New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 9 of 31 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 923
  1. - Top - End - #241
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sweden

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Nowere View Post
    I'm not using mass effect as an example of not railroading, merely an example of how something can have deep and meaningful consequences and yet not affect some other parts of the plot.

    and while it's true that nothing is completely unavoidable, some things are really hard to avoid. If you have a big bad, you may be able to persuade him to change plans, you may make some ally to go fight the big bad in your place, but actually we all know that 95% of the times it means that there will be a boss fight somewhere in the future.
    Some things are certainly harder to avoid than others.

    However, in the boss fight example, in a non-railroaded game you can decide when and how that fight will occur. Unlike most computer games, where the eventual boss fight will look identical in every playthrough.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    Blue text for sarcasm is an important writing tool. Everybody should use it when they are saying something clearly false.

  2. - Top - End - #242
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Not really. 30 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes until the world ends is no "Railroading". Itīs just the consequence of something and it doesn't even have to be the GM to pick that.

    The Reapers will cleanse the galaxy, zombies will overrun Raccoon City.... no railroads, simply consequences.

  3. - Top - End - #243
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    @Quertus:

    Ok, this is why I have a bit of a problem with your answers to this particular topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    Some things are certainly harder to avoid than others.

    However, in the boss fight example, in a non-railroaded game you can decide when and how that fight will occur. Unlike most computer games, where the eventual boss fight will look identical in every playthrough.
    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    Not really. 30 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes until the world ends is no "Railroading". Itīs just the consequence of something and it doesn't even have to be the GM to pick that.

    The Reapers will cleanse the galaxy, zombies will overrun Raccoon City.... no railroads, simply consequences.
    Well, sort of. Yes, following game physics, the world will end 30 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes if the party does nothing.

    However, if the party singlehandedly kills The Reapers / all the zombies, I would expect that 30 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes from then, the world would still exist.

    Similarly, if the party manipulates Time in the Reapers' favor, or starts killing Raccoon City guards, I'd expect the world to end sooner.

    If the party does things like blows up walls to kill zombies, Raccoon City may fall faster or slower, but the one thing I wouldn't expect is for the timer to be completely unaffected. If there's a good physics engine / simulator for the game, it should be rerun with the new numbers, and a new countdown produced.

    In short, if the players can manipulate the conditions, it is railroading to deny them the agency to manipulate the results accordingly.

  4. - Top - End - #244
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Well, sort of. Yes, following game physics, the world will end 30 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes if the party does nothing.

    However, if the party singlehandedly kills The Reapers / all the zombies, I would expect that 30 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes from then, the world would still exist.

    Similarly, if the party manipulates Time in the Reapers' favor, or starts killing Raccoon City guards, I'd expect the world to end sooner.

    If the party does things like blows up walls to kill zombies, Raccoon City may fall faster or slower, but the one thing I wouldn't expect is for the timer to be completely unaffected. If there's a good physics engine / simulator for the game, it should be rerun with the new numbers, and a new countdown produced.

    In short, if the players can manipulate the conditions, it is railroading to deny them the agency to manipulate the results accordingly.
    But it is not railroading if the system in place does not give the players those possibilities at all. An example:

    My setting went through a major catastrophe, called the Cataclysm. This was a fixed point. Nothing that happened would change that a catastrophe occurred. I did have two groups running in that world in the days leading up to the catastrophe. They had (through the plot) choices as follows:

    Group 1 had been placed in a position to decide how the cataclysm happened and the parameters. Whatever they chose, the world as they knew it would end at the same time. But would it end with a bang, with a whimper, with a boot stamping on their faces for ever, or how? That was up to them.

    Group 2 had no control over the cataclysm itself. It was a background fact for them. On the other hand, they had control over how a certain group of people survived (or not) and what happened afterward (how the civilizations rebuilt), using Group 1's result as a given.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  5. - Top - End - #245
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    Some things are certainly harder to avoid than others.

    However, in the boss fight example, in a non-railroaded game you can decide when and how that fight will occur. Unlike most computer games, where the eventual boss fight will look identical in every playthrough.
    then we are saying basically the same thing, we were just focusing on different angles.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  6. - Top - End - #246
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    So I'm looking for a ruling on my own last session of how railroady it was on a scale of 1 to 10.

    The players have something big planned for the future in my game, but they needed one more level before they could pull it off. It's a thing that will forever change the entire universe and I'm rolling with it, but it also made my last session feel like a bit of a lame duck. Paperwork before the real coolness could start.

    I asked the players what they wanted to do for the session, if there was anywhere they wanted to explore, and they told me they didn't have any real plans themselves. I answered that then I would be forced to use ninja's (a reference to some GMing advice I had once read, where if the players are stuck, have them attacked by ninja's to move the plot along). The players agreed, and I prepped for the session.

    On the night of our session one of the three main villians leads an attack against the pcs in their place of power. In a dungeon, this fight would be unwinnable for them, but at home, with all their allies, and defenses they stood a chance. Before the session started I warned the players that this would essentially be a mid season finale battle. While they had allies who could bring them back if they died, that they could lose their castle and allies till they managed to retake their base. With the stakes set the battle commenced.

    It lasted most of the session, with the main Villain leading the army slowly losing his forces as he used power to defend them. Finally, when all his forces were lost, the players went and confronted him directly. The players had suffered only light casualties through smart play.

    Then in the final climactic battle, one of the players announces a plan that works by careful interpretation of RAW (think destroying a castle by using the crafting rules to craft a million slinger ammo because crafting time is based on cost, and slinger ammo is free). I pause and thing about it, and then give the player this reply: I'll let it work once (afterwards a house rule will be going in to prevent stuff like this), but in return I'm going to let the main villain have a power that is normally outside of what the game would expect him to have (though still fitting the setting really well). The player thinks about it and agrees. I narrate how the main villain is almost instantly destroyed, but then flashes back into existence through use of a contingency spell, leaving behind all his belongings and flees back o his lair.

    I hadn't planned for the villain to escape, Instead I had planned for either the players to win, and defeat him, or lose and have to fight to retake their base.

