Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 09, 2022, 04:14:55 AM

Quote from: Angry Goblin on December 09, 2022, 03:20:21 AM

Quote from: jan paparazzi on December 08, 2022, 03:24:45 PM

Quote from: Angry Goblin on December 08, 2022, 08:37:33 AM
I only create new events or locales based on the player interest (sandboxy, I guess) but I do throw a ton of
plothooks and see which one sticks. If a player/character shows no interest fx. going to check if that rumor
about the smuggling operation utilizing a haunted countryside manor or not, there is little incentive in
designing something about it.

I once got into a debate with a player who didn't like plothooks, because it was luring players into pre-planned things. Instead he liked settings full of interesting stuff and situations and it's up to the players to get involved with it or not. He thought plothooks were railroading not sandbox. Still haven't made up my mind about it.
But I get what you mean.

My personal view is that gamemastering is always railroading to some extend if you plan something in advance.

I disagree. A railroad has a specific definition. Where the GM forces the PCs down a certain path no matter what choices they make.

Maybe so, I think you are right about the specifics. Though, for example in my previous post, if you have a plague in the local area, that is kind of unavoidable and happens regardless, thus is it railroading? I guess it depends who you ask about it.

I consider railroading to be about forcing the PCs back onto the rails, not about having constraints. Because that is a bad thing, other perceived unpleasantries get called that even if only tangentially related; "What do you mean that's not possible? Stop railroading!"

"Railroading: Railroads happen when the GM negates a player's choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome" (Justin Alexander).

This is a good definition, IMO. Requires a preconceive outcome ("the PCs find the ogre"), but also negate PCs choice ("we go the opposite direction").

So, having a plot (Lord Farquad is plotting to take the throne) or even planned events (Lord Farquad kills the kind in 21 days) are NOT railroading, providing PCs are still able to choose (this Farquad guy is suspicious, let's kidnap him!).

On the other hand, changing a monster HP mid-encounter, or fudging the dice to save the PC IS railroading, because it negates a player's choice ("we are going to fight that monster that is much stronger than us!") in order to enforce a preconceived outcome ("the PCs will win and proceed to the next challenge").

I'm very much against railroading, but I haven't found a perfect solution to having both a campaign with a plot and no railroading. Not because of planned events, but mostly because if the PCs keeps dying, the new PCs have nothing to do with the ongoing situation (especially if a TPK happens).

There is a fuzzy area where something is technically a railroad but shouldn't be called that in context.  It may be technically a railroad, but for all practical purposes, it does not have the affect of one.

Consider the difference between:

1. You are going from A to B on this road in order to Fight X and find Treasure Y so that you can then proceed to the next adventure.  No getting off that path.
2. You are acting in world A.  X is causing trouble at B.  Treasure Y might be useful.  No getting out of A, and X will do his thing if not stopped, and it will be difficult to stop him without Y.

One is clearly a railroad.  Two clearly is not by any rational definition, even technical.  Two is a box, you could even say a big "sandbox".  Sandboxes, like all boxes, have boundaries.  You play within the boundaries, but make anything you want.  The fuzzy area occurs somewhere in the middle.  Exactly when it crosses the road into railroad depends on the skill of the GM, the attitude of the players, and the overt intention to use or avoid railroading. 

It's this apparent continuum that gets people thinking of sandbox and railroad as opposites, but that's misleading.  There's a switch flipped to turn something into a railroad, based on removing choices.  The mere existence of boundaries is not a railroad.  You can have a very narrow box that isn't a railroad.  It just takes some conscious GM skill to make sure you don't lapse into one.

I disagree that Justin Alexander's definition is good.  His definition is a definition of "illusionism", not railroading.  Illusionism is often used by bad GMs to try to get out of the fact that they are hamhandedly running a railroad, but the techniques are not the same.  Specifically, I would always draw the line that Illusionism is always bad, full stop.  Whereas railroading is only bad when the players don't want to be on the train and/or or the GM has committed to not using it.

Illusionism is a tool for railroading, IMO, and I do agree it is worse than railroading, since players can agree with railroading but illusionism (which requires they do not know the illusion):

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/01/improvisation-railroading-illusionism.html

I also agree there is a big gray area, which is why I think railroading happens in specific MOMENTS ("the monster hit you for... uh... 4 damage. You're still standing, right?"), not entire adventures or plots.

However, I'm curious to hear your definition of railroading, since you disagree with that one.

(This feels like an endless subject, but very interesting to me).

See, I don't think illusionism is necessarily related to railroading at all. I would define railroading as a DM writing or running a campaign in such a way that the players do not, in practical terms, get to make meaningful choices. This would be both in-canon (e.g. "if you don't do this, 300 city guards come and arrest you") or out of it (e.g. "you have to take the mission because that's the game we're playing"). Note that in both cases there, there's nothing illusory about what the DM is doing. A degree of a railroading is sometimes acceptable. If you allow players infinite choice, they will sometimes choose to do nothing. Plus, the players never have as clear of an idea of what is going on in the world as the DM, so they will sometimes need to be pushed in a direction to keep things moving. It has to be used extremely sparingly though, as nothing will cause players to disconnect from the game faster than feeling that they have no choices.

