Plot Railroading: How much?

[Cluedrew]

To Darth Ultron: If a GM is doing things to hurt the game, than they are also are making meaningful decisions to effect the game. All types of agency can be used for good or ill. Yes they all should be used to help save the world, but if it had to be then it wouldn't really be agency. Plus I have used my player agency to help the game, so it clearly can be done.

Second, I don't believe that ''everyone is a equal and the same in every way'', I've never seen a game where a player had as much control over the game as the GM. But that doesn't mean they have 0 control.

[2D8HP]

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

Yes that's fun for the players for five to ten minutes tops.

PLAYER A: "Studly McAwesome becomes King of the Universe!

DM: Okay.

PLAYER B: Mistress McIncredible then becomes Empress of the Multiverse, which is better than King!

DM: Yeah sure that too.

---

Maybe that's what DU means by "too much player agency"?

To be fun (for me as a player) I want a perception that both success and failure are possible.

[Darth Ultron]

Really, it's about using the rules fairly. If a player rolls a skill check or uses a spell that should let them open the door, refusing it is functionally the same as fudging dice to make your BBEG win because the plots needs him to win.

Again I would point out that Railroading and just about all other Role Playing has very little and often nothing to do with the rules.

There is no rule that says ''the players must all ways succeed at everything''. And the rules do allow the DM to do ''anything'' in the rules: a DM can all ways say ''yes your check works, but then this other rule says...".

But your example is more ''Game Design''. If a bad DM puts a pointless DC 5 lock on the treasure vault with no other security, and then comes up with the great ''get the key'' plot then your example can happen. Of course any good DM can come up with two or three dozen ways to ''stop the single lock pick'' and ''using the all mighty rules too''.

And this this brings up the improv railroad problem. If the DM makes the vault a year before and makes it 'good'. Then anything that happens is ok, right? But if the DM makes up something ''improv'' say ten seconds before the ''single lock pick'', then that is wrong, right?

[OldTrees1]

Yes that's fun for the players for five to ten minutes tops.

PLAYER A: "Studly McAwesome becomes King of the Universe!

DM: Okay.

PLAYER B: Mistress McIncredible then becomes Empress of the Multiverse, which is better than King!

DM: Yeah sure that too.

---

Maybe that's what DU means by "too much player agency"?

To be fun (for me as a player) I want a perception that both success and failure are possible.

Context reminder:
DU was replying to

Of course doors can be locked. But the PCs can come up with solutions: picking the lock, breaking it down, Gaseous Form, Passwall, etc. And if they do come up with a good idea, it should work, even if the GM had not planned for them to enter the room at that moment.

So if using an axe on a wooden door is "too much player agency" to Darth Ultron, then I would question how applicable Darth's concepts are to your play.

[2D8HP]

So if using an axe on a wooden door is "too much player agency" to Darth Ultron, then I would question how applicable Darth's concepts are to your play.

At this point I question how much the concept fit his own play.

[Darth Ultron]

To Darth Ultron: If a GM is doing things to hurt the game, than they are also are making meaningful decisions to effect the game. All types of agency can be used for good or ill. Yes they all should be used to help save the world, but if it had to be then it wouldn't really be agency. Plus I have used my player agency to help the game, so it clearly can be done.

Um...I don't think you ''need'' to make meaningful decisions to effect the game: The DM can just be a Jerk.

And so, wait, are you saying DM Agency is a good thing?

Second, I don't believe that ''everyone is a equal and the same in every way'', I've never seen a game where a player had as much control over the game as the GM. But that doesn't mean they have 0 control.

I agree the players don't have zero.

So if using an axe on a wooden door is "too much player agency" to Darth Ultron, then I would question how applicable Darth's concepts are to your play.

Again, this is more DM imagination , setting and how well the DM pre plans.

It is easy for a good DM to stop and counter a lot of the ''stuff'' a player might try....way, way, way before they do it. Even more so if the Dm knows the players.

A simple metal door would stop the ''crazy axe player'' for example.

And there is also the role playing side where the door is, for example, in public view or guarded or set it up so the character's can't risk making the noise...and so on.

[Quertus]

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

Somehow I missed this. Can you point to how "provide guidance" became "railroading"?

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

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

It probably says more about me than it does about you that I have a hard time envisioning these two statements working in harmony. See, I hear, "Imma play by the rules, but Imma change the rules at will". And that's indistinguishable from Calvin Ball.

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

The guard example is a good one, imo. It's a great example of GM Agency in practice. And it's one where I'm in 99% agreement with you. That 1% difference is that the players might have a little bit of agency to influence the probability of a particular outcome, though, if they know the guard rotation, and know and measure / manipulate the factors which contribute to guard attentiveness. Or, heck, in some cases, just mentioning to the GM, "hey, what are the odds that...".

