Plot Railroading: How much?

[Friv]

Everybody lies. I never bully.

You can't bully people into saying that you don't bully, buddy.

[Darth Ultron]

where are you getting this from?
.

The thread is filled with hate, even overflowing with it.

no. Railroading is not sloppy, more of a lack of imagination. The railroader never conceived the notion of those other plans (reasonable or not) or if he did thought the PCs would not.

Well, either reading the DMs mind or only talking about young/inexperienced/bad/jerk DMs then, right?

Again, you are incorrect. It was a scenario of "railroading by definition" where the definition involved restricting a player's ability to succeed with any course of action not preordained by the DM. Max's feelings on the matter are irrelevant to that fact. The scenario given contained railroading whether the player liked it or not.

But it is only railroading if the players don't like it and whine and cry; if the players are ok with it and don't act like babies, then it is not Railroading.

Oh ok, did you come up with a good plan for how he obtains supplies?

Who? Are you talking about D'rk and the Lair? The whole point was it is the local Hub of Evil, so there is lots of traffic in and out.

Yes, I would like to have a word with them. Joke over. From you descriptions I think in terms of technical ability, we are actually pretty similar. We have very different philosophies about how to approach it (you may have noticed), but in terms of preparation, improvisation and table dynamics we seem to match up quite closely.

It is like looking in a mirror, darkly.

Your missing the point, I'm not accusing you of any of these. The point is there are things that players don't like that are obviously not railroading. Unless you want to argue things are either good (referring to the no chance killer, not merely hard) or are actually railroading, I believe this is proof by example that not all thing players don't like are railroading.

Nope, none are Railroading in my view.

This is why people say you don't listen. Some people say that railroading is always bad, others say it is bad but can be justified and others say it is just a tool that can be used or (often) misused. And there are many variants and different ways of framing it within that I didn't cover. And then there is that one poster who says it is necessary for a good game. That's one is an outlier.

I'm one of the ones (assuming there is another) that says that Railroading is just a tool that can be used or (often) misused.

You keep telling us you bully. You describe in loving detail all the bullying you do.

Your belief that everyone else is deceitful tells us more about you than about "everyone else".

Being in charge of a game is not being a bully. I'm strict, but again, that is not being a bully.

That is, again, something you have made up.

I'm a great DM, making up stuff is what I do.

[Max_Killjoy]

Being in charge of a game is not being a bully. I'm strict, but again, that is not being a bully.

I'm a great DM, making up stuff is what I do.

So either you're lying now about not being a bully, or you were lying all those previous times when you described in lavish and self-congratulatory detail all the bullying you do as a GM.

[Darth Ultron]

So either you're lying now about not being a bully, or you were lying all those previous times when you described in lavish and self-congratulatory detail all the bullying you do as a GM.

Or it is possible your not reading what I typed.

[Scripten]

Or it is possible your not reading what I typed.

If every other person in a conversation is misreading you, then the problem is with your communication skills, not with the rest of the participants.

I notice also that you did not respond to my post from the last page asking questions about your evil lair setup.

[Max_Killjoy]

Or it is possible your not reading what I typed.

Coming from you, that is the single most ironic thing I've seen in the last month or so.

[Alcore]

Or it is possible your not reading what I typed.

You might want to reread that. You are not reading what we type.


For instance; no one but you and me has mentioned hatred. I would describe it as confrontational or argumentative. After thirty or so pages (and rumors of your trolling before this thread came to be) a great many number of us are losing patience.


Hatred? I can say no to that. I am truly trying to help you. If others do they have not said but i can say it's not "everyone".

[Segev]

Yes, it is their wish of what to do with him. In a general sense I don't make the call. The setting is full of people with their own ideas, but none of them are mine.

Again, in general, if I want a villain to be a long term one, like be around for a real year or more, they won't be a combat type villain.



Again, this is there call. I'd be quick enough to enlighten the players through game play that they are wrong though. I know lots of players have the Catastrophic Thinking problem: They see one guard and are like ''the place is nigh impenetrable''. Though this is also why I like to stick with good players that won't do that.



