Plot Railroading: How much?

[Max_Killjoy]

Also this. I'm more than open to discussing what does or doesn't fall under game design, but Railroading is is usually a social problem, either being bossy or failing to get buy-in. There is sometimes some overlap, but that occurs when a GM forces a scenario onto the players rather than any particular flaw of the scenario itself.

I think I said something earlier along the lines that it wasn't about a particular system, it was about the GM's intent and action in designing and executing the campaign.

I know I said that what's wrong with railroading is that is violates player agency, trashes verisimilitude, and violates the "social contract".

[Darth Ultron]

I think I've just hit the point where I can no longer consider you,

I don't agree with you so I'm wrong...got it.

This doesn't surprise me whatsoever considering the political post you tried to bait us with earlier, but you seem to lock onto particular "trigger" words in other people's posts and then spout off about how you disagree with whatever you see those words meaning, rather than anything the other poster has talked about. From my experience, this is a common sort of behavior from the type of people who enjoy "triggering" others. It's all projection.

What bait? I'm a civil war enthusiast and re-actor, so I have a ton of civil war stuff. I do disagree that a word only has the meaning one person says it does. I do tend to ignore insults and the like, but otherwise comment line by line.

For example, sandboxes are not "random". Not by your definition, DU, nor by anyone else's. You just have such a horribly skewed view about what they look like that you refuse to even grok the arguments that people are putting forth so you can rag on them. A decently designed sandbox is a setting with a number of different moving parts that interact with each other independent of the players. The campaign comes from introducing the players into the setting and having the setting take them into account when deciding on their actions. There's nothing inherently "random" about that. But you won't read anything I've written. You will pretend that I've said something entirely different and argue against that strawman for paragraphs.

I've said a game without a plot is random. Though ''sandbox'' is a trigger word for many as most think it is ''a super cool way to play: period!'' Few people do play in pure sandboxes, as they would just be a random mess....most people say ''sandbox'' and then have order, structure and a plot like any normal game.

...?

I have heard literally nobody say that a GM can't improvise. In fact, I've seen Improvisation generally agreed upon as a key GMing skill.

Yes, everyone does agree to this in theory.

In practice though, an improving DM can railroad...so that is a problem for many people. Like the Pc's attack the bad guy, but the DM wants the bad guy to live so the DM ''improvises'' and says he has a teleport thingy. Many people would then cry ''railroad''.

And this gets into the endless spin. The DM can defend themselves from the hostile players and say ''oh well it makes sense for the bad guy to have an escape thingy and try and get the players to agree it is ''ok''. Though the players might want to be problems and say they demand ''agency/control'' over the game and the Dm ''can't'' do things they don't like. And then it is spin that the DM ''can't'' just ''make up stuff on a whim'' and the DM ''must'' make up stuff before the game and just ''use it like a player has too''. And then you get into reading the DM minds and finding out why they ''did'' something...if it was ''random'' or ''makes sense to the players'' then it is ''ok''. But if the DM dared to ''want or wish'' any thing that is badwrongfun railroading.

In the lazy sandbox, I only develop details as needed. If you never go visit the king, the king never has stats. But he does have general drives and goals to inform how the Duke - who, if you are interacting with, does have stats - feels about the king.

Still even in a sandbox, you don't make up whole paragraphs for NPC's you will never use. It is very pointless for a DM to write out a paragraph or two about 200 towns folk...when the Pcs will only meet and interact with like seven of them.

But that's not a jerk player so much as just a natural outcome to being railroaded.

It is about as natural as anyone that complains and shuts down when anything does not go their way.

Can you interact meaningfully with those of us who aren't interested in narrative authorship / changing reality?

Can you agree that just as you post something your not automatically always right? Can you agree to have at least say a dozen posts to has out any one thing and not just make an ''I'm right post and don't want to ever post about this again!"?

So, uh, I'll probably regret asking, but can you define this term that even our resident Lawful Evil paragon sends leery of? And, perhaps more importantly, whatever it means, can you stop using "railroad(ing)" as a synonym, and start using a more standard definition of the term?

DM Agency: When the DM forces an event to happen during the game play to further the plot, story or accomplish a goal for the good, fun enjoyment of the game for everyone(aka both the Dm and the players).

So your saying ''I must agree with you'' about Your Standard Definition? See how that does not help any sort of talk or debate for you to just say ''I am right, agree with me".

And that's your good. Why don't you talk more about this?

Well, I think this type of game play is the worst. It is reducing an RPG to a board game. The best part about an RPG is the immersion where you are fully in the fantasy world. The OOC Game is a board game/video game. ''Ok, your characters move into location six to have encounter six..oh and guys I was too lazy so make up any treasure for this room so don't search for any in location six."

But I can make a ''Why the OOC Game type is the worst game type ever thread...

My way of explaining it is, it's when the GM changes the logical outcome of player actions. There's more to it than that, granted, but that's the big one.

There is a big 50/50 problem here though:
50% of the time it depends on whose ''logic'' you use
50% of the time it is not ''logic'' but option or viewpoints.

A mess? Is a tree "a mess" if it isn't professionally pruned?
Some of us can enjoy natural beauty without telling Mother Nature that she needs to manicure her lawns.

