New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 32 FirstFirst 123456789101112131429 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 947
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    So whats the difference between this and just not having a door on the left? Is all linearity railroading?
    Functionally none, at the end of the day the players will go through the door on the right (well I suppose there is the option to reverse, so functionally almost none).

    Practically constantly not having a door strains credibility slowly but regardless of the player actions.
    While having the door being 'painted on' is fine till it is pushed, but then credibility snaps if it's pushed.

    While having a door that's locked but pickable, and then with rather a boring room behind puts a lot less strain (even computer games can do this). It still will fail when the players really want to go off route.

  2. - Top - End - #92

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    They're all examples precisely what almost everyone (other than you) involved in TTRPGs means by "railroading".

    And yes, railroading GMs tend to be power-mongering jerkwads in proportion to how much and how badly they railroad.
    Right, railroading comes up and everyone immediately dives into the most insane extreme bad jerk monstrosities. And they are all that is ''all'' railroading and that is why it is bad.

    But then they say ''oh, also anything we don't like is also Railroading, as we say it is, and all of it is just as bad as the most insane extreme bad jerk monstrosities. So if the DM has a building with one door ''Railroad!" and that is just as DM as the jerk monster DM that grabs the character sheets from the players and burns them and laughs while saying haha.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    "Railroaded" is a 20th century idiom meaning.to convict (a person) in a hasty manner by means of false charges or insufficient evidence: The prisoner insisted he had been railroaded.
    Ok, Once Upon a Thread I did note that lots of words have lots of meanings based on context.

    But how is ''convicting a person'' even close to ''forcing a plot to move forward in an RPG no matter what the players might do or want''?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scripten View Post
    This is why these threads will never go anywhere or accomplish anything until DU starts changing his definition of "railroading". (Not to say that you're incorrect or instigating anything, Max_Killjoy, just that you brought up the correct definition and hit the nail square.) If there is an agreed-upon jargon in a community and someone comes into that community and argues that said jargon is wrong because he doesn't agree with it, then bases nonsensical arguments off of that, then of course we're at an impasse.
    And this thread has one...But it's not the super evil bad jerk one. It is not ''Railroading is only when the do is a jerk'', so. Even I agree it is wrong to be a jerk DM (but I also think player agency is the player being a jerk).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    Yep, that is the essence of lazy GMing. It's not clever, as you said the GM can alter the game reality on a whim. Okay the NPC has an escape plan, what happens if the PCs counter the escape plan? Do you alter reality to ensure that the NPC gets away anyway? Rest assured everyone knows that the GM can alter reality on a whim, the question is should you. Not letting your PCs affect the world at all aside from how you decided they should is the hallmark of a lazy GM.
    It is kind of odd your saying it is lazy to do something, and lazy is much more someone not doing something. A lazy DM is one that does not make up a plot or any other type ''origination'' other then their special static setting and then does nothing but react to the players actions and lets the players pick what to do.

    But note, even if the DM made up the escape plan (oh, the 12th level wizard has a scroll of teleport) a year before the game and times tamped it (somehow) as proof vs the hostile jerk players.....players would still while and cry that the DM was Railroading as the NPC got away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    Tell me what is the incentive to play smarter and harder in such a world? Mere survival? I mean what you can do to the world and the plot is already pre-determined so they pretty much just need to tag along for the ride. Honestly it doesn't sound particularly engaging to me for the players or the GM. When I write up a plan for my NPC's I tend to write up plans upon plans. Not trying to anticipate what the players might do but rather just basic organizational stuff like "What happens if the BBEG dies?" I've definitely had the rare case where the PC's have won unexpectedly early, like around the halfway mark of the adventure.
    Well, if your talking about a Jerk DM: none. Don't play with this type of DM.

    But what is ''play smarter and harder''? You should be default play ''smart and hard'', and if your not, you're being Lazy and are the problem.

    It is very simple: during any complex RPG things might happen that you personally don't like or approve of...but this is how complicated RPGs are made. A bad guy with an intelligence of over 3 might run away and escape. But the wrong reaction is to whine like a little kid and say ''railroad! Not Fair! the bad guy should stand there so we can kill him just like an awesome anime cartoon!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    A famous example which springs to mind is that of the 2nd ed 1st level Wild Mage who accidentally killed an Ancient Red Wyrm. For those of you who don't know this is an old tale where the BBEG of the campaign was an ancient red wyrm. The party had just started out and the GM introduces the wyrm by having it flying over and torching the town which the party is in due to the town not paying it's tribute. The party's wild mage decides to take a pot shot at the dragon (EXTRAORDINARILY STUPID IDEA but...) and winds up getting a wild surge. The wild surge turns the 1st level spell into a petrify spell and the dragon botches it's magic resistance, botches it's saving throw, turns into a statue which crashes and shatters. How would you have handled the situation?
    Well...if playing a 2E game well, it would not matter. In 2E a DM can do anything. But if it was a modern day ''3X group of optimized jerk players who don't understand how to play 2E, and are playing 2E like 3X(or worse 5e)'' I'd let the dragon die. But then 2E is so awesome as all sorts of stuff can still happen even with just the ''wacky wild magic rules'', so like an hour later a goblin wild mage zaps the PCs with the belch cantrip and it 'wild surges' into something that kills the Pcs.... And that is just the wild magic rules....there is so much more.....(''the spider bites your character...your character dies! You missed the teleport and your character dies! You fail a system shock roll and your character dies!")

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor View Post
    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that players become unable to leave their seats once the game starts, and all capacity to call BS. Neither is true.
    The players can leave.....many leave my game, as I have said. And sure they can ''call'' all they want, but it does not matter to me or the good players, so?

