D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Mort]

A Casual DM is not inexperienced or a new DM. They are a DM that does not care: at best they think of the RPG as "just so silly game to waste time".

I have to say, I have NEVER met a DM with this attitude. Sure some are more relaxed or laid back than others. Many, experienced or new, are not that great or not nearly as great as they think they are. But ones that think the game is silly and a waste of time? You don't continue to DM with that attitude, you find "better" pursuits for your time.

My table has a huge turnover rate for just this reason. I force players to show up on time. Play attention. Take notes.

That doesn't sound like cruelty. It's just an expectation and a specific play style. Cruelty, for example, would be putting the players in uncomfortable situations for your (the DMs) amusement, and without care of theirs.

Oh yes you can! I'm a grandmaster at it.

How does that even look like? If someone is a jerk at my table, they're not at my table long (hasn't happened in a long time, honestly, I seem to game with great people). But other than not welcoming them back, what else is there?

 

[soviet]

I think sandbox is a useful term. Maybe toybox would be better, but sandbox is fine.

'Here's a bunch of pre-defined things in a delineated space, play with them as you wish'.

There's still an element of GM curation, and if the range of pre-defined things was very small I suppose you might be more into 'menu' territory, but sandbox is perfectly functional and reasonably agentic (is that a word) play.

 

[bloodtide]

All of these actions are a player being a jerk. The first is an example I specifically called out as unreasonable and unwarranted, and thus, it isn't railroading to tell the player "no, you can't do that". I specifically called that out because it is so commonly used as an example.

And all examples of metagaming as the player is a jerk in real life and is forcing that upon the game.

The second is, again, clearly unreasonable and unwarranted. A player who does this is simply being a butthole. If a player actually said this to me, I would first think it was a joke and laugh. I would then stare at them dumbfounded for a moment, before asking, "Do you really think your character would ever do that? That's completely irrational. What in God's name would justify doing that?" And since I genuinely do not believe any answer to that question exists, there is no possible world where I would permit that. It isn't railroading. It's expecting players to take actions that are, as I said, reasonable and warranted. It is flatly neither reasonable nor warranted to destroy the hard-won prize that will save the kingdom and which you just fought so hard to obtain.

Right, not railroading.

What I said was players must metagame, that is do or not do action in the game world based on reality.

Joe makes an elf character. Bob hates Joe, so he makes an orc character that hates elves. On round one of the game Bob has his orc attack Joes elf because it is "reasonable and warranted." This is metagaming Bob's orc is ONLY attacking Joe's elf because he hates Joe. In a good game this would not be allowed, the DM in their role as Adult Disciplinarian, would tell Bob flat out "No. Your both players in the game. You have to play the game together as a group no matter your real feelings." Or just boot Bob from the group.

The point was that the player means to cast the spell on the doppelganger, because that's who they think the king is. They're in range of the doppelganger, but NOT in range of the real king. As a result, if the GM were to just say that the spell fails, it would instantly reveal the ruse: the players would know immediately that, whoever it is in that meeting, it isn't the real king. But since preserving that ruse until the right moment is critical to the GM's plot, because the players need to obey the fake king in a later scene, the GM has to come up with an excuse for why the spell won't work that won't give away the plot. Hence, it is railroading; the GM is forcing a specific sequence of events to occur, inventing ad hoc reasons why a thing the players want to do won't work.

This will depend a lot on the game rules, but most games like D&D the character would have no idea why the spell failed. And even if the game had such rules, this is where the DM house rules that away before the game.

Same issue applies though. If the party casts charm person on a doppelganger, it will fail because they aren't humanoids, they're monstrosities. As a result, they would instantly know that the king is fake, and the GM wants to prevent them from knowing until the right time. Thus, the GM invents a reason why the spell will fail, which is different from just "the rules forbid you from doing that". You're getting distracted by the "the rules say you can't" part, and missing how the GM making up a different explanation is a form of railroading to conceal their pre-set plot.

Your making huge jumps here. Again, how and why does the character and player know the reason the spell failed.

It's not that different. Yes, it involves live interaction, but you do most of the writing part at other times. You aren't writing the session AS you conduct it, most of the time.

Well, not physically writing. But you are using the writings as a base.

Then you are using the word "casual" in a way I never, ever would have, nor would I ever have guessed that. It's a little frustrating to have such idiosyncratic terms, particularly when you have dismissed others' arguments in the past for being "word salad".

If you're going to use a term like this where "casual" doesn't mean "casual", it actually means "lazy, unserious, and flippant", you should explain that, rather than presuming everyone understands what you mean by such a term.

