Totally agree. If I want to run a pirate campaign, informing my players that the game is a pirate campaign, it is not railroading to try and force that theme. If my players want to go open a cheese shop in my pirate campaign, and ignore all the plot hooks and calls to adventure, I'm just not going to run that game.

These Mainframe casts give me such CBC radio vibes. If your Canadian and have ever listened to them you will know what I am talking about. Great stuff Hank. keep them coming...

Dude, i had like no agency during this awesome podcast... it was a railroad about railroading.... --- Okay, just being an ass for the algorithm! Keep it up!

I guess a thank you is in order to that guy who made the comment about railroading, if not for them we wouldn’t have gotten this great discussion on the topic. And thank you Hank for your awesome insight

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

It is a broad definition for railroading, but I like it as a way to spur discussion. Thanks for getting through ball rolling.

"its a game, it shouldn't be frustrating". But that challenge is also what makes it fun, the best play can come after a plan goes belly up, the dice turn on you, and the ally betrays. Staying on the board as the waves crash down is the craft that the whole table works on, players and DM alike. So, gauging frustration is a nuanced call to make. It's also why I do role in secret... it gives some "post production" margin to not have a player lose a hard won and beautiful story arc to the capricious fates. Love the work you put out, always super enjoyable and thought provoking. Cheers.

@monkeymule1286

Жыл бұрын

I'm late to the runehammer world, just listened to the cast on TPK's and wipeouts and damn if he doesn't make an excellent case, to roll in the open and let players feel the full consequences.

Hank, this is fantastic stuff! Like you I worry constantly that I might be railroading my players. But the fact that many don’t know the correct definition of “railroading” just feeds the paranoia!

Really REALLY enjoying these podcasts Hank. Share em to my icy-arr-pee-gee group every time! I hope that the positive comments you receive in social media about your work vastly outway the ignorant snipes! Peace out Bromie!

Having been the victim of genuine railroading, it really does suck the joy out of the game. When none of your choices make any difference, you start to wonder why the DM doesn't just write a novel.

Oh, man, Hank, the singing makes the quality better. Much better. Thanks!!!

Thank you for your in-depth, thoughtful and enlightened exposition.

@Runehammer1

Жыл бұрын

:D

The only times I've seen people say to another DM that they are railroading their players is with people than never DM. They talk about DMing, they think about DMing but never DM. It's so easy to say "if your players can't do whatever then you are railroading" when you aren't actually running a session every week or every other week.

I am pretty sure railroading can be active, the DM can create a setting that denies all player choice. One thing I like to remember is that the players experience everything as a linear adventure. You may have laid out a series of branches but in retrospect you will be able to re-map what happened as a line through as series of points.

I agree with you Hank until the "dont say no" part. I agree that we should be advocates for players but when the "can I kill the king" or "kick the orphan" scenario comes up It's a different situation when you know that the outcome is going to be terrible for the party and terrible for the person. you have to draw a line somewhere and just say no that play is not apart of the agreement or that is not the type of game am into.

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I find "no" to be useful for maintaining a base line structure and world. "Can I fly to the top instead of going through the dungeon," short changes the player, but new players in particular do not nessicarily know that yet and are often in need of guidance there. You generally need a common lore for a world to be interacted on logically; ie, if player 1 says trolls are benevolent scholars who cannot do harm and player 2 says trolls are blood thirsty monsters who only think of how to eat you, you cannot make both true and it muddies the waters about what to do when they hear a troll is in town.

I shared this with my DM today. I believe he's a great DM, but the adventure he chose to run is really bad at telling the players what to do and how to do it to set up big pre-scripted battles. And it's so obvious when he's running things freely vs. running things because the book says so. This is such a good definition of what to avoid, especially when using pre-written adventures.

Still loving these...