    My last 30 games or so I have put small statues of Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson on the table in front of my DM screen. It is a great new way to get rid of problem player.
    Player type one-"Ye Waw the South will rise again!, Player type two-*shrugs*"let's start the game", Player type three "I can't play at a table with those two statues it makes me sad and I want this game to be a safe place! Please remove the statues, waaaa." As you might guess, I simply tell the type three player to leave and find another game.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2007

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    My last 30 games or so I have put small statues of Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson on the table in front of my DM screen. It is a great new way to get rid of problem player.
    Player type one-"Ye Waw the South will rise again!, Player type two-*shrugs*"let's start the game", Player type three "I can't play at a table with those two statues it makes me sad and I want this game to be a safe place! Please remove the statues, waaaa." As you might guess, I simply tell the type three player to leave and find another game.
    I think that this one statement should tell everyone enough about you and your mindset such that responding to your threads is now unnecessary.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Right, railroading comes up and everyone immediately dives into the most insane extreme bad jerk monstrosities. And they are all that is ''all'' railroading and that is why it is bad.

    But then they say ''oh, also anything we don't like is also Railroading, as we say it is, and all of it is just as bad as the most insane extreme bad jerk monstrosities. So if the DM has a building with one door ''Railroad!" and that is just as DM as the jerk monster DM that grabs the character sheets from the players and burns them and laughs while saying haha.
    Poe's Law

    I can't tell if you really believe that nonsense interpretation of what people are saying, maybe because you're not recognizing deliberately extreme or simplified hypotheticals for what they are... or if you're just flinging rhetorical poo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    My last 30 games or so I have put small statues of Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson on the table in front of my DM screen. It is a great new way to get rid of problem player.

    Player type one-"Ye Waw the South will rise again!, Player type two-*shrugs*"let's start the game", Player type three "I can't play at a table with those two statues it makes me sad and I want this game to be a safe place! Please remove the statues, waaaa." As you might guess, I simply tell the type three player to leave and find another game.
    And then there's this.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-09-21 at 08:34 AM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by the Extinquisher
    Is all linearity railroading?
    As far as I'm concerned, all railroads are linear, but not all linear scenarios are railroads. I've already twice listed what I see as the relevant differences, but here we go again:

    1) in a non-railroad linear adventure, the player must be active.
    2) if the player is not active, the game either does not progress, or reaches an ending.
    3) win and loss are both possible.

    The difference becomes apparent if you compare, say, an Arcade SHMUP with a railroaded tabletop game. In the arcade game, the screen only rolls in one direction and the enemies always arrive in the same order. But if you do not pay attention, you will be hit, and then it's GAME OVER, insert credit and start from scratch. Only through your own active effort can you get from the beginning to the end.

    Now in a railroad, your active effort is not required. You will only fail when it suits the needs of the scenario maker. There is another living human present who will make the "correct" inputs for you if you don't make them yourself. The game does end untill it reaches the endstate desired by them.
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    So whats the difference between this and just not having a door on the left?
    Deception and laziness. Things in the world should behave as players expect them to, or have some plausible reason to behave differently. If there's a door, I should be able to go through it. If I stab you with a sword, you should get hurt. If I throw something off a cliff, it should fall down. That doesn't mean that there has to be a door anywhere, it means that if you put a door somewhere you should put some basic consideration into what happens if I go through it. If you don't want to do that, don't put a door there as scenery. If you want some scenery, you can put a mural or a tapestry there.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    But yeah, player agency can be really fun when you remove it. For example, horror as a genre needs player agency to be a low, because it needs threats to be scary and punishments to be harsh.
    Yes, that is the lazy way to do things. But you don't have to be lazy. Good design isn't about shutting all the doors other than the one you want to send the PCs through, it's about figuring out a way to make the PCs want to go through the door you want them to. If you're doing a heist game, players should solve problems with elaborate plans that involve combining the talents of a group of criminals because that is the best way to solve problems, not because trying anything else results in a piano being dropped on them.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    It is kind of odd your saying it is lazy to do something, and lazy is much more someone not doing something. A lazy DM is one that does not make up a plot or any other type ''origination'' other then their special static setting and then does nothing but react to the players actions and lets the players pick what to do.
    From what I've seen railroading GMs are generally lazier than sandboxing GMs due to the fact that railroading GMs only need to populate the places where the players will go. Sandboxing GMs need to populate everywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    But note, even if the DM made up the escape plan (oh, the 12th level wizard has a scroll of teleport) a year before the game and times tamped it (somehow) as proof vs the hostile jerk players.....players would still while and cry that the DM was Railroading as the NPC got away.
    Not in my experience. You constantly railroad your players and you're surprised that they think they're railroading you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Well, if your talking about a Jerk DM: none. Don't play with this type of DM.

    But what is ''play smarter and harder''? You should be default play ''smart and hard'', and if your not, you're being Lazy and are the problem.

    It is very simple: during any complex RPG things might happen that you personally don't like or approve of...but this is how complicated RPGs are made. A bad guy with an intelligence of over 3 might run away and escape. But the wrong reaction is to whine like a little kid and say ''railroad! Not Fair! the bad guy should stand there so we can kill him just like an awesome anime cartoon!"
    Why think of creative solutions to the problems if the GM is going to be a brat and go "No that isn't the way I want you to solve the problem so I'm going to arbitrarily block it". If you know that the enemy is going to get away anyway why bother casting dimensional anchor to prevent the teleportation? Or in 2nd edition hold onto an action to disrupt the casting of the spell from the scroll?

