D&D 5E What does "Railroading" actually mean!? Discount Code on Page 8

[Helldritch]

We can agree to disagree. Seems like a lie to me, but you might see it differently.

I differ with you as well. I claim the right to lie to the players. I claim the rights to modify a story to suit players' expectations or to contradict those same expectations if it brings up interesting plot twists. A DM not only has the rights to lie but he has the obligation to lie to his players when it is necessary.

What he does not have the rights to is to cheat the dice in favor or disfavor of the players. He can't up the treath level of an encounter because they were smarter than he thought they would be or because luck was on their side.

An honnest DM is always true to the outcome of what the players do or do not do. But he can lie to the players about the means of achieving their goals. A DM is not there to restrict. In fact, I feel great as a DM when the players think of a way to solve a problem that I missed out. That door was ajar and they want to climb? Good for them, but if they get too soon in a difficult place, it will be on them. And if they get straight to the BBEG, so be it.

 

[prabe]

I differ with you as well. I claim the right to lie to the players. I claim the rights to modify a story to suit players' expectations or to contradict those same expectations if it brings up interesting plot twists. A DM not only has the rights to lie but he has the obligation to lie to his players when it is necessary.

What he does not have the rights to is to cheat the dice in favor or disfavor of the players. He can't up the treath level of an encounter because they were smarter than he thought they would be or because luck was on their side.

An honnest DM is always true to the outcome of what the players do or do not do. But he can lie to the players about the means of achieving their goals. A DM is not there to restrict. In fact, I feel great as a DM when the players think of a way to solve a problem that I missed out. That door was ajar and they want to climb? Good for them, but if they get too soon in a difficult place, it will be on them. And if they get straight to the BBEG, so be it.

I think there's a difference between lying to the players in-character, as it were, where you have an NPC misleading the PCs (maybe because the NPC is misinformed, maybe because they're actively deceiving the PCs), and lying to the players in your job of narrator-of-the-world, relaying the characters' senses to the players. They maybe shouldn't trust the NPCs, but they absolutely should trust their senses (weirdness like illusions aside).

 

[Neonchameleon]

With respect, this actively contradicts the whole "skilled play" idea. There should be a way that's easier, and a skilled player should be able to find it. If there is no way that's actually easier... then what you choose to do doesn't really matter? Is that how we want to set that up?

First there is always going to be a way that's easier. Perfect balance is impossible - and part of the job of good game design is to align good strategy and fun strategy of the type of fun you want. Second macro skill and micro skill are different things; execution challenges are a thing.

So it only actively contradicts "skilled play" in the same way that actually achieving a frictionless environment would be a huge issue even in cases where engineers work to lower friction.

Alternatively, we can accept that that we don't intend one road to be particularly easier than another, but then we should just lay that out as a personal choice, and not a failing on the player's part.

But one way is always going to be easier than another whether we intend it or not. We can however disincentivise certain roads. This doesn't make taking them and succeeding a failing on the player's part - it just makes it less obviously optimal.

 

[Helldritch]

I think there's a difference between lying to the players in-character, as it were, where you have an NPC misleading the PCs (maybe because the NPC is misinformed, maybe because they're actively deceiving the PCs), and lying to the players in your job of narrator-of-the-world, relaying the characters' senses to the players. They maybe shouldn't trust the NPCs, but they absolutely should trust their senses (weirdness like illusions aside).

Yep. Once the DM tell the players it becomes a truth even if it is not what was written originally. So be prepared to take notes.

Players: Those three mindflayers were though as hell!
DM: Yep they were! Answers the DM as he crosses off the fourth one that was supposed to arrive...

 

[Ovinomancer]

To answer "what is railroading" you first need to look at GM Force. What is GM Force? Most simply, it's the use of the GM's fiat power to enforce an outcome the GM desires. Force isn't good or bad -- I'd argue it's an important tool in the toolbox. Force can be innocuous or abusive, but only in how it is used, not in concept. For example, if a GM decides, in response to a PC action declaration, that some fiction exists that prevents that declaration, this is GM Force. A good example of this would be if a merchant has a particular item for sale and the GM determines it's not available because they don't want to deal with that right now. This is normal, and part of the GM's job in 5e (or most D&D style games) to do. An abusive example would be the previous example of the castle gate being the only permissible entry to the fortification.

