khook’s chief lieutenants has been kidnapped by the Bandits of Mourning Wood. If they can capture him from the bandits before he’s rescued by the demon prince’s fortress, they could interrogate him for intel about the demon’s battle plans (and/or execute him to deprive the demon of a valuable resource). But the entrance to the Haunted Tombs only opens once every hundred years, and remains open only for the three days that the constellation Broseidon is directly overhead. So the players have a choice: go after the sword or the minion?

You can argue that this is an artificial choice because it’s set up by the DM, and that’s true, but that doesn’t make it an illusory choice, because the outcome has real impacts on the game world going forward, on at least three levels.

First, it affects the experience of play. An infiltration mission to capture a prisoner from a bandit camp will be a different experience from a treasure hunt through a crypt guarded by the unquiet dead. In a certain sense this is a “session zero” style choice, picking between two different adventures, although it could easily arrive later in the campaign which would make it more likely for the characters to have reasons to prefer one approach over the other. In any case, it means that the players have a choice that will affect their experience of play in predictable ways, just as the choice between chocolate and strawberry cake affects the experience of eating in a predictable way.

Second, it will affect the options and strategies of both the players and the villains going forward. If the players capture the lieutenant, they can gain information about the demon’s vulnerabilities and weaken his forces which may allow the Resistance to defeat his armies in battle. However, this may also alert him to the fact that they are working against him. If they go after the sword, they can gain a powerful weapon that may make it easier for them to slay the demon later, but in the meantime the demon will regain a useful minion.
Finally, choices like this affect the course (dare I say…the plot?) of the story. Will it be the story of the Heirs of Billy Mays, who recovered the Lost Scimitar of Power and drove the forces of evil back into the abyss? Or the story of the heroes of the Thumm War, who risked their lives to obtain the crucial military intelligence that turned the tide when the Nine-and-Three-Quarters Kingdoms finally united against the Dread Lord?

While all of the above is still the result of DM planning and world-building, the choice the players make will have far-reaching impacts on the future of the campaign, and I think most of the posters here would agree that this therefore constitutes a non-illusory choice.

[ScaryTerry]

Then of course we have the question of what will happen if the players come up with an idea the DM did not anticipate. This is where the question of railroading really comes into play for most of us. Going with my example above, let’s say the players try to have their cake and eat it too by writing to the bandits and offering them a ransom for the minion, with the exchange to take place near enough to the Tombs that the players could still retrieve the sword afterward. There are a few possible responses to this:

1. The DM can say Yes. The plan works successfully, the players retrieve the BBEG’s lieutenant with plenty of time to question him and imprison/kill him before they enter the Tomb. Presumably this is the response you mean when you talk about the DM “caving to the players”, although I would argue that this is not necessarily always bad. If it’s been established in-game that Mourning Wood is very close to the Tomb of Billy Mays and that the bandits are fond of ransoming prisoners, then allowing the players to succeed in their plan rewards them for paying attention to setting details and encourages immersion.

2. The DM can say No. The bandits refuse the offer of ransom, or there’s no way to get a message to them, or their camp is too far away for their response to reach the players before the Tomb shuts again for another century. Note that this by itself is not railroading, especially if the great distance between the two locations has already been established in-game. Players won’t necessarily feel railroaded by the DM shooting down a long-shot plan, although if it happens every time they come up with an outside-the-box solution they will almost certainly start to hear steam whistles.

3. The DM can say “Yes, but…” This is the “improv-style” approach which you seem to dislike. The DM allows for a conditional or qualified success, and then adjusts her plans for the future of the campaign based on how she thinks this third option might alter the setting and the players’ options going forward. Maybe the players have to succeed on a Diplomacy or Persuasion check to convince the bandits that they’re not planning an ambush. Or maybe the bandits decide to ambush the players during the handoff, and now the players have to fight their way out while protecting the minion. In this latter scenario, the players have sacrificed some resources that would make it easier for them to raid the tomb, in exchange for the minion’s intelligence which is valuable in the larger campaign.

Perhaps in either scenario, there is not enough time to question the minion before the tomb is sealed again – so now they have to run the dungeon while escorting a hostile NPC! Now the DM has further options to modify the story which he would never have if he didn’t consider the solution proposed by the players. The minion can seize an opportunity to escape while the PC’s are fighting the Pearly Wights in the Cavern of the Giant Undead Oyster, or maybe he’ll wait until they emerge safely from the crypt before attempting to steal the scimitar for himself. Alternatively, maybe the PC’s save him from death at the opalescent hands of the Wights and earn his loyalty, converting a hated enemy into a penitent ally seeking redemption.