This is what Casual means? "relaxed and unconcerned" "Relaxed, easy-going, and informal in manner. Not overly concerned or serious. nonchalant or indifferent."

Not that I'm specifically aware of, no. I would allow that this is one subtype of metagaming. But there are several other types, and those types are much more common in my experience.

Both players and DMs talking or not taking game actions based on The Real World is very common.

I strongly disagree. This is not "metagaming" as anyone I've known has ever used the term. It is completely part of gaming, it's just a request made at the level of players, not characters. If this counts as "metagaming", then:

• Every campaign pitch is always 100% pure metagaming
• Every time the GM says "roll initiative", it is metagaming, since it's a request external to the world
• Every time a player lets you know they will be absent, they are metagaming
• Bringing in a new player is always metagaming
• Running a module you just bought is always metagaming

Etc., etc., etc. None of these are "metagaming" in any way, as far as I can tell. They're not roleplayed actions within the world, but that doesn't make them metagaming.

Okay, so we disagree. They are all Metagaming .

I don't understand how this relates to what I said. You simply said making clues easy to find is inherently metagaming, and that's simply false.

Metagaming is any action taken or not taken in the game purely for Real World or OOG reasons. Making clues easy for the characters to find is pure Metagaming as it done to help the players, keep the game at a normal pace and make the game flow.

Like even based on your argument here, we can trivially see the converse. Yes, sometimes for "game flow" (pacing), we don't make a big deal out of a thing because that wouldn't be interesting. (I don't consider that even slightly "metagaming". It's just gaming. You, as GM, are making decisions about what the game should be. That cannot be metagaming, it's literally your role as GM to do that.) But sometimes, for pacing reasons, we make something hard instead! Maybe the players could just (say) sit down and read a lot of books to find a clue they need. That would be too fast, making it boring, when the GM would prefer that this scene feel mysterious and intriguing. So they spice it up: you scour the library and find nothing with the answers you seek...but you do find references to De Umbrarum Regni Novem Portis, which should have the answers the party seeks, but the last known copy is in the long-abandoned Manor de Winter...

(To be clear, I also don't consider this metagaming. But if things can be made easier for reasons you call metagaming, the exact same thing can make them harder, so we're left with "anything at all is metagaming" and that's pretty obviously wrong.)

A clue's easiness or difficulty is both a function of what is in the world, and what makes most sense to the people playing the game. That's not metagaming. It's just gaming.

Well, metagaming does depend a lot on your game play style. As a deep immersion deep role playing(the acting kind) type of DM roughly 95% of my game multiverse is all "in game" and everything happens or does not happen for pure in game reasons. Only the small 5% do I leave open for metagaming so that things can happen or not happen during the game.

I am never cruel (and frankly find it shocking you would call yourself not just cruel but "beyond cruel"!), nor do I think jerk players are common. But I agree that one needs to be clear that outright bad behavior won't be tolerated. I have never had an issue with this.

I'm honest.

And the number of jerks in the general population is quite high.

I have to say, I have NEVER met a DM with this attitude. Sure some are more relaxed or laid back than others. Many, experienced or new, are not that great or not nearly as great as they think they are. But ones that think the game is silly and a waste of time? You don't continue to DM with that attitude, you find "better" pursuits for your time.

Odd. I can only guess you have only met a small number of DMs?

The typical Casual DM has very little going on for them in life. And they are desperate to get out of their house, apartment or basement. As they are not the best of people...they have few friends. And yet somehow they stumbled in to the RPG crowd. And they found a perfect spot: the DM. As the vast majority of gamers want to be players, they are more then happy to have a Cool Forever DM.

That doesn't sound like cruelty. It's just an expectation and a specific play style. Cruelty, for example, would be putting the players in uncomfortable situations for your (the DMs) amusement, and without care of theirs.

Okay, check. I've done threads about this in the past. My game is "unrated" or "beyond R", and you agree to this to play in my game.

How does that even look like? If someone is a jerk at my table, they're not at my table long (hasn't happened in a long time, honestly, I seem to game with great people). But other than not welcoming them back, what else is there?

Well, amazingly the RPG Jerk thinks set things, uses set 'buzz words' and has set feelings. This makes them easy to spot. Plus they can't really hide what they are.....simple Anti-Jerk house rules keep them away. The "unrated/beyond R" type game works wonders here: It is amazing how many players will walk away from even the suggestion of such a game....you can be sure to catch many of the jerk players too. Simple house rules like "no asking questions during the game", gets jerk players running away. As does things like "you must role play(the acting kind) in my game", sends many of the jerk players running away fast.

