The Nature of Railroading

[Florian]

@OldTrees1:

I think we're all talking by each other at that moment.

My guess is that you equate railroading with creating a more or less linear story and illusionism to hide the tracks you have so carefully laid out. As in, player choices don't really matter as the story has already been told.

This is not what I (and when I read him correctly, AMFV) been talking about here.

Some years ago, I ran a L5R emerald magistrate campaign, so murder mystery meets samurai drama. No pre-written plot, pure sandbox, with the exception that I kept adding more details, NPC and locations to the city we used as a playing field with each new case that came up. The campaign had only three hard boundaries, the playing field being restricted to that one city, take a look at the cases and I would not care about non-magistrate characters.

Thing being that I was playing hard with the samurai drama aspects of the campaign. Some of the stuff I included was only in to trigger conflicts, either with the code of bushido or the mandate of heaven (or both). The illusion here is that the players had full agency and were able to add a lot to the campaign on their own accord, for example, one of the players made it a thing that his character has problems with his father and son, while another played out the full thing of a formal betrothal and marriage, but I was not neutral as GM. I presented cases in as neutral a fashion as I could, nothing about how to try and solve them being pre-planned, but I also went out of my way to create as much conflict or include hard obstacles to keep the drama going.

To be more concrete, because the whole discussion is too abstract at times, in one case, when I noticed that my players really have developed a connection to a NPC that was used as the scapegoat for a crime, I decided to have their boss order the execution of that NPC to enforce a conflict.

@Lorsa:

Can't really agree with you there.

Ok, we do have a inequality in power between the roles of player and GM. Because we know and understand that, we can try and level the playing field, for example by using the rules system in such a way that it empowers the player side, introduce a meta-currency that temporarily grants GM rights and so on. Trust only comes into it when you realize that the inequality still exists and it is within the power of one side to disregard the social contracts at any time.

Thing is, this is purely based on an antagonistic stance.

To stick to the food analogy: A chef must go thru all the hassle and open a restaurant, create a menu and offer something to the consumers, all the while gathering feedback and trying to rework the menu based on that.

The connection between chef > customer and customer > chef is quite different, depending on what side you focus on. A creator has to deal with totally different issues than a consumer. In a typical RPG group, you have to deal with people having various motivations, understanding of the rules, personal goals and all that.

If you understand the connection between creator and consumer only on a personal level, you do a disservice to the other participants and possibly to the creator.

It´s like opening up a good burger place, craft brewery or pizza joint, really. While yes, you offer the option to customize your burger, you will include some mustard, ginger and such in the patty and only offer country potatoes with sour cream as a side because you know it works (and there is no real gain to offer stuff for people wanting anything else).

Or in short, I think your use of the analogy breaks down because we are not talking about a one to one but a one to many relationship.

[MrSandman]

My guess is that you equate railroading with creating a more or less linear story and illusionism to hide the tracks you have so carefully laid out. As in, player choices don't really matter as the story has already been told.

This is not what I (and when I read him correctly, AMFV) been talking about here.

Some years ago, I ran a L5R emerald magistrate campaign, so murder mystery meets samurai drama. No pre-written plot, pure sandbox, with the exception that I kept adding more details, NPC and locations to the city we used as a playing field with each new case that came up. The campaign had only three hard boundaries, the playing field being restricted to that one city, take a look at the cases and I would not care about non-magistrate characters.

Thing being that I was playing hard with the samurai drama aspects of the campaign. Some of the stuff I included was only in to trigger conflicts, either with the code of bushido or the mandate of heaven (or both). The illusion here is that the players had full agency and were able to add a lot to the campaign on their own accord, for example, one of the players made it a thing that his character has problems with his father and son, while another played out the full thing of a formal betrothal and marriage, but I was not neutral as GM. I presented cases in as neutral a fashion as I could, nothing about how to try and solve them being pre-planned, but I also went out of my way to create as much conflict or include hard obstacles to keep the drama going.

To be more concrete, because the whole discussion is too abstract at times, in one case, when I noticed that my players really have developed a connection to a NPC that was used as the scapegoat for a crime, I decided to have their boss order the execution of that NPC to enforce a conflict.

I wouldn't consider your example as a case of railroading or illusionism. There was potential for drama and you added a twist. All good.

What I would consider illusionism is if the PCs go to talk to his boss and he decides not to have their friend executed regardless of the PCs actions and following a predetermined script and then you pretend that it was the result of the PCs and that it could have gone otherwise.

Ok, we do have a inequality in power between the roles of player and GM. Because we know and understand that, we can try and level the playing field, for example by using the rules system in such a way that it empowers the player side, introduce a meta-currency that temporarily grants GM rights and so on. Trust only comes into it when you realize that the inequality still exists and it is within the power of one side to disregard the social contracts at any time.

I would challenge that as an unqualified statement. A GM has a different function than a player, for sure. But a GM needn't have the power to supersede or render the PCs choices irrelevant. She is not the sole owner of the game and she has no right to decide how the story will unfold before it's played unless otherwise agreed.

To be sure, a table can decide that a GM will have power over the players. Everyone can play as they wish to. But one table's take can't be made the standard.

[OldTrees1]

@OldTrees1:

I think we're all talking by each other at that moment.

My guess is that you equate railroading with creating a more or less linear story and illusionism to hide the tracks you have so carefully laid out. As in, player choices don't really matter as the story has already been told.

This is not what I [have] been talking about here.

It is quite possible Florian.

I am more on the glandular side. Railroading is an action and railroads are made of lots of acts of railroading (which obviously means railroading can exist without a railroad). So you can have a game that is almost a sandbox but included moments of railroading. That granular element, and thus my definition of railroading is:

The players are faced with a choice. They choose option A. The DM knows the outcome of option A. ][ The DM changes the outcome of option A in response to the players choosing option A.

That "][" is the dividing line between default and railroading. Lots of things happen in the game beyond the players being given choices and some have argued that my definition misses some kinds of railroading, or is too strict on QOs but I find it a serviceable definition for a neutral connotation definition of railroading. When railroading is appropriate (including beneficial) depends on the group, the campaign, and the specifics.

I define Illusionism as "Railroading but intentionally made so that the Players can't notice it" with the can't part being by definition rather that needing to be demonstrated in each example. That is the definition I use because that is how I have seen it defined by those that push for it.

With those definitions in mind I am going to continue reading your post.

Some years ago, I ran a L5R emerald magistrate campaign, so murder mystery meets samurai drama. No pre-written plot, pure sandbox, with the exception that I kept adding more details, NPC and locations to the city we used as a playing field with each new case that came up. The campaign had only three hard boundaries, the playing field being restricted to that one city, take a look at the cases and I would not care about non-magistrate characters.

Thing being that I was playing hard with the samurai drama aspects of the campaign. Some of the stuff I included was only in to trigger conflicts, either with the code of bushido or the mandate of heaven (or both). The illusion here is that the players had full agency and were able to add a lot to the campaign on their own accord, for example, one of the players made it a thing that his character has problems with his father and son, while another played out the full thing of a formal betrothal and marriage, but I was not neutral as GM. I presented cases in as neutral a fashion as I could, nothing about how to try and solve them being pre-planned, but I also went out of my way to create as much conflict or include hard obstacles to keep the drama going.

