Red Flags

[Quertus]

Yeah, the more I read online, and the more I look back at my experiences, the more I believe that things work best when the the table makes the ruling, and the GM has the least power in this regard.

I had one table where 3 of us were skilled GMs / rules lawyers, and everyone trusted whenever one of us said anything. It was great. I even have a very fond memory of the only time I corrected the player who generally knew the rules better than I did.

That table had a great dynamic that was so much better than these authoritarian GM horror stories.

[OmSwaOperations]

When a player asks you whether he can play an Evil character, in a campaign where the setting clearly implies that players are heroic defenders of the common folk, loyal knights of the Imperial crown, or whatever. It's basically a giant flashing sign saying: prepare for me to betray our allies, steal from the party, kill the peasants and ally with the Demon Lord.... please don't...

[Max_Killjoy]

You mean a backstory is supposed to be more than a short paragraph?

I've been doing it wrong all along...

According to the venomous strawman caricature painted of PC backstories by certain posters here, the only PC backstories that exist are novelette length, poorly written, and always intended by the player to justify a mechanical or narrative snowflake advantage.


Meanwhile, one of my red flags is when a player comes to the table with a bunch of numbers and entries on a piece of paper, but no character.

[The Jack]

Meanwhile, one of my red flags is when a player comes to the table with a bunch of numbers and entries on a piece of paper, but no character.

I've never actually done this, but as I'm pretty good at falling into a character, I think I could do that and it'd be to my advantage.

The biggest thing I've learnt from my mistakes is that I need to know the players and the game before I invest a lot into an ideal character. Maybe I was too serious in a dumb game, maybe too dumb for a serious game, too ambitious for a railroad, too evil for a good game...

A character can be made in a minute, a session zero or a week, but if your idea for a character has festered for a month, you're likely going to be really invested even if it's the wrong game for the character, and you're going to have a bad time.

Now mechanics are a different story. In some systems some characters are a minute of work, others require hours to work out stats and spells and equipment and background resources...

[Quertus]

I've never actually done this, but as I'm pretty good at falling into a character, I think I could do that and it'd be to my advantage.

The biggest thing I've learnt from my mistakes is that I need to know the players and the game before I invest a lot into an ideal character. Maybe I was too serious in a dumb game, maybe too dumb for a serious game, too ambitious for a railroad, too evil for a good game...

A character can be made in a minute, a session zero or a week, but if your idea for a character has festered for a month, you're likely going to be really invested even if it's the wrong game for the character, and you're going to have a bad time.

Now mechanics are a different story. In some systems some characters are a minute of work, others require hours to work out stats and spells and equipment and background resources...

This sounds like why I prefer to bring an existing character, to best match the character to the game.

[The Kool]

This sounds like why I prefer to bring an existing character, to best match the character to the game.

I have the exact opposite preference, for the same logic. I prefer to match the character to the game, and to what I'd currently enjoy. I also have a strong dislike for repeating concepts or playing a character I've played before. Each one is unique, you know? One time in a series of freeform games, I played the same character several times in different settings. I eventually worked out a canon explanation for how it was all the same guy because it bothered me (sci-fi, so dimension-hopping and time travel was available). But yeah, in my mind how can you have something that fits the group if it wasn't tailor made to the group? One of my first questions I always ask is what other people want to play. I can find a gap in the roles or an opportunity for synergy, then explore the various options until something clicks. Sometimes this takes moments, sometimes weeks.

On the topic of red flags though, I have quite a few. One of the biggest ones is a player who doesn't want to disclose their character sheet, tactics, or planned combos. I've had recent and past issues with this, and aside from any 'trusting the DM' comments that are to be made (Hey I get it, sometimes the game is run DM vs players but that's not my style), this is almost always indicative of someone fudging their numbers or taking liberties with RAW and assuming it'll be fine.

[Quertus]

But yeah, in my mind how can you have something that fits the group if it wasn't tailor made to the group? One of my first questions I always ask is what other people want to play. I can find a gap in the roles or an opportunity for synergy, then explore the various options until something clicks. Sometimes this takes moments, sometimes weeks.

On the topic of red flags though, I have quite a few. One of the biggest ones is a player who doesn't want to disclose their character sheet, tactics, or planned combos. I've had recent and past issues with this, and aside from any 'trusting the DM' comments that are to be made (Hey I get it, sometimes the game is run DM vs players but that's not my style), this is almost always indicative of someone fudging their numbers or taking liberties with RAW and assuming it'll be fine.

