Plot Railroading: How much?

[PhoenixPhyre]

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.

With those kind words I'll start a conversation by noting (some, not an exhaustive list) ways that a DM can deny agency:

* Invisible walls: Denies choice. If there's only one possible route from point A to B, even though there's no in-universe reason (open field, but you have to walk in one particular fashion), you've denied choice.
* Lying (in DM voice, not in NPC voice): Denies knowledge. If as the DM you tell them something that is false and that without which they would have made a different choice, you've denied them agency. This is different from giving false information when acting as the voice of an NPC. That's normal, and they have ways of learning that. But if you say "You know that X", and X isn't true, you're on dangerous ground.
*Illusory choices: Denies consequences. Consider two paths (A and B)--there is an apparent difference between the two (one leads to a town X and the other to town Y, for example). If, no matter what they choose, they end up in town X, agency has been denied since there were no consequences for choosing path B instead of path A.

[OldTrees1]

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.

1) Your memory is fading. We have had this discussion for much longer than just this one thread. I was talking about before this new strawman of yours.

2&3) Those reactions were predicted by what I said you thought. Thanks for providing yet more evidence to support my depiction of you.




@Pleh & PhoenixPhyre
Good choice of definition. I could nitpick nuance in the definition (is it the medium or the emergent effect that we call Agency), but that definition is a good one to use in this thread.

[Scripten]

* Lying (in DM voice, not in NPC voice): Denies knowledge. If as the DM you tell them something that is false and that without which they would have made a different choice, you've denied them agency. This is different from giving false information when acting as the voice of an NPC. That's normal, and they have ways of learning that. But if you say "You know that X", and X isn't true, you're on dangerous ground.

I think there should be some sort of concession here for incomplete character knowledge. Saying "You have read X in a book somewhere" or "You've heard word on the street that X" is fallible yet potentially useful; not to mention more likely to draw a player into the world. "You know that X" is, in a way, a form of denying agency in that it sidesteps interpretation of facts and knowledge by the player.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there should be some sort of concession here for incomplete character knowledge. Saying "You have read X in a book somewhere" or "You've heard word on the street that X" is fallible yet potentially useful; not to mention more likely to draw a player into the world. "You know that X" is, in a way, a form of denying agency in that it sidesteps interpretation of facts and knowledge by the player.

I agree that there is a concession here. But that should be clarified in the wording. I tend to use "You know" or "Your character would know" for things that are obvious common knowledge--in this setting there are two moons, one red and one white. Things like that. These things are clear-cut and always true. I use "You think/you've heard/you've been told" for things that come from in-game sources (and could be false), such as the result of INT checks. Things that come from NPCs are flagged similarly. "It is commonly believed that" is for rumors and hearsay--things that are very fallible.

The agency denial comes in stating setting truths as untruths or the reverse. When the DM denies information that's needed to make an informed choice (by commision or omission), especially when done with the intent to cause the player to make a different choice, they're at least partially denying agency.

[Scripten]

The agency denial comes in stating setting truths as untruths or the reverse. When the DM denies information that's needed to make an informed choice (by commision or omission), especially when done with the intent to cause the player to make a different choice, they're at least partially denying agency.

I think we largely agree here. However, to further explore this concept, I want to dig a bit into the places where DMs should or shouldn't deny information, because I imagine a lot of that feeds into railroading. Regarding that, I would like to bring up traps as a general category.

When I say traps here, I mean more than just darts or sawblades in the wall or even just unstable floors. When I think of traps, I think of any situation where the player enters an encounter without significant foreknowledge and/or the ability to prepare. That naturally pulls in ambushes, inclement weather/natural disasters (especially when at sea), and the like. With traps of any sort, there is a spectrum of information that the DM can reveal to the player. For example, a PC with nature magic or just a good sense of survival might be able to predict a huge storm incoming, so they should have foreknowledge. On the other hand, a PC with no nature sense at all would see the same signs but may not be able to predict the storm.