Yes, most of nature is a random mess...but that is it's beauty.

Getting him to acknowledge the distinction between that concept and improvising like, "there aren't rules for playing Marbles in D&D - how do we determine who won?", or that from "the GM can change any rule on a whim" seems outside the realm of the possible.

So are you saying improvising is only A)Making up new rules to only fill holes in the game or B)Homebrewing subsystems for a game?

Seems a bit limiting.

[Koo Rehtorb]

In practice though, an improving DM can railroad...so that is a problem for many people. Like the Pc's attack the bad guy, but the DM wants the bad guy to live so the DM ''improvises'' and says he has a teleport thingy.

We can move away from the term railroad for a minute if you prefer. We can call this "bad GMing". If you do this you are a "bad GM".

[ImNotTrevor]

I
So your saying ''I must agree with you'' about Your Standard Definition? See how that does not help any sort of talk or debate for you to just say ''I am right, agree with me".

Any Linguistics 101 class will teach you that word meaning are determined when the speakers of a language come to a majority decision in terms of its usage. (There is no actual vote, this is a naturally occuring process)

If, tomorrow, the majority of English speakers suddenly decide that one of these:

Is called a Grumplesnort, then that's what it is now, for all intents and purposes.

So, as has been seen for all but two posters in this thread, there is a general consensus that your use of the word Railroading is wrong.
By how linguistics function, this means that within this context, your usage of the word is erroneous and will not be viable for accurate communication in the same way that referring to a Banana as a Grumplesnort in actual real life will not get you anywhere, no matter how convinced you are it should be otherwise. Why?
Because in linguistics, the most common usage wins the day.

The most common usage on the forum has been stated. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. By far more than sufficient posters to make it clear what the term is used for.

Start using it, or go to a forum that agrees with your definition. Or, hidden third option, keep trolling. Whichever.

[Darth Ultron]

I know I said that what's wrong with railroading is that is violates player agency, trashes verisimilitude, and violates the "social contract".

1.Very True. Railroading does counter the vile and selfish act of player agency, and this is a very good thing.

2.As a player only knows ''for sure'' if they are railroaded if the DM is clumsy and crude, railroading is all about Verisimilitude.

3.True, and as most social contracts are very bad things, that makes this a very good thing.

We can move away from the term railroad for a minute if you prefer. We can call this "bad GMing". If you do this you are a "bad GM".

I do wonder what part you find ''bad''?

Because I don't agree that ''anything the DM does that the players don't approve of, like or agree with'' is ''bad''.

The most common usage on the forum has been stated. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. By far more than sufficient posters to make it clear what the term is used for.

Sorry, but as I have said and will say once again: you are not the Word Lord of the Forum, so just as you say something does not make it so.

I get that you agree with the idea of Mob Rule and Popular Votes, but neither of them is ''right'' just as ''everyone(you know in your small, small, small circle)'' says they are. Just not how things work.

[georgie_leech]

I get that you agree with the idea of Mob Rule and Popular Votes, but neither of them is ''right'' just as ''everyone(you know in your small, small, small circle)'' says they are. Just not how things work.

Whosne hsyrk shrodlo vud. Sjriywoq fjskoghsk. Chumble spuzz.

Translation: words are only useful in terms of what they communicate, and it doesn't matter how sure you are of your correctness if the people you're trying to communicate with disagree. This isn't Mob Rule or Popular Vote, this is a brute fact of how language works.

[ImNotTrevor]

1.Very True. Railroading does counter the vile and selfish act of player agency, and this is a very good thing.

Player: A person playing a game.
Agency: the capacity to make meaningful decisions.

Letting a player make meaningful decisions is... vile and selfish?
Do you also hate free will?

2.As a player only knows ''for sure'' if they are railroaded if the DM is clumsy and crude, railroading is all about Verisimilitude.

This is the part where I point out how often you complain about hostile players wanting more freedom, indicating that players are spotting the rails frequently and you're probably nowhere near as good at hiding them as you believe, and that players can't spot rails that aren't there.

3.True, and as most social contracts are very bad things, that makes this a very good thing.

Ah yes, the Social Contract, which large portions of the society you enjoy are based on, is a bad thing.

Cover your ignorance, man! There are children present.

Because I don't agree that ''anything the DM does that the players don't approve of, like or agree with'' is ''bad''.

Well, if you have players like mine, the only things that fit this category are Bad Rolls and Crappy Behavior. And you seem to deal with a large number of players, according to yourself.

So the odds that every bad player comes through you with unreasonable, dictator-level demands as opposed to perfectly reasonable humans who would like their decisions and abilities to, you know, have meaning and work like the rules say, respectively, who you bungle horribly at dealing with seems... you know. Unlikely.

I find that if one driver keeps having accidents they insist are the faults of others, they're actually a crappy driver.
And a GM who has lots of crappy players.....
Even you should understand where I'm going with this.

Sorry, but as I have said and will say once again: you are not the Word Lord of the Forum, so just as you say something does not make it so.

I get that you agree with the idea of Mob Rule and Popular Votes, but neither of them is ''right'' just as ''everyone(you know in your small, small, small circle)'' says they are. Just not how things work.