How can any clothes not custom-tailored for you fit? Curiously, my off-the-shelf socks fit just fine. No, characters that I have played before, that I have experience with and have gotten to know, I can make much more definitive statements about whether or not they'll fit; however, "psychology experiment #1726"? Yeah, I may be wrong about how well it will fit the group - I'd rather play it in a series of 1-shots (under multiple GMs, with multiple groups) until I get a handle on who, exactly, the character is. Not entirely dissimilar to how the fit of new shoes is more of an unknown than the fit of broken-in shoes, tbh.

As to non-disclosure, unless the GM is running a published module - unless the GM is not creating the content - knowledge of the PCs will subconsciously influence their creation process. That's just human nature. I prefer to come by my victories honest, and I cannot do that if the GM has been tainted by knowledge.

But, yeah, I've played with plenty of fudgers, too. Usually, IME, they sit behind the GM screen.

[The Kool]

How can any clothes not custom-tailored for you fit? Curiously, my off-the-shelf socks fit just fine. No, characters that I have played before, that I have experience with and have gotten to know, I can make much more definitive statements about whether or not they'll fit; however, "psychology experiment #1726"? Yeah, I may be wrong about how well it will fit the group - I'd rather play it in a series of 1-shots (under multiple GMs, with multiple groups) until I get a handle on who, exactly, the character is. Not entirely dissimilar to how the fit of new shoes is more of an unknown than the fit of broken-in shoes, tbh.

To each their own. Different styles for different people, I've met plenty who work as you do. I just don't enjoy it myself.

As to non-disclosure, unless the GM is running a published module - unless the GM is not creating the content - knowledge of the PCs will subconsciously influence their creation process. That's just human nature. I prefer to come by my victories honest, and I cannot do that if the GM has been tainted by knowledge.

If your style of play is player-vs-DM, then by all means keep your plans secret. As a DM though, I want to tailor the adventure to the PCs. I want to challenge them, I want to make sure they have the means to overcome obstacles, I want to highlight different aspects of their character. I don't see it as taint, I see it as their story. How can I tell a story that fits them if I don't know what they can do? How can I make sure I'm not boring them, or accidentally killing them? I sure as heck can't rely on the encounter creation guidelines for the systems I play, they fall apart pretty quickly and there's so much wild variation in what the players might be capable of. I like to have the players be a part of the story, not just present at a story.

But, yeah, I've played with plenty of fudgers, too. Usually, IME, they sit behind the GM screen.

OK, I'll admit I fudge things from behind the screen. But that's why the screen exists, so the players don't know it's happening. The goal is to increase enjoyment, not detract from it. If players thing you're cheating or being unfair, that's doing it wrong (and I've hit this side of the line more than I care to admit). If players walk away having a good laugh, a great story to tell, and a win in the books, who cares that they technically made the save on the pit trap? After all, you told it dramatically and fudged with the goal of keeping the party together, and no one complained or even noticed. Anyway, that's my philosophy on fudging. There's a difference between fudging and cheating, and it sounds like you've experienced the latter (or have a zero-tolerance policy and prefer to play strictly by the rules all around, which is fine, it's just not a style I or the majority of people I've played with enjoy).

[Calthropstu]

If they want to play evil in a heroic campaign.

If they want to play good in a villainous campaign.

If they only play paladin.

If they constantly start pvp.

If they brag (often) about how their character can beat the others.

If their character can single handedly defeat higher level characters on a regular basis.

If they only roll high numbers.

If they try to constantly derail the campaign for kicks.

If they come to the table and crack open a 6 pack of beer... For themselves.

[The Kool]

I feel like Red Flags are more things you catch as quick as possible to alert you to upcoming problems. Constantly starting PvP or only rolling high numbers is less of a red flag and more of the problem itself.

[Quertus]

If your style of play is player-vs-DM, then by all means keep your plans secret. As a DM though, I want to tailor the adventure to the PCs. I want to challenge them, I want to make sure they have the means to overcome obstacles, I want to highlight different aspects of their character. I don't see it as taint, I see it as their story. How can I tell a story that fits them if I don't know what they can do? How can I make sure I'm not boring them, or accidentally killing them? I sure as heck can't rely on the encounter creation guidelines for the systems I play, they fall apart pretty quickly and there's so much wild variation in what the players might be capable of. I like to have the players be a part of the story, not just present at a story.