So we have this dichotomy (possibly decided by a roll) where a DM might say to one player: "You feel the air pressure rising and notice that the wind has stopped. You know there is a storm incoming." While to another they may say: "You feel the air pressure rise and notice that the wind has stopped." In this case, I think that the lack of information is appropriate here. What's less clear is whether it would be appropriate to neglect mentioning any of the changes in barometric pressure or wind to a player that rolls very poorly. Would that be limiting player agency by lack of knowledge or would that be a reasonable action for the DM to take the PC's lack of perceptiveness into account?

In a smaller sense, that's also what a trap is like in a dungeon. When a player enters a room, they are given all the information about the room via the DM. That means that anything of import is filtered through the DM and, therefore, the onus of disseminating relevant information to the party is on the DM. This leads us to seeing everything the DM says as important and, consequently, everything they do not mention as unimportant, so when the DM mentions the five candles arranged in a circle in the center of the room but neglects to mention the raised floor tiles that the players then step on, the players feel cheated. Multiply this feeling when the players opt to actively search the room. To some extent, then, forcing a player to step on a trap is a form of railroading that should be actively worked against without negating the challenge of dealing with it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think we largely agree here. However, to further explore this concept, I want to dig a bit into the places where DMs should or shouldn't deny information, because I imagine a lot of that feeds into railroading. Regarding that, I would like to bring up traps as a general category.

When I say traps here, I mean more than just darts or sawblades in the wall or even just unstable floors. When I think of traps, I think of any situation where the player enters an encounter without significant foreknowledge and/or the ability to prepare. That naturally pulls in ambushes, inclement weather/natural disasters (especially when at sea), and the like. With traps of any sort, there is a spectrum of information that the DM can reveal to the player. For example, a PC with nature magic or just a good sense of survival might be able to predict a huge storm incoming, so they should have foreknowledge. On the other hand, a PC with no nature sense at all would see the same signs but may not be able to predict the storm.

So we have this dichotomy (possibly decided by a roll) where a DM might say to one player: "You feel the air pressure rising and notice that the wind has stopped. You know there is a storm incoming." While to another they may say: "You feel the air pressure rise and notice that the wind has stopped." In this case, I think that the lack of information is appropriate here. What's less clear is whether it would be appropriate to neglect mentioning any of the changes in barometric pressure or wind to a player that rolls very poorly. Would that be limiting player agency by lack of knowledge or would that be a reasonable action for the DM to take the PC's lack of perceptiveness into account?

In a smaller sense, that's also what a trap is like in a dungeon. When a player enters a room, they are given all the information about the room via the DM. That means that anything of import is filtered through the DM and, therefore, the onus of disseminating relevant information to the party is on the DM. This leads us to seeing everything the DM says as important and, consequently, everything they do not mention as unimportant, so when the DM mentions the five candles arranged in a circle in the center of the room but neglects to mention the raised floor tiles that the players then step on, the players feel cheated. Multiply this feeling when the players opt to actively search the room. To some extent, then, forcing a player to step on a trap is a form of railroading that should be actively worked against without negating the challenge of dealing with it.

I'm in the camp that more information is better (unless you're trying to snow the players by throwing too much extra stuff at them). I also ask for clarification if there's a chance they misunderstood me and are taking action based on a miscommunication.

I run 5e which advises that most things shouldn't require rolls. If someone had an appropriate background to note the oncoming weather (which I'd interpret generously), I'd straight up tell them that it feels like a storm is coming. Same with someone proficient in survival (the appropriate skill in 5e). If no one was proficient, I'd let them make a Wisdom check to see if they notice, otherwise I'd say nothing until the signs were obvious. I even let those who have magical training "feel" the presence of certain large-scale magic effects.

Same with the traps. If it's remotely possible to have meaning, I'll try to say it. And if anyone asks, they'll get more information. I tend to run traps as obviously there, but not obviously bypassable. A stab trap may have visible holes in the wall or blood stains. Carpets that cover traps will look different.What the trap does may not be apparent. I had a carpet covering a pressure plate that awakened some animated armor. They realized up front that the statues were probably going to come to life, but then walked straight over the carpet (and confirmed that they were going to do that when asked).