Literally just informing you how Linguistics and Context work. That you think this is my opinion tells me you didn't read.

Your opinion is neither asked for nor relevant. I'm the informant, not the message crafter. I'm not a linguist, I'm just telling you what the people who actually study how word meanings work have reported. And that is this:
Match the meaning used in your context, or fail to communicate.

You are failing to communicate. There is one other option.
Not my opinion. Just how language and communication work. Ain't nothing you or I can do about it.

[Seto]

Spoiler: Darth Ultron in this thread

Show

Be careful, for anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the Dark Side. And always two there are, a Master and an apprentice... But who is talking now, the Master... or the apprentice?

[Koo Rehtorb]

He's more of a Jar Jar Binks, I feel.

[Quertus]

I've said a game without a plot is random. Though ''sandbox'' is a trigger word for many as most think it is ''a super cool way to play: period!'' Few people do play in pure sandboxes, as they would just be a random mess....most people say ''sandbox'' and then have order, structure and a plot like any normal game.

You're not wrong. There is little point in playing a game in a setting unless you believe that said setting contains elements which the players will enjoy interacting with. The selection of items placed in the sandbox is - or, at least, should be - a very deliberate act. To encourage a child to talk about their family, a real sandbox might contain male and female figures of different sizes, for example. Sandboxes work best when they are not simply a random jumble.

That having been said, the point of the sandbox is to allow the user to use the items in the sandbox as they see fit. You don't expect someone to ask a child which figures represent which family members, and then have that person place the figures themselves in the structure that they feel is appropriate for a family. The bloody point is to let the user make what they will.

Yes, everyone does agree to this in theory.

In practice though, an improving DM can railroad...so that is a problem for many people. Like the Pc's attack the bad guy, but the DM wants the bad guy to live so the DM ''improvises'' and says he has a teleport thingy. Many people would then cry ''railroad''.

And this gets into the endless spin. The DM can defend themselves from the hostile players and say ''oh well it makes sense for the bad guy to have an escape thingy and try and get the players to agree it is ''ok''. Though the players might want to be problems and say they demand ''agency/control'' over the game and the Dm ''can't'' do things they don't like. And then it is spin that the DM ''can't'' just ''make up stuff on a whim'' and the DM ''must'' make up stuff before the game and just ''use it like a player has too''. And then you get into reading the DM minds and finding out why they ''did'' something...if it was ''random'' or ''makes sense to the players'' then it is ''ok''. But if the DM dared to ''want or wish'' any thing that is badwrongfun railroading.

Thank you for explaining what I believe to be the origins of your phrase "GM Agency".

Still even in a sandbox, you don't make up whole paragraphs for NPC's you will never use. It is very pointless for a DM to write out a paragraph or two about 200 towns folk...when the Pcs will only meet and interact with like seven of them.

While I agree that it generally seems a waste of effort, I have played under GMs who would have every single townsfolk already planned out. So, while it's certainly not my style, it can be done.

It is about as natural as anyone that complains and shuts down when anything does not go their way.

And here we're back to the "can you see the difference" game - can you recognize that there is a qualitative difference between things not going someone's way, and someone arbitrarily saying, "no, you do not collect $200 for passing Go this time", or otherwise arbitrarily changing the rules, because they think (incorrectly) that it would make for a more interesting game?

Can you agree that just as you post something your not automatically always right? Can you agree to have at least say a dozen posts to has out any one thing and not just make an ''I'm right post and don't want to ever post about this again!"?

Of course. I'm not automatically right just because I post something - I'm automatically right whether I post something or not.

Given that, in other threads, I've explained that learning new things is one of the things I value most, and I've admitted that, if given the choice, I'm selfish enough to prefer that it is me doing the learning, I find your characterization of my style confusing. As a rule, I'd much rather be wrong, as being wrong + a good explanation of what's right = I learn something.

Now, that having been said, I suspect most of us are guilty of bringing a lot of baggage from other threads - let alone actual gaming - with us into this thread. Most of us are quite happy discussing what the word "railroading" means, to us, or discussing the origins of the word, or even discussing language theory, and how words only have meaning when that meaning is shared. Although, for a Wild Mage level of fun, words do also have "meaning" (for a different definition of meaning) when they mean different things to different people, or when they have been misheard ("Johnny's five. He's always five.").

Most of us have fairly compatable definitions of the word. Now, I must thank you for helping us see that we don't all define it identically (I don't really "define" so much as give examples most of the time), and, in a few cases other than yourself, we don't use the word in quite comparable ways. This was quite illuminating the first time you helped us see this fact.

Since then, I'd contend that our understanding of the word has grown slightly more normalized. Yet your usage of the word continues to be quite anomalous, not only defining it as something completely outside the scope of conventional railroading, but explicitly excluding all of conventional railroading from your definition.

Most, not unreasonably, view this as "you're wrong". However, having repeatedly both a) been the one arguing against the many when I was right (once even on these very forms), and b) been one of the many arguing against the one who turned out to be right, I am more reluctant to take that stance. But I gotta ask, a) can you see how others are defining the term; b) if so, what increased value do you see in defining it the way that you do; c) if you cannot see some higher value in your definition of terms (let's ignore the "convincing us and the community at large to adopt your definitions" for the moment), can you c1) use the term "railroading" in a more community-understandable style, and c2) use your new term, "GM agency", to mean what you formerly meant when you said "railroad"?