Plot Hook: The moon is slowly falling out of orbit.

Superman - Pushes the moon back into orbit.

Quertus - Um... I have some gravity-manipulation spells, but nothing on that order of magnitude... wait, why is the moon falling out of orbit? Divinations, Teleport Through Time, stop the problem from happening?

A few of my characters - We... leave?

Most of my characters - Um... ****? The moon crashes, we tell the story of surviving in a post-apocalyptic world? Or the story of "what we do before we die"?

I prefer stories that, well, are different stories for different characters. Not stories that feel custom-tailored to these characters.

OK, I'll admit I fudge things from behind the screen. But that's why the screen exists, so the players don't know it's happening. The goal is to increase enjoyment, not detract from it. If players thing you're cheating or being unfair, that's doing it wrong (and I've hit this side of the line more than I care to admit). If players walk away having a good laugh, a great story to tell, and a win in the books, who cares that they technically made the save on the pit trap? After all, you told it dramatically and fudged with the goal of keeping the party together, and no one complained or even noticed. Anyway, that's my philosophy on fudging. There's a difference between fudging and cheating, and it sounds like you've experienced the latter (or have a zero-tolerance policy and prefer to play strictly by the rules all around, which is fine, it's just not a style I or the majority of people I've played with enjoy).

So, since you've given me just about the perfect setup...

Having had GMs "being unfair" too many times, I developed a 0-tolerance for "not playing by the rules". Except... it wasn't 0 tolerance. There are thousands of pieces on the chessboard - if one piece (ie, one of my fellow PCs) is clearly cheating? That's fine. That just makes that one piece cool and different, a statistical anomaly that "always rolls 16+". If that's what that person has to do to have fun, who am I to say it's wrong. But when the remaining 99.99% of the world cannot be trusted to behave according to the rules? There's no point. It's just a game of "listening to the GM's story". I want to come by my victories (and losses!) honest, not tell stories of how the GM decided that this was what happened.

Sure, winning is probably better that losing. But a well-deserved loss is much better than an undeserved win - the latter invalidates the entire campaign, along with everything else the GM has ever done, or will ever do.

[JoeJ]

This sounds like why I prefer to bring an existing character, to best match the character to the game.

That's something that, in general, I don't allow. Part of the reason I have a session 0 is for the players to create their characters.

[The Jack]

This sounds like why I prefer to bring an existing character, to best match the character to the game.

I'm not following you. Do you mean from another game or do you have a bank of unplayed characters stockpiled up? Cause if it's the former... That sounds like the worst strategy.

'Hi yeah welcome to the game, the other three players are working with the church to better my hostile, grim dark, post-cataclysmic world where humans and hobbits have banded together against everything else and fiends, undead and monsters roam the land.'

'well I've really been enjoying playing a saucy Teifling minx who's a fiend pack warlock, a great laugh and a suave lover. She's been trying to gather exotic animals for her own circus but they always seem to get away...'

Alright, it's extreme, but I really don't like characters from other games (unless they're my games and in the same setting... which hasn't happened yet)

[The Kool]

Plot Hook: The moon is slowly falling out of orbit.

Superman - Pushes the moon back into orbit.

Quertus - Um... I have some gravity-manipulation spells, but nothing on that order of magnitude... wait, why is the moon falling out of orbit? Divinations, Teleport Through Time, stop the problem from happening?

A few of my characters - We... leave?

Most of my characters - Um... ****? The moon crashes, we tell the story of surviving in a post-apocalyptic world? Or the story of "what we do before we die"?

I prefer stories that, well, are different stories for different characters. Not stories that feel custom-tailored to these characters.

To use your example, if I have a story about the moon falling, it may very well be the setup to a time-traveling intrigue story of mystery and discovery. Or it may be a post-apocalyptic story of survival and struggle. Those are two vastly different stories, for different PCs. If I'm prepared to tell the latter, and it turns out one of my players is Superman? Well uh, ok guys, thanks for coming, sorry the session was 5 minutes long, have a nice day? If I'm prepared to tell the former, and nobody has anyway to go down that path... Well uh, sorry but you guys all die when the moon impacts the planet and splits the crust open... sorry for the 5 minute session have a nice day? Regardless of communication and what type of game the players want, if I don't know what the PCs are capable of it puts me in a bind.

So, since you've given me just about the perfect setup...

