Is railroading always bad?

[CRKrueger]

It's basically where the players are presented with a choice, say go left or right, but the next scripted encounter occurs regardless of the choice, e.g. the Ogre is behind either door.

I think the terrible thing about this sort of thing isn't bad GMing but the misunderstanding of quantum superposition

The two Schrodinger’s Ogres are quantum entangled, and only one can exist at a time, so when the PCs choose the direction, the Ogre in that direction exists. Since only one Ogre exists, we don’t use the plural.

Better?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I have to say, I find it weird that there are people out there who don't think being entertaining is a useful part of being a GM (or a player for that matter).

It depends. It's the case with most of my tabletop GMing.

But when I run one shot LARP or to a lesser extent my En Garde! game it's not really my role. I'm primarily there to faciliate player interaction and adjucate rules.

On the former, I've mostly switched to calling myself a "ref" as I think it's a better description of my role. But some of the players still use that and "GM" interchangably.

 

[under_score]

I have to say, I find it weird that there are people out there who don't think being entertaining is a useful part of being a GM (or a player for that matter).

I don't think anyone thinks that. But at that level it's vague enough to be a useless statement. Of course we want our games to be entertaining, it'd be a poor form of recreation if not.

 

[Ragr]

That’s just terrible writing. Any GM worth anything should be able to handle..
1. Presenting the situation in such a way that you can run it live and have the characters make the choices desired.
2. Have alternate means for meeting the Shinto priests if the players refuse, and find another way out.

Definitely. The problem with it is that that's just one example of many throughout the game and we decided that despite having a debate about how we would handle that specific scene to bring it in line with our expectations it just wasn't worth the constant deconstruction and rebuild. We also decided that chapter was a more accurate word rather than scene for this. Still, it provided a decent amount of back and forth between our group on a similar theme to this thread,

 

[Faylar]

I rather like the Quantum Ogre. It presents an illusion of choice while maintaining the story structure.
I referred to it earlier as "All roads lead to Rome". Basically the thought that the world has a sandbox feel, but it is in fact a linear story regardless.

I think part of the problem is that Player agency can really kick you in the teeth as a GM if you don't have a means to get things back on track.
One of my Highschool DMs introduced an old man on the road to the party and at the conclusion of the encounter, an individual in the group went full psycho and killed the old man for his obviously magical doodad. (Can't remember the details clearly). That old man was scripted to become the main boss of the campaign and we derailed it. The rest of the campaign became a hot mess with no direction so we ended up just pissing everyone off and taking over countries.
We learned then that "If you stat it, the players will kill it". Afterwards, we took a more railroading approach to avoid our campaigns degenerating into steaming piles of plot hooks with no direction. (Still happened, but less so).

As adults, one of our DMS from the same group took it too far however.
We approached an obvious trap which we were told about by a townsman... a Bridge over a stream in the clear open with no cover for us, but lots for an ambusher. We decided to avoid the trap because it had trolls and we were level 4, and carried on down stream hoping for a narrows.
Wishy washy reasons happen and we find an identical bridge, so we carry on... to find another, then another. So we decide to swim only to find rushing rapids where they weren't being described before.
Okay, maybe we don't need to cross this river, lets go elsewhere... "Ooh! there is this adventure hook in this direction from before... lets go here!'
We turn around and find another river... with another identical bridge in the opposite direction... Okay, we backtrack to where the first bridge was... it was still there... Okay, we head back to the town.
The road to the town was washed out and the villagers hastily erected a... bridge. "FUUUUUUUU!!!"
"Fine... we cross the obvious trap bridge"
"3 rolls spring forth in ambush from under the bridge and get a surprise round on you because you had no way of realizing it was a trap"
TPK
All so we could be "rescued" by another character he had planned out. the worst part was that we were punished for losing and falling for the trap. He mocked us in character and our gear was all gone.
We stopped showing up to sessions after that.

 

[AsenRG]

Horrors on the Danube Express man. The first locomotive Bulgarian Lovecraftian adventure.

That's an example of the foreigner missing the point, sorry!
You want an example of "a locomotive Bulgarian Lovecraftian adventure", you make the PCs members of the fanclub of Locomotiv-Plovdiv and the cultists members of the fanclubs of CSKA and Levski... then you have it all: drug-pedlling, violence-prone enemies, charismatic cult-like leaders, and all that stuff. And your PCs probably hate them already...