I am in full agreement about the bold portion.

[Darth Ultron]

I think we largely agree here. However, to further explore this concept, I want to dig a bit into the places where DMs should or shouldn't deny information, because I imagine a lot of that feeds into railroading. Regarding that, I would like to bring up traps as a general category.

Traps and Railroading.....

Well, I can think of three types of traps for an RPG:

1.Direct Traps. This is the very simple one of 'touch the trigger and spring the trap'. They are generally immediate.
2.Indirect Traps. This trap takes a bit more time to work and counts for things like the characters being misled by information to a trap or such events.
3.Hidden Traps. This is things like shapeshifters, cursed items and things not *meant* to be discovered early.

I guess it is easy to say A DM just needs to deny the players and characters information and then they will both fall for any trap. I'm not so sure that is Railroading though. I think a lot of it depends on how neutral the DM really is when they describe things:

1.Evil. This DM will just outright lie. Everything has a positive spin on it for the players and characters or is just kept very vague.
2.Neutral. The DM describes things with no spin, just giving pure common man and common sense viewpoints.
3.Good. This DM is a buddy to the players and will put a negative spin on traps or harmful things or give an odd detail.

So like say there is a pit trap, under a carpet:

1."The room is a is a normal bedroom with a bed and carpet on the floor."
2."The bedroom has a bed against one wall, and a large carpet in the middle of the room that does not quite go wall to wall."
3."The bedroom has a bed against one wall, and a large carpet in the middle of the room, and the carpet does not lay flat on the floor as there is a slight ripple in the carpet as it is laying on something under it."

So Buddy DM is telling the player there is a trap there, and the evil DM is just being vague. The neutral DM just described the room.

Then you add in the rules. The rules say you must do X or roll X to detect a trap. I think everyone is ok with the rules saying a character did or did not detect a trap. Though most rules have it so that not every character can detect traps, and that not every character can detect every type of trap. And most games have a lot of wiggle room where the DM can decide how hard a trap is to find, using the rules; so the DM can adjust this on a whim.

Traps, by there very nature, are soft inventible events: The player or the character really has no choice but to let them happen, with only a small chance to avoid them. This really is not Railroading, though many players might feel like it is just as they don't like it. Really it is a lot more just Cause and Effect with Consequences. A trap, again by it's very nature is a trick: they are made to look normal/safe and in fact be something harmful. This really is the pure nature of a trap.

Should players and characters All Ways Absolutely Have a chance to detect and avoid a trap, no matter what? Seems a bit silly, but I'm sure someone will think so.
Should they be able to do so ''most'' of the time? Well, what does ''most'' mean?
Should the player and character both be limited by the game rules? This seems like the best way to me.

Though the Rules are no help, or very little help, for the Indirect Traps. When the characters buy a map to a treasure from an evil drow in an dark alley, and that drow has a group of thugs waiting at the X spot to ambush the characters, there is not much the players can have their characters ''do'' to find that out (other than not buy maps from evil drow in dark allies, in the first place.)

The third type, are more a special case. Shape****ers, curses, illusions and other such things only ''work'' if they can't be easily or automatically detected. Most game rules do support this idea, so characters can't just ''know'' such a trap at a glance. To discover such a trap is far more a role playing task, where the DM will give clues and the players must figure them out....maybe using some rules to supplement what they know or suspect in character.

Though as traps in general as seen a bad or railroading....a lot of DMs in a lot of games just avoid them.

[Segev]

Though as traps in general as seen a bad or railroading....a lot of DMs in a lot of games just avoid them.

Bad, yes. Railroading, not in general. Traps are often independing of rails; they can show up in a railroaded adventure, or in a wholly non-railroaded adventure. The problems they pose as game elements are different from the problems posed by railroading.