Having had GMs "being unfair" too many times, I developed a 0-tolerance for "not playing by the rules". Except... it wasn't 0 tolerance. There are thousands of pieces on the chessboard - if one piece (ie, one of my fellow PCs) is clearly cheating? That's fine. That just makes that one piece cool and different, a statistical anomaly that "always rolls 16+". If that's what that person has to do to have fun, who am I to say it's wrong. But when the remaining 99.99% of the world cannot be trusted to behave according to the rules? There's no point. It's just a game of "listening to the GM's story". I want to come by my victories (and losses!) honest, not tell stories of how the GM decided that this was what happened.

Sure, winning is probably better that losing. But a well-deserved loss is much better than an undeserved win - the latter invalidates the entire campaign, along with everything else the GM has ever done, or will ever do.

Yeah, I've been railroaded before. It's no fun. Fudging is best done judiciously and in secret, to add dramatic tension. Sometimes I screw up a stat block, and I fudge things to not kill the players because that'll feel unfair to them. Sometimes, having them succeed will screw up a lot of things (like splitting the party with no way for them to reconvene), so I fudge things against them a little. Done seldom and in secret is how it goes, and if done right you'll never even know.

[Quertus]

I'm not following you. Do you mean from another game or do you have a bank of unplayed characters stockpiled up? Cause if it's the former... That sounds like the worst strategy.

'Hi yeah welcome to the game, the other three players are working with the church to better my hostile, grim dark, post-cataclysmic world where humans and hobbits have banded together against everything else and fiends, undead and monsters roam the land.'

'well I've really been enjoying playing a saucy Teifling minx who's a fiend pack warlock, a great laugh and a suave lover. She's been trying to gather exotic animals for her own circus but they always seem to get away...'

Alright, it's extreme, but I really don't like characters from other games (unless they're my games and in the same setting... which hasn't happened yet)

Well, that's just stupid - that's bringing in a character that doesn't match.

Now, what if I brought in existing character Winx who was working for the church, and your idiot player brought a brand new sexy seductress succubus?

Pretty clear - to me, at least - that "existing character" isn't the problem.

That's something that, in general, I don't allow. Part of the reason I have a session 0 is for the players to create their characters.

Why not?

So, for me, one of the points of a character is to explore human psychology. For example, I created Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, because I could not understand how people could do something (like, say, play an RPG) for years (or decades) and still just not get it. So I specifically engineered a personality I thought would be as resistant to catching a clue as possible.

And it worked. Deep into epic level, and Quertus is still pretty tactically inept. In the process, he turned out to be my most requested, the most successful massively multi table character I've ever made.

Now, if Quertus would actually work for one of your games, I could play Quertus. Or I could build a new character, and find that I can't meet the stretch goal I made for his personality. So scrap him, and build a second... that I don't enjoy playing. Etc etc repeat forever. I usually have to "take a 20" to create a character worth playing. Most of my characters have a valuable life of 0-1 sessions. Usually 0.

So, that's why I find it better to allow existing characters. What is your reason for *not* allowing them?

(Also, as an added benefit... No GM will ever create the variety of content that 20 GMs will. I cannot explore a character under just 1 GM. So "no existing characters" guarantees that the characters have no real value to me)

[Friv]

So, that's why I find it better to allow existing characters. What is your reason for *not* allowing them?

Just speaking for myself... in about 90% of games that I run, I present a one-sentence pitch and a couple of ground rules, and we sit down and build our characters and setting together. So if one person comes in with a pre-finished character, they're going to have to be up to modify that character's background and concept based on what other people are thinking of and tossing out.

If it's a pre-finished character who has literally already had other experiences, chances are they're not going to work great for a game premise that starts with, "You are all teenage students in a moderately-magic School" or "you are all a gang of professional mercenaries in a post-post-apocalyptic steampunk Imperial outpost" or "okay, let's do Buzzfeed's Unsolved, but in a world in which ghosts and demons are real".

But to be honest, this is a thing that has never come up for me. I've never once had someone say, "Hey, I'd like to bring this character I played somewhere else into your campaign." The closest I've come is, "I didn't get a chance to play this character, I'd like to try a variation on them here."

