Anti-railroading games ?

[silva]

The rules-light thread got me thinking..

What games you know that activelly hinder or desincentivates railroading through its actual rules ?

[Atmo]

Any game, only IF you can use your brain to create paths for everyone. And, of course, improvise like... an improviser.

[Grek]

Games which lack a GM obviously are going to have a tough time with railroading.

[Dogbert]

The most effective "anti-railroading" is shared narrative mechanics that allow the player to say "fuck that noise" at any given moment.

FATE has a bit of that, particularly with espionage skills, allowing the player to say "lulz no, the mystery goes THIS way" and hijack the mystery murder away from the GM or suddenly decree that he isn't tied and about to be executed, but instead he is disguised as part of the execution platoon (and so a schmuch NPC is the one about to be gunned down instead). Also you can pay a Fate Point to keep a GM from compelling a negative Aspect on you.

Then again, a GM can always throw a hissy fit and say "no, fuck you!" just as a player can flip the table and walk out, but then we're not getting into the illusion of "GM authority."

[fectin]

I submit that PCs' ability to affect the setting via documented mechanics is inversely proportional to involuntary railroading.

[Dean]

That is my position exactly. Every rule is an anti-railroading mechanic. If someone tells me "You lose the fight" the presence of HP mechanics say otherwise. If someone says "You get locked in a cell" my escape artist checks can say otherwise.

One could obviously make the statement that every set of manacles could be DC 1000. But since their are rules for manacles and their DC ranges from 30 to 35 that is another avenue in which more rules meant a lesser possibility of railroading. Sure you could have a DM put masterwork manacles on a character who, even with natural 20's, couldn't escape them. But that doesn't matter. Every additional rule and every additional ability adds to the chances that a character can do something. That manacles have hp scores means smashing them is an option, that hundreds of pages of spells have been printed means there might be literally hundreds of options. And if the player has no workable option that is also fine. It doesn't actually matter if a character actually doesn't have any means to do anything about the situation they are in right now. Because each printed rule for how the world works increases the chances that there is something that they will be able to do next time. Any functioning rule dissuades railroading, plain and simple.

[shadzar]

all editions of D&D that i have read are pretty anti-railroading. it says right in every PHB that players are not required to continue playing with shitty DMs when it defines the player as a human, and thus basic human rights still exist when you begin playing.

no one forces anyone to play with a shitty DM, you all do that by your own choosing.

[Fuchs]

I submit that PCs' ability to affect the setting via documented mechanics is inversely proportional to involuntary railroading.

I submit that this is entirely up to the GM, since he sets the stats for the Opposition.

I also submit that CRPGs, despite lacking a GM and having a complete set of rules that govern all possible Actions in the game, are usually the biggest railroads of all.

[K]

I submit that PCs' ability to affect the setting via documented mechanics is inversely proportional to involuntary railroading.

I submit that this is entirely up to the GM, since he sets the stats for the Opposition.

The core of actual documented mechanics is that players can make meaningful decisions based on objective facts and probabilities. Sure, the DM can set opposition that is too powerful to face, but then the players have actual proof that the DM is railroading them.

Sending the CR 20 Red Dragon at the party of 1st level PCs is pretty irrefutable evidence that your DM has decided to take the "kill the dragon" story option off the table.

That being said, old-school DnD DMs have a saying that goes, "if you stat it, the PCs fill find a way to kill it."

[Fuchs]

The core of actual documented mechanics is that players can make meaningful decisions based on objective facts and probabilities. Sure, the DM can set opposition that is too powerful to face, but then the players have actual proof that the DM is railroading them.

Meaningful decisions are an illusion if the GM can manipulate anything behind the scenes, turning the defeat of a corrupt village mayor into the first step of the campaign against the Brotherhood of Black Bears (which the party didn't want to fight when offered the chance to earlier) just by placing the special ring of the brotherhood in the mayor's purse. And the GM can always claim "that was all planned, the BoBB has taken control of various villages like this!"