I'm not personally a fan of the Narrative style of games where the players can just say, "and there are X guards, and their attentiveness is Y, because Z", any more than I'm a fan of (community definition) Railroad games. But games played in that style generally involve a loss of GM Agency, and a potential loss of player agency, too. Hmmm... I guess I'm just an Agency guy.

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

I'm starting to like the "GM Agency" concept... It rather succinctly explains part of what irks me about players having narrative currency.

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

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

That's fair - you don't say outcomes, and that's my baggage.

But, that having been said, I'm struggling to grasp what a GM would change that inherently wouldn't affect the outcome.

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

Probably because, thus far, I've identified that the GM can change the rules, the facts, or the rolls to railroad, and, in whatever conversation we were having, I was referring to the first one.

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

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

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

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

Well, as you probably could tell from my description of a sandbox, I believe in creating the, hmmm, let's call it "illusion of natural beauty", much like you do, while still having an artificial focus. For example, a sandbox with "family style" figures, or a political game with political characters and political conflicts. But, where we differ is, I'm not interested in maintaining the artificial nature of the setting once play begins. Once the game starts, I sit back and let it grow.

Now, you're right - if a tree falls, and blocks the driveway... well, if the group agrees that the game would best be served by removing said tree, ok, fine. Otherwise, I'll just leave it.

Or, returning to the physical sandbox example, if the child only puts up one adult figure, or puts up 3, I may ask about the anomaly, but I'm not about to "fix" their representation of their family.

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

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

Well, IIRC, in the example that started this chain, "the group" could equally easily include or exclude the GM, and the phrase would still work. It's my bad that when I say "the group", I'm not always including the GM in that. But, usually, when I'm explicitly excluding the GM, I'll say "the players" or "the PCs".

The next thread: Why are social contracts bad?

Ah, I had just meant in terms of session 0, setting expectations, etc.

For the moment, I'm less interested in the political version of this discussion.

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

I think the Playground might just support this effort...

[Pleh]

I dunno.

I hear "player agency" and I think of a set of actions a player may choose to enact (or attempt.

I hear "DM agency" in this context and all I hear is arguments for limiting player agency.

Like the negative energy pushing back against the positive energy.

While the DM is a player who should have fun, too, their primary role is referee, mediating between the players and the rules. It's not so much the DM's job to limit player agency, but only to keep it from violating the rules. Likewise, they protect player agency from the rules, overturning rules to suit the adventure.

But the point of limiting player agency as a DM shouldn't be excused simply as "DM agency." The point is to honor the rules.

The ever repeated "locked door" scenario should always be played thusly:

1. Don't make a door the PCs can't get through (rather make a door they might not go through). Just as you never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot, you don't put a door in a dungeon you don't want them to ever open.
2. Make sure the reward/consequences matches the challenge of getting through the door.
3. If the door somehow disrupts the adventure, improvise with, "yes, and..." answers. "Yes, you open the door and there is a wandering monster on the other side."
4. Even if you want to make choosing to open the door disadvantageous, keep it a fair CR consequence so the only penalty is a expenditure of daily adventuring resources.
5. When all else fails, own the responsibility for the failure (never shift blame on the players), get feedback from your group about how to move forward, and if retconning is necessary, retcon in the party's favor so the table can continue enjoying the adventure without a sour flavor.

The party are the heroes of the story. Even if you made the world, the story is about them. Any "DM agency" not directed towards helping players take their characters where the player wants to take them... would probably be better off just writing the book they clearly care more about.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm not certain what concept "DM Agency" represents. I'm fairly certain that literally no one has ever proposed that a DM cannot do things, that's just a tiresome strawman. We also don't need a term to represent the fact that a DM is, in fact, allowed to breathe air during a session.

[Max_Killjoy]

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

Clearly you don't understand, because "you don't like player buy in" has absolutely nothing to with what I posted other than sharing some of the same words.

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

I've never seen anyone make that assertion in these "discussions", except for when you're claiming that someone else (who didn't say it) said it. It's not an assertion that people are making, just one that you keep trying to claim they're making.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think the Playground might just support this effort...

Why?

There's no such thing as "good railroading".

It's like murder -- "good murder" isn't murder in the first place.

[Drakevarg]

Why?

There's no such thing as "good railroading".

It's like murder -- "good murder" isn't murder in the first place.

I believe that was the point. What DU wants to call "DM Agency" is not railroading, so nobody would really mind if he motioned to stop calling it that, since nobody but him calls it that anyway.

[OldTrees1]

Why?

There's no such thing as "good railroading".

It's like murder -- "good murder" isn't murder in the first place.

Railroading can refer to merely the act of restricting player agency. There is a difference between appropriate or excessive restriction of player agency. If I play a lovecraftian horror game I am generally accepting a tighter restriction on player agency as a consequence of the creation of the powerlessness theme of the genre. If I play a sandbox D&D game I am expecting enough player agency to allow for the PCs to pursue their own active goals.