    Was what I did railroading the game? The players seemed fine with it (but then people don't always tell you when you've messed up), but I still also worry that it was bad GMing, even if not railroading.
    Last edited by Jakinbandw; 2019-04-10 at 03:16 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #247
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    zinycor's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2013

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Was what I did railroading the game? The players seemed fine with it (but then people don't always tell you when you've messed up), but I still also worry that it was bad GMing, even if not railroading.
    I don't see any railroading happening here, and it seemed like a very fun and open game.
    Last son of the Lu-Ching dynasty

    thog is the champion, thog's friends! and thog keeps on fighting to the end!

  8. - Top - End - #248
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    But it is not railroading if the system in place does not give the players those possibilities at all. An example:

    My setting went through a major catastrophe, called the Cataclysm. This was a fixed point. Nothing that happened would change that a catastrophe occurred. I did have two groups running in that world in the days leading up to the catastrophe. They had (through the plot) choices as follows:

    Group 1 had been placed in a position to decide how the cataclysm happened and the parameters. Whatever they chose, the world as they knew it would end at the same time. But would it end with a bang, with a whimper, with a boot stamping on their faces for ever, or how? That was up to them.

    Group 2 had no control over the cataclysm itself. It was a background fact for them. On the other hand, they had control over how a certain group of people survived (or not) and what happened afterward (how the civilizations rebuilt), using Group 1's result as a given.
    Well, you've certainly presented me with something challenging to discuss.

    Let me create what I think is an easier to discuss parallel:

    GM: Bob, the friendly guard is at his post, and won't let you pass. What do you do?

    Player: I kill him.

    GM: you can't - I already ran him as alive tomorrow with my other group.

    It doesn't matter the reason, if the GM is ignoring game physics or facts to force or prevent an outcome, it's railroading.

    Now, if you get player buy-in / Participationism, you shouldn't reach that point, and it's just a linear adventure, or a... I'm not sure what to call what you've described. An adventure with linear components, perhaps?

    But any time you reach the point where you are denying the players the agency to have the PCs take actions, or to have those actions have the logical consequences that they would through following game physics, then you are railroading.

  9. - Top - End - #249
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    Then in the final climactic battle, one of the players announces a plan that works by careful interpretation of RAW (think destroying a castle by using the crafting rules to craft a million slinger ammo because crafting time is based on cost, and slinger ammo is free). I pause and thing about it, and then give the player this reply: I'll let it work once (afterwards a house rule will be going in to prevent stuff like this), but in return I'm going to let the main villain have a power that is normally outside of what the game would expect him to have (though still fitting the setting really well). The player thinks about it and agrees. I narrate how the main villain is almost instantly destroyed, but then flashes back into existence through use of a contingency spell, leaving behind all his belongings and flees back o his lair.

    I hadn't planned for the villain to escape, Instead I had planned for either the players to win, and defeat him, or lose and have to fight to retake their base.

    Was what I did railroading the game? The players seemed fine with it
    So, the villain didn't have the Contingency until your deal with the player?

    In this scenario, you got (blind) Participationism from the one player - he has no right to claim rails. The other players could technically call rails - you changed reality to cause an effect without their explicit approval / declaration of Participationism. It depends on the gaming culture of the table if one player had the right to trade away game physics like that (I suspect most tables would say "in silence, you are assumed to consent" - that is, since they did not object, they implicitly gave their consent to Participationism).

    So, unless your table has an unusual social contract, it's "rails with permission". If this were ShadowRun, someone Teleporting is a Big Deal, and, were I at your table, I'd speak up. But, since, as you said, it worked with game lore, I might grumble about the social contract, or nudist Teleporters, or how two wrong rules don't make things right, or other such, but I wouldn't scream "Railroad!", and certainly wouldn't add this to my own personal GM horror stories.

    Also, you happen to know that this wasn't your intended outcome, so, in that regard, you acted *against* the standard application of rails, by being open to things turning out differently than you had intended.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2019-04-10 at 03:49 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #250
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    So I'm looking for a ruling on my own last session of how railroady it was on a scale of 1 to 10.
    I don't think it was railroading. the player asked to do something he should not be able to do, you offered him to also let the villain do something he was not supposed to do. the player agreed.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  11. - Top - End - #251
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Well, you've certainly presented me with something challenging to discuss.

    Let me create what I think is an easier to discuss parallel:

    GM: Bob, the friendly guard is at his post, and won't let you pass. What do you do?

    Player: I kill him.

    GM: you can't - I already ran him as alive tomorrow with my other group.

    It doesn't matter the reason, if the GM is ignoring game physics or facts to force or prevent an outcome, it's railroading.

    Now, if you get player buy-in / Participationism, you shouldn't reach that point, and it's just a linear adventure, or a... I'm not sure what to call what you've described. An adventure with linear components, perhaps?

    But any time you reach the point where you are denying the players the agency to have the PCs take actions, or to have those actions have the logical consequences that they would through following game physics, then you are railroading.
    The point is that the DM has the absolute right to establish setting facts, even surpassing the game rules. Now there's a sliding scale--at the level you countered with, sure. The right thing to do there is to do a timeline split and rejoin/canonicalize later (after the campaign). That was not the case for my groups, because they were separated by thousands of miles without any way of transport.

    On the other hand, there's a well-established use of background elements. For Group 2, the Cataclysm was a background element, along with a war between Order and Chaos. Their characters had no way of knowing it was going to happen--no one did until it did happen (because of the effects of Group 1's actions).

    So setting up backdrops that the party have no way of responding to is not railroading. Group 2's whole final scenario was them (a group of level 4-5 4e D&D characters), an army of "Order" and an army of "Chaos". The Chaos army was led by the literal physical incarnation of Change and Chaos itself, one of the initial beings who created everything. Effectively the heart of the Abyss made flesh. A being against whom even the gods were outmatched. There was not way for them to win this war. But they weren't supposed to win--that wasn't their job. Their job, and their meaningful choices, were about taking actions at the fringes of this war. Saving that person (or group), not this other person or group. Joining Chaos or not. Fighting to the bitter end or fleeing. As it turned out, about halfway through the session was when Group 1 initiated the Cataclysm (by doing something very predictable, but very stupid. Except it worked, so it wasn't stupid.) This locked both sides of the war down enough for a desperate plan (still in the background) to accept change into the natural order and end the war, at the cost of all the gods' lives. Group 2's last session then ended with them gathering survivors and rebuilding. They could have just fled, they could have chosen to take command (since the higher-ups were all killed), or many other outcomes. The war? The Cataclysm? Those are background elements that happen according to the needs of the story. And using them is not railroading. Agency does not have to be total to be agency--it's not a denial of agency to say that you can't do something impossible. And impossible is set by the narrative, not the rules (unless we choose to delegate).