To be more concrete, because the whole discussion is too abstract at times, in one case, when I noticed that my players really have developed a connection to a NPC that was used as the scapegoat for a crime, I decided to have their boss order the execution of that NPC to enforce a conflict.

I will admit I had to read between the lines a bit so my reading of the situation is less accurate. I see very little railroading in this example and it looks like it was well suited for the campaign.

1) There would have been times when a player made a choice that would have severely decreased / ended the drama.

In some of those situations it sounds like you did a variation of "Yes, but no." where you altered the logical outcome to include something that would increase / continue the drama. The PCs choose to save an NPC from being a scapegoat => Yes, but I changed it so your boss now wants him dead. You were doing this to enforce a conflict as a way to keep the drama going. However you did not completely negate their choice because now they could contest the order somehow if they so choose. Note, this is different from if the original logical consequence also had the boss order the execution. It is only railroading because you changed the outcome.

In other situations you let the drama be reduced / ended but introduced another source of drama via new content. The PCs choose to save an NPC from being a scapegoat => Yes. Oh and soon after you hear that some drunk Ronin have become bandits (or whatever makes more sense as a new conflict).

The first reaction is clearly railroading but only slightly alters the outcome. The second I do not consider railroading but some would say my definition might be incomplete in that area. In both cases they seem well tailored to the style of game you were running and it sounds like your players and you yourself were enjoying yourselves.

2) You mention it was Illusionism. I assume by this that the two mechanics mentioned above were disguised so the players did not notice the actual cause (resolution of drama) and effect (add more drama). You say the Illusion was that the players had full agency, from the description they had almost full agency. You noted at least 2 things that the player added to the campaign through the agency of their characters. The only main negation of agency was the 1st of the 2 mechanics above (see above). I don't see the Illusionism adding anything special to this example but that might be a result of the players preferring the Illusion. In either case the PCs don't know the connection.

That is a good example of Railroading in a Sandbox. Although I am not surprised by the combination. It is also a good example of beneficial railroading. I believe something similar could be done without the railroading, but it would take a lot more preparation and only achieve approximately the same effect. Basically you converted the improv technique of "Yes, and ..." as a way to improv ways to maintain a status quo amount of drama.

[Lorsa]

I'm not sure that trust is the relevant factor here. I mean it's a game, I'm not marrying my players. I need to trust them enough to trust that they'll play the game without needing me to watch them to ensure they aren't cheating (since that wastes my time) and they need to trust me enough to know that whatever tools I use I'm doing it to improve the game, not for some kind of power fantasy. That's trust certainly, but not that high a level of trust.

Whatever the amount, there's still some measure of trust required.

Putting that aside, you mention "using tolls to improve the game". What improves the game or not is a subjective matter. This is why kyoryu prefers to be explicit about "this tool does not improve the game experience for me, rather it detracts from it". And since many people have had poor experiences with GMs using tools that make the game worse, they actually do need a high level of trust for their GMs.

I mean, the tool might improve the game in your eyes, while still making it worse in the eyes of a player.

If we're going to continue to muddle things with the food analogy, it's about the same amount of trust you'd need to give to a waiter or a chef at a restaurant. You might not even know the chef, or ever meet them. Although you probably wouldn't mind it. Trust helps, but you don't need that much to play a game with somebody. Literally the only negative that can happen is that you lose a couple of hours, if you're playing with strangers.

Yeah, maybe analogies just muddle things. I mean, at a restaurant, the menu is usually fairly explicit about what is in the dish. It won't mention every ingredient, but the end result is quite clear, and if you ask about some specific ingredient, the waiter will usually give you an answer.

Basically, at a restaurant, you trust that the chef will give you what you order. This is based on experience. With a RPG, many players have the experience that the GM is, in fact, NOT giving them what they order, or being deceptive about what they will provide. Therefore, there is a higher trust requirement for GMs than restaurants.

Well since the tool in question is one that is supposed to be hidden, mustard is probably not the best analogue, something like Saffron or something that enhances flavor without giving too much of its own flavor. That's the kind of thing we're talking about here. Now if you're comparing mustard to illusionism if the person is tasting a bunch of mustard in every dish, you're not using the tool correctly.

You're right, the point of illusionism is that it shouldn't be noticed. The common conception is that it's a tool that can be used to enhance the game and "the players will never know". Except no single GM is skilled enough with the tool to get away with it forever. Somewhere down the line, the illusion will break. At some point you will put in too much saffron.

It's also a tool that is based on deception, which makes it a moral issue. It's akin to saying "it's okay to cheat on my spouse if they never find out". If you know someone would be upset if they find out you were doing something, succeeding with keeping it hidden does not make it okay. Well, that is, in my view of morality.

First, I'm not being dishonest about the tools that I might use as a DM. I'm stating outright that they don't get to know what those tools are, although I suppose if I were asked directly about illusionism and railroading, I'd probably say that those might get used, but not all the time.

You're not being dishonest about the tools, but you are being vague about what type game you will provide. If we're going to use the restaurant analogy again, it's like printing a menu with a very fuzzy image of a dish that says "something with meat: ingredients unknown". And when you ask for more specifics the answer is "nevermind the ingredients, I promise they are all added to improve the flavor".

It's not impossible someone would go for such a menu, I mean, plenty of people like to be surprised. Some people are are more cautious though - and you can hardly blame them for leaving your restaurant. Which is sad, because they might enjoy what you cook - they just need to know more about it first. Which makes me wonder what harm you would see in being more specific about your tools? Does that somehow make the game loose quality in your opinion?

Second, any game runs the risk of wasting everybody's time. That's the risk of committing your time to something long-term like RPGs. Now if you can't handle or don't want to try a thing where you don't know all the ingredients, that is your prerogative, but I think you're missing out on something that is much better than the experience where you know everything that's going on.

Edit: I think that the reason I'm kind of staying away from the "trust" thing is that it's really charged language. The amount of time I'd waste on a bad game of D&D is pretty close to the amount of time I'd waste on a 3.50 DVD I bought at Wal Mart cause it looked nifty, if I'm a DM it's more, but it's not more time than I waste in other ways.

Yeah, and people take RPG commitments differently. You sign up for a campaign and then quit after just one session (or even midway through the first?) if you think the game is bad. Others, like myself, would stick with it for far longer because I signed up and take this commitment seriously. I mean, I played a short, really horrible campaign of 8 sessions once. It was one of the most railroady things I've seen. A few players actively tried to avoid the sessions using a variety of poor excuses. I sat through all of them, after which I decided never to play with this GM again. If I sign up for something, I will stick with it.

So I think the amount of trust required is proportional to the amount of time you commit to. If you are perfectly fine with me quitting after one session or two, I will agree to basically any vague terms you like. If you want me to commit to a long-run campaign with an indeterminate amount of sessions, I'm gonna need to trust you A LOT before I agree to vagueness. Does that make sense?

