Railroading paradoxes (plus: diegetic RR, meta-RR, ticking bombs, good and bad RR, deus ex machina, etc.)

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

The first railroading paradox is this: if you negate a player's choice to go into a dead end, you're railroading. But once you reach the dead end, there is no more choice.

And that's okay. In order to make choices, the possibility of making a bad choice must be on the table. Enough bad choices and there are no more choices to make. If necessary, make a new character. In short, past choices can negate future choices.

(I'll use RR as an abbreviation for railroading from now on)

Allowing players to put themselves into bad situations is one of the most important protections against RR. Anyone can see how unfair and frustrating is to save your beloved villain from the PCs with dice-fudging and "deus ex machina" only to have him reappear later. But there are lots of GMs who think it is fine to save the PCs from the villain in a similar way. It is not. It is equally RR. You're negating player’s (bad) choices.

Choice for the players usually means they are able to risk and even sacrifice their characters.

[Notice: I do not mean random TPKs are mandatory. I mean the players get to choose. It is okay if you all agree beforehand that PCs can never die, or that they can only die when willingly risking their lives for something they believe in. As long as everyone knows what kind of game they are playing - see the next section about "social contracts"].

What is "player choice"?

Player choice is role-playing their PCs however they see fit. This usually includes risking and even sacrificing their characters when they find adequate. Taking this choice away is RR.

It does not necessarily include choosing elements that are extraneous to their character's actions. HOWEVER, before the game begins, or when there is no role-playing occurring, it is often a good idea (sometimes even necessary) to allow  players to choose elements that are extrinsic to their characters: for example, "what about playing a campaign in the northern wastes next month"?

Notice that this "social contract" limits future choice even in character actions: if a player agrees to play a campaign in the northern wastes and the first action his PC takes is going south, he is either trying to make a new character, or a certified a-hole (and maybe you should find a new player).

This is another example of how past choices can negate future choices.

Deus ex machina

Deus ex machina [...] is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence. (source)

I think this is an important aspect of RR - especially the unlikely part. In this context, a potential TPK is a "seemingly unsolvable problem" that the GM can solve with RR.

Diegetic railroading and meta railroading; explicit railroading

Diegetic RR happens "in-fiction": help suddenly arrives out of nowhere, etc. Related to "deus ex machina".

Meta RR happens in the game mechanic - you fudge the dice, alter AC or HP, etc., to save the PCs or to let a villain escape.

Both are similar in that "the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome". I find diegetic RR preferable because at least is obvious and honest, while meta-RR is closer to cheating.

And explicit, direct RR is better than covert RR, in general. Maybe "a green dragon attacks you on your way to town" is barely even RR, but "a green dragon attacks a neighboring town and you must go there to fight it or the king will throw you into prison..." is. In both cases, the PCs have no choice but to face the dragon, but the first one at least removes the illusion of choice (see here).

Good and bad railroading

RR is usually a bad thing IMO, but not all RR is created equal. The worst forms of railroading are the most unlikely and also the most independent from player's choices. "Rock falls, everyone dies" is a good example.

On the other hand, if help suddenly appears, right after the PCs have just made an ally in the last scene, it barely strains credulity. And a rock that falls because the PCs failed to disarm a dangerous trap is not RR.

Notice that I'm NOT saying that RR is okay if the players do not notice it (it is quite the opposite, as seem above). It is not. I'm saying that might be some gray zone that deserves to be considered.

There is some aspect of unfairness in railroading. This might deserve a post of its own.

Consequences are not railroading

"If you don't take the quest, the king throws you in prison until you comply" is probably one of the lowest form of railroading that can be found in old adventures (and Descent Into Avernus).

However, having the king throw the PCs in prison because they committed a crime is not RR, it is the consequence - not the denial - of player choice.

Acts of God and Force Majeure are not RR

Earthquakes and tsunamis are not RR. They generate preconceived outcomes and are immune to player choice, but are not made "in order to" negate player choice. Same applies to plagues, riots, revolutions, and ancient red dragons destroying entire cities.

Ticking bombs, the end of the world, an another RR paradox

To avoid a "schrodinger's dungeon" or  "schrodinger's sandbox" (e.g., a place that is frozen in time until the PCs enter, which I call "railroading in time"), it is often using to have "ticking bombs". "The villagers were captured and might be killed in a week if not rescued".

This feels a bit like a RR, but noticed the PCs usually still have a choice. Let the villagers perish, etc. But what if they know the villagers will be used in a ritual to summon the demon lord and end the world?

"If you don't take this quest, the world will end" sounds even more extreme than being thrown in prison. However, if somehow feels less RR to have a lich planning to destroy the world than to have a king throw the PCs in prison until the perform a service.

(BTW: I have recently played a Shadow of the Demon Lord campaign that did exactly that in its finale - either the PCs act in X hours, or the world ends).

Why is that? I think it might have something to do with affecting the PCs directly and specifically. Also, in D&D worlds it feels more likely to have a world-shattering peril than to have a king that can easily overpower the PCs but also needs them for a random task.

The "end of the world" scenario is an extreme case and should be used with great care IMO. Still, it is NOT RR if the PCs still have choices.... and the possibility of failure.

Affecting the PCs directly is dangerously close to RR

A heart attack cannot be controlled by the PC's actions. But you can easily see how giving a random heart attack to a PC can become a tool for the worst forms of railroading. 

Likewise, being thrown in prison for a crime you didn't commit is iffy unless you've made some enemies before.

Every time the PCs are affected directly by seemingly random events, the GM must be extra careful to avoid railroading.

In any case, the GM can avoid direct RR by using tools such as social contracts and random tables ("we are playing a realistic Pendragon campaign, after 40 y.o. your knights have 1% chance of sudden death every year").

In conclusion: sometimes, the GM must negate player choice

In conclusion:

- RR is anti-RPG since it limits the possibilities of role-playing (literally, it limits the capabilities of players playing their roles).

- Player choice can (and often should) be negated because of past choices, including previous actions and social contracts.

- As a rule of thumb, the GM should not negate player choice without their knowledge.

Related posts:

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

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

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-random-quantum-ogre.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/46297/roleplaying-games/how-a-railroad-works

Railroading in space and time (and the "future timeline" method)

Here is another post about a frequent subject in this blog. Tackling it from yet another angle...