Illusionism I would define as the DM secretly breaking or changing the rules of a game to produce a specific outcome, so that is things like fudging dice, changing NPC stats or locations on the fly, or retconning previous events. As far as I'm concerned, illusionism is borderline unforgiveable. To me, it goes beyond just taking away player agency. To me, the DM is still one of the players of the game, and illusionism is tantamount to cheating.

Related note: I like that last blog post, Eric. I had actually written up a similar post for this forum, running down some of the rules I think DMs should adhere to in the running of the game. I elected to not post it, on the grounds that it sounded too self-aggrandizing, but maybe I'll go clean it up and open a thread. This thread makes me think it'd still be a worthwhile conversation to have.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 09, 2022, 09:28:29 AMI would define railroading as a DM writing or running a campaign in such a way that the players do not, in practical terms, get to make meaningful choices. This would be both in-canon (e.g. "if you don't do this, 300 city guards come and arrest you") or out of it (e.g. "you have to take the mission because that's the game we're playing"). Note that in both cases there, there's nothing illusory about what the DM is doing. A degree of a railroading is sometimes acceptable. If you allow players infinite choice, they will sometimes choose to do nothing. Plus, the players never have as clear of an idea of what is going on in the world as the DM, so they will sometimes need to be pushed in a direction to keep things moving. It has to be used extremely sparingly though, as nothing will cause players to disconnect from the game faster than feeling that they have no choices.

So, I agree with everything but the definition; even in the most railroad-y adventure the players will have SOME choice, and OTOH everyone ahs to agree to play the darn campaign. So railroading happens in certain MOMENTS - usually including the very beginning of the campaign ("we are playing a Chult campaign").

Also, come to think of it, ticking bombs are railroady... at the same time, incredibly useful for sandboxes. Hum something to consider.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 09, 2022, 09:28:29 AM
Illusionism I would define as the DM secretly breaking or changing the rules of a game to produce a specific outcome, so that is things like fudging dice, changing NPC stats or locations on the fly, or retconning previous events. As far as I'm concerned, illusionism is borderline unforgiveable. To me, it goes beyond just taking away player agency. To me, the DM is still one of the players of the game, and illusionism is tantamount to cheating.

Agreed!

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 09, 2022, 09:28:29 AM
Related note: I like that last blog post, Eric. I had actually written up a similar post for this forum, running down some of the rules I think DMs should adhere to in the running of the game. I elected to not post it, on the grounds that it sounded too self-aggrandizing, but maybe I'll go clean it up and open a thread. This thread makes me think it'd still be a worthwhile conversation to have.

Thanks!

My advice: write it! There will always be naysayers but there is indeed a worthwhile conversation to have.

Quote from: Angry Goblin on December 09, 2022, 02:41:43 AM
I used to play urban horror campaign for years and the GM clearly had something in the sleeve already designed along with letting the players to
fool around in whatever direction they wanted and improvising those, so IMO it should work whichever the setting.

And if they take the subway from downtown to the harbor district?


Edit: I meant about not letting your players reach their destination untill next session. That seems pretty off in a modern urban horror setting.

Quote from: jan paparazzi on December 08, 2022, 04:03:16 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 08, 2022, 10:00:52 AM
...
YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT, I think there is some truth to that.

Right. Read it.

The best way to avoid "railroading" might be building an explicit "railroad" of events and letting your PCs free to derail it, IF they are willing and able.
This is what happens if the PCs do nothing.

Personally I like it when the players get involved and I also like it when they don't and then "This is what happens if the PCs do nothing.", but what I like the best is when the players can't really do anything about it, but are still affected by it. A really harsh winter for example or a failed harvest. It's happening around them.

Quote from: Angry Goblin on December 09, 2022, 05:00:25 AM
...
Maybe so, I think you are right about the specifics. Though, for example in my previous post, if you have a plague in the local area, that is kind of unavoidable and happens regardless, thus is it railroading? I guess it depends who you ask about it.

This is why you should have Random weather/Events charts. Even better if they are tuned into the time of the year that the PC's are in the area.

They are useful not just for their utility, but I think that random charts are underrated as tools that preserved GM impartiality during the game.

If a real bad winter happens, or a plague hits a town - it is not railroading when these are random events in a virtual world.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 09, 2022, 07:00:08 AM
"Railroading: Railroads happen when the GM negates a player's choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome" (Justin Alexander).

This is a good definition, IMO. Requires a preconceive outcome ("the PCs find the ogre"), but also negate PCs choice ("we go the opposite direction").

So, having a plot (Lord Farquad is plotting to take the throne) or even planned events (Lord Farquad kills the kind in 21 days) are NOT railroading, providing PCs are still able to choose (this Farquad guy is suspicious, let's kidnap him!).
...
I'm very much against railroading, but I haven't found a perfect solution to having both a campaign with a plot and no railroading. ...

One solution is to adopt Brosr style patron play. Let people you know that can't make the game run the NPC factions.

Friend 1 takes on the role of Lord Farquad plotting to take the throne. Friend 2 The current King. Friend 3 the Kind - whatever they are...