    The DM can introduce these background elements without warning the players and getting explicit buy-in--it's part of their job. The players don't get to look behind the screen and judge "did you set that up in advance?" That's the social contract of trust. Without trust, the whole thing falls apart. No set of rules can simulate the world and make it believable, not even in the slightest. No printed module can even slightly begin to give enough information to do an adequate job of this without railroading the players hard, because they can't predict all the possibilities.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  12. - Top - End - #252
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So, the villain didn't have the Contingency until your deal with the player?

    In this scenario, you got (blind) Participationism from the one player - he has no right to claim rails. The other players could technically call rails - you changed reality to cause an effect without their explicit approval / declaration of Participationism. It depends on the gaming culture of the table if one player had the right to trade away game physics like that (I suspect most tables would say "in silence, you are assumed to consent" - that is, since they did not object, they implicitly gave their consent to Participationism).

    So, unless your table has an unusual social contract, it's "rails with permission". If this were ShadowRun, someone Teleporting is a Big Deal, and, were I at your table, I'd speak up. But, since, as you said, it worked with game lore, I might grumble about the social contract, or nudist Teleporters, or how two wrong rules don't make things right, or other such, but I wouldn't scream "Railroad!", and certainly wouldn't add this to my own personal GM horror stories.

    Also, you happen to know that this wasn't your intended outcome, so, in that regard, you acted *against* the standard application of rails, by being open to things turning out differently than you had intended.
    I did get buy in from all the players (only 3 of them) at the table before we went further. They were in unanimous agreement to let the guy do his special thing even if I gave the foe a boon in response.

    In this case the player had a way of doing unsavable arbitrarily large damage. The players are young gods in this setting and they were facing a full npc god. One of the perks of being a god is that you get a limited use revive from death with half health and half power recovered. The book states that npc gods shouldn't have this as they are assumed to have burned it off screen. In this case I ruled that the npc god still had theirs remaining (it's why I said it was lore friendly). The PC's could have followed the npc god back to his home base, but they were low on power and knew that there were at least 2 other gods there, and decided to let combat end there (teleportation is common, but not cheap to accomplish).

    I think the reason why I worry if this is railroading is that I set up for an epic confrontation between the players and the enemy god, and when a player found a way to bend the rules to autowin it, instead of letting the player have a permanent win, I rescheduled it for later in the campaign. The player did save their base, so their actions weren't wasted (I give a 50/50 chance of them winning if the fight had progressed normally), but I did make it so they will have to have a proper confrontation with the god later.

    (The system I'm running is godbound. It's weird to describe it's exact power level, but you can build minions to be incredibly strong in the combat department. The godbound themselves tend to not be great at combat, but have the ability to alter the world, such as making economics function according to ideals instead of any real logic, or freezing time across an entire city and make it repeat the same day over and over again.)
    Last edited by Jakinbandw; 2019-04-11 at 08:47 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #253

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    But any time you reach the point where you are denying the players the agency to have the PCs take actions, or to have those actions have the logical consequences that they would through following game physics, then you are railroading.
    Except your defination is: Unless the DM rolls over and lets the players do whatever they want: it's railroading.

    You don't even have a game if the player characters just automataclly do everything. After all, the second anything happesn that one player even slightly dislikes, they will cry 'Railroad!' like a baby.

    And at best you get the hostile player mini game: where the DM must bend over backwards all the time to 'prove' to the players that they are not railroading...in whatever way makes the players happy.

  14. - Top - End - #254
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    It doesn't matter the reason, if the GM is ignoring game physics or facts to force or prevent an outcome, it's railroading.
    That will need a lot of variables to clarify. For example, I work under the assumption that the fictional reality of the setting (aka fluff) is what matters, with the rules system only being the interface to interact with that (and a communication tool to settle disputes). So even while spells, magic items and such are completely transparent on the rules side of things, its actual function, roots and whether there is an underlying magic theory/explanation are completely unknown at the level of the in-game reality.

    One other factor is the power level we talk about for what is needed to actually enact certain changes. One system I regularly use, Splittermond, is at the same time high magic and low power, as in even the least commoner knows some helpful spells and even what we generally consider to be mundane classes will learn magic to raise their ceiling above what is possible for the unenhanced, but overall, what is possible sticks to what is physically possible, only enhanced a bit. So Fly? Yes. Teleport? No. Locate Portal? Yes. Plane Shift? No. And because I know your special Schtick with Quertus, creating tailor-made spells to self certain situations is definitely out.

    Going back to the setting I mentioned because how magic works, the last example is how the gods functions, because I know you love that topic. The lowest rung are something like "Hero Deities" or "Spirits", the first being regular humans/whatever that managed to obtain a divine spark and grant a bit of spells to followers. That could be some Ranger 5, living in a temple. Go over and knock him out, no one cares. Spirits are the spiritual embodiment of places and such. Kill the spirit of the river Rhine and slowly but surely, this river fill decline and vanish over time, because you destroyed the concept of it. This is an example for mystical reality overwriting laws of physics. The highest deities on the rungs just... are. Pharasma is death, fate and life, Groetus is the inevitable end of the multiverse, Asmodeus is the unyielding law of Hell. Unlike something like an Empyreal Lord, Duke of Hell or Great Old One, those do not have a physical form, personal realm, direct interaction with anything (beyond allegories), need for worship, because they are the direct embodiment of the reality. When it comes to them, no matter what you want or do, no matter how high you level or how many Mythic ranks you amass, it doesn't matter, like, at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    I think the reason why I worry if this is railroading is that I set up for an epic confrontation between the players and the enemy god, and when a player found a way to bend the rules to autowin it, instead of letting the player have a permanent win, I rescheduled it for later in the campaign. The player did save their base, so their actions weren't wasted (I give a 50/50 chance of them winning if the fight had progressed normally), but I did make it so they will have to have a proper confrontation with the god later.
    Basically, you created what we commonly know as a "set-piece battle". In a way, that's the combination of a regular combat encounter with a puzzle, because there are additional variables beyond regular combat/tactical abilities to keep in mind. Your player requested to "game the rules" to circumvent that, your counter-proposal was to make this a two-sided affair and delay for a re-match. Fair deal, no railroading here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    Except your defination is: Unless the DM rolls over and lets the players do whatever they want: it's railroading.
    Or, to put this a bit into perspective: Quertus seems to often work under the assumption that RAW is the game, all participants needs to know the RAW by heart/rote and whoever knows the RAW best for a given situation, or can find the most favorable interpretation of the RAW "wins". As in, the sheer existence of a spell like "Teleport Thru Time" enables you to invalidate anything that happened, especially in one of the rare cases of a shared game world.
    Last edited by Florian; 2019-04-11 at 02:28 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #255
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Those are background elements that happen according to the needs of the story. And using them is not railroading. Agency does not have to be total to be agency--it's not a denial of agency to say that you can't do something impossible. And impossible is set by the narrative, not the rules (unless we choose to delegate).
    See, you say a lot of things I would agree with, then you say things like this. I don't care what "the narrative" or "the story" says, if I've got LoS to an event, and I make the necessary perception / comprehension rolls, I should understand it, and potentially be able to interact with it.