Of course the specific difference between appropriate and excessive railroading is clear to most people that actually communicate with the DM/players in their group. This is why "railroading" commonly only refers to the negative connotation subset.

I believe that was the point. What DU wants to call "DM Agency" is not railroading, so nobody would really mind if he motioned to stop calling it that, since nobody but him calls it that anyway.

I have 3 issues with calling it that
1) Railroading(neutral connotation) already covers a lot of what DU wants to not call railroading. The current term allows for easy description and subclassification. The last thread included subcategories like road (at each node the PCs get to make meaningful choices from a short list of paths) vs station (you are railroaded from node to node but otherwise have sandbox level agency at each node).
2) Continuing to cover it with railroading(neutral connotation) silences several of DU's strawmen while being easy to understand for people stumbling upon DU for the first time.
3) "DM Agency" is not a descriptive term. The DM can do anything that they don't choose to not be able to do.

[Seto]

And this this brings up the improv railroad problem. If the DM makes the vault a year before and makes it 'good'. Then anything that happens is ok, right?

Right, if it's made by the rules and still possible to open even if it's difficult.

But if the DM makes up something ''improv'' say ten seconds before the ''single lock pick'', then that is wrong, right?

Not necessarily. It's borderline, yeah, but might still be okay. For example, if the DM suddenly thinks "What was I thinking making this DC 15, the lock has been made by a specialist so it should be 25", that would be fine. Or obviously, if the DM had not even thought about lockpicking (DMs often forget things when they've got a whole session to plan), they have to instantly come up with a DC.
I think there's a line somewhere in a manual that says "sure, you might not have prepared for the players to enter the lair that way, but the ancient and paranoid lich that lives there probably has". In other words "if it makes sense, you can improvise to spice up the game". Although you should do it sparingly.
But see, whether it's prepared one year in advance or 5 seconds in advance, the point is that it should make it more difficult for the players, not impossible. If your door is DC25 to pick and you can use Passwall to go through, it's fine. If a door is DC150 and completely impervious to magic and has no keyhole, it has no business being there, even if you made it a year in advance.
In video games, it's frequent and necessary to have doors that can't be opened unless you beat the right boss or talk to the right NPC. That's due to a limitation of the medium. And video games are great! But part of the reason people play DnD is so they can have the freedom to try and kick down the door instead.

And to address your other point: no it's not "caving in" to the players and giving them everything for free. They still have to work for it. If they don't have the right spells, or if they fail the lockpicking check, no treasure for them.

[Cluedrew]

Um...I don't think you ''need'' to make meaningful decisions to effect the game: The DM can just be a Jerk.

That's the point. If I walk up to you and punch you in the fact, that is a (bad) meaningful decision because I caused you pain. Put a different way, effecting the game is actually the threshold for it being a meaningful decision so the two are interlocked. And as much as I wish good things could be the only things with effects, that simply isn't the case.

And so, wait, are you saying DM Agency is a good thing?

I file it in the same group as player agency, in fact I usually don't even make the distinction between the agency of people playing the game. So yes.

Somehow I missed this. Can you point to how "provide guidance" became "railroading"?

Its in the "()", I've seen it used that way by Darth Ultron a number of occasions.

Railroading can refer to merely the act of restricting player agency.

I think one important point of distinction (that not everyone agrees with but I feel is important), is whether that lack of agency is part of the game presentation. If you present, "let's play Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy, table top edition" and it is mostly linear, that is fine. However if you present "grand open ended adventure" and then play it like a CRPG, that is railroading because you have taken away player (non-GM) agency, instead of having them give up some willingly.

For me the thing about railroads has always been the tracks, the forcing back onto the preplanned path, so that is where a lot of this comes from.

[Pleh]

That's the point. If I walk up to you and punch you in the fact,

How strangely applicable this typo is to this forum.

Punching people in the fact.

I think one important point of distinction (that not everyone agrees with but I feel is important), is whether that lack of agency is part of the game presentation. If you present, "let's play Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy, table top edition" and it is mostly linear, that is fine. However if you present "grand open ended adventure" and then play it like a CRPG, that is railroading because you have taken away player (non-GM) agency, instead of having them give up some willingly.

I agree except I place the emphasis on communication of game expectations rather than just what the game actually is.

It *is* fine to have a game with linear, limited player agency when the players agree in good spirit. This should be established before the game begins. Failing to make this expectation clear is a communication foul on the DM, unless the player lies about being okay with the DM's restrictions on the game.

But the thing that makes this the DM's fault by default is that open player agency is assumed in the game's construction. Taking that away is something the players allow a DM to do when they agree to play, not something a DM has a right to do without providing advanced notice.

[The Extinguisher]

How strangely applicable this typo is to this forum.

Punching people in the fact.



I agree except I place the emphasis on communication of game expectations rather than just what the game actually is.