Btw, I'm not trying to imply you don't have commitment to things. I know you've been in the military, which is a hell of a commitment. I'm just hoping you can understand where I'm coming from when I say that trust is needed before I sign up for vague stuff one day a week for a year or two. 'Cause I'm stupidly loyal with social commitments (and nowhere near loyal enough to work commitments, but that's another story).

[Lorsa]

@Lorsa:

Can't really agree with you there.

Ok, we do have a inequality in power between the roles of player and GM. Because we know and understand that, we can try and level the playing field, for example by using the rules system in such a way that it empowers the player side, introduce a meta-currency that temporarily grants GM rights and so on. Trust only comes into it when you realize that the inequality still exists and it is within the power of one side to disregard the social contracts at any time.

Thing is, this is purely based on an antagonistic stance.

Uhm, yeah? I need to trust that my GM won't be antagonistic precisely because I realize there is a huge inequality in power within the game. That can't really be news can it?

I mean, experience tells me that some GMs ARE antagonistic and abuse their power. Which is why a GM has to develop some measure of trust before I agree to long-lasting campaigns.

[Frozen_Feet]

If you want to talk about "trust", you might ad well take a lesson from game theory and iterated prisoner's dilemma:

You start by trusting the other players a priori and co-operating, then follow tit-for-tat. If someone ceases to co-operate (by breaking the rules of the game etc.), you cease to co-operate with them untill they amend their wicked ways.

[Morgaln]

It is quite possible Florian.

I am more on the glandular side. Railroading is an action and railroads are made of lots of acts of railroading (which obviously means railroading can exist without a railroad). So you can have a game that is almost a sandbox but included moments of railroading. That granular element, and thus my definition of railroading is:

The players are faced with a choice. They choose option A. The DM knows the outcome of option A. ][ The DM changes the outcome of option A in response to the players choosing option A.

That "][" is the dividing line between default and railroading. Lots of things happen in the game beyond the players being given choices and some have argued that my definition misses some kinds of railroading, or is too strict on QOs but I find it a serviceable definition for a neutral connotation definition of railroading. When railroading is appropriate (including beneficial) depends on the group, the campaign, and the specifics.

I define Illusionism as "Railroading but intentionally made so that the Players can't notice it" with the can't part being by definition rather that needing to be demonstrated in each example. That is the definition I use because that is how I have seen it defined by those that push for it.

With those definitions in mind I am going to continue reading your post.

I find this definition of railroading problematic, since it doesn't cover the quantum ogre. The DM knows that the outcome of every choice is the Ogre, so he doesn't have to change the outcome of option A. As such, it would not be railroading by your definition. But then I haven't found an exhaustive definition for railroading yet.

This thread has been very interesting to me, because it made me think about and consider a lot of my preconceptions. For one, I've always considered railroading inherently bad, but that's because I thought of railroading in very tight terms; mainly, situations where players witness events but aren't really affecting the outcome. The aforementioned DM of the Rings is a good example. I'm now thinking about whether I need to define other forms of railroading and how to evaluate them.

For example, the way I DM is 90-95% improvised. I do some preparations (usually a few places and NPCs), but I don't have much more at the start of a campaign. However, what I do have are 2-4 scenes that I would like to be part of the story. One of them tends to be the very first scene, the others are scenes that I want to include. But I won't know yet how those scenes will fit into my story. I don't see the dots that connect the first scene to those other scenes. This is where the payers come in. They will play, follwing story hooks and doing their things, and when I see an opportunity to insert one of my desired scenes, I'll do so. Now understand that these scenes exist in my head in very rough outlines. Until they come to pass, I don't usually know what leads to these scenes and what their outcome will be. When they happen, the circumstances and motivations might be completely different than I originally thought.
Now by some definitions (Quertus's at the very least), this would be railroading. After all, whatever path the players take, they will eventually arrive at those scenes. However, the players' agency is not inhibited either. What they decide to do during the sessions will have an effect on the world around them independently from that scene I wanted them to have, and even that scene might play out completely different depending on how the players arrived there. That's because my stories are not linear; there isn't one path with binary choices; the story branches and changes and after one or two sessions, there are usually at least three different things going on that all continue in different directions.

As an example: I have a story in W:tA that is following a group of survivors after the Apocalypse has come and gone. Said group is clinging to the shreds of what they still remember from their old beliefs. For the second chapter, I had them leave their makeshift home in the Seattle sewers to find a better place to live. The choice where to go was theirs; however, I knew that for the central scene I wanted, I needed them to meet a certain NPC, one they had already made the acquaintance of in chapter one. So whatever direction they chose, wherever they decided to go, I knew they would meet that specific character; a classic quantum NPC :P. That's railroading by most definitions. And yet, in this case this increased player agency. How so? As opposed to the players, the NPC (a mokolé) was old enough to remember the time before the Apocalypse. He could teach them about it. In addition, he gave them another option: start something completely new, with his help, discarding all the baggage of the old ways. As such, a railroaded encounter opened up vastly different opportunities for the characters; opportunities that would never have come up through the players alone, since the characters just didn't have the knowledge required to even attempt this kind of solution without any outside influence.
When I first envisioned that scene, I imagined it to be the end of the chapter; in reality, that scene happend around halfway into it, since it just fit at that point. Of course parts of the story then took a new direction, as the choice made by the characters affected the actions of the NPCs with them.

Long story short, I'm starting to wonder more and more about definitions. Yes, I have scenes that happen despite of player's choices, but then those scenes play out according to player choices. Is that railroading? Even if it is, is that bad? I can't really say. All I can say is that it works for both me and my players. Many people here seem to be arguing extremes while most people are likely to have found a way in between that compromises between both sides (as should be). As such I'm not sure how helpful these discussions really are.

[Quertus]

Regarding Illusionism, I happened to see "Excelsior!", the story of Stan Lee, at the library, happened to flip it open to p. 152, read the excerpt, thought it fitting, and thus posted it here:

"On the cover I wrote something like, 'look, this may not be one of the best stories we've ever done, but we've given you enough good ones so that you owe it to us to buy this lemon anyway.'"

I'm a fan of honesty.

Honestly admitting up-front that you use illusionism lets me know either not to waste my time on a game I won't enjoy, or not to treat it in a way I won't find enjoyable, depending upon the specifics.

[Florian]

Regarding Illusionism, I happened to see "Excelsior!", the story of Stan Lee, at the library, happened to flip it open to p. 152, read the excerpt, thought it fitting, and thus posted it here:

"On the cover I wrote something like, 'look, this may not be one of the best stories we've ever done, but we've given you enough good ones so that you owe it to us to buy this lemon anyway.'"

I'm a fan of honesty.

Honestly admitting up-front that you use illusionism lets me know either not to waste my time on a game I won't enjoy, or not to treat it in a way I won't find enjoyable, depending upon the specifics.

I get a total disconnect from trying to understand what you are trying to say.

[AMFV]

It is quite possible Florian.

I am more on the glandular side. Railroading is an action and railroads are made of lots of acts of railroading (which obviously means railroading can exist without a railroad). So you can have a game that is almost a sandbox but included moments of railroading. That granular element, and thus my definition of railroading is:

The players are faced with a choice. They choose option A. The DM knows the outcome of option A. ][ The DM changes the outcome of option A in response to the players choosing option A.