In the last post, we talked about the quantum ogre; a form of railroading in space ("wherever you go, you'll find the ogre").

This type of railroading is almost universally condemned in the OSR (in modern D&D, it can go either way).

However, one could theoretically do railroading in time ("whenever you arrive, you'll find three goblins playing dice", or, even more extreme, "whenever you arrive, you'll see the bandits approaching a princess as she sleeps...").

This form of railroading (that reminds of Schrödinger's cat, maybe even more than the quantum ogre) is usually accepted without much questioning (or, at least, it isn't discussed as much).

Why?

My guess it is that it is almost inevitable. Even if you have a very detailed mega dungeon, it would be hard to add another dimension (time) to every place. You might make some concessions ("there are 1d6 goblins in the room at any time, with 1-in-6 chances they are sleeping..."), but it can never be perfect: what if the PCs take a month or a year before visiting the dungeon?

It might take hundreds or thousands of pages to realistically portray how a small community may change over time with enough detail (unless we are talking about undead, automatons, etc.).

It is usually assumed that the goblins are there in a state of suspended animation until the PCs enter (or listen to the door, or hear rumors, etc. - Schrödinger's cat indeed!). Adventurers are written in the present tense ("there are goblins..."). But the present is indeterminate (and fleeting); events happen in determinate times.

Let's illustrate this.

Here is one example from The Wretched Hive: 

Day versus night

The hive is active both day and night, but night makes it significantly more dangerous, because many creatures go out during the day to hunt for pollen, captives, etc. In addition, unless the PCs can see in the dark, their sources of light will make them easier to notice at night.

During the night, whenever you roll randomly to determine the number of creatures, re-roll all natural 1s. For example, if one room has “2d6 bee soldiers” and you roll a 1 and a 3, this would mean 4 bee soldiers during the day, but re-roll the 1 if the PCs enter at night (if you roll 1 again, there are four soldiers; if you roll 4, instead, there are seven soldiers total, and so on).

This rule applies to all encounters within the hive, random or not. On the upside, there is a 50% chance for every demon to be sleeping during the night.

Here is another example, this time discussing the time dimension:

[E] The Barracks

2d6+3 imps are here. During the day, half are asleep, but they do not seem to care with people coming and going. During the night, only a third of them is wake, but they'll be suspicious of outsiders.

The rest of the imps are playing disgusting games with small vermin and malformed dice.

A counter example would be the entrance to the Hive (room A). It is guarded by seven imps and a demon-ogre. No reference to time. Do they guard the entrance 24 hours per day? Obviously not. It is assumed that the PCs can wait for them to go to sleep, for example, but it isn't spelled out.

Finally, here is part of the aftermath (spoiler alert!):

If both the Queen and Malavor are still alive, the hive expands. In 2d4 weeks, the number of demons and bee-soldiers is doubled, and the hive’s defenses are reinforced. In another 1d6 weeks, Malavor manages to mutate himself into a bee-demon, half-insane, but with full control of the bee-people. The bloated and sick avatar dies after a while, but this no longer affects the bee-soldiers, that can now be cloned in the underground. Three months after the characters left, Malavor unleashes his army against the nearest village.

A list of pre-planned events? A pre-written ending? There are people that would think this is what railroading is all about! It is usually considered bad form if a module describes what happens next. You're supposed to find that out during play!

My point is: this does exactly the opposite.

A list of preplanned events might be the perfect solution to avoid railroading in space and time. I've made this point before, but I think it is easier to grasp with examples.

Here is a timeline of 12th century England:

• 1135 Death of Henry I, accession of King Stephen to English throne
• 1137 Beginning of a civil war between King Stephen and the Empress Matilda over the succession to the English throne; accession of Owain Gwynedd, the first Welsh ruler to style himself prince of Wales
• 1154 Death of King Stephen, accession of Henry II to English throne
• 1164 Constitutions of Clarendon, a set of laws which governs the trial of members of the Church in England
• 1170 Assassination of Thomas Becket; death of Owain Gwynedd, prince of Wales
• 1189 Death of Henry II, Richard I accedes to the English throne.
• 1192 Richard is captured by Duke Leopold of Austria whilst returning from the Crusades
• 1194 Richard is ransomed and returns to England; accession of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth to the throne of Gwynedd
• 1199 Death of Richard I, King John accedes to the English throne

Since these are real events, most of them happen in an exact place and time. 

Now, let's say you're creating a campaign where the PCs are loyal to King Stephen, and the campaign lasts from 1135 to his death in 1154.

If you want your PCs to meet Owain Gwynedd before he ascends to the throne for some reason, but they decide to travel to Scotland instead, you just forced yourself to avoid railroading your players: they cannot meet Owain because he is fighting in Wales!

(Of coursing, using real events gives you much more information to play with; but even a brief biography of Owain could accomplish a similar result).

One important caveat: the PCs should not be included in the timeline. It is up to them to decide where to go, what to do, etc. Including them in the timeline will encourage railroading.

Of course, if you make Owain immortal before 1170, than you are back to railroading. too So you must plan the events... and let the PCs affect them, for better or worse.

(This is just an example; I know nothing about this period. Maybe The Great Pendragon Campaign works something like this; I haven't played it. I did run a Game of Thrones adventure 15 years before the books with a similar method, although I never had to decide "what happens if the PCs kill Eddard Stark", but I'd allow it. I found this easy to run, since I could turn to some GoT wiki for lots of information about what could happen.).

In short: 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.

What are some of the practical implications?

Mainly, that it would be immensely useful if existing adventures and campaigns included future timelines. "This is what happens if the PCs do nothing". Having a note saying:

1137 Beginning of a civil war between King Stephen and the Empress Matilda over the succession to the English throne

Will give you lots of ideas about what might be happening in 1136. Rumors, tensions, enmities, alliances, discussions, scheming, skirmishes...

Knowing this is helpful even when deciding what happens if Matilda dies before 1137! Are there other forces that would oppose Stephen (maybe Robert of Gloucester?). Or would the whole war be avoided? If the PCs want to avoid a war, what should they do? 

These questions will inspire GM to find their own answers. But the book itself might add some "ifs" and "buts" in order to make things even easier ("If both the Queen and Malavor are still alive, the hive expands...").