    Agency does not need to be omnipotence, no. But Agency should be set by the rules / the physics, not the narrative - otherwise, we're in rails territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    I did get buy in from all the players (only 3 of them)

    The system I'm running is godbound.
    Ah, I was responding to the singular "player" in your initial description.

    Also, not familiar with godbound - I'll have to check it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    Except your defination is: Unless the DM rolls over and lets the players do whatever they want: it's railroading.
    Um, no? My definition - and I think I've even explicitly stated it in this thread - is that railroading involves ignoring game physics or changing game state to cause or prevent an outcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    Or, to put this a bit into perspective: Quertus seems to often work under the assumption that RAW is the game, all participants needs to know the RAW by heart/rote and whoever knows the RAW best for a given situation, or can find the most favorable interpretation of the RAW "wins". As in, the sheer existence of a spell like "Teleport Thru Time" enables you to invalidate anything that happened, especially in one of the rare cases of a shared game world.
    Again, no? Yes, the rules are the game. True for Chess, or Monopoly, or RPGs. Of course, at least Monopoly and RPGs are known to have house rules, rules addendums, etc, so, the game is the rules, not the game is RAW. Idiots who try to move the pawn three spaces diagonally should get slapped down by people who actually know the rules, yes. Because you play by the rules, or you are disruptive, and get kicked out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    That will need a lot of variables to clarify. For example, I work under the assumption that the fictional reality of the setting (aka fluff) is what matters, with the rules system only being the interface to interact with that (and a communication tool to settle disputes). So even while spells, magic items and such are completely transparent on the rules side of things, its actual function, roots and whether there is an underlying magic theory/explanation are completely unknown at the level of the in-game reality.

    One other factor is the power level we talk about for what is needed to actually enact certain changes. One system I regularly use, Splittermond, is at the same time high magic and low power, as in even the least commoner knows some helpful spells and even what we generally consider to be mundane classes will learn magic to raise their ceiling above what is possible for the unenhanced, but overall, what is possible sticks to what is physically possible, only enhanced a bit. So Fly? Yes. Teleport? No. Locate Portal? Yes. Plane Shift? No. And because I know your special Schtick with Quertus, creating tailor-made spells to self certain situations is definitely out.

    Going back to the setting I mentioned because how magic works, the last example is how the gods functions, because I know you love that topic. The lowest rung are something like "Hero Deities" or "Spirits", the first being regular humans/whatever that managed to obtain a divine spark and grant a bit of spells to followers. That could be some Ranger 5, living in a temple. Go over and knock him out, no one cares. Spirits are the spiritual embodiment of places and such. Kill the spirit of the river Rhine and slowly but surely, this river fill decline and vanish over time, because you destroyed the concept of it. This is an example for mystical reality overwriting laws of physics. The highest deities on the rungs just... are. Pharasma is death, fate and life, Groetus is the inevitable end of the multiverse, Asmodeus is the unyielding law of Hell. Unlike something like an Empyreal Lord, Duke of Hell or Great Old One, those do not have a physical form, personal realm, direct interaction with anything (beyond allegories), need for worship, because they are the direct embodiment of the reality. When it comes to them, no matter what you want or do, no matter how high you level or how many Mythic ranks you amass, it doesn't matter, like, at all.
    "it doesn't matter, like, at all." - If other beings don't matter, why are you playing those? Wouldn't it be more fun to play the beings that matter in a setting?

    "And because I know your special Schtick with Quertus, creating tailor-made spells to self certain situations is definitely out." - I mean, any of my characters with a sufficient... hmmm... intellect & creativity, and the resources to do so, will create custom spells. Quertus (my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named) just happens to have a lot of all three (well, some would debate his "creativity"...). So I don't think it's quite accurate to call it Quertus' special shtick. Just a property of any well-characterized character - even Melf, Bigsby, Rary, Mordenkainen, and company invented their own custom spells, how lame do the PCs have to be to not do so? Should the PCs really aim to be more generic than someone teased as "Male Elf"?

    That out of the way, what interested me most about this particular quote was your use of the word "definitely" - why is it definitely out? What about Spittermond finds creativity and characterization anathema?

    "the rules system only being the interface to interact with that (and a communication tool to settle disputes" - The rules system is the only interface between the players and the game world. (Mal's voice) And that makes it mighty.

    So, what still needs clarification here? I feel "It doesn't matter the reason, if the GM is ignoring game physics or facts to force or prevent an outcome, it's railroading" is pretty clear.

  16. - Top - End - #256
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Since we're talking about railroading, I'm curious as to how you would judge a key episode of my campaign, where I did railroad an outcome.

    Premise: 700 years ago, the lich Cemandrion, high priest of vecna, decided that his god would get more prayer if he was more palatable to the masses. So he started some major reforms that brought the cult of vecna from a bunch of thugs hiding in basements to one of the most popular religions on the planet. Using its portfolio of secrets, the church pushed for progress, research and education - at reasonable rates - and ushered in a period of progress and prosperity.
    Cemandrion had deeper plans. He knew he needed to suck five million souls with a ritual to become a god, and the subsistence agriculture of the time could not support such a population. So he kickstarted the technological advancements needed for it (I quite like the subversion of a villain bringing peace of prosperity as a step along his villainous plan).
    In the meanwhile, he started to select the most loial and powerful of his followers to help them become liches and be ready, one day, to take over the world.