The thing is that I think that outcome of option A should be somewhat fluid. The DM should be thinking not only about logical responses but about how this choice will impact things in both a narrative and world sense. In terms of coherency the DM should probably have in mind several possible answers to the outcome question.

So let's say that the players are faced with a choice. Regardless of the option the players choose the DM has several branching paths from each option, and can depending on other factors choose any one of them, or even choose at random. This allows for a greater degree of options. And the DM sometimes can have all of the options lead to the same outcome. Which would be a sort of illusionism.

I define Illusionism as "Railroading but intentionally made so that the Players can't notice it" with the can't part being by definition rather that needing to be demonstrated in each example. That is the definition I use because that is how I have seen it defined by those that push for it.

That's definitely most of the definition, the thing to remember is that not included in the definition is that it's something that has been agreed against.

Whatever the amount, there's still some measure of trust required.

Putting that aside, you mention "using tolls to improve the game". What improves the game or not is a subjective matter. This is why kyoryu prefers to be explicit about "this tool does not improve the game experience for me, rather it detracts from it". And since many people have had poor experiences with GMs using tools that make the game worse, they actually do need a high level of trust for their GMs.

I mean, the tool might improve the game in your eyes, while still making it worse in the eyes of a player.

True, there are tools that improve the experience exclusively for the DM. I would argue that illusionism is pretty much exclusively for the benefit of the players. The Quantum Ogre can be a DM convenience tool, but it doesn't need to be. Illusionism is intended to give the players a better perception of the story.

Yeah, maybe analogies just muddle things. I mean, at a restaurant, the menu is usually fairly explicit about what is in the dish. It won't mention every ingredient, but the end result is quite clear, and if you ask about some specific ingredient, the waiter will usually give you an answer.

I've been to many restaurants where that isn't the case, and restaurants where secret recipes are the reason people go to the restaurant. I mean it's possible that's a cultural difference, but if you ask a BBQ what exactly they use to smoke their meat with or what their sauce includes you are not likely to get a straight answer.

Basically, at a restaurant, you trust that the chef will give you what you order. This is based on experience. With a RPG, many players have the experience that the GM is, in fact, NOT giving them what they order, or being deceptive about what they will provide. Therefore, there is a higher trust requirement for GMs than restaurants.

But I'm not being deceptive about what I provide. I'm just not being forthcoming about what I provide.

You're right, the point of illusionism is that it shouldn't be noticed. The common conception is that it's a tool that can be used to enhance the game and "the players will never know". Except no single GM is skilled enough with the tool to get away with it forever. Somewhere down the line, the illusion will break. At some point you will put in too much saffron.

That's not necessarily true though. That's why you use it sparingly, and use other tools as well. And furthermore, since I tell players that sort of thing is on the table when asked

It's also a tool that is based on deception, which makes it a moral issue. It's akin to saying "it's okay to cheat on my spouse if they never find out". If you know someone would be upset if they find out you were doing something, succeeding with keeping it hidden does not make it okay. Well, that is, in my view of morality.

Do you think it's immoral to lie in a poker game? In a game of Mafia or Resistance? The deception that a DM uses is fundamental to the game. The only thing in question here is the degree of deception. I've not suggested (outside of a hypothetical where I made it very clear that I was not giving advice) using these techniques when your players ask you not to.

You're not being dishonest about the tools, but you are being vague about what type game you will provide. If we're going to use the restaurant analogy again, it's like printing a menu with a very fuzzy image of a dish that says "something with meat: ingredients unknown". And when you ask for more specifics the answer is "nevermind the ingredients, I promise they are all added to improve the flavor".

It's not "random meat stuff" it's my special smoking mix and my special BBQ sauce, those are almost always considered to be secret at least at any restaurant that's actually worth going to.

It's not impossible someone would go for such a menu, I mean, plenty of people like to be surprised. Some people are are more cautious though - and you can hardly blame them for leaving your restaurant. Which is sad, because they might enjoy what you cook - they just need to know more about it first. Which makes me wonder what harm you would see in being more specific about your tools? Does that somehow make the game loose quality in your opinion?

Well first of all, being specific about the tools makes it so that the players are looking for the tools you're using. When the effective use of a tool might involve them being unaware of its use that would be detrimental.

Yeah, and people take RPG commitments differently. You sign up for a campaign and then quit after just one session (or even midway through the first?) if you think the game is bad. Others, like myself, would stick with it for far longer because I signed up and take this commitment seriously. I mean, I played a short, really horrible campaign of 8 sessions once. It was one of the most railroady things I've seen. A few players actively tried to avoid the sessions using a variety of poor excuses. I sat through all of them, after which I decided never to play with this GM again. If I sign up for something, I will stick with it.

Well the difference is that I tend to begin games with one shots or shorter commitments when I'm playing with strangers. So that way we can both get a chance to see if the game is actually something we'd both enjoy. If you're signing up for a long commitment with somebody you haven't played with, that's kind of on you, I think.

And it's not about "trust" it's about "taste" that's the thing. People are conflating this with being a moral question of trust when it's a question of taste.

[Gallowglass]

As an example: I have a story in W:tA that is following a group of survivors after the Apocalypse has come and gone. Said group is clinging to the shreds of what they still remember from their old beliefs. For the second chapter, I had them leave their makeshift home in the Seattle sewers to find a better place to live. The choice where to go was theirs; however, I knew that for the central scene I wanted, I needed them to meet a certain NPC, one they had already made the acquaintance of in chapter one. So whatever direction they chose, wherever they decided to go, I knew they would meet that specific character; a classic quantum NPC :P. That's railroading by most definitions. And yet, in this case this increased player agency. How so? As opposed to the players, the NPC (a mokolé) was old enough to remember the time before the Apocalypse. He could teach them about it. In addition, he gave them another option: start something completely new, with his help, discarding all the baggage of the old ways. As such, a railroaded encounter opened up vastly different opportunities for the characters; opportunities that would never have come up through the players alone, since the characters just didn't have the knowledge required to even attempt this kind of solution without any outside influence.
When I first envisioned that scene, I imagined it to be the end of the chapter; in reality, that scene happend around halfway into it, since it just fit at that point. Of course parts of the story then took a new direction, as the choice made by the characters affected the actions of the NPCs with them.

Long story short, I'm starting to wonder more and more about definitions. Yes, I have scenes that happen despite of player's choices, but then those scenes play out according to player choices. Is that railroading? Even if it is, is that bad? I can't really say. All I can say is that it works for both me and my players. Many people here seem to be arguing extremes while most people are likely to have found a way in between that compromises between both sides (as should be). As such I'm not sure how helpful these discussions really are.

First, the way I DM is very close to how you DM so do not take anything I say in any sort of negative light.

For me, and what I consider railroading, you would need to be able to answer the following:

You envisioned a scene with an NPC, and you obviously, envisioned that that NPCs purpose would be to teach the PCs something necessary for the continuation of your overall plot. Great.