Do you see how this is different from just saying “Wow, awesome” and letting the players succeed automatically? The DM is causing the world to respond to the players in ways that are not determined in advance, but are believable within the established rules of the setting. The result is a game where the players can make choices that matter – in the sense of “if I do this thing and not this other thing it will change the way the story plays out”. Even if this is not your style, can you at least see why this is appealing to many DMs and players? And can you see why this feels different from railroading even though the DM is still the final arbiter of the outcome?

[Honest Tiefling]

But I'm game for a game. I have not gotten a good group game together in a while.

Maybe: You tried to escape from Carceri the only way you could, by finally giving in and making a deal with a devil. It took a while to negotiate, but in exchange for the location of a portal to Sigil, you agreed to give up your souls...but ONLY if you took your lives by your own hands. Shortly after that, everything went black. When you awoke, you realized what the rat bastard had done: clone your group.

Is that an invitation? Because I wonder who you'd be willing to invite to such a test.

[OldTrees1]

Um, why do you think I said the players get no choices ever? The ''choice'' being talked about is the Jerk Tyrant Player Choice.

You said you give the players no choices. You are even currently arguing that choices don't exist in the game.

Spoiler: evidence

Show

I do understand giving the players the illusion of choice.

I'd never do anything UNFUN.

I agree that it is better to simply not give the players choices....lol.

You lost me with all the deserts.....how about, no choice made by the players in a game with a DM is real.

I, and the rest of this thread, know it to be a cooperative game where one person creates a campaign and multiple people are faced with meaningful choices that they respond to.

Yup, that is the problem right there, all right.

Timeline A-The good players, following the plot must use the game rules, setting information, game details and whatever the DM says to advance the plot

Timeline B-The bad players, reject the ''stupid DMs plot'' and just do whatever they want, and utterly ignore whatever the DM says and make up their own ''way forward'' that they demand the DM use : "Ok, we just go in the secret door that is there!".

Reading Fail! In Timeline B you already kicked the bad players out and you are running their PCs (as NPCs) through the campaign. How would that story differ from Timeline A.

Sure, I can think of three.....but after a couple you do get very repative like ''the characters can attack with a sword '' and ''the characters can attack with a club'' can be rolled in to ''the characters attack with a weapon''.

I am going to guess you would only allow the first two reasonable solutions and even then I expect you would pull a gotcha on the first. Everyone else here would accept most of these and some not listed.

1. The characters attack and kill each other's clones (so none dies by their OWN hand)
2. The characters attack but do not kill the clones
3. The characters inform the clones that the clones souls will also be forfeit to the contract if they fight to the death. Thus they peacefully disengage
4. The characters run away through dangerous terrain
5. The characters run to some allies/enemies that can attack the clones without triggering the contract

[OldTrees1]

3. The DM can say “Yes, but…” This is the “improv-style” approach which you seem to dislike.

Very good pair of posts (you might want to signal to Darth Ultron that they are part 1 & part 2).

Your 3rd section is a good inclusion.

However "improv" in this thread was not used in the theatre "yes, but ..." sense. Instead it was used to describe a DM answering a question they did not have a prepared answer for. Specifically the DM using established details to determine what the answer would have been if it had been prepared for. Said answer could be "yes", "no", or "yes, but ..."

[dascarletm]

Darth Ultron, what do you do in a game where the players make a choice you had not considered? Assume these different possibilities:
A: The choice is a better/smarter/more creative idea than you thought of in that situation.
B: The choice is equivalent to the ideas you had for choices in this situation.
C: The choice is worse than the ideas you had for in the situation.

[Segev]

Well, lucky the Player Agency cheerleader had dropped out.

No, I haven't.

Wait, are you pretending there was only one person who was advocating player agency? And that he comprises "Everyone?" And whoever he is, he's gone, so obviously nobody supports it now...but "Everyone says" it anyway?

I'm not really sure what your asking here?

Here, let me get somebody else who phrased it more concisely:

Let's see if your brain can handle hypotheticals:

You have a campaign and 3 "good" players. You have said yourself that you don't grant choices to the PCs. Imagine 2 parallel timelines:

Timeline A: Darth Ultron runs the campaign with the 3 "good" players. Those players don't get any choices.
Timeline B: Darth Ultron kicks the 3 players out and runs their 3 PCs (as 3 NPCs) through the campaign. The PCs (now as NPCs) still do not get any choices.

How did timeline B differ from A. Is the only difference the number of eyes watching you play with yourself?

Note that you HAVE replied to this quote before, but HAVE NOT actually dealt with Timeline B. As OldTrees noted, you failed to comprehend what you read there.

The question is getting at a point: Do you actually run games, or do you write novels and then for some reason expect other human beings called "players" to be characters in them, doing what you tell them to do?