Run it like a faction PvP wargame in between the weekly or bi weekly sessions.

The PC's now have 'background events' happening no matter what they do, that they may or may not interact with.

And they are certainly not a 'railroad' in any way. Another useful tool for adding to GM impartiality...

Quote from: Angry Goblin on December 09, 2022, 03:20:21 AM
Otherwise, without preplanning it would be 100% improvisation. I know one GM who does it full time, but the events are likely pretty thin if you have to cough it all up in the last minute. Of course, one can get pretty good at it, but still.

There are a lot of replies and I want to reply to a bunch of them.

Alright, let me clarify some more. The dude I talked to on another forum a while ago didn't mean no plothooks = improv. Actually, upon rereading that part, it does seem he is about creating a world with a lot of locations, npc's, organisations etc. and letting the (pro-active) players choose where they want to focus on, but he is also about discussing in advance where they want to focus on in the next sessions.

Well, I just let this part rest for now. After all this topic is about timelines and events and not about plot hooks. If you are interested I was talking about a discussion I had with Skarg on rpgpub. It was quite a semantic confusion. Let me focus on the other replies lol.

Quote from: Angry Goblin on December 09, 2022, 05:00:25 AM
Maybe so, I think you are right about the specifics. Though, for example in my previous post, if you have a plague in the local area, that is kind of unavoidable and happens regardless, thus is it railroading? I guess it depends who you ask about it.

Not really. It's an event. It's railroading if you force the players to find a cure for example. I see the plague as a plot that is happening around the players. They could be relic hunters in a region that is hit by a plague for example, providing the relic hunting in tombs with some additional challenge. They could get sick or get hurt by a fleeing mob or by looters for example. I treat it like a hazzard really.

There is a mechanic in Lacuna that I really like called the static table.  It is basically a series of 'random' events are triggered by the players making noise and creating change in the world.  As the PCs do more heroics, gain more reputation, burn down saloons, and the like, it ticks the clock.  The idea being that the world and perhaps the bad guy's agenda advances as the players do things.  So, the campaign moves at the speed of the players and their actions.

Here is an example static table that I grabbed off the internet.  The layout is rather simple but that is part of its charm too.
0: Insertion into Blue City.
3: Control refers to the agents, once, as "Decoy Team".
5: The agents see another team of Mystery Agents.
10: Something big blows up, with our team of Agents inside it.
12: Control (presumably mistakenly) calls our team of Agents, congratulating them on a successful detonation.
15: "Wanted"-style posters of the Mystery Agents appear; their photos appear on City-wide TV; etc.
17: It's indicated that Control is responsible for the City-wide hunt for the agents.
20+: Spidermen show up. All hell breaks loose.

(Spidermen as in these guys...)

"Railroading: Railroads happen when the GM negates a player's choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome" (Justin Alexander).

This is another interesting aspect of this definition: it doesn't mention character choice. So, rainfall, an earthquake, etc, are not railroading.

HOWEVER....

If you take all choice from the PC, the player has no choice either. And in some cases ("if you refuse the quest, the town guard arrests you until you comply!"), it feels like clear railroading.

So, there is some aspect missing. I think railroading is bad when it feel FORCED/UNNATURAL. A cave made of a single path is "linear", not railroad.

"Rock falls, everyone dies" is the worst example I can think of. What about "the realm is destroyed"? It should be a possible ending if the villain wants to destroy the realm. Is this railroading? I don't think so; otherwise, there would be no real threats. Every villain would be shooting blanks against the PCs. It would be ridiculous.

It's a kind of paradox... if you give the players enough choice, you have to allow them to fight dangerous challenges; these challenges lead to death (or other dead ends), and then there is no further choice.

EDIT: wrote a new post about the subject, I guess I'm addicted to this.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/12/railroading-paradoxes-plus-diegetic-rr.html

Quote from: zircher on December 09, 2022, 10:55:47 PM
There is a mechanic in Lacuna that I really like called the static table.  It is basically a series of 'random' events are triggered by the players making noise and creating change in the world.  As the PCs do more heroics, gain more reputation, burn down saloons, and the like, it ticks the clock.  The idea being that the world and perhaps the bad guy's agenda advances as the players do things.  So, the campaign moves at the speed of the players and their actions.

You set them on the clock. Nice. Yeah, that's a way how to do a series of events.

I was thinking some more about timelines, events, railroads and plot hooks and I went back to this again:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/42118/how-can-i-effectively-introduce-hooks-into-a-sandbox-adventure

Especially the part about "Do not introduce hooks, introduce situations" and after reading that part I thought, well ... an event on a timeline is basically a change happening in a situation. It starts with an event and a location and then you tie in the npc's. What makes it not a railroad is that the event could happen without the players. Railroads are always player focused. That's why situations are better than plot hooks, because situations are about the world and plot hooks are about the players.

I have very general planned events like "the frost giants will attack over winter", but I normally leave the results of events to die rolls, typically a d6. I definitely try to avoid "Lord X will be assassinated by Y" type stuff, but I might have "Y will try to assassinate Lord X", then set a chance of success on d6, and roll when it comes up. I find this gives a much better feel of a living world and helps avoid the setting feel like a film set.