When that NPC showed up, if the PCs, instead of saying "oh great, this guy! Hey can you tell us about the world before" instead, quite out of the blue, said "Oh great, this guy! I totally attack him, kill him and carve him up into meat because we are low on rations and this is the cannibal apocolypse baby!" Would you have rolled with it and said "oh, okay, they want a different game than what I had planned, so I'll modify my plans" or would you have found a way to maneuver it back around to "no, I'm here to teach you!" because that's how you envisioned it? Or would you have punished them for going off story.

Because, quite often, with the way we DM, it can turn into the second or third and that's where, in my opinion, it becomes a problem.

And, i'll be blunt and honest here, if you roll with it and let them maneuver the game down the new path based on their decisions then, no matter what anyone says there is NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW YOU DM AND HOW THE SANDBOX WORKS other than the amount of unused Prepwork the DM did before the game.

[Morgaln]

First, the way I DM is very close to how you DM so do not take anything I say in any sort of negative light.

For me, and what I consider railroading, you would need to be able to answer the following:

You envisioned a scene with an NPC, and you obviously, envisioned that that NPCs purpose would be to teach the PCs something necessary for the continuation of your overall plot. Great.

When that NPC showed up, if the PCs, instead of saying "oh great, this guy! Hey can you tell us about the world before" instead, quite out of the blue, said "Oh great, this guy! I totally attack him, kill him and carve him up into meat because we are low on rations and this is the cannibal apocolypse baby!" Would you have rolled with it and said "oh, okay, they want a different game than what I had planned, so I'll modify my plans" or would you have found a way to maneuver it back around to "no, I'm here to teach you!" because that's how you envisioned it? Or would you have punished them for going off story.

Because, quite often, with the way we DM, it can turn into the second or third and that's where, in my opinion, it becomes a problem.

And, i'll be blunt and honest here, if you roll with it and let them maneuver the game down the new path based on their decisions then, no matter what anyone says there is NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW YOU DM AND HOW THE SANDBOX WORKS other than the amount of unused Prepwork the DM did before the game.

I would definitely have rolled with whatever the characters decided to do. They would have been allowed to attack the NPC and try to kill him (and almost certainly succeeded, he was no match for them in a fight). That wouldn't have been the end of the plot either. It would just have meant that the plot would have gone in a completely different direction. They wouldn't even have been off story, because the story was whatever choice they made and the repercussions of that choice. Accepting the NPC as their mentor was just one option out of several (although admittedly, my preferred one).

[AMFV]

When that NPC showed up, if the PCs, instead of saying "oh great, this guy! Hey can you tell us about the world before" instead, quite out of the blue, said "Oh great, this guy! I totally attack him, kill him and carve him up into meat because we are low on rations and this is the cannibal apocolypse baby!" Would you have rolled with it and said "oh, okay, they want a different game than what I had planned, so I'll modify my plans" or would you have found a way to maneuver it back around to "no, I'm here to teach you!" because that's how you envisioned it? Or would you have punished them for going off story.

The thing is that "punish them" is a very vague term. Cutting somebody up at random is the sort of thing where people should get punished in either a sandbox setting or in a structured setting. And not punishing the players will make the world feel less realistic and consistent. Now that's fine to have a world where MurderHobo (Inc) goes around murderin' dudes and eatin' them, but it's not going to be a very real seeming game, it'll rapidly devolve into a cartoon, which is fine if that's what you want, but not so fine if it's not.

[Gallowglass]

The thing is that "punish them" is a very vague term. Cutting somebody up at random is the sort of thing where people should get punished in either a sandbox setting or in a structured setting. And not punishing the players will make the world feel less realistic and consistent. Now that's fine to have a world where MurderHobo (Inc) goes around murderin' dudes and eatin' them, but it's not going to be a very real seeming game, it'll rapidly devolve into a cartoon, which is fine if that's what you want, but not so fine if it's not.

Let me be less vague then.

Consequences <> Punishment.

There should certainly be consequences, either positive or negative, to any PC action. Here, the poster described a Post-apocolypic world, a world, I assume, that has no moral authority that would frown upon cannibalism as an action. Its a world of the strong survive. So what should happen, when the PCs surprise attack and eat the NPC instead of befriending and learning from them? I mean, other than mild indigestion. I mean, you say "its a cartoon" I say "the PCS obviously want a darker and more apocalyptic world than the one I envisioned. One where survival is desperation personified! I better step up that to meet their expectation." the only reason it need turn into "a cartoon" is based on your perception, not intrinsic to their action.

consequences should follow the physics of the world as defined. Okay, they didn't learn whatever the DM wanted them to know. That's one consequence that might show up later, might not. They have escalated the apocalypse. If they are 'starving cannibals' then others are doing the same thing, so that might be a consequence. Others may find out about what they did and avoid them or be hostile to them, that's a reasonable consequence.

Punishment OTOH implies punitive action. The PCs did something off-script, so I'm going to make things harder on them not because it logically follows their action but because they messed up my story! Suddenly the NPC they ate had ringworm and they all get progressively sicker. = punishment. Suddenly the NPC had a bunch of friends just off screen who now attack and kill the PCs. = punishment. Suddenly, when they get to the next town, the plot has changed so that the lack of information they were supposed to get now makes any outcome but failure impossible rather than just harder. and I make damn sure they know it! = punishment.

obviously, these are near hyperbolic. There are all manner of shades of grey between logical consequence and punishment which is where the danger lies. If I have them attacked by another group of cannibals, am I doing it as a logical outcome or am I doing it to punish them? Its a very grey area.

[AMFV]

here should certainly be consequences, either positive or negative, to any PC action. Here, the poster described a Post-apocolypic world, a world, I assume, that has no moral authority that would frown upon cannibalism as an action. Its a world of the strong survive. So what should happen, when the PCs surprise attack and eat the NPC instead of befriending and learning from them? I mean, other than mild indigestion. I mean, you say "its a cartoon" I say "the PCS obviously want a darker and more apocalyptic world than the one I envisioned. One where survival is desperation personified! I better step up that to meet their expectation." the only reason it need turn into "a cartoon" is based on your perception, not intrinsic to their action.

Well the reason I went for a "cartoon" was based on how you were describing the tone of their statements, that sounds like cartoonish violence to me, not desperate struggling for survival. Personally I would like a cartoony violent game a lot more than I would a super grimdark game with cannibalism, so I tended towards the thing that I would prefer, so that is a note on me.

I would say though that in this example we risk the biggest kind of railroad, the dead end. Where the DM says "this isn't what I signed on for," and leaves. Which is fine, but it's a thing that coud

consequences should follow the physics of the world as defined. Okay, they didn't learn whatever the DM wanted them to know. That's one consequence that might show up later, might not. They have escalated the apocalypse. If they are 'starving cannibals' then others are doing the same thing, so that might be a consequence. Others may find out about what they did and avoid them or be hostile to them, that's a reasonable consequence.

True, and one I would expect in most settings like that, unless again it's a cartoon type of setting, which is totally fine to play. But it has a very different sense of real than other settings do.

obviously, these are near hyperbolic. There are all manner of shades of grey between logical consequence and punishment which is where the danger lies. If I have them attacked by another group of cannibals, am I doing it as a logical outcome or am I doing it to punish them? Its a very grey area.

