Judgement calls vs "railroading"

Imaculata · Mar 14, 2017

Xetheral said:
There is the important caveat that the choice in question had to be a significant one. If the party chose a particular fork in the hope of avoiding the witch, then having them encounter her regardless could be railroading. But if the choice of path was utterly arbitrary in the first place, placing the witch on the chosen path doesn't frustrate the party's choice. In other words, if the players weren't trying to have an "impact on the next step of the adventure" at that moment then it isn't railroading to prevent them from having one.

This is I think an important distinction. Railroading, is when a DM takes away choice, and forces the campaign to go one way, despite the player's best efforts to go in a different direction. This can relate to the flow of the story, the locations the players go to, and how certain scenes play out.

If the players know where the witch is, and they decide to go the other way, and encounter her anyway... that's railroading.

If the players don't know where the witch is, and happen to run into her (because the DM placed her on their path), that does not have to be railroading. After all, DM's place interesting encounters on the path of the players all the time.

If the DM has decided that at some point in the campaign, the players will encounter the witch. That is also not railroading.

If the DM has decided that the campaign ends with the players fighting the witch, that is not railroading either.

I run a sandbox pirate campaign, in which I've thought up the broad outline of the story (which will probably span several years of playing time). I know a large fleet is coming to wipe out the pirates, and that the campaign is building up to an epic finale in which the pirates and the imperial fleet duke it out. But anything in between, can go in any direction. The campaign is basically a long series of sub plots that are loosely tied to the main plot. As long as your players are free to influence the plot, and make their own choices, you are not railroading your campaign. Having a plot, doesn't mean you are railroading. Having multiple endings, or just one ending, also doesn't mean you are railroading. Railroading is a disruptive act that makes the players feel like their choices do not matter, and like the DM must have his way.

pemerton · Mar 14, 2017

Lanefan said:
I still don't see how anything this minor (even though important in context) gets into railroading territory at all. There's a container, or there isn't; and if you-as-DM haven't determined that ahead of time (I know I wouldn't have!) then you just have to wing it. Seems the opposite of railroading to me; railroading would more indicate you'd either predetermined there was no container for reasons of your own, or predetermined there was a container and then tried to influence or force the PC to use it.

Deciding on the spot that there's no container, in order to shut down the blood-collection shenanigans, would also be railroading.

Lanefan said:
"were it me, I'd be wondering why I'm working for a dark naga in the first place instead of trying to kill it"

Because it has dominated the PC with a Force of Will spell.

pemerton · Mar 14, 2017

Imaculata said:
Railroading, is when a DM takes away choice, and forces the campaign to go one way, despite the player's best efforts to go in a different direction. This can relate to the flow of the story, the locations the players go to, and how certain scenes play out.

I find that "takes away choice" is a bit too narrow. Negating choice is also an important aspect of railroading - eg the players decide that their PCs will subdue and ransom a villain, they successfully do so, and then the GM has the villain come rifght back at them.

I can imagine some circumstances in which that does not negate the players choices; but in most circumstances I think that it would - it undoes the choice both morally and prudentially.

Imaculata said:
If the DM has decided that the campaign ends with the players fighting the witch, that is not railroading either.

I don't see how this is not railroading (unless the players have agreed to that particular story arc). I mean, what if the PCs befriend the witch? Or kill her in the second session? If the GM has already decided that the campaign will have a certain climax, s/he is committed to negating these sorts of choices by the players.

transtemporal · Mar 14, 2017

pemerton said:
I don't get what this is referring to. What "digging in" are you referring to? And what is the "metamachinery" that you refer to?

For example, say you decided that you didn't want the PCs to be able to carry the NPCs blood. You say "theres nothing to carry the blood in" notwithstanding reasonable suggestions from the players. Vases, bowls, cups, chamberpots, boots, buckets, chests - the NPC has none of those things, not because those aren't things that could conceivably exist in the guys room but because you decided it would screw up your story. At that point you'd be very clearly saying to the players "I do not want you to carry the NPCs blood anywhere so stop trying" which exposes the players in a very jarring way to railroading.

pemerton said:
I don't follow this either.

I'm basically saying who cares, a container isn't exactly a rare item so just roll with it and decide there's a container.

If they start searching for a faberge egg, then sure, have them make a roll.

chaochou · Mar 14, 2017

Xetheral said:
There is the important caveat that the choice in question had to be a significant one. If the party chose a particular fork in the hope of avoiding the witch, then having them encounter her regardless could be railroading. But if the choice of path was utterly arbitrary in the first place, placing the witch on the chosen path doesn't frustrate the party's choice.

Yes, I think this starts to get at the heart of the issue.

In general terms, railroading is a mismatch between a player's expectation of their impact on a given facet of play and their actual impact on it.

The intrinsically subjective nature of it - because we each have individual expectations in any given moment in play - creates a lot of argument and divisiveness, as well as creating a broad range of responses as already seen in this thread.

From a theory or discussion point of view, I think railroading is a distinctly unhelpful term - it looks like it's an objective thing, but it's simply playerspeak for 'Personally, I wanted and expected more say in the matter.'

Where the conversation could be useful is to take that statement: 'Personally, I wanted and expected more say in the matter' and develop language which describes the matter.