This is the implicit assumption of most campaigns, BTW. "The cult wants to summon Tiamat, and the PCs have to stop them...". But since there is no set time for the coming of Tiamat, it can never actually be summoned. The final showdown will wait for the PCs, and even if the PCs die before that, a new group of PCs will rise to face the "final scene". Some campaigns will be explicit about the deadline; they make it easier to know if you're railroading or not.

Anyway.

One method I haven't used is planning weather and encounters/events in advance. Those two are clearly distinct; no one would object the GM having detailed weather for the next 30 days, since the PCs usually cannot affect it. Having a pre-planned encounter in 15 days sounds icky, as if you're forcing the players down a railroad - but it is not so different from rolling it in advance.

When I ran Tomb of Annihilation, such script would be very useful - much better than rolling every day.

Let's see if I can add some of that to my next campaign.

Improvisation, railroading, illusionism and the man behind the curtain

I tried to make this point a while ago, without much success. I'll try again from a different angle.

Here is the idea: sometimes, improvisation (i.e., coming up with things on the fly) leads to railroading (or quantum ogres, illusionism and similar things), and sticking to pre-written material (settings, mechanics, etc.) is a good defense against this.

Let's define some terms before we begin. This is the best/oldest definitions I could find, and they seem decent enough:

1. Improvisation: the art or act of improvising, or of composing, uttering, executing, or arranging anything without previous preparation (source).
2. Railroading: Railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome (source).
3. Illusionism: A term for styles where the GM has control over the storyline, by a variety of means, and the players do not recognize this control (adapted from this source).

It is easy to see how closely related railroading and illusionism are. 

It is harder to see how railroading  ("preconceived outcome") can coexist with improvisation ("without previous preparation"). But, as I'll try to show, the GM often has preconceived outcomes ("in the end, the PCs find the villain and beat him") that goes AGAINST previous preparation ("the villain is Lord Sanydun, he has 50 HP").

One of the main problems of railroading and illusionism is removing agency from players. Not only do their choices cease to matter, but also they are tricked into believing that they do. To use someone else's analogy, it is like letting your little brother play Street Fighter with you, but giving him a joystick that is not connected to the console.

I decided to write this after watching a video from a popular creator (whom I like) with these kinds of GM advice:

1. "If the players mention they suspect an innocent person, maybe you can decide that now HE is the culprit!"

2. "Fudge your die rolls or HP if the encounter proves too difficult".

3. "If a player rolls very well when searching for something that isn't there, maybe it is!"

4. "If the players are talking too much, throw an encounter at them".

Also, to sum it up, something to the effect of "never let the players see the man behind the curtain" - which sounds very close to illusionism.

Now, if that is what rocks your boat, fine. I just want to add that this is not the only style of play and is, in fact, anathema to another style which sees illusionism and railroading as things to avoid.

Let's analyze the advice above.

Advice 1 is the classic example of "improv". But it completely devalues any mystery, any clues you throw at the PCs. You may argue that this is not railroading because the GM hadn't conceived an outcome beforehand - the DM thought the culprit was A, but when the PCs accused B he changed. However, in this case, the outcome enforced by the GM is the PCs find the right culprit; he is negating the player's choice of accusing the wrong person!

Come to think of it, as long as the culprit gets caught, the fact that he was NPC A or NPC B is inconsequential - you cannot claim that changing the culprit is not a "preconceived outcome" because, again, the outcome you are forcing is that the PCs get the bad guy.

Advice 2 will make the players believe they can win any encounter, or worse, they can win any encounter if you let them. It removes player agency. Again, the outcome the GM is forcing is "the PCs win the next battle".

Maybe the only caveat here is if you throw a random encounter at the PCs, through no choice of their own... but even then, I'd prefer letting the Pcs run away or negotiate than fudging the mechanics. For one, it will make they have a better grasp of how powerful a dragon or ogre is.

Advices 3 and 4, again, make the setting feel artificial - as if responding to what players, not PCs, do. Notice that number 3 is a thing that could happen in Dungeon World, for example (IIRC), but DW at least assign consequences for failing your search roll - otherwise, everyone would be searching for treasure everywhere.

Number 4 deserves a caveat: IF the PCs are in a dungeon where you roll for random encounters every 30 minutes, and the players talk for 30 minutes in-character, you should obviously ROLL for random encounters. Likewise, if someone would hear them, etc.

It is not illusionism if the players know

It is not illusionism if there is no illusion. If your players know that fudging dice and HP is the DM's prerogative in this campaign, or that you'll decide whodunnit is as you go, or that a good dice roll will let you find treasure where anywhere, this is not illusionism, it is a style of play.

This is a very important distinction because, as we'll see, DMs must make things up as they go in both styles.

Some different advice

Let me try some alternative advice to the "man behind the curtain" method described above.

- The GM must present an internally coherent setting for the PCs to interact and explore.

- The GM must believe in the authenticity of the setting as much as the players.

- The GM should not alter the realities of the setting (at least not DURING PLAY) to accommodate, entertain, defy, reward or punish players, but only because of things that happen WITHIN the setting. In other words, the setting is defined by PCs and NPCs and not about GM and players.

Another tips I mentioned before that might be related:

- Let the dice push you out of your comfort zone. Your PCs all failed their saving throws - now what? Your important NPC was killed before he could start his plan - what happens now?

- Expect the unexpected from your players. Do not expect them to follow a predictable path, or always find the right culprit, or only pick fights they can win, etc.

How to AVOID illusionism?

Let's say you and I prefer the same style of play - how to avoid illusionism, railroading, etc.?

Well, one idea is use a published adventure, or write your own.

If you follow it to the letter, without improvising, you cannot execute any of the four advices mentioned above.

(BTW, having a plot telling you what happens if the PCs fail or do nothing will help you tremendously. It will relieve you of the temptation of enforcing the preconceived notion that the must win).

Of course, if your PCs stray from the course, you must improvise. However, do NOT improvise a reason to force than back into the adventure. That is exactly what railroading is. Just think of the logical consequences of their choices. 

Also worth remembering that pre-written adventures should NOT dictate what the PCs do, but should only describe NPCs, places, events, and possible ramifications. "In game railroading" is also terrible advice IMO - for example, "if the PCs refuse the mission, the king arrests them until they accept". Here is a good post about the subject.