Yes, which is why you need to vary outcomes, to occasionally have outcomes that are not desirable but not exactly logical, and to sometimes have outcomes that are desirable and not logical, and then also logical outcomes as well. Having a little bit of "realistic" inconsistency in the world is going to be a thing that really improves the world and makes it seem more real, more verisimilar, if you will.

The thing is that that inconsistency can be used to railroad, which is sometimes a good use for it. Sometimes decreasing the amount of options the players have can increase tension, can create more drama. It can be good. If there is only one door to open down an ominous hallway then they have to deal with that door, and that's a lot more tense than if there were fifty doors and they could put that one off. Now your game shouldn't be only on rails, but rails can be useful to push the game in certain directions. I wouldn't punish players for going off of them, but I would take note that they were, and possibly either correct them back on to the rails or let them go off somewhere, depending on which option seemed like it would make the best story.

Again, as the DM, I know a lot of things they don't know. Like I might know that travelling guy they ate is actually part of a super powerful group, that is going to want to murder the PCs, so then I railroad the logical outcome (where they all die) to a less logical one (they don't find out who killed him), both are possible but one involves me pushing things to make a "better" outcome.

[OldTrees1]

I find this definition of railroading problematic, since it doesn't cover the quantum ogre. The DM knows that the outcome of every choice is the Ogre, so he doesn't have to change the outcome of option A. As such, it would not be railroading by your definition. But then I haven't found an exhaustive definition for railroading yet.

The definition is usually described as being more, not less, strict about quantum ogres. However it does not capture every ogre so I see your point.

A: If there is an ogre down both roads of the fork, it is not a quantum ogre.
B: If there is an ogre down both roads of the fork, and choosing the left path has the DM remove the ogre from the right path, then it qualifies as railroading by my definition. The DM changed the outcome of going left from "encountering one ogre and avoiding one ogre" to "encounting an ogre rather than taking the safe path".
C: If there is no ogre down either road, then it is not a quantum ogre.
D: If there is no ogre down either road, and choosing the left path has the DM add an ogre to the left path, then it qualifies as railroading by my definition. The DM changed the outcome of going left from "encounting no ogres" to "encountering an ogre"
E: If there is an ogre on the left path, but not on the right path, it is not a quantum ogre.
F: If there is an ogre on the left path, but not on the right path, and choosing the left path has the DM move the ogre from left to right, then it qualifies as railroading under my definition. The DM changed the outcome of going left from "encounting an ogre rather than taking the safe path" to "taking the safe path rather than encounting an ogre".

However it can be argued to not catch the superposition ogre or the unique ogre that breaks physics to literally be in two places at once.

Long story short, I'm starting to wonder more and more about definitions. Yes, I have scenes that happen despite of player's choices, but then those scenes play out according to player choices. Is that railroading? Even if it is, is that bad? I can't really say. All I can say is that it works for both me and my players. Many people here seem to be arguing extremes while most people are likely to have found a way in between that compromises between both sides (as should be). As such I'm not sure how helpful these discussions really are.

If those scenes happen despite player choices, then you altered an outcome of a choice. So it is railroading.
Is it bad? Ask your players? Having those scenes allows them to be better prepared. Slight railroading to them does affect player agency but ensures the players don't miss the scene. Different players will weigh these pros and cons differently. I can say with confidence there are groups where this is a GOOD thing and groups where it is not. This area of subjectivity is why I shifted to a neutral connotation definition rather than the negative connotation definition.

[Jakinbandw]

The definition is usually described as being more, not less, strict about quantum ogres. However it does not capture every ogre.

A: If there is an ogre down both roads of the fork, it is not a quantum ogre.
B: If there is an ogre down both roads of the fork, and choosing the left path has the DM remove the ogre from the right path, then it qualifies as railroading by my definition. The DM changed the outcome of going left from "encountering one ogre and avoiding one ogre" to "encounting an ogre rather than taking the safe path".
C: If there is no ogre down either road, then it is not a quantum ogre.
D: If there is no ogre down either road, and choosing the left path has the DM add an ogre to the left path, then it qualifies as railroading by my definition. The DM changed the outcome of going left from "encounting no ogres" to "encountering an ogre"
E: If there is an ogre on the left path, but not on the right path, it is not a quantum ogre.
F: If there is an ogre on the left path, but not on the right path, and choosing the left path has the DM move the ogre from left to right, then it qualifies as railroading under my definition. The DM changed the outcome of going left from "encounting an ogre rather than taking the safe path" to "taking the safe path rather than encounting an ogre".

However it can be argued to not catch the superposition ogre or the unique ogre that breaks physics to literally be in two places at once.

Hmm... so by your definition if you have the stats made up for an encounter, and all that is needed is the fluff as long as you've decided that no matter which path they go down you'll use your statblock for an encounter with the appropriate fluffing (and ogre on the right, a giant spider on the left) you aren't railroading? Because there would be an encounter down the other direction too if they later came back and went the other way?

Also, I'm guessing if doesn't count as a quantum orge if it was done by magic, say by teleportation a guardian into the path of trespassers no mater what door they took, (maybe figured out by an arcana check, but at a level the players are two low level to dispel) because it doesn't alter how the world works?

[OldTrees1]

Hmm... so by your definition if you have the stats made up for an encounter, and all that is needed is the fluff as long as you've decided that no matter which path they go down you'll use your statblock for an encounter with the appropriate fluffing (and ogre on the right, a giant spider on the left) you aren't railroading? Because there would be an encounter down the other direction too if they later came back and went the other way?

Also, I'm guessing if doesn't count as a quantum ogre if it was done by magic, say by teleportation a guardian into the path of trespassers no matter what door they took, (maybe figured out by an arcana check, but at a level the players are two low level to dispel) because it doesn't alter how the world works?

If the players choose the left path, do they find the giant spider with the ogre still being on the right? In that case it is not railroading by my definition because you did not change the outcome of their choice. Using the same stats for both is a bit weird to me but would not be railroading.
Edit: In Dread, the mechanics for most encounters are identical (pull a jenga block) despite the encounters being different.

The Bandit Ogre Magi is watching the party. Once she sees which way the party goes, she will set up an ambush for them down that road. That is not railroading. I actually personally prefer this mechanism because if the GM knows how the Ogre Magi could find out, then the GM can figure out if the PCs succeed in bypassing the detection or not. It becomes less a choice about left or right and more a choice about how they wish to be travelling.

[Segev]

Quantum ogres are not really a problem when the party made no informed, meaningful decision about whether they were going to encounter an ogre or not. They're only a problem when the party tried to take action to avoid ogres and the DM rendered that choice meaningless because he determined they'd have no chance to succeed.

A similar, but not identical, situation arises if there are just a ton of ogres, and the DM knows that the party will encounter ogres regardless of where they go. This is "on rails" in that, yes, ogre encounters are inevitable, but it doesn't falsely offer agency where there is none the way a quantum ogre does. There is no illusion of agency, here; ogres are everywhere, and your agency is in how you deal with that rather than in whether you go in a direction that leads to meeting them or not.