[K]

The core of actual documented mechanics is that players can make meaningful decisions based on objective facts and probabilities. Sure, the DM can set opposition that is too powerful to face, but then the players have actual proof that the DM is railroading them.

Meaningful decisions are an illusion if the GM can manipulate anything behind the scenes, turning the defeat of a corrupt village mayor into the first step of the campaign against the Brotherhood of Black Bears (which the party didn't want to fight when offered the chance to earlier) just by placing the special ring of the brotherhood in the mayor's purse. And the GM can always claim "that was all planned, the BoBB has taken control of various villages like this!"

I don't understand why you think that obvious railroading won't be called out for being obvious railroading.

I mean, do you really think that players won't balk if every enemy they choose to fight just happens to be the ones the DM wants? Will they somehow ignore that the wall that they want to climb instead of going through five levels of dungeon just happens to be made of epic-level slippery stuff and hurricane winds prevent flight? Will they seriously think the DM is playing in good faith if every NPC the DM wants to live happens to be Eliminister in disguise?

The answer is, "You shouldn't bet on that."

The key feature of objective difficulties is that the DM is very obvious when he railroads. Objective rules keep everyone honest.

[Dean]

I submit that PCs' ability to affect the setting via documented mechanics is inversely proportional to involuntary railroading.

I submit that this is entirely up to the GM, since he sets the stats for the Opposition.

I also submit that CRPGs, despite lacking a GM and having a complete set of rules that govern all possible Actions in the game, are usually the biggest railroads of all.

I respond that your submissions are retarded. I already covered that shit. If you send a CR 20 Red Dragon at a 1st level party your ability to railroad the party to their death's has been HARMED. The Dragon could roll all 1's, the PC's could roll all 20's. Even if chances of surviving are miniscule they exist where they wouldn't have before. They could make every save, they could cast a SOD effect from a scroll or escape into a Rope Trick. A 1st level party vs a Red Dragon has a fantastically small but not technically 0% chance of victory if you play by the rules, and the parties one out of a trillion chance of winning is unlimitedly higher than you using NO RULES to just declare their deaths. Rules and abilities mean that chances exist, no rules means no chances exist. Even if the chances are very small they exist which means they have dissuaded your hypothetical railroading by some measurable amount. Rules dissuade railroading. That is obvious.

Secondly CRPG's absolutely do not have a "complete set of rules". I don't even know what that means. If I'm not allowed to refuse the quest to kill the BBEG then I've been railroaded into that. If they wrote code (rules) for what would happen if I refused the quest then that would be LESS railroady. Any additional option that exists in the game moves the game into being less of a railroad. If they write rules for 3 different classes instead of 1 it is less of a railroad. If they write rules for destructable environments missions will be less of a railroad. If they write rules for instanced dungeons it will be less of a railroad. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. Any additional known quantity about the world increases, possibly minutely, the amount of free will a person is able to express. And free choice is in opposition of the concept of being railroaded.

But your main point, that DM's can just make up stuff anyways so rules don't matter is retarded. You're saying that rules don't prevent railroading because you can retreat to areas with NO RULES and try to railroad me from there. That is MY POINT not yours. Rules dissuade railroading. If there were concrete rules for encounter design then you couldn't railroad with that part of the game and that would be another example of rules obviously dissuading railroading.

Basically: SHUT UP FUCHS YOUR IDEAS ARE BAD.

[Fuchs]

I don't understand why you think that obvious railroading won't be called out for being obvious railroading.

The key feature of objective difficulties is that the DM is very obvious when he railroads. Objective rules keep everyone honest.

I didn't say it wasn't obvious. Though if you don't trust your GM to avoid railroading without having checks then you have a bigger problem than what rules to use.

[Cyberzombie]

That is my position exactly. Every rule is an anti-railroading mechanic.

Not quite. Having complicated rules which require preparation beforehand actually encourages railroading.

See, when you prevent the DM from making stuff up spontaneously when he needs to, then you're limited to only being able to interact with stuff the DM already prepared before the game session. And the more complicated your rules, the less material the DM can prepare, and the narrower your set of potential actions.