    And yep things like that sure can happen. But you've said multiple times that you are constantly railroading the players. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they have caught on? If the last 6 things that you did railroaded the group are they supposed to think that this is any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Well...if playing a 2E game well, it would not matter. In 2E a DM can do anything. But if it was a modern day ''3X group of optimized jerk players who don't understand how to play 2E, and are playing 2E like 3X(or worse 5e)'' I'd let the dragon die. But then 2E is so awesome as all sorts of stuff can still happen even with just the ''wacky wild magic rules'', so like an hour later a goblin wild mage zaps the PCs with the belch cantrip and it 'wild surges' into something that kills the Pcs.... And that is just the wild magic rules....there is so much more.....(''the spider bites your character...your character dies! You missed the teleport and your character dies! You fail a system shock roll and your character dies!")
    In 3rd edition the GM can do anything. In any edition of D&D the GM can do anything. Out of curiosity what do you mean by it would not matter? Do you mean that you would ignore the result? Because I hate to break it to you but that goes greatly against the spirit of 2nd edition. You seem to think that it's teh super kewl awsum when the random breaks go against the players but when they go against the your little plot you seem to just ignore them like a spoiled baby. Seems a little odd.

    Just gonna ignore the bait of trying to bring politics into the discussion.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    I had planned to tone down my snark, and try to practice constructive, respectful, and cogent communication BUT I SEE NOW THAT IT WOULD BE WRONG!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    last 30 games or so I have put small statues of Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson on the table in front of my DM screen.....

    I see your LOSER statues and get out my William "Make Georgia Howl" Sherman embossed portrait!

    So are we playing Blue & Grey, Johnny Reb, or Battle Cry?



    (I'm good for Diplomacy and Risk as well).

    Anyway. ..

    Spoiler: On RPG "Railroading"
    Show

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    Spoiler: On RPG "Railroading"
    Show
    Yeah, I've been resisting the urge to make a DM of the Rings reference for quite some time now.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Troll in the Playground
     
    The Extinguisher's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    3 inches from yesterday
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, all railroads are linear, but not all linear scenarios are railroads. I've already twice listed what I see as the relevant differences, but here we go again:

    1) in a non-railroad linear adventure, the player must be active.
    2) if the player is not active, the game either does not progress, or reaches an ending.
    3) win and loss are both possible.

    The difference becomes apparent if you compare, say, an Arcade SHMUP with a railroaded tabletop game. In the arcade game, the screen only rolls in one direction and the enemies always arrive in the same order. But if you do not pay attention, you will be hit, and then it's GAME OVER, insert credit and start from scratch. Only through your own active effort can you get from the beginning to the end.

    Now in a railroad, your active effort is not required. You will only fail when it suits the needs of the scenario maker. There is another living human present who will make the "correct" inputs for you if you don't make them yourself. The game does end untill it reaches the endstate desired by them.
    That's a fair answer, if a little extreme. Ive yet to see a game that runs itself without the player but I won't really argue that.

    Still you have to accept that this a personal definition of railroading, considering there have been differing answers to the question i asked. It's not a useful word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Deception and laziness. Things in the world should behave as players expect them to, or have some plausible reason to behave differently. If there's a door, I should be able to go through it. If I stab you with a sword, you should get hurt. If I throw something off a cliff, it should fall down. That doesn't mean that there has to be a door anywhere, it means that if you put a door somewhere you should put some basic consideration into what happens if I go through it. If you don't want to do that, don't put a door there as scenery. If you want some scenery, you can put a mural or a tapestry there.



    Yes, that is the lazy way to do things. But you don't have to be lazy. Good design isn't about shutting all the doors other than the one you want to send the PCs through, it's about figuring out a way to make the PCs want to go through the door you want them to. If you're doing a heist game, players should solve problems with elaborate plans that involve combining the talents of a group of criminals because that is the best way to solve problems, not because trying anything else results in a piano being dropped on them.
    So your problem is less with linearity and more with poor GMing. So why not say what you mean, instead of using buzzwords that demonize types of play you don't like.

    Sure, if your playing a heist game where the focus is on doing cool Oceans 11 style things, player agency is important. But not every game is that and getting rid of choices isn't bad design.
    Thanks Uncle Festy for the wonderful Ashling Avatar
    I make music

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    So your problem is less with linearity and more with poor GMing. So why not say what you mean, instead of using buzzwords that demonize types of play you don't like.
    "Railroading is bad' is what I mean. That's why I say it, and not something else. If I meant something else, I would say something else.

    Sure, if your playing a heist game where the focus is on doing cool Oceans 11 style things, player agency is important. But not every game is that and getting rid of choices isn't bad design.
    Getting rid of choices is lazy design. If you design your product well, people should want to make the choices you want them to make. If you can't do that, you have done a bad job of designing the game.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    I like how my proposed definition of railroading, which is non-judgemental and actually fairly easy to measure, is being totally Warnocked.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Titan in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    (I apologize in advance for a surfeit of my usual snark and sarcasm in this post, I promise that I won't make it a habit)

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    No thats fair a kind of what i was getting at right. Railroading is a bad word because the person using it almost always means "this is less agency then i want in my game"....

    Yes. Previously I wrote of "mild" or even "good" "railroading", but the act of labeling something as such is putting a negative value judgment on the actions, i.e. "I was coerced", vs. "I was persuaded".

    ...so you dont actually care about the fact that the tracks are there, just that less skilled GM's lay them poorly?

    If by "poorly" you mean "I noticed and l'm annoyed by the tracks", then yes precisely.

    ...And you joke, but thats basically what these kinds of discussions come down to.

    In my case I tend to swing from maudlin earnestness to jovial snark and back again, sometimes even in the same post. Other Playgrounders seem more consistent than I am, many others also do both information and teasing (that would you Quertus, I'm keeping my eyestalks alert!).

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Right. Which is saying you don't like direct, obvious player authorship in games....

    Sometimes I do, but generally I like players are in charge of actions the PC's attempt, GM is in charge of the pretend environment, but I can think of exceptions, Pendragon is one of my fave games, but in many ways it breaks that division.

    I aim for precision.

    Here's my basic definition of railroading:

    A railroad is a game where the GM will determine the contents and ordering of all important scenes/encounters in the game. So, the GM decides you'll go here, then here, then there. The players may get to decide "okay, we go to the market", or "okay we look in this place", but the important things will be determined by the GM - if you look in an unimportant place, you won't find anything useful. You can change some of the fluff, but not the meat....