DM Agency: When the DM forces an event to happen during the game play to further the plot, story or accomplish a goal for the good, fun enjoyment of the game for everyone(aka both the Dm and the players).

So your saying ''I must agree with you'' about Your Standard Definition? See how that does not help any sort of talk or debate for you to just say ''I am right, agree with me".

I just covered this above, but a few points: first off, I was quite literally asking a question, not stating that I was right. Well, I suppose I was literally asking one question while technically asking several. Taken fully literally, I was asking if you were physically and psychologically capable of using the word "railroading" in a particular way. Of course, that question is probably not as interesting as what the question was intended to convey, which was more asking if you would consider changing the way you use words, with an implied, "if not, why not?".

Now, as to "DM Agency: how much?", I reiterate my original answer: depends on the group. For myself, I only enjoy well-earned victories and defeats, so, for games I'm in, the answer is "none". The GM forcing outcomes actively detracts from my fun, and therefore cannot happen by your definition of "GM Agency".

There is a big 50/50 problem here though:
50% of the time it depends on whose ''logic'' you use
50% of the time it is not ''logic'' but option or viewpoints.

The game system's logic. RAW.

Yes, sometimes, there are differences in interpretation of RAW. But legitimate variations in interpretation are clearly less than 50% of the rules.

Yes, most of nature is a random mess...but that is it's beauty.

Ok, maybe we're onto something here. Let's explore this angle.

So, you can see how some people can enjoy carefully manicured lawns, some people can enjoy natural beauty, and some people can enjoy both?

Ok, in an RPG, I personally can only appreciate natural beauty. Numerous people, myself included, have expressed the sentiment of, "if I wanted to be unable to affect the plot, and just have a story read to me, I'd just read a book / watch a movie".

It sounds like both railroading and "GM Agency" flow from a desire to exclusively produce manicured lawns.

1.Very True. Railroading does counter the vile and selfish act of player agency, and this is a very good thing.

Player: A person playing a game.
Agency: the capacity to make meaningful decisions.

Letting a player make meaningful decisions is... vile and selfish?
Do you also hate free will?

Yeah, what?

Let me add another wtf to ImNotTrevor's very good pile: how is the group having agency to choose outcomes more selfish than a single dictator choosing them?

2.As a player only knows ''for sure'' if they are railroaded if the DM is clumsy and crude, railroading is all about Verisimilitude.

... not railroading is about rules, consistency, and that "v" word.

3.True, and as most social contracts are very bad things, that makes this a very good thing.

I can't wait to hear an explanation of this one.

I do wonder what part you find ''bad''?

Because I don't agree that ''anything the DM does that the players don't approve of, like or agree with'' is ''bad''.

More or less everything that the community defines as railroading, you've labeled as "bad jerk GM". So, if I understand correctly, Koo was suggesting following your style, saving time, and just labeling things "bad GMing".

Sorry, but as I have said and will say once again: you are not the Word Lord of the Forum, so just as you say something does not make it so.

I get that you agree with the idea of Mob Rule and Popular Votes, but neither of them is ''right'' just as ''everyone(you know in your small, small, small circle)'' says they are. Just not how things work.

Covered above. A) it isn't a small circle, as it appears to be the vast majority; b) even so, would you care to make a case for why your definition is better?

You are failing to communicate.

There is an extent to which normalizing your word usage is required in order to communicate via standard protocols. Failure to do so leads one to wonder whether the source is either incapable of such normalization, or whether standard communication is not the goal.

[Cluedrew]

You know I'm just going to go back to the original question. How much railroading?

Railroading as the removal of Player Agency (the standard definition): None, decide how much player agency is in the game and stick to that. Now you can have a game that is wide open and full of decision points about how the party changes the world or you can have a game that is about small group tactics and listening to a story. Both are fine, but don't present the first and run the second.

Railroading as running a Railroad, a Linear Adventure (seen it in a couple of places): Varies, it just relates back to the campaign structure. As above there are many options all of which are fine. It is just a matter of finding one everyone around the table will enjoy. And as above, present in honestly, if people don't like your play style labeling it as something else is not going to help.

Railroading as the GM providing guidance (as Darth Ultron uses it on occasion): Whenever the players need it. So probably in a hunk at the beginning of the game and then other bits and pieces when they get lost. Or you can give them a moment to find themselves, that works in our games because the players (and hence the PCs) rarely just wait for something to happen.

[Darth Ultron]

this is a brute fact of how language works.

I don't really get why you think words can have more then one meaning. That is brute fact.

Player: A person playing a game.
Agency: the capacity to make meaningful decisions.

Letting a player make meaningful decisions is... vile and selfish?
Do you also hate free will?

Unregulated free will, yes. A player making decisions they think are meaningful for themselves is a very selfish behavior. Unlike Dm agency where the dm does thing for the game/others and themselves.