[Quertus]

To use your example, if I have a story about the moon falling, it may very well be the setup to a time-traveling intrigue story of mystery and discovery. Or it may be a post-apocalyptic story of survival and struggle. Those are two vastly different stories, for different PCs. If I'm prepared to tell the latter, and it turns out one of my players is Superman? Well uh, ok guys, thanks for coming, sorry the session was 5 minutes long, have a nice day? If I'm prepared to tell the former, and nobody has anyway to go down that path... Well uh, sorry but you guys all die when the moon impacts the planet and splits the crust open... sorry for the 5 minute session have a nice day? Regardless of communication and what type of game the players want, if I don't know what the PCs are capable of it puts me in a bind.

So, yeah, the moon falling is a really bad example. And that's why it's good.

IMO, if the GM wants to run a "time-traveling intrigue story of mystery and discovery", then the GM needs to get buy-in for that. If the GM wants "a post-apocalyptic story of survival and struggle", then the GM needs to get buy-in for that. In short, if the GM wants anything, they need to not railroad - they need to get buy-in. So, the fact that "the GM's story" falls apart? That's a feature, not a bug.

The GM should just present scenarios, not plan stories. Any deviation from that should mandate explicit buy-in from the players. Otherwise, as this silly example exacerbates to make it obvious, you're looking at either railroading or epic failure. But I repeat myself.

[JoeJ]

Why not?

First, because before session 0 the player won't have enough information to create a character who fits into the world. And second, because part of character creation is deciding how your characters know each other. It's a lot harder to tie your background into somebody else's if you're creating your characters separately.

[The Kool]

Actually, I look at the moon example as an encounter or a short arc, not as the whole story. It serves as an exaggerated example of what I'm trying to say, which is that if I don't know what tools are at the players' disposal I can easily overwhelm them by expecting them to have access to something they do not. Now, you may consider this a failure on the part of the DM for expecting too much from the players, or you may see this as a failure on the part of the players for not having prepared thoroughly enough, but I find it doesn't matter whose fault it is if it can be avoided with a little communication. And, to get back to the original point, if someone is reluctant or refusing to engage in that communication, it's a bad sign (for reasons given before).

What you seem to be describing though is a very player-driven playstyle. For you, the story comes from the players and the DM is very behind the scenes. The DM presents the setting, the players create the story, the DM serves as arbiter. Which is fine, it's just a very different style from what my groups and I play.

[geppetto]

So, for me, one of the points of a character is to explore human psychology. For example, I created Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, because I could not understand how people could do something (like, say, play an RPG) for years (or decades) and still just not get it. So I specifically engineered a personality I thought would be as resistant to catching a clue as possible.

Now that is truly Freudian. Worthy of a textbook.

[Arbane]

You say you want to play a Paladin, and the DM bursts into mad-scientist-worthy laughter.

[Xuc Xac]

One of my red flags is when a player writes a backstory that is written in what I call "tragic past perfect". A lot of bad things have happened to the character but all the bad stuff is fully resolved and can't come back to bite them: all the enemies are dead, the family inheritance is secured, and all the strings tied to the character have been cut.

It seems to be an attempt to preemptively avoid any dramatic difficulties by getting the hard parts out of the way before the game starts.

[Quertus]

And second, because part of character creation is deciding how your characters know each other. It's a lot harder to tie your background into somebody else's if you're creating your characters separately.

Whenever I've tried "I know this guy, and formed X relationship with them", it failed horribly. Our personalities were never such that that relationship would have formed, nor was the artificial relationship well roleplayed. Thus, I exclusively desire to not know the other characters, and form relationships during the game. Creating relationships / forming bonds is a game in and of itself.

Actually, I look at the moon example as an encounter or a short arc, not as the whole story. It serves as an exaggerated example of what I'm trying to say, which is that if I don't know what tools are at the players' disposal I can easily overwhelm them by expecting them to have access to something they do not. Now, you may consider this a failure on the part of the DM for expecting too much from the players, or you may see this as a failure on the part of the players for not having prepared thoroughly enough, but I find it doesn't matter whose fault it is if it can be avoided with a little communication. And, to get back to the original point, if someone is reluctant or refusing to engage in that communication, it's a bad sign (for reasons given before).

What you seem to be describing though is a very player-driven playstyle. For you, the story comes from the players and the DM is very behind the scenes. The DM presents the setting, the players create the story, the DM serves as arbiter. Which is fine, it's just a very different style from what my groups and I play.

No, I view it as a failure on the part of the GM, for trying to railroad a particular story without getting explicit buy-in. Trying to do an end around, by making sure that they understand the capabilities of the PCs well enough to craft the details of the story so that it *has* to go the way that they intend? It may be an attempt to be more subtle, but it's still railroading.