 

[pemerton]

The 5e Spelljammer adventure Light of Xaryxis has a similar start. The PCs are in a coastal town when twig blights start bursting up from everywhere and attack. If the PCs go to the docs (as the adventure, through NPCs and other means, hints to do), they get to the docs and things move on. If they try to go ANYWHERE else, the blights just keep coming an coming until the PCs decide to go to the docs or die. That's a clear railroad.

Why not just start play with the PCs at the docks?

 

[Mort]

Odd. I can only guess you have only met a small number of DMs?

I've been gaming a LONG time and met many, many DMs. Home game, conventions, in person, online. Many different DMs.

The typical Casual DM has very little going on for them in life. And they are desperate to get out of their house, apartment or basement. As they are not the best of people...they have few friends. And yet somehow they stumbled in to the RPG crowd. And they found a perfect spot: the DM. As the vast majority of gamers want to be players, they are more then happy to have a Cool Forever DM.

This is a REALLY odd take, let's just leave it at that.

Okay, check. I've done threads about this in the past. My game is "unrated" or "beyond R", and you agree to this to play in my game.

Well, amazingly the RPG Jerk thinks set things, uses set 'buzz words' and has set feelings. This makes them easy to spot. Plus they can't really hide what they are.....simple Anti-Jerk house rules keep them away. The "unrated/beyond R" type game works wonders here: It is amazing how many players will walk away from even the suggestion of such a game....you can be sure to catch many of the jerk players too. Simple house rules like "no asking questions during the game", gets jerk players running away. As does things like "you must role play(the acting kind) in my game", sends many of the jerk players running away fast.

Interesting, I actually think some of those would attract jerk players.

Not asking questions, for example. Jerks don't need to ask questions, they're acting for their own amusement and could care less about the rest of the table or what the DM is doing. Someone who asks questions is generally doing so because they want to make the experience better for the table. I'm not talking about rules lawyers, I'm talking about genuine questions that help resolve possible confusion.

And I've met plenty of "role players" who are jerks and again twisting the game for their own amusement at the expense of the table.

 

[Mort]

Why not just start play with the PCs at the docks?

I guess the writers/designers decided they wanted to throw in a combat encounter and a Quasi chase sequence?

The goal was clearly to make the players feel like they had to escape, but without starting them at the obvious easy point to do so.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with your last sentence. I think a lot of games with prepared endings are railroads, but there could be games where the constraints are such that we know going in that the last scene is going to be X or Y that are nevertheless not railroads. I would argue that the difference is not in the ending but in the PCs -- we have a railroad when we could replace some or all of the PCs in a given game with other PCs such that the story that arises out of play, as reviewed after the game has ended, is not meaningfully responsive to having different PCs. Put more simply, if we change the protagonists and the story stays the same, we have a railroad.

I can see what you have in mind with your last scene point. I think, though, that the same sort of reasoning can create counter-examples to your replaceable PCs point. For instance, a given group of players might play through (say) White Plume Mountain pretty much the same regardless of party composition. But that wouldn't show that their play was a railroad. It would just show that, in classic dungeon play like WPM, character doesn't really matter (and there aren't really protagonists - the PCs are basically pawns).

Maybe the real point isn't my (candidate) counter-example to what you say, but rather that it is difficult to talk about railroading in a way that generalises across the varieties of RPG play. Especially because the vocabulary for talking about that variety is a bit underdeveloped.

Here's my tentative attempt to say what I think makes for railroading: If the GM is more-or-less unilaterally deciding the significant content of the presented scenes, and/or what is at stake, and/or what follows next, I will describe that as railroading. And so, conversely, non-railroad play (as I think of it) means that the players exercise real influence over the significant content of the presented scenes, and their stakes, and what follows next. One way that can play out is via the sort of character/protagonist importance you talk about. Another is via the sort of puzzle-solving and skilled play needed for WPM: the players' influence over scene and stakes is (obviously) not at the level of drawing the map and writing the key (the GM/module author does that) but rather in deciding which scenes to "activate" and shaping the stakes of those scenes (by "exploring", and then acting on the outcomes of that exploration).

My sense is that, for a fixed last scene game to not be a railroad, the players must be exercising influence in the lead-up that establishes what is at stake in that scene, and probably also when it actually gets framed, at the table.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now y'all got me wondering why there isn't a new term to replace "sandbox" as "sandbox" has negative connotations attached to it.

Does it? I'm surprised to hear that.