It *is* fine to have a game with linear, limited player agency when the players agree in good spirit. This should be established before the game begins. Failing to make this expectation clear is a communication foul on the DM, unless the player lies about being okay with the DM's restrictions on the game.

But the thing that makes this the DM's fault by default is that open player agency is assumed in the game's construction. Taking that away is something the players allow a DM to do when they agree to play, not something a DM has a right to do without providing advanced notice.

I disagree with this. If the players are expecting a sandbox, and the GM gives them something linear, the players are just as guilty as the GM because no one talked it about it.

Assuming game expectations is how this problem begins in the first place it's irresponsible to put one set of expectations as a "default" just talk about what kind of game you want to play first!

[Max_Killjoy]

Railroading can refer to merely the act of restricting player agency. There is a difference between appropriate or excessive restriction of player agency. If I play a lovecraftian horror game I am generally accepting a tighter restriction on player agency as a consequence of the creation of the powerlessness theme of the genre. If I play a sandbox D&D game I am expecting enough player agency to allow for the PCs to pursue their own active goals.

Of course the specific difference between appropriate and excessive railroading is clear to most people that actually communicate with the DM/players in their group. This is why "railroading" commonly only refers to the negative connotation subset.



I have 3 issues with calling it that
1) Railroading(neutral connotation) already covers a lot of what DU wants to not call railroading. The current term allows for easy description and subclassification. The last thread included subcategories like road (at each node the PCs get to make meaningful choices from a short list of paths) vs station (you are railroaded from node to node but otherwise have sandbox level agency at each node).
2) Continuing to cover it with railroading(neutral connotation) silences several of DU's strawmen while being easy to understand for people stumbling upon DU for the first time.
3) "DM Agency" is not a descriptive term. The DM can do anything that they don't choose to not be able to do.

"Railroading" specifically deals with unjustified limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not grounded in setting fact or campaign premise. There is no neutral connotation. There is no such thing as "appropriate railroading".

If a player has a normal human PC, and says "I'm jumping up to the roof" of a 10-story building, then GM saying "No, you're playing a normal human being without a jump pack or whatever" is not railroading, and is not a violation of player agency.

If a group openly decides on a certain setup and premise and setting up-front, no one gets to cry "player agency!" or "railroading!" when their attempt to grossly violate that premise is shot down mid-campaign. If the campaign is set in Rome during the waning days of the Republic, and everyone agreed to it, no trying to invent an electrical grid and firearms.

Player agency does not mean "the player gets to do whatever they want".

[OldTrees1]

I think one important point of distinction (that not everyone agrees with but I feel is important), is whether that lack of agency is part of the game presentation. If you present, "let's play Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy, table top edition" and it is mostly linear, that is fine. However if you present "grand open ended adventure" and then play it like a CRPG, that is railroading because you have taken away player (non-GM) agency, instead of having them give up some willingly.

For me the thing about railroads has always been the tracks, the forcing back onto the preplanned path, so that is where a lot of this comes from.

I think that is an important distinction between kinds of railroading*.

If the game is presented as following a predetermined CRPG linear plot, and the group agrees to that restriction, and the party mistakenly loses the plot, and the DM forces them back onto the preplanned path, I suspect the group would be fine with that bit of railroading (perhaps depending on how it was handled).

*although if it is due to player buy in for the restrained agency then it also applies to some other cases.

"Railroading" specifically deals with unjustified limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not grounded in setting fact or campaign premise. There is no neutral connotation. There is no such thing as "appropriate railroading".

If a player has a normal human PC, and says "I'm jumping up to the roof" of a 10-story building, then GM saying "No, you're playing a normal human being without a jump pack or whatever" is not railroading, and is not a violation of player agency.

If a group openly decides on a certain setup and premise and setting up-front, no one gets to cry "player agency!" or "railroading!" when their attempt to grossly violate that premise is shot down mid-campaign. If the campaign is set in Rome during the waning days of the Republic, and everyone agreed to it, no trying to invent an electrical grid and firearms.

Player agency does not mean "the player gets to do whatever they want".

First:
Your last 3 paragraphs suggest you think I am arguing "the player gets to do whatever they want" (I am not).
Or that by suggesting also having a neutral connotation term that I am somehow suggesting crying foul with the negative connotation term outside of its purview. I am not.

Please read the rest of this post under the temporary assumption (unless proven otherwise) that we generally agree and I am merely talking about a broader neutral connotation term of which the negative connotation railroading is a subset.

Second:
What word do you use to describe the "limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not grounded in setting fact"?

I can talk about the Quantum Ogre and how it is generally disliked but that some players either don't mind or even enjoy variations of the Quantum Ogre (ex: imagine the "Ogre" is a clue to the investigation). However I can only do that because the Quantum Ogre is term with both a neutral(discussing what it is) and a negative(discussing why the many dislike it) connotation.