If you decide to do an action your DM certainly never planned on, like answer the king's call for adventurers by attacking the king and robbing his treasury instead of doing his quest, you can't do that in a rules heavy system... Sure, in the ultimate literalist sense you can perform the action mechanically, but everyone at the table knows that it will result in the game stopping right there, because you've performed an unforeseen action and the DM must now generate statblocks for everyone present in this combat and then proceed to map out the king's castle so he knows what defenses guard the treasury. 99% of PCs are going to realize this and simply not attack the king because they want to be able to play, but this is the most common kind of railroading in the majority of modern rules focused RPGs and it comes as a direct result of having an excess of rules.

[Fuchs]

Secondly CRPG's absolutely do not have a "complete set of rules". I don't even know what that means. If I'm not allowed to refuse the quest to kill the BBEG then I've been railroaded into that. If they wrote code (rules) for what would happen if I refused the quest then that would be LESS railroady. Any additional option that exists in the game moves the game into being less of a railroad. If they write rules for 3 different classes instead of 1 it is less of a railroad. If they write rules for destructable environments missions will be less of a railroad. If they write rules for instanced dungeons it will be less of a railroad. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. Any additional known quantity about the world increases, possibly minutely, the amount of free will a person is able to express. And free choice is in opposition of the concept of being railroaded.

Did you actually ever play a CRP? You'd know that the storyline in most games is very railroady scripted. Even in the vaunted bioware titles, you can't really skip becoming a jedi in KOTOR, your Bounty Hunter can't kill the conman on Tatooine in The Old Republic since he'll become your companion no matter what you do.
Rules are complete since all possible actions in game are detailed and covered by rules. You'll have cutscenes where you're unable to act, and will agree to quests and decisions you don't want to, or the alternative is stopping the computer game.

But your main point, that DM's can just make up stuff anyways so rules don't matter is retarded. You're saying that rules don't prevent railroading because you can retreat to areas with NO RULES and try to railroad me from there. That is MY POINT not yours. Rules dissuade railroading. If there were concrete rules for encounter design then you couldn't railroad with that part of the game and that would be another example of rules obviously dissuading railroading.

Basically: SHUT UP FUCHS YOUR IDEAS ARE BAD.

You really have no clue, do you? I don't have to retreat from the rules to railroad anyone - I can stay perfectly within the rules, and railroad people. I can Shuffle and reflavor encounters around and have the kidnappers be pirates and not highwaymen if the players pick the sea route if I want to use my prepared adventure at all costs.

Or, if say the rules explicitely forbid reflavoring encounters, and I have to place a sealed copy of my adventure notes into safe so the players can later check I did not shift encounters and areas around, aka railroad them, I can still simply say "That's what I prepared, take it or we stop and continue when I have another adventure prepared".

As a GM, the more rules I have to follow when creating adventures and encounters, the more time it takes to prepare, and the less options I have to improvise. If I can simply improvise a ship adventure if the crew decided to go pirate instead of saving the slaves, then I'll be less likely to try and fit in what I did prepare, or stop the session.

I don't know why you can't understand that rules don't prevent railroading. Railroading happens for two reasons: Either the GM wants to tell his story, no matter what the players want, or the GM can't prepare too much to allow a lot of variety when it comes to adventures. Either case is best solved by talking to the GM and working together, though for the "fanatic storyteller GMs", they might not be able to adjust, so picking a new GM might be better.

[Fuchs]

If you decide to do an action your DM certainly never planned on, like answer the king's call for adventurers by attacking the king and robbing his treasury instead of doing his quest, you can't do that in a rules heavy system... Sure, in the ultimate literalist sense you can perform the action mechanically, but everyone at the table knows that it will result in the game stopping right there, because you've performed an unforeseen action and the DM must now generate statblocks for everyone present in this combat and then proceed to map out the king's castle so he knows what defenses guard the treasury. 99% of PCs are going to realize this and simply not attack the king because they want to be able to play, but this is the most common kind of railroading in the majority of modern rules focused RPGs and it comes as a direct result of having an excess of rules.