Odd I said the same thing.

Yes. You're projecting. I can tell, because while those you accuse of this can outline exactly where you've misrepresented what they said, or, as in the case with OldTrees above, out-and-out ignored what they said and replaced it with your own straw man, you fail to actually identify how anybody has misrepresented or misunderstood you. You just keep erecting straw men to misrepresent them and CLAIM that that's them somehow misrepresenting you.


To be perfectly clear, OldTrees said Timeline B was that you kicked out the players and ran the game anyway, treating their characters as NPCs. You then said that Timeline B is a game where the three players are still in it and ruining the game by running around doing random stuff for no reason.

Timeline B: Darth Ultron kicks the 3 players out and runs their 3 PCs (as 3 NPCs) through the campaign. The PCs (now as NPCs) still do not get any choices.

Timeline B-The bad players, reject the ''stupid DMs plot'' and just do whatever they want, and utterly ignore whatever the DM says and make up their own ''way forward'' that they demand the DM use : "Ok, we just go in the secret door that is there!".

Please note that the two above-quoted "Timeline B" entries are not the same thing. You did not address OldTrees's Timeline B. You instead invented your own, pretending it was what he asked.

And when people give examples...they are sneakly vague on the details : ''oh my game was super complex and had no railroading''. Then ask how that was done and the answer is just ''because''.

No, this is, again, you ignoring what they write and substituting your quote for it. Just like you did with OldTrees's Timeline B.

Well, you follow a plot or wander...there is nothing ''more'' to the game, unless you go into a Second Life type game.

Please look into Star Control II and tell me what kind of game you think it is.

Right, and I wish we could focus on this more and people can explain *how* they do this ''way''.

And we wish you'd actually address the myriad times we have, rather than doing what you did with OldTrees's Timeline B and ignoring what we said in favor of pretending we said something else entirely.

I was not even aware ''random'' was a ''bad word''.

Given how you have repeatedly described "all random games" as going, you know you mean it to be one. You're being disingenuous, here.

Now, if a character does have a big, real goal...well it would be odd for there not to be a plot attached to it. So that would mean the game has a plot.

Plot != Railroad. Railroads are predestined; the character WILL go do X, Y, then Z. Or else nothing happens or he's punished for stepping off the tracks. Plots can evolve with time. The GM knows the obstacles the PC has to overcome, what resources he has and his enemies have and are just out there to be claimed by whoever succeeds in getting them, and then the whole thing runs based on how the PC chooses to pursue his goal. Does he seek to violently destroy all opposition? Does he burn down resources of his foes, or steal them for his own use? Does he seek alliance with any of the factions? If so, which ones? Does he succeed with the first ones, or have to move to a plan B?

IS a plan B possible? In a railroad, no, it isn't. The PC fails if he can't do what the GM plotted for him. Even if he thinks he's taking a plan B, he really was destined to fail plan A thanks to the railroad, so the plan B is actually just how plan A was always going to progress.

In a non-railroad, either might have worked, had the PC made different strategic or tactical choices or the dice been in his favor.

Except, everyone does not ''word'' the same. You yourself think ''random'' is like the worst word ever...for some reason. But how is random bad again? See the problem?

"Random" is bad as you use it because you immediately define it to mean a game where nothing meaningful happens because PCs "randomly" do "whatever" and the GM just says "yeah okay." According to your, Darth Ultron's, use of the word "Random." Since that fails to describe the games to which you wish to attach the label "random," it is a bad word to describe them.

Also, your dismissive and insulting insinuation that the games are bad - as you have called them directly in the past - means you're using it as a "bad word" to insult games to which you apply it, which encompasses any game that isn't a railroad.

Are you the type then that never "compromise" when you are doing something with other people?

Well, compromises are things for hostile people...as my friends and family are not hostile, no compromises are needed.

What? Nonsense. I compromise with my friends frequently. I would prefer, for instance, to go out to a nice Italian restaurant with the group, but one of my friends doesn't have the time or money, so we agree to go out for pizza, instead. I like pizza well enough that I'm not upset, even if it wasn't what I really wanted. He agreed to pizza because it fit his time and budget, even if he might have preferred Taco Bell, which I cannot stand. We compromised to go somewhere we both can enjoy.

Now I am confused again. Didn't you say, early on, that a plot is the sequence of events in a story? I mean, that was your definition right? For that definition, it matters nothing if the plot was pre or post written, if there is a story, it will have a sequence of events and those will constitute the plot.

Do you want to change your definition of plot now? And to what?

Note your taking like a couple words from a paragraph...ignoring the rest...and then overly high lighting the couple words.

You'll need to grab the larger quote and explain how the context changes what she's saying you said, then.