Neutral connotation terms have the benefit of allowing people to dissect & discuss them to find what part and point they personally dislike or that someone in their group personally dislikes. Maybe the player dislikes the strain on verisimilitude from the Ogre being in a superposition. The reason can inform the group as to what causes or avoids the issue.

Spoiler: More Examples

Show

Maybe the player dislikes illusions of choice. Maybe the player dislikes their plans failing without a chance. Maybe the player merely dislikes the DM hiding it. Maybe the player dislikes the use of a superposition when one was not needed to get the effect. Maybe the player only dislikes it when covering a large geographic range and a short temporal range.

So if I ask you to talk about a specific something you would personally call railroading(negative connotation) at your table but instead have you talk about it in the context of an arbitrary group that might or might not dislike it, what term would you use for the topic of the discussion?

[Max_Killjoy]

What word do you use to describe the "limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not grounded in setting fact"?

That IS railroading -- I just said that. ""Railroading" specifically deals with unjustified limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not (those) grounded in setting fact or campaign premise."

I can talk about the Quantum Ogre and how it is generally disliked but that some players either don't mind or even enjoy variations of the Quantum Ogre (ex: imagine the "Ogre" is a clue to the investigation). However I can only do that because the Quantum Ogre is term with both a neutral (discussing what it is) and a negative (discussing why the many dislike it) connotation.

Neutral connotation terms have the benefit of allowing people to dissect & discuss them to find what part and point they personally dislike or that someone in their group personally dislikes. Maybe the player dislikes the strain on verisimilitude from the Ogre being in a superposition. The reason can inform the group as to what causes or avoids the issue.

Spoiler: More Examples

Show

Maybe the player dislikes illusions of choice. Maybe the player dislikes their plans failing without a chance. Maybe the player merely dislikes the DM hiding it. Maybe the player dislikes the use of a superposition when one was not needed to get the effect. Maybe the player only dislikes it when covering a large geographic range and a short temporal range.

So if I ask you to talk about a specific something you would personally call railroading (negative connotation) at your table but instead have you talk about it in the context of an arbitrary group that might or might not dislike it, what term would you use for the topic of the discussion?

"Railroading."

There are other terms that fill in the broader topic.

I don't need to find a way for "murder" to be a more neutral term, when there are other words that cover other specific circumstances of a one person killing another person.


Edit:

First:
Your last 3 paragraphs suggest you think I am arguing "the player gets to do whatever they want" (I am not).
Or that by suggesting also having a neutral connotation term that I am somehow suggesting crying foul with the negative connotation term outside of its purview. I am not.

I don't think you think that player agency means "the player gets to do whatever they want.

That mistaken premise is however core to DU's false dichotomy that pits "railroading" against "total chaos" as a binary choice.

[Darth Ultron]

It probably says more about me than it does about you that I have a hard time envisioning these two statements working in harmony. See, I hear, "Imma play by the rules, but Imma change the rules at will". And that's indistinguishable from Calvin Ball.

The problem you might be having is you really do think of the Rules as Almighty. Page 12 of book one has rule 22 and you must do that and you bow down and do so. Or you might just be one of the people that just oddly say something, but then don't exactly follow through on it all the time. After all, just about every gamer has changed at least one thing. But you might be that one guy that is like ''your character picked up a rock, remember to adjust your encumbrance''.

Or you might not get that not changing ''rules'' like HP, levels and Bab is different then adding a new spell to the game and ''changing the rules''.

The guard example is a good one, imo. It's a great example of GM Agency in practice. And it's one where I'm in 99% agreement with you. That 1% difference is that the players might have a little bit of agency to influence the probability of a particular outcome, though, if they know the guard rotation, and know and measure / manipulate the factors which contribute to guard attentiveness. Or, heck, in some cases, just mentioning to the GM, "hey, what are the odds that...".

I'm all for the characters trying to scheme and plot and plan and try and change things by playing the game. Though the actions do get mixed up in the whole player agency/railroading. Where like the players come up with a ''clever idea'' to light a bush on fire, about ten feet from the door, to distract the guards away from the door. The players, inexplicably, think the guards will stand by the fire for like an hour and ignore/not see when the group go through the door. And when the DM says something like ''um, the guards notice the nine foot tall warforged player character that walks just eight feet behind them'', the players cry ''railroad!''.

I'm not personally a fan of the Narrative style of games where the players can just say, "and there are X guards, and their attentiveness is Y, because Z", any more than I'm a fan of (community definition) Railroad games. But games played in that style generally involve a loss of GM Agency, and a potential loss of player agency, too. Hmmm... I guess I'm just an Agency guy.

I'd say ''narrative games'' (your definition) are not even really ''games'', just some sort of ''wish fulfillment''.

I'm starting to like the "GM Agency" concept... It rather succinctly explains part of what irks me about players having narrative currency.

I like it too.

That's fair - you don't say outcomes, and that's my baggage.