    Flash forward to present, Cemandrion is ready for his ritual. using the sterling reputation he gained along the centuries, he had built a major cathedral in the heart of one of the world's bigger cities (the one that the pcs are using as base), with a subterranean stronghold underneath. inside it, he has set up the apparatus for the ritual. he helped sponsor and organize a major fair in the city that would attract more people. knowing the pcs are the only ones that could twarth his scheme, he even set up an event on the other side of the city to keep them away from him, but that particular plot failed for logistic accidents.

    At the time the ritual started, the party was near the vecna cathedral. they saw the sky turn purple, and they felt the tug of a death spell on their souls. they saw people whrite in agony and die near them, but being high level, they were able to shrug it off for a time.
    I had them notice a few details:
    - teleportation has been disabled in the city
    - the death effect is stronger closer to the cathedral
    - the death effect also disables golems and undead.
    I also informed them that the sword of the party barbarian is the only artifact weapon in the city that is powerful enough to keep working in the powerful antimagic that protects the stronghold perimeter, and it could hack through the thick metal doors in a few minutes; their characters were confident they could hold off the death effect for long enough.
    this meant that Cemandrion had to be alone, the stronghold defences disabled by his own ritual. running away was actually an option (they have a dragon companion that could fly fast enough to escape), but i was certain they would fight.
    Long story short, they broke into the disabled stronghold and had a big climatic fight with Cemandrion.

    Now, the railroading part. I always knew that I wanted this event to only be a setup for the major plot that would follow later, i.e. the church of vecna (and its allies) tries to take over the world, and the pcs are the only ones strong enough to stop it. So I decided that during the fighting the ritual, out of control, would fizzle and suffuse everyone with the divine energy thus far gathered. it would resurrect all the fallen, it would give everyone a hefty stat boost and some flashy unique powers, and the villain would then retreat, whether he was winning or losing; his unique powers would be some of the minor powers of a demilich (only the minor powers, a full demilich is way above the power level of my cammpaign, especially if Cemandrion is the base creature for the template) and the capacity to dissolve most antimagic fields touching him as a free action. So even if he was grappled, silenced and dimensionally anchored in an antimagic field, he still had the means to dissolve the antimagic, cast still silent disjunction on himself to remove the dimensional anchor, and quickened teleport (which he had from tattoos) away.
    I actually expected the players to lose, since cemandrion uses to open the fight with disjunction and quickened banshee's wail, both with a DC of 36. with some clever use of contingency, counterspelling and antimagic fields, though, the party managed to win the fight.
    So, once they won I activated the cutscene of the ritual fizzling and everything went according to my plan.
    After the fact, I was upfront with my players and told them that this would have been the outcome in any case. the only difference is the stat boost reward: I had decided on +2 to all stats if they were curbstomped, +4 if they lost after a hard fight, +6 if they won. They got a +6, cemandrion got a +2. He's still the main boss, and still the single most powerful humanoid in my campaign world, but he's no longer a credible threat for the party without significant help.

    The players liked it a lot. Partly because I threw a good surprise at them that doubled as a wham episode for the whole campaign, partly because it set up a cool plot, partly because I had this idea in my mind for a while and I was able to describe it very viscerally. partly because they were able to face the most powerful humanoid npc of the campaign world. Partly because they got an untyped +6 to all stats, certainly.
    And their previous actions definitely mattered. the party's previous exploits ensured them many allies that I had initially assumed would help vecna instead; and they gained the enmitiy of a few potential allies. now, as the strongest people left on the side of good (during the ritual, the aforementioned liches struck all around the world to capture/soul-bind many powerful good individuals preemptively; due to the period of peace and prosperity, security was a bit lax), they are leading the effforts of the free world against vecna at their leisure.

    Anyway, I railroaded. I didn't technically violate the in-world physics, but as all the ritual and powers are homebrew, I made them to ensure the result I wanted. I set up an encounter with a predetermined outcome. I set up the ritual and the stronghold and the church of vecna's reputation so that it was practically impossible for anyone to discover them in advance.

    So, if anyone had taken the time to read through this long story, I'd like to know how you would have reacted as a player.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  17. - Top - End - #257
    Banned
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas City

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Nowere View Post
    Since we're talking about railroading, I'm curious as to how you would judge a key episode of my campaign, where I did railroad an outcome.

    ...yada yada yada...

    So, if anyone had taken the time to read through this long story, I'd like to know how you would have reacted as a player.
    Yeah, you railroaded. I don't see anyway to define that other than railroading. You knew how it was going to come out and you enacted that regardless of any agency the players had or anything they could do.

    How would I react? That's a tough question. I've played in plenty of games with railroaded outcomes and enjoyed myself because the DM was good, the game was clever and interesting and the STORY was fun. I am a player that enjoys the story. And stories are sometimes better if you aren't making it up as you go along and have recurring bad guys.

    I've also been in plenty of games with railroaded outcomes and resented and got pissy about it. Why? Because the DM was NOT good, the game was NOT clever or interesting and the STORY was lame. I am a player that enjoys the story. And stories sometimes suck when you refuse to make it up as you go along and have bad guys that you just can't ****ing kill.

    As long as your players legitimately enjoyed themselves you don't have a problem. railroad away. Just make sure that the players ARE really enjoying themselves and you aren't lying to yourself about it.

    Because every single DM who falls into that second category are NEVER aware of it. They ALWAYS think that "the players love my game, I'm doing great, I'm so clever, I'm so good, I'm so amazing at this!" And they are categorically incapable of any self-realization about the fallacy of their belief.

    DM: "Hey guys, so I totally was going to make it end that way regardless of what you did. Are you guys having fun?"

    Players: *Sideline glances at each other* *disconsolate plunking of dice* "I mean.... yeah.... I guess...."

    That one player who wants to preserve everyone's feelings: "Oh yeah, it was great! So cool how you did that thing... with that thing..."

    DM: "I knew it! I'm so awesome at this!"

