D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Stalker0]

Until you discover that I've stolen $5 from you, I haven't actually stolen $5 from you. It's not Schrödinger's Railroad. Either it's an event that happened or it isn't.

Disagree.

I fell line your note on the first contradicts your disagreement to my statements.

the DM trick is just that…if the players don’t know I’ve altered anything to create a railroad, than from their perspective no railroad has occurred.

now the risk here is if the players do figure it out, dm trust might erode, so a good dm knows to use the trick only occasionally and more to nudge things than to overwrite things.

 

[overgeeked]

Interesting - my philosophy on such things is almost the direct opposite of yours. In my games you can, within the parameters of the setting*, play your character as being pretty much any alignment/personality/etc. you want. Evil? Go for it. Sneaking backstabber? Fill yer boots.

I also allow the party, in character, to sort these things out among themselves. Backstab a party member? Fine, but if your backstabber gets kicked out of the party (or killed) then you're either rolling up something new or playing solo (or both at once; I've seen it done).

BUT: once these characters get into the field and start adventuring then there's going to be times when they have fully-free choice in what they do and there's going to be times when they don't. It'll vary depending on a bunch of circumstances which will inevitably wax and wane over the long run.

* - e.g. if there's no Gnomes in the setting then you're not playing a Gnome; or if there's no Monks then you're not playing one, etc.

Er...if that $5 is in your pocket rather than mine then you have in fact stolen it, even if I've yet to notice its absence.

We agree. Note the context of the question I was responding to. If the DM asks for a heroic fantasy game, playing an evil character is off the menu. Much like you say, if there's no gnomes, none of the players get to play a gnome. That's absolutely a valid DM choice. And I would not consider it railroading at all.

 

[overgeeked]

I fell line your note on the first contradicts your disagreement to my statements.

Sorry. But I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

the DM trick is just that…if the players don’t know I’ve altered anything to create a railroad, than from their perspective no railroad has occurred.

Perception doesn't equal reality. Either you've railroaded or you haven't.

now the risk here is if the players do figure it out, dm trust might erode, so a good dm knows to use the trick only occasionally and more to nudge things than to overwrite things.

I'd say that DM trust would inevitably erode. A good DM, in my view, simply wouldn't railroad.

 

[Maxperson]

Perception doesn't equal reality. Either you've railroaded or you haven't.

Correct, and it's an example of why perception is greater than reality. If the players have been railroaded, but don't perceive it, then their perception has trumped reality. This is not an argument by me in favor of railroading outside of agreed upon circumstances.

I'd say that DM trust would inevitably erode. A good DM, in my view, simply wouldn't railroad.

It can only inevitably erode trust if it's inevitable that they discover that they have been railroaded. Going back to the stolen $5. I've known some guys who just toss bills on dressers, tables, counters, etc. in their house and leave them lying there. They weren't at all organized with their money and it's very possible that someone could have taken some money without it ever being noticed. Now, if it IS noticed, trust can be broken, sometimes irreparably, but it's not a given that it will be noticed. Like theft, though, I don't view unagreed upon railroading as a good thing for a DM to do.

 

[Lanefan]

Correct, and it's an example of why perception is greater than reality. If the players have been railroaded, but don't perceive it, then their perception has trumped reality. This is not an argument by me in favor of railroading outside of agreed upon circumstances.

It can only inevitably erode trust if it's inevitable that they discover that they have been railroaded.

And then only if they go on to realize they didn't like having been railroaded.

But if they enjoyed the resulting campaign/adventure/whatever and aren't too worried about how that stretch of gaming was brought into being, then who cares?

 

[Maxperson]

And then only if they go on to realize they didn't like having been railroaded.

But if they enjoyed the resulting campaign/adventure/whatever and aren't too worried about how that stretch of gaming was brought into being, then who cares?

It's a risk I'm not willing to take. Maybe you're right, and maybe trust is irrevocably broken. I can run a very fun game without trying to hide railroads.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not really the Quantum Orge though.

Depending on what you mean by travelling encounters, if you put in something that say, was on an optional path that players didn't pick last time, and put it in later as a potential random encounter, that's definitely not the Quantum Orge.

I wouldn't be so strict to say it's the Quantum Orge either if it's a guranteed encounter later if there's a good reason for that.

But it is the Quantum Orge if it's described like this (from here):



It all boils down to how much choice the players have and how much the players and GM agree to in a lot of these cases.

EDIT: I do want to make one thing clear before any follow on conversation: I hope I'm not telling people they're having bad wrong fun or such. I'm talking from a more more academic position and my personal opinions of what I find fun. All that matters at the table is that everyone is comfortable and having fun.

So how much one should care about Quantum Orges and railroading etc. really comes down to people's prefereferences.

Nope, this isn't railroading, because, again, the players are not choosing a slot to avoid this encounter. Instead, this is a GM saving on prep time by having an interesting encounter with ogres ready to pace the game. The slot the players choose still leads to whatever it was they picked that slot for, but they will have an interesting encounter along the way. Here's this expanded:

Players can choose from two paths. Path one leads to an abandoned temple where they will learn secrets to assist their quest. Path two leads to an enemy camp/forge where they can acquire powerful weapons to assist them on their quest. The GM had determined that, regardless of which path the players take, they will have an encounter along the way.

