Should this be fixed

[pemerton]

I have never seen railroading being described as the DM putting in loot and deciding what alignment the NPCs are.

<snip>

are you saying the the DM does not have the right to decide important aspects of the game as to the motivations, and alignment of the NPCs and how things work in the world?

<snip>

If in the game necromancy is not evil or illegal and the players know this. And they choose to kill necromancers then they should expect to have the law of the land come down on them.

That is still not railroading that is a consequence.

The GM determining that necromancy is legal is not per se railroading. The GM determining that necromancy is not judged evil by some NPC or other is not per se railroading. Clearly, this is all just setting up the gameworld. In some circumstances, in combination with other elements of the gameworld, it could turn into or contribute to a railroad - for example, if one player has made it clear that his/her PC's main raison d'etre is to fight necromancy, and the player has been accepted into the game on that basis, and the GM then presents a world where the PC has no practical option but to tolerate necromancy. But those sorts of circumstances aren't all that common (although the repeated threads on these forums about player vs GM choice in respect of PC build, shared world creation, etc etc show that they aren't unheard of either).

In my view, however, the GM determining that necromancy is not evil, in a game where a significant motivation for playing, on the part of one or more players, is to engage with the thematic question of how we should regard acts of necromancy, in my view is railroading, or at least a serious potential prelude to railroading. Because the GM is purporting to settle in advance the very issue which the player was hoping to address by playing the game.

Alignment mechanics are the bluntest version of this sort of thing, but not the only form it can take. For example, even without alignment mechanics a GM can establish a world which, in virtue of its political and theological/metaphsysical setup, in effect precludes the players from addressing key thematic questions, by already settling the answers to them.

In my game, there is a setting. There are things happening within this setting. The players run PCs within this setting, and they are free to interact with the parts they like. They are not in any way forced to follow a theme or plot line.

The PCs can interact with the demonic / mortal realm war, or they can go make a name for themselves taking out bandits. They can open up a business, or they can go raid towns for the fun of it. They can round up a group of like-minded people for some self-defined goal, or they can attempt to move up the social ladder while playing politics.

Wins and losses in these areas are defined by player interpretation. I'm just here to be the middleman, and play out how the setting reacts to the party's actions.

That, to me, is not railroading at all. And my PCs are not going about trying to gain treasure.

You're right that I didn't talk about this sort of pure exploration game, because I was focusing on D&D and in particular the transition from 1st ed to 2nd ed play.

As I said above, by setting up the social and political arrangements in a certain way the GM can still foreclose particular moral or thematic issues. This won't be a concern, though, if the players merely want to explore the GM's gameworld, and aren't interested in addressing those evaulative issues.

Maybe the DM could have handled it better then a wisdom check. But she was not trying to railroad the player. If she was she would have found a way to stop it.

I'm sure your GM did what she thought was the best thing in the circumstances, given the expectations and established practices for your group.

 

[pemerton]

Exploration is Railroad

In a game in which (i) the exploration includes GM-determined evaluations, and (ii) the main aim of the players is to address some particular thematic/evaluative concern, then yes - or, at least, a common prelude to railroad.

To put it another way: if my aim, in play, is to explore the relationship between freedom and virtue; and the GM tells me that in his/her gameworld all elementals are evil because they wouldn't obey the dictates of the gods; then what is there left for me as a player to do in that game? I can move my PC through the GM's world and do whatever stuff I'm presented with opportunities to do, but how am I going to address my question, and express an attitude towards it, by playing my PC? The GM has already told me what the answer is: if my PC disobeys the gods, the GM's gameworld already tells me that I'm evil.

There's the prelude to the railroad.

And suppose me and my fellow PCs come across some angels fighting some elementals - who should we help? The GM has already told me what the answer is: on the (reasonable) assumption that we don't want to do evil or help evil, we have to fight with the angels against the elementals.

There's the railroad.