[AMFV]

[QUOTE=Segev;23883904]Quantum ogres are not really a problem when the party made no informed, meaningful decision about whether they were going to encounter an ogre or not. They're only a problem when the party tried to take action to avoid ogres and the DM rendered that choice meaningless because he determined they'd have no chance to succeed.

The thing is that not everything the players are going to do is going to be successful, at least in the games I play. When players make an informed meaningful decision to avoid Ogres, I'm certainly going to take that into account when I decide on what they're going to encounter. But that doesn't mean that they won't encounter an Ogre. In fact, sometimes trying to avoid a thing (particularly an intelligent unpleasant species) might cause that very thing to notice you and try to encounter you.

Of course that makes playing that scenario a lot touchier, since players are more likely to suspect that you're railroading them. It's why you need to occasionally have choices that wind up not mattering, because if your players are used to all their choices resulting in the outcome they expect or desire then they're going to feel (rightly) upset when it doesn't.

A similar, but not identical, situation arises if there are just a ton of ogres, and the DM knows that the party will encounter ogres regardless of where they go. This is "on rails" in that, yes, ogre encounters are inevitable, but it doesn't falsely offer agency where there is none the way a quantum ogre does. There is no illusion of agency, here; ogres are everywhere, and your agency is in how you deal with that rather than in whether you go in a direction that leads to meeting them or not.

True, but there is a use to offering agency or affecting the perception of said agency.

[Florian]

@OldTrees1:

I see that we can understand each other. I hope that this helps clarify some things on this matter, especially how some of us understand some tools we have at our disposal and how we deem their use as non-invasive and not breaching the social contract. I hope it also explains why I see a big difference between a "railroad" and "railroading".

@Lorsa:

Ok, this is a bit hard to answer because I have the feeling that we will talk by each other at a point. Near-RPGs like Arkham Horror and Descent function quite well because they have codified everything on the rules level. Full RPGs are more flexible and use the rules as base for resolution mechanics, but can only pull off that flexibility by having the GM perform the triple duty of player, neutral arbiter of the rules and setting, as well as antagonist.
I guess what you means is that there're GMs that abuse their power, which is extremely hard to distinguish from GMs who just use their power in the way that it is meant to. At that point, we're not talking about trust, but about the social contract per se and how that can be hard-coded into the game and whether that should be done.

@Gallowglass:

I must admit that your example confuses me a bit.

Let me tell you how I understood you: You set the theme and moot for your campaign (Post-Apo survival) and implemented the rules in such a way that they underscore that (Resource management, limited ammo/fuel/food, possibility of starvation). Then you send in an NPC to give some information....

That doesn't work. You are the one acting against the whole game outline you helped set up. Train your players to expect betrayal at any turn or see other beings as 200lbs. of long pig and you don't have to wonder when they react this way when they encounter anything you have created.

@Morgaln:

When you accept the simple truth that we all are players in a game and some of us have the power to add to the game and make it more enjoyable, then go you! But be prepared to earn flak from the Sim crowd for violating their definition of what the game should be.

[Segev]

Quantum ogres are not really a problem when the party made no informed, meaningful decision about whether they were going to encounter an ogre or not. They're only a problem when the party tried to take action to avoid ogres and the DM rendered that choice meaningless because he determined they'd have no chance to succeed.

The thing is that not everything the players are going to do is going to be successful, at least in the games I play. When players make an informed meaningful decision to avoid Ogres, I'm certainly going to take that into account when I decide on what they're going to encounter. But that doesn't mean that they won't encounter an Ogre. In fact, sometimes trying to avoid a thing (particularly an intelligent unpleasant species) might cause that very thing to notice you and try to encounter you.

Of course that makes playing that scenario a lot touchier, since players are more likely to suspect that you're railroading them. It's why you need to occasionally have choices that wind up not mattering, because if your players are used to all their choices resulting in the outcome they expect or desire then they're going to feel (rightly) upset when it doesn't.

They key here is in playing it honestly and fairly. Believe it or not, players can pick up on the difference (though some video game AI design suggests that it actually helps to over-inform players of what AIs are doing, because players are like readers and viewers - they don't know what they're not shown, so it can feel like the AI is cheating if the AI does things the players don't know about).

Trust is crucial, and trust is earned by NOT using quantum effects to undermine agency.

True, but there is a use to offering agency or affecting the perception of said agency.

I keep using the term "undermine agency" rather than "deny agency" because the key difference is in whether there was an illusion of it in the first place. Players are usually pretty forgiving of solid reasons why they can't succeed at a thing. They are less forgiving if they believe the GM is changing the rules on them after pretending not to.

A lot of the undermining of agency stems from the pretense that there are no rails when there are. It's the same reason "cut scenes" can be quite frustrating: you have control of your agent in the game - your character - taken from you, and can only watch helplessly as that character does something you would never have wanted him to do. And the control is taken by meta-things, not by in-game things (e.g. dominate effects).

This can be done in a number of ways. Making people play helpless, useless weaklings who can't influence anything and can only watch others resolve the plot is one way. Letting people play powerful characters who can do amazing things, but only if they're planned by the DM, is another. Usually, rails aren't that strict, because there's a sliding scale. But again, rails are bad when they force players to accept decisions being made on their behalf by the Plot. They turn players into spectators rather than players.

[Gallowglass]

All of this discussion is actually starting to change my mind I think.

I, too, DM with a series of pre-planned encounters. But all this talk about "do you go left or right? either way-- ogre!" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I've been struggling with how to articulate the difference.

I think what it comes down to is I don't force the players to make choices that have no effect on the outcome.

If I have a map, then I know what's down the different paths on the map. I don't rearrange things on the fly so I get to do my favorite encounters.

But, in my groups, having a map is pretty rare. At least not one like you are describing. Instead, they usually have goals and ideas on what they want to do to work toward their goals. So instead of "You want to get across the desert. Do you want to go left or right." its more "if you go left, you will arrive at the caravan town where you could try to join a caravan to cross the desert. If you go right, you will head up to the mountains where you can try to capture some griffins to carry you across the desert." And either path, if it was important for them to find the dying messenger to warn them about the desert Marauders, then that messenger is on the path they chose.

But they weren't choosing the path to try and find or avoid that messenger, they were choosing it to figure out how they want to cross the desert. That choice mattered and has consequences. The random encounters that happen along the path are irrelevant whether they are quantum or not.

Honestly though, if either way they are going to fight that ogre, why are you bothering with asking "do you want to go left or right?" Don't force them to make decisions that have no impact, only force them to make the decisions that will have an impact. Simplify out the things that don't matter. Why have a fork in a road at all if it has no impact? Why make them waste time making the choice.

Don't do:

*****

DM: "On your way to the Keep of the brotherhood, you find a fork that goes left or right."

P1: "hmmm... hey tracker can you see if either way has heavier foot traffic."

.... lengthy discussion before deciding to go right.

DM: "As you go, an Ogre leaps onto the path and growls at you!"

