You'll need to define what a "hard railroad" is, because apparently there's (at least) three different definitions and...well. Let's just say one of those definitions is completely unacceptable (and very, very incompatible with player agency). The other two are varying degrees of tolerable.
An artificial forced movement of game reality to move a player along a minimum of three stories: the lesson(s) I give the player, the story I give the character and the Main Adventure Story. With two more common ones: The players personal story for their character and the Game Story Arc.
Good--though, as some others have said, you do need to be careful here. There is a difference between providing support, and simply deciding (without telling them) what things are actually important, fun but irrelevant window-dressing, and genuinely unimportant.
In a general sense, I don't waste game time with "unimportant" things.
Worth expanding out here: note the bit where I said "what I should already know." It sounds like you and I agree that the world "exists" in some sense--not physically, of course, but it is intended to have a durable and meaningful presence which both surrounds and undergirds the PCs' actual in-session experience of it. Part of that, however, is that the player character will--must--know things that the players simply don't. Immediately after session zero, does the player know whether it is acceptable to shake hands with either one, or is it considered a faux pas to shake with the left hand? I wouldn't expect any player to have that knowledge, yet the character absolutely, 100% SHOULD know that. It would be not only unfair, but actively erode the "existence" of the fictional world, to have the players bumble through learning this fact when their characters should have known it from childhood.
I am this type of DM. But note only for my Main Games. It's pointless to take a young clueless casual gamer and even suggest they might do anything that requires any effort on their part. Even when given a list of setting words and being given xp for using them...they will still use 2023 "slang" when speaking in character. So I don't bother.
I'm a much more harsh when the player does not understand reality. I get the player has never seen real life lava....but like it's very basic to know lava is hot. And sure their imaginary character, and most of the world, knows lava is hot. And I don't remind the clueless player what their smart character knows.
So, some of the time, there really are things that you should just tell the players, because it would be far too tedious, not to mention fraught with both unnecessary and unproductive failure, to not tell them right away. As long as you're cool with that aspect of things, I have no complaints here.
I'm fairly descriptive. And I try and keep lots of NPCs around that are "as dumb" as the players so I can Red Shirt them often.
.
.I'm not big on harsh consequences unless they're really warranted. I find "harsh" usually just means "drives the player away from the game." If harsh is actually warranted though, sure. As noted above, calling the Jade Emperor an ignorant bimawen is a great way to get in Huge Trouble. Basically, if I think the player hasn't given something a full think-through, I'll ask something like "Are you sure?" or "Is that what you do?" But they get just that one chance. If they say "yes" then...that's what happened and they live with the consequences.
I find they weed out the casual gamers. And build character...literary in many ways. I don't want to game with players that "don't think things through" or worse just do them to be "funny jerks" or more then worse do them to try and ruin the game for everyone.
.
.Glad to be of service, though a big part of (c) is that you have to be able to actually survive most (note: most, not absolutely 100% all) of your choices in order to be able to learn from them. "You won't live to regret this" style DMing largely nixes that, because you never really get the chance to learn from your mistakes, trapping you in a cycle of accident, unlucky dice, or misunderstanding until you just happen to get lucky enough to survive. Again, though, this shouldn't mean that literally every possible action ever is totally safe. Adventuring should be a challenging, dangerous business. But "challenging" and "dangerous" don't have to mean "character-removing." I very, very much favor consequences which open the door to new story rather than closing every door (and window) forever for a character.
. Well....the player always survives......
.Perhaps the gap between us is smaller than it might seem. I certainly don't really agree with your attitude of how to behave toward players. The way I see it, part of how you ensure that the consequences are interesting, that the players are actually goaded to rise to the challenge, that the game proves that it is worthy of the players' investment, is by showing that you actually care what the players think. Showing respect for them as people who are trying to get an enjoyable and enriching experience, just as you are. But note that "enjoyable" and "enriching" are not the same as fun. High-cacao dark chocolate is, in the right contexts, an enjoyable thing to eat, but it is naturally quite bitter. Hops can induce retching if ingested whole because of how bitter they are, but they're an essential part of balancing out the sweetness of wort in order to make beer. Blue cheese requires active mold in order to taste right, even though eating mold is usually a bad idea (and, as has been relevant in my life, albeit not for me personally, someone with a compromised immune system should not eat blue cheese either!)
Well, note when I'm posting it's more about bad, problem players. I have plenty of good players....they just don't get posts.
I have helped and mentored hundreds of players. If you come to me and genenuely want to become a better person and player...I'm there for you. Though I will expect you to put in effort, time and work. On the other hand...if your a lazy casual jerk, we won't get along.
.Perhaps you would consider the above a form of being a "buddy DM," which as I understand, you are vehemently opposed to doing. Myself, I consider the above essential to actually having players that care. Because they know that I respect and value them as players, but do not take kindly to bad-faith play or ill intent, I give them a reason to reciprocate: They know, absolutely without doubt, that I will do everything in my power to deliver an interesting, enjoyable, enriching game. All they have to do is play ball, just meet some relatively mild standards of respect and decency, and they'll get a game eager to have them as players.
. Well, I'm more an "outside the game" Buddy DM. If a player wants help role playing an elf, I'm happy to talk with them, send e-mail texts and recommend books to read. But I'm not going to waste any game time doing any of that.
guess what I'm saying is, it sounds like for you, "buddy DM" means some sort of insincere, glad-handing, sycophantic relationship where the DM almost slavishly produces instant gratification for the players. And if that's what you mean by it, then sure! I have little interest in doing that...ever, really. The problem comes in where your opposition to being a "buddy DM" becomes an opposition to developing a DM/player relationship of mutual respect. I don't really want to be a "buddy DM"--but I rather do think I want to be an ally DM. An ally is not a sycophant, but as a general rule, allies want success for one another while also expecting to benefit in some way from their alliance.
Well....I do see that type of DM often. I see a lot of soft DMs. I see so many DM make their games Easy Button Cakewlaks. They want to make their "friends" happy so they make the easy game so their "friends" like them. When the DM lets them kill another dragon for a ton of loot they are "the best DM ever".
.What does it mean to "make" a player?
The same way you make anyone anything really. You teach them the basics, and let them develop in their own unique way.
at's not what a sandbox is. A sandbox is you set up several hooks for the players to follow and let them choose which ones they follow. The only way that results in boring or dull is if the players aren't interested or you fill your sandbox with boring and dull stuff for them to do.
Yea, as this is the over given sandbox example....it sucks. Sure you "sandbox" for a couple seconds....then play a normal linear game.
Are you using "railroad" here to mean running a linear module? Because that's not what railroading is.
Railroading is the negation of player agency to ensure the referee’s story unfolds in a pre-planned way. It’s important to note that railroading is not linear storytelling. They are separate and distinct.
Player agency is the players’ ability to make choices for their characters and for those choices to actually matter to the unfolding story of the game.
So....I disagree with most of the public vocal gaming community. I don't follow lock dice with everyone...all we are are just some dice in a bag.
I don't use the words "player agency", but if I did...it would be more: Players can make choices and have them matter if they are willing to put in the time, effort, work, immersion, focus and force to do intelligent meaningful actions. And few single actions will effect much, often at least a couple actions are needed. And players can't just "wish" for actions to alter game reality", but can make more focused actions to have a higher chance of getting their desired result.
And I don't agree with the "bad word only Railroad" definition. As referee I don't have "a" story, but I do what the story to end. That is the Railroad: forcing the players and characters along the story to it's end. A lot of this is done in the back ground (the classic Invisible Railroad).
Have to agree with
@EzekielRaiden.
@bloodtide what is your definition of railroad?
Because, yeah the answer REALLY dictates how much player agency, if any, is possible.
I don't agree with the "bad word only Railroad" definition. As referee I don't have "a" story, but I do what the story to end. That is the Railroad: forcing the players and characters along the story to it's end. A lot of this is done in the back ground (the classic Invisible Railroad).
It seems like you don't really want advice. That's fine, I suppose. But if you want to fix the current situation, something has to change. Either you accept that you aren't the right DM for these people or you adjust your style a tad until your regular group gets back together.
If you're unwilling to do either, no amount of advice or explanation is going to matter.
I am seeking more understanding. Five players go through a game session. After the game, as we clean up Billy is all mad, throwing his dice in his bag one by one. Then he lets rip on how the game was so horrible as he had no agency. Jimmy then runs over to agree and they complain together. The other three players are just fine and have nothing to say.
But the players can't tell me what is wrong....they just say "agency" every five seconds or so. This is where I turn to others to try and figure out what they might be thinking.