As part of the social contract of an RPG, the players agreed to play the campaign the GM has written. If a player wants their character to deviate from the story, and I don't mean in the sense of a side quest or "can we investigate this before we get to our destination?" I mean if the GM presents the quest of "there's a dragon at the top of the mountain that has threatened our kingdom for months. Please slay it for us," and the players say "we'd rather go the other way and see if there's something we can do for this other city instead," then it's the GM's right to say, "alright, these characters go to the other city, now create the characters who want to deal with the dragon." If the players don't want to play the campaign, then why did they agree to play it? It's not cool to tell a player they can't attempt an idea you didn't account for. You might have encounters planned for when they enter through the gate, and make their way through the gatehouse and find the catacombs, and work their way up into the main keep, then the players decide they want to scale the wall instead and sneak in through the window. Let them. You say "yes" when the player wants to attempt something, even if it doesn't make sense at the time. You say "no" when the player wants to leave your story altogether.

Cool air in a desert of doubt, many thanks!

Return of lazy dungeon master has a text I rly like and think should be in most games. Players do a improv session of each describing obstacles/stuff they encountered, while the next person describes how they overcame it. Sort of like one sentence stories where each add one sentence or word. It gives DM a break when things have gone "off the rail", and improvising has to be made. Why should one person do all that work with a table full of eager participants?

I actually thought the new concept would suck because it misses your hilarious way of telling while being yourself 😂but I must say this way I can deepdive your thoughts much easier and it feels as learning on a new level. Keep up the great work Hankerin.😎👍🏻

@Runehammer1

Жыл бұрын

appreciate that thanks!

Great take, as usual. I think, railroading comes down to one crucial thing. Do the players have enough agency to make meaningful choices within the confines of the playspace? This allows the playspace to have confines, as your one-way-out example implies. As long as it still allows players to determine the outcome, it's not a railroad. Even if the choice is sometimes binary, you are good. You don't have to offer them the world at their whim, you just have to let their decisions ride and the outcomes emerge on their own. Now, one thing you said that can get to be tricky, is that you can know what comes next. However, I will push back against that a little. Because sometimes, players can totally mess up what is intended to come next. Skilled GMs can do workarounds, but this is a place where it is easy to get tripped up, and some may force it. It happens, we are human after all. Here, I think GMs need to understand that a workaround is okay as long as players don't see through it. If is obvious enough, and players interpret it as a subversion of their great work, you must not break their trust. You must kill that darling, concede your best-laid plans and let them screw you up. Always side on letting it ride, if there's any question. I would say what causes the most trouble is the idea of a particular in-game "story plot". We may have an awesome tale to tell with meaningful twists and dramatic intrigue, and such. But this plot can end up at odds with what the players do, and that can become a juggling act that many GMs struggle to maintain. So, how do you tell it without letting the players thwart it, or otherwise forcing it down their throats? Here's a little trick that I have developed. Keep as much of the story as you can in the background. If you are the storytelling type, tell that story along the edges of the playspace. Use it to set up meaning and context, and then at very strategic times, let the players dip into it and put their mark on it. Only give them the chance to "screw with it" under your terms. Let them determine the important outcomes, but the minor progressions of your plot are only discovered by them, until everything is in place for them to determine a key outcome, then hand the reigns of that story's fate to them and ride with whatever they do. By keeping it in the background, it remains inert and cannot force a situation where the chaos of play trashes it in some trivial encounter.

I love your fusion of rpg advice and general life philosophy ❤

Always enjoy your stuff...*bear hug* brother

Thanks for posting these. Great content!

Totally agree and appreciate the thoughtfulness.

Always roll in the open 🎲 🎲

I would love new podcasts like those. It was so cool and really a blast to see you making it on Patreon.

I've been in this hobby for 40 years, and you still surprise me and give me new perspectives. Thank you!

Have to disagree about dice fudging, with the caveat that it is done for the party, not against. I'd hate to see a crit with max damage dice take a player out of the action on what is supposed to be an 'easy' resource draining encounter. Sure, I could compensate by throwing in a single use McGuffin in the treasure chest, but that is just delayed dice fudging.

@Runehammer1

Жыл бұрын

gasp!