Sure, in both cases they are not changing the plot. The only plot is: Deal with D'rk. So it does not matter how they do it. The lair has no plot, it is just lots of rooms of combat. And as the players want to free the land of evil, they will have to deal with it sooner or later...but if they want to level up a bit before that is fine.



I have always said Railroading is part of the game, not the whole game.

"Deal with D'rk" isn't a plot. It's a goal.

Since you would let the players choose to approach it in any fashion they like (leaving aside silly notions like twitching their noses and having D'rk appear magically in front of them, already defeated, since none of them have that power on their character sheets), this isn't railroading.

The players do, in fact, have choices, and agency.

How they go about trying to defeat D'rk has consequences. Some ways are more optimal than others. Some are easier than others. Some wind up with him alive, others do not. Some wind up with more NPCs dead than others. The choices can even change which of D'rk's forces they encounter, and whether they fight them or trick them or hide from them.

So the primary problem seems to be the way you define "agency," "choice," and "railroad," since you claim player agency and choices are illusory, but the ones you just said you'd allow them to make (perhaps with guidance if you think they're misjudging the situation) are not illusory.

[Pleh]

But it is only railroading if the players don't like it and whine and cry; if the players are ok with it and don't act like babies, then it is not Railroading.

That is an alternate definition you have proposed and failed to convince anyone else to accept. The evidence is insubstantial, the arguments have more basis in bias than fact, and is detrimental to meaningful discussion about RPG game experiences.

A better definition involves a restriction of player agency, regardless how any players feel about it.

[Max_Killjoy]

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, it still makes a sound.
The existence of the sound doesn't depend on a person perceiving it.

If players are railroaded and don't realize it, they've still been railroaded.
It's not about perception, it's about what actually happened, what the GM did and what the GM's motive was.

[dascarletm]

"Deal with D'rk" isn't a plot. It's a goal.

Since you would let the players choose to approach it in any fashion they like (leaving aside silly notions like twitching their noses and having D'rk appear magically in front of them, already defeated, since none of them have that power on their character sheets), this isn't railroading.

The players do, in fact, have choices, and agency.

How they go about trying to defeat D'rk has consequences. Some ways are more optimal than others. Some are easier than others. Some wind up with him alive, others do not. Some wind up with more NPCs dead than others. The choices can even change which of D'rk's forces they encounter, and whether they fight them or trick them or hide from them.

So the primary problem seems to be the way you define "agency," "choice," and "railroad," since you claim player agency and choices are illusory, but the ones you just said you'd allow them to make (perhaps with guidance if you think they're misjudging the situation) are not illusory.

I have to agree. From what I have heard, it doesn't sound like DU railroads in his games. He is just defining railroading as "not letting players just make up stuff." That's just basic regular old DnD though, so... idk.

[BRC]

Really? I thought everyone's arguments was that Railroading was all ways something unreasonable. Everyone seemed to say that.

1.I'd say ''the vault has a locked door'' as that is readable and makes sense.
2.Everyone would whine and cry that was Railroading.
3.I'd say ''um, so no door in the game world can ever be locked?" and ''so the DM can't do anything the players don't like?"
4.Everyone would respond that it depends ''why'' they are locked.
5.I'd say, well because of reasonable common sense and the DM has the power to decide such things.
6.Everyone would seem to agree with that.

So from that we get: noting possible and reasonable can ever be Railroading.

Eh, that's not quite true, but it's where things get fuzzy, and where player preference shows up.

Consider "Unreasonable Railroading" to be the ultimate low bar for Railroading. It's the sign of sloppy GM work, trying to force a railroad.

The PC's walk into an ordinary village. Every building except the Inn is closed, locked, and ensconced within an unbreakable Wall of Force. The Town itself is also enclosed in a wall of force the moment the PC's enter the village.

The PC's are very clearly being railroaded to the Inn. There's no good reason for the GM to be doing this otherwise.