And what if they enter a random town, far from the original adventure site? Well, then you improvise, but it is ALSO okay to say "I hadn't prepared this, let's take a small break". Remember, it is NOT illusionism when they know you're making things up on the fly.

When to "railroad"

It is okay to talk to your players before the game about a specific premise or even adventure. I recommend GMs that dislike improvising too much do exactly that.

This is NOT exactly railroading, because the players are aware of their choices (or lack of choices) - although the PCs will have no choice in the matter. For example, "hey folks, I have this cool dungeon we can play, what about we run that on Thursday?".

Giving SOME choice to the players is even better. "Okay, I imagine the PCs can go to places A, B or C next Thursday... What do you think? Maybe somewhere else?". If you're mid-campaign, a simple "what you think you're doing next?" will often suffice.

Of course, if you give them just one choice, the players can respond with "why would my PC go into this dangerous place", etc. But after the thing has been settled, it would be rude for the players to just go off-grid without a reason, forcing the GM to improvise on the spot (unless, I guess, the GM is cool with that too!).

As general advice, I'd say that this "railroading" is expected at the very beginning of a campaign - even implicitly. Are we playing Tomb of Annihilation? Yeah, I do not expect the PCs to be disinterested in Chult in the very first session.

Is it okay to "railroad" beginner players so they can learn the game? Well, I can see not wanting to kill every PC in the first fight. "Training wheels" could be useful. But how will they learn that a dragon is dangerous if they beat it at first level? How will they learn their choices matter... if they don't? Why would they play attention to clues if there is no "right" answer to the mystery?

I'm undecided, but I'm inclined to say "no railroads for beginners". In my first Demon Lord adventure, a couple of random thugs almost caused a total party kill. I thought the adventure was too hard - but it did set the tone for the whole campaign.

Should we improvise, then?

Of course. You need at least some improv to run RPGs. What I'm saying is: do it carefully.

For example, you often need to improvise to find out how the NPCs reacts to the PCs. How the events unfold. Etc. 

You also need to improvise to find out things about the setting you hadn't established before. But when you do so, answer your own questions using the setting's internal logic, not the necessities of the players, the moment or the "plot". 

For example, if the player asks "can I full plate armor in this town?", ask yourself "how big is this town?", not "how bad does the PC need this for the next adventure".

You do not change inanimate things and past events because the PCs had an idea, desire, or particular die roll (unless, again, the PC could change the world in such way with his or her actions).

You also improvise anything that players expect you to improvise, of course - what is the blacksmith's name? 

But you do not improvise freely when the answer should be found in the setting - "is there a blacksmith in this town"? When the players ask you that, they do not expect you to be creative, but to give your honest assessment of what you be expected in the setting. Here, you are not looking to be creative, but genuine.

You can also improvise (or, at least, create) anything when your players expect you to do so. For example, between sessions. Or when you ask for a 5 minute break. Or when they break into a random house. Etc.

Its often good to improvise "HOW" but not "IF" (the monster dies, the castle breaks, the NPC escapes, etc.). This is probably worth an entire post.

Oracles and random tables

These are not improvisation. They require previous preparation. If you have a table for random encounters, and you get a dragon encounter, throwing a dragon against your players from nowhere is not improvisation.

But what if these tables are more like oracles? "17 - an ally is revealed as a traitor". Still not improvisation while you roll, but you'll have to interpret the result to the best of your ability - which does require some improvisation. Again, just let the players know that this is the kind of game you're playing - an ally can betray them at random. If there is a transparent mechanic for that (e.g., morale rules), the outcome is not improvisation (although you might have to improvise motives, etc.).

Creation x discovery

Actual improvisation usually trains actors, musicians, etc., to come up with unexpected responses. They are still constrained by other factors - the beat, harmony, or previously established facts. Which is a fine way of playing RPGs*.

There's another way of doing things, however. Many writers describe their processes not as creation, but discovery; i.e., there is a deeper truth about their settings and even characters that they must respect. The goal is not to come up with something unexpected, but to be faithful to the "true nature" of setting in character. 

This is an equally valid approach.

(*One good comparison I got from my friend Jens is jazz - because in jazz you can go "off-key" and even play around with rhythm. But, still, you do not do it alone - you take cues from the band, from the harmony, from the existing beat, etc. You do not set the tone and rhythm for the whole band).

But I LIKE fudging dice!

Again, if that's your preference, that's fine. I'd advice you be transparent about this - let your players know that fudging dice and HP is your prerogative, or that you'll decide whodunnit is as you go. If everyone is on the same page, that's okay (just not my preferred style).

I'd argue, however, that it is useful to let people know both styles exist - at least so people can try both ways and see what they prefer.

Recommended reading:

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/46297/roleplaying-games/how-a-railroad-works

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/44221/roleplaying-games/remixing-avernus-part-1-the-beginning

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-how-illusion-can-rob-your-game-of.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2020/01/its-like-jazz-isnt-it-attempt-of-post.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2019/08/how-to-manipulate-narratives-when.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-random-narrative-generator.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-world-of-23-engineered-social.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/03/12-things-i-wish-i-would-had-known.html

The sandbox railroad part 2 (plus ULTRA-LINEAR encounters)

Another take on this post.

---

Important caveat before we begin 

"Railroad" has a negative connotation for some readers. If you dislike my use of this term, I offer an alternative by the end of this post.

I love random encounters and I think they are an important part of the game. No matter if I roll them at the table or half an hour before that, or if I already rolled 100 examples for each terrain. I've tried all of them and each has its pros and cons.

I don't think you can understand this post if you assume I'm criticizing the way you play, which is not my point. I'm just describing how random encounters might work in theory, not how you use them in practice. 

I'm not saying there is a problem, necessarily. If you seems random encounters rolls as simple suggestions, this is definitely not what I'm discussing here. I'm assuming you're using a table and sticking to the rules and the results you rolled].

---

I called "random wilderness encounters" a railroad because if the PCs are in the middle of a forest and the next encounter is an ogre, there is no choice but to see the ogre - no matter if they go North, South, etc.

[Assume the GM has already rolled the next encounter].

Usually, it doesn't even matter if they stop and rest, because then the next random encounter (ogre) will happen as they make camp.