It is hard to let go of the old ways sometimes....

But, that having been said, I'm struggling to grasp what a GM would change that inherently wouldn't affect the outcome.

Again, you might be stuck on the idea that ''the DM is changing things to effect the outcome'' again. Think of an encounter in spot X, the players by ''natural game flow'' are going right past it, so the DM uses a bit of DM Agency to have the characters got to spot X. The characters ''will have'' the encounter, but there is no set outcome.

Probably because, thus far, I've identified that the GM can change the rules, the facts, or the rolls to railroad, and, in whatever conversation we were having, I was referring to the first one.

Except it is more the game play, but not ''the rules''. The ''rules'' don't say ''what do the two guards to the back door of Castle Doom do at 11 pm ". That is all just the ''DM's call''.

And you get the jerk player who has their character say, cast charm person on an npc. The DM says ''it does not work'' and the player scrams ''railroad!'' pulls out the ''rules'' and demands that the charm person spell works ''just like the rules say it does''. Though there are plenty of reasons, even ''in the rules'' why anything might not work.

Well, as you probably could tell from my description of a sandbox, I believe in creating the, hmmm, let's call it "illusion of natural beauty", much like you do, while still having an artificial focus. For example, a sandbox with "family style" figures, or a political game with political characters and political conflicts. But, where we differ is, I'm not interested in maintaining the artificial nature of the setting once play begins. Once the game starts, I sit back and let it grow.

Except, maybe you don't. Take the yard example. You set up and create your yard to look like ''natural beauty''. Then you would say you ''just let it grow''. And you can ''let it grow'', but only to a point. The ''real'' natural way things happen might not all ways meet your ''idea natural way''. Like if the bushes grow too high, they will block most of the view of the yard, so naturally you trim the bushes to below that level. If a storm or a deer destroys some plants do you just shrug or do you replace them? Take a garden. You could drop some seeds, let them grow naturally, and come back after a while and see what food grew. Or you could plant them, water them, care for them as they grow and get a good food crop.

The game is the same. The games artificial nature must be maintained.

Now, you're right - if a tree falls, and blocks the driveway... well, if the group agrees that the game would best be served by removing said tree, ok, fine. Otherwise, I'll just leave it.

This bit might go a bit beyond the yard analogy. It is easy when a group of people all agree that X should be done. The tricky part is when only one person knows why X should be done and everyone in the group does not have the same power level and knowledge of all things.

Or, returning to the physical sandbox example, if the child only puts up one adult figure, or puts up 3, I may ask about the anomaly, but I'm not about to "fix" their representation of their family.

This again sounds good, and you can tell your special kid that ''a family is whatever''...but this is a bit of a slope as you do what to teach the kid the ''right'' things, but still allow them ''wacky freedom''. So if the kid has a man and unicorn married, you might say something so they understand ''only people get married''.

I hear "player agency" and I think of a set of actions a player may choose to enact (or attempt.

I hear "DM agency" in this context and all I hear is arguments for limiting player agency.

But ask yourself why?

The players are all ways poor beaten down losers who were forced to play lots of bad games that were meaningless in the past and they are just holding out for a small ray of light where they can play a game and choose to try and act and do something meaningful.

The DM is all ways a mean evil tyrant who is always trying to capture the players and forcing them to jump through the hoops of their game while he laughs.

While the DM is a player who should have fun, too, their primary role is referee, mediating between the players and the rules. It's not so much the DM's job to limit player agency, but only to keep it from violating the rules. Likewise, they protect player agency from the rules, overturning rules to suit the adventure.

Are you defining ''player agency'' here to mean ''if the player takes any action''. Because in a normal game, the DM will all ways limit ''actions a player's character can take''.

But the point of limiting player agency as a DM shouldn't be excused simply as "DM agency." The point is to honor the rules.

Again, everyone must drop ''the rules''. It is not about the rules. There is no rule that says if a door is locked or not...there is just the DM ''saying'' it. The players can't open a rule book and say ''the back door to the evil lords castle is open as page 88 says it is open''.

The party are the heroes of the story. Even if you made the world, the story is about them. Any "DM agency" not directed towards helping players take their characters where the player wants to take them... would probably be better off just writing the book they clearly care more about.

The book jab, really? Well, then your type of Player Agency is for selfish jerk players who should say home and write their own book where they can be the hero of their own story. See, how that works both ways.

I'm not certain what concept "DM Agency" represents. I'm fairly certain that literally no one has ever proposed that a DM cannot do things, that's just a tiresome strawman. We also don't need a term to represent the fact that a DM is, in fact, allowed to breathe air during a session.

Well, it is a useful counter to the hostile Player Agency and avoids the use of the word Railroad.

Clearly you don't understand, because "you don't like player buy in" has absolutely nothing to with what I posted other than sharing some of the same words.

Except where you did say you don't like it, right?