This is the part where I point out how often you complain about hostile players wanting more freedom, indicating that players are spotting the rails frequently and you're probably nowhere near as good at hiding them as you believe, and that players can't spot rails that aren't there.

Maybe you have not read any of my posts? A player would only know about railroading if the dm told them so. I'm not that kind of DM. Players can suspect or just whine and cry all the time...but they will never know.

Ah yes, the Social Contract, which large portions of the society you enjoy are based on, is a bad thing.

That is ''your society'', not mine.

So the odds that every bad player comes through you with unreasonable, dictator-level demands as opposed to perfectly reasonable humans who would like their decisions and abilities to, you know, have meaning and work like the rules say, respectively, who you bungle horribly at dealing with seems... you know. Unlikely.

You forget the part where I'm honest and up front. The rules are suggestions, in my game I say what happens. AND the player agrees to that(or just lies) and sits down to play. Then later they start to whine and cry about things.

I find that if one driver keeps having accidents they insist are the faults of others, they're actually a crappy driver.
And a GM who has lots of crappy players.....
Even you should understand where I'm going with this.

Good thing that is not how reality works...lol

Match the meaning used in your context, or fail to communicate.

Odd though as I use Plot in the context of an RPG.......and your the one that ignores context and says ''plot only has one definition and I don't like it."

And here we're back to the "can you see the difference" game - can you recognize that there is a qualitative difference between things not going someone's way, and someone arbitrarily saying, "no, you do not collect $200 for passing Go this time", or otherwise arbitrarily changing the rules, because they think (incorrectly) that it would make for a more interesting game?

Well, this is a bit more complex. I do agree not to change the basic structure rules of the game like a jerk DM(''haha the dragon has no HP so your characters can't ever kill it!''). I do think a DM can change anything else at a whim.

But Railroading is not a rule heavy type thing. The DM alone gets to say ''there are two alert guards by the door'' or ''two guards are sleeping against the door '' or anything else they want to say or happen.

Most, not unreasonably, view this as "you're wrong". However, having repeatedly both a) been the one arguing against the many when I was right (once even on these very forms), and b) been one of the many arguing against the one who turned out to be right, I am more reluctant to take that stance. But I gotta ask, a) can you see how others are defining the term; b) if so, what increased value do you see in defining it the way that you do; c) if you cannot see some higher value in your definition of terms (let's ignore the "convincing us and the community at large to adopt your definitions" for the moment), can you c1) use the term "railroading" in a more community-understandable style, and c2) use your new term, "GM agency", to mean what you formerly meant when you said "railroad"?

A-yes; B-Two Bits; C 1/2-I'd love for the community to adopt my DM Agency, and give me credit and immortalize me forever in gaming. But that will never happen....so....

Now, as to "DM Agency: how much?", I reiterate my original answer: depends on the group. For myself, I only enjoy well-earned victories and defeats, so, for games I'm in, the answer is "none". The GM forcing outcomes actively detracts from my fun, and therefore cannot happen by your definition of "GM Agency".

Now wait was the word ''outcomes'' in my definition....well, nope it was not. See that is your railway baggage, and you should leave that on the train.

So the question is ''Do you think the Dm should force events to happen and if so, how much?"

Yes, sometimes, there are differences in interpretation of RAW. But legitimate variations in interpretation are clearly less than 50% of the rules.

I'm not sure why you jumped to ''the rules'', that has little to do with railroading. The PC's go to open a door and the DM says it is locked...and the players cry railroad. But there is no ''rule'' in D&D like the chance of a random door is locked. And if the game does have a rule for something like that...it is a random game.

It sounds like both railroading and "GM Agency" flow from a desire to exclusively produce manicured lawns.

You might be missing the forest through the trees, but it is a great analogy.

My yard is well maintained and artificially made. Everything has been placed and timed and set to look both naturally beautiful and also still maintain full use of the yard and other things outdoors. And I say the only way to have such a yard is to create it yourself and maintain it.

So your on the natural side, so you would say you just sit in your house and let ''nature do what ever''. Your grass grows high and wild, your bushes are a mess and block the windows to your house and when the tree falls in your drive way you just leave it there and never pull your car out of the garage again.

And that would be a yard with as you say ''only natural beauty''. But, amazingly, while you say you ''can only appreciate natural beauty'' I know you have to do yard maintenance and would not just leave a fallen tree in your driveway. And I'm sure most others know this too. But yet you will say again and again falsely ''only natural beauty''.

how is the group having agency to choose outcomes more selfish than a single dictator choosing them?

By ''group'' you mean ''group of players'' not ''the DM and the players'', right?

This is basic RPG 101: the lone DM does not have a character in the game; the players do.

I can't wait to hear an explanation of this one.

The next thread: Why are social contracts bad?

Covered above. A) it isn't a small circle, as it appears to be the vast majority; b) even so, would you care to make a case for why your definition is better?

Yes, I would split off ''good Railroading'' from all the bad jerk stuff and re-brand it DM Agency.

[Seto]

I don't really get why you think words can have more then one meaning. That is brute fact.