Think of a dungeon where you have 4 doors and the module says "the ogre is behind whatever door the PCs choose first; if PCs decide to rest here, the ogre will enter the room they are in".

It would be obvious to everyone this is a railroad/"quantum ogre" situation.

Of course, while the encounter is presented in a linear fashion (you WILL see the ogre), they way you choose to deal with it is not linear.

You could even have the possibility of AVOIDING the encounter altogether.

But the same is true of the dungeon described above.

And, no matter what you do, you face the next encounter.

[Again, assume the GM has already rolled the next encounter: 2d6 goblins].

The ORDER of encounters remains linear - or even "ULTRA-LINEAR".

In a dungeon with 3 linear rooms (say, ogre-goblin-skeleton), you can avoid the next room by turning back or simply not opening the next door.

In the middle of the forest, turning back or stopping usually leads to next encounter!

This is not necessarily a PROBLEM; this is how random wilderness encounters work.

To add CHOICE to the next encounter, you'd need PCs to have some knowledge in advance.

For example, they'd have to be able to look for tracks or see foes at a distance.

This is not impossible to do, but requires you to MARK some hexes. 

For example, if they avoided the ogre, now they know that they are likely to meet him again if they enter that same hex (instead of just rolling the next encounter).

Filling all hexes is tiresome. 

In practice, you can use your memory; if the PCs avoided an encounter yesterday, going back might trigger the encounter.

If they go back there after a week the ogre is probably gone and forgotten.

This entire thread is descriptive and not prescriptive.

I'm not complaining or giving advice, other than, maybe: if you want to avoid railroads, give the players some options BEFORE the encounter begins.

But the PC's entered the forest and put themselves in this situation!

I agree. Although they might not have an option (if the starting point is surrounded by forests for example).

But I don't roll my random encounters in advance!

I don't think rolling in advance makes any difference here.

Because the roll is not affected by the PC's decisions.

If I rolled 39 before the game begins or if I roll 39 when the PCs say "we go North", the result is the same, not any more or less organic IMO.

I still don't see why this is railroading, or this is not what I call railroading, because the PCs can talk to the ogre etc.

I think the best way to understand my point is comparing the wilderness encounter to the dungeon with four doors, described above. 

Or think of it this way: "no matter what the PCs do or where they go, they'll find an ogre tomorrow because I rolled it".

This is not a problem, necessarily: most people would be fine if I said  "no matter what the PCs do or where they go, they see rain tomorrow because I rolled it", or "they'll see the ghost that is haunting them".

But if you don't want to call it "railroading" maybe "ultra-linear" would be a better description.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36982/roleplaying-games/railroading-manifesto-addendum-random-railroads

NOTE: The Alexandrian has a good definition of railroading in the second post above. Random encounters do not seem to fit, at first. HOWEVER the last post above indicates that the CAN be railroading, in the exact same way I discussed today:

The core distinction here is whether or not the players are making a meaningful choice. In this hypothetical hexcrawl scenario, the choice of direction has been rendered meaningless (since you’ll have the same experience regardless of which direction you go). [...] This taught me a really important lesson as a GM: In order for an exploration scenario to work, there has to actually be something to explore. If all choices are equally likely to get you to your goal (because your discoveries are being randomly generated or because the GM has predetermined their sequence), then your choices become meaningless. And meaningless choices are boring and frustrating.

Escape the Truman Show, escape the Matrix; the god-DM and free-willed NPCs

Another anti-railroading, anti-fudging rant. I have so many of these that I might write a compilation someday...

Anyway.

If you're unfamiliar with the movie:

Truman Burbank is the unsuspecting star of The Truman Show, a reality television program filmed 24/7 through thousands of hidden cameras and broadcast to a worldwide audience. Christof, the show's creator and executive producer, seeks to capture Truman's authentic emotions and give audiences a relatable everyman.

As Truman was selected from birth following an unwanted pregnancy, Christof claims that Truman came to be adopted not just by the show, but by the whole "world". Truman's hometown of Seahaven Island is a complete set built within an enormous dome, populated by crew members and actors who highlight the product placements that generate revenue for the show. The elaborate set allows Christof to control almost every aspect of Truman's life, including the weather.

To prevent Truman from discovering his false reality, Christof manufactures scenarios that dissuade Truman's desire for exploration, such as the "death" of his father in a sea storm to instill aquaphobia, and by constantly broadcasting and printing messages of the dangers of traveling and the virtues of staying home. However, Christof cannot predict all of Truman's actions.

It is one of those films from the late-nineties, like Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor, Dark City, eXistenZ, that questioned the nature of reality. How can we know if we are living in reality or some kind of simulation? We probably can't.

[Why was this theme so popular in the late nineties? I think we went through some kind of societal shift at that time. Maybe the transition form analogue to digital? And now, the simulation is too obvious to even question. The world of internet and social media is bigger than the "real world". Money is kept in bytes, not gold. Narrative is more important than truth. Like cyberpunk, the late-nineties dystopia makes no more sense because it is now partially real. Makes me wonder if that is why the younger 5e players have a harder time understanding the perils of railroading than old-school enthusiasts and grognards]. 

But that is beside the point.

The point is: nobody wants to live in a simulation. In all those stories, the "game masters" of the simulation think they know what their "subjects" want. Maybe controlled love and happiness; maybe (as in the Matrix) you need to add some misery to make things feel more real.

Doesn't matter. In every case, the hero wants to escape the simulation - even if reality is far worse.

But wait - games are the opposite, right? 

You are conscious and willing to go into a simulated world.

Well, not really. The best simulations are the ones that make you feel that it is real for a moment, even when you know it's not.

That's why the idea of campaigns with hundreds of players sound more enticing to me than writing hundreds of NPCs.

But even when you do write NPCs, you should give them free will. That what makes NPCs resemble actual people: they out their own interests over the "story". That is why I enjoy books and games where the "supporting cast" is interesting and active; Skyrim, The Witcher 3, Game of Thrones.

Even if you think the role of GM is akin to a god of the fictional world, you still give people free will. You can control the weather, earthquakes, you can send plagues, drought and famine, you can even make new people or kill existing ones, but you cannot rob characters of their free will.

Not even NPCs - you must at least guess what they would do.