And, since these rails invalidate everything the GM has ever done or will ever do, and, since, given enough time, even subtle rails will become visible & even the best illusionists will make mistakes, I prefer to force railroading illusionist GMs into the light, and make them get buy-in on their rails.

Now, sure, I think player-driven games are better. But that's not the point. The point is, I think that constantly lying to your players, and treating them like children, is suboptimal. And probably dysfunctional (but I lack the psychology credentials to make such an official pronouncement).

-----

Interestingly, these two conversations are related. I only care about what I came by honest, not what story the GM read to me. This is why I care more about the relationships that I form with the other PCs than I do about the GM's story.

Having me start with artificial relationships, and railroading the game? Well, there's nothing for me to do now, so they're no point playing the game now.

[The Kool]

... Trying to do an end around, by making sure that they understand the capabilities of the PCs well enough to craft the details of the story so that it *has* to go the way that they intend? It may be an attempt to be more subtle, but it's still railroading. ... The point is, I think that constantly lying to your players, and treating them like children, is suboptimal. ...

Ah, see you're either misunderstanding me or overstating what I do. I never force it, it's about what the players *can* achieve, not what I'm deciding they *will* achieve. If I throw a raging barbarian at them, I'd like to know they are capable of winning. I would also like to know they are capable of losing. Failing to ensure that the players can influence the outcome is railroading in its own way. On the other side of the coin, nothing I do with fudging the dice is constant, and there is nothing about it in any way that involves treating anyone like a child.

[Quertus]

Ah, see you're either misunderstanding me or overstating what I do. I never force it, it's about what the players *can* achieve, not what I'm deciding they *will* achieve. If I throw a raging barbarian at them, I'd like to know they are capable of winning. I would also like to know they are capable of losing. Failing to ensure that the players can influence the outcome is railroading in its own way. On the other side of the coin, nothing I do with fudging the dice is constant, and there is nothing about it in any way that involves treating anyone like a child.

Ah. I misunderstood. Trying to engineer Combat as Sport, trying to engineer a "sporting challenge", is very much something where understanding people's capabilities is a prerequisite.

Still very much not my cup of tea (in an RPG / outside a War Game), but "we're playing CaS" is all it takes to get buy-in from your players / to not have the dysfunction I was describing.

[King of Nowhere]

Just speaking for myself... in about 90% of games that I run, I present a one-sentence pitch and a couple of ground rules, and we sit down and build our characters and setting together. So if one person comes in with a pre-finished character, they're going to have to be up to modify that character's background and concept based on what other people are thinking of and tossing out.

If it's a pre-finished character who has literally already had other experiences, chances are they're not going to work great for a game premise that starts with, "You are all teenage students in a moderately-magic School" or "you are all a gang of professional mercenaries in a post-post-apocalyptic steampunk Imperial outpost" or "okay, let's do Buzzfeed's Unsolved, but in a world in which ghosts and demons are real".

This should go without saying. Of course the details must be adapted from one setting to another. And of course, unless you are starting a new high level campaign in the same setting, you cannot have the character being the same character.
You can, however, take the same backstory (adapted as needed to fit the setting) and the same personality, and tell some different stories with the same character.

No, I view it as a failure on the part of the GM, for trying to railroad a particular story without getting explicit buy-in. Trying to do an end around, by making sure that they understand the capabilities of the PCs well enough to craft the details of the story so that it *has* to go the way that they intend? It may be an attempt to be more subtle, but it's still railroading.

And, since these rails invalidate everything the GM has ever done or will ever do, and, since, given enough time, even subtle rails will become visible & even the best illusionists will make mistakes, I prefer to force railroading illusionist GMs into the light, and make them get buy-in on their rails.

I'm having troubles understanding what you would not consider railroading under that premise.
I mean, as a DM you set up an evil overlord. You expect the campaign will be about the players figthing the evil overlord. So, by your definition, you are railroading the players into fighting the evil overlord.
You present them with a wide open-world sandbox? You are railroading them into exploring it and following the various plot hooks you'll throw at them.
You are not throwing any plot hooks? you are railroading the players into taking the initiative, when they may just want to be prodded into action.

Personally, I call railroading when player's choice has no consequence. i generally set up a scenario and let the players decide how they want to handle it. Of course I have expectations on what they'll do, which help me prepare better. And I have planned at least one way they can actually overcome the challenge, because I have to make sure the challenge is beatable. that's not railroading. trying to goad your players along that way, and punishing them arbitrarily for trying to do something else, that's something i'd call railroading.