Compare that too: The Town was recently raided by bandits. All the townsfolk and businesses have shuttered their doors for fear the bandits will return, except for the Inn, which has hired some mercenaries to protect it.

The second example has the same result (The PC's can go nowhere but the Inn), but has a reasonable explanation for it all.

The first example certainly means the DM is intending to railroad the players. The second means that the DM might be a railroader, or they might have just concluded that, in this scenario, no building except the Inn would be open. This scenario may represent one point in a pattern of railroading, but by itself it doesn't necessarily say much about the GM.

It's like this. Imagine that you are at a bus stop, one with a machine that sells passes. You see somebody go up, buy a new bus pass, stick it in his pocket, then come up to you and say "Hey, I don't have any money for a bus pass. Can you give me $2 so I can get home?"

That man is very clearly a scammer. He's trying to scam you, that much is obvious.


A second man goes up to the machine, checks all his pockets, then comes up to you saying he left his wallet at home, and asks you for $2 so he can buy a bus pass. He may or may not be scamming you.

In either case, Scamming is bad, and you don't want to be scammed. In one case, the scam is obvious, in the other, it's merely possible. If you saw him pull this same routine every day, you might get the idea that he's a scammer.

But, asking people for money to buy a bus pass isn't wrong, just like building a specific scenario to have only one option isn't necessarily wrong. Sometimes you need money for the bus, and sometimes it doesn't make sense for the scenario to have more than one solution.

This metaphor is strained, but imagine a "Smart" railroading GM as somebody who always leaves their money at home when they go to the bus stop, so they can honestly say that they need somebody to lend them $2 to ride the bus. It's technically true in each individual instance (They don't have any money), but they keep doing it, indicating that they don't realize why it's wrong.

[Max_Killjoy]

I have to agree. From what I have heard, it doesn't sound like DU railroads in his games. He is just defining railroading as "not letting players just make up stuff." That's just basic regular old DnD though, so... idk.

Based on the sum total of his posting, he is railroading, but also tries to define "railroading" as broadly as possible so that he can claim that railroading is good and that all competent GMs are railroading... and then conflate and confuse different contexts and different GM actions so as to fig-leaf his own actual railroading.

[dascarletm]

Based on the sum total of his posting, he is railroading, but also tries to define "railroading" as broadly as possible so that he can claim that railroading is good and that all competent GMs are railroading... and then conflate and confuse different contexts and different GM actions so as to fig-leaf his own actual railroading.

Maybe, all I see is that when confronted with a "would you let your players do this?" he responds with something along the lines of "they can do whatever they want."

[Alcore]

Maybe, all I see is that when confronted with a "would you let your players do this?" he responds with something along the lines of "they can do whatever they want."

He also calls that a weak DM being forced to do this by tyrant players. I feel the lines dividing the responses is something we have yet to pin down.

[Segev]

He also calls that a weak DM being forced to do this by tyrant players. I feel the lines dividing the responses is something we have yet to pin down.

Best I can figure from the most recent exchange is that he has somehow defined "choices" as not existing because they've already been made by the point he gets to defining things. Note how they chose to seek to capture D'rk alive, and yet that's laid out initially as if there's no choice involved there. He also claims that "capture D'rk" is the plot, which means that anything that the party does towards that goal lacks...choice, for some reason.

[Cluedrew]

It is like looking in a mirror, darkly.

I don't understand this simile, could you please elaborate?

In other news, great we have established that railroading is not simply what players don't like (because those bad things are not railroading), and that I'm going to have to adjust my understanding of your position again (I thought you were "this one poster", turns out you are in the tool group).

[OldTrees1]

Best I can figure from the most recent exchange is that he has somehow defined "choices" as not existing because they've already been made by the point he gets to defining things. Note how they chose to seek to capture D'rk alive, and yet that's laid out initially as if there's no choice involved there. He also claims that "capture D'rk" is the plot, which means that anything that the party does towards that goal lacks...choice, for some reason.