    Seems like a useful definition, if most understand the word that way it works.for me.
    .
    ....It also doesn't talk about "forcing" or illusionism. If everyone agrees to get on the train, you're still on a railroad.

    To reiterate - there's nothing inherently wrong with railroads. They're just not why I play games. They're perfectly awesome for a number of people.

    Now, I will argue against illusionism pretty directly, because of the element of lying involved....

    I actually disagree with that, as a player I want illusionism (as a GM maintaining it may be too stressful though).

    First lets try to define it:

    Definition of illusionism:

    "the use of artistic techniques (such as perspective or shading) to create the illusion*of reality especially in a work of art"
    (From: Merriam-Webster)

    "Illusionism is a set of techniques that many of us have experienced - and if it's done skillfully enough, we likely never realized it"
    (From: RPG Theory Review)

    Earlier I posted that I like to practice "doublethink", and try to enjoy pretending that the game "world" is richer and more detailed than it perhaps really is, and also that my PC"s actions matter (Perhaps Max_Killjoy's pleas for "Verisimilitude" fits?).

    Quote Originally Posted by lordarkness View Post
    Do not forget that this is a game and the whole point is to have fun.

    I'll give an example of a session that was fun for me:

    The PC's are being chased, for my PC to escape I need to succesfully roll the dice a bunch of times in a row, if it looks like the odds are difficult, but my PC narrowly escaped than AWESOME! If it looks like My PC "Studly McAwesome" is just about to get away but then, NOOOOO!, DRAMA!

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

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

    I'm not pleading that "rolls be made for walking", as that would be tedious, I actually want some "skip ahead to awesome" narration, but I like to roll dice and perceive that they matter, I also like to perceive that my decisions have some effect on the "story"/"world".

    But I also almost never watch DVD extras about movie "special effects" either.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I like how my proposed definition of railroading, which is non-judgemental and actually fairly easy to measure, is being totally Warnocked.
    Sorry kyoryu, I was busy re-fighting the Civil War by using snark, and you Ninja'd me before I responded to your definition!
    Last edited by 2D8HP; 2017-09-21 at 12:28 PM. Reason: Ninja's!

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Troll in the Playground
     
    The Extinguisher's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    3 inches from yesterday
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    "Railroading is bad' is what I mean. That's why I say it, and not something else. If I meant something else, I would say something else.



    Getting rid of choices is lazy design. If you design your product well, people should want to make the choices you want them to make. If you can't do that, you have done a bad job of designing the game.
    This is just wrong. If I'm building a game where the players are supposed to feel powerless in a world of monsters, giving them choices to mow down the monsters like grass is bad design. All games restrict player agency its just a matter of where and how much. This doesn't make a game bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I like how my proposed definition of railroading, which is non-judgemental and actually fairly easy to measure, is being totally Warnocked.
    I must have missed it, tbh, but I still say that any definition of railroading is bad because the concept itself is a bad concept that should be discarded.
    Thanks Uncle Festy for the wonderful Ashling Avatar
    I make music

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    This is just wrong. If I'm building a game where the players are supposed to feel powerless in a world of monsters, giving them choices to mow down the monsters like grass is bad design. All games restrict player agency its just a matter of where and how much. This doesn't make a game bad.
    Restricting player agency is different from not putting options in a game. Player agency is based on the options available to you. Whether a particular option is in the game or not isn't a question of player agency.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    I must have missed it, tbh, but I still say that any definition of railroading is bad because the concept itself is a bad concept that should be discarded.
    Then, why not look at the definition, and see what you think of it?

    It's a definite definition, that's precise and neutral, that defines some games pretty well (that are considered to be railroady) while not creating ridiculous strawmen.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Restricting player agency is different from not putting options in a game. Player agency is based on the options available to you. Whether a particular option is in the game or not isn't a question of player agency.
    This is a really good point. If a player should reasonably have the option to attempt something, not letting them do so or shutting them down is fairly poor form. However, the opposite of that isn't allowing players to do whatever they want, either. In both cases, the verisimilitude of the setting is broken. Steering clear of that break in the illusion is probably the best way to avoid railroading or... anti-railroading(?).
    Avatar credit to Shades of Gray

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Restricting player agency is different from not putting options in a game. Player agency is based on the options available to you. Whether a particular option is in the game or not isn't a question of player agency.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scripten View Post
    This is a really good point. If a player should reasonably have the option to attempt something, not letting them do so or shutting them down is fairly poor form. However, the opposite of that isn't allowing players to do whatever they want, either. In both cases, the verisimilitude of the setting is broken. Steering clear of that break in the illusion is probably the best way to avoid railroading or... anti-railroading(?).
    Very important point in there.

    The claim has repeatedly been made (from a very particular quarter) that "railroading" stands as the lone alternative to letting the players do anything want, total chaos, and GMs who are lazy and do nothing.

    Clearly this claim rests on a series of fallacies and conflations, as laid out in painstaking detail in any number of threads so far.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    many others also do both information and teasing (that would you Quertus, I'm keeping my eyestalks alert!).
    I must admit, I'm a bit confused. Unless, perhaps, "information" is a euphemism for standing on a soap box, and "teasing" is a euphemism for brazenly attacking the underlying logic behind others' assertions? I'm guessing the eyestalks are a reference to my avatar, but I could be mistaken there, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    I must have missed it, tbh, but I still say that any definition of railroading is bad because the concept itself is a bad concept that should be discarded.
    Sorry, are you contending that the concept of railroading is bad, and must be discarded, or that the concept of trying to define railroading is bad, and must be discarded?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    This is just wrong. If I'm building a game where the players are supposed to feel powerless in a world of monsters, giving them choices to mow down the monsters like grass is bad design. All games restrict player agency its just a matter of where and how much. This doesn't make a game bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Restricting player agency is different from not putting options in a game. Player agency is based on the options available to you. Whether a particular option is in the game or not isn't a question of player agency.
    Pretty much wanna second this.