Huh, that is a broad definition of railroading that I would term something different, but thatis the nature of slang, I suppose. Always heard railroading in terms of a linear plot with signposted destinations; ie, if you anger the lich you will have to deal with that before he steals your souls. Clear causality and a cleat choice that cannot be escaped from; the lich will not forgive or forget so it is now you or it once you anger it. I generally do not see railroading as bad, even more agredious types. Some players like structure and a clear "right way." It is not for everyone, but if you have a group of passive players you will just stare at each other for an hour if you do not have some kind of rails. Hard disagree on the gm being the player's emotional regulator. Players can feel any way they want for any reason and it might not be about anything the gm can control. I also think "no" is cool at the table, but the "yes, but" looks a lot like "no" in most cases. The whole "yes, and" deal is an improve thing where a comedian goes from being an insurance sales man to a t-rex because they thought it would be funny... you cannot get a story out of that if you do not have a structure and that structure is enforced by "no." Why cannot my character act at 0 hp, why they got to die after I failed all my death saves, why cannot I split from the party and you just run a separate game for me as I hunt down the party from the shadows?

Thks! Your video confirm what i though :)

I got my attitude on dice from you years ago, so no surprise I agree, but I do have a question. My group has a player who has recently had a run of bad luck with her dice. I'm talking several sessions in a row where she just didn't seem able to do *anything* right, and it was really starting to get to her and killing her enjoyment in a big way. I wonder if you have any advice for or thoughts on situations like that. I don't want to (and can't) fudge player dice, but I want to do something with it that isn't just, "you miss, again."

@Runehammer1

Жыл бұрын

gonna answer this one with a short... cuz its a classic

@Fjordgnu

Жыл бұрын

@@Runehammer1 Appreciate you!

Manus Framus

If they cant skip a prepared encounter even if they have a good plan to do that that is railroading 101. In my opinion the best way to avoid railroading is to know what happens if the characters wont show up and improvise the rest based on the npcs personalities and motivations.

You do sort of hit on some of what some people may be referring to. When you refer to the adventure as scenes in your movie, it does come off as being more of a series of set pieces and theatrical stings (A bit of a JJ Abrams pace) rather than the more classical here's a world and everything in it "Do what thou wilt, that is the whole of the law" Keep on the borderlands era type stuff. It's worth pointing out that I and others only have the impression you yourself are giving of the nature of your game. It may be that you're running a more simulationist open-ended game than you let on, but for the sake of brevity are just giving us the bullet points in your recaps. And we may, therefore, be totally off base in using a term like Rail-Roading. Not that any particular way of doing the dang thing is verboten. I agree with you absolutely about fudging the dice. The game is meaningless if we don't obey the die.

On saying no. I can't entirely agree that you can't say no. When a game involves the need for some gear or resources to be able to do something, you can say no. You can't accomplish that now because you do not have "X, Y, or z." Some obstacles can not be overcome at times. Some games make use of niche protection. Can anyone hide from someone? Yes. Some games push that a particular archetype or class is best at it and can do it under extreme conditions. Can the paladin free-climb a rock face like El Captain? No, not if they have never invested the time in training to do such a thing. I get what you mean, but saying no when it does actually fit the fiction is a viable thing to do.

@jonathanjarvie9232

Жыл бұрын

I think that falls into the sphere of "yes but". Yes you can climb the cliff, but you will need proper gear, and preparation.

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

It also undercuts the lore of the world and tends to trivialize world features. Ie, can my fighter cast spells as powerful as the wizard who specialized in magic?

@stochasticagency

Жыл бұрын

@@jonathanjarvie9232 somewhat, then again, that's why I say not entirely. However, there are still times when no is an answer. Even when some gear is needed, there is still the need for the knowledge of how to use it. There are also the inane impossible intentions that fall into the so-called rule of cool I've heard over the years.

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

​​@@jonathanjarvie9232 the question was can the paladin free climb as good as a character specifically made for it, not if the paladin can climb with gear and not having the special training of el Capitain, in the above example. That "yes, but" ignores the question. Not saying a "yes, but" is not a good tool to have in your tool box, but it kind of involves a lot of mental gymnastics to say "I never say no," unless you are doing full improv, free form story telling.

I don’t think I agree with the definition of railroading you present. I do agree, largely, with what you identify as good and bad behavior. I probably would conclude that not all railroading is bad, but that there is another kind of behavior, which is bad (that often overlaps with railroading, especially in popular conscience): not being sensitive to others (players, if you’re a DM) and not taking into account their experience of the table (erroring on the side of your own table experience). Which isn’t universally egregious either, it depends on the situation. I think it is useful to be precise with definitions for watchwords like railroading and fudging, or you risk getting into a debate over semantics instead of content (for an example… see my comment I’m writing…) I think there is a lot of philosophizing about what is good and bad and that many don’t quite understand the nuance of what makes things good and bad.

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

It kind of surprised me that he has such a broad definition of railroading, all negative. I think of it as a linear adventure that has sign posted decisions; ie, you are in Barovia you have to deal with the Devil Strauhd or he will eventually kill you. I also do not consider it a bad thing, the "ugg, railroading," response is more a difference in style for people who want a more open world the same way someone might be frustrated that they realize you threw puzzles into the dungeon when they just wanted to stab orcs for 6 rooms. I do not see a problem saying no to a player, depending on the context. End of the day, "yes, but" is a "no" that is dressed up; seems more of a language and phrasing difference. That is a semantics based point of contention.

@solohelion

Жыл бұрын

@@rynowatcher like what Hank said about there being a difference between acting and reacting - a railroad is different than railroading. The former provokes that “ugh, a railroad!” response, but in my experience is often fun. The latter is when the DM tries to keep the story on the rails, working against the players. I really don’t think that’s so negative either. My most memorable example was running something like White Plume Mountain in a campaign and the players wanting to do something else and saying something like, “yeah, there’s something over there, and you can go there, but I don’t have any content prepared so we’ll have to wrap up and do it next time. I just have the content prepared from the book.” It was like a slap in the face to the players, who wanted to play and did an about face. I know that most of what I said is Internet Approved ☑️ as I sourced the mumbo jumbo from the internet, but it was still a very noticeable on rails experience. The adventure would’ve played out quite differently. I could’ve also rolled with it and tried to make it up. It was a choice I made and I’m not prepared to call it bad (or good). While I gave the players a choice and a say, it wasn’t a real one. “Okay you guys picked wrong wrong and we have to stop playing” in prettier words.

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

@@solohelion white Plume Mountain is a good example of what I would call railroading as well as being a top 10 most popular adventure of all times according to dragon magazine. It is what I point to for a railroad people like. It is an obstacle course for players to run that is 3 bran hing halls with only one way to solve and clues signaling dangers ahead. Some people like that; some do not. The "uggg, a railroad," only happens if a player does not like that style and I have met a lot of people who hated non-railroading games because they wanted to know if they made the "right choice." Some people like Zelda breath of the wild better for the ability to go anywhere and try everything and some people like Uncharted for the immersion and in depth story telling. Neither are wrong, but both have their limitations. Reaction vs action is kind an act of mental gymnastics and gets into a weird semantics arguement at terms. Ie, a goblin attacking your character when you enter a room is a reaction to the players entering the room. If situations are tough for the pc's, that goblin might be enough to turn them away to another room till they regain hp enough to beat the goblin, even though the gm might have not meant to have this as a barrier as much as a speed bump. The result is players saying, "uggg, railroading," if we accept this definition because the gm is reacting to players going somewhere in an obsicle they cannot pass with a net result of frustrating the players. This somehow qualifies as railroading based on 3 of Hank's criteria, which us why I say it is too broad and misleading for how people use it.

@solohelion

Жыл бұрын

@@rynowatcher yes, not all reactions are railroading. It’s the course correcting mentality he’s referring to with talk of “reactions” - the DM sticking to their preconceptions.

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

@@solohelion quite a few are actions, even by hank's definition. Ie, having a foredrawn outcome is an action you do before the players sit down to the table. It also muddies the waters with planned actions; ie, forcing the players to fight the dragon is an example he game of not railroading, but the players taking action to avoid the dragon is useless as it is a preset encounter. This is not railroading, somehow, but predetermining the players must go to the cave of puppies to pass the unassailable mountains is for some reason? Like I said, the definition seems too broad and too attached to a moral judgement and a preferred style of play.

Wow completely disagree with your thesis, linear sequence and strong plot - that the DM created, yeah that’s the very essence of railroading. You as the DM stating the objective, is 100% railroading.

@Runehammer1

Жыл бұрын

not if we decided together over tacos!

@deathbare5306

Жыл бұрын

@@Runehammer1 Totally agree with you there, just because it is a railroad doesn't mean it isn't fun - especially if everyone is on board, those can be some of the funnest games!

Never heard anybody talk about railroading until recently and online. I wonder if it’s because of so many story driven games online and DND style play that seems to allow characters can do anything with no real consequences. It’s seems scripted in which even death is, “but a flesh wound.” It’s a road bump. It seems silly but the way people express railroading makes me feel they shouldn’t be in the hobby. If a DM, taking the time to come up with a senecio is to be accused of something silly, when every module is similarly doing exactly the same thing, and when many players don’t put any effort into their own characters, the term just feels like a cop out. Most GMs will come up with different events if the group, as a whole, decide to do something else, but let’s not pretend that all GMs are equal and can just come up with something on the fly. It’s stupid to think they can and I think that if players are to do such a thing then be prepared to take the reigns, because you’re likely to make your current GM uncomfortable. The GM is not there to feel miserable either. I agree with most thing said here but saying no I feel is fine. Usually it pertains to players who want to murder hobo, which frankly, I don’t say no too but eventually after it’s become tiresome or even before, they meet the city guard and or another old adventure who puts them in their place, jail or grave. Frankly, I’m too old to want to waist time with people who continue this activity. I’ve also had a person decide he wanted to go against a party and cause trouble, which in itself was fine. However after that whole story resolved, he never really got along with the party but decided to follow them from a distance. The truth is that the player himself was antisocial and brought a bad vibe. I never said no to him but I also didn’t create another story for him. The story was continuing along the party’s path. Everybody was fine if he joined, as the skulking character was spotted a few times, but he never joined and remained bored as I wasn’t going to force him to do anything. In a way I was saying no. He told me he wasn’t having fun (no surprise) and eventually stop showing up. Again, I think it’s kind of dumb to think that the GM, who preps a senecio in many cases, should just be expected to roll over and come up with a bunch of alternate quests. In a living world, the boss they ignore should become stronger and begin threatening those around them until they either let friends and family die or take care of it. My feeling is that GMs can create a scenario but how various parties resolves it will be different. If people wanted to think that’s railroading, my argument would be, that’s how it works in RL. You let the bully continue or you deal with it, now get on the train. 😏

Railroads are terrible. They get you where you’re going quickly and efficiently with a lot of interesting scenery while providing opportunities to stop along the way and explore. Wait…what?

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

He kind of is lumping a lot of things I do not associate with railroading too. Players feeling frustrated is sometimes a symptom of railroading, but it might also be a sign of disliking the system, disliking the play style, having another player be a spotlight hog, the game being too easy, the game being too hard...

@bonbondurjdr6553

Жыл бұрын

@@rynowatcher If a player is being a spotlight hog apply D&D 3's initiative. Problem solved.

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

@@bonbondurjdr6553 not saying I need help solving a particular problem, but I was pointing out a spot light hog will both be frustrated and frustrated other player while having not a thing to do with railroading. My comment was more a statement of how I did not see a connection between the two.

@bonbondurjdr6553

Жыл бұрын

@@rynowatcher I'm confused but alright!

@rynowatcher

Жыл бұрын

@@bonbondurjdr6553 I am saying a lot of problems covered in the video I would not term as railroading, such as player frustration which can have several causes. I gave spotlight hogging as an example along with a few others and that was the only thing you commented. I expect it was the only part you recalled, but you can correct me of this notion if I am mistaken.