Something that 4e's designers overlooked? -aka is KM correct?

[Hussar]

Eventually, your character dies of old age.

@ Hussar: The rate of death in the example is (I would hope, obviously) inflated to make the time factor obvious to you.

The Evil Baron getting married, though, can be approached by the PCs in any of a number of ways, up to an including deciding to work with him rather than against him. There is a railroad when you predetermine the outcome (even if you do so within a narrow range to allow for some choice of scenery along the way); predetermining the situation is not a railroad.


RC

Now this is an interesting point. How far does it go? If I can predetermine a situation, and that's not a railroad, at what point does it become a railroad? Is it only a railroad when the DM has determined a single outcome?

But, by predetermining your situation, you have also predetermined an outcome. The Baron will get married, UNLESS the party intervenes. There is a single, straight line plot with a beginning, middle and end. And, if the party does not intervene, their enemy (you did specify he was an enemy at the beginning, backtracking now to make him a possible ally is just moving the goalposts) will be that much stronger later. The best possible choice is to deal with him now as dealing with him later will be more difficult, not easier, or the same difficulty.

Again, how is this not railroading? Maybe I'm missing something here but, it seems to me that the DM is saying, "Do this plot now. If you do not do this plot now, when you try to do it later, I'm going to screw you over for not doing it now by making it ten times harder when you eventually do get around to doing it. Go ahead, pursue those personal goals, I'm just going to stick it to you in the end."

Now, if I'm wrong here, and the difficulty doesn't actually change (while the specifics might change, it doesn't suddenly become much more difficult, if not outright impossible) then it's not a railroad. The players have a valid choice of A or B. Choosing A or B will not turn around and bite them in the ass down the road.

If, on the other hand, it does bite them on the ass, then it's railroading. Because the DM is punishing the players for not doing what he wants them to do.

You define railroad as "time-dependent choice"


And then complain that there are no time-dependent choices that aren't railroads?

No, I define rail road as any time the DM screws over the players for not bowing to the plot he puts before them. You've flat out said that if I don't deal with problem X now, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible to do so later. Thus, it becomes my only realistic choice. I could choose to pursue my own goals, but, that's only going to make things more difficult later. Why would I pursue my own goals then?

Why would I not deal with the problem now, and then deal with my personal goals later? My personal goals are not slaughtering innocent people, nor are they growing in power, making it that much more difficult to achieve later. The logical choice would be to deal with the DM's scenario first and come back to my stuff later.

And I'm still waiting to see how any of this is actually a player resource. You guys have amply proven that it's a DM tool to spur the players. I never denied that. I find it heavy handed, but, it certainly works. I much prefer to let my players explore things on their own schedule, but, hey, whatever works for you.

The odd time dependent adventure can certainly be fun. I think I would strongly dislike a campaign where any goal I don't actively pursue all the time suddenly backslides. Smacks too much of antagonistic DMing to me. But, hey, if that's your style and your players like it, roll with it. Groovy.

It's interesting that the idea of taxes was brought up earlier. How exactly are taxes a resource for the tax payer? They're a resource for the tax collector (or in the case of time, the DM), but, they're not something the player gets to influence, only react to. The same way as the tax payer can only react to the tax collector, but he can never actually utilize the taxed money on his own.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, I define rail road as any time the DM screws over the players for not bowing to the plot he puts before them. You've flat out said that if I don't deal with problem X now, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible to do so later. Thus, it becomes my only realistic choice.

Indeed. That's a form of the illusion of choice. It's not quite as extreme as "No matter where you go, you wind up doing this" but it's still an illusion. If a certain choice has wildy different consequences for not making it, then it's not really much of a choice.

 

[Kingreaper]

Now this is an interesting point. How far does it go? If I can predetermine a situation, and that's not a railroad, at what point does it become a railroad? Is it only a railroad when the DM has determined a single outcome?

But, by predetermining your situation, you have also predetermined an outcome. The Baron will get married, UNLESS the party intervenes. There is a single, straight line plot with a beginning, middle and end. And, if the party does not intervene, their enemy (you did specify he was an enemy at the beginning, backtracking now to make him a possible ally is just moving the goalposts) will be that much stronger later. The best possible choice is to deal with him now as dealing with him later will be more difficult, not easier, or the same difficulty.

A railroad is where the plot is the same regardless of the players.


The plot being constant if the players DON'T intervene is just called "Sanity". If the plot changed continually with no player interaction, the players would never have a clue.