And no, there's no way you'll have all NPCs statted out in advance to cover any and all possible combat encounters. Especially not if you actually plan to have challenging fights and not TPKs or pushovers.

[silva]

The most effective "anti-railroading" is shared narrative mechanics that allow the player to say "fuck that noise" at any given moment.

FATE has a bit of that, particularly with espionage skills, allowing the player to say "lulz no, the mystery goes THIS way" and hijack the mystery murder away from the GM or suddenly decree that he isn't tied and about to be executed, but instead he is disguised as part of the execution platoon (and so a schmuch NPC is the one about to be gunned down instead). Also you can pay a Fate Point to keep a GM from compelling a negative Aspect on you.

Yup I suspect "shared narrative" is one of the main methods for anti-railroading. I dont know Fate that well, but I always heard good things about it in this respect.

Then again, a GM can always throw a hissy fit and say "no, fuck you!" just as a player can flip the table and walk out, but then we're not getting into the illusion of "GM authority."

Indeed, the GM can do this in basically any game, from D&D to Gurps to Fate to *World games. If the GM is a dick, systems dont matter.

Any game, only IF you can use your brain to create paths for everyone. And, of course, improvise like... an improviser.

Yes Atmo, but I was more interested in actual rules for avoiding/hindering railroading.

I submit that PCs' ability to affect the setting via documented mechanics is inversely proportional to involuntary railroading.

I find this statement vague. Ie: any task resolution can be considered "documented mechanics" and "affecting the setting", yet I dont see how it prevents/difficults railroading by itself. I like Dogbert definition more ("shared authorship/narrative").

That is my position exactly. Every rule is an anti-railroading mechanic. If someone tells me "You lose the fight" the presence of HP mechanics say otherwise. If someone says "You get locked in a cell" my escape artist checks can say otherwise.

See above. While I dont find you wrong per se, I think different rules have different purposes.

The kind of rules you´re citing (task resolution ones) have the purpose of helping the group adjudicating situations, but other that its effectiveness for preventing railroading is really small, because they only adjudicate small/individual tasks and dont temper with the flow of the narrative/fictional gamestate in a wider scale.

In other words: "no matter how detailed your rules for climbing walls, if what will be there behind the wall is always decided by the GM". Or even better: "no matter how good your rules for pathfinding if the path you always find is the one the GM wants you to".

Again, thats why Dogbert nailed for me: When players can actually dictate whats behind the wall, or impose his chosen path on the GM, then you have actual anti-railroading rules.

all editions of D&D that i have read are pretty anti-railroading. it says right in every PHB that players are not required to continue playing with shitty DMs when it defines the player as a human, and thus basic human rights still exist when you begin playing.

no one forces anyone to play with a shitty DM, you all do that by your own choosing.

Shad,

1. you are discarding railroading as an objectively bad style of gaming, something I wouldnt do. I have a lot of friends who actually enjoy being led by the nose from point A to point B in the GM´s story.

2. you cited textual advice, not actual rules. I would like to see more actual rules.

I submit that this is entirely up to the GM, since he sets the stats for the Opposition.

..except when the very rules strictly dictates what the stats for Opposition should be.

And you just remind us another kind of anti-railroading rule: rules that set opposition stats in stone, not giving the GM the chance to do so, or something like this. What games actually do this ? I think Ive seen it somewhere but dont remember now.

I also submit that CRPGs, despite lacking a GM and having a complete set of rules that govern all possible Actions in the game, are usually the biggest railroads of all.

True!

Even though there are PC games with emergent properties resulting from procedurally generated content, persistent worlds, specific AI modelling, etc. that manage to be more open-ended/less railroady than most CRPGs. See Dwarf Fortress and Crusader Kings 2, for example.

The core of actual documented mechanics is that players can make meaningful decisions based on objective facts and probabilities. Sure, the DM can set opposition that is too powerful to face, but then the players have actual proof that the DM is railroading them.

Sending the CR 20 Red Dragon at the party of 1st level PCs is pretty irrefutable evidence that your DM has decided to take the "kill the dragon" story option off the table.