I certainly think it has meanings--whether denotation or connotation--that mean folks avoid it because it doesn't fit their interests, but that's hardly the same thing.

Sandbox is empty! Sandbox is meandering and incoherent! Sandbox can't contain suprises or narrative twists! Sandbox has no, or ultimately unsatisfying, endgame! Sandbox is random meaningless nonsense! Sandbox lacks story arc!

Well, responding to these in order...

1: That just means it was a badly-made sandbox, assuming the group actually did want to play one. If the GM offers a sandbox and then doesn't fill it with sand, that's not the format's fault.
2: Again, this either means terrible execution, or the group just didn't want to play a sandbox. More likely the latter. Sandboxes have no "plot", they're just what the players choose to do. It's complaining that cupcakes are small, not big like regular cakes.
3: The first part is just false, sandboxes can surprise anyone. "Narrative twist" requires an established narrative, so that's, again, "Who likes dogs? They only bark, they never meow."
4: I'm sensing a pattern here..."endgame", in this context, means...a narrative conclusion. Can't have a narrative conclusion if there is no narrative. Complaining that a thing which explicitly lacks a narrative is bad because it lacks a narrative conclusion is crappy, if you agreed to do that thing.
5:

So...95% of this is "sandboxes are bad because they aren't pre-plotted linear adventures", which means the complainer is being either foolish or jerkish, take your pick. The other 5% are "sandboxes can be executed poorly", which...yes? That's not news. It's not like other styles are always executed perfectly!

I mean, basically the whole reason "linear adventure" was coined as a term was to divorce that playstyle from the negative connotations attached to the "railroad" moniker.

The problem is, "railroad" started off specifically and intentionally negative. As in, the people using it were specifically doing so to point out a thing they saw as a flaw. That's why almost all uses of the term "railroad" are negative, and it's only been in the last like...maybe 15-20 years that we've seen people try to reclaim it as "well not ALL railroads are bad!!"

Why do "sandbox" proponents continue to use the term despite, or in the face of, the negative connotations attached to that playstyle.

Sorry...just wondering...

Sandbox has been neutral or positive from the beginning. Railroad has been negative from the beginning, and has only recently had anyone try to reclaim it.

It's that simple.

Your "complaints" above fundamentally boil down to either: (a) someone forced to play in a sandbox when they don't want to, (b) someone who agreed to play in a sandbox...but either lied or grievously misunderstood, or (c) someone complaining that a style they don't play is different from the style they do, which is blatantly foolish.

I do think it could be useful to develop the opposite of what you're asking for though: a term to capture "an open, plot-free game gone wrong", just as "linear" was an attempt to capture "a fixed, plot-driven game done right", since the primary sense of "railroad" is negative.

Do you have ideas for what one might call such an open game gone wrong? I like the sound of "hinterland" or, better yet, "wasteland" game. "Wasteland" implies all the negative things you brought up: empty, sprawling, unfocused, directionless. The trackless waste is a common poetic metaphor. And "wasteland" naturally has negative connotations because of the word "waste", so there's little chance that anyone would see it as a positive word being misused. What do you think?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And all examples of metagaming as the player is a jerk in real life and is forcing that upon the game.

Again, I don't accept this definition as phrased because it makes all sorts of things "metagaming" when they trivially obviously aren't.

What I said was players must metagame, that is do or not do action in the game world based on reality.

Personally I think you're getting massively hung up on calling this "metagaming" as though that were in any way useful. It isn't. The fault is that the player is being a jerk. Calling it "metagaming" adds nothing except a distracting discussion about what "metagaming" means.

Joe makes an elf character. Bob hates Joe, so he makes an orc character that hates elves.

Whether this is metagaming is irrelevant. Bob should not be in a group with Joe. Bob acting on his hate is a jerk thing to do. Whether or not it is metagaming does not matter; the fact that it is jerk behavior is more than enough.

This will depend a lot on the game rules, but most games like D&D the character would have no idea why the spell failed. And even if the game had such rules, this is where the DM house rules that away before the game.

If the spell fails and everything you know says it shouldn't fail, that's a dead giveaway.

If the GM is secretly injecting house-rules, they're engaging in jerk behavior and should be censured for it. House-rules that modify the existing rules should never be secret. If they merely add more stuff, without changing what already exists, then it isn't mandatory that they be known....but most of the time they should still be known.

Your making huge jumps here. Again, how and why does the character and player know the reason the spell failed.

It's not a huge jump. The fact that the spell failed at all is a HUGE red flag.

Well, not physically writing. But you are using the writings as a base.