Again, how is this not railroading? Maybe I'm missing something here but, it seems to me that the DM is saying, "Do this plot now. If you do not do this plot now, when you try to do it later, I'm going to screw you over for not doing it now by making it ten times harder when you eventually do get around to doing it. Go ahead, pursue those personal goals, I'm just going to stick it to you in the end."

Where's the ten times harder coming from?

It gets harder to deal with, yes. The players are leveling up, if it didn't get harder it would A) not make much sense as a threat and B) be a case of "Let's do subquests, then when we're leveled up enough, we'll fight the boss" like a bad JRPG.

Now, if I'm wrong here, and the difficulty doesn't actually change (while the specifics might change, it doesn't suddenly become much more difficult, if not outright impossible) then it's not a railroad. The players have a valid choice of A or B. Choosing A or B will not turn around and bite them in the ass down the road.

The difficulty will change, but there need not be anything sudden, or huge, about the change in difficulty.

Hell, sometimes it makes sense for the difficulty to go DOWN, if the tyrant king of an evil kingdom is aging, the difficulty of deposing him goes down over time.
Of course, after a year or so, he might die, and a new one might replace him, who might be worse (or might secretly be a good guy). But that's life, right?

No, I define rail road as any time the DM screws over the players for not bowing to the plot he puts before them. You've flat out said that if I don't deal with problem X now, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible to do so later.

No, I haven't. You've assumed such, because you seem to want it to be a terrible horrible railroad OF DOOM.

It's interesting that the idea of taxes was brought up earlier. How exactly are taxes a resource for the tax payer? They're a resource for the tax collector (or in the case of time, the DM), but, they're not something the player gets to influence, only react to. The same way as the tax payer can only react to the tax collector, but he can never actually utilize the taxed money on his own.

But money is still a resource for the player, even if some of it gets taxed.

Just like time is still a resource for the player, even if some of it gets taxed.

 

[Hussar]

Kingreaper - if that's how your time dependent plots work, then, no worries. You've answered all of my concerns. The PC's are not being punished for not following your particular plotline, therefore, it's not a railroad.

It's nice when we agree.

However:

But money is still a resource for the player, even if some of it gets taxed.

Just like time is still a resource for the player, even if some of it gets taxed.

Sure, money is a resource for the player. But the TAXES aren't. How is time a resource for the player when the DM determines all of the plotlines? Yes, the player gets to choose between a selection of options that can fit into a particular timeframe, but, the timeframe, the amount of time those selections take and what those selections are are ALL determined by the DM.

Money in an RPG is a player resource because the player can choose to spend it in whatever way he deems fit. If he wants to go uber twink, he can. He wants to spend it on hookers and blow, more power to him. It's 100% up to the player. The player determines when the money is spent, how it's spent and what rewards he gains for spending it.

Your time examples don't give me any of that. The DM determines how, where and how much time I can expend at any given time. At no time can I save up time to spend it later. At no time can I choose to blow all of my time resource on something I really want.

Plus, as an added limitation, the time that is spent has to be agreed upon by the group. It's not just limited by the DM, it's also limited by the other four people at the table. If I want to spend time doing X, and the rest of the group wants to spend time doing Y, I have to do Y or leave the group. For most groups, that's not an acceptable option.

This is why the money analogy really falls flat. The money my character gets belongs to me. I can expend it however I want. Time doesn't work like that.

Unless, of course, you want it to. Make it a PLAYER resource, not a DM one.

So, again, I'll ask, how do you make time a player resource and not a DM one?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now this is an interesting point. How far does it go? If I can predetermine a situation, and that's not a railroad, at what point does it become a railroad? Is it only a railroad when the DM has determined a single outcome?

Hussar, I would define as a railroad only those scenarios in which the GM has determined what the party will do, or what will happen to the party. Examples would be "The PCs will go here, then they will go there, then they will go the third place" or "This fight should be a big one, so I'll keep changing the monster's stats/fudging die rolls until I get what I want."

To be meaningful, though, any choice must have both (1) context and (2) consequences. Providing those is not a railroad, so long as they both make sense within the context of the campaign milieu. Thus, "If you don't do something about it, Bugs will marry Elmer" is fine, whereas, "If you don't do something about it, anvils begin dropping from the sky until you change your mind" is not.

But, by predetermining your situation, you have also predetermined an outcome. The Baron will get married, UNLESS the party intervenes. There is a single, straight line plot with a beginning, middle and end.

You seem to be conflating the plots of NPCs, or the "plots" of world events with the "plot" of an adventure, or the "plot" of what happens to the PCs. Conflating terms in this way belongs in the "logical fallacy" thread.

Lets use this one example:

And, if the party does not intervene, their enemy (you did specify he was an enemy at the beginning, backtracking now to make him a possible ally is just moving the goalposts) will be that much stronger later.

If you think that is a backtrack, you seriously misunderstand my point.

Allow me to explode my point along a timeline. Please note that this is a very sketchy timeline (in a real game, there would be many more threads), and that the PCs in the example are deciding what to do; the DM is deciding what happens next in reaction to the same:

0 - Game Setup. Evil Baron doesn't know the PCs. DM knows that EB is trying to consolidate power in region. At the same time, several other things are going on in the campaign milieu: evil cultists of spider goddess kidnap folks, slavers are operating, another local lord is concerned about border raiders, ruins are waiting to be explored, etc.

1 - Sessions 1-5. PCs explore small local ruins, hear about folks going missing and slavers with yellow sails (they do not know that some of the folks are being kidnapped by cultists). They hear that both EB and Other Local Lord are trying to conscript soldiers. They hear about border raids. They decide that they don't like EB.

2. Sessions 6-10. Everyone continues to follow their own agendas. PCs start running into NPC parties that are agents of EB and OLL, looking in the same ruins for things that will increase their respective lord's powers. PCs sometimes help either faction, sometimes play one against the other, sometimes ignore them.

3. Sessions 11-15. PCs hear about spider goddess, and decide to eliminate the cult. Skirmishes between forces of EB and OLL occur in background. Agents from EB approach PCs to purchase an item they found. Let us say that PCs have learned that EB is evil, and decline. EB and PCs become enemies. OLL still having problems with raiders; these have gotten worse. Raiders include slavers. OLL asks PCs for help; PCs decline.

4. Sessions 16-20. OLL petitions EB for help. EB decides to unite with OLL, and tries to arrange marriage with OLL's daughter and alliance. Bans are posted. EB helps stave off raiders. PCs elminate local spider cult, go back to ruins.

5. What now? The PCs have many options:

a. Offer EB the item he wanted earlier as a "wedding gift" to get on his good side and end animosity.

b. Offer to eliminate raiders so that OLL doesn't need EB, maybe ending wedding in this way.

c. Try to kill/kidnap bride, and blame it on slavers/spider cultists.

d. Ignore it, and hope it goes away.

e. Try to enlist another faction to deal with it.

f. Assassinate the EB.

g. Move to another part of the campaign milieu.

h. Accept change, and prepare to deal with a stronger EB, while continuing to explore ruins.

i. Something else that I haven't thought of right now. (Players are, IME, very good at this last one.)​

The best possible choice is to deal with him now as dealing with him later will be more difficult, not easier, or the same difficulty.

The best possible choice is not always obvious. That the players decide what is the best possible choice is "how is this not railroading?"

Would dealing with the raiders first have been the best possible choice? Would giving the item to the EB been the best possible choice? Wouldn't the spider cultists now be causing a greater problem had they not been dealt with earlier? If the PCs had dealt with the raiders earlier, would the EB's henchmen have gotten the item the EB wanted? What would the consequences of that be?

Maybe I'm missing something here but, it seems to me that the DM is saying, "Do this plot now. If you do not do this plot now, when you try to do it later, I'm going to screw you over for not doing it now by making it ten times harder when you eventually do get around to doing it. Go ahead, pursue those personal goals, I'm just going to stick it to you in the end."

Yup. You are definitely missing something.

1. Some things don't become more difficult, some things do.

2. There is no "plot" (in the sense of a story plot) to "do".

3. The DM doesn't care what the players do, and is not punishing them for making choices; he is only making the world react to those choices in a consistent fashion.


RC

 

[Kingreaper]

Sure, money is a resource for the player. But the TAXES aren't. How is time a resource for the player when the DM determines all of the plotlines?

In what way is money a resource for the player when the DM decides what all the shops sell?

The point is, variety. If the DM decides you have a variety of options to choose from, the resource is yours.

Some games I run work that way, because that's how the players like it.

Some games I play don't give much choice, because those players prefer the relaxing ride on the rails. But if they go off the rails? Well, I let them IF the whole group feels like it, not just one disruptive soul.

Yes, the player gets to choose between a selection of options that can fit into a particular timeframe, but, the timeframe, the amount of time those selections take and what those selections are are ALL determined by the DM.

Just like the amount of money players have, the amount items cost, and what items are available in stores.


The DM decides everything outside the players actions. The DM's authority isn't secondary to the rulebooks, it's secondary only to the group.

Money in an RPG is a player resource because the player can choose to spend it in whatever way he deems fit. If he wants to go uber twink, he can. He wants to spend it on hookers and blow, more power to him. It's 100% up to the player. The player determines when the money is spent, how it's spent and what rewards he gains for spending it.

Same with time. A player can spend time creating alliances that he can call in later. He can spend it relaxing all cool, and shooting some b-ball outside of the school. He can spend it picking up some training/in worship (reasonably represented by a boon, if the group is amenable to such things)

Your time examples don't give me any of that. The DM determines how, where and how much time I can expend at any given time.

No more than he determines how you spend your money. The DM provides the problems, and the options.

You provide the choices and solutions. If you defeat the murderer by hiring a gang of thugs, you've saved time you can now spend elsewhere, at the cost of spending money.

At no time can I save up time to spend it later.

Well, no.

Because that's, umm, not how time works. If I could've I would've saved two hours of waiting around last tuesday so I could use them for gaming tonight, but unfortunately we live in an approximately euclidian universe. As do characters in 4e (although their temporal dimension is MORE euclidian, while their spatial dimension is decidedly LESS euclidian, with the whole squares-thing)

At no time can I choose to blow all of my time resource on something I really want.

Sure you can. Why can't you?

Just means your character won't be available for anything else going on during that time

Plus, as an added limitation, the time that is spent has to be agreed upon by the group. It's not just limited by the DM, it's also limited by the other four people at the table. If I want to spend time doing X, and the rest of the group wants to spend time doing Y, I have to do Y or leave the group. For most groups, that's not an acceptable option.

That's an issue. But only during adventuring time. Most groups spend quite some time NOT adventuring, in my experience, and that time IS a personal resource.

If your character is unwilling to adventure with the rest of the party, find a new one, because that one is gone.

This is why the money analogy really falls flat. The money my character gets belongs to me. I can expend it however I want. Time doesn't work like that.

Unless, of course, you want it to. Make it a PLAYER resource, not a DM one.

If you make time work like money, all sense of realism goes completely out the window.

"alright, after that mission you've all earn 5,000 gold minutes, how do you spend them?"

"I'm gonna party"
"I'm gonna train"
"I'm going to make a bid for lordship"
"I'm going to save them, and go straight onto my next adventure, so that I can train a militia after next mission"

See the problem with the last statement?

It should be "I'm going to work with that militia I've been training. After our next adventure, I should be able finish training them up" but treating time as money causes ludicrous situations for mediocre benefit.

So, again, I'll ask, how do you make time a player resource and not a DM one?

By letting the players decide what to do with it? Giving them multiple options.

Just like you do with gold.

 

[LostSoul]

Now this is an interesting point. How far does it go? If I can predetermine a situation, and that's not a railroad, at what point does it become a railroad? Is it only a railroad when the DM has determined a single outcome?

I think the difference is that the DM only creates the setting + characters (NPCs), and then turns it over to the PCs to set their own goals in that situation.

If the situation is "small town of normal men + pirates looking to sack it", the PCs can respond in any number of ways:

Maybe the PCs will join with the pirates and sack the town.
Maybe the PCs will use the threat of the pirates to "organize a defense", when all they're trying to do is gain access to the treasury to rob the town blind before they leave.
Maybe they'll butt heads with some of the townspeople and decide it's not worth it, these people deserve to get attacked.
Maybe they think the townspeople should stand up for themselves and it's not their job to worry about it.
Maybe they take over the pirates and sack another town.
Maybe they convince the pirates to attack a more lucrative town.

I think there is a problem when you have world-ending situations, though.

Anyway. If the DM decides what the PC's goals are or how they should go about achieving them then I think you start getting into railroad territory. I think that, in order to avoid it, the DM should consciously make an effort to be unconcerned with what happens.

 

[Scribble]

I see. "Do what I tell you to do or I'll beat you with the punishment stick" isn't railroading. It's instead, "realism".

Hrm, I can try to advance my own goal, which means I am going to get actively punished for advancing my own goals, or I can submit meekly to the DM's choo choo line and not get punished.

Yeah, that's a decision point.

This isn't a railroad... I'm very confused as to how or why you're seeing it this way. This is kind of the opposite of railroad.

This is an in game choice your character must make- is whatever benefit I gain by not dealing with the Baron now, worth a few more dead lives?

Just because an action has consequences doesn't mean it's a railroad.

 

[Mark]

"Punishment stick" is a ridiculous term meant to marginalize any game or campaign structure the user of the term deems not to their liking.

 

[Fifth Element]

"Punishment stick" is a ridiculous term meant to marginalize any game or campaign structure the user of the term deems not to their liking.

Welcome to the internet!