I disagree with this. The fact that a CR 20 Red Dragon appears is not, by itself, a proof of railroading by the GM. What determines if its railroading or not is how the Red Dragon appeared in the first place - was it a consequence of the players own volition/choices ? Or a forceful event imposed by the GM ? If its the latter, its a railroad. If the former, it isnt.

Meaningful decisions are an illusion if the GM can manipulate anything behind the scenes, turning the defeat of a corrupt village mayor into the first step of the campaign against the Brotherhood of Black Bears (which the party didn't want to fight when offered the chance to earlier) just by placing the special ring of the brotherhood in the mayor's purse. And the GM can always claim "that was all planned, the BoBB has taken control of various villages like this!"

What he said.

The key feature of objective difficulties is that the DM is very obvious when he railroads. Objective rules keep everyone honest.

I dont get this. What do you mean by objective difficulties and how it keeps everyone honest ? Most importantly, how does it prevents the GM from railroading if he wishes ?

[fectin]

Silva, don't complain about my use of vague terms until you've defined "railroading" more precisely. General questions force general answers.

[silva]

That is my position exactly. Every rule is an anti-railroading mechanic.

Not quite. Having complicated rules which require preparation beforehand actually encourages railroading.

See, when you prevent the DM from making stuff up spontaneously when he needs to, then you're limited to only being able to interact with stuff the DM already prepared before the game session. And the more complicated your rules, the less material the DM can prepare, and the narrower your set of potential actions.

If you decide to do an action your DM certainly never planned on, like answer the king's call for adventurers by attacking the king and robbing his treasury instead of doing his quest, you can't do that in a rules heavy system... Sure, in the ultimate literalist sense you can perform the action mechanically, but everyone at the table knows that it will result in the game stopping right there, because you've performed an unforeseen action and the DM must now generate statblocks for everyone present in this combat and then proceed to map out the king's castle so he knows what defenses guard the treasury. 99% of PCs are going to realize this and simply not attack the king because they want to be able to play, but this is the most common kind of railroading in the majority of modern rules focused RPGs and it comes as a direct result of having an excess of rules.

Very interesting insight. I totally agree.

The exception to this, I think, is when the prep is for hindering railroads/promoting sandbox play (see Apocalypse World kind of prep).

[silva]

Silva, don't complain about my use of vague terms until you've defined "railroading" more precisely. General questions force general answers.

Sorry, you have a point.

Assume "railroading" in this thread as the style of gaming popularized with Vampire and Dragonlance era where the suggested procedure of play was: GM creates an adventure/story from start to finish (point A to B to C etc) for the group to follow as strictly as possible. Its the opposite of "sandbox" or "player-driven gameplay".

[Atmo]

Silva, don't complain about my use of vague terms until you've defined "railroading" more precisely. General questions force general answers.

Sorry, you have a point.

Assume "railroading" in this thread as the style of gaming popularized with Vampire and Dragonlance era where the suggested procedure of play was: GM creates an adventure/story from start to finish (point A to B to C etc) for the group to follow as strictly as possible. Its the opposite of "sandbox" or "player-driven gameplay".

Now we're talking. Answer: any game that doesn't screams "play this way" at the first page. D20, nWoD and some other games gives you rules to play, but their scenarios are only optional. But we all know that some GMs can't make a game without railroading here and there.

Busca Final is an example that forces you to follow what is written, but fails in not giving the final Answer that motivates the game itself.

[K]

Talking about overall adventure design is pointless. A good ruleset actually makes improvised adventures easier because you don't have to design rules on the fly. The seafaring adventure can be improvised quickly because there is a stat block for "Pirates" and sea monsters somewhere in your rules and the layout and rules for ships and putting those into action takes only the time to check the Table of Contents.

The real problem with games like AW or FATE is that they railroad individual actions. When the DM can declared by fiat that an action has literally any consequence, the freedom of the player is nil. This is what you get with AW or FATE resolution mechanics.