By the way, if you fudge, it ceases to be a role-playing game - at least for a moment. There is no game if you fix the results. It can be fun, it can great, but not a game.

This is about RPGs, but it is also a deep philosophical idea. It is in religion, philosophy, ideology, politics. Immeasurable evil has been done in the name of "I know what's best for you" (or, worse, "I know what's best for all"). This doesn't mean you're evil for fudging, of course (I don't think I'm evil myself, even tough I fudged more than once in the past, and I made mistakes that were far worse than that) - this is just something to think about.

When I hear people saying "but you have to fudge - otherwise, a bunch of goblins can cause a TPK by sheer luck, or the big bad can go down in a couple of rounds!", I think of the Truman Show.

Calm down, Christof. You think you know what is best for Truman, but you don't. 

Let Truman choose.

Addendum: 

I still think that PC death is a problem, but fudging is a terrible solution.

Will write a post about that in the future.

Old School Ramblings #1 - Play Now, Story Later

NOTE: This series of articles are about what old school means to me and what I like about old school games. As you can see, my understanding of Old School isn't strictly chronological, and might be a bit unorthodox and opinionated. You're welcome to comment, disagree, and add your own opinions in the comments section.

The definition of "old school gaming" is a contested one. There are many interesting opinions out there, including the ones here. I would like to share some of those and some of my own. Eventually, I will discuss the ones described by Matt Finch in his Primer, which carries a great importance in the definition of OS. Although I might differ in some points, it is a very enjoyable read that I would recommend for anyone interested in OS gaming.

One aspect I really enjoy and identify with old school gaming is what I call "Story Later". This is a way to distinguish OS games from more modern RPGs that are focused in creating a narrative with beginning, middle, end, climaxes, cliffhangers, etc.

(Yes, the term is inspired by this article by Ron Edwards; I think my conclusions are quite different, thought. Instead of writing careful counter-arguments for a twelve-year-old article that has been discussed more times than I can count, I think it will be more interesting to talk about my own experiences. Since I don't fully subscribe to the theory, I see no need to adopt the jargon as well).

Some RPGs have mechanics to enforce a story "flow"; Robin Laws, one of my favorite designers, has created great games based on the idea that a session should be managed with "ups and downs" similar to the ones you can see in a play or a movie, for example. Other examples are Fate RPG and Lady Blackbird, games where the management of meta-game currencies (dice pools, fate points) makes you more likely to succeed after you fail many times and vice-versa. D&D 5e has something similar, to a limited extent, in the Inspiration mechanic.

By Robin Laws - source.

Although those mechanics may sound new, the idea of focusing on stories in RPGs isn't a new one. James Maliszewski, who affirms that Dragonlance "ruined everything", puts it this way (emphasis mine):

"No longer were adventures "modules," implying they could be swapped in and out of campaigns with minimal impact. Now, they had to tell a coherent narrative that was dramatically satisfying."

James points similar approaches in the Desert of Desolation and Ravenloft modules, for example. His stance is a critical one, although he recognizes the success of that approach at the time.

There is an important distinction to be made here, so you don't take this the wrong way. This early "story" modules are described as "railroad-y", meaning the players had little input in the story. Railroading has become some kind of offense nowadays, even though that are still people that don't mind it - although even of those people would probably be appalled by the idea of a PC dying by GM fiat. Now, I don't like railroading, but I will not tell others how they should play their games.

The important thing to keep in mind for the folks that eschew "story" is that railroading is not the only path to story creation. The "modern" games I mentioned above are great example on how to encourage story "flow" without resorting to railroads (some would say that they are incompatible, as there is no story creation if the story is already written). I would even say that this methods are better than the ones originally used by Dragonlance, at least for my tastes. The downside is that the "climaxes", resolutions", etc, aren't guaranteed without previous planning, but clever mechanics may enhance the probability that they should happen at the right time.

I think one way to explain the success of the "story" is that "a coherent narrative that is dramatically satisfying" is not a bad thing. In fact, it is often the way our brain works. We naturally expect such things, and I would dare to say that they can make our games a lot more fun - whether old school or new school.

Here is how Nassim Nicholas Taleb defines the narrative fallacy in The Black Swan:

The narrative fallacy addresses our limited ability to look at sequences of facts without weaving an explanation into them, or, equivalently, forcing a logical link, an arrow of relationship upon them. Explanations bind facts together. They make them all the more easily remembered; they help them make more sense. Where this propensity can go wrong is when it increases our impression of understanding.

The thing is, because our brains work that way, you don't actually need to pursue a narrative in order to create one. As far as my own experience goes, there is a natural pull towards "story" even among people that eschew the idea.

This is a point where I disagree with Edwards, as I think that story WILL, in fact, "consistently emerge from play that does not prioritize it". You see, story will even consistently emerge from our lives, because this is how our brain works. Our lives aren't stories, but simple sequences of events; still, when we think about the past, we cannot help but creating stories.

Whats more, we are creating stories during the events. I am having a change in my job next year, and I have thought a millions times about "how it will end". But it will not "end"; some things will happen, some things will be different, but most things will just continue, No true "resolution" other than the one I create in my head.

I believe this happens during old school games as well. Even if you character doesn't have a name, or dies in the first "scene", you will usually be thinking about what happens next, and will inevitably create a narrative to suit the events.

The difference, then, is one of focus. Old school players, the way I see it, aren't focused on creating a story during play, but they subconsciously create a narrative during the story anyway.

The question that arises is: are there any guarantees that the story will be "coherent" and "dramatically satisfying" enough? For me, the answer is NO, not necessarily - specially if viewed from the outside. In fact, games focused on creating stories might, well, create better stories (and that is a whole different thing, one I can enjoy too).

Think of it this way: I'm a regular guy. If I tell you some stories about my life, it might bore you to tears. Still, these stories are interesting to me because they happened to me. I didn't find a soul-mate, got a job, traveled around, etc, to create stories, but, ultimately, to be a part of something. If I were focused on creating a narrative during the events, I think it might detract from the whole experience; but the stories I can tell about such things are usually easier to remember than most stuff I have read from C.A Smith, R.E Howard and others.

Old school gaming, for me, is like that: it creates interesting stories not because they follow a three-act structures or use effective plot devices, but because we are focused on participating as they as they happen.

We have fun now, and tell stories later.

Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master (review)

I got Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master a long time ago and just left it in my tablet. I had heard great things about it, and recently I picked it up randomly and started reading. In short, it is a very good book of "intermediate" GM advice and tips.

I haven't read the first book yet, but this is an updated version, making the first unnecessary, apparently. This is a teaching tool; the advice is repeated and recapitulated often. The margins are big and colorful. In short, there is less content than you might expect from 100 pages, but the content included is good. 

There is some decent art in addition to a few amazing pieces repeated throughout the book. It has a strong D&D 5e vibe but it is useful to most kinds of RPG (especially high fantasy adventure with modern RPG sensibilities). Since this is mostly an OSR blog, I must notice that this is NOT exactly an OSR supplement (see below).

Let's skim through each chapter...

PREPARING FOR YOUR GAME - The book starts with a simple checklist off ideas on how to create a good session. It is a good, small yet comprehensive list: PCs, strong start, scenes, clues, locations, NPCs/monsters and magic item. 

The "strong start" part suggests beginning each session with action or something equally intense, but it lacks some examples on how to do it after the first session (maybe end each session with a cliffhanger? I've tried it, and it has pros and cons). The part on clues is really good. This part also talks about tools and tips (reskinning, session zero, etc.).

RUNNING YOUR GAME - Has some tips on improvising, when to use minis and grids, collaborative storytelling, pacing, etc. Good advice overall, if a bit superficial. It just states some of the author's tastes without dwelling much on the pros and cons of each, or other possibilities (for example, running entire campaigns without grids or minis).

THINKING ABOUT YOUR GAME - Is about getting ideas. It has the author's own "appendix N" of books, movies, etc., it suggest you take a walk while thinking of RPGs, etc. Taking a walk is good advice, I think... if unsurprising.

APPENDICES - Lots of surveys on "what most people do", how many hours they prep, how many combats, etc. I do not think this data is particularly relevant, and the author admits the majority isn't necessarily right (70% of the 5e GMs alter the monster's HP during combat - make of that what you will).

Overall, this is a very good book for intermediate GMs. It doesn't teach you to play the game, nor does it go to deep into ideas like railroading*, house rules or pointcrawls. Beginner and advanced GMs will also benefit from the book, as it contains advice every GM should know (although not necessarily agree).

[* The books is more or less agnostic on the matter, suggesting you avoid strict railroading (without mentioning or explaining the term directly) but also suggesting improvisation that sometimes feels like railroading to me, like changing secrets you've written down before if the player's haven't found it, Schrödinger style.]

The initial checklist is very good for GMs of any level, in my opinion. Some of the other parts (grids, collaborative storytelling, etc.) are mostly a mater of taste IMO. But maybe they are worth the try if you haven't heard of them before. 

It does not have a strong OSR flavor, nor a strong "story game" one - it occupies the same kind of "middle ground" that 5e D&D occupied at first. With that said, some advice is useful for OSR games, some are not - you will have to choose for yourself.

In short: good book, I'm glad I've read it. I have some other books by the same author that I might review in the future.

Contains affiliate links to DTRPG - by using them, you're helping to support this blog!

Author x Referee GMs

The GM is BOTH an author AND a referee.

The author creates a setting, adventures, NPCs, etc. - even rules.

The referee enforces the setting and rules.

As you can see, GMs do both - but these roles are somewhat incompatible.

How can you be expected to be the impartial judge with rules you create yourself?

One method many GMs use to deal with this is separating the functions in two distinct moments:

- I'm an author during "prep", when I create worlds, dungeons, NPCs, or even random tables to sue during play.

- I'm a referee during play. I stick to the rules, respect the rolls, and do not changing the HP of an important NPC during a combat.

But, since you are expected to play both roles, some GMs prefer do to BOTH AT ONCE.

This is what "improv" is about. You cannot improv as a referee - when you do that, you are in author stance.

To each their own - but I find that confusing.

For example, an author can definitely "fudge" the dice. If he can create a dragon (or nation) out of nowhere, deciding a single hit missed is well within his powers.

This solves a lot of problems.

For example, the classic "quantum ogre". There are two doors. The PCs choose the door on the right. Can the GM decide there is an ogre behind it AFTER the PCs choose?

Well, author-GM can, but referee-GM cannot.

Likewise, is changing the result of a random encounter roll adequate? It is for the author-GM, but not for the referee-GM.

And what about "balancing" encounters to suit the level of the PCs? Same thing.

Come to think of it, this separation is the reason why I avoid "improv". 

I want to use the author stance as little as possible during the game.

Maybe that is also why I feel the need to write (and sometimes publish) my own material, despite my constant urge to tinker and house-rule.

[Basic Wilderness Encounters was created precisely because of this reason. I didn't want to "author' encounters during the game. I wrote it is an author, and I use it as a referee].

And why I prefer to run other peoples' modules - and even campaigns - rather than creating my own.

To be clear, I LIKE to be an author-GM, just not during the game.

Anyway, I cannot be the first to have this thought, but I think the distinction should be more popular, and probably more discussed in game master's books.

There are probably more things to tackle around this subject. 

For example, I am thinking players have a specific stance during the game (they are almost NEVER authors in my games), but it is fine to give players author role between sessions, while writing a backstory, or when scheduling a game (e.g., agreeing in advance WHICH dungeon the PCs will tackle next).

But I think this is enough for today.

Related posts:

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

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

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-random-quantum-ogre.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html

Improvisation and randomness may lead to railroading; a pre-written story will save you

NOTE: Blogger deleted this (for bogus reasons) the first time I've posted, so I posted again with small changes. I managed to recover the comments (see below) and draft, but decided to keep this one.

This counter-intuitive, I know, but hear me out. 

We usually say that's having a prewritten story is bad form, and that you should play to find out what happens next, with input from your players and improvisation from the GM. I have advised this very thing. 

However, THE OPPOSITE is also true in one sense: a prewritten story (with beginning and end) of what happens if the PCs don't intervene is very useful.

To understand this, we have to define railroading. I wrote a post about that, but you could say that the railroad is defined by the lack of relevant choices on the part of the players. I've said:

So the railroad can happen, basically, in two cases:
Because there is no choice (for example, there is only one door) or;2) Because the choice does not matter (there are several doors to choose from, but the result is the same; or: the antagonist confronts the PCs on act three no matter what they do).