Okay, take a moment aside, if this isn't railroading, then prepping one encounter and using it for either path isn't railroading, either. The choice to have the encounter is one of pacing and tension, and isn't related to the choice of path. So, a GM can prep two encounters, one for either path, or take a shortcut and only prep one, and use ogres either way. This isn't railroading, and is still Quantum Ogres. The reason it's not railroading is because it isn't thwarting a player choice -- they have no choice to avoid an encounter. It is GM Force to push the encounter, but this is pretty standard stuff for D&D. That the encounter is ogres because the GM is shortcutting on prep isn't even a thing.

Now, on the other hand, if the choice of path is to go to the temple, which is guarded by ogres, or go to the camp, which is guarded by hobgoblins, and the players pick the second option, deploying ogres MAY be bad. I say may, because it might also be the GM providing additional information about the situation that the PCs didn't have -- maybe the ogres are making a push towards the hobgoblin areas.

If you give a choice to avoid ogres, and the GM still deploys ogres, you're in an area where there may be a problem, but you still need more information -- it's not automatically railroading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry. But I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Perception doesn't equal reality. Either you've railroaded or you haven't.

I'd say that DM trust would inevitably erode. A good DM, in my view, simply wouldn't railroad.

I disagree. At least in the sense that I think you're using railroad for any deployment of GM Force (again, this is why I prefer different terms for a moment of play vs an entire stretch of play). I think that, in 5e, the deployment of GM Force is absolutely unavoidable. But, you can manage it so that it isn't a problem in the aggregate.

And I say this because 5e requires prep, and prep engenders use of Force.

 

[overgeeked]

Nope, this isn't railroading, because, again, the players are not choosing a slot to avoid this encounter. Instead, this is a GM saving on prep time by having an interesting encounter with ogres ready to pace the game. The slot the players choose still leads to whatever it was they picked that slot for, but they will have an interesting encounter along the way. Here's this expanded:

Players can choose from two paths. Path one leads to an abandoned temple where they will learn secrets to assist their quest. Path two leads to an enemy camp/forge where they can acquire powerful weapons to assist them on their quest. The GM had determined that, regardless of which path the players take, they will have an encounter along the way.

Okay, take a moment aside, if this isn't railroading, then prepping one encounter and using it for either path isn't railroading, either. The choice to have the encounter is one of pacing and tension, and isn't related to the choice of path. So, a GM can prep two encounters, one for either path, or take a shortcut and only prep one, and use ogres either way. This isn't railroading, and is still Quantum Ogres. The reason it's not railroading is because it isn't thwarting a player choice -- they have no choice to avoid an encounter. It is GM Force to push the encounter, but this is pretty standard stuff for D&D. That the encounter is ogres because the GM is shortcutting on prep isn't even a thing.

Now, on the other hand, if the choice of path is to go to the temple, which is guarded by ogres, or go to the camp, which is guarded by hobgoblins, and the players pick the second option, deploying ogres MAY be bad. I say may, because it might also be the GM providing additional information about the situation that the PCs didn't have -- maybe the ogres are making a push towards the hobgoblin areas.

If you give a choice to avoid ogres, and the GM still deploys ogres, you're in an area where there may be a problem, but you still need more information -- it's not automatically railroading.

The illusion of choice is still railroading.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Players can choose from two paths. Path one leads to an abandoned temple where they will learn secrets to assist their quest. Path two leads to an enemy camp/forge where they can acquire powerful weapons to assist them on their quest. The GM had determined that, regardless of which path the players take, they will have an encounter along the way.

Okay, take a moment aside, if this isn't railroading, then prepping one encounter and using it for either path isn't railroading, either. The choice to have the encounter is one of pacing and tension, and isn't related to the choice of path. So, a GM can prep two encounters, one for either path, or take a shortcut and only prep one, and use ogres either way. This isn't railroading, and is still Quantum Ogres. The reason it's not railroading is because it isn't thwarting a player choice -- they have no choice to avoid an encounter. It is GM Force to push the encounter, but this is pretty standard stuff for D&D. That the encounter is ogres because the GM is shortcutting on prep isn't even a thing.

There's a problem though.

What if the players decide to do both paths?

Do you use the same exact encounter in both? This could happen if hte players after the encounter decide to go the other way. Maybe their goals will change.

That isn't necessary a Quantum Orge or stopping player choice, but it does feel you're not acknowleding that choice in there, and it could get massively weird to have the same exact encounter prop up on two different paths.

If there is an encounter you definitely want to happen on the way, you could make it so that the main path to the fork in the row occurs later, and then allow the players to choose the path.

Then, you could have a more hidden path to avoid an encounter or to provide a different choice.

I think that would be better design in general. It doesn't get weird and encounters for every reasonable scenario.