Drawing on the longer pattern across the threads:
1) The DM has absolute power, therefore even when the DM grants the PC a choice, their decision only exists in game if the DM continues to consent to the Player's request for their PC to make that decision in game.
--Darth Ultron Logic->
Therefore the game is in a constant state of "railroading" (DU logic: the DM deciding something) and the Players only have the illusion of choice (because their decisions only get implemented if the DM chooses to implement them).

2) People keep telling me they dislike Railroading.
--Darth Ultron Logic->
But since I define "railroading" as always happening, and these people clearly do still play RPGs, they must have the causation reversed.
--Darth Ultron Logic failing to simulate others->
They must mean they dislike Railroading because that is what they call everything they dislike.

3) (Last but not least) Darth Ultron gives a personal example of being a Jerk DM (sometimes matching other examples he derided as being Jerk DMs).
--Darth Ultron Logic->
Therefore I am the best kind of DM and clearly not a Jerk DM.

[Darth Ultron]

I notice also that you did not respond to my post from the last page asking questions about your evil lair setup.

Oh? I must have missed it under all the Spam.

So the primary problem seems to be the way you define "agency," "choice," and "railroad," since you claim player agency and choices are illusory, but the ones you just said you'd allow them to make (perhaps with guidance if you think they're misjudging the situation) are not illusory.

Yea, like how you say ''getting D'rk '' is not a plot, but I'm sure I can mention something else and you'd say it was a plot. then I'd ask the how and why and you'd be hard pressed to do so.

The choices will all ways be illusionary, but the players will all ways think they are real. This is really true with a lot of things in life.

A better definition involves a restriction of player agency, regardless how any players feel about it.

But then we have to define Player Agency.

So, Player Agency: The vile, selfish act of a player to take control of the game for their own selfish whims and wishes. Not like it is a bad thing to limit, or even just do away with that.

Eh, that's not quite true, but it's where things get fuzzy, and where player preference shows up.

I think everyone agrees ''crude'' is bad...for just about everything in the game.

And the example of players noticing the Railroading would seem to be only if it was the same thing all the time. Like all the inns but one being closed. When it's tons and tons of other things it would get lost in the noise.

[jayem]

Who? Are you talking about D'rk and the Lair? The whole point was it is the local Hub of Evil, so there is lots of traffic in and out.

That bit was just for the sake of fluff. The main bit of my reply was in the bit I ascribed to your alternative-variant.*
(The general thrust being to make the distinction between what I had said, and what you were reading it as)

That said, the description you've given of the security and set-up seems slightly ill at ease with this ascribed purpose. Not impossibly so, but enough to make you wonder.
If there's loads of traffic in/out that's something to interact with, how has his hidden lair remained hidden? How much time do they spend strip searching the person, does that mean the wagon gets off lightly? Would it be better for the guards doing that to be ready for the basic assault. If the wagons kept having 'accidents' would D'rk be forced out? How come the one man on the wagon is stronger than all D'rks men at arms**. Was D'rk designing his lair as a local hub of evil or mission 12b

*If I'm going to make a straw man, it's going to be one I can agree with.
**that's assuming a more railroady response to trying something else (if that were the case, suspension of disbelief would be well gone).

[Max_Killjoy]

So, Player Agency: The vile, selfish act of a player to take control of the game for their own selfish whims and wishes. Not like it is a bad thing to limit, or even just do away with that.

This all sounds good to me: Keep the players and characters clueless in the dark and there is no agency.

Let's just tack this here for the next time it claims to be a "great DM".

[GreatKaiserNui]

Drawing on the longer pattern across the threads:
1) The DM has absolute power, therefore even when the DM grants the PC a choice, their decision only exists in game if the DM continues to consent to the Player's request for their PC to make that decision in game.
--Darth Ultron Logic->
Therefore the game is in a constant state of "railroading" (DU logic: the DM deciding something) and the Players only have the illusion of choice (because their decisions only get implemented if the DM chooses to implement them).