Especially given your habit of not even working from what people actually say, and pretending they said something else entirely that you then argue against and claim you're obviously right because they HAVE to have said what you claim, no matter how different from what they actually said it is.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, lucky the Player Agency cheerleader had dropped out.

Problem with that assertion -- anyone arguing against what you in your own words have repeatedly described yourself doing...

...is effectively arguing in favor of a baseline level of player agency requisite to even call what's going on an RPG.

[Darth Ultron]

DU, I think the core of the disagreement here is your apparent belief that any choice the DM presents to the players is an illusory choice by virtue of the fact that the DM controls the reality. But I would argue, and I think most of the posters here who are contradicting you would agree, that these choices are still meaningful because they can have consequences within the game world and change the players’ experience of the game. And by consequences I don’t mean the kind of petty thing where the DM makes a dragon appear to attack the players because they didn’t do what he wants – I mean consequences that will alter the reality of the game world in ways that players can foresee and evaluate (at least to some degree).

Except everything in the game world is controlled by the DM, except the handful of characters. Everything...not just the NPC's and the ''matter'' of the world, but even time and space and well...everything.

Everyone seems to think it is:
1.The DM's side
2.The Players side
3.The Game Reality

Like in the game there is a goblin per the DM. The player makes a ''meaningful decision'' that effects the goblin. Then the DM ''must'' follow through with the effects of that decision...but only in a limited way that benefits the player. But that is not how it works. There is no game reality, other then what the DM says.

Like, not talking about any rules here, the players try to trick a goblin guard into letting them pass. The DM has total and full control to do anything they want, on a whim: the goblin might fall for it, might not fall for it, might get mad and attack...or just about anything else. There is no ''third force''.

I’ll give you an example:

Ok, but in your example...everything Is everything only as the DM says so. And the DM can change anything at any time. It not like a DM is stuck with ''oh I said the tower was only open for three days'' back on Monday, so I have to live with that forever. The DM can do ''anything''. Like say...oh look a Time Lord shows up and takes the characters back in time a day. Well, see the DM's proclamation on Monday is still ''true', but the DM changed things and went around it. But then the DM can just say ''oh it is five days'' not three, too.

While all of the above is still the result of DM planning and world-building, the choice the players make will have far-reaching impacts on the future of the campaign, and I think most of the posters here would agree that this therefore constitutes a non-illusory choice.

It will all ways be: the players impact depends on the DM's whim. There is no ''third force'' in the game that ''does things'' or ''makes things'' happen. There is only the DM.

It is not like: Players take an action.....then the game animates and on it's own the ''game'' reacts and things happen, while the DM and players just sit and watch and are in awe.

[Quertus]

Right, and I wish we could focus on this more and people can explain *how* they do this ''way''.

Do you want this in your thread, or would you like me to make a new thread just for this topic? Because I would love to discuss and watch people discuss the fine details of this specific topic while you force us to examine our assumptions in extreme detail.

Sure if the character has ''a goal'', it is not aimless or random: Like character Bob is thirsty, so he has the goal of getting a drink at a bar....so character Bob walks over to a bar, goes inside and orders a drink. So, sure, for a couple seconds, the character ''had a goal''. But really we should just not count ''immediate simple goals'' that take like a minute or two of game time.

Now, if a character does have a big, real goal...well it would be odd for there not to be a plot attached to it. So that would mean the game has a plot.

The entire party consisted of characters abducted from various worlds. Armus set himself the goal of returning everyone home. To accomplish this goal, he collected components he believed would work to create a magical item to accomplish this goal. About the time the party reached 17th level, Armus finally acquired the last component, and I showed my recipe to the GM. That was the first time anyone other than me had been explicitly told what Armus was up to when collecting soil samples from everyone's boots, a GP from each of their home worlds carried with them during their abduction, sand from a moving island, blood and scales and teeth and bones from multiple dragons, etc etc.

Quertus developed custom spells to test the defenses of monsters, and to perceive things beyond what others had observed about the universe. He wrote books detailing some of his observations. Quertus has trained multiple apprentices. Quertus' goal? It's to retire.

But no-one ever had to create an adventure specifically to accommodate my characters having goals. And, personally, I'd find it offputting if they did.

I was not even aware ''random'' was a ''bad word''.

As I have said...the plot must come before any actions.

Have you caught on yet that you don't use your words quite the same way everyone else does yet? I'm sure that you've caught on that, by declaring yourself in favor of railroading, most everyone will read everything you say in the worst possible light.

So it's best if you don't get too attached to your buzzwords. It probably would be easiest to just work on replacing them with their definitions, and let others tell you what words mean that. I say this as the patron saint of stilted dialog.