*****

Instead do

*****
DM "On your way to the Keep of the brotherhood, an ogre leaps onto the path and growls at you!"

P1 "I step forward, with my hands up and use diplomancy to try and forestall his attack."

DM "Uh... okay.... what do you say?"

P1 "Greetings! We have gold coin to pay your toll for passage and meat to share!" *rolls* nat 20!


*****
Good DM: *checks the result* "Okay, that takes him from hostile to neutral. The Ogre seems surprised and blinks his eyes, lowering his club. He seems on edge and wary but nods as if wanting you to continue with your entreaty."

*****

Ok DM: *checks the result* *hmmm, it really doesn't make sense for the Ogre to listen because he thinks he can overwhelm them and craves human flesh, not bog meat, so instead of downshifting all the way to neutral, i'm going to just downshift to wary. Make them do some more work for it.* "The Ogre hesitates, an ugly sneer on its face. You have meat eh? What kind of meat? Not the kind I crave I reckon. Unless you want to give me that?" and nods at the halfling."

P1: "sold!"

P2: "Hey wait a minute, I'm that halfling!"

P1: "i said sold!"

****

Bad DM: *checks the result* *hmmm, it really doesn't make sense for the Ogre to listen because he thinks he can overwhelm them and craves human flesh, not bog meat, I guess I'll apply a circumstance penalty to turn it into a failure.* "The Ogre hesitates half a step, but then charges in and attacks.

****
Worst DM: *thinks, crap i had this whole attack thing worked out* "Uh, the Ogre ignores your pleas and charges in to attack."


******

[Gallowglass]

@Gallowglass:

I must admit that your example confuses me a bit.

Let me tell you how I understood you: You set the theme and moot for your campaign (Post-Apo survival) and implemented the rules in such a way that they underscore that (Resource management, limited ammo/fuel/food, possibility of starvation). Then you send in an NPC to give some information....

That doesn't work. You are the one acting against the whole game outline you helped set up. Train your players to expect betrayal at any turn or see other beings as 200lbs. of long pig and you don't have to wonder when they react this way when they encounter anything you have created.

it wasn't my scenario. It was someone else's. I was just giving an example of how the players might subvert or surprise the DM and upset his desired outcome for his specified encounter. He just described it as "post-apocalyptic", so I don't know how long-piggy things actually were. They could've just as easily said "well this guy seems legit and knowledgeable, but I don't trust him, so we sneak off in the middle of hte night while he's sleeping" or "we see that guy on the road? hmmm.... seems suspicious. Lets go around and avoid him"

The point is, its okay to have a pre-planned scenario including having thought out likely outcomes. Its not okay to force your favored outcome despite the player's agency.

[OldTrees1]

@OldTrees1:

I see that we can understand each other. I hope that this helps clarify some things on this matter, especially how some of us understand some tools we have at our disposal and how we deem their use as non-invasive and not breaching the social contract. I hope it also explains why I see a big difference between a "railroad" and "railroading".

Yeah, we agree on these things (and others).
The social contract is always dependant on the group. So what is a breach of the social contract of my group would not necessarily be a breach of the social contract of your group.
There is a difference between railroad and railroading. This granularity avoids the binary strawman depictions of "lol random" or "zero agency".
Railroading can have a neutral definition and thus can beneficial at times (depends on context)

[Florian]

Railroading can have a neutral definition and thus can beneficial at times (depends on context)

And is still a force technique, not to leave that out.

Apropos force, did DU manage to get kicked again? This topic is getting pretty sane...

[Segev]

All of this discussion is actually starting to change my mind I think.

I, too, DM with a series of pre-planned encounters. But all this talk about "do you go left or right? either way-- ogre!" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I've been struggling with how to articulate the difference.

I think what it comes down to is I don't force the players to make choices that have no effect on the outcome.

If I have a map, then I know what's down the different paths on the map. I don't rearrange things on the fly so I get to do my favorite encounters.

But, in my groups, having a map is pretty rare. At least not one like you are describing. Instead, they usually have goals and ideas on what they want to do to work toward their goals. So instead of "You want to get across the desert. Do you want to go left or right." its more "if you go left, you will arrive at the caravan town where you could try to join a caravan to cross the desert. If you go right, you will head up to the mountains where you can try to capture some griffins to carry you across the desert." And either path, if it was important for them to find the dying messenger to warn them about the desert Marauders, then that messenger is on the path they chose.

But they weren't choosing the path to try and find or avoid that messenger, they were choosing it to figure out how they want to cross the desert. That choice mattered and has consequences. The random encounters that happen along the path are irrelevant whether they are quantum or not.

Honestly though, if either way they are going to fight that ogre, why are you bothering with asking "do you want to go left or right?" Don't force them to make decisions that have no impact, only force them to make the decisions that will have an impact. Simplify out the things that don't matter. Why have a fork in a road at all if it has no impact? Why make them waste time making the choice.

Yeah, this is a good way of putting it. And agrees with an earlier poster's "don't waste my time" position on it.

The usual way the quantum ogre is used badly is when the DM didn't think of the party even having the option or thought to choose anything but Ogre Path. When the party throws him a curve ball by not doing what he thought they would, he just makes their choice irrelevant by moving the ogre, rather than trying to engage his creativity and his knowledge of the setting to figure out what to do with it.

Again, though, even that's not a problem as long as the party wasn't trying to avoid the ogre. Your messenger on either path is a perfect example. The party had a choice they made that was meaningful, and you had your plot point introduced. And yes, if there's no meaningful choice, don't present one....but most of the time, the DM didn't think there was a choice presented, and is surprised by the players choosing something other than "progress along the path," when the bad kind of quantum ogre shows up.

[OldTrees1]

And is still a force technique, not to leave that out.

I feel that went without saying, but yes. It is a force technique with all the characteristics and aspects that entails.

I too feel the thread is quite sane right now. That is rather strange for the page count.

[Henro]

All this talk about Quantum Ogres got me thinking about unusual DM situations, which I think(?) this thread is all about.

Enter the reverse Quantum Ogre:

The players have come across two doors, a big pink one, and a small brown one. They know ogres hang around these parts and would like to avoid them, if possible. The DM has placed one ogre behind the big pink door, and the DM reasons that if the players want to avoid the ogre they must figure out that the ogre would have a hard time fitting through the small brown door (for the purposes of this scenario, it is possible for the ogre to squeeze through the brown door, it would just be somewhat hard).

However, one player remembers a detail from earlier in the campaign - it had been established that ogres are afraid of the color pink. The DM had forgotten about this minor detail from long ago, but is very impressed by the players memory and reasoning. For that reason, the DM moves the ogre to behind the brown door instead, and the players make their way further without encountering an angry ogre.

In this scenario, you have a Quantum Ogre, but it feels like the opposite of railroading to me.

[Florian]

@Henro:

No, that is not a "reverse QO". QO is predetermined to happen anyway no matter you go left or right.
What you mentioned is a simple redcon. In your example, the GM made an error in presenting choices and forgot to have established a fact for this particular campaign world. Nobody is perfect, so the facts go straightened out when reminding the GM about established facts and the game continued.