D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Crimson Longinus]

Make stuff up =/= removing choice and forcing the DM's path on the players. See my example above in post #353. I made stuff up without forcing ogres on them no matter what they chose.

You made up that fork in the road to begin with. Everything the character's experience is made up by the GM. The GM is constantly 'forcing' their vision to the players.

Also, lets say that I decide that there actually are two separate sets of ogres, so that the characters will encounter one set regardless of the path they choose. Certainly this is perfectly possible; I mean there presumably are lands where ogres just are common. Do you have a problem with this?

 

[robus]

Make stuff up =/= removing choice and forcing the DM's path on the players. See my example above in post #353. I made stuff up without forcing ogres on them no matter what they chose.

As has been noted by others, in this example if the players are not aware that ogres are on the route before they embark, then all they experience is an encounter on the route that happens to feature ogres. They are not forced in any way, they’re playing an adventure game and expect encounters with dangerous creatures.

If the players aren’t making the deliberate choice to avoid a specific threat of ogres then I really don’t understand the worry. Players want to hit things, and I want to put things in the world they can hit.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The Alexandrian defines railroading thus: railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome. I would define it as the DM removing meaningful and consequential choices from the player. I don't know what "GM force" is as you're the only person I've ever seen use the term. Railroading works perfectly fine as the term for this.

I would argue that even the Alexandrian definition is incomplete. If in a 20-game campaign a DM twice (or three times) applies GM force to remove player choice, was the campaign on a railroad?

If so, can we agree that in a 20-game campaign there can be 2 or 3 times where GM force might lead to a better game?

 

[Maxperson]

You made up that fork in the road to begin with. Everything the character's experience is made up by the GM. The GM is constantly 'forcing' their vision to the players.

That's completely false. I made up the fork, but the players don't have to choose it. They can go outside of what I make up and forge their own path, forcing me to respond to them.

My players do it all the time. They come out of left field with something they've been wanting to do and instead of heading where they were heading, and which I prepared for, they go somewhere completely different.

I NEVER force my vision on the players.

Also, lets say that I decide that there actually are two separate sets of ogres, so that the characters will encounter one set regardless of the path they choose. Certainly this is perfectly possible; I mean there presumably are lands where ogres just are common. Do you have a problem with this?

If you preplanned it and the ogres can be bypassed, I have no problem with it. If they decide not to go down the either fork where your ogres are and instead go off road into the forest, will you still throw the ogres in front of them? If so, I would have a problem with that.

 

[Cadence]

Make stuff up =/= removing choice and forcing the DM's path on the players. See my example above in post #353. I made stuff up without forcing ogres on them no matter what they chose.

So if I avoid thinking about what they run into until they get to the path (or lack thereof), is it ok to put an ogre there spur of the moment?

 

[Maxperson]

As has been noted by others, in this example if the players are not aware that ogres are on the route before they embark, then all they experience is an encounter on the route that happens to feature ogres.

Yes. That's why it's an illusion of choice. The players don't know any better, but they still had no choice in the matter and were railroaded into ogres.

They are not forced in any way, they’re playing an adventure game and expect encounters with dangerous creatures.

This is not true. The ogres were forced on them no matter what route they chose. Their ignorance of the matter doesn't change that. Nor does an expectation of encountering dangerous creatures. While the players do have an expectation of encountering dangerous monsters, players also have an expectation that avoiding an encounter is also possible. When a specific encounter is forced upon them no matter what they do, the DM is undermining that expectation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would argue that even the Alexandrian definition is incomplete. If in a 20-game campaign a DM twice (or three times) applies GM force to remove player choice, was the campaign on a railroad?

If so, can we agree that in a 20-game campaign there can be 2 or 3 times where GM force might lead to a better game?

Yep. GM force is just a tool. There are occasions where it is useful, there are many occasions in which it undesirable. One thing I really dislike is the sort of fundamental RPG purism I often see deployed on message boards. "Thou shalt never..." "A good GM always..." etc. Aside Wheaton's Law and other such social considerations such truisms are almost always false. For every such rule I can usually come up with good reasons to break it. I don't think hamstringing oneself with such fundamentalism is particularly helpful, but if people want to do so in their own games, I have no problem with that. I however have a problem with them being judgemental and moralising about this stuff on message boards.

 

[Maxperson]

So if I avoid thinking about what they run into until they get to the path (or lack thereof), is it ok to put an ogre there spur of the moment?

If the players have gone out of prepared territory, you have to make stuff up, including things like monsters. What I do is think ahead of the party. I'm going to think up the fork before they get to it. I'm going to figure out the different things down each fork before they get there to make their decision. That way their decision will still matter.

Doing it that way also lets me respond to things like, "I look around for tracks at the fork." I can let them know that down the left fork are lots of human sized footprints and some very large ones(because the ogre has been harassing the town), and down the right fork are only large footprints(because the ogre lives that way and the villagers don't go there).

What I'm not going to do is just decide to drop an ogre onto the group.

 

[Cadence]

If the players have gone out of prepared territory, you have to make stuff up, including things like monsters. What I do is think ahead of the party. I'm going to think up the fork before they get to it. I'm going to figure out the different things down each fork before they get there to make their decision. That way their decision will still matter.

Doing it that way also lets me respond to things like, "I look around for tracks at the fork." I can let them know that down the left fork are lots of human sized footprints and some very large ones(because the ogre has been harassing the town), and down the right fork are only large footprints(because the ogre lives that way and the villagers don't go there).

What I'm not going to do is just decide to drop an ogre onto the group.

So you've thought of the fork. Have you thought of every single off road path they might take? (That seems like a lot of them).

I would agree that having an Ogre teleporting out of nowhere [Edit: Into the midst of the party as they walked] would be obnoxious. If the party has said they were being vaguely cautious then I'd assume I'd either have them make rolls or check passive perception to see what they noticed about the Ogre (which would depend on if I was picturing an Ogre just being around, or and Ogre setting a trap).

 

[Maxperson]

So you've thought of the fork. Have you thought of every single off road path they might take? (That seems like a lot of them).

No. Nobody can think of everything. If they go off-road I'll think of some other choices. It's not about thinking of everything or even lots of things. It's about staying a few steps ahead of them and presenting a few real choices, not illusory ones.