Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Reynard]

I do not believe I have ever encountered the use of the term "railroad" in such a narrow, momentary context before. I am not sure it is an appropriate term for deciding whether a thing in a given moment is true or false or possible.

Beyond that I think what constitutes railroading is simply the PCs actions having no impact on the next step of the adventure. If the party finds of split in the trail in the forest but the DM decides they run into the Old Witch regardless of which direction they choose, that's railroading.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] My first thought on reading your initial post here is that you're perhaps looking just a bit too closely for errors in the brushstrokes and thus not enjoying the whole picture as much as you otherwise might.

Micro-railroading, as in whether there's a cup in the room or not: who bloody cares? Just tell 'em there's a cup or there isn't (having determined so by whatever means you like) and get on with it.

Personally, I don't see anything all that wrong with more or less running a railroad as long as the players willingly (or unknowingly) get on and stay on the train - everyone's happy and the game chugs along. The problem comes when they want to either change trains or get off entirely; and here it falls entirely on the DM to be able to adapt. In other words, railroading only becomes an issue either a) if-when the players and-or their characters try to make a choice or perform a normally-allowed action and the DM somehow disallows it, or b) when the DM forces something that should in theory be completely under character-player control e.g. treasury division method.

A bad DM fails to adapt. A merely competent one succeeds in adapting and thus keeps her game running smoothly. A good one melds the adaptation in so seamlessly that it appears to the players (and all outside viewers) to have been planned that way all along.

Lan-"hitting (most of) these curveballs since 1984"-efan

 

[FrogReaver]

There is no way to play D&D that doesn't contain rails. The good DM's hide the rails. The bad ones allow them to stand out apparent. Some may even have multiple rail lines open at all the times but the PC's still must get off their current train at the next station and get on the next.

Just because you are on rails doesn't mean you can't move along the train from car to car or stop at the next station and get off the 2:30 train to Yuma and hop on the Midnight train to Yuma. Same destination but slightly different train and details.

 

[Reynard]

There is no way to play D&D that doesn't contain rails. The good DM's hide the rails. The bad ones allow them to stand out apparent. Some may even have multiple rail lines open at all the times but the PC's still must get off their current train at the next station and get on the next.

This isn't true, at least insofar as the broadly accepted definition of "rails" is concerned. It is, however, a lot of work and requires a lot of prep for defining the starting condition of things as well as an ability to adapt things on the fly.

Let's say you start a campaign in a town with a dungeon nearby and a crazy old wizard in a tower that likes to transform young men in to owl bears. You detail all these elements meticulously without worrying about any plot. Then, the PCS arrive in the back of a turnip caravan and begin to explore the town, it's people and it's issues. If you did your prep work right and you are able to use that prep to respond to player initiated action, you can run D&D with no rails.

Now, some would argue just including the dungeon or the wizard is the inclusion of rails. But I think that is far too broad a definition. The game is not on rails merely because the PCs have things with which to interact. Rather, it is simply playable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If the party finds of split in the trail in the forest but the DM decides they run into the Old Witch regardless of which direction they choose, that's railroading.

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

There is no way to play D&D that doesn't contain rails.

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

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

 

[Manbearcat]

For the record, I'm 100% fine with "illusion of choice" instead of genuine choice, as long as the illusion is impenetrable.

This is an extremely important comment (that really gets to the nub of a lot of issues here) that doesn't seem to have gotten much run. A couple quick comments and a couple of questions for you if you don't mind?

So what you're talking about here is "Illusionism" GMing and "Participationism" playing. It has a history dating back to the late 80s, so it is a long-tenured, very legitimate playstyle.

The GM exerts "Force" over much/most (or at least the seminal ones) of the play outcomes in order to ensure control of the trajectory of the plot. However, through a variety of techniques, s/he does this covertly in order to create the illusion that what emerges at the table is being driven by the players (through their PCs).

The players may be just fine with this (in fact, they may prefer the GM do the heavy lifting in directing play), so long as (a) they get to flex their characterization/acting muscles (and maybe/likely pull out some Fiasco shenanigans now and again), (b) they get to crack some skulls and look cool, (c) the GM does a good job presenting a "living, breathing, world" + interesting metaplot, and (as you mention) (d) the GM does a professional job of keeping the Wizard behind the black curtain. Overall so long as its a fun story and they have a laugh with their mates, its all good.

So my questions are:

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?

2) Do you think this leads to a "system doesn't matter" perspective on games?

3) Do you think this leads to an aversion of resolution mechanics clarity, transparency, or codificaion?

4) Do you think this leads to an aversion of player authority within PC build mechanics (eg - I have this ability that just says this happen...you get no say GM)?

 

[GMMichael]

[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.)

Um, adjudication is required for playing, but railroading is not? Don't go broadly defining railroading, or you'll get a set of broadly defined answers to your question.

There is no way to play D&D that doesn't contain rails.

Been watching Matt Mercer, have you? There's a way to play D&D without rails right here on ENWorld: the Online Generic Randomizer Engine. Or if you're really feeling froggy (which I assume you are), give each player a percentage of the DM's responsibility...

 

[Reynard]

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

I am not saying it is wrong, I am just saying it is railroading. There's a negative connotation to the term that while not unearned does ignore some of the nuance. Some groups at some times want a story. That is what railroading is good for. Especially in the hands of a skilled DM, a railroady adventure or campaign can provide the same enjoyment as a linear adventure game like, say, Uncharted. We should decouple the conversation from value judgements and talk about how to make a great railroad or a great sandbox.

 

[billd91]

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.

Is there something wrong with making judgment calls? The way you're referring to them, they seem suspect (though perhaps not as suspect as railroading).
A DM isn't likely to think of everything when describing the action of a scene or the room or anything. When players ask questions whether to clarify the situation or to see if something is available for taking action, the DM's going to need to make some kind of judgment call whether it's to take partial responsibility for the answer to the question by setting a DC and letting the die roll make the final decision or to take full responsibility by saying "Yes" (or "No").

As far as whether or not judgment calls relate to railroading or not, I suppose that depends on what the judgment call is and why.
1) Is there some kind of container in the room because it's entirely reasonable for there to be one?
2) Is there not some kind of container in the room because it's entirely reasonable for the ones one might expect to be there to be currently absent (like the chamber pot having been taken for a rinse-out since, with the man in the room unconscious, he isn't currently using it)?
3) Or is it reasonable to say there is/isn't one to present a particular challenge or complication for that player and see what they come up with under pressure?
4) Or is it being done to fulfill the DM's outcome (whether yes or no)?

Of those 3 rationales, only 1 of them is really railroading, as I see it.

 

[Xetheral]

It seems like a pretty clear divide. If the DM is using the best of their ability as an impartial adjudicator to determine the truth of a situation, then they are making a judgment call. If the DM is letting their personal preference factor into that, then they are railroading.

There are other metrics for making decisions besides "impartial adjudication" that aren't railroading. Here are some examples:

• What would be more fun?
• What would interest the particular players who are losing focus?
• What would tie this detail to a dangling plot thread?
• What would tie this detail more firmly into the game world?
• What would adjust the energy level at the table in the preferred direction?
• What would set the desired tone of the scene?
• What would tie this detail to a PC's backstory?
• What would help distribute spotlight time more evenly?
• What would prompt an under-used skill check?

None of these are impartial, and all of them involve personal preference (or at least, personal style). And yet none of them involve railroading.

Beyond that I think what constitutes railroading is simply the PCs actions having no impact on the next step of the adventure. If the party finds of split in the trail in the forest but the DM decides they run into the Old Witch regardless of which direction they choose, that's railroading.

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.

For example, if a party is exploring a dungeon they haven't scouted and have no knowledge of, and are thus deciding which hallway to take at random, it isn't railroading to use a mirror image layout of dungeon instead of the original, since which way the party went was chance anyway.