I've never seen anyone make that assertion in these "discussions", except for when you're claiming that someone else (who didn't say it) said it. It's not an assertion that people are making, just one that you keep trying to claim they're making.

Well, this is a forest through the trees problem. Anyone ''in'' the forest can't see it. They say things like ''the DM is just a player like the players'' and they are ''just there to abdicate rules in the players favor'' and ''react to the player characters in only the ways the players want and approve of''.

Why?

There's no such thing as "good railroading".

It's like murder -- "good murder" isn't murder in the first place.

Well, maybe take the word ''killing'' then. Killing can be good or bad.

Right, if it's made by the rules and still possible to open even if it's difficult.

I would note this is a bit of Player Agency hostility to say ''everything must be made the way I want it made''. Like there should be no impossible things in the game world. But then anything that is ''too hard'' or even just ''hard'' is ''impossible'', right?

Not necessarily. It's borderline, yeah, but might still be okay.
I think there's a line somewhere in a manual that says "sure, you might not have prepared for the players to enter the lair that way, but the ancient and paranoid lich that lives there probably has". In other words "if it makes sense, you can improvise to spice up the game". Although you should do it sparingly.

Again, there is no reason things can not be impossible, near impossible or so hard to do that they might as well be impossible. Sometimes things just can't be done.

And this is even more true once you set aside the ''rules'', sigh again, and focus on the Role Play more. And in role play, somethings will always be impossible. NPC Joe will not surrender...ever...no matter what. So no matter what wacky plan the Pcs come up with...the NPC will not surrender. Period.

And to address your other point: no it's not "caving in" to the players and giving them everything for free. They still have to work for it. If they don't have the right spells, or if they fail the lockpicking check, no treasure for them.

Well, your talking about ''the rules'' only....so sure, some of the time, most things should be a challenge and all ways be maybe possible for a character to do. But, again, there is no reason things can not be impossible, near impossible or so hard to do that they might as well be impossible. Sometimes things just can't be done.

[Zarrgon]

I disagree with this (to a point).

It's the GM's responsibility to allow meaningful choices to be made.

it's the player's responsibility to make choices that lead to something fun happening.

My group might seem a bit railroad-ey to some, but we enjoy it as we accept that taking the intro to an adventure the GM gives us is a reasonable compromise. We're trading a certain level of 'freedom' for a a better chance of doing something cool.

[Darth Ultron]

Its in the "()", I've seen it used that way by Darth Ultron a number of occasions.

It depends if you count ''DM Oracle'' as Railroading. If the short little Dungeon Master guy in a red robe steps out from behind a tree and tells the characters something...is that railroading?

For me the thing about railroads has always been the tracks, the forcing back onto the preplanned path, so that is where a lot of this comes from.

Yes, moving events along the plot.

It *is* fine to have a game with linear, limited player agency when the players agree in good spirit. This should be established before the game begins. Failing to make this expectation clear is a communication foul on the DM, unless the player lies about being okay with the DM's restrictions on the game.

Assuming everyone gets together for a game and hugs and drinks tea together: How do you ''establish'' this before the game?

Is it just the DM, mostly falsely, laying down on the ground and saying "I won't railroad you guys, promise!'' and then all the players ''believe '' the DM? So then when anything happens in the game that the players on a whim don't like...they don't cry ''railroad, as their good buddy DM said he would not do that."

"Railroading" specifically deals with unjustified limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not grounded in setting fact or campaign premise. There is no neutral connotation. There is no such thing as "appropriate railroading".

''Unjustified'' to who? Just the players? Your going back to ''if the players don't like it, it is railroading."

Player agency does not mean "the player gets to do whatever they want".

Sure, by what about any example not like your simple ones? Like, ok, first off utterly and completely without any rule basis at all, just pure Role Playing (assuming the rules don't apply or the character simply does not have the skill/ability/whatever to ''use'' the rules).

If a character (using no rules remember) attempts to persuade the Queen of the Realm to avoid a war, and nothing will change her mind, is that railroading?

Or if a character (again, using no rules) starts a fire to distract the door guards, and the guards ignore the fire, is it railroading?

I don't need to find a way for "murder" to be a more neutral term, when there are other words that cover other specific circumstances of a one person killing another person.

Well, the Law does recognize six types of murder. .....

[Cluedrew]

NPC Joe will not surrender...ever...no matter what. So no matter what wacky plan the Pcs come up with...the NPC will not surrender. Period.

Even if you take away the reason he is not surrendering, put him in a position where not surrendering is actually harmful to their cause and surrendering is beneficial to it?

It depends if you count ''DM Oracle'' as Railroading. If the short little Dungeon Master guy in a red robe steps out from behind a tree and tells the characters something...is that railroading?

No, but if they must heed the advice it probably is. Which is actually different from their being bad consequences if they don't follow the advice.

Yes, moving events along the plot.

