D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

Like I said above... I'm fine with changing 'obvious and correct' to 'most likely'. And there HAS to be one 'most likely' path because once you count up every table's decision on where to go, there will be one path that is more likely to get chosen than any other (unless one wants to get pedantic and say that there's a chance that out of thousands of runs that two just happen to tie for first. But that's beside the point.)

There really doesn't. Especially since you're exploiting two different senses of the term here. One sense is "most likely" as a clear, unequivocal majority decision--what almost everyone does. The other sense is "most likely" as "well, technically, it's statistically almost certain that some choice will be chosen by at least one more person than any other choice". Pretending that these two are the same is an equivocation.

So, yes: I grant you the extremely limited notion that there will, most likely, be one choice which is chosen at least 1 time more than any other choice. I deny that this tells us much of anything, and emphatically deny that this means that the vast majority of choices are going to fall along the same lines consistently for all groups.

I thrive on situations where people have to make real value judgments. Where they need to decide who and what they are, and why they are, and what they truly want. Situations where it needs to be the case that a single person, put on the spot, has to decide for themselves what they value most--and it could genuinely go either way. Accepting a deal with a devil to get the information you need in order to stop a serial killer. Taking fiendish power into yourself to save a culture you've come to see as your extended family. Navigating a tricky political situation where a wrong move could mean war--or worse, trade embargoes. ("Worse" from a certain point of view, of course.) Deciding whether to trust someone who might be the victim of a horrible manipulation....or might be a horrible manipulator themselves.

All of these have actually happened in the game I run. All of them were--intentionally--framed to be scenes where I as GM could not know which answer is more "probable" than another, because I want them to be genuine temptations, genuine moral quandaries, genuine unknowns that only the player(s) can actually resolve. Because that is where the characters, articulated through scenes of calm and conflict, are truly tested, truly pushed to manifest who and what they really are.

And it is glorious, every time, whatever the player ends up choosing.

Crimson has been claiming that any author or DM who preps for that eventuality and has a next scene set up to use is making things 'railroady'. Which is fine... they can claim whatever they want. If they want to think an author or DM being proactive and guesstimating what the players are likely to do next after finishing a scene and having that next scene prepped is "railroading" those players... they can think what they want. But most other people do not think in that way. Because that means even something like Lost Mines is supposedly a "railroady" adventure and not a "sandbox" adventure that many people say it is.

Again, I think the issue here is that your presentation makes it sound a hell of a lot more than "guesstimating". It sounds like there's either one singular path, and everything else is irrelevant because it wasn't the single top probability result, or the GM simply presumes that the thing they think is most reasonable is obviously the thing every player will do. Neither of which I consider to be particularly valid or reasonable.

If all we're talking about is navigating maps or spelunking the sewers of a fallen civilization or dealing with some trumped-up "priest" putting on airs and getting stroppy, sure, those things are pretty liable to have a singular, obvious, correct answer. Those things are the canvas, the bass line, the stage.

The subject, the melody, the play? Those come from the decisions that have no "right" answer--except the answer right for this person, in this place, in this moment.

 

[payn]

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

Thats a rather broad claim that could use some unpacking. Any specifics?

Not really understanding how a linear adventure can't present a "real" challenge.

Like railroading, I think folks are generalizing their experiences as inherent properties of a play style. Im having deja vu because ive been in sandbox games that lacked challenge also. Now, a sandbox advocate is going to dig in and their likely response is that was a bad or inexperienced GM, but thats exactly the same response I have for the general linear style claims being made.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair point. Does it sound weird then if I admit that my worlds never feature uniquely singular opponents that require their own stat blocks?

Its pretty unusual at least, and to be honest, seems a little dull over time.

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???

I'm very hesitant to call someone a bad GM without a sense of them as a gestalt. You could be not bothering with individualized boss villains and still be excellent enough in other areas that no one playing in your game cares (or considers it to outweigh your virtues).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

That's only true if you can't lose. Far as I know, nothing about a linear campaign mandates that.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What would you have done if the cult faction was on the brink of wiping out the party?

Nothing immediately, if they were TPK'ed probably what @Mort already wrote.

Not @UngainlyTitan but, in answer, see where that leads.

The players are often surprising, they're on the ropes but pull out the clutch win.

Or, if possible, they flee and regroup, with the consequences of that hopefully being interesting.

Or there's a TPK/near TPK; the players bring in new characters and forge new paths.

Not really understanding how a linear adventure can't present a "real" challenge.

Unless you're talking about an adventure that has an express fail forward mechanic (Light of Xaryxsis, the Spelljammer adventure for example) which would be frustrating to some groups because failure and success DO have the same end results.

It was my first ever (despite years of DMing ) having a campaign hold together to get into high levels as a DM or player and I will admit I made mistakes as to running it. I really found it difficult to make encounters really threatening after about level 9 or 10, not sure if the players noticed. A TPK was really unlikely. I came close, twice after the adventure path ended. We carried on with miscellaneous stuff to get to level 20 since none of us had ever been there in tabletop verions of D&D, again despite years of playing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Like I said above... I'm fine with changing 'obvious and correct' to 'most likely'. And there HAS to be one 'most likely' path because once you count up every table's decision on where to go, there will be one path that is more likely to get chosen than any other (unless one wants to get pedantic and say that there's a chance that out of thousands of runs that two just happen to tie for first. But that's beside the point.)

Yes, but given that you probably do not run the same scenario for thousand tables, thus we do not have this information, it is moot.