2) People keep telling me they dislike Railroading.
--Darth Ultron Logic->
But since I define "railroading" as always happening, and these people clearly do still play RPGs, they must have the causation reversed.
--Darth Ultron Logic failing to simulate others->
They must mean they dislike Railroading because that is what they call everything they dislike.

3) (Last but not least) Darth Ultron gives a personal example of being a Jerk DM (sometimes matching other examples he derided as being Jerk DMs).
--Darth Ultron Logic->
Therefore I am the best kind of DM and clearly not a Jerk DM.

Once again Darth Ultron can't fight actual logic.

[Lorsa]

I have always said Railroading is part of the game, not the whole game.

What you also have done is to try and define railroading as "everything the DM does in the game" and claim that railroading is necessary for a good game.

But, just taking the scenario you listed; if you didn't put in the railroading scene where the PCs meet D'rk but he has invulnerable plot armor, the game wouldn't have ANY railroading. Do you think your own game, without this scene, would just be "random" and "the players wandering about" or whatever? I think it would still be a "normal game", except one without railroading.

[jayem]

What you also have done is to try and define railroading as "everything the DM does in the game" and claim that railroading is necessary for a good game.

But, just taking the scenario you listed; if you didn't put in the railroading scene where the PCs meet D'rk but he has invulnerable plot armor, the game wouldn't have ANY railroading. Do you think your own game, without this scene, would just be "random" and "the players wandering about" or whatever? I think it would still be a "normal game", except one without railroading.

I think there are other elements that could go/have railroading/non-railroading, it depends which dominate.
It helps that he's decided what the players think.
For example "Illusion of Choice...They can try ...":
If it means they have a chance to succeed (or fail interestingly), then the method of assault of D'rk is clearly not railroaded and it isn't an illusion of choice but a choice.
If it means they can try but whatever it is they will be told why it doesn't work (especially if it involves changing things majorly, e.g. now the DM added a secret tunnel that wasn't there 5 minutes ago) then the method of assault would be railroaded and it is an illusion.
(And there are many states in between which are harder to decide, there's no reason why that approach should work, it depends on motive*)

*As DU says, without knowing what would happen or the DM's mind a single instance can't be diagnosed as railroading (it's a bit easier to diagnose something as not railroading).

[Lorsa]

I think there are other elements that could go/have railroading/non-railroading, it depends which dominate.
It helps that he's decided what the players think.
For example "Illusion of Choice...They can try ...":
If it means they have a chance to succeed (or fail interestingly), then the method of assault of D'rk is clearly not railroaded and it isn't an illusion of choice but a choice.
If it means they can try but whatever it is they will be told why it doesn't work (especially if it involves changing things majorly, e.g. now the DM added a secret tunnel that wasn't there 5 minutes ago) then the method of assault would be railroaded and it is an illusion.
(And there are many states in between which are harder to decide, there's no reason why that approach should work, it depends on motive*)

*As DU says, without knowing what would happen or the DM's mind a single instance can't be diagnosed as railroading (it's a bit easier to diagnose something as not railroading).

Yes. In my first post in this thread I said that most railroading is contextual, and have to be judged based on a large set of information. I mean, it can still BE railroading, but it is impossible to TELL without more information.

The part I highlighted is one where we can say from just the one instance that it is railroading. My point was to show DU how, by removing just that one part, the same plot can be resolved without any railroading. Which is what I, and many others, have been talking about all along. It's not like that small part is somehow important in making a game a game.

[Darth Ultron]

Drawing on the longer pattern across the threads:
1) The DM has absolute power, therefore even when the DM grants the PC a choice, their decision only exists in game if the DM continues to consent to the Player's request for their PC to make that decision in game.
--Darth Ultron Logic->
Therefore the game is in a constant state of "railroading" (DU logic: the DM deciding something) and the Players only have the illusion of choice (because their decisions only get implemented if the DM chooses to implement them).