Just weighing in on that. (I assume you meant "why you think word CAN'T have more than one meaning").
Sure they can. But those different meanings are not logical equivalents, and the word should matter less than the logical content. For example: the word "bug" refers to both an insect and an electronic malfunction. If I say "Toads eat bugs", and I mean "Toads eat insects", it does not follow that "Toads eat electronic malfunctions".
Similarly, let's admit that "railroading" can refer to both "what DarthUltron calls railroading" and "what other people on this thread call railroading" (and I'll give you that, you did make clear that you were going to use a different definition). If we admit that "what DU calls railroading is not bad GMing", it does not follow that "what other people call railroading is not bad GMing", therefore we cannot say that as a rule "railroading is not bad GMing". Now this opens two distinct questions:

1- Is there a non-arbitrary reason why "what DarthUltron calls railroading" should be admitted as a definition of "railroading", other than "it was in the OP?". A lot of people seem to argue that there is no reason that "what DU calls railroading" should be expressed by the word "railroading".
2- It seems clear that what other people call railroading is bad GMing. Should we admit that "what DU calls railroading" is not bad GMing, or is it actually bad GMing?

[Drakevarg]

That is ''your society'', not mine.

Unless you live in the woods using a laptop you built yourself from twigs and berries, the society you enjoy runs on social contract. The fact that your property rights mean anything, that your currency holds any value, that if your home catches fire someone will come along and put it out, are all parts of a social contract. Literally none of this exists for any reason besides the community at large prefers it that way.

[OldTrees1]

I see Darth Ultron has another two threads to their pet topic. Is this one "every DM uses excessive railroads", "my railroads are not railroads", "all players are toxic and must be controlled", or is it a new argument?


To briefly summarize the consensus from prior threads (obviously 1 post can only give an abridged summary of multiple long threads):
The severity of railroading (neutral connotation) necessary for an individual to label it as railroading (negative connotation) varies with the person and their expectations of the game. The negative connotation meaning is used much more frequently than the neutral connotation.

The minimum degree of railroading necessary to run a game is near zero (sandbox) and there are many pages of testimony to that effect (Darth Ultron refused to accept such a possibility for many pages in multiple threads). The maximum amount of railroading, where there are people that can enjoy that level, is rather high. However DM-Player communication and cooperation are necessary to make either extreme enjoyable.

In one of the threads there was an in depth discussion and classification of types of railroading. This included perfectly invisible kinds like Quantum Ogres and discussed how players can have preferences about things they cannot observe.

[Max_Killjoy]

I see Darth Ultron has another two threads to their pet topic. Is this one "every DM uses excessive railroads", "my railroads are not railroads", "all players are toxic and must be controlled",

Yes.


All of the above.

[Darth Ultron]

Now this opens two distinct questions:

1- Is there a non-arbitrary reason why "what DarthUltron calls railroading" should be admitted as a definition of "railroading", other than "it was in the OP?". A lot of people seem to argue that there is no reason that "what DU calls railroading" should be expressed by the word "railroading".
2- It seems clear that what other people call railroading is bad GMing. Should we admit that "what DU calls railroading" is not bad GMing, or is it actually bad GMing?

1.''A lot'' of people say/think that Railroading is only the badwrongfun jerk bad DM doing something...but then expand the tent to ''anything they don't like'', and they don't see that they did it.

2.Again this is people saying ''railroad is always bad'' and don't grasp the idea that things are not all ways ''something'' can be good or bad depending on context and how they are used. It is like people saying ''fire'' is all ways Bad, and somehow they just ignore things like fire can be used to keep a person warm. And even worse, the people build a fire to keep warm and then scream that they don't use fire to keep warm even as they put another log on the fire to keep warm.

Unless you live in the woods using a laptop you built yourself from twigs and berries, the society you enjoy runs on social contract. The fact that your property rights mean anything, that your currency holds any value, that if your home catches fire someone will come along and put it out, are all parts of a social contract. Literally none of this exists for any reason besides the community at large prefers it that way.

Well, things like laws are not a ''social contract.'' ''We the people'' have no choice but to follow the laws. If anything Laws are Railroading: "You will live your life this way and you only have the freedom to do what we say you have the freedom to do''.

And things are not the way they are because ''everyone prefers it that way'', it is because the people in power want it the way they are... If ''everyone'' was really given the chance to ''really vote'' on ''everything'', you'd see a different country overnight.

[Drakevarg]

Well, things like laws are not a ''social contract.'' ''We the people'' have no choice but to follow the laws. If anything Laws are Railroading: "You will live your life this way and you only have the freedom to do what we say you have the freedom to do''.

And things are not the way they are because ''everyone prefers it that way'', it is because the people in power want it the way they are... If ''everyone'' was really given the chance to ''really vote'' on ''everything'', you'd see a different country overnight.

Laws are also a social contract, because given that the government in a practical sense holds all the power, they could do literally whatever they wanted if they wanted to. Maintaining the illusion of personal freedom is in itself a social contract. If the government suddenly decided it was a military dictatorship now, there isn't much we could do about it. If they decided the didn't feel like having public education, sanitation, or any other sort of essential infrastructure, they could take those away at any time.

I didn't say "everyone prefers it that way." I said "the community at large" prefers it that way. Civilization is a negotiation between the rulers and the ruled, and while it's never a totally preferable arrangement, things break down when negotiates fall through entirely.