That having been said, can you explain, without using the words "plot" or "action(s)", just what you mean when you say, "the plot must come before any actions."?

[OldTrees1]

Except everything in the game world is controlled by the DM, except the handful of characters. Everything...not just the NPC's and the ''matter'' of the world, but even time and space and well...everything.

Everything in the game is controlled by the DM including how much control they relinquish in order to make it an RPG rather than a novel reading. In order for it to be an RPG rather than a novel the DM must grant the Players control over their PCs and have that control result in enough Player Agency for the Players to count as interacting with the system rather than watching the DM play with himself.

Or in plain English: The DM controls everything but must allow the Players to control the PCs and face meaningful choices, otherwise the DM is merely playing with himself in front of an audience.

continued in Segev #803


Also don't forget to reply to Honest Tiefling #794, OldTrees #795, dascarletm #797, Segev #798, and Max_Killjoy #799 when you have the time. You don't want to look like you forfeit any of those points.

[Segev]

The DM absolutely decides what happens in response to player actions. However, just as there is good writing where things make sense in a story, and bad writing where things do not make sense to force the story in a direction that is weird and contrived, a DM's choices about what happens can make sense, or can be contrived to force an outcome.

Let's say the DM is hosting a party, and offers to put on a movie. He asks his guests if they want an action movie, a sci-fi movie, or an epic fantasy adventure. If he has actually three different movies in mind (say, Fast and the Furious, Star Trek: Generations, and The Princess Bride), these choices are meaningful. Different choices result in different movies. He absolutely could decide to put on The Fast and the Furious no matter what they pick, thinking they will enjoy it more than the others; that would be no choice. Or, he could have pre-decided that STar Wars: Episode I qualifies as all three, so whatever they pick, he's putting that one. That's an illusory choice.

The choice of three actually different movies? That's not illusory, despite the DM absolutely controlling what happens if they make any given choice.

[ScaryTerry]

Ok, but in your example...everything Is everything only as the DM says so. And the DM can change anything at any time. It not like a DM is stuck with ''oh I said the tower was only open for three days'' back on Monday, so I have to live with that forever. The DM can do ''anything''. Like say...oh look a Time Lord shows up and takes the characters back in time a day. Well, see the DM's proclamation on Monday is still ''true', but the DM changed things and went around it. But then the DM can just say ''oh it is five days'' not three, too.

Yes, the DM can change anything at any time. And no matter how clever he thinks he's being, the players can usually tell when he's exercising that power solely in order to deny them options. Are you advocating for the kind of game where Time Lords are popping up in order to retcon the DM's decisions and prevent the players from doing what they want? Because that's what 99% of the posters on this forum mean when they talk about railroading.

It will all ways be: the players impact depends on the DM's whim. There is no ''third force'' in the game that ''does things'' or ''makes things'' happen. There is only the DM.

Sure, but when people talk about stuff happening by the DM's whim there's usually a certain connotation that it's based solely on the DM's emotional response, without consideration of how events fit into the larger reality of the game world. When everyone sits down at the table there is an implicit agreement that the players can try different strategies to achieve their goals. That doesn't mean every strategy has to be equally viable, but it does mean that when the DM is deciding if a particular strategy works she should be considering other criteria besides "is this exactly what I envisioned them doing?" If the she sets up a dragon fight, and the players decide to sneak past the dragon instead - well, that's why there are rules for resolving stealth in the game, and the PHB doesn't just say "The monster sees the players if the DM wants a fight to happen."

It is not like: Players take an action.....then the game animates and on it's own the ''game'' reacts and things happen, while the DM and players just sit and watch and are in awe.

You seem really hung up on this idea of the DM "watching in awe" while the players do stuff. I'm not saying that the DM's job is just to be a cheerleader for the players. I'm saying the game can be more fun if the DM allows for the possibility of the players solving his puzzles/playing through his scenarios in a way he didn't anticipate. Sometimes, as in the example I gave in the second half of my post, new ideas by the players can inspire new ideas for the DM and make the story even better than it would have been otherwise.

The bottom line is: yes, the players' choices are only meaningful if the DM allows them to be. And I and many others believe it's more fun for everyone if the DM does allow that.

[GreatKaiserNui]

Problem with that assertion -- anyone arguing against what you in your own words have repeatedly described yourself doing...

...is effectively arguing in favor of a baseline level of player agency requisite to even call what's going on an RPG.

I think the fact Darth Ultron is avoiding this retort says a thousand words.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, the DM can change anything at any time. And no matter how clever he thinks he's being, the players can usually tell when he's exercising that power solely in order to deny them options. Are you advocating for the kind of game where Time Lords are popping up in order to retcon the DM's decisions and prevent the players from doing what they want? Because that's what 99% of the posters on this forum mean when they talk about railroading.