Crimson has been claiming that any author or DM who preps for that eventuality and has a next scene set up to use is making things 'railroady'.

No I didn't.

Which is fine... they can claim whatever they want. If they want to think an author or DM being proactive and guesstimating what the players are likely to do next after finishing a scene and having that next scene prepped is "railroading" those players... they can think what they want. But most other people do not think in that way. Because that means even something like Lost Mines is supposedly a "railroady" adventure and not a "sandbox" adventure that many people say it is.

But whatever. Crimson can interpret things as they want.

So it is true that sometimes the situation the GM present is such, that the GM can with high accuracy predict what the players will do. And some of this is both inevitable and perfectly fine. But if your game is wholly or even mostly composed of such scenes, then we are getting into railroady territory. Because if situations are constantly presented in such way that there is only one course of action that can reasonably be taken, what agency the players have?

And you must ask yourself, why it is that I can see and predict for most situations the course the players take? It is because you, as the GM, built the situations so that there is little real choice! But do not worry, as the solution is near! As you can see these likely choices, and you built the reasons that make the choices obvious, you can also easily alter the situation so that there is no obvious "correct" choice. Increase the tactical complexity and/or moral ambiguity, add nuance until you are no longer sure what the players would do. Then you have constructed an interesting situation that gives them real agency!

And I believe this is more fun for players, but at least to me, it is more fun for the GM too. I've been doing this for a long time, and I usually play with people I know well. So if I wanted the game to take a form of specific story I have predetermined, I could present things such a way, manipulate and illusionise, that it will with high degree of certainty come to pass. But what's fun in that? The point of RPGs is that the players get to make choices that impact the story, it is not just the GM telling a story to the players! And as GM I want to be surprised too! I don't want to know how the story will go before the play has even begun.

 

[soviet]

So I read through the whole thread and had a think about what a reasonable taxonomy might look like, based largely on contributions made in this thread with some additions of my own, and here it is.

*****

Railroading (technique): when the GM negates player agency to preserve their preferred outcome (stolen from overgeeked). Railroading can occur at the table but also in GM prep, if situations are defined so narrowly that only the GM's preferred sequencing and outcomes are realistically possible.

Railroad (form of play): when railroading techniques are used so heavily in play and/or prep that the sequence of play and the outcome of scenes is largely unaffected by player input. The players are on a ride to a predefined destination by a predefined route at a predefined speed.

Rollercoaster (form of play): a railroad that players knowingly consent to and are just there to enjoy the ride.

Linear Adventure or Road Trip (form of play): when railroading techniques are used somewhat in prep and/or play, such that the basic structure and endpoint of the game is strongly defined by the GM, but players still have a significant degree of freedom in how they approach it. The players are travelling in a vehicle they control, at a speed they control, in a direction they control, and with some freedom to go off on tangents and sidequests, but they must still ultimately hit certain GM-planned checkpoints and end up at a certain GM-planned destination.

Sandbox aka Off-Roading (form of play): when railroading techniques are used minimally or not at all during prep, and prep instead focuses on creating a large variety of setting elements (not all of which will ever see play) for players to discover and engage with as they wish. Setting elements are still heavily GM-curated but to a large extent presented without agenda or pre-definition of outcomes. The players are in a jeep exploring a wilderness that has been pre-populated with cool things to interact with.

No-Roading or Wastelanding or Rowboat World (form of play): a dysfunctional version of sandbox play where GM-created content is so minimal that much of play consists of looking for things to engage with.

Sandboxes and other non-railroad forms of prep can still become railroads in actual play if sufficient use is made of railroading techniques. The lived experience of play overrides whatever the intention of the prep may have been.

Not sure how to categorise storygames or other forms of play yet.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@soviet Good definitions, well done!

 

[DEFCON 1]

So it is true that sometimes the situation the GM present is such, that the GM can with high accuracy predict what the players will do. And some of this is both inevitable and perfectly fine. But if your game is wholly or even mostly composed of such scenes, then we are getting into railroady territory. Because if situations are constantly presented in such way that there is only one course of action that can reasonably be taken, what agency the players have?

The agency is that players CAN do stupid things and nonsensical things and things that do not arise naturally from the scenario but instead are just made up on a whim IF they want to. They can do all the random crap that they just pull out of their rear-ends if that's what they feel like. No one will stop them from doing that.

But players don't usually do that because they want to play smart. They want to play to the highest point of their intelligence. If there is a scenario with an issue in front of them... they will use their logic and reason to figure out the solution to the problem that is most likely to be correct, and then do it. Because why else would you try and solve an issue if you weren't actually going to go through the effort to accomplish it?

If making the most obvious choice to solve a problem is a "railroad", it means basically that ALL LIFE is a so-called railroad.

- I'm hungry. I want to have a sandwich. I'm out of bread. I'm going to drive to the store and buy myself some bread. I'm then going to go home with the bread and make myself a sandwich. I will then eat said sandwich. I am now no longer hungry and got me the sandwich I wanted.

Simple. Logical. Easy solution to a problem. One part of the scenario leads into another. I had a problem and I solved it the way I wished to in the most effective way I knew how. And if that means I've been "railroaded" in your way of thinking... then so be it. In my opinion then, being "railroaded" is in fact the best way to act, and anyone who isn't "railroaded" is pretty much a schmuck.

And quite frankly I don't think most players play D&D to look like a schmuck.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But players don't usually do that because they want to play smart.

I think this is an extremely optimistic view of an at least significant part of the RPG playing populace. There are large parts that don't consider that a priority at all, and a smaller part that consider it more effort than they want to put in.