This is what Casual means? "relaxed and unconcerned" "Relaxed, easy-going, and informal in manner. Not overly concerned or serious. nonchalant or indifferent."

Not one portion of that reflects what you described. "Relaxed" does not mean being callously indifferent. It does not mean being antagonistic to knowing the rules. That's a HUGE leap completely unjustified by the word "casual". I'm not the only person saying this either. Your use of the word does not match how people usually use the word.

When I hear a "casual" GM, I think it's going to be:

• This GM won't get mad about small rules errors. They'll let an issue slide and just make sure we don't make the same mistake in the future.
• When something doesn't go according to plan, they'll laugh it off, or see it as a learning experience
• Cracking jokes and being silly is okay in this group, because the GM isn't overly-serious
• The GM might make a mistake from time to time, but they won't get upset if you tell them about it

Your so-called "Casual" GM is actively malicious, hates the very idea of rules, and is actively capricious and rude. As another poster already said, your description makes them sound like they're hostile to the very idea of being GM. That's NOT what "casual" means!

Both players and DMs talking or not taking game actions based on The Real World is very common.

Okay, so we disagree. They are all Metagaming .

Metagaming is any action taken or not taken in the game purely for Real World or OOG reasons. Making clues easy for the characters to find is pure Metagaming as it done to help the players, keep the game at a normal pace and make the game flow.

Your use of the word "metagaming" is so loose, it describes at least three quarters of all actions taken as a result of play. When the vast majority of gaming is metagaming, don't you think your standard has become so loose as to be meaningless?

Well, metagaming does depend a lot on your game play style. As a deep immersion deep role playing(the acting kind) type of DM roughly 95% of my game multiverse is all "in game" and everything happens or does not happen for pure in game reasons. Only the small 5% do I leave open for metagaming so that things can happen or not happen during the game.

How can that be so? If you design a monster, you're metagaming. If you write a plot, you're metagaming. If you make a decision for an NPC, you're metagaming.

By your standard, every time you decide to do something as GM, you're metagaming.

I'm honest.

And the number of jerks in the general population is quite high.

Actually, the number of jerks in the general population is quite low, and statistical evidence backs me up on this. Despite the fact that our population is steadily increasing, even with the COVID bump driving crime up, average violent crime per capita has gone down every decade for over a century. Deaths due to violence of any kind have gone down over the past century relative to the previous, even when you count BOTH WORLD WARS.

The fact is, the world isn't nearly as full of jerks as you think it is.

Odd. I can only guess you have only met a small number of DMs?

No. I've played with quite a few. None have been even remotely like what you've described.

The typical Casual DM has very little going on for them in life. And they are desperate to get out of their house, apartment or basement. As they are not the best of people...they have few friends. And yet somehow they stumbled in to the RPG crowd. And they found a perfect spot: the DM. As the vast majority of gamers want to be players, they are more then happy to have a Cool Forever DM.

Gonna be honest here Bloodtide, this doesn't sound at all representative. Like...this sounds like you're talking about a small group of very specific people that you know in real life. It's not a common archetype.

Okay, check. I've done threads about this in the past. My game is "unrated" or "beyond R", and you agree to this to play in my game.

Well, amazingly the RPG Jerk thinks set things, uses set 'buzz words' and has set feelings. This makes them easy to spot.

This description is so loose it could apply to literally all human beings who have ever played TTRPGs. Particularly because your "buzz words" can easily mean just...ordinary English being used in a way you don't agree with.

Plus they can't really hide what they are.....simple Anti-Jerk house rules keep them away. The "unrated/beyond R" type game works wonders here: It is amazing how many players will walk away from even the suggestion of such a game....you can be sure to catch many of the jerk players too.

You're going to drive away far, FAR more non-jerk players than jerk players with this. Jerk players will usually love this sort of thing. It means they're being told right from the outset that they can do violent, sexual, or harmful things to others, because that's part of the tone.

I think you are contributing to the very thing you think you're fighting against.

Simple house rules like "no asking questions during the game", gets jerk players running away. As does things like "you must role play(the acting kind) in my game", sends many of the jerk players running away fast.

The first of these two is also going to drive away far more non-jerk players than jerk ones, as it communicates to players that your concern is control, that all you care about is controlling what they do, not enjoying a good experience with the group. The second is equivocal. I've heard plenty of stories about jerk GMs who use that standard to screw over their players completely unnecessarily, basically just to delight in screwing them over.

 

[zarionofarabel]

What do you think?

I actually really like the "wasteland" moniker! Not only does it describe the emptiness, but also implies that the game will be a waste of time.