Actually the rails are the part that stops the plot from moving along. Only until the party travels between the rails down the track, which in this metaphor means along the pre-planned plot.

For example lets say some noble do gooder acquired an artifact (as a curiosity) that the party is looking for to help save the world. Considering that the party usually players the "not very heroic heroes" kind you expect them to steal it and make an enemy out of the noble. So you write some hooks in your ark about how the robbery would go and the problems the noble will cause them. But instead they decide to make the noble an offer s/he can't refuse. A generous, but not ridiculous, sum for the artifact and a third party that the noble trusts to vouch that the party is (on the whole) good people and they would be using the artifact for good.

What do you do?

• Does the noble refuse to sell it for no reason so the party has to steal it?
• Does the noble sell the artifact but resent them anyways?
• Does the noble sell it and a suspiciously similar one who doesn't like them appear?
• Does the noble sell the artifact and the party gets on with saving the world?

[OldTrees1]

I don't think you think that player agency means "the player gets to do whatever they want.

That mistaken premise is however core to DU's false dichotomy that pits "railroading" against "total chaos" as a binary choice.

Good. Since you don't think I believe that drek and neither of us is deluded by DU's false dichotomies, we can ignore all of that DU slag.

That IS railroading -- I just said that. ""Railroading" specifically deals with unjustified limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not (those) grounded in setting fact or campaign premise."


"Railroading."

There are other terms that fill in the broader topic.

I don't need to find a way for "murder" to be a more neutral term, when there are other words that cover other specific circumstances of a one person killing another person.

You defined "Railroad" as "'Railroading' specifically deals with unjustified limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not (those) grounded in setting fact or campaign premise."

Under that context, I asked what word you used for "limits/blocking/forcing that arise from GM whim, not (those) grounded in setting fact"

You might notice I am asking a slightly different question.

To ask a similar question:
If you call unjustified Quantum Ogres as Railroading(negative connotation), what do you call non unjustified Quantum Ogres?

To go off the Murder analogy: Murder is to Railroading(negative connotation) as Killing is to ______?


Why is having such a concept important?
Different players start calling things Railroading(negative connotation) at different times. One of DU's tactics has been to get a Sandbox player to call something as Railroading(negative connotation) and then use that against someone that plays in more restricted games. If the second player does not call it railroading, then DU claims this proved the word has no meaning (as DU just did in response to your post). If the second player does call it railroading, then DU claims that proves all DMs railroad. All of this disingenuous tactic is nullified by having a way to talk about what the DM did (ex:saved a missed module for another place another day) separate from what the group considers unjustified railroading vs non unjustified _____.

[Avian Overlord]

I suspect many of you may find this to be of interest.

[Max_Killjoy]

I suspect many of you may find this to be of interest.

The Alexandrian gives an excellent summary of some of the nuances, and provides yet another erudite voice in opposition to multiple extreme undefinitions of railroading.

[Darth Ultron]

Even if you take away the reason he is not surrendering, put him in a position where not surrendering is actually harmful to their cause and surrendering is beneficial to it?

Right you can spin ''what ifs'' for ever, but that is not the point.

For example lets say some noble....
What do you do?

Well, this is a bit of an odd question as A) I would have done the set up way better and B) that I somehow don't know the players at all. But:

1.It does seem reasonable to me that a noble do gooder ''good guy'' might refuse to deal with some ''not so good people''. So that is more then enough of a reason for the ''no sale''. Unless the thingy the Pc's ''somehow'' got was like a good artifact or a family heirloom of his family or something like that.

2.Also seems reasonable, but a bit pointless, so why bother.

3.Not sure what you mean by this one?

4.Sure.

[ImNotTrevor]

I think one of the oddities of DU's expression of Railroading is that he thinks it has to do with how events HAPPEN instead of how they RESOLVE.

For example, if my players have pissed off Devora, godling of The Wild Hunt, then Devora will do something about it and screw them over. Obviously. This isn't railroading because something is HAPPENING but nothing is Resolving.

If Devora attacks and what WILL happen is one of the PCs will be kidnapped, then that IS railroading because it deals with a situation RESOLVING.

That and it misses the Social issue and replaces it with game issues.

[Darth Ultron]

I think one of the oddities of DU's expression of Railroading is that he thinks it has to do with how events HAPPEN instead of how they RESOLVE.

More accurately I count both as railroading. But I also don't think it is Badwrongfun to have a set resolution.

So there is a huge disconnect as ''others'' think everything all the time must be free and wild and crazy based on the whim of the players and anything the wacky players want to happen and the DM should be be a reacting robot and do what the loopy ''setting demigod voices'' tell them to do.

But everyone all ways goes for full ''think like a Jerk DM'' mode and thinks that if even one thing in one game ever is ''set'', then everything in all games will be ''set'' forever badwrongfun!

But I think of it more like ''time travel theory'' where some things are set, and somethings are not.