Force now being defined, railroading is the accumulation of Force to a point that player agency is significantly reduced. Where that occurs is really dependent on the players involved -- it could be a single instance of Force, it might be almost all use of Force. Each of us knows it when we see it, but that's for us, not in general. Generally speaking, though, a threshold commonly held is when Force is commonly applied to macro-level choices in game. By this I mean those choices that determine what scene comes next rather than something in a scene, like combat tactics. If succeeding at a scene results in the next scene, no matter what, that is usually determined to be railroading.

That's not necessarily bad, though, especially if the players are enjoying it. Agency is not a magic wand that creates fun, although it's usually required.

 

[prabe]

Force now being defined, railroading is the accumulation of Force to a point that player agency is significantly reduced. Where that occurs is really dependent on the players involved -- it could be a single instance of Force, it might be almost all use of Force. Each of us knows it when we see it, but that's for us, not in general. Generally speaking, though, a threshold commonly held is when Force is commonly applied to macro-level choices in game. By this I mean those choices that determine what scene comes next rather than something in a scene, like combat tactics. If succeeding at a scene results in the next scene, no matter what, that is usually determined to be railroading.

Not really disagreeing with you, but your analysis seems to focus on number of instances, and I think extent also matters in that it's possible for one instance of Force to make an adventure feel like a railroad--or, if you want, to make it feel as though the players/characters had no agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not really disagreeing with you, but your analysis seems to focus on number of instances, and I think extent also matters in that it's possible for one instance of Force to make an adventure feel like a railroad--or, if you want, to make it feel as though the players/characters had no agency.

I thought I said that. Maybe it wasn't as clear as I intended. Once can be enough, for some, and application to the macro (between scenes) level is more apparent/likely to damage in fewer instances than the micro (in scene). Note that this is referring to where the Force has effect, not necessarily where it occurs. Something can be Forced in scene that affects the next scene transition(s).

 

[prabe]

I thought I said that.

You did, more than I thought you did. I'll send the reading comprehension module in for repairs. Apologies.

 

[FrogReaver]

To answer "what is railroading" you first need to look at GM Force. What is GM Force? Most simply, it's the use of the GM's fiat power to enforce an outcome the GM desires. Force isn't good or bad -- I'd argue it's an important tool in the toolbox. Force can be innocuous or abusive, but only in how it is used, not in concept. For example, if a GM decides, in response to a PC action declaration, that some fiction exists that prevents that declaration, this is GM Force. A good example of this would be if a merchant has a particular item for sale and the GM determines it's not available because they don't want to deal with that right now. This is normal, and part of the GM's job in 5e (or most D&D style games) to do. An abusive example would be the previous example of the castle gate being the only permissible entry to the fortification.

Force now being defined, railroading is the accumulation of Force to a point that player agency is significantly reduced. Where that occurs is really dependent on the players involved -- it could be a single instance of Force, it might be almost all use of Force. Each of us knows it when we see it, but that's for us, not in general. Generally speaking, though, a threshold commonly held is when Force is commonly applied to macro-level choices in game. By this I mean those choices that determine what scene comes next rather than something in a scene, like combat tactics. If succeeding at a scene results in the next scene, no matter what, that is usually determined to be railroading.

That's not necessarily bad, though, especially if the players are enjoying it. Agency is not a magic wand that creates fun, although it's usually required.

By the above definition isn’t nearly Everything the DM does “force”?

The dm desires the outcome of the players to have the opportunity to encounter a dragon and so he goes about placing a dragon In the world, possibly immediately in their path. Possibly rumors of one they can explore, etc. Isn’t all of that technically force by your above definition?

 

[Ovinomancer]

By the above definition isn’t nearly Everything the DM does “force”?

The dm desires the outcome of the players to have the opportunity to encounter a dragon and so he goes about placing a dragon In the world, possibly immediately in their path. Possibly rumors of one they can explore, etc. Isn’t all of that technically force by your above definition?

No. It's only Force if the GM uses fiat to decide the outcome of a PC action. Unless the GM has decided a dragon will be encountered no matter what the PCs do, including attempting to avoid encountering a dragon, and this is done via fiat rather than engaging mechanics, just having a dragon be part of a scene isn't Force.

In other words, there's a difference between framing -- setting up a challenge or situation -- and outcome -- how that challenge or situation resolves. Force only occurs in regards to outcomes. Unless the dragon is the fiat outcome of a previous challenge, it's not Force.