    A friend of mine made an awesome custom Doom level back in the day. He provided a certain number of rockets, and it was pretty obvious how he expected them to be used. But I still had the agency to try a different tactic, and save the rockets for a future encounter.

    If I'm running an übercharger, I expect to turn monsters into a thin red paste. If I encounter a Cthulhu monster, I expect to turn it into a thin green paste. Railroading would be arbitrarily denying how the übercharger works for the sake of the Cthulhu monster / the horror feel of the game. A non-railroading answer to create the desired horror vibe would involve not allowing an übercharger in the game in the first place.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    I actually disagree with that, as a player I want illusionism (as a GM maintaining it may be too stressful though).

    First lets try to define it:

    Definition of illusionism:

    "the use of artistic techniques (such as perspective or shading) to create the illusion*of reality especially in a work of art"
    (From: Merriam-Webster)

    "Illusionism is a set of techniques that many of us have experienced - and if it's done skillfully enough, we likely never realized it"
    (From: RPG Theory Review)

    Earlier I posted that I like to practice "doublethink", and try to enjoy pretending that the game "world" is richer and more detailed than it perhaps really is, and also that my PC"s actions matter (Perhaps Max_Killjoy's pleas for "Verisimilitude" fits?).
    You don't want obvious rails.

    But, in almost every case, eventually you will want to do B, when the next planned encounter is actually A. That's where the issue comes into play.

    My argument is that it's ultimately better for the players to know that, effectively, the game is linear and that sometimes things just need to go a certain way. If you think you actually have the power to do B instead, you will keep pushing against that wall. That's where the issue comes into play.

    (Also note that very few games are *pure* railroads by my definition, where the GM offers exactly one set of predetermined encounters. Most have at least some level of minor branching involved, even if only at a local level and with little long-term consequence).

    In fact, "participationism" (which is what I'm arguing for) really relies on exactly that type of doublethink - we all agree to the fact that it's basically a railroad, the GM tries to hide the tracks, and the players tacitly avoid trying to derail the train. "Illusionism" is the situation where the GM is actively denying that the rails exist *at all*. The primary difference is whether or not the GM is telling the players "yup, this is a sandbox. You can do whatever. Totally. Wouldn't lie to you."
    Last edited by kyoryu; 2017-09-21 at 02:12 PM.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Titan in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I must admit, I'm a bit confused. Unless, perhaps, "information" is a euphemism for...

    Yes exactly! TOTALLY PRE-PLANNED!


    Not really, I thought of the "eye stalk" joke first, then noticed your avatar and put you in
    Extended Sig
    D&D Alignment history
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    I must say that I can't get behind your definition kyoryu. Too nebulous, only addresses one narrow point, etc... Let's take a look at how the RPG community has defined it over the past 26 years
    Spoiler: RPG Theory 2007
    Show
    Railroading is a term used to describe the imposition of a predefined set of resolutions onto the choices and conflicts that occur in play by a storyteller or game master. Essentially, it's what happens when a person tries to make themselves the sole author of the story.

    The metaphor is obvious: just as a train can only operate on a preset rail structure that determines where it can go, and can only deviate from that path at special switching stations, a railroaded game can only function if contingent outcomes resolve in the anticipated way. A train that's forced off its rails crashes, which is essentially what happens to railroaded games forced out of their narrow plot.

    Most games have some predefined narrative structure, and there's often an agreement among players that games will contain particular plot types or elements. Railroading only takes place when player actions are prevented from having any effect on the flow of events. It's possible that a game can be railroaded without its participants noticing, but unlikely, due to the fragility of plots and the ease with which they can be derailed. Any choices made by players that aren't compatible with the storyteller's plans either break the game or result in the storyteller crafting events in such a way to force a return to the intended outcome. Therefore, the term is virtually always used pejoratively, and the technique considered to be inherently pathological, as it represents a failure to be properly flexible and adaptive to players' input. Unlike Illusionism, there's really no way Railroading can be used responsibly.

    Spoiler: RPG Museum (mainly 2008)
    Show
    Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do, they will experience certain events according to the GMs plan. In general, this is considered a flaw, displaying a lack of flexibility, naturalness of the scenario, and lack of respect for meaningful choices by the players.

    Railroading as a pejorative
    Because railroading essentially negates the central activity of a role-playing game, it is generally used to refer to a dysfunctional role-playing style. Consequently, it is often used to characterize whenever the GM constrains PC choices to the detriment of the players' enjoyment.


    When railroading is not bad
    Obviously, some constraint on player choices is necessary, and many that are not necessary still enhance the game. One common occurrence is linear game design, in which the GM lays out expected game events ahead of time, using time, geography, and events to influence PC behavior. If they deviate from the planned adventure, the GM may use carrot-and-stick approaches to get them back on track. However, this situation does not become a true railroad unless the GM actively negates player choices simply because the GM did not like what they chose.

    Spoiler: Dragon 172 1991
    Show
    The last aspect of the encounter that I misjudged was the options of the PCs. I didn’t even consider the possibility that the PCs would want to fight to keep their valuables (silly me). In fiction and movies, the entire plot and story line of the piece is worked out in advance. In RPGs, that sort of thing is virtually impossible to achieve without railroading the PCs. Players almost always come up with some way to take the adventure off in an unexpected direction. If you’re trying to reenact the plot of Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood film, what would the DM do if the party decides not to return to England, but rather roam the Arabic world, guided by Azim? That is why I do not recommend trying to adapt any borrowed plot verbatim into a RPG. It’s not going to work.

    Spoiler: RPG Theory... ~2001?
    Show
    Broadly-used term for linear plotting in RPGs. (1) GM behavior when the planned scenario requires a particular sequence of events/scenes leading to a particular ending. The GM ensures that it arrives there by a variety of means. This is generally pejorative, but is sometimes defended as valid as long as it is not overused. (2) On the Forge, a purely negative term for GM behavior that breaks the Social Contract via the GM controlling a player-character's decisions or opportunities for decisions.


    Note: I brought up the Dragon Magazine one due to it being the oldest one I had on hand. I don't have my copy of the Dungeoneering Guide at the moment.

    It does seem almost certain that it is derived from the legal railroading term that doesn't actually mean framed so much as rushed towards one conclusion. A kangaroo court would be a closer comparison.
    Last edited by Tinkerer; 2017-09-21 at 02:25 PM.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    That's a fair answer, if a little extreme. Ive yet to see a game that runs itself without the player but I won't really argue that.
    There are Zero Player games like Conway's life, which follow deterministic rules from the initial position and can thus be easily automated so that no player input is required after the game begins. There are also games which are fundamentally so random that the players have no real input, they are there to just roll the dice (Snakes and Ladders IIRC fits this definition). You could have one player roll all their dice and it would not make a difference for running of the game.

    Both game forms can be repeated in tabletop RPGs via poor scenario design. However, these are corner cases. Much more relevant is the realization that a GM is a player as well. The person running the railroad doesn't even have to be the nominal GM, or even a single person - an overbearing player can be the guilty party just as well, as can group consensus (often seen in supposed "freeform" games).

    So the game is not running without players. It's simply that you are not the player who is running it.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinquisher
    Still you have to accept that this a personal definition of railroading, considering there have been differing answers to the question i asked. It's not a useful word.
    Yes, if enough people use bad semantics, words cease to be usefull. News at eleven.

    It's more relevant to realize that this is neither inevitable nor has its always been the case. Some of the "different" answers are plainly wrong in that they are overly broad, don't fit the metaphor or go against established uses of the metaphor. The uselessness of the term "railroad" is actively caused by people who for whatever reason don't stick to precedent. It's less inability to decide and more unwillingess to stick to a decision.

    A prime example of this is the tangent where DU went "that's not railroading, that's GM being an ultra jerk" in response to Quertus's samples. But Quertus neither implicitly nor explicitly defined railroading as "GM is a jerk". He defined railroading as a thing and then separately made the value judgement "if GM does this, then they are a jerk". So DU's ground of disagreement is based on conflating the definition of a phenomenom and value judgement of a phenomenom, and his motive for that fits the definition of "No True Scotsman" fallacy in that he wants to exclude from "railroading" anything he, Darth Ultron, considers a jerk move.
    Last edited by Frozen_Feet; 2017-09-21 at 02:37 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    Yes, if enough people use bad semantics, words cease to be usefull. News at eleven.

    It's more relevant to realize that this is neither inevitable nor has its always been the case. Some of the "different" answers are plainly wrong in that they are overly broad, don't fit the metaphor or go against established uses of the metaphor. The uselessness of the term "railroad" is actively caused by people who for whatever reason don't stick to precedent. It's less inability to decide and more unwillingess to stick to a decision.
    In this particular case caused almost entirely by an ongoing attempt by a particular party to conflate "railroading" with "proper DMing".


    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    A prime example of this is the tangent where DU went "that's not railroading, that's GM being an ultra jerk" in response to Quertus's samples. But Quertus neither implicitly nor explicitly defined railroading as "GM is a jerk". He defined railroading as a thing and then separately made the value judgement "if GM does this, then they are a jerk". So DU's ground of disagreement is based on conflating the definition of a phenomenom and value judgement of a phenomenom, and his motive for that fits the definition of "No True Scotsman" fallacy in that he wants to exclude from "railroading" anything he, Darth Ultron, considers a jerk move.
    And to include in "railroading" anything that isn't total aimless chaos at the gaming table, with PCs doing and getting whatever they want in an orgy of total randomness.

    And both of those are nothing more or less than an effort to establish as normal and normative a toxic stew of abusive gaming table practices and habits clearly intended to dominate and manipulate and bully the rest of the participants, and keep players "in their place". It would be one thing if said party's self-described approach to GMing and attitude towards his fellow players wasn't so clearly a deliberate and self-serving process of "demean, belittle, intimidate, and browbeat"... then it might just be a matter of an odd definition and misunderstanding. But that's not the case.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-09-21 at 02:53 PM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    I must say that I can't get behind your definition kyoryu. Too nebulous, only addresses one narrow point, etc... Let's take a look at how the RPG community has defined it over the past 26 years
    It seems, to me, to be extremely compatible with those definitions. Which do you see it being incompatible with?
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Troll in the Playground
     
    The Extinguisher's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    3 inches from yesterday
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I must admit, I'm a bit confused. Unless, perhaps, "information" is a euphemism for standing on a soap box, and "teasing" is a euphemism for brazenly attacking the underlying logic behind others' assertions? I'm guessing the eyestalks are a reference to my avatar, but I could be mistaken there, too.



    Sorry, are you contending that the concept of railroading is bad, and must be discarded, or that the concept of trying to define railroading is bad, and must be discarded?





    Pretty much wanna second this.

    A friend of mine made an awesome custom Doom level back in the day. He provided a certain number of rockets, and it was pretty obvious how he expected them to be used. But I still had the agency to try a different tactic, and save the rockets for a future encounter.