[silva]

The real problem with games like AW or FATE is that they railroad individual actions. When the DM can declared by fiat that an action has literally any consequence, the freedom of the player is nil.

On the contrary. Games like Fate or AW share the fiction authorship around the group, allowing players more freedom to steer the fiction on the direction they want, thus hindering railroading in a way D&D and Gurps cant. (see Dogbert explanation above and how players can dictate scenes outcomes even against the GM intentions)

[shadzar]

all editions of D&D that i have read are pretty anti-railroading. it says right in every PHB that players are not required to continue playing with shitty DMs when it defines the player as a human, and thus basic human rights still exist when you begin playing.

no one forces anyone to play with a shitty DM, you all do that by your own choosing.

Shad,

1. you are discarding railroading as an objectively bad style of gaming, something I wouldnt do. I have a lot of friends who actually enjoy being led by the nose from point A to point B in the GM´s story.

2. you cited textual advice, not actual rules. I would like to see more actual rules.

1. IF people want to play in a railroad, then why do you want any rules to tell them they cannot?

2. if it is in the PHB or DMG, it is a rule, not just text there for amusement (except for the 1e comics like Papers and Paychecks). the Foreward, Afterward, Glossary, EVERYTHING in the book is a part of explaining how to play, and if you ignore those, you are missing something, most likely something important.

Silva, don't complain about my use of vague terms until you've defined "railroading" more precisely. General questions force general answers.

Sorry, you have a point.

Assume "railroading" in this thread as the style of gaming popularized with Vampire and Dragonlance era where the suggested procedure of play was: GM creates an adventure/story from start to finish (point A to B to C etc) for the group to follow as strictly as possible. Its the opposite of "sandbox" or "player-driven gameplay".

explain how Dragonlance era is railroading. i think your definition is still full of shit. when i open up Dragonlance Adventures (1987) i see nothing about railroads in it.

are you making the same mistake Frank often does and attribute the "adventures modules" as being the whole of a thing? Frank often likes to cite an entire edition is X because of the slew of adventures published for it rather than the core books for it. are you doing to same to a setting? because while DL1 came out in 1984 as the first view of Dragonlance, it wasnt a setting then, just a purposefully designed railroad like ALL adventures that make up a series, including GDQ series, T1-4, A series.. HELL that is WHY they are called series', because they go in order down this ONE path.

don't make the mistake of thinking that even though many more adventures are made than core products, that the adventures define any of the cores. understand that YOU chose to play them, and MANY other people do too, because they are quick to run. the core tells those that do NOT want railroads how to do it. your problem seems not with the core rules not providing anti-railroad advice, but the fact you equate adventures to be a part of core philosophy, and they arent.

what you should be seeking is an answer to why so many people foolishly agree to being railroaded with published APs/modules/etc by playing in them. maybe you want design rules, for the designers and author that prevent adventures from being railroads, and a simple bit in new core books, that explain to the novice DMs created since 2000 that states: adventures are not the example of play, but an experience of their own. there is more to D&D than the adventure designs. or maybe the adventures themselves need to say, "this adventure is NOT representative of the only way to play D&D, but is what it is for this adventure. for more ways to play see the DMG and ask your DM to create something else if you do not like the published adventures"

the second will likely never be put in because it would drive people away from buying adventures, and those are some of the most accepted bloat and wastes of money to line WotC pockets with. probably the same goes for the first statement. but fear not, i will tell you these things, and just did, so you can spread the word that the corporation doesnt want you to know, and Gygax himself said it on many occasions that you didn't need to buy those things to play, you just needed a good DM that could run the game for HIS players.

[Atmo]

The real problem with games like AW or FATE is that they railroad individual actions. When the DM can declared by fiat that an action has literally any consequence, the freedom of the player is nil.

On the contrary. Games like Fate or AW share the fiction authorship around the group, allowing players more freedom to steer the fiction on the direction they want, thus hindering railroading in a way D&D and Gurps cant. (see Dogbert explanation above and how players can dictate scenes outcomes even against the GM intentions)

So you agree with K? Nice.