2) People keep telling me they dislike Railroading.
--Darth Ultron Logic->
But since I define "railroading" as always happening, and these people clearly do still play RPGs, they must have the causation reversed.
--Darth Ultron Logic failing to simulate others->
They must mean they dislike Railroading because that is what they call everything they dislike.

3) (Last but not least) Darth Ultron gives a personal example of being a Jerk DM (sometimes matching other examples he derided as being Jerk DMs).
--Darth Ultron Logic->
Therefore I am the best kind of DM and clearly not a Jerk DM.

1)I've never said the whole game is all Railraoding. I said any time a player did not like something in the game they would call it railroading, as if the DM was railroading all the time.

2)I get many people have a crazy hate for Railroading. Or people just say they don't like it to fit in and be cool with the crowd.

3)Any DM is a Jerk DM to a Bad Payer.

What you also have done is to try and define railroading as "everything the DM does in the game" and claim that railroading is necessary for a good game.

But, just taking the scenario you listed; if you didn't put in the railroading scene where the PCs meet D'rk but he has invulnerable plot armor, the game wouldn't have ANY railroading. Do you think your own game, without this scene, would just be "random" and "the players wandering about" or whatever? I think it would still be a "normal game", except one without railroading.

My definition is not everything a DM does....again, that is only want a player would say everything they did not like something. I have all ways said railroading is a tool, just like any other thing used in the game.

My example had the false railroading of just one entrance, from back when some where saying if there is ever only one way it is all ways automatically railroading.

[Cluedrew]

It is like looking in a mirror, darkly.

Still waiting on an explanation on this. What does is the "darkly" all about?

3)Any DM is a Jerk DM to a Bad Payer.

No, I can politely ask a bad player to leave, some of them one can even turn into good players. Plus "I am only mean to people I don't like" does not make you nice.

[Lorsa]

My definition is not everything a DM does....again, that is only want a player would say everything they did not like something. I have all ways said railroading is a tool, just like any other thing used in the game.

My example had the false railroading of just one entrance, from back when some where saying if there is ever only one way it is all ways automatically railroading.

But there isn't only one way. Only one way is about one way for the players to go about solving the problem. That is, getting their hands on D'rk. Since you've said that you'd allow them to block the exit or wait for him to come out or whatever if they wanted to do that, the single entrance to the lair isn't railroading in itself. That has been stated many times.

You've said many times that without this railroading tool games become random. So, how would removing a scene where D'rk has plot armor transform your scenario from a "normal game" to "random nonsense"? I don't see it.

[Segev]

Yea, like how you say ''getting D'rk '' is not a plot, but I'm sure I can mention something else and you'd say it was a plot. then I'd ask the how and why and you'd be hard pressed to do so.

Perhaps. Maybe you should give examples and see if you can persuade me.

I say it isn't a "plot" because the plot, to me, is in how they go about it. In discussing stories that are already written - novels, plays, TV shows, movies, and events in games that have already happened - sometimes people might use the goal as short hand for the plot that led to the goal, but they are technically two different things. The other thing that is often used as shorthand for the plot is the premise on which the plot rests. Between premise and goal, it's often possible to interpolate possible plots, but the actual plot will be how you get from A to B.

The game has a very different plot if the PCs decide to lay in ambush outside D'rk's lair, decide to lay siege to D'rk's lair with forces sufficient to turn his one entrance choke point against his ability to sally forth, decide to gate crash his front door and plow through by main force, or try to send in the rogue to sneak through and poison the lair's supplies before attacking the weakened lair. Even if all of those end with either party failure or D'rk's capture.

The choices will all ways be illusionary, but the players will all ways think they are real. This is really true with a lot of things in life.

You...keep claiming this, but have failed to justify it. The players aren't stupid. If they make a choice and it impacts the way the game unfolds, the choice wasn't illusory.

Let me attempt to help by defining "illusory choice." If you disagree with this definition, please say so so we can figure out one we can agree upon. There's no point to discussing whether there is cake and ice cream for dessert if we can't agree on what "cake" is.

