D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

[Mort]

No, because there are ways of not acting unilaterally that don't depend upon express consent.

Here's just one simple illustration, from 4e D&D play: a player builds their PC, and plays their PC, as a fanatical devotee of the Raven Queen; and so I, as GM, introduce undead, and Orcus cultists, as threats to the PC or to things the PC cares about.

That is not unilateral: the player is the one who has made the Raven Queen vs Orcus/Undead conflict salient. But it doesn't depend upon express consent.

Upthread, @chaochou talked about who authors the players' goals for their PCs. And I talked about the players exercising real influence over the significant content of the presented scenes, and their stakes, and what follows next. Those aren't exactly the same, but they're in the same general space. In my illustrative example, it is the player who - by way of their build and play of their PC - is shaping content and stakes.

To provide a fully-worked illustration, more would be needed. For instance, if the whole scenario is a GM-orchestrated "fetch quest" and the GM just replaces goblins with skeletons then, while the player has influenced the colour of the opposition, it is still the GM determining the stakes. And so I would still see that as pretty railroad-y. It becomes non-railroad-y when "threat to the PC or to things the PC cares about" is also responsive to player-established priorities. Which comes back to @chaochou's point about *who picks the PCs' goals?"

As I posted upthread,

​

There are plenty of ways of the GM adding to the fiction that don't involve the GM unilaterally deciding on the significant content of scenes, the stakes of scenes, and what comes next.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you, then, consider the traditional sandbox style (where the DM authors everything and sets all the stakes) as pretty railroady?

 

[bloodtide]

3. Raga is incensed by the king and announces his desire to initiate combat. The player rolls his dice accordingly. The GM observes the roll and without consulting anything, announces that the attack failed. The player looks at the result—an excellent result—and is surprised. “That doesn’t hit? Without having to consult anything”. The GM nods, “Right, your attack misses. His bodyguard attacks in response and…[rolls dice]…disarms you.”

This is bad, clumsy Railroading here. As a DM you should avoid this. And the easy fix is to set things up before something like the above scene.

Hard Dice Truth- A Player Character in a typical RPG is rough around the edges, at best. Often fringe outsiders that live on the edge of civilization. Often outright criminals, killers or worse. Even the typical adventurer is on the edge like bounty hunters and other such people. Players in a typical RPG are very much playing the game to get out of the tedium of normal, boring everyday life. Such a player will act in ways in the game that they could never do in real life. The RPG lets the player live out any of their wild fantasies.

So a typical player in a typical RPG will have their PC just near automatically kill anything they can, often for no reason. And this is on top of how many players just think anything in a game, like NPCs, are just there for them to use, abuse or worse, as they see fit.

You can avoid this type of bad railroading by keeping NPCs alive. Here are some ways to keep NPCs alive:

Keep NPCs away from the PCs- This is simple enough, the king or whatever, never meets with the PCs personally: they send a representative. Sure the PC can kill them, but the king can just send another. Any powerful NPC has better things to do then meet with PCs in person.

Guards- Again, simple enough. The NPC has guards. They block anyone from getting close to the important NPC. And the guards have body guard abilities so they can intercept incoming attacks.

Disarmament this is the basic idea that the PCs must be disarmed before they can even get close to talking to the NPC. The players are a lot less likely to act when this happens.

Villainous Voice-keep the NPC little more then a voice. The NPC uses some form of long distance communication. In a typical fantasy game this can be something like a talking skull or an illusion.

The Villains Group- the NPC is just a part of a larger group, and they are easily replaceable within the group.

The NPC in a Box- For a fun twist, the NPC is not a standard mortal. They are something like a ghost that lives in an item like a coin or a locket. They possess a body. Their borrowed body can be killed easy enough, but unless the PCs also destroy the item, they can come right back.

The NPC you Know- warning that this one is only for more advanced groups that do deep role playing. For a lot of reasons it can be better to keep an NPC around, even a villain , that the PCs know. When the PCs know an NPC in a deep role playing game they can do all sorts of role playing with, verse and against the NPC. So they will have a reason to keep them around.

The Society Life- Again for more advanced groups that do deep role playing. When the PC(s) are part of the game worlds society, they won’t always be able to act freely. Society has it’s burdens. If the players a deep role players, they will care about such things.

For a deeper, more powerful effect, you can add in Game Mechanical Consequences. This will often have to be outside the normal by-the-book rules for many games. When a player has their PC cross a line, they lose the mechanical game benefits of their class, affiliation or such. A good example is when a PC is a member of the Law Guard and they just randomly kill an NPC, so they loose the benefits from that group, both role playing and game mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

What, you don’t love watching players turtle at the slightest indication of a trap?

Characters hurl themselves at dragons and giants and so on… but the mere possibility of a poison dart grinds the game to a halt.

This is just one of many examples of game design that has nothing to do with the fiction, but rather certain dynamics of game play, resounding and echoing down the ages.

