D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[zarionofarabel]

Statblocks work for generic opponents, but often they don't exist for more specialized ones (spellcasters for example). I made a lot of use of RQ basic specs in the day, but if I needed an advanced opponent with certain traits, that just wasn't going to do it.

Fair point. Does it sound weird then if I admit that my worlds never feature uniquely singular opponents that require their own stat blocks? A unique opponent in my games are either unique because of who they are, like an evil king, that uses the generic "noble stat block" but is special because they are a king and have an army backing them. Or a unique monster, as in the last remaining dragon, that uses the generic "great wyrm red dragon stat block" but is special because, well, they are literally the only dragon remaining in the world. Man I feel like the worlds laziest GM right now . I guess I feature "special/unique" opponents through narrative means rather than statistical ones.

Seriously, does that sound really strange or bad? Like, does that make me a bad GM???

 

[zarionofarabel]

I’ve finally come to realize the note struck in me about the linear = railroad claim. I’ve experienced GM force to the point of railroad in sandbox games more than I have in linear ones. Yet, there is a notion that sandbox is railroad proof.

Considering the discussion in this thread, and the generally accepted rationalization of what it is to be railroaded, I can very well see someone being railroaded in a supposed "sandbox" game. If the GM is manipulating the narrative to force/trick players into ending up at a predetermined scene/encounter no matter what the players do, then yeah, definitely.

This goes back to what I was talking about earlier in the thread too. Wherein I have been accused of being the "ultimate railroader" as I have zero plan for what will happen during a session and just make it all up as I go along. I was told that my entire game is nothing but illusionism as I am constantly manipulating the narrative to get the outcome I want. The thing is, I have no desire to see the narrative go in any particular direction, I have no goal in mind, nor predetermined place for it to end up. I try to add scenes and story elements in a fashion where current events would logically follow from previous events. I've found that I'm just as creative making up stuff on the fly as I am when I make it up beforehand, if not moreso because I am engaging in a collaborative endeavor, rather than creating in a vacuum. Once, after I explained my process to a naysayer, they told me that was even worse because I am apparently doing it subconsciously so I don't even realize that that's what I am doing. So...yeah.

I think the reason "sandbox" appears to be railroad proof is because that is rarely the problem with it. The problem is the whole "wasteland" phenomenon, wherein a failed state is far more often a game that feels empty or nothing more than meandering randomness.

From what I have gathered from this thread is that the failure state of either type of game is that they are stretched to the extreme. A successful linear game happens when the players allow the GM to guide them through a predetermined sequence of events, and fails when the players don't want that to happen but the GM forces it to happen. A successful sandbox happens when the GM provides meaningful things for the players to experience, and fails when the GM doesn't do that. At least, that's what my takeaway is thus far.

PS - Thanks to all for providing me with some interesting discussion and food for thought. Also, thanks to all for keeping it pretty civil thus far. I dislike when these kinds of topics turn in to nothing but finger pointing and name calling, this one hasn't. So yeah...thanks everyone!

 

[NN]

I think that linear adventures frustrate gamists because nothing is really a challenge.

 

[FrogReaver]

That I can definitely agree with. It's just that some folks are insisting that there are differences other than player buy in. As far as I can tell, there aren't, and most of the posts recently reinforce what I see, so I'm just kinda confused. As for the experience, yeah I can see being forced to engage with a predetermined plotline when you don't want to would be no fun. Whereas if you are happy to follow the path, it would make for a fun experience. As I said, when I GM I think my style qualifies as "sandbox" because I don't prepare plotlines for the players to follow, I instead let them decide the direction of the narrative. As a player, I'm full on hardcore "follow the quest markers" the best I can as I kind of feel that it is my responsibility to do so. I often also want to see what nifty stuff the GM has come up with! I'll be completely honest, but I don't think a GM could "railroad" me as I will just smile and follow the breadcrumbs...cause I'm weird like that!

For me, player buy in and fairness go hand in hand. If you’re giving the player what he bought into then you are being fair. If you give him something else then there’s a risk that’s unfair (though sometimes this can result in the player being pleasantly surprised).

Railroading all goes back to unfairness. Particularly unfairness in regard to foregone outcomes. An obviously guilty person can have a fair trial and the verdict never really be in doubt. An otherwise innocent person can be railroaded by unfair process decisions to intentionally or unintentionally ensure he is found guilty. One of those is railroading and the other isn’t. If you look at the overall structure and ignore fairness then you’d think all trials are railroads, but that’s never the meaning. Railroading is about unfairness in the process of reaching the destination, not about the structure of going from A -> B -> C

 

[NN]

So you then disagree with most players who have voted Lost Mines of Phandelver as one of the best adventures WotC has ever written then? Well, that's your prerogative.

people like coldplay and voted for the nazis, you can't trust people, jeremy

 

[NN]

Assuming you're meaning the old White Dwarf scenario, it's a nice module, and I've converted it to Torchbearer 2e although haven't yet actually used it.