An illusory choice is any apparent choice which leads to the same outcome no matter what one chooses. If I present you with two doors, and tell you you can have the prize behind one of them, and I don't tell you that the same prize is behind each, that's an illusory choice. (If I told you, then you'd know there wasn't really a choice, so the illusion is gone.)

A choice is not illusory if the result of the choice is different depending on what that choice is. This can be as simple as asking if you wish to cross the bay on the ferry, on the bridge, or by walking around it on land, and each of these paths has a planned encounter along the way which is different. The ferry will encounter fairy pirates, who demand a task to which you will be geased if you accept and who grant a boon if you defeat them and let them go (or drop magical fairy dust which acts as a potion of fly if you kill them). The bridge is guarded by a bridge troll who demands a toll in gold, and drops his magical club of petrification if defeated. The land route takes the longest, and has a village with a small mystery the party may choose to involve themselves in, or to ignore, as they pass through. Successfully solving the mystery saves the town from having its mayoral crest stolen, and earns the PCs a stake in the local inn; leaving without solving it causes the town to fall into ruin without the charter that rests on that crest, and allows a villain to establish an Evil Lair in the area later. (Going routes other than the land route will result in that lair being there later, too.)

Even though all three routes wind up with the PCs on the far side of the bay to continue their main quest, the encounters are each different, so the choice is non-illusory.

[Pleh]

But then we have to define Player Agency.

So, Player Agency: The vile, selfish act of a player to take control of the game for their own selfish whims and wishes. Not like it is a bad thing to limit, or even just do away with that.

Your definition is toxic and unhelpful to further discussion as it does more work to harbor animosity between players and DMs and less work to actually describe the underlying principles that operate on a live game session.

For example:

• What about your definition actually tells us "why" Player Agency is a "vile" thing? What is morally deplorable about players taking control of the game?
• For this act to be "selfish" it has to be inconsiderate of the feelings of others, so you would say that it is *not* Player Agency to make choices that do not offend others? Or are you suggesting that you would be offended any time a player attempted to take any amount of control over the game? Note that you used the word, "Selfish" twice in the definition.
• Your definition asserts that players taking control of the game is somehow wrong. I propose that the simplest version of the game follows the structure of explaining the setting and then asking the player what they wish to do, which *offers* the player to then take control of the scenario, even if only some limited degree of control.
• Your definition implies (with the use of the word, "Whims") to suggest that the term only applies when the players have no rational justification for the manner in which they control the game. So then is it not Player Agency to make reasonable and responsible choices in the game?

Your definition of Player Agency demonstrates that you have contempt for the very concept you tried to define, so we should not expect you to create a suitable definition on account of your vitriolic bias. You have taken the worst extremes possible to be contrived from Player Agency and defined the whole category based on these extreme values.

I don't blame you, since you probably feel as though other people have done the same with the principle of Railroading. But that does not excuse this misappropriation of the term, "Player Agency."

"Two wrongs do not make a right."

We have a wealth of good and reasonable discussion in the thread nextdoor which would be far more accurate and useful definitions for discussions around these topics.

I'll pick one that seems to be a fairly average definition that works and is commonly accepted to list here as a good definition for you to substitute in place of the one you proposed:

To me, agency (player or otherwise) is the ability to make meaningful choices.

That requires
+ Freedom: There have to be choices to be made. While watching a movie, you have no freedom to change the events. No agency. Rare that this happens in an RPG though.
+ Consequences: different choices have to have different effects. If a parent asks "do you want vanilla or chocolate ice cream" but, no matter what the child chooses, gives them vanilla, there was no agency. Only a false choice. As a corollary, you have to have the ability to choose wrongly. If every choice goes the right way, no matter what you chose, were you really making meaningful choices?
+ Knowledge: You must be able to (at least with some level of surety) be able to predict the possible consequences of actions. If every action involves a roll on a d1000 table ranging from success to "and the world explodes," there's no real agency.

This is a sound and reasonable definition from which we can draw meaningful conclusions about the subject of Railroading and its impact on Player Agency.