I mean, there's no in-principle reason why we can't resolve charging a giant or charging a dragon as make a saving throw to avoid being squashed to a pulp/fried to a crisp. (That's kind-of how Dungeon World handles it, with Defy Danger.) The design choice to do this in a wargame-y way, but not to treat the poison dart as just another attack, is all about creating a particular play dynamic in classic D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you, then, consider the traditional sandbox style (where the DM authors everything and sets all the stakes) as pretty railroady?

Yes:

Sandboxes seem very poorly defined. But generally still seem to involve the characters 'discovering' (a euphamism for being told by the GM) what there is to do and then deciding whether to do it. In other words, they offer a menu of GM-generated goals and GM-generated outcomes. It can't be otherwise, since such games allocate all the authority for creating and changing the sandbox to the GM.

But there are nuances. For instance, if the GM has the authority but, in exercising it, is influenced by the players then it may not be the case that the GM is setting all the goals and all the stakes.

 

[Mort]

Yes:

But there are nuances. For instance, if the GM has the authority but, in exercising it, is influenced by the players then it may not be the case that the GM is setting all the goals and all the stakes.

From this thread and from many others before it, GMs who espouse a traditional sandbox style (at least the ones I've seen discuss it on this board) almost take pride in NEVER being influenced by the players and would consider that a heavy negative to be strenuously avoided.

 

[hawkeyefan]

From this thread and from many others before it, GMs who espouse a traditional sandbox style (at least the ones I've seen discuss it on this board) almost take pride in NEVER being influenced by the players and would consider that a heavy negative to be strenuously avoided.

This is something I’ve done since the 2e days, at least. I had the players provide with their character concepts and then we discussed them and then I actively incorporated elements of each character into my prep. I made connections between the characters and the setting, and then further connections that tied them all together in both obvious and subtle ways.

It is quite possible not to do that. To create a sandbox that is entirely independent of the PCs and their relations and histories. But actively incorporating player ideas doesn’t inhibit a GM from running a sandbox.

The idea that such is to be avoided seems… needlessly broad and limited. What would be the benefit in avoiding input from the players? And if there are such benefits, are they offset by what’s to be gained?

 

[Mort]

This is something I’ve done since the 2e days, at least. I had the players provide with their character concepts and then we discussed them and then I actively incorporated elements of each character into my prep. I made connections between the characters and the setting, and then further connections that tied them all together in both obvious and subtle ways.

It is quite possible not to do that. To create a sandbox that is entirely independent of the PCs and their relations and histories. But actively incorporating player ideas doesn’t inhibit a GM from running a sandbox.

The idea that such is to be avoided seems… needlessly broad and limited. What would be the benefit in avoiding input from the players? And if there are such benefits, are they offset by what’s to be gained?

100% agree it's possible and for me it's actually preferable to not only incorporate player preference but to actively feature it.

But that's just not what I remember seeing from the more vehement sandbox proponents. I'll have to dig up some examples to reference.

 

[zarionofarabel]

No, because there are ways of not acting unilaterally that don't depend upon express consent.

Here's just one simple illustration, from 4e D&D play: a player builds their PC, and plays their PC, as a fanatical devotee of the Raven Queen; and so I, as GM, introduce undead, and Orcus cultists, as threats to the PC or to things the PC cares about.

That is not unilateral: the player is the one who has made the Raven Queen vs Orcus/Undead conflict salient. But it doesn't depend upon express consent.

Upthread, @chaochou talked about who authors the players' goals for their PCs. And I talked about the players exercising real influence over the significant content of the presented scenes, and their stakes, and what follows next. Those aren't exactly the same, but they're in the same general space. In my illustrative example, it is the player who - by way of their build and play of their PC - is shaping content and stakes.

To provide a fully-worked illustration, more would be needed. For instance, if the whole scenario is a GM-orchestrated "fetch quest" and the GM just replaces goblins with skeletons then, while the player has influenced the colour of the opposition, it is still the GM determining the stakes. And so I would still see that as pretty railroad-y. It becomes non-railroad-y when "threat to the PC or to things the PC cares about" is also responsive to player-established priorities. Which comes back to @chaochou's point about *who picks the PCs' goals?"

As I posted upthread,

​

There are plenty of ways of the GM adding to the fiction that don't involve the GM unilaterally deciding on the significant content of scenes, the stakes of scenes, and what comes next.

Eh, I'm not sure I understand, I think you might have gotten a little too philosophical for this old dog.

I guess if you mean I should include stealth opportunities for a player that makes a sneaky PC, then okay.

However I think that having every single GM authored narrative element needing to be perfectly tailored to the PC the only way to avoid a railroad is simply stretching the definition of railroading a little too far.

If I'm even close to grasping what you are trying to say.

 

[hawkeyefan]

100% agree it's possible and for me it's actually preferable to not only incorporate player preference but to actively feature it.

But that's just not what I remember seeing from the more vehement sandbox proponents. I'll have to dig up some examples to reference.

Yeah, if you find any examples, please share them. I have some ideas about what the reasons may be, but I’d rather hear what others had to say first.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Yes:

But there are nuances. For instance, if the GM has the authority but, in exercising it, is influenced by the players then it may not be the case that the GM is setting all the goals and all the stakes.

So then all games, no matter how sandbox or linear, are in fact just cleverly disguised railroads?