But if someone (say) reads LotR, and then wants a FRPGing experience that would make them feel like they're in LotR or something similar, that module won't deliver.

what actually is the rpg experience of being “in” LotR? ? I suspect its a bunch of contradictory demands many not well supported by a d&d-ish game

(yes wd18)

 

[pemerton]

what actually is the rpg experience of being “in” LotR? ?

It's tricky, because it combines both an "observer" element - similar to reading or viewing - with a "participant" element - playing a character who does stuff in Middle Earth. I think this underpins some of the features of "setting"-oriented module design. Also probably "story"-oriented design too: the player needs to experience the story (which puts a constraint on how much they create or change it) but is also participating in it (as a character).

I suspect its a bunch of contradictory demands many not well supported by a d&d-ish game

Maybe. As I posted upthread, I think the most straightforward way to get to something like a solution is to give up on the exploratory aspiration.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Explain to me the complicated and nuanced situation inherent in: the players found a map that tells them where both great treasure and a major villain are located.

I think it's pretty much a given that except for the really ornery cusses, they're going to go check that location out.

Let us see.

Did @Crimson Longinus say that there should never be choices where there isn't an obvious, correct choice? Did they say that absolutely all situations ever must be so ambiguous, so utterly intractable, that it's impossible for anyone to even begin to claim that it has one solution?

Because unless they did, your argument has no force: if they have allowed for the possibility that some decisions are like that, and other decisions aren't, then bringing up any number of finite examples of choices with singular, clear, obvious answers does nothing to affect what they're arguing about.

And guess what? They did, in fact, very specifically make a "some choices" kind of argument, not an "all choices" kind of argument, whereas the person they were responding to functionally did (relegating non-simple, non-obvious choices to a tiny, rare, irrelevant exception):

Some situations are like that, but I think it is poor adventure building if every situation has one correct and obvious answer, and yeah, to me that is rather railroady.

So you want your players to not play smart? To make bad decisions based on the information they have in hand? Or is it you just don't want there to be a throughline to your adventures and you want your players to just move randomly around (because to do otherwise is 'railroady')?

If that's how you prefer to play and your players prefer to play, that's cool. But hopefully that's just because you like that style and not because you have a need to 'not be railroady' first and foremost.

No, I want there to be complicated and nuanced situations that do not have one obvious correct solution.

The fact that there are complicated and nuanced situations that do not have one obvious correct solution does not, in any way, imply that that is the only kind of situation that can exist.

That's like hearing "I want there to be red cars" and saying "OH SO YOU'RE GONNA TAKE AWAY ALL THE BLUE CARS THEN???" No. Trivially obviously not. They just want there to be red cars, and the person they were arguing against had said, "All cars are blue, or so close to all cars that we can just not care about ever making any color other than blue."

You are manufacturing an all-or-nothing argument strawman...out of someone's attempt to oppose an actual, expressly articulated (functionally-)all-or-nothing argument.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was on a EN World hiatus so I missed the early part of this discussion. All i want to say is this:

I prefer the term "rollercoaster" to "railroad" simply because "rollercoaster" reminds us that these sorts of experiences can be fun, thrilling even. As long as everyone buys in, linearity and agency are not necessarily an impediment to fun. I do think that how "railroady" a adventure or campaign is going to be should be presented upfront (the first form of player agency is buy in, after all) but once that is done, go wild.

BG: Avernus is a great example of a super fun railroad aka rollercoaster. You CAN run it as an open world, but the module itself is written as a railroad. Its flowcharts are unbranched columns, for goodness sake.

This is a good point, and I think "rollercoaster" is a good word for the good kind of experience that isn't a railroad, but is cut from the same cloth, just as I had previously articulated "wasteland" as the bad kind of experience that isn't a sandbox, but is cut from the same cloth.

Both words emphasize common pitfalls that can result from the respective style. A rollercoaster that isn't exciting is...just a weird train ride with no stops. A coaster that isn't being driven forward is just a carriage sitting there doing nothing, waiting for the next thing to happen. A coaster needs to have thrills and frights and moments to catch your breath, otherwise it gets too sedate and you start wandering away from the experience mentally, which draws your attention to how you're trapped in a chair forced to follow a line. Etc.

Meanwhile, a wasteland is empty, where a sandbox should be, if not "full" in the strict sense, at least well-stocked. A wasteland is dry, where a sandbox has varying elements (wet sand is a lot easier to build sandcastles out of, after all). A wasteland is big and open, but wandering around doesn't achieve anything, nor does it really have any meaningful impact. You need cool things worth witnessing, events that unfold, forces in contest with one another--and adventures just over the horizon that are always worth seeking out, even if they don't always end up being the coolest thing ever.

A rollercoaster is the highest height a linear game can aspire to--and when done well, it's a great romp. A sandbox is the highest height an open game can aspire to--and when done well, it's a great romp. But when they devolve into railroads and wastelands, nobody really benefits, and most people would probably be upset to deal with such an experience.

 

[NN]

Seems like an impossible dream….

imagine playing LoTR

If - say - Aragorn snaps and grabs The Ring, its not LotR

But if its impossible for Aragorn to give in to temptation and claim the ring, then its also not LotR


Its like people want to play D&D but the DM secretly uses telekenisis to make the dice roll the most narratively satisfactory result