[OldTrees1]

Bad, yes. Railroading, not in general. Traps are often independing of rails; they can show up in a railroaded adventure, or in a wholly non-railroaded adventure. The problems they pose as game elements are different from the problems posed by railroading.

Darth Ultron tricked you onto their derail. Here is the initial comment as it explores the railroading power of depriving information while using a very broad definition of Traps as the example they use to compare good vs bad DMing.

I think we largely agree here. However, to further explore this concept, I want to dig a bit into the places where DMs should or shouldn't deny information, because I imagine a lot of that feeds into railroading. Regarding that, I would like to bring up traps as a general category.

When I say traps here, I mean more than just darts or sawblades in the wall or even just unstable floors. When I think of traps, I think of any situation where the player enters an encounter without significant foreknowledge and/or the ability to prepare. That naturally pulls in ambushes, inclement weather/natural disasters (especially when at sea), and the like. With traps of any sort, there is a spectrum of information that the DM can reveal to the player. For example, a PC with nature magic or just a good sense of survival might be able to predict a huge storm incoming, so they should have foreknowledge. On the other hand, a PC with no nature sense at all would see the same signs but may not be able to predict the storm.

So we have this dichotomy (possibly decided by a roll) where a DM might say to one player: "You feel the air pressure rising and notice that the wind has stopped. You know there is a storm incoming." While to another they may say: "You feel the air pressure rise and notice that the wind has stopped." In this case, I think that the lack of information is appropriate here. What's less clear is whether it would be appropriate to neglect mentioning any of the changes in barometric pressure or wind to a player that rolls very poorly. Would that be limiting player agency by lack of knowledge or would that be a reasonable action for the DM to take the PC's lack of perceptiveness into account?

[Segev]

Darth Ultron tricked you onto their derail. Here is the initial comment as it explores the railroading power of depriving information while using a very broad definition of Traps as the example they use to compare good vs bad DMing.

Eh, Scripten's post doesn't really seem to be examining railroading, to me, except insomuch as a DM who wants to railroad players into his traps will either quantum ogre the traps under their feet, or will deny information and even choices that would let the players do anything to avoid them.

Tricks and traps of any sort are reliant on information control to be effective parts of the game. It is tricky to manage well, such that player agency really matters while keeping character capabilities in mind. But 90% of these situations have a fairly straight-forward variant on, "Make a Perception Check," as the solution to avoid railroading. Set the DC, threshold, TN ,or whatever your system asks for to something reasonable, or use reasonably-created creatures whose stealth abilities will have balanced target values, and you're probably golden in terms of avoiding railroading.

There's a much deeper and more complex discussion to be had in how to use these elements, but the railroading (or not) of the situation can be resolved by simply using the mechanics properly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh, Scripten's post doesn't really seem to be examining railroading, to me, except insomuch as a DM who wants to railroad players into his traps will either quantum ogre the traps under their feet, or will deny information and even choices that would let the players do anything to avoid them.

Tricks and traps of any sort are reliant on information control to be effective parts of the game. It is tricky to manage well, such that player agency really matters while keeping character capabilities in mind. But 90% of these situations have a fairly straight-forward variant on, "Make a Perception Check," as the solution to avoid railroading. Set the DC, threshold, TN ,or whatever your system asks for to something reasonable, or use reasonably-created creatures whose stealth abilities will have balanced target values, and you're probably golden in terms of avoiding railroading.

There's a much deeper and more complex discussion to be had in how to use these elements, but the railroading (or not) of the situation can be resolved by simply using the mechanics properly.

And to extend your second paragraph--don't require pixel b@#$%ing to find the trap. In many of these cases, just assuming that the characters, at least unless stated otherwise, are competent. No "but you didn't look in that corner, out of the corner of your eyes, while standing on your head!" That's railroading/gotcha-dming (depending on how it's used, neither one is good).