Furthermore, if the players do not trust the DM to have some decent plans, they should not play with that DM. And if the players and the DM are wrestling for control of the story, then they should stop and have a big talk on what they actually want.

[Alhallor]

If all other Players know your Charakter better than yourself.

I played in a Group once with one Player who was:
1. On the phone most of the time.
2. Would not listen to the GM. At the time that Player had a 1 on 1 talk with an important NPC and we roleplayed amongst ourselves after the talk that Player said "Yeah, I tell you all what GM just told me." Looks of bewilderment followed and we told them that we didn't listen in. "Could you tell us what GM said?" And the Response was a hopeful look at the GM.
3. Forget one of the most useful spells that the Player used multiple times beforehand. Also forgot a lot of the capabilities of their Charakter. That seriously all other players knew because these abilities were used.

[Max_Killjoy]

If all other Players know your Charakter better than yourself.

Flip side, if the GM or any other player thinks they know your character better than you do.

"Your character wouldn't do that."
"Your character wouldn't say that."
"Your character wouldn't think that."
"This is how your character would react to ____."
"Your character is supposed to be afraid in this situation."

[Quertus]

This should go without saying. Of course the details must be adapted from one setting to another. And of course, unless you are starting a new high level campaign in the same setting, you cannot have the character being the same character.
You can, however, take the same backstory (adapted as needed to fit the setting) and the same personality, and tell some different stories with the same character.



I'm having troubles understanding what you would not consider railroading under that premise.
I mean, as a DM you set up an evil overlord. You expect the campaign will be about the players figthing the evil overlord. So, by your definition, you are railroading the players into fighting the evil overlord.


Personally, I call railroading when player's choice has no consequence. i generally set up a scenario and let the players decide how they want to handle it. Of course I have expectations on what they'll do, which help me prepare better. And I have planned at least one way they can actually overcome the challenge, because I have to make sure the challenge is beatable. that's not railroading. trying to goad your players along that way, and punishing them arbitrarily for trying to do something else, that's something i'd call railroading.

Furthermore, if the players do not trust the DM to have some decent plans, they should not play with that DM. And if the players and the DM are wrestling for control of the story, then they should stop and have a big talk on what they actually want.

What is not railroading? That's a good question.

I would consider it not railroading if the GM set up an evil overlord. And then the GM let the PCs fight the evil overlord, or join the evil overlord, or ignore the evil overlord, or show the "evil" overlord the true meaning of evil, to where he repents his wicked ways, then gathers up the forces of good to stop the PCs.

If the GM forces things to go a certain way, and invalidates player choices to make that happen, yes, that's railroading, and the type that both normally gets discussed, and is easiest to see how it is bad for a game. But railroading takes other, more subtle and insidious forms. And all of these forms start from the same base, when the rails are first laid in the GM's head, when the GM wants / needs something specific to happen, and doesn't get buy-in from the players.

-----

As for your first paragraph, I can see where you are coming from, but multiple instantiations of a concept would have no value to me. Because they aren't the same "person". Only exploring the same person under the diversity of content that only multiple GMs can deliver has value to me.

[Morgaln]

What is not railroading? That's a good question.

I would consider it not railroading if the GM set up an evil overlord. And then the GM let the PCs fight the evil overlord, or join the evil overlord, or ignore the evil overlord, or show the "evil" overlord the true meaning of evil, to where he repents his wicked ways, then gathers up the forces of good to stop the PCs.

If the GM forces things to go a certain way, and invalidates player choices to make that happen, yes, that's railroading, and the type that both normally gets discussed, and is easiest to see how it is bad for a game. But railroading takes other, more subtle and insidious forms. And all of these forms start from the same base, when the rails are first laid in the GM's head, when the GM wants / needs something specific to happen, and doesn't get buy-in from the players.

-----

As for your first paragraph, I can see where you are coming from, but multiple instantiations of a concept would have no value to me. Because they aren't the same "person". Only exploring the same person under the diversity of content that only multiple GMs can deliver has value to me.

I don't quite understand: on one hand you claim you want diversity of content delivered by GMs, on the other hand you decry every attempt by the GM to influence the story as railroading. I get the impression you'd prefer a game without a GM, purely made up of player interactions. So what can a GM even bring to the table that you would consider of value?