Sure, but when people talk about stuff happening by the DM's whim there's usually a certain connotation that it's based solely on the DM's emotional response, without consideration of how events fit into the larger reality of the game world. When everyone sits down at the table there is an implicit agreement that the players can try different strategies to achieve their goals. That doesn't mean every strategy has to be equally viable, but it does mean that when the DM is deciding if a particular strategy works she should be considering other criteria besides "is this exactly what I envisioned them doing?" If the she sets up a dragon fight, and the players decide to sneak past the dragon instead - well, that's why there are rules for resolving stealth in the game, and the PHB doesn't just say "The monster sees the players if the DM wants a fight to happen."



You seem really hung up on this idea of the DM "watching in awe" while the players do stuff. I'm not saying that the DM's job is just to be a cheerleader for the players. I'm saying the game can be more fun if the DM allows for the possibility of the players solving his puzzles/playing through his scenarios in a way he didn't anticipate. Sometimes, as in the example I gave in the second half of my post, new ideas by the players can inspire new ideas for the DM and make the story even better than it would have been otherwise.

The bottom line is: yes, the players' choices are only meaningful if the DM allows them to be. And I and many others believe it's more fun for everyone if the DM does allow that.

And it's not just a matter of agency, but also one of immersion.

See signature.

If everything is a total non-sequitur... if the setting doesn't respond as if it were a real place, and the NPCs don't respond as if they were real people.. if they don't respond to what the player characters have actually done but rather respond to what the GM planned on the PCs doing -- then I really don't see the point in even playing.

[jayem]

Well, this is an example of a bad plot: It has way too much set up to fail, is fragile and can be ruined by a single dice roll. So any game with this plot will run into trouble, sooner or later. So if it is ''if a character is seen by a guard, the plot is over'' that is just a set up for failure....even if all the characters were super exploit stealth builds, there is all ways that chance they ''roll a 1'' and the ''guard rolls a 20''.

Also I should point out that in a normal game a DM can ''change'' the roll of any dice or just ''say'' something happens. Yes, a lot of people don't like this...but the DM can do it. And you can go around in circles and say a DM should only do this ''rarely'', and ok, fine...this would be one of those ''rare'' times.

To ''pull of a job discreetly'' does not ''have'' to mean ''no guard can even catch a glimpse of your character ever". This is where the ''reasonable'' part comes in. I would say it is reasonable to ''not get caught'', and more to the point ''not leave any trace or trail to the thieves guild''. If I was a player, I would not agree with the DM that was sitting on the edge of his chair waiting to make a spot check to ruin the game and chuckling to himself. But, if a DM does want to be ''unreasonable'' and toss out the plot...well, there is not much to do other then leave the game.

And really ''being seen'' by a guard is not ''failure'', it is just a ''loose end''. So as long as the players makes sure ''guard Bob'' can tell what he knows, everything is good. So ''guard Bob'' suddenly dies in a ''horse accident'', or a ''house fire'' or even just ''disappear''. Sure ''everyone'' might think the guild did it, but there will be no proof.

Though even if you ''must'' stick with the ''a guard saw a character so it is an epic irrecoverable fail ", there are still ways to ''save the plot'', if the DM wants too. The one I though of was ''D'rk Starscream, 2nd in command of the guild comes to the characters can is like ''too bad you can't join us...but how about you come and work just for me''. So this sets up the characters as ''not'' in the guild, but still (secretly) part of the guild (as the rest of the guild does not know). And even with them a ''secret guild associates'' the plot can continue.

And thus even DU shows the ability to think outside the box sometimes and allow a tiny bit of off rails movement. It's [too small scale] to be a complex game (but it's heading that way).
It could be just a no-interaction horse accident rather that "horse accident", or DM controlling the player/minimal stuff. At least it makes some difference (only one line).
Better, you allow the players to take proper action(s) to close the loose end.
Maybe even with choices, and multiple steps.
Ideally you allow the opportunity for the players to take proper action (and for that to have a cost-maybe the party is split? and even a risk of failure. The cover up fails, so not only were you caught in a theft, but in an amateurish murder).

And then even in the case of failure things can continue, it's not essential that D'rk Starscream decides to take up gardening while the players randomly open a tea shop.
You have the option you suggest, as presented it has the potential to come off a bit simple and (fairly obviously) one track. Ok you're not in the guild but I'm going to play it like you are. Take it further. Being not in the guild but working for a member should always be slightly different. What happens when a different member spots you on a job (before they'd presumbably help, now?), What happens when the players break the 'rules'?