    And the other thing I would ask you to think is, what could it have been like if I HADN'T decided how that was going to end? If I legitimately gave the PCs agency and legitimately left the story in their hands? Based on your description it would've ended with a super-cool win for the PCs where -they- saved the world, rather than the world just happening to be okay despite them. Where THEY beat the bad guy and he stayed beat so you would have to bring in a NEW bad guy instead of using the old bad guy. Or it could've ended with the players LOSING, the world descending into Vecna's darkness and the PCs who survived having to go on a quest to undo the damage or save as many people as they could. Also cool. Also fun.

    I think it could've been better and more fun. Because rather than telling a story to your friends and letting them throw some dice and limited interaction, you'd be telling a story WITH your friends and equals in the narrative outcome.

    That's all the anti-railroaders want you to consider. what -if- I did it a different way? Would it be worse or would it be better?

    also, reading between the lines of your post, between your "immune to anit-magic, able to cast quickened teleport, DC 36 banshee wail/disjunction" super villain (which makes it seem pretty disingenuous when following "a dem-ilich is too powerful for my campaign") I don't think I would've enjoyed your game. I hate villains who have a counter for everything and "can't be beaten no matter what". They are boring and wasting hours fighting them is pointless and futile and it feels like it. When every clever tactic I bring up ends up with "oh no, he totally has a counter for that. ha ha, he's so awesome" But that's just a gut reaction, I have never played with you so maybe it didn't feel like that to your players. *shrug*
    Last edited by Gallowglass; 2019-04-11 at 05:24 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #258
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallowglass View Post
    And the other thing I would ask you to think is, what could it have been like if I HADN'T decided how that was going to end?
    I think you mistook that part. This was not an end. This was a beginning.
    The real plot will be them trying to stop vecna's forces. the ritual was a way to introduce that plot.

    which is why i let myself railroad it. I would not railroad the way the players are fighting against him.

    also, reading between the lines of your post, between your "immune to anit-magic, able to cast quickened teleport, DC 36 banshee wail/disjunction" super villain (which makes it seem pretty disingenuous when following "a dem-ilich is too powerful for my campaign") I don't think I would've enjoyed your game. I hate villains who have a counter for everything and "can't be beaten no matter what". They are boring and wasting hours fighting them is pointless and futile and it feels like it. When every clever tactic I bring up ends up with "oh no, he totally has a counter for that. ha ha, he's so awesome" But that's just a gut reaction, I have never played with you so maybe it didn't feel like that to your players. *shrug*
    my players have as much cheese as this guy. Especially now that they got divine bonuses. I don't think any of them has AC below 50. the rogue had +20odd to will save and it's probably the crappiest save of all the party. For most of the party, getting a 36 isn't difficult. The wizard has 250 hp. the rogue is permanently surrounded by fog and darkness he can see through. the cleric can decide to ignore a bad thing happening to him - ANY bad thing - twice a day. I could go on for a while.
    the campaign is level 18, optimization is low, but magic available is considerably above wbl, every pc acquired some powerful artifact along the way, and now +6 too all stats. we have high numbers. a villain with save DC 36 is the bare minimum I need to challenge them. In fact, once they defeat this guy, I only have a couple more villains to throw at them before they exhaust the list of people that can be a serious challenge to them. Then the campaign will end, I think.
    So a regular demilich out of the srd would not be too powerful. In fact, most members of the party could curbstomp one alone. however, slapping the demilich template on a villain that has already AC 50 and giving him another +20, giving +10 to all mental stats to a guy who already has 30-45-31 and then adding a cha-based save or die with no immunity, that would be too much.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  19. - Top - End - #259

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post

    So, what still needs clarification here? I feel "It doesn't matter the reason, if the GM is ignoring game physics or facts to force or prevent an outcome, it's railroading" is pretty clear.
    Can you clarify such a vague statment?

    What is the game physics anyway? Is there a game that does not mostly use ''real world" physics, with some game rules for a couple set things?

    What is even a ''fact"? Or a ''game fact"?

    You talk a lot about rules....but rules only cover like 5% of an RPG...and mostly combat at that.

    Like lets take a typical ''no rules" railroad example: the DM makes a Tower of Traps, and whats the player characters to go through it.

    So you have:

    Crude Railroading: DM-"Ok guy every other way anywhere is blocked by..um..stuff...so your charcters can only go South to a......Tower!

    Clumsy Railroading: DM-"Um, the whole East is flooded...and Um, the whole north is lit by a forest fire and um, um, um, West there is an uncrossable wall...so, um, your characters go south....to a Tower!"

    Quantum Rairoading-"Ok..your characters head across the grasslands......and see a Tower!" (it's amazingly ANY direction the players pick to go)

    Bait Railroading-"Yup, your fathers sword, the book of all spells, the holy orb and the ring of many wishes are ALL, amazingly, just to the south....in a Tower."

    Awesome Railroading-It's just like a typical game...but the players are railroading along a most railroads of railroads: but don't even know it...and will likey think they have super agency or whatever else they want to think.

    Ok, note how there are no ''rules", or ''facts" or ''game physics" or anything like that in any of the above examples.

    All are railroading...to a third party that can see/know all. But each is only ''really" railroading In the game....if a player whines and cries about it like a baby.

  20. - Top - End - #260
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    if the GM is ignoring game physics or facts to force or prevent an outcome, it's railroading.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    Can you clarify such a vague statment?
    No, this is not a "vague" statement, this is an "absolute" statement, of the type only Sith Lords make.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    What is the game physics anyway?
    Pawns only move forward one space, or two unobstructed spaces on their first activation, or capture one space to either forward diagonal. That's game physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    What is even a ''fact"? Or a ''game fact"?
    I'm not really sure how to clarify the confusion here. Some Playgrounders focus on "established" facts. I feel that this ignores the effect that supposedly "unestablished" facts have on the consistency of the world. So, a fact is like an "established fact", except without the necessity of having been perceived as "established".