[Max_Killjoy]

Laws are also a social contract, because given that the government in a practical sense holds all the power, they could do literally whatever they wanted if they wanted to. Maintaining the illusion of personal freedom is in itself a social contract. If the government suddenly decided it was a military dictatorship now, there isn't much we could do about it. If they decided the didn't feel like having public education, sanitation, or any other sort of essential infrastructure, they could take those away at any time.

I didn't say "everyone prefers it that way." I said "the community at large" prefers it that way. Civilization is a negotiation between the rulers and the ruled, and while it's never a totally preferable arrangement, things break down when negotiates fall through entirely.

Plus in some places, it's literally the consent of the governed that matters; the people grant power to the government, and if the people stopped following a law en masse, there'd be little the government could really do about it.

But this is really just another distraction, as far as this thread goes.

[Darth Ultron]

Darth Ultron refused to accept such a possibility for many pages in multiple threads.

Well, for reference, again, here is my list so far of ways I've said to have a game with no Railroading/Force/DM Agency:

1.Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
2.Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
3.OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
4.Player By In. Players want to do X, the DM just tosses out X and says ''here''.
5.Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.

[Seto]

2.Again this is people saying ''railroad is always bad'' and don't grasp the idea that things are not all ways ''something'' can be good or bad depending on context and how they are used. It is like people saying ''fire'' is all ways Bad, and somehow they just ignore things like fire can be used to keep a person warm. And even worse, the people build a fire to keep warm and then scream that they don't use fire to keep warm [I]even as they put another log on the fire.

Except that "railroading is always bad" isn't their primary thesis. There seems to be a consensus on a definition of railroading which is "when an option is denied the players that should logically be possible" (for example, you can't open a door that's there). So, the thesis is that THAT, not something else, is always bad GMing. I rather agree. Now if someone were to infer that something else, also called railroading, is always bad, that would be a logical fallacy. But I don't think that's what happening.

[OldTrees1]

Well, for reference, again, here is my list so far of ways I've said to have a game with no Railroading/Force/DM Agency:

1.Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
2.Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
3.OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
4.Player By In. Players want to do X, the DM just tosses out X and says ''here''.
5.Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.

Thank you for providing your refusal as reference for that part (the minimum amount of railroading is near zero: see sandbox games) of my summary of the prior threads.

I will refrain from derailing your thread with a pointless attempt to convince you with the countless testimonials about sandbox games (since you already had 2 threads dedicated to that exercise).

[Cluedrew]

Unregulated free will, yes. A player making decisions they think are meaningful for themselves is a very selfish behavior. Unlike Dm agency where the dm does thing for the game/others and themselves.

You are assuming two things:

1. The GM will use their agency in the game to better the game for the other players*.
2. The players will not use their agency in the game to better the game for the other players*.

Which of course can happen. The first should be true in all games of course, but the second should never be true. Seriously, if not a single player is interested in making sure you have a good time to (which I hope they would if they are your friends) why are you running this game for them? That is not a rhetorical question.

The game is better for other people helping each other. I do little things to help out the other players* all the time, even when I'm not the GM. And not just as in "my character saved yours", as in "I am going out of my way to help you make the character wanted". When my normally deadpan character is shocked because to help build up how weird someone else's character. Or how my character's second language another PC's first language to help show that PC is not a native English speaker (as we speak in that language instead).

So in short. Power is only toxic in the hands of toxic people, why are you playing with toxic people?

* Any time I use "players*" I am referring to all players of the game, not just the non-GM ones.

To OldTrees1: Hey, haven't seen you in a while.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, for reference, again, here is my list so far of ways I've said to have a game with no Railroading/Force/DM Agency:

1.Keep it Simple. Cartoon-like play. Example: HappyTown is full of good people, and one bad guy...and something bad happens! Guess who did it?
2.Quamtum Ogre. Does not matter at all what the players do, the DM just puts stuff right in front of them.
3.OOC. The DM tells the players everything and asks them to do things. ''Hey players I made a fun encounter behind door two, so pick that door!''
4.Player By In. Players want to do X, the DM just tosses out X and says ''here''.
5.Senseless Game. The game makes no sense, like a cartoon or anime or B type movie.

That's only "true" as the other half of your false dichotomy asserting that any decision the GM makes or any limitations on player "whim" fall under the heading of "Railroading".

Just your #4 attempting to define Player Buy In as "the players get whatever they want and the GM is just there to give it to them" shows either how deep your misunderstanding of the concept is... or how far you're willing to sink into deliberate distortion.

[Darth Ultron]

Except that "railroading is always bad" isn't their primary thesis. There seems to be a consensus on a definition of railroading which is "when an option is denied the players that should logically be possible" (for example, you can't open a door that's there). So, the thesis is that THAT, not something else, is always bad GMing. I rather agree. Now if someone were to infer that something else, also called railroading, is always bad, that would be a logical fallacy. But I don't think that's what happening.

But that definition does not work. 1) What is logical in this case is an option and 2) Just as something is logical does not mean that it is 100% possible and it happens.

Like your saying ''all doors everywhere should all ways be unlocked''. Though that is silly. So then you'd backpedal to ''oh a door can only be locked if it is logical to you and you agree.