And of course that's not the only options. The players could become rivals to the guild, trying to find out what D'rk was after and beat him too it. Which would cross your planned plot at multiple points. Of course just because the players planned plot is that doesn't mean that will occur. D'rk could set a trap (and if it succeeds) then get them to do his bidding as prisoners, or they could have to deal with a successful D'rk.

And at the extremes,
The players could fail so badly that (if it were the case that the guild were merely tolerated) the law has to step in, and D'rk does hide and take up gardening. In that case who knows what the ramifications would be...
Or the players could really decide to open a tea shop. But if that's the case they can neither complain if nothing happens but tea shop issues, or if they have to face an unstopped D'rk. And the fact they've chosen that suggests something (either they don't care about whatever you wanted them to care about/the game. Or that they plan to use the shop as a front somehow).

[Darth Ultron]

Then of course we have the question of what will happen if the players come up with an idea the DM did not anticipate. This is where the question of railroading really comes into play for most of us.

Do you see how this is different from just saying “Wow, awesome” and letting the players succeed automatically?

Sure, I'm mostly a ''yes, but'' DM myself.

The thing is that is not what others have said. They are given a 'game problem', ignore the DM and setting and just say ''we demand this be done'' and slam their fist into the table. See the problem?

Even if this is not your style, can you at least see why this is appealing to many DMs and players? And can you see why this feels different from railroading even though the DM is still the final arbiter of the outcome?

I never denied a normal game is like this....my point has always been sometimes railroading is necessary.

Is that an invitation? Because I wonder who you'd be willing to invite to such a test.

First come first play....lol.

Most people don't like Planescape though :( Makes Merkzo a Sad Slaadi.

I might try, again, to do a drow game......maybe I might get to do one of concepts: an evil all drow murderhobo group vs the world. But not the stupid ''my 13th level drow monk/ninja/assassin half deep dragon attacks the farmer commoner 1'', but more the whole world is a challenge way.

You said you give the players no choices. You are even currently arguing that choices don't exist in the game.

As always, I have said ''sometimes there is no choice..or only one choice''

Darth Ultron, what do you do in a game where the players make a choice you had not considered? Assume these different possibilities:
A: The choice is a better/smarter/more creative idea than you thought of in that situation.
B: The choice is equivalent to the ideas you had for choices in this situation.
C: The choice is worse than the ideas you had for in the situation.

It is just about never an issue for me. The day I can't predict player actions and prepare for them is the day I stop DMing.

Most DM's that are ''so suppressed'' are the new DMs, the inexperienced DMs or the casual DMs. And most of the rest are the DMs that want to be so surprised, so they set things up that way.

Though it does happen for ''real'', rarely. But surf the boards and you will think it happens every five minutes or something. Worse they are like:

Other DM: A put a wall in the path of the PC's....and they super duper wow shocked me with the thing they did! They had their characters cut down some trees and make a ladder and used it to climb over the wall. I never, ever, ever in a million years would have though of that! Wow!

Me:Um, like making a ladder to get over a wall is like close to the top of my list like number three...

The question is getting at a point: Do you actually run games, or do you write novels and then for some reason expect other human beings called "players" to be characters in them, doing what you tell them to do?

I'm still not sure what your getting at? As a DM I don't tell the players what to do, where did you get that?

To be perfectly clear, OldTrees said Timeline B was that you kicked out the players and ran the game anyway, treating their characters as NPCs. You then said that Timeline B is a game where the three players are still in it and ruining the game by running around doing random stuff for no reason.

I guess we just have different styles. If I was to kick all the players out of a game (and that has never happened, and I'm a Kick Master DM), then the game would be ''over''.

"Random" is bad as you use it because you immediately define it to mean a game where nothing meaningful happens because PCs "randomly" do "whatever" and the GM just says "yeah okay." According to your, Darth Ultron's, use of the word "Random." Since that fails to describe the games to which you wish to attach the label "random," it is a bad word to describe them.

But I never said they were bad, just different.

What? Nonsense. I compromise with my friends frequently. I would prefer, for instance, to go out to a nice Italian restaurant with the group, but one of my friends doesn't have the time or money, so we agree to go out for pizza, instead. I like pizza well enough that I'm not upset, even if it wasn't what I really wanted. He agreed to pizza because it fit his time and budget, even if he might have preferred Taco Bell, which I cannot stand. We compromised to go somewhere we both can enjoy.
You'll need to grab the larger quote and explain how the context changes what she's saying you said, then.

Again, you only need to compromise with people unfriendly or hostile to you...it is not for friends and family and such.

Do you want this in your thread, or would you like me to make a new thread just for this topic? Because I would love to discuss and watch people discuss the fine details of this specific topic while you force us to examine our assumptions in extreme detail.

Guess a new thread would work.