    If I'm running an übercharger, I expect to turn monsters into a thin red paste. If I encounter a Cthulhu monster, I expect to turn it into a thin green paste. Railroading would be arbitrarily denying how the übercharger works for the sake of the Cthulhu monster / the horror feel of the game. A non-railroading answer to create the desired horror vibe would involve not allowing an übercharger in the game in the first place.
    Both, more or less. Maybe more the word railroading. It's a critique buzzword, meant to take something that is a preference (player agency) and turn it into an objective negative. "[Game] has less player agency then I want, that's railroading, railroading is bad, thus [game] is bad". It may have had use previously to describe types of bad game design, but now it is a meaningless criticism, similar to Mary Sue or Deus Ex Machina

    That's plainly obvious in this thread, with people saying that linear games are "lazier" then sandbox games, that some rules are better than others, and the fact that everyones point "low player agency" becomes "railroading" is different.
    Thanks Uncle Festy for the wonderful Ashling Avatar
    I make music

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    On Paper
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    I must have missed it, tbh, but I still say that any definition of railroading is bad because the concept itself is a bad concept that should be discarded.
    Eh, the common use of the phrase is as a Bad Thing. We're not going to SOLVE the dilemma here, but personally I would rather define Railroading as The Bad Thing, rather than the confusion of defining "Railroading, but bad" and "Railroading, but Not Bad".

    Hence my bit about "Railroading occurs at the moment of Denial", When the DM denies a legitimate exercise of player agency in order to force a specific result.

    This, of course, requires us to define a "Legitimate Exercise of Player Agency", which basically comes down to the Players' ability to control their PC, in the situation their character occupies in-game.
    Spoiler: Tangent
    Show

    (assuming this isn't a game system with some sort of meta-resource that lets players impact the story in ways their Characters could not).

    If the PC is locked in a room with a window and a bench, "pick up the bench and try to smash the Window" is a legitimate use of player agency, as would be picking the lock, casting the "Knock" spell, sitting and waiting, ect ect.

    Declaring "I push the third brick from the corner and open the secret passageway" is not a legitimate use of player agency. Players don't get to declare secret passageways into existence. Even if, say, they peaked at the GM's notes and knew about the switch and passage out of character, pushing the switch without finding it would not be a legitimate action (That would be metagaming).


    The Moment of Denial usually occurs mid-session, as the GM attempts to course-correct towards their predetermined outcome, but it CAN occur during the planning stages, if the GM seeks to deliberately construct the scenario such that their pre-determined outcome is the only valid one.

    Some examples, assuming the DM wants to run a Gladiator Tournament arc.
    Mid-Session Denial:
    DM: You arrive in town, and see a poster seeking competitors for a Gladiatorial Tournament, with a prize of 10,000 gold for the winner!
    Players: Nah, we don't want to do that. We'll just go to the Inn instead, and move on to the next town in the morning.
    DM: Um, nope. The entire town is locked down until the tournament is over. Nobody is allowed to leave.
    Players: Okay, I guess we'll just wait until the tournament is over.
    DM: everybody make DC 25 Wisdom Checks...Okay, [Person who failed] got drunk and signed you all up for the tournament.
    Players: We tell them we forfeit.
    DM: Nope,the contract is magically binding. You have to fight.

    Vs Pre-Game Denial:

    DM: You arrived in the town last night and spent the night in the tavern. When you wake up, you're in the barracks of a gladiatorial arena, with magic marks glowing on your hands. While there, you are informed that you must fight in the tournament, if you try to leave, refuse to fight, or attack anybody outside the ring, the mark will kill you.

    Vs, a non-railroading example.

    DM: The MacGuffin you need is being offered as the Prize for the grand champion of a Gladiatorial Tournament.
    Players: Hrmmm, we don't really want to fight in a tournament, but we really need that MacGuffin to save the world. Let's talk to the Tournament Organizers and see if they'll give it to us.
    DM: They refuse. This tournament is a big deal, and they've already announced that the prize will be the MacGuffin. They will not shake on this front.
    Players: Okay, what if we just spent this time gathering a giant pile of money, and offered to buy the MacGuffin off whoever ends up winning?
    DM: Okay. You'll need a lot of money, and a good Persuasion roll to convince whoever wins the tournament.
    Players: We accept this.


    Now, my third example is also bad adventure design, but it's probably not RAILROADING. The GM is presenting only a single solution (Win the Tournament), to a party that does not want to fight in a gladiator tournament. The key difference is that there is no Moment of Denial. The GM presents the scenario, and when the players reject the presented solution, the GM provides reasonable resistance to their other plans (The Organizers are not just going to give up their trophy), but accepts an alternative solution that has no reasonable objection (Buying the Trophy off the winner).

    Compare to the Second, where there was a Moment of Denial that occurred when the GM decided to magically compel the PC's to fight, rather than, say, leaving room for them to break out of the Arena, or giving them a chance to avoid capture in the first place.
    Last edited by BRC; 2017-09-21 at 03:23 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsurion View Post
    I don't know if you've noticed, but pretty much everything BRC posts is full of awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by chiasaur11 View Post
    So, Astronaut, War Hero, or hideous Mantis Man, hop to it! The future of humanity is in your capable hands and or terrifying organic scythes.
    My Homebrew:Synchronized Swordsmen,Dual Daggers,The Doctor,The Preacher,The Brawler
    [/Center]

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Extinguisher View Post
    That's plainly obvious in this thread, with people saying that linear games are "lazier" then sandbox games, that some rules are better than others, and the fact that everyones point "low player agency" becomes "railroading" is different.
    That's not what people are saying, and you would know that if you read the things you are saying. Railroading isn't "having a linear game". It's "having a linear game that pretends to be a sanbox until you go off the rails". It's absolutely fine to have a linear game. Have all the linear games you want. Just don't dress them up like sandbox games. If you don't want to give me an option, fine. But don't say you've given me the option, then act all offended when I try to use it.

    To go back to the horror game discussion, it's fine if the game doesn't give the players the ability to kill all the monsters with impunity. But if the game gives you an option that should let you kill all the monsters with impunity, stopping the players because you don't want that to happen is bad DMing.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    That's not what people are saying, and you would know that if you read the things you are saying. Railroading isn't "having a linear game". It's "having a linear game that pretends to be a sanbox until you go off the rails". It's absolutely fine to have a linear game. Have all the linear games you want. Just don't dress them up like sandbox games. If you don't want to give me an option, fine. But don't say you've given me the option, then act all offended when I try to use it.