The GM will use their agency in the game to better the game for the other players.

Yes. GM Agency is only a good thing...if the DM is doing bad, they are not using DM Agency.

The players will not use their agency in the game to better the game for the other players

For the most part, players can't do this even if they wanted too as: The DM and Players are not equals. The DM both knowing everything about the game and in total control of the game can do things to better the game. The players, limited to only what their characters experience and know, can't do that.

And just look at a typical Player Agency definition: Player agency is the ability of players to make choices for their characters, and for those choices to have a meaningful impact on the game.
. Note there is no ''for the good of the game'' in there, it is 100% selfish for just the player.

Seriously, if not a single player is interested in making sure you have a good time to (which I hope they would if they are your friends) why are you running this game for them? That is not a rhetorical question.

The good ones do. When they find a locked door or a bad guy gets away; the good players just keep on playing the game. The good player is not just sitting there hiding all their hostile feelings toward the DM and waiting for a chance to pounce as soon as they find something they don't like.

The game is better for other people helping each other.

It is better.

Though you are still a bit stuck on ''everyone is a equal and the same in every way'', and that is not true in a normal game. Even the rule books list different things for DM/GM and Player.

That's only "true" as the other half of your false dichotomy asserting that any decision the GM makes or any limitations on player "whim" fall under the heading of "Railroading".

Well, note that it is only decisions that the players don't like.

Just your #4 attempting to define Player Buy In as "the players get whatever they want and the GM is just there to give it to them" shows either how deep your misunderstanding of the concept is... or how far you're willing to sink into deliberate distortion.

I can understand you don't like Player Buy In, but it is a valid way to run a game with no railroading.

[Seto]

But that definition does not work. 1) What is logical in this case is an option and 2) Just as something is logical does not mean that it is 100% possible and it happens.

Like your saying ''all doors everywhere should all ways be unlocked''. Though that is silly. So then you'd backpedal to ''oh a door can only be locked if it is logical to you and you agree..

No, I'm saying "all doors everywhere should always be POSSIBLE to unlock", even if it requires some effort.
Of course doors can be locked. But the PCs can come up with solutions: picking the lock, breaking it down, Gaseous Form, Passwall, etc. And if they do come up with a good idea, it should work, even if the GM had not planned for them to enter the room at that moment.
An in-game lock is just a lock. It can be interacted with. A "plot lock", that is, "the plot requires that the PCs don't go through, so they won't no matter what they try", is a railroad. If you don't want the PCs to interact with something, just don't put it in your game.

[Darth Ultron]

No, I'm saying "all doors everywhere should always be POSSIBLE to unlock", even if it requires some effort.
Of course doors can be locked. But the PCs can come up with solutions: picking the lock, breaking it down, Gaseous Form, Passwall, etc. And if they do come up with a good idea, it should work, even if the GM had not planned for them to enter the room at that moment.
An in-game lock is just a lock. It can be interacted with. A "plot lock", that is, "the plot requires that the PCs don't go through, so they won't no matter what they try", is a railroad. If you don't want the PCs to interact with something, just don't put it in your game.

But your saying the DM should all ways cave in and just let the players do whatever they want all the time?

Sure this is a great way to play a silly game. It is buying friends.

After all the players will love things like : Player 1-"My character knocks on the locked door six times'' DM-"Wow! Wow! The door swings open for your character! Wow, just let me say you are the best and greatest player of all time!"

[The Extinguisher]

But your saying the DM should all ways cave in and just let the players do whatever they want all the time?

Sure this is a great way to play a silly game. It is buying friends.

After all the players will love things like : Player 1-"My character knocks on the locked door six times'' DM-"Wow! Wow! The door swings open for your character! Wow, just let me say you are the best and greatest player of all time!"

Im definitely realizing that this may not have been the best thread to talk about my issues with "railroading"

Yikes

[Seto]

But your saying the DM should all ways cave in and just let the players do whatever they want all the time?

Sure this is a great way to play a silly game. It is buying friends.

After all the players will love things like : Player 1-"My character knocks on the locked door six times'' DM-"Wow! Wow! The door swings open for your character! Wow, just let me say you are the best and greatest player of all time!"

That is obviously not what I wrote. Let me give you an example. Let's say I put treasure behind a locked door early in a dungeon. The boss owns the key. My plan is for the PCs to beat the boss, find the key, then go back, open the door and get the treasure, Zelda-style. But now imagine that when they find the locked door, instead of walking past it and going to find the boss, the Rogue tells me "I pick the lock". I reply "Okay, roll." He rolls really well and beats the DC, so by the rules he should manage to open the door. I have two options: either use Rule Zero and invent "sorry, the lock was a trap, your tools melted, guess the door'll stay locked", or say "okay, the door opens and you find treasure". The first one is railroading. As a DM, I use the second one.
Really, it's about using the rules fairly. If a player rolls a skill check or uses a spell that should let them open the door, refusing it is functionally the same as fudging dice to make your BBEG win because the plots needs him to win.

[ImNotTrevor]

That is obviously not what I wrote.

Lemme save you some time, man.
DU has literally never responded to what people are actually saying.