When I GM, I want to see what my players think about the relationship between freedom and virtue. Or between heroism and expedience. Or between suffering and obligation. And to express those thoughts through play. In order to do that, I need to offer up a gameworld in which the answers are not pre-given. And I need to offer up situations which (in light of the game's action resolution mechanics, the known interests of the players including as expressed via their PC builds, etc) both open up space for a range of potential responses and place pressure on the players to make some sort of decision.

This is why not all choices about the gameworld, and about what sorts of consequences will follow from a PC's action, are neutral as between opening up room for players to make meaningful thematic choices. If every choice to free a slave, for example, will result in the player's PC being killed by a bolt from the heavens (because that's how the GM has decreed the game works) then that particular domain of thematic exploration, and meaningful decision-making, has been pretty much excluded.

EDIT: To tie this back to the main question in the OP - should the GM replace the loot? A lot of people have responded, No, because that would negate the consequences. But this answer is true only if the main meaningful consequences for the players in question are the acquision or losing of loot. If the main meaningful consequence for the players are that (i) a necromantic object was destroyed, and/or (ii) that a fellow party member went behind the back of his comrades, then replacing the loot doesn't negate those consequences at all. Those consequences stand because the dwarf PC did what he did.

So what counts as a railroad, or as negating consequences or opening up the space for consequences, depends on what the players' basis is for getting satisfaction from the game. What is their concern in engaging with the gameworld? This leads me to reiterate - designing the gameworld, and deciding what possibilities are open to the PCs, and what consequences in the gameworld (eg NPC reactions, or finding more loot) will follow from various PC decisions, may or may not be railroading depending on what the interests of the players are.

But you can't say it's not railroading just because the players (via their PCs) are free to explore whatever they like, if the upshot of those explorations frequently negates or undermines the very reasons that the players have for engaging witht the gameworld in the first place.

 

[pemerton]

Trying to make sense of pemerton's posts - in a Midnight game of heroism vs impossible odds, my heroic LG PC Zana Than once executed a prisoner, a young bandit who probably wasn't evil, to stop him alerting the bandit camp. Zana was wracked with guilt over having to do this. IMO it did not affect her LG alignment. I would not have been happy if the DM declared I was now NE. However this is NOT 'railroading' and pemerton is wrong to use the R-word here.

I'm not too hung up on terminology. I tend to regard railroading as a term that describes dysfunctional or degenerate play in which GM decisions about action resolution and the resulting content of the fiction undermine or negate meaningful player engagement.

The hypothetical scenario you describe seems to fit that description.

If it were a Star Wars game, and the GM declared that my executing a prisoner turned me to the Dark Side and made me an NPC? It would still be annoying, but as long as I knew we were playing 'Star Wars morality' with limited if any connection to the real world, I guess I could accept it. And still it would not be 'railroading'.

My views here are, if anything, probably more controversial.

I tend to regard these sorts of inbuilt morality mechanics as inclining towards (if not inevitably, at least somewhat reliably) a tendency towards conflict among players and railroading by the GM as one solution to that conflict.

A Star Wars game can potentially avoid this by only ever putting up 4-colour-type situations where the sorts of issues that might cause the conflict don't arise - no hard prisoner choices, for example. But then if such situations never come up, one is inclined to ask why have the morality mechanic in the first place?

And why can it not by the player who decides whether or not, as a result of his/her PC's action, that PC turns to the dark side?

 

[S'mon]

I'm not too hung up on terminology. I tend to regard railroading as a term that describes dysfunctional or degenerate play in which GM decisions about action resolution and the resulting content of the fiction undermine or negate meaningful player engagement.

The hypothetical scenario you describe seems to fit that description.

Yes, I think your definition of 'railroad' is very poor, like "blue is a shade of green", it muddies debate. The DMing you describe may be poor DMing, but "You are explorers in the world of Dragonlance who will be presented with ethical conundrums - choose correctly or you will be Evil" is not Railroading; because the players are free to choose Evil and take the consequences. Railroading is when the players are *unable* to exercise choice - "You try to kill the prisoner, but an inner voice from Paladine stops you. Now get on with the adventure!".

Maybe you have not experienced true 'railroad' scenarios. If not, look at some stuff from the railroad heyday of the '90s, especially non-TSR, because TSR was really not a big offender, the original '80s Dragonlance modules excepted. I hear Vampire/World of Darkness was bad, but my favourite as 'worst ever railroad' goes to the Stormbringer scenario 'Rogue Mistress'.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Say you're playing in a modern game featuring enemy Nazis who are using mystical black arts to further their agenda of conquest. Now, as part of the loot, your party finds a cache of non-magical Nazi memorabilia, which is nonetheless quite valuable. However, one of the PCs destroys the Nazi memorabilia, deeming it to be "evil".

This is a reasonable decision. A DM enforcing a WIS-check on that character to prevent destroying the memorabilia is--in a passive manner--overriding the player's ability to choose how her character reacts to situations. The player should determine her own character's morals and values, not the DM.

Okay....that I get. But that is in no wise what is being discussed here. At least not AFAICT. No one is endorsing that the character gets a WIS check so that the GM can then take command of the character; rather that the character gains a WIS check so that the GM ensures that the player has all the information relevant to taking the action that the character should have.

If the player still insists his character destroys the Nazi memorabilia, so be it. Just as, in the OP, the dwarf destroyed the necromantic items.

The problem in the OP arose when one or more players then claimed that the GM should recompense the PCs (or the other PCs) for the decision made by one PC.

I say No. In fact, if there are no consequences to the decision the PC made, then there is also no real decision point. Making the treasure show up elsewhere, in another form, just means that the player doesn't have to decide whether loot trumps ethics, or ethics trumps loot.

Dealing with the consequences is a player problem. It is not the GM's problem. The GM should no more intervene in what the players decide to do about the dwarf, then the GM should have intervened in what the dwarf decided to do about the necromantic items. It is not her problem. It is not her responsibility. It is not her job to make it all better. It is not her place to make the character decisions necessary to deal with what occurred.

IMHO, the GM absolutely does not have the right to override a decision, even if he or she thinks it makes "zero sense". However, the GM does have the responsibility to warn the player that the decision seems to make zero sense, if he or she believes that the character would know this.

I have never seen a Wisdom Check used in any other manner than to give a moderate warning in corner cases, where the GM is unsure whether or not the character would know. In this case, in general, a failed Wisdom Check means that the character gains no other warning, where a successful Wisdom Check means the GM gives the player more information.

I have never seen a case where a Wisdom Check means that the player must change his or her action.....only where it means more information to confirm that action, or to change it if the player wishes to do so.

Now, maybe I'm crazy, but I see absolutely no indication in the OP or elsewhere in this thread that anything else occurred in the case in question.


RC

 

[billd91]

In a game in which (i) the exploration includes GM-determined evaluations, and (ii) the main aim of the players is to address some particular thematic/evaluative concern, then yes - or, at least, a common prelude to railroad.

To put it another way: if my aim, in play, is to explore the relationship between freedom and virtue; and the GM tells me that in his/her gameworld all elementals are evil because they wouldn't obey the dictates of the gods; then what is there left for me as a player to do in that game? I can move my PC through the GM's world and do whatever stuff I'm presented with opportunities to do, but how am I going to address my question, and express an attitude towards it, by playing my PC? The GM has already told me what the answer is: if my PC disobeys the gods, the GM's gameworld already tells me that I'm evil.

There's the prelude to the railroad.

And suppose me and my fellow PCs come across some angels fighting some elementals - who should we help? The GM has already told me what the answer is: on the (reasonable) assumption that we don't want to do evil or help evil, we have to fight with the angels against the elementals.

There's the railroad.

Yeah, I think S'mon is right. Your use of the term railroad is... unusual. If you have the freedom to choose between helping the angels or the elementals (or helping neither), you're not on a railroad. From what I'm seeing here, you're seem to think that any GM-based structure that labels your PC in a way you don't want to be labeled is a railroad. To me, that feels about the same as not wanting to fall when your PC tries to jump the chasm too wide to jump. Your objection is to the consequence of your actions and decisions even when you have a reasonable chance of knowing what they are, given the GM's cosmology.

When I GM, I want to see what my players think about the relationship between freedom and virtue. Or between heroism and expedience. Or between suffering and obligation. And to express those thoughts through play. In order to do that, I need to offer up a gameworld in which the answers are not pre-given. And I need to offer up situations which (in light of the game's action resolution mechanics, the known interests of the players including as expressed via their PC builds, etc) both open up space for a range of potential responses and place pressure on the players to make some sort of decision.

If you want to see how your PCs feel about relationships between freedom and virtue, by all means set up a similar moral structure. Make sure elements of the cosmology have their opinions on the subject and make sure there are consequences for crossing them. And when they do cross them, you'll have your answer in very clear terms. It's when there are few or no consequences, no sacrifices to be made, that you end up with uninteresting and unclear choices.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I think S'mon is right. Your use of the term railroad is... unusual. If you have the freedom to choose between helping the angels or the elementals (or helping neither), you're not on a railroad. From what I'm seeing here, you're seem to think that any GM-based structure that labels your PC in a way you don't want to be labeled is a railroad. To me, that feels about the same as not wanting to fall when your PC tries to jump the chasm too wide to jump. Your objection is to the consequence of your actions and decisions even when you have a reasonable chance of knowing what they are, given the GM's cosmology.

Indeed. That is a very good summation of what it reads like.


RC

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, I think S'mon is right. Your use of the term railroad is... unusual. If you have the freedom to choose between helping the angels or the elementals (or helping neither), you're not on a railroad. From what I'm seeing here, you're seem to think that any GM-based structure that labels your PC in a way you don't want to be labeled is a railroad. To me, that feels about the same as not wanting to fall when your PC tries to jump the chasm too wide to jump. Your objection is to the consequence of your actions and decisions even when you have a reasonable chance of knowing what they are, given the GM's cosmology.

If you want to see how your PCs feel about relationships between freedom and virtue, by all means set up a similar moral structure. Make sure elements of the cosmology have their opinions on the subject and make sure there are consequences for crossing them. And when they do cross them, you'll have your answer in very clear terms. It's when there are few or no consequences, no sacrifices to be made, that you end up with uninteresting and unclear choices.

I agree 100%. I might for instance want to run a Chronicles of Narnia campaign, with a Christian-based morality set by Aslan & his dad - the PCs would be free to make moral choices, but there would be clear (at least in hindsight) 'right' and 'wrong' choices. That PCs would sometimes make the wrong choice - would sin - would be expected, and part of the setting. There would be consequences for right & wrong choices. That's in no wise a railroad.

 

[RedTonic]

I also agree that billd91's summation is exactly what that reads like. I'd XP ya, but the last time I did was too recent.

How your character perceives himself is your business; how the party perceives him is theirs; but how the rest of the world perceives him is the GM's business. That's not railroading by any practical measure. Extending railroading to cover issues of how the GM resolves your character's actions against the guiding themes of the setting is an incredible attenuation of the definition, IMO--it's no more railroady than the fact that the GM decides what loot is available to the victor. It's a feature, not a bug.

Sadly, this also doesn't help Elf Witch and her group.

...I'll echo several previous posters and recommend packing this campaign in for a while and trying out something that is really rules-light. May I mention Dread? I got to try it out at this past Boston game day and it was awesome. Plus, no real stats to worry about...

 

[haakon1]

As DM I tend to "PCs can do whatever they want"; but as a player I don't see why I should have to put up with the jerk PC. If he can do whatever he wants, then so can I, including stickling a dagger in his head.

Excellent! Sadly, I've run out of XP giving ability for you.