    To go back to the horror game discussion, it's fine if the game doesn't give the players the ability to kill all the monsters with impunity. But if the game gives you an option that should let you kill all the monsters with impunity, stopping the players because you don't want that to happen is bad DMing.
    So much this.

    To shamelessly build off of BRC's gladiatorial arena concept, the best way to avoid railroading the players would be to say to them upfront, "Hey, I'd like to run a gladiatorial arena quest. Is that cool?" Alternatively, just giving them the option via an in-game poster in a town and gauging interest that way is just as legitimate. If they don't want to play that kind of game, then they needn't do so.

    Pretending that you are going to play a sandbox game on dinosaur island and then forcing the players to fight waves of basic guards in the starting town for the evil blood god because you think that would be more fun is just being a poor sport and misrepresenting your game to your players.
    Avatar credit to Shades of Gray

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Plot Railroading: How much?

    Quote Originally Posted by BRC View Post
    Eh, the common use of the phrase is as a Bad Thing. We're not going to SOLVE the dilemma here, but personally I would rather define Railroading as The Bad Thing, rather than the confusing of defining "Railroading, but bad" and "Railroading, but Not Bad".

    Hence my bit about "Railroading occurs at the moment of Denial", When the DM denies a legitimate exercise of player agency in order to force a specific result.

    This, of course, requires us to define a "Legitimate Exercise of Player Agency", which basically comes down to the Players' ability to control their PC, in the situation their character occupies in-game.
    Spoiler: Tangent
    Show

    (assuming this isn't a game system with some sort of meta-resource that lets players impact the story in ways their Characters could not).

    If the PC is locked in a room with a window and a bench, "pick up the bench and try to smash the Window" is a legitimate use of player agency, as would be picking the lock, casting the "Knock" spell, sitting and waiting, ect ect.

    Declaring "I push the third brick from the corner and open the secret passageway" is not a legitimate use of player agency. Players don't get to declare secret passageways into existence. Even if, say, they peaked at the GM's notes and knew about the switch and passage out of character, pushing the switch without finding it would not be a legitimate action (That would be metagaming).


    The Moment of Denial usually occurs mid-session, as the GM attempts to course-correct towards their predetermined outcome, but it CAN occur during the planning stages, if the GM seeks to deliberately construct the scenario such that their pre-determined outcome is the only valid one.

    Some examples, assuming the DM wants to run a Gladiator Tournament arc.
    Mid-Session Denial:
    DM: You arrive in town, and see a poster seeking competitors for a Gladiatorial Tournament, with a prize of 10,000 gold for the winner!
    Players: Nah, we don't want to do that. We'll just go to the Inn instead, and move on to the next town in the morning.
    DM: Um, nope. The entire town is locked down until the tournament is over. Nobody is allowed to leave.
    Players: Okay, I guess we'll just wait until the tournament is over.
    DM: everybody make DC 25 Wisdom Checks...Okay, [Person who failed] got drunk and signed you all up for the tournament.
    Players: We tell them we forfeit.
    DM: Nope,the contract is magically binding. You have to fight.

    Vs Pre-Game Denial:

    DM: You arrived in the town last night and spent the night in the tavern. When you wake up, you're in the barracks of a gladiatorial arena, with magic marks glowing on your hands. While there, you are informed that you must fight in the tournament, if you try to leave, refuse to fight, or attack anybody outside the ring, the mark will kill you.

    Vs, a non-railroading example.

    DM: The MacGuffin you need is being offered as the Prize for the grand champion of a Gladiatorial Tournament.
    Players: Hrmmm, we don't really want to fight in a tournament, but we really need that MacGuffin to save the world. Let's talk to the Tournament Organizers and see if they'll give it to us.
    DM: They refuse. This tournament is a big deal, and they've already announced that the prize will be the MacGuffin. They will not shake on this front.
    Players: Okay, what if we just spent this time gathering a giant pile of money, and offered to buy the MacGuffin off whoever ends up winning?
    DM: Okay. You'll need a lot of money, and a good Persuasion roll to convince whoever wins the tournament.
    Players: We accept this.


    Now, my third example is also bad adventure design, but it's probably not RAILROADING. The GM is presenting only a single solution (Win the Tournament), to a party that does not want to fight in a gladiator tournament. The key difference is that there is no Moment of Denial. The GM presents the scenario, and when the players reject the presented solution, the GM provides reasonable resistance to their other plans (The Organizers are not just going to give up their trophy), but accepts an alternative solution that has no reasonable objection (Buying the Trophy off the winner).

    Compare to the Second, where there was a Moment of Denial that occurred when the GM decided to magically compel the PC's to fight, rather than, say, leaving room for them to break out of the Arena, or giving them a chance to avoid capture in the first place.
    Absolutely.

    This sounds very much like where I draw the line on what is and is not railroading.

    Not sure why there's an apparent effort to make "railroading" a neutral term for a broader set of things and then work back to "good railroading" and "bad railroading", when there are other terms to cover those other things, and the actual defining aspect of railroading is inherently bad on multiple levels. It violates player agency, violates the "social contract", and breaks verisimilitude. This is an issue on which I will openly and unflinchingly make an objective value statement. Railroading is by its very nature a bad act.

    On your tangent, as both a player and a GM, that's where I draw the line myself -- players don't get to declare secret passages into existence in that manner, the passageway either exists or it does not. I would not enjoy an RPG or a campaign in which that happened. Here, though, I'll leave room for people who do enjoy that to enjoy it, so long they leave room for the sort of game I enjoy (I say this because I've seen repeated attempts to exclude the middle and paint anything that isn't full shared authorship ("storygames") as if it were a "railroad" or a "gamist hackandslash").
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-09-21 at 03:23 PM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •