Judgement calls vs "railroading"

pemerton said:

Some posts, threads etc have triggered this question in my mind:

[size=+1]How do GM "judgement calls" relate (if at all) to railroading?[/size]​

In the context of 5e, GM "judgement calls" can also fall into the domain of "rulings not rules."

By railroading I mean the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative. (This is broader than some people use it, I know. If the players get to choose for their PCs, but what they choose won't change the downstream storyline, I am counting that as a railroad.)

My feeling is that the answer is a complex one.

In a FRPG session I ran yesterday, the action was in a bedroom in a mage's tower, where a wizard had been lying unconsciousness on a divan recovering from a terrible wound, but then was rather brutally decapitated by an assassin. One of the players, whose PC ran into the room just as the decapitation took place, asked whether there was a vessel in the room in which the PC could catch the decapitated mage's blood.*

I resolved this by setting a DC for a Perception check - and because, as the player argued with some plausibility, it was likely that a room for convalescing in would have a chamber pot, jug/ewer, etc - I set the DC fairly low. The player succeeded, and the PC was able to grab the vessel and catch the blood as desired.

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.

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 guessing, though, that there are other posters who would see one or both cases differently from me!


[size=-2]* If you want to know why, the answer is in this thread.[/size]

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have even required a roll. A chamber like that would have a chamber pot, and less likely, an inkwell or decanter for water/alcohol. What I would have had the player roll for, was whether or not the chamber pot had been used. If it had been used, it would foul any blood captured.

My biggest issue with what you said is this.

"the action was in a bedroom in a mage's tower"

Do you have any idea how rare it is for there to be action in a mage's bedroom?!?!?!? It's just not done man!

Tony Vargas said:

That particular example is the classic "Magician's Force," and it's a legitimate technique, IMHO.

Sanboxing. No Rails. Just sand. And a box, of course...

...possibly a gynosphinx wondering what you're doing there.

Click to expand...

After walking through the sand for days, I'd probably be more interested in finding the orthosphinx.

pemerton said:

Some posts, threads etc have triggered this question in my mind:

[size=+1]How do GM "judgement calls" relate (if at all) to railroading?[/size]​

In the context of 5e, GM "judgement calls" can also fall into the domain of "rulings not rules."

By railroading I mean the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative. (This is broader than some people use it, I know. If the players get to choose for their PCs, but what they choose won't change the downstream storyline, I am counting that as a railroad.)

My feeling is that the answer is a complex one.

In a FRPG session I ran yesterday, the action was in a bedroom in a mage's tower, where a wizard had been lying unconsciousness on a divan recovering from a terrible wound, but then was rather brutally decapitated by an assassin. One of the players, whose PC ran into the room just as the decapitation took place, asked whether there was a vessel in the room in which the PC could catch the decapitated mage's blood.*

I resolved this by setting a DC for a Perception check - and because, as the player argued with some plausibility, it was likely that a room for convalescing in would have a chamber pot, jug/ewer, etc - I set the DC fairly low. The player succeeded, and the PC was able to grab the vessel and catch the blood as desired.

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.

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 guessing, though, that there are other posters who would see one or both cases differently from me!


[size=-2]* If you want to know why, the answer is in this thread.[/size]

Click to expand...

DM can play cat and mouse with its player. That can be frustrating for the players.
If you allow a player to be there, he may change the path of the history. It is the core of the fun in DnD.

pemerton said:

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.

Click to expand...

Or he just has to make the plot hooks irresistible to the PCs, in which case, they deal with them at their own choice.

But honestly, with every campaign that isn't strictly sandbox, there's at least an implicit agreement to be somewhat amenable to the overall thrust of the campaign, whether the GM actively pushes or pulls the PCs in a particularly direction or just sets the NPC plotting in motion (to be interacted or interfered with at PC choice).

Gardens & Goblins said:

The disconnect for me is 'By railroading I mean the GM shaping outcomes to fit a pre-conceived narrative.'

Our lot doesn't really plan narratives in a linear manner, a path if you will that is to be followed. The system is set, the key agents put into play and the characters are free to pick or set a goal as they choose. As such, DM Judgment calls are simply part of play, arbitrating the events on the behalf of the world around the players with DCs being set according to what amounts to logic in a fantasy world.

But yes, I can see how that if a DM has a specific route or path they wish players to follow, described as a narrative, then such calls can and will influence the path of play -the order and manner in which players engage with and are involved with the events pre-planned by the DM.

The degree of influence simply depends on the nature of the narrative. A linear step-by-step narrative will be greatly effected by any deviation from the planned path and as a result, it seems to me a DM is less likely to be able to respond to spontaneous changes that occur during play, and as a result is more likely to veto or attempt to directly influence the outcome of an event, be a DC check, combat or what have you. I'd also argue that such a setup is rather dull, or at least would not be welcomed with our group. (We have video games for such antics!)

However, are cleverly constructed narrative can include branches which are then tied together at key stages along the path. In this way, players enjoy (often the illusion of) choice and the DM can almost guarantee things coming together when they need to at a given point along the path. And with practice, they can add branches spontaneously. This style of narrative seems much more open to setting 'logic' 'realistic' DCs and more ready to accommodate the wacky antics most players seem to enjoy initiating. As such, DCs, combat, social interactions and the like are less likely to be fudged in favour of the narrative because while they can lead to branches in the narrative, as mentioned, the paths are designed to come together at key points.

Much like in the classic 'Choose your own Adventure' game books. Which, incidental, are typically designed by working backwards - why do we end the adventure? Ok, what happened before...?

View attachment 82019

Click to expand...

This is how I design my adventures. I only account for major decisions and the minor choices created by the players are ad-lib according to the story/setting at the time. For some encounters, especially combat encounters, I have several variation depending on the choices. These are not minor variation, but major changes in the encounter itself.

For example, I know my players like combat encounters. But I do not want to be so predictable that everything is going to turn into a combat encounter. I also do not want them to turn every situation to a combat encounter. The combat needs to come naturally in the story based on the decisions the characters make during the game. As part of my build, I want my characters to have an encounter that is an easy combat encounter. Depending on the "branches" in the story / decision of the players, that easy encounter will occur in different places in the adventure. The combat encounter may also not be the same encounter, but will be something that happens at the level of difficulty designed. One one branch, the party would encounter a band of bugbears in a den, in another branch the party would encounter instead a cabal of spies in the city, while another decision would cause them to encounter dire wolves in the woods. This assumes that these encounters are exclusive, meaning that encountering one would imply that the others would not be encounters because of the choice they took (such as the road to a castle - through the woods on one side of a castle, or through the hill country on the other side, or through the undercity sewers running beneath the castle).

I have designed more than a few encounters that never get used. Exchanging monsters in an encounter is one way for me to reduce workload while still creating a flexible dungeon design while STILL providing the combat encounter the players want.

I think the closest I've come to railroading a party could be in the adventure itself. I can only have one adventure in the can at a time. Once it's prepared, they either play it or we don't play at all. The creation of multiple adventure hooks allows them to choose their motivation of completion the adventure, which shapes a lot of decisions within the game. But the hooks are a bit of an illusion. Even though they may look different, they will all lead to the same adventure (it just may be a different starting point or path they will take to complete it).

pemerton said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think yours is a better definition: "Negating choice". It has to do with the influence that the players expect, and the DM's ruling of their choices not meeting those expectations.

pemerton said:

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.

Click to expand...

If the witch has befriended the players under false pretenses, then that is basically the DM setting up a plot twist for her inevitable betrayal. I don't think that is negating the player's choices.

I'm trying to convey the difference here between laying out a plot line, and railroading. I think we can agree that these two are very different things, otherwise the word "railroading" becomes a bit meaningless.

Sometimes a villain was always meant to be a villain. I don't feel that the DM is railroading if he makes Cthulhu the final boss, despite the player's best efforts to be nice to him. If however the big bad ends up being befriended by the PC's, then I would say that is the opposite of railroading. The DM is allowing a villain to become an unexpected ally. But does that mean that the DM is railroading the moment the befriended-villain turns on the players? I don't think so.

But I can give you an example of what would be railroading:

A few years ago I played a peaceful wizard in a LOTR campaign. Our party was jumped by bandits. And rather than throwing fireballs at the bandits, my wizard surrendered, and offered the bandits his money. Because my character believed that magic should not be used carelessly, and he also did not dress as a wizard. He dressed as a normal harmless and unarmed traveler.

But despite this bit of roleplaying, the DM ruled that the bandits attacked anyway, and they also automatically knew my character was a wizard. They attacked despite having no reason to attack. They were bandits, and they already had my money, so what was the point of bloodshed? The DM railroaded the party into a fight.

So, being forced into a battle, we defended ourselves. But one of the bandits fled on horseback. So one of the players decided to give chase on a horse. The DM ruled that the fleeing bandit was gone instantly, and there was no way to catch up to him.

That was the moment the entire group called bullsh*t on his railroading. And it ended his campaign on its first session! No one wanted to continue playing.

Click to expand...

Lanefan said:

What reading this tells me is that a DM who doesn't plan things out in advance and maybe even makes it all up as she goes along - perhaps with the specific intention of leaving herself able to react to what the party do in order to give a more interesting game for the players - is by your definitions always going to be railroading in the negative way. Seems a bit over-the-top.

Click to expand...

Railroading isn't inherently good or bad. It's an acquired taste, which has strong vocal detractors, but there are still plenty of people who see nothing wrong with it. Around where I am, we don't look too favorably upon railroading, but there are entire games built around the concepts of scene-framing and yes-and improvisation. Pre-published adventures and convention games are traditionally heavy on railroading (which is one of the major criticisms against them).

Lanefan said:

You state "One of the tenets of good world-building is to design a setting which is conducive to interesting things happening", with which I agree. But the unspoken part of that would logically go on to say something like "and it really helps game play if those interesting things tend to happen when the PCs are around to notice and-or interact with them, rather than always happening somewhere else.".

Click to expand...

I know of two ways around that: 1) In a setting like Forgotten Realms, there are a million adventures happening everywhere, all the time, so there's going to be something interesting no matter where you look; 2) In a setting like Golarion, there is an organized society of quest-givers which is readily available to direct adventurers where they are needed. In either case, it doesn't take a contrived coincidence for the party to find an adventure.

Lanefan said:

Further, it's close to impossible to contrive a coincidence before the game starts unless it's intended to happen in the first session. Let's say your idea is to plan a coincidence that in two years (i.e. time enough for the party to gain levels enough to deal with this) on midwinter's night they will see what looks like a meteorite crash into the side of Mount Steepsides, and if they follow it up you'll run them into Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - but tell me, at campaign start do you as DM have any idea where your party will be on midwinter's night two game-years hence and will they even be on the same continent/world/plane as Mount Steepsides?

Click to expand...

If you start a new campaign by saying that a meteorite crashed into a nearby mountain, and the PCs happen to be in the area at the time, then I don't think anyone is going to question that premise. If you've been playing the campaign for years of game time, and the party just finishes their long quest to slay a dragon which was terrorizing the countryside, and then as soon as they get a chance to rest, on their way home, there is suddenly a meteorite crash near wherever-they-happen-to-be? You're going to get some eye-rolling and train noises.

I'm not saying that you can't do it, or even that you shouldn't do it, but it's definitely a form of railroading and some people may be put off by that.

Lanefan said:

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

Click to expand...

I believe that constitutes an emphatic 'yes.'

I don't agree, but I'll get into that with Manbearcat, below...

What reading this tells me is that a DM who doesn't plan things out in advance and maybe even makes it all up as she goes along - perhaps with the specific intention of leaving herself able to react to what the party do in order to give a more interesting game for the players - is by your definitions always going to be railroading in the negative way. Seems a bit over-the-top.

Click to expand...

To me it seems the opposite of railroading. If you don't have the track laid, how can it possibly be a railroad?

The other option is to leave it baked in as is: the meteorite hits Mount Steepsides on midwinter's night no matter what, and half a year later when the party wander by again all they hear is "Oh yeah, something crashed into the mountain last winter. Too bad you guys weren't here - I heard the group that went up to investigate made a fortune at it!" Yeah, how much fun is that?

Click to expand...

To hear some folks talk, it's so much fun that all other forms of fun are wrong & bad in comparison. ;P

Manbearcat said:

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?

Click to expand...

I don't think it necessarily does, it just means you don't engage in it at the table, at the very least - maybe not even (with the players) during the campaign. OTOH, there's nothing adverse about analyzing system(to the extent it even matters)/technique/play-anecdotes with other DMs or disinterested third parties.

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.

Click to expand...

Sure, running a system 'above board,' I'd call it. I generally ran 4e that way, for instance. Now that I've run some 5e, when I come back to my 4e campaign, I'm finding myself getting back into the swing of improvising more and maintaining more 'mystery' (right now I have a Mercurial Assassin working against them, and no rolls or passive checks have been made as he does his stuff in the background, I'll wait for a player action/question that I think brings the plotting to their attention - before, I'd've at least made sure the Assassins checks could beat the party's passives before hand-waving like that).

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).

Click to expand...

Constrain, yes, but also simplify the task of GMing, FWIW.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Saelorn said:

I know of two ways around that: 1) In a setting like Forgotten Realms, there are a ,million adventures happening everywhere, all the time so there's going to be something interesting no matter where you look;

<snip>

If you've been playing the campaign for years of game time, and the party just finishes their long quest to slay a dragon which was terrorizing the countryside, and then as soon as they get a chance to rest, on their way home, there is suddenly a meteorite crash near wherever-they-happen-to-be? You're going to get some eye-rolling and train noises.

Click to expand...

How is the meteorite crash not one of the 'million adventures happening everywhere, all the time'?

Harzel said:

How is the meteorite crash not one of the 'million adventures happening everywhere, all the time'?

Click to expand...

I guess if there are a million meteorites crashing every day, then it's not actually a coincidence when you happen to see one. I don't play in the Forgotten Realms, specifically for because there's too much going on, so I can't say how that philosophy applies to this situation.