[Scripten]

Eh, Scripten's post doesn't really seem to be examining railroading, to me, except insomuch as a DM who wants to railroad players into his traps will either quantum ogre the traps under their feet, or will deny information and even choices that would let the players do anything to avoid them.

Well, not quite, if I am following your post correctly. My point was more along the lines of revealing information to players versus revealing interpretation of information to players. It's a fine line, so I used a general category I called traps, the name of which may have been a mistake.

Tricks and traps of any sort are reliant on information control to be effective parts of the game. It is tricky to manage well, such that player agency really matters while keeping character capabilities in mind. But 90% of these situations have a fairly straight-forward variant on, "Make a Perception Check," as the solution to avoid railroading. Set the DC, threshold, TN ,or whatever your system asks for to something reasonable, or use reasonably-created creatures whose stealth abilities will have balanced target values, and you're probably golden in terms of avoiding railroading.

There's a much deeper and more complex discussion to be had in how to use these elements, but the railroading (or not) of the situation can be resolved by simply using the mechanics properly.

True, especially the part I bolded. But the thought I was proposing was more along the lines of where the line should be drawn when DMs are telling players their characters' interpretations of their environment and/or knowledge.

And to extend your second paragraph--don't require pixel b@#$%ing to find the trap. In many of these cases, just assuming that the characters, at least unless stated otherwise, are competent. No "but you didn't look in that corner, out of the corner of your eyes, while standing on your head!" That's railroading/gotcha-dming (depending on how it's used, neither one is good).

Absolutely. Just for reference, my hard rule for revealing information is that every notable element of each room is described, to a reasonable level of detail, unless obscured or otherwise undetectable. So I reveal holes in the floor or discolored tiles, but not a bear trap hidden under a pile of straw.

[Segev]

Well, not quite, if I am following your post correctly. My point was more along the lines of revealing information to players versus revealing interpretation of information to players. It's a fine line, so I used a general category I called traps, the name of which may have been a mistake.



True, especially the part I bolded. But the thought I was proposing was more along the lines of where the line should be drawn when DMs are telling players their characters' interpretations of their environment and/or knowledge.



Absolutely. Just for reference, my hard rule for revealing information is that every notable element of each room is described, to a reasonable level of detail, unless obscured or otherwise undetectable. So I reveal holes in the floor or discolored tiles, but not a bear trap hidden under a pile of straw.

Okay, I see what you were getting at. I agree for the most part that the line for how much info you give can vary based on how well their perceptions or whatever were rolled. But this isn't about lying or railroading; this is about telling the players what their characters see/sense/know.

[Darth Ultron]

Okay, I see what you were getting at. I agree for the most part that the line for how much info you give can vary based on how well their perceptions or whatever were rolled. But this isn't about lying or railroading; this is about telling the players what their characters see/sense/know.

I guess a Jerk DM that is all ready doing the Bad Railroading would keep the players and characters in the dark.

[Segev]

I guess a Jerk DM that is all ready doing the Bad Railroading would keep the players and characters in the dark.

Potentially. A bad DM will fail to describe things well enough for players to know what their characters perceive. A railroading DM will deny information in order to empower an inevitable ogre, or to trick players into taking the path he's laid out when, if they had the information that their character's abilities should have let them gather, they would have chosen differently.

[Darth Ultron]

Potentially. A bad DM will fail to describe things well enough for players to know what their characters perceive. A railroading DM will deny information in order to empower an inevitable ogre, or to trick players into taking the path he's laid out when, if they had the information that their character's abilities should have let them gather, they would have chosen differently.

I guess on the bright side: most players (and people) will all ways fall for the obvious tricks and traps. As PT Barnum said: "There is a sucker born every minute''. It is just human nature. So a DM does not even have to try or do anything for this to happen.

[Mordaedil]

I guess on the bright side: most players (and people) will all ways fall for the obvious tricks and traps. As PT Barnum said: "There is a sucker born every minute''. It is just human nature. So a DM does not even have to try or do anything for this to happen.

Yes, you do somehow trick people into replying to you, so your proof is well-trodden.