Now, if you read that post, you've seem a couple of examples where randomness takes away from player choice. If they have three doors to choose from (say, one made of wood, other iron, and other paper), but they lead to three randomly defined different rooms, the choice doesn't matter.

Well, if the players have NO CLUE and NO WAY OF FINDING ONE, their choice is random anyway, so the distinction doesn't really matter. But if they can choose to look for clues, it is better to have a these things written in advance than making them random. 

This sounds simple enough; let's talk about improvisation. 

Of course you need improvisation to run a game. After all you never know what the players will choose next.

However, relying only on improvisation is dangerous: in such circumstances, it is hard to be sure that you're not making the choices void. 

Let me give you one example. Let's say you have a cool monster (a green troll) that you want to introduce to your game. Instead of putting him in the sewers, the swamp, or under the bridge, you keep him in your pocket (or the back of your head) to use when necessary. Now, the players go to the swamp and - bam! Here is the opportunity to use your troll! But what if they go to explore the sewers instead? Well, another opportunity! The troll is the sewers!

(I think this is what Courtney Campbell calls "the quantum ogre". This link will lead to other links and eventually I find out that all this stuff has been thoroughly discussed a decade ago. Sigh. But read on).

Posted by u/MrHarakiri - source.

Now, compare this with a pre-written story or script.

There is a troll hiding under a nearby bridge. He kills the elderly witch that lives near the village. Villagers become suspicious but no one really cares about her. A week later, some sheep disappear, but the owner is a rich merchant that no one likes, so no one helps. In the following week, the troll kidnaps som children. Some brave villagers go to the rescue. Many people die, but the troll is wounded and runs away, leaving the children behind, and the village completely ruined. The end.

When the PCs enter the scene (say, looking for the witch), the story is already written (or at least outlined); as they find things out, they will create their own competing story. Or don't - they may just leave, and the story will play out as written. As you can see, the important part is that the outcome is not written in stone. Unless, maybe, if the players decide to do nothing; in that case, it might be BETTER to have the outcome written in stone so the PCs can suffer the consequences of their choice (of avoiding the problem).

BTW, I added a few prewritten endings to my own module, the Wretched Hive, before thinking about all this stuff. So here is another example from my book:

If both the Queen and Malavor are still alive, the hive expands. In 2d4 weeks, the number of demons and bee-soldiers is doubled, and the hive’s defenses are reinforced. In another 1d6 weeks, Malavor manages to mutate himself into a bee-demon, half-insane, but with full control of the bee-people. The bloated and sick avatar dies after a while, but this no longer affects the bee-soldiers, that can now be cloned in the underground. Three months after the characters left, Malavor unleashes his army against the nearest village.

In short: 

Again, we go back to Justin Alexander's definition: "Railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome".

A preconceived story is USEFUL, but a preconceived OUTCOME is bad, UNLESS it happens precisely because of the player's choices. In fact, I would say that having a preconceived story is very useful for any adventure. Just remember that the story relies on the fact that the PCs do nothing; if they do something about it, the outcome will probably change.

The term "story" has become some kind of curse word in OSR circles, and for good reason - a  story with a preconceived, unchangeable outcome is anathema to role-playing. However, once you learn this, you can safely write a story for your players to contend with - with the certainty that, most of the times, they will derail the whole thing to create an unexpected outcome.

Railroads (and some sandboxes)

The action of playing RPG consists, mainly, of making relevant decisions through your character.

This definition is important, as you will see below.

RPG adventure modules (and campaigns) can have several types of structure, two of which are mentioned more often: the railroad and the sandbox.

(Until the end of this article, I will argue that these words describe MOMENTS in the adventure, not adventures)

A "railroad style" adventure is one in which the characters never leave the pre-defined tracks in the adventure. That is, the plot goes from A, to B, to C, to D, regardless of what the characters do.

So you could already say that "railroads are not role-playing games". After all, players don't make relevant choices. It may be a theater, the narration of a story (sometimes shared), it may even be a way of TEACHING RPG, but it is not RPG, strictly speaking.

Sandbox is something akin to the sandboxes play in. Inside this "box", the characters can do whatever they want, in the order they want. The actions of the PCs will have their own consequences, and these consequences will form the adventure (or "story"). It is also called "open world". 

This is very common in current electronic role-playing games like Skyrim, The Witcher, etc. (compare with the first Mario Bros., where the option was to go forward or die - and the fun was not making good choices, but playing with agility and precision).

Often, the two terms are considered antonyms, but I agree with Justin Alexander when he says that it is not exactly that. Anyway, I'm not discuss this now. I will focus on the railroad as a problem to be studied (and maybe solved), and leave the sandbox for a future post. 

These two structures resemble physical structures, but are actually abstract ideas. A dungeon with four rooms arranged in a straight line is very reminiscent of a railway's structure, while a map appears to indicate a sandbox. But this is not always true. 

The railroad is defined by the lack of relevant choices on the part of the players. 

Let's say, for example, what adventure says that he has to face a dragon burned in village E. They can go to villages D, F or G, but in none of them there are useful weapons, allies or clues against the dragon, and and the dragon attacks the PCs after five days regardless of what they do. 

Another example: the PCs arrive in a room with 4 doors (A, B, C and D). In one of them, there is the villain. In the other three, there are some treasures. But no matter which door the players choose, the villain will always be behind the first door they open (to ensure that players do not run away with the treasure without facing the main villain).

So the railroad can happen, basically, in two cases:

1) Because there is no choice (for example, there is only one door) or;

2) Because the choice does not matter (there are several ports to choose from, but the result is the same).

Note that determining the outcome of the players' choice just by rolling a die does not necessarily solve this problem. For example, if you're going to roll 1d6 to find out if the villain is behind the door, the player's choice didn't matter either (unless, for example, they know there is such a risk, and can limit the number of doors they open, etc.).

[Notice that this situation is EXTREMELY COMMON in many modules, even those which wouldn't commonly be considered "railroads"; players must choose one of two or three doors without any information.]

But what if you rolled the die BEFORE they opened the door? Although it looks different, for players the result is often the same as if you roll AFTER they open the door. And even if you chose any room to place the villain when designing the dungeon ... sometimes the result is unchanged. 

How to explