DM Issues: Railroading

[Mort]

When the GM announces, "you hear rumors of a new force in the east, gather power, seeking to eliminate all mankind", the GM is the Initiator. At that point, the Consequences will occur unless the PCs jump on the plot wagon.

Thats where Consequences runs the risk of railroading, being a prod to force player down a path.

As long as the PC can ignore the threat and do something else (consequences or no) it's not railroading. As long as the players have a meaningful choice, again, it's not railroading. If, no matter what the players seemingly choose, they end up confronting the big bad threat (even if they deliberately go in the opposite direction for example) then it's quite likely railroading.

Let's say at 1st level the players hear whisperings of a mad hermit working on a world destroying device, they ignore it and end the city's goblin menace instead.

At 4th level, they hear stronger rumors of a mad hermit gathering items for a world destroying device. As they've also heard of at least 3 adventuring groups and a city militia seeking out the hermit, they ignore it figuring they have easier and better things to do.

At 10th level, it's more than a rumor - the mad hermit has established a trap infested cave where so far no one has returned from. Constructs, undead etc. are known to guard the place. The king has put out an open (pleading) call for adventurers to help (as well as devoting his own army and resources) and many have responded. The PCs, having other obligations, politely decline.

At 15th level, while the PCs are in the middle of their current adventure - the world blows up.

The above may be a bit heavy handed, but is not railroading (unless you expand the definition so broadly as to make it lose all meaning).

 

[Janx]

As long as the PC can ignore the threat and do something else (consequences or no) it's not railroading. As long as the players have a meaningful choice, again, it's not railroading. If, no matter what the players seemingly choose, they end up confronting the big bad threat (even if they deliberately go in the opposite direction for example) then it's quite likely railroading.

I think I see where my point is being missed.

Forget gaming for a minute. Let's talk real life. Because gaming is just attempting to model real life, minus the boring stuff.

My thesis is this, at any given moment in your life, while technically you have a multitude of actions you could take, many of those choices are self-negated and effectively non-choices.

You are going to go to work every day, because you have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay. Just quitting for no reason is not something you would do, therefore it is not Choice.

You are not going to Eric's grandma's house to murder her and take her stuff, because you are not a murderer. It is not a Choice. Even though you technically could get her address and go pay her a visit.

When yet another pipe sprung a leak on Monday AND my AC went out, I had no choice not to fix it lest my water bill shoot through the roof, my house is destroyed by water damage and we die from the heat because I live in TX.

Therefore, when the GM raises the new Threat, if he has designed it with your PCs in mind, you do not really have a choice to not deal with it.

Any sane person who does not deal with their problems is a freaking idiot. Seriously, that's what people with problems that they don't deal with are.

Now I suppose there's a corner case for the pacifist who won't resist a robbery and gets killed for his beliefs, but even there, that wasn't exactly a genius move.

In my view, a PC who doesn't take a realistic response to a problem isn't engaging the game world realistically.

Whether I am right or wrong, somebody with this view set is going to feel compelled by the GM to go solve the problem. Because the alternative choices are unappealing. And this is how a GM manipulates players into going his way.

Because of that, I feel it is disingenuous to insist that "oh the PCs had a choice. They could have let the evil empire rape their gramma." Replace Gramma with something the player/PC cares about, and you have taken away their Choices.

When the GM starts some big new external problem (like the OP's war), the players ability to choose what kind of goals they want to pursue gets narrowed down.

 

[billd91]

I think I see where my point is being missed.

Forget gaming for a minute. Let's talk real life. Because gaming is just attempting to model real life, minus the boring stuff.

My thesis is this, at any given moment in your life, while technically you have a multitude of actions you could take, many of those choices are self-negated and effectively non-choices.
<snip>

Are you saying that life is a railroad?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I believe this is getting more into the topic of free will versus determinism, than GM aproaches.

 

[sec_tcpaipm]

The choice may be how to deal with the evil empire. A railroad would be having no option but to attempt to sneak into the palace and assasinate the Imperatrix in her sleep.

 

[Mort]

I think I see where my point is being missed.

I don't believe I'm missing your point - I'm saying that your definition of railroading is too broad. Railroading is not "heavy-handedness" - it is the limited instance of not giving players any actual choices. In the example I posted meaningful choices existed - there just happened to be one that was more meaningful than others - this might (and likely is) bad DMing and way too heavy handed, and yes very manipulative - but if you label it as railroading - that's too broad a definition.

I do believe the DM is entitled to make some problems bigger than others, saying all problems are equally important is less realistic and would completely destroy some people's sense of verisimilitude.

I also believe the DM is allowed to initiate conflict (something you listed as a possible negative) – The world having conflicts that appear, get resolved, don’t get resolved – with the PCs, without the PCs etc. is a living dynamic place. If the world just waits for the PCs to show up (or, more importantly, has the appearance of doing so) then the sense of a living, breathing world is lost and the player’s experience may well suffer for it.

 

[Nagol]

I think I see where my point is being missed.

Forget gaming for a minute. Let's talk real life. Because gaming is just attempting to model real life, minus the boring stuff.

My thesis is this, at any given moment in your life, while technically you have a multitude of actions you could take, many of those choices are self-negated and effectively non-choices.

You are going to go to work every day, because you have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay. Just quitting for no reason is not something you would do, therefore it is not Choice.

My spouse did.

You are not going to Eric's grandma's house to murder her and take her stuff, because you are not a murderer. It is not a Choice. Even though you technically could get her address and go pay her a visit.

Yet people do every day.

When yet another pipe sprung a leak on Monday AND my AC went out, I had no choice not to fix it lest my water bill shoot through the roof, my house is destroyed by water damage and we die from the heat because I live in TX.

Yet people live in houston without A/C all year round.

Therefore, when the GM raises the new Threat, if he has designed it with your PCs in mind, you do not really have a choice to not deal with it.

Any sane person who does not deal with their problems is a freaking idiot. Seriously, that's what people with problems that they don't deal with are.

And yet there are always people who make choices that seem rational to them in there situation that appear insane to outsiders -- not paying debt, going deep into debt, committing acts of violence, whetever. Choice some wouldn't make make sense to others.

Now I suppose there's a corner case for the pacifist who won't resist a robbery and gets killed for his beliefs, but even there, that wasn't exactly a genius move.

In my view, a PC who doesn't take a realistic response to a problem isn't engaging the game world realistically.

Is someone staying behind to certain death because a loved one can't leave acting realistically? It's not rational from a survival standpoint, but it happens. Is someone jumping into a river to try to rescue a small boy acting realistically? Does your answer change when both are lost? When both are saved? The choices someone makes -- to deal with something or ignore it; to respond with violence or negotiation; to save or damn are the choices that define the character and the narrative.

Whether I am right or wrong, somebody with this view set is going to feel compelled by the GM to go solve the problem. Because the alternative choices are unappealing. And this is how a GM manipulates players into going his way.

Because of that, I feel it is disingenuous to insist that "oh the PCs had a choice. They could have let the evil empire rape their gramma." Replace Gramma with something the player/PC cares about, and you have taken away their Choices.

When the GM starts some big new external problem (like the OP's war), the players ability to choose what kind of goals they want to pursue gets narrowed down.

Just like life, minus the boring bits.

 

[Janx]

I believe this is getting more into the topic of free will versus determinism, than GM aproaches.

No. I haven't gotten into Moist Robot theory and left brain/right brain decision making flow.

The OP said his GM has this big war going on and big NPCs telling the PCs what to do.

those GM-based initiators are influencing the player decision process, and can make the player feel like he has less valid choices.

Even if the PCs feel stuck in doing what Elminster says, it's not like he's giving them round by round direction for what spells to cast and weapons to use. the party goes to where Elminster said and then does the unpredictable things players to solve the problem. So at the micro level, still lots of choices going on.

At the macro level, which big goal to pursue, the players feel constrained to having to go pursue that big problem.

So, is it fair for a GM to spring up new DM invented problems on the players? Is there a scope or frequency of these DM invented problems that should be taken into consideration?

Is it fair, and not Deus Ex Machina, for the GM to bring in NPC heroes to deal with DM invented problems the PCs ignore?

Is there an issue if there are too many DM invented problems going on at once AND he does not have NPC heroes cover the gap?

Note that I prefaced problem, with DM Invented. Problems the players make are actual Consequences of their action. That's kind of the point for those. But when the GM invents new problems out of the blue (like an Adventure Path inherently does), are there some guidelines to be followed?

If I was running a sandbox, I think I would start the world where there's lots of opportunities, to entice the party into action. very little direct Threats initially, unless the party needed stimulus into action (I don't want to play Beet Farmer the RPG). After that, I would make anything that happens after that be a consequence or prior PC action. Only rarely would I invent a new problem, namely when all the major problems/consequences have already been dealt with, so as to stimulate some change and action.

If I was running an adventure path, I think the main hook would be a DM Invented problem that involves and interests the players/PCs. I would not have multiple of these things going on, as invariably, the PCs are the heroes, and too many problems, and they would not be able to win. the point of winning being that clever play through solving the main hook's problem is victory, failure to solve it is failure.

If I have 2 major problems, and only the PCs as heroes, they will fail one of those problems. if I have an NPC party step up for the other problem, the the players learn that neither problem was special and about the PCs, and they can let the NPCs handle it all.

 

[Janx]

I don't believe I'm missing your point - I'm saying that your definition of railroading is too broad. Railroading is not "heavy-handedness" - it is the limited instance of not giving players any actual choices. In the example I posted meaningful choices existed - there just happened to be one that was more meaningful than others - this might (and likely is) bad DMing and way too heavy handed, and yes very manipulative - but if you label it as railroading - that's too broad a definition.

You're not obligated to go do the research, but I can be cited on this forum and in my blog here on a VERY concise definition of RailRoading. The short of it is, when the DM actively thwarts player actions in order to constrain them to his own pre-chosen outcome.

If I declared DM Invented Problems or Consequences as Railroading, that was a misphrasing by myself.

What I am saying is DM Invented Problems can manipulate players and FEEL like a railroad to the players.

Perception trumps reality, when it comes to humans. So if the players feel railroaded, they'll be whining about it.

 

[Mort]

You're not obligated to go do the research, but I can be cited on this forum and in my blog here on a VERY concise definition of RailRoading. The short of it is, when the DM actively thwarts player actions in order to constrain them to his own pre-chosen outcome.

Yes if all roads lead to the exact same place, regardless of player choice, that is railroading.

What I am saying is DM Invented Problems can manipulate players and FEEL like a railroad to the players.

Perception trumps reality, when it comes to humans. So if the players feel railroaded, they'll be whining about it.

Maybe I'm just lucky to have players who don't whine when thrown curveballs.

A good DM has to balance things, and after some experience (and getting to know the players) should hopefully throw challenges the players enjoy without having them feel forced.