Early rpgs taught us that we got to make tactical decisions about when to use spells, when to run and hide, when to sneak and when to fall into a spiked pi.... I mean check for traps. But very soon we got games like Traveller, where the players could easily decide against whatever a 'patron' said and be in a different planetary system within minutes.

The sandbox - describing everything, everywhere, either through prep or tables - was one way of coping with player expectations of broader, more fundamental decisions about their characters' lives. There are other ways: for example, Burning Wheel (the game described in the OP) allows each player a set of written beliefs. In setting those beliefs, it offers the players not control, but a significant say in the topics of play and the broad landscape of the game - it lets them tell the GM what they consider the matter.

Imaro · Mar 14, 2017

pemerton said:
Setting the DC is a judgement call. Depending whether it is set high or low, the action is likely to unfold one way or another - so setting the DC definitely matters to what is likely to emerge as downstream story.

But I don't see it as railroading. The issue of whether or not the blood might be caught in a vessel had not even occurred to me until the player raised it. And there was no preconception, on my part, of any ultimate destination for the action.

I have some questions here... I agree that setting the DC is a judgement call and that the action is likely to unfold one way or another depending on whether the DC is set high or low...

That said I have to ask, you say it had not occurred to you that the blood might be caught in a vessel and that there was no preconception on your part of any ultimate destination... but you knew that the players were there for the blood (or am I mistaken here?) and you purposefully set the DC low. So are you at this point influencing the action to go in a certain direction. Something like a soft/hard push as opposed to a blatant railroad?

pemerton said:
On the other hand, had I decided simply that the room contains no vessel, because I had already decided that I didn't want the storyline to include shenanigans with a blood-filled chamber pot, I think that would count not only as a judgement call, but as one that has a railroading effect.

I'm curious as to what you see as the difference from setting a DC so high it is virtually guaranteed failure (though one still has a very small chance to succeed) or so low it is almost a guaranteed success (though still with a very small chance of failure)?

pemerton said:
I'm guessing, though, that there are other posters who would see one or both cases differently from me!

I agree an absolute decision is railroading but where it gets murky for me is at what point is it not a railroad...if you give the PC's a 5% chance to find that vessel... is that still for all intents and purposes railroading or is it not since there is a chance, however small that it could happen?

pemerton · Mar 14, 2017

Imaro said:
you purposefully set the DC low.

Yes. Most of the time when you look for a vessel in a sick person's room you will see one. So it's not a very hard check.

Imaro · Mar 14, 2017

pemerton said:
Yes. Most of the time when you look for a vessel in a sick person's room you will see one. So it's not a very hard check.

So the setting of the DC was influenced by realistic expectations and/or concerns around verisimilitude? Well then I have to ask why didn't you just say yes there's some kind of container in this room you could collect blood in as opposed to making them roll? Basically what [MENTION=6777693]transtemporal[/MENTION] stated...

smbakeresq · Mar 14, 2017

I suggest every DM try this for a session: no DM dice rolls or D.C. Checks. Roll the dice behind the screen and ignore them, and when players need to make a check just decide success or failure. When combat occurs just decide wether the player was hit or not. For a Skill check just rely on how good a player plays it.

You would be surprised how fast things go and how well they go.

After that you will know what railroad means.

Manbearcat · Mar 14, 2017

1) Do you think this "must not reveal the Wizard behind the curtain"/covert nature of the GM's techniques leads to an inherent aversion to system/technique/play anecdote analysis?

Lanefan said:
I don't even know what this means, so...no answer.

More or less, (a) the machinery of play is transparent and fully on display and (b) play has overt structure and integrated micro-principles. Through this, play outcomes emerge.

Both (a) and (b) serve to constrain the GM (typically by removing the option of applying Force/Illusionism...while, if systematized well, removing the need for it).

The inverse of that is (c) the machinery of play is obscured or opaque and (d) play has GM discretion and a broad agenda in the stead of tight, overt structure and integrated micro-principles. Through this, play outcomes emerge.

Both (c) and (d) serve to embolden/empower the GM (in various ways, one of which is by enabling the option of applying the techniques of Force/Illusionism).

An example of (a) and (b) would be Dungeon World [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned above:

* The GM asks leading questions of the players to find out who the PCs are and to agree upon what is going on as the game opens.

* Everyone, GM included, plays to find out what happens (so prep is to be light - no metaplot).

* The GM must follow the rules.

* Players roll all the dice.

* The participants have a structured conversation. Through that conversation, the game's principles/agenda, and the resolution mechanics, dangerous stuff is introduced into the fiction to fill the PCs' lives with adventure and challenge their thematic portfolio.

* The resolution mechanics are overt and consistent. A thing happens, a thing doesn't happen, or we consult the dice to find out what happens. Roll 2d6 + modifier. 10+; you get what you want. 7-9; you get what you want with a worse outcome, a cost, or an associated hard choice (a GM soft move). 6 or less; the GM escalates things considerably or introduces a new obstacle (a GM hard move), but you mark 1 XP.

* Through this mesh, play snowballs.

* After a session, we reflect on/take inventory of what happened together. Then we do it again.