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    You talk a lot about rules....but rules only cover like 5% of an RPG...and mostly combat at that.
    And (one form of) railroading involves the GM ignoring those rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    Like lets take a typical ''no rules" railroad example: the DM makes a Tower of Traps, and whats the player characters to go through it.
    Yes, rails first form in the GM's head, when they want something, without getting explicit buy-in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    Ok, note how there are no ''rules", or ''facts" or ''game physics" or anything like that in any of the above examples.
    Because you are looking at the problem wrong. Or, at the very least, in a way that isn't conducive to seeing the things necessary to have that conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    All are railroading...to a third party that can see/know all. But each is only ''really" railroading In the game....if a player whines and cries about it like a baby.
    No. If I murder someone, they're just as dead, whether someone finds the body or not, whether someone misses them or not, whether someone cries like a baby or not.

    Whether railroading is perceived is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it has occurred.

  21. - Top - End - #261
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post

    Ok, note how there are no ''rules", or ''facts" or ''game physics" or anything like that in any of the above examples.

    All are railroading...to a third party that can see/know all. But each is only ''really" railroading In the game....if a player whines and cries about it like a baby.
    Which makes these examples unsuited to explain railroading. Railroading means that established facts are warped or outright ignored to achieve a certain outcome. Whether or not players complain is irrelevant, although some players might not mind railroading all that much.
    What can change the nature of a man?

  22. - Top - End - #262

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Pawns only move forward one space, or two unobstructed spaces on their first activation, or capture one space to either forward diagonal. That's game physics.
    So, what would an RPG example be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Yes, rails first form in the GM's head, when they want something, without getting explicit buy-in.
    I feel like this is something Other then Railroading. To say the DM must get player buy in for everything is not railroading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Whether railroading is perceived is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it has occurred.
    Not in a game though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrawn4 View Post
    Which makes these examples unsuited to explain railroading. Railroading means that established facts are warped or outright ignored to achieve a certain outcome. Whether or not players complain is irrelevant, although some players might not mind railroading all that much.

    Again this brings the question of what ''is'' a fact?

    And what can be changed, warped or ignored....and what can not be?

    There is all most nothing that can't be changed, and this is even more so true in fantasy.

    And if the players don't complain....or even know....then it does not matter, right?

  23. - Top - End - #263
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    So, what would an RPG example be?
    Boccob has a +127* bonus to Spellcraft. Skill checks are handled by rolling a d20, and adding the bonus. Intermediate+ gods have a special rule that overrides the general rule, and count as having rolled a 20. So Boccob always gets a 147 on Spellcraft checks.

    There are rules for calculating the DC to recognize a spell. Determining whether Boccob recognizes a spell or not followes game physics by following those rules.

    If the GM decides that they want recognizing this particular spell to be a tense game moment, and replaces those rules with a coin flip, then they have ignored game physics.

    * Although, from his stats, I don't see how, so this itself may be a typo, or may break game physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    I feel like this is something Other then Railroading. To say the DM must get player buy in for everything is not railroading.
    I really need to come up with better words to explain this idea. "Where do babies come from? When a Mommy and a Daddy love each other very much..."

    Where does railroading come from? It comes from the existence of rails. Where do rails come from? They come from the GM wanting something.

    Where does photosynthesis come from? It comes from plants processing sunlight.

    So photosynthesis is sunlight? So photosynthesis is the sun? No. But understanding the sun's role in the process is part of understanding photosynthesis. Understanding the role of the GM wanting something (and not getting explicit buy-in) is part of understanding the nature of railroading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    Not in a game though.

    And if the players don't complain....or even know....then it does not matter, right?
    Wrong. Photosynthesis occurs whether anyone notices or not, a murder is still a murder whether or not anyone complains, whether or not the murderer gets away with it. Railroading is equally defined by what it is, not by perception.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2019-04-13 at 11:20 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #264

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post

    There are rules for calculating the DC to recognize a spell. Determining whether Boccob recognizes a spell or not followes game physics by following those rules.

    If the GM decides that they want recognizing this particular spell to be a tense game moment, and replaces those rules with a coin flip, then they have ignored game physics.
    So by ''game physics" your talking only about "game rules".

    Like what if the DM gets the ''tense game moment" by simply having Boccob NOT seeing or hearing the spell’s verbal or somatic components?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I really need to come up with better words to explain this idea. "Where do babies come from? When a Mommy and a Daddy love each other very much..."

    Where does railroading come from? It comes from the existence of rails. Where do rails come from? They come from the GM wanting something.

    Where does photosynthesis come from? It comes from plants processing sunlight.
    Ok....but all your examples are only 100% true in our reality. Once you enter the realm of fiction: anything goes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So photosynthesis is sunlight? So photosynthesis is the sun? No. But understanding the sun's role in the process is part of understanding photosynthesis. Understanding the role of the GM wanting something (and not getting explicit buy-in) is part of understanding the nature of railroading.
    So are you altering your defination of railroading to ''if the DM wants anything: it's railroading". It sounds a bit like you are.

    I guess your ideal DM would be a passive done servant that just did whatever the players demanded.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Wrong. Photosynthesis occurs whether anyone notices or not, a murder is still a murder whether or not anyone complains, whether or not the murderer gets away with it. Railroading is equally defined by what it is, not by perception.
    Yea.....but not really.

    The players have a fun game. During the game, none of the hostile players notice the DM ''wanting anything" and at no time do they cry ''railroading".

    The players are all happy as clams, deluding themselves into thinking they just did collaborative player emergent game(with that DM servant firmly in check).

    So...unknown to the players, the DM did railroad them All the Live Long Day.

    The players are busy high fiving themselves at how awesome the game THEY...only the players...made up out of thin air, without that dumb DM ''wanting stuff".

    So....if the DM just sits back and smiles....and never tells them the truth. Was there really ever any railroading in the game?

    Like sure if there was an NSA spy van outside spying on the game...and all the agents were RPG folks...then sure they...might...see the railroading and know it was done. But still the players will never, ever know.

    So...if the players never know....then it really does not matter ''if" something was done or not....as the players will never know anyway.

  25. - Top - End - #265
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    So...unknown to the players, the DM did railroad them All the Live Long Day.

    -snip-

    So....if the DM just sits back and smiles....and never tells them the truth. Was there really ever any railroading in the game?
    Yes. You even admitted there was railroading in that example. See above quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    So...if the players never know....then it really does not matter ''if" something was done or not....as the players will never know anyway.
    I disagree. If someone does ______ to you without your knowledge, they still did _______ to you. Reality exists independent of your knowledge of reality. This fact is also built into societal conventions and rules.