But no-one ever had to create an adventure specifically to accommodate my characters having goals. And, personally, I'd find it offputting if they did.

Did you mean to post all that here or over in the ''tailor thread''?

That having been said, can you explain, without using the words "plot" or "action(s)", just what you mean when you say, "the plot must come before any actions."?

A character starts as just some notes on a paper(or in a computer memory). A character can do minor things and interact with the game world and even have small short term goals. This all falls under Second Life type gaming and really is not the ''main focus'' of the game. You can role play a character buying boots and drinking in a bar, but a game like D&D is made for epic combat adventures, not shopping and drinking (If there is a Sex in the City RPG you'd want to play that). Not that there is anything wrong with doing the Second Life bit as it does flesh out a character, but it is really for more of a solo then group game. Most people play RPG's for the ''main focus'' stuff: slaying dragons, blowing up a Star Destroyer in a nebula, or stopping DR. Evil from blowing up the moon. So unless the whole group wants to Second Life you should keep it to a minimum. And really if the whole group does want a Second Life type game, your best just playing that type of game system too.

Anyway, a character, after some Second Life play, will often want to ''do'' something. Something ''more'' then just mundane things......like something adventurous. Or in short, the character might want to have a medium or big goal(a goal that is hard, complex and will take an amount of time). And a player really only has two choices: decide to do(or try to do) something they want or follow a hook in the setting. The two ways don't matter much: ultimately the player(s) have to pick something to do. And it is not just ''do a thing, do the goal'', as medium and big goals are not that easy and have lots of steps and take lots of time(and that is assuming the character knows a detailed way to do the goal too). It is not until this bit where the ''outline'' gets made: for the bit the players have chosen to do. The outline has a background, start, middle and end. To ''do'' whatever, the players need to follow the outline and get to the end of it.

The choice of three actually different movies? That's not illusory, despite the DM absolutely controlling what happens if they make any given choice.

Well, the choice of movies in the real world is a real choice...reality is not fantasy.

Because that's what 99% of the posters on this forum mean when they talk about railroading.

I know ''everyone'' only thinks of Railroading a ''stupid badwrongfun jerk DM move''. I say there is more then just ''bad railroading'', there is neutral and good railroading.

implicit agreement that the players can try different strategies to achieve their goals.

Note though this is a Houserule, even if ''everyone you know'' does it.

You seem really hung up on this idea of the DM "watching in awe" while the players do stuff. I'm not saying that the DM's job is just to be a cheerleader for the players. I'm saying the game can be more fun if the DM allows for the possibility of the players solving his puzzles/playing through his scenarios in a way he didn't anticipate. Sometimes, as in the example I gave in the second half of my post, new ideas by the players can inspire new ideas for the DM and make the story even better than it would have been otherwise.

It is true the DM can do this, if they want too. And really if they want too, I'm all for it. I'm against the idea that it ''must be done'' and ''it is the only way to play the game''.

[Segev]

Sure, I'm mostly a ''yes, but'' DM myself.

The thing is that is not what others have said. They are given a 'game problem', ignore the DM and setting and just say ''we demand this be done'' and slam their fist into the table. See the problem?

Literally nobody but you has said, "we demand this be done," in this thread. That is a straw man.

I'm still not sure what your getting at? As a DM I don't tell the players what to do, where did you get that?

You have repeatedly said that players must be denied agency for a game of the style you run. You are therefore either telling them what to do, or making them guess until they guess the one thing you planned for them to do.

Otherwise, they have agency.

I guess we just have different styles. If I was to kick all the players out of a game (and that has never happened, and I'm a Kick Master DM), then the game would be ''over''.

Why? What is different if you play the characters, yourself? What do the players do differently than would happen if you ran the PCs, yourself?

Again, you only need to compromise with people unfriendly or hostile to you...it is not for friends and family and such.

You just quoted my counterexample to this claim, which refutes it. You are therefore saying, "Nuh-uh," and sticking your fingers (metaphorically) in your ears rather than addressing what I said.

I just described compromising with a friend who had a mutual goal of getting lunch together with me. That is not "unfriendly" or "hostile." That's cooperative. But it is most definitely compromise.


Are you truly this bad at reading comprehension?

[Max_Killjoy]

You just quoted my counterexample to this claim, which refutes it. You are therefore saying, "Nuh-uh," and sticking your fingers (metaphorically) in your ears rather than addressing what I said.

I just described compromising with a friend who had a mutual goal of getting lunch together with me. That is not "unfriendly" or "hostile." That's cooperative. But it is most definitely compromise.

Given the other things he's said, maybe it's not so surprising that he would view someone who doesn't want to get lunch at the same place he does today as being "hostile" and "unfriendly".