For those not aware, these are football clubs (the word soccer isn't used here because there isn't another kind of football - least of all one where you seldom kick the ball with your foot - to compete for the wordspace). The fanclubs are quite infamous for brawling with the cops and rumour is that this is only the visible part, which is, as we all know, about 1/10th (and when one of their members gets arrested for something else, you can invariably read the words "multiple criminal offenses" in the newspapers). Think "biker clubs" except bikes aren't required and you'll have it, though.
Fun fact: the "boss" of one of the clubs is coloquially known as "the Duce" and enjoys tremendous influence with the supporters.

I rather like the Quantum Ogre. It presents an illusion of choice while maintaining the story structure.
I referred to it earlier as "All roads lead to Rome". Basically the thought that the world has a sandbox feel, but it is in fact a linear story regardless.

I think part of the problem is that Player agency can really kick you in the teeth as a GM if you don't have a means to get things back on track.
One of my Highschool DMs introduced an old man on the road to the party and at the conclusion of the encounter, an individual in the group went full psycho and killed the old man for his obviously magical doodad. (Can't remember the details clearly). That old man was scripted to become the main boss of the campaign and we derailed it. The rest of the campaign became a hot mess with no direction so we ended up just pissing everyone off and taking over countries.
We learned then that "If you stat it, the players will kill it". Afterwards, we took a more railroading approach to avoid our campaigns degenerating into steaming piles of plot hooks with no direction. (Still happened, but less so).

As adults, one of our DMS from the same group took it too far however.
We approached an obvious trap which we were told about by a townsman... a Bridge over a stream in the clear open with no cover for us, but lots for an ambusher. We decided to avoid the trap because it had trolls and we were level 4, and carried on down stream hoping for a narrows.
Wishy washy reasons happen and we find an identical bridge, so we carry on... to find another, then another. So we decide to swim only to find rushing rapids where they weren't being described before.
Okay, maybe we don't need to cross this river, lets go elsewhere... "Ooh! there is this adventure hook in this direction from before... lets go here!'
We turn around and find another river... with another identical bridge in the opposite direction... Okay, we backtrack to where the first bridge was... it was still there... Okay, we head back to the town.
The road to the town was washed out and the villagers hastily erected a... bridge. "FUUUUUUUU!!!"
"Fine... we cross the obvious trap bridge"
"3 rolls spring forth in ambush from under the bridge and get a surprise round on you because you had no way of realizing it was a trap"
TPK
All so we could be "rescued" by another character he had planned out. the worst part was that we were punished for losing and falling for the trap. He mocked us in character and our gear was all gone.
We stopped showing up to sessions after that.

Sorry,man, that's such an egregious example of bad Refereeing it is funny!
Probably was less funny to be at the table, if my experience was anything to go by.

Just our of curiosity, why didn't you start by throwing flaming oil under the bridge? It would have been fun to look at the GM's face!

And now you know why I don't hate illusionist GMs, I avoid them. But sometimes they hate me, for no obvious reason!

 

[Dumarest]

Just our of curiosity, why didn't you start by throwing flaming oil under the bridge? It would have been fun to look at the GM's face!

I think the real question here is why did the Dungeon Master have a townsperson tip them to the ambush if he wanted them to be ambushed? It probably would have gone as he wanted it to had he not had an NPC clue them in.

 

[Faylar]

I think the real question here is why did the Dungeon Master have a towns person tip them to the ambush if he wanted them to be ambushed? It probably would have gone as he wanted it to had he not had an NPC clue them in.

That's pretty much it. Any options to circumvent the encounter we were warned about would have been met with some sort of chicanery on his part. We tried thinking outside th box on other occasions only to be smacked down pretty hard, so we knew it wouldn't work. It was, to us at the time, avoid the scenario because it was a binary option presented to us, or go in as the DM wanted.
Turns out it wasn't even binary

We just presented a binary decision to him in return... play solitaire or watch TV. We stopped showing up. This was the second session of the campaign and we were already wary.
From what I understand now, he has become a pretty decent DM. I'm a province away now and haven't gamed with him in years.

 

[Dumarest]

I'm also 99% certain Quantum Ogre was statted-up in Enemies for Champions. I seem to recall he was recruited by VIPER at one point...

​

 

[ffilz]

I rather like the Quantum Ogre. It presents an illusion of choice while maintaining the story structure.
I referred to it earlier as "All roads lead to Rome". Basically the thought that the world has a sandbox feel, but it is in fact a linear story regardless.

I think part of the problem is that Player agency can really kick you in the teeth as a GM if you don't have a means to get things back on track.
One of my Highschool DMs introduced an old man on the road to the party and at the conclusion of the encounter, an individual in the group went full psycho and killed the old man for his obviously magical doodad. (Can't remember the details clearly). That old man was scripted to become the main boss of the campaign and we derailed it. The rest of the campaign became a hot mess with no direction so we ended up just pissing everyone off and taking over countries.
We learned then that "If you stat it, the players will kill it". Afterwards, we took a more railroading approach to avoid our campaigns degenerating into steaming piles of plot hooks with no direction. (Still happened, but less so).

Optionally you structure your campaign so it can absorb almost anything the players do. Now it's true, they can still decide to do something as a GM you aren't interested in. In that case, you talk to the players and make sure it's clear what you're interested in, and clear why the path they are bent on will not be interesting, and ideally offer compromise options. Then it's up to the players to accept what the GM's interests are, continue negotiations, or agree that the current campaign is untenable and go play something else, perhaps with a different set of players.

 

[Tulpa Girl]

My preference, both as a player and a GM, is strongly for sandbox play. That said, I will make allowances for railroads if it's a one-shot and/or if the GM is inexperienced, especially if they are upfront and honest about it.

By contrast, I loathe illusionism, and the Quantum Ogre can fuck itself in the ear with a rusty, syphilis-laden screwdriver.

 

[Faylar]

My preference, both as a player and a GM, is strongly for sandbox play. That said, I will make allowances for railroads if it's a one-shot and/or if the GM is inexperienced, especially if they are upfront and honest about it.

By contrast, I loathe illusionism, and the Quantum Ogre can fuck itself in the ear with a rusty, syphilis-laden screwdriver.

This is why it's important to remember that players are diverse. we all have different likes and dislikes.
I'm pretty sure the tools in my toolbox are syphilis free.

 

[Séadna]

That's an example of the foreigner missing the point, sorry!
You want an

I want a what?! Don't leave me hanging man!

The two Schrodinger’s Ogres are quantum entangled, and only one can exist at a time, so when the PCs choose the direction, the Ogre in that direction exists. Since only one Ogre exists, we don’t use the plural.

Better?

You even included the Free Choice axiom. Beautiful
We only need to add Complementarity, so when the PCs listen to the door it sounds like a dragon but when they open it it looks like an Ogre.

Also the Ogre is Bohr

 

[Faylar]

Does the Quantum ogre have a companion named Al or Ziggy?

 

[Black Vulmea]

I have to say, I find it weird that there are people out there who don't think being entertaining is a useful part of being a GM (or a player for that matter).

It's not that, not for me, anyway. It's the notion that it's on the referee's shoulders to 'make the game fun for the players,' to which I reply, You are responsible for your own orgasm:

Why is it that we, as a hobby, seem to think that it is the GM who is responsible for making sure each player will have something to do? Why is it that, if we assume that the players at the table are relatively reasonable adults, the players don't bear any sort of responsibility for making sure they themselves have something to do? In other words: Why do we think the GM is the one who has to give the players orgasms?​

​

My response to the "make sure each player will have something to do" advice is as follows: "Make sure the players understand that they are free to choose whatever character type they like, and that they have the freedom to go with it, and from there on they're on their own."​

​

If you have a player who insists on playing a sniper, then it's his responsibility to be a sniper. It's his character's special skillset, so he should be playing with that in mind. If all combat is turning out to be in hallways, what the fuck is he doing? Why isn't he engineering it so that all his combats turn out to be in the middle of a huge meadow, except he's the one who's in a tree? Why is the GM the engine of his fun/success, and why isn't he thinking creatively and gaming in such a way that he can use his special snowflake character to do what he does best?​

​

It's the same with playing a ninja "only to discover it isn't really a stealth game". Who says it isn't a stealth game? If one of the players is being a ninja, he should be making it a stealth game. He should be making his part of the game, his role within it, about being a ninja. He shouldn't be sitting around with his thumb up his arse whining because the GM hasn't designed an entire game to service his every little whim. Unless he's 8 years old, in which case he's forgiven. - noisms, "You Are Responsible For Your Own Orgasm," Monsters and Manuals​

This is one of my favorite pieces of roleplaying game commentary; I wish like hell I'd written it, but I'm not half as smart as noisms, so I just hold it as a sort of manifesto instead.

As a referee, I write from behind a veil of ignorance: I have no idea who the actual players or their characters will be before the start of the game, so I do my best to create a deep, vibrant world full of mystery, intrigue, adventure, with all sorts of moving parts: buttons to push, knobs to turn, levers to pull. Often, I dial the clichés to eleven, because they're easy for players to recognize and interact with, but I also subvert some of them, to keep the world fresh. As the adventurers leave their mark, the pieces interact with them in turn, offering opportunities, posing challenges.

I strongly emphasize players coming up with goals for their characters, because this gives them self-direction; achieving those goals, however, is up to them. If I did my campaign prep correctly, the world is full of resources for them to amass and exploit, and it's filled with hazards for them to navigate, ameliorate or eliminate - that, to me, is the stuff of adventure.

At no point do I think, Your characters must go this direction, follow these steps, because if you don't, I can't make the game fun for you. I'll give you the chest of toys, but you are responsible for your own orgasm.

 

[TristramEvans]

I think this is sort of a non-issue. If a player isn't having fun with how a person GMs, I assume they won't contine playing with that person. If a GM enjoys "looking after" their players one way or another, it's not like anyone's going to say they shouldn't. To me, this seems ike over-analyzing the dynamics of friend groups - you get together with your friends and have fun, it's not anymore complicated than that. Maybe one of your friends really enjoys "playing host" and does stuff like make a bunch or orderves or whatever for when folks come over, maybe one of your friends is just like "BYOB". It's all fine. The point is just enjoying each other's company and having fun together. I don't see any inherent problem therein that requires academic analysis online.

 

[AsenRG]

I want a what?! Don't leave me hanging man!

Sorry, man. The forum haseaten my post, I guess...edited it for you!

 

[robiswrong]

I think railroading as in denying the players' agency is always bad GMing.

A 'railroad' as in a linear adventure that rationally moves from A to B (the investigators get ambushed at a train station and track the cultists back to their hideout) is a different thing although some seem to think they're the same thing.

I don't trust any GM or player who insists on their 'fun' over everyone else at the table. The art of a rpg is everyone working together to make the game fun.

Railroading happens, inevitably, when
1. there is a linear (or pseudo-linear) structure
2. the players make a decision that would move them out of that structure
3. the GM chooses to enforce the structure rather than let the decision play out

At Step 2, there's basically three options:

1. let the players go off-"script", and accept the game is going in a different direction than you planned
2. OOC get the players to agree to stick to the "script". Ideally, this is done before the game starts
3. negate their choice in some way

I've sometimes heard false choices in RPGs referred to as "the Quantum Ogre." I don't think Quantum Ogres are a problem just so long as the actual encounter is fun.

Hard disagree. And I know there's a large number of people that also disagree with that.

If you're going to run a linear game, just be honest about it. If people like linear games, they'll have fun. If they don't, they won't play the game, or will agree to the linear game for other reasons.

The worst scenario is that somebody believes the game is not linear, but it is, and then they get upset when they find out.

To an extent, yes. Since some people use railroad to mean linear, while other use railroad as a perjorative, referring to a locked down route where you are forced to a particular outcome, communication is confused. It would be a lot better if people just used linear to mean linear.

I've been using the Forge terms of "railroad" as linear game, "illusionism" as a game that is linear while the GM claims it is not, and "participationism" as a game where everybody knows the game is linear and goes along with it.

I'm switching "railroad" with "linear game" in my usage as "railroad" sometimes means Forge-railroad, and sometimes means Forge-illusionism. Linear game is equally descriptive (though slightly inaccurate, as it doesn't have to be entirely linear) without carrying the same baggage.

My preference, both as a player and a GM, is strongly for sandbox play. That said, I will make allowances for railroads if it's a one-shot and/or if the GM is inexperienced, especially if they are upfront and honest about it.

By contrast, I loathe illusionism, and the Quantum Ogre can fuck itself in the ear with a rusty, syphilis-laden screwdriver.

All of this.

People don't like being tricked into doing things that they wouldn't have agreed to otherwise.

 

[strangebehaviour]

As adults, one of our DMS from the same group took it too far however.
We approached an obvious trap which we were told about by a townsman... a Bridge over a stream in the clear open with no cover for us, but lots for an ambusher. We decided to avoid the trap because it had trolls and we were level 4, and carried on down stream hoping for a narrows.
Wishy washy reasons happen and we find an identical bridge, so we carry on... to find another, then another. So we decide to swim only to find rushing rapids where they weren't being described before.
Okay, maybe we don't need to cross this river, lets go elsewhere... "Ooh! there is this adventure hook in this direction from before... lets go here!'
We turn around and find another river... with another identical bridge in the opposite direction... Okay, we backtrack to where the first bridge was... it was still there... Okay, we head back to the town.
The road to the town was washed out and the villagers hastily erected a... bridge. "FUUUUUUUU!!!"
"Fine... we cross the obvious trap bridge"
"3 rolls spring forth in ambush from under the bridge and get a surprise round on you because you had no way of realizing it was a trap"
TPK
All so we could be "rescued" by another character he had planned out. the worst part was that we were punished for losing and falling for the trap. He mocked us in character and our gear was all gone.
We stopped showing up to sessions after that.

Wow. And I thought the game where we tried to leave town and a portal opened up and dropped us back in the town square (over, and over, and over) was bad.

 

[Brock Savage]

By contrast, I loathe illusionism, and the Quantum Ogre can fuck itself in the ear with a rusty, syphilis-laden screwdriver.

Agree. It's dishonest and lazy. This guy explains why.

 

[Faylar]

All of this.

People don't like being tricked into doing things that they wouldn't have agreed to otherwise.

I fail to see how it's tricking someone to set an encounter.

You can have structure to a plot and still have meaningful choices along the way. A planned boss encounter is no different than the quantum ogre.
If you setup a story with a point A and a Point Z... you can put some points along the way and leave most of the alphabet free to explore. If one of your side quests ends up taking 3 sessions, it's obviously become a much bigger plot point and should probably tie back into the main plot somehow, even if it wasn't planned.
This is what I am getting at with all roads lead to Rome. No decisions were circumvented and the story that everyone agreed to follow is still playing out.

In my opinion, a true sandbox is just a bullshit session among friends.
If that'ts your thing, go for it,It's just not mine.

 

[robiswrong]

I fail to see how it's tricking someone to set an encounter.

It's tricking them to give them a choice that appears to matter when it doesn't.

It's tricking them to tell them that they will make choices, but all their choices are effectively meaningless.

the story that everyone agreed to follow is still playing out.

Emphasis mine.

This is the key. If everyone agreed to follow the story/structure? Then go team.

In my opinion, a true sandbox is just a bullshit session among friends.
If that'ts your thing, go for it,It's just not mine.

The options are not "sandbox" and "story". You can have "story" (just not pre-written) while still allowing people choices that impact how things play out.

But, yes, "if that's your thing, go for it" is 100% valid, and I think is the number one thing I'd argue in favor of. But give people enough information to decide if the game is really their thing or not. That is literally all I ask, and I can list off a number of benefits of linear game design.

The problem isn't linear games. It's telling people they're not linear games when they really are.

 

[Faylar]

Lots of assumptions going around here....

You are all having badwrongfun!

 

[robiswrong]

If you have a player who insists on playing a sniper, then it's his responsibility to be a sniper. It's his character's special skillset, so he should be playing with that in mind. If all combat is turning out to be in hallways, what the fuck is he doing? Why isn't he engineering it so that all his combats turn out to be in the middle of a huge meadow, except he's the one who's in a tree? Why is the GM the engine of his fun/success, and why isn't he thinking creatively and gaming in such a way that he can use his special snowflake character to do what he does best?​

While I agree with both of you, the assumption is that the players have sufficient agency that they can do this.

If they can't, and the GM is leading them down a series of scripted encounters, then that becomes an incorrect assumption.

It's not how I want to play. But... like the whole emphasis on encounter balance goes, once the GM takes the power of determining what and how the players will encounter things, they also have to assume the responsibility for ensuring that it works well. If the GM is the one making all the encounters are in hallways, and the player has no choice, then there's a problem.

I mean, like you, I'd argue "don't give the GM that power". But that's a common paradigm in modern games, and if you're gonna, then you have to take that additional responsibility.

 

[Black Vulmea]

I don't think Quantum Ogres are a problem just so long as the actual encounter is fun.

Hard disagree. And I know there's a large number of people that also disagree with that.

If you're going to run a linear game, just be honest about it. If people like linear games, they'll have fun. If they don't, they won't play the game, or will agree to the linear game for other reasons.

The worst scenario is that somebody believes the game is not linear, but it is, and then they get upset when they find out.

. . .

People don't like being tricked into doing things that they wouldn't have agreed to otherwise.

I fail to see how it's tricking someone to set an encounter.

It's tricking them to give them a choice that appears to matter when it doesn't.

It's tricking them to tell them that they will make choices, but all their choices are effectively meaningless.

While I agree with both of you, the assumption is that the players have sufficient agency that they can do this.

If they can't, and the GM is leading them down a series of scripted encounters, then that becomes an incorrect assumption.

It's not how I want to play. But... like the whole emphasis on encounter balance goes, once the GM takes the power of determining what and how the players will encounter things, they also have to assume the responsibility for ensuring that it works well. If the GM is the one making all the encounters are in hallways, and the player has no choice, then there's a problem.

I mean, like you, I'd argue "don't give the GM that power". But that's a common paradigm in modern games, and if you're gonna, then you have to take that additional responsibility.

@robisRIGHT!

One of the more interesting challenges for me is running stuff like espionage or military games, because by their very nature, they are strongly mission oriented and the adventurers are assumed to be part of a strict hierarchy, particularly for military characters. They are tailor-made for running linear adventures, but they way I like to run them is to create scenarios which expand beyond the mission/orders so that the players and their characters have options to weigh, pathways to explore, giving them agency to make meaningful choices.

 

[Chris Brady]

So, I'm thinking that people are mixing up the term 'Entertainer' with 'Entertaining'. The first is a type of person, often an occupation. The other is what you do when friends come over to visit. I was talking the latter.

Also, there's nothing wrong with the 'Quantum Ogre' as long as it fits smoothly within the adventure. The best use is when no one knows it was always going to happen.

But like all things, it's a matter of balance. A good GM uses it sparingly.

 

[Brock Savage]

I fail to see how it's tricking someone to set an encounter.

Honest question here, not a strawman. You wouldn't be annoyed if, at the end of a session, the GM told you, "Remember those swamp bandits you fought? You were gonna run in to them no matter what you did."

 

[Faylar]

Honest question here, not a strawman. You wouldn't be annoyed if, at the end of a session, the GM told you, "Remember those swamp bandits you fought? You were gonna run in to them no matter what you did."

Did you read my other posts on here?
Guess not
There are a lot of assumptions off of things I've not said.
So im not answering that.

 

[robiswrong]

I'm, personally, not making any assumptions. I have no idea what your table is like.

I'm saying, without targeting it at anyone, that running a linear game is cool. If you're going to do so, just tell the players so that they can opt in to the game or not, depending on their preferences around linear games.

I don't see that as controversial, and it's not even insulting linear games, unlike your comment about "just a bullshit session" regarding sandbox play.

 

[Faylar]

I never said ALL encounters need to railroad a character.

I like structured and well crafted plots. Period.
In the quintessential ogre scenario. Yes schrodingers ogre is behind one of two doors and is undetermined.
The players now can choose any of a nearly infinite actions to determine which door it is, and thus making it solid where it lies in wait.
From here on its up to them.

As for bandits in a swamp... yes bandits will be on the players path... its a planned encounter.
What the players do to engage or avoid the encounter is up to them.

Im saying all roads lead to Rome, not players are hogtied and loaded on railcars to Rome against thrir will.
Should the players decide to not go to Rome... then the campaign ends because thats not in scope of the campaign and something else can start... simple.

 

[Brock Savage]

Did you read my other posts on here?
Guess not
There are a lot of assumptions off of things I've not said.
So im not answering that.

Your position is unclear to me so I was asking for clarification.

 

[robiswrong]

I never said ALL encounters need to railroad a character.

I like structured and well crafted plots. Period.

Well, of course they don't need to all railroad characters. That seems silly. And is a bit of a strawman.

If you like structured plots, and that requires that some amount of linear adventure is required, awesome! I've literally not once argued against that.

All I've ever said is get players to play with you that also want that rather than telling people that's not what's happening.

 

[ffilz]

I never said ALL encounters need to railroad a character.

I like structured and well crafted plots. Period.
In the quintessential ogre scenario. Yes schrodingers ogre is behind one of two doors and is undetermined.
The players now can choose any of a nearly infinite actions to determine which door it is, and thus making it solid where it lies in wait.
From here on its up to them.

As for bandits in a swamp... yes bandits will be on the players path... its a planned encounter.
What the players do to engage or avoid the encounter is up to them.

Im saying all roads lead to Rome, not players are hogtied and loaded on railcars to Rome against thrir will.
Should the players decide to not go to Rome... then the campaign ends because thats not in scope of the campaign and something else can start... simple.

Why not only have one door with an ogre behind it then? Why have multiple paths if they don't actually change the plot? Why can't the players choice to avoid the bandits in the swamp simply be carefully picking their path? If choice of path doesn't avoid the bandits, what actual choice do you give them to avoid the bandits?

I'll go to Rome if the campaign I agreed to play is clear that going to Rome is part of the game. If it wasn't part of the setup of the game, you need to sell me on going there. Make it worth MY character going there, not just because it serves your plot.

That said, in certain campaigns, I'd willing to entertain if you say "Hey, I've got this great adventure set in Rome." But notice you're suggesting going to Rome and I'm agreeing as a player. The conversation is happening between GM and player. Not in character. If you present me with an in character choice, it's within the bounds of role playing for me to refuse that choice.

I hope you're up front with your players about how much you like well crafted plots. If I heard that in a game pitch, I'd say "No thank you." And move on to the next GM's pitch.

 

[Faylar]

I'm, personally, not making any assumptions. I have no idea what your table is like.

I'm saying, without targeting it at anyone, that running a linear game is cool. If you're going to do so, just tell the players so that they can opt in to the game or not, depending on their preferences around linear games.

I don't see that as controversial, and it's not even insulting linear games, unlike your comment about "just a bullshit session" regarding sandbox play.

Im not insulting anything.
A True sandbox has nothing driving it. Any table Ive ever been st thst lacked a direction always devolved into bullshit session with the game all but abandoned.

 

[Faylar]

Your position is unclear to me so I was asking for clarification.

Fair.
Got my back up.
Sorry. I clarified it a couple posts ago though.

 

[Faylar]

Why not only have one door with an ogre behind it then? Why have multiple paths if they don't actually change the plot? Why can't the players choice to avoid the bandits in the swamp simply be carefully picking their path? If choice of path doesn't avoid the bandits, what actual choice do you give them to avoid the bandits?

I'll go to Rome if the campaign I agreed to play is clear that going to Rome is part of the game. If it wasn't part of the setup of the game, you need to sell me on going there. Make it worth MY character going there, not just because it serves your plot.

That said, in certain campaigns, I'd willing to entertain if you say "Hey, I've got this great adventure set in Rome." But notice you're suggesting going to Rome and I'm agreeing as a player. The conversation is happening between GM and player. Not in character. If you present me with an in character choice, it's within the bounds of role playing for me to refuse that choice.

I hope you're up front with your players about how much you like well crafted plots. If I heard that in a game pitch, I'd say "No thank you." And move on to the next GM's pitch.

Certainly... why not. I was using the offered example.
Until you sit at a table with me (potentially or otherwise)... I couldnt care less what you hope from me. You are mincing my words.
Moving on

 

[TJS]

The issue with the railroading debate is that is exists along a continuum and either extreme is completely unworkable (which is not to say the happy medium is somewhere in the middle).

Imagine the GM throws a completely blank map at the party with a little dot in the centre to say where they are and says "where do you go?" Are the party free? Yes? Does that freedom mean anything at all? Not really. Any decisions may as well be decided by rolling dice.

This is the problem with the quantom ogre. It seems everyone usually brings their own assumptions about context to the situation. If the players go down the path with no ogre did they have any information they could have used to avoid the Ogre? If yes and the Ogre appears anyway they may feel railroaded, if no and the ogre appears anywhere how is that really any different to a random encounter of an Ogre which could have happened anywhere? (I think there is a sometimes important distinction here - but I don't think it is about railroading - it is about fairness.)

There is a balance to be struck between absolute freedom and the constraints that make meaningful decisions possible.

The reason traditional old school D&D sandboxes work best with rogues on the make is that these are characters with probably the most freedom to act. All they're after is loot - anything else is up for grabs. Throw in an old school Paladin and the freedom of the whole party is immediately constrained. The paladin can be relied upon to pretty much always bite at a hook that involves saving people from evil, they have to, while the rogues on the make may just go the other way.

Of course a player chose to be a Paladin - which makes the point that players own choices tend to progressively limit their freedom to act. If the fighter takes over a castle and sets himself up as baron then he is now pretty much compelled to defend his castle from any threats the GM throws at it.

Now in the above examples, the players may have theoretical freedom - the GM won't seek to prevent the paladin from falling and will roll with it if the player of the fighter decides to abandon the castle and take ship to explore another continent, but such things become progressively less likely, and become increasingly theoretical rather than practical freedom.

If there's two problems I've seen arise from this over the years it's 1) GMs who confuse theoretical freedom with practical freedom - they insist they're not railroading because the players could give up everything they've worked towards and built their characters towards and go in a completely different direction. 2) GMs who want to run a sandbox but don't give the players enough information to make meaningful decisions, so they just do random things.

 

[Fenris-77]

The ogre really isnt the issue, regardless of what door he's behind. What matters is player actions. If the players want to find the ogre, if their goal is ogre finding, then they aren't going to be upset that the find the ogre without undue tedium. However, if the ogre is something the GM wants then it matters a lot that he's stacking the deck. That said, I prefer the example of clues, personally.

If the players look in a reasonable place for a clue, I'll give them one, probably off a list i have done up, unless those make no sense in context, at which point I'll wing it. What Im not going to do is make a key clue and tether to one specific place that the players might or might not ever look. Why not? Because that's some silly shit.

 

[Faylar]

I may be misreading what the ogre is then.
I see it as a tool. A potential encounter.

If you craft a dungeon, you populate it as well... so if you have an Ogre but you need its position to be fluid and act as a necessary encounter, one way or the other. You put it in flux until opportunity presents itself.
This way it both exists and doesn't exist within the dungeon until discovered.
You vould design choke points where an ogre is absolutely placed, and that may be a better option but why have it the only option?.

I have no problem with a sandbox style game, but I want a direction to focus on and meaningful sessions.
An organic machine
A structured plot with organic elements that allow player impact.
I dont want heroquest or minecraft.

 

[TJS]

The ogre really isnt the issue, regardless of what door he's behind. What matters is player actions. If the players want to find the ogre, if their goal is ogre finding, then they aren't going to be upset that the find the ogre without undue tedium. However, if the ogre is something the GM wants then it matters a lot that he's stacking the deck. That said, I prefer the example of clues, personally.

If the players look in a reasonable place for a clue, I'll give them one, probably off a list i have done up, unless those make no sense in context, at which point I'll wing it. What Im not going to do is make a key clue and tether to one specific place that the players might or might not ever look. Why not? Because that's some silly shit.

Yes but clues tie into a larger issue. If you're not fudging clues you have to be ok with the mystery not being solved. If the game is going to come to screeching halt if the mystery is not solved then some kind of fudging is necessary. If the failure to solve the mystery just means the game continues in a different direction then that doesn't matter.

But, as I hinted earlier, I think there's a lot more to this kind of situation then just railroading - fudging clues certainly risks being experienced as railroading - but it doesn't necessarily have to be (after all the GM is responding to player choices). What it can't be is any kind of fair challenge. It also makes it difficult to feel fully immersed in the fictional world (although a certain kind of fudging of not yet determined things can work here - so long as once facts are established they stay facts). However, both of these are goals over and above not being railroaded.