    For example, if a person breaks a ban but no mod notices, did they actually break a ban? Yes, they did. Does it matter? Yes, the forum cares about the violation even before they learn of the violation.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2019-04-15 at 06:58 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #266
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    So by ''game physics" your talking only about "game rules".
    Hmmm... I'll have to say "no". But game rules are a subset of game physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    Like what if the DM gets the ''tense game moment" by simply having Boccob NOT seeing or hearing the spell’s verbal or somatic components?
    There are rules governing what Boccob perceives. A GM ignoring those rules is still violating game physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippa the Pixie View Post
    So are you altering your defination of railroading to ''if the DM wants anything: it's railroading". It sounds a bit like you are.
    Sounds? Maybe. You're not the first to think so. So this isn't the first time (in this very thread, my senile self believes) that I've said no, I'm discussing the nature of railroading, the roots of railroading, not the definition of railroading.

    The GM wanting something is the dark magic that allows rails to form in their mind. The party taking actions is the white magic that can produce actions whose "logical" outcome from following game physics would produce a result that runs counter to the GM's desires. It is in this clash of light and dark magics that some GMs fall to the dark side of railroading, and choose to ignore game physics to invalidate the players' actions, whereas other GMs rise above their petty desires and follow game physics.

    Biased? Me? Nonsense!

  27. - Top - End - #267
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    It's not just the GM wanting "something" that leads to railroading. If the GM wants to have an impartial world that treats the PCs like any other characters, that desire won't lead to railroading. Railroading comes from the GM wanting to see a particular outcome and then forcing it to happen by negating player actions or random chance events.

    GM: I want the Duke to be a challenging opponent who can trade blows in melee with the PCs for a while, so I'm going to give him a magic sword, heavy armor, and 40 hp...
    *PC archers roll a bunch of crits to bullseye the Duke's eye socket for 42 points of damage in the first round*
    GM: ...and an amulet of "protection from arrows" so he can't be shot.

  28. - Top - End - #268

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Hmmm... I'll have to say "no". But game rules are a subset of game physics.
    There are rules governing what Boccob perceives. A GM ignoring those rules is still violating game physics.
    So there are unknown game physics, that players....and only players...can suddenly ''know" and use as a hostile attack on the DM for anything the DM does that the player does not like.

    Seems to be a long winded way of saying: Railroading is just a player complaining about whatever they did not like that the DM did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    The GM wanting something is the dark magic that allows rails to form in their mind. The party taking actions is the white magic that can produce actions whose "logical" outcome from following game physics would produce a result that runs counter to the GM's desires. It is in this clash of light and dark magics that some GMs fall to the dark side of railroading, and choose to ignore game physics to invalidate the players' actions, whereas other GMs rise above their petty desires and follow game physics.
    It is amazing how dark and bias this is: any DM that ''wants" anything is allways wrong. All the bad DMs should just be servants to the players and do whatever the players want.

    I do wonder why players wanting things is not a dark and evil road though? Why not? Should not the same ''have no wants"apply to the players?

    And what about DMs doing things ''inside" of whatever you want to call ''game physics": that is all ok, right? Even if you personaly don't like it? As long as the DM can say ''look I jumpped through your game physics hoop just like you wanted and did my action"; you'd be ''ok"?



    Quote Originally Posted by Xuc Xac View Post

    GM: I want the Duke to be a challenging opponent who can trade blows in melee with the PCs for a while, so I'm going to give him a magic sword, heavy armor, and 40 hp...
    *PC archers roll a bunch of crits to bullseye the Duke's eye socket for 42 points of damage in the first round*
    GM: ...and an amulet of "protection from arrows" so he can't be shot.
    See the above is either Clumsy Railroading or even more simply a bad or new DM.

    At the most basic, any ''tough challenging opponet" should have plenty of common sense protections. So a good DM will add in things like ''protection from arrows".

    But in the bigger pitcure: it does not matter. The DM wanted Duke A to be great...and the players ruin that plan. Ok. So what? It does not matter.

    The DM can just roll out Duke B to Z, until it happens. Or bring up Baron A. Or Lord C. Or maybe drop in a Earth element warbeast rhino.

  29. - Top - End - #269
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Regarding the duke example, while "immunity to arrows" is a dickish move because it negates a player ability, giving him some more protection retroactively could be a good thing to do.

    A major villain is a lot of investment both for the DM and the players. A well-crafted major villain will make for a great story. Losing the villain because of lucky rolls is just like losing a character for unlucky dice rolls: a waste.
    As a player, I prefer to interact with my villains a bit more. one-shotting them is unsatisfying.

    there was this guy who had opposed us for almost a year of real life time, by manipulating events and stuff. And finally we found him in the final room of the dungeon, where he was looking for the same prize we did. And he had his own adventuring party.
    there was a gnoll ranger with trained falcons. my monk tripped and stunned him, then got a full attack and killed.
    there was a doppleganger cleric. he got hit by an empowered disintegrate and failed his saving throw.
    there was a wizard of some sort. the fighter charged him with full power attack and dispatched him in the first round.
    None of them got a chance to act at all. And ok, hooray for us for setting a good ambush, but we lost so much. I still wonder; what kind of story tied a gnoll ranger and a doppleganger cleric and a human bard together? who were his companions? what could they actually do? I regret that I didn't spend more time with those villains.

    Nobody complains when the DM railroads to save a character when resurrection is not an option, because it would suck. Wouldn't a well-crafted villain deserve a similar consideration, as long as it does not deprive players of their agency? Railroading got a bad reputation for bad DM using it to screw the players, but it is fine if it is used to make fun for everyone.

    then there is also the schroedinger railroading variation: the duke is dead, now the big bad is the suspiciously similar baron.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  30. - Top - End - #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The Nature of Railroading

    Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
    Yes. You even admitted there was railroading in that example. See above quote.

    I disagree. If someone does ______ to you without your knowledge, they still did _______ to you. Reality exists independent of your knowledge of reality. This fact is also built into societal conventions and rules.

    For example, if a person breaks a ban but no mod notices, did they actually break a ban? Yes, they did. Does it matter? Yes, the forum cares about the violation even before they learn of the violation.
    Dunno what you got wrong here - but these are not things I've said. You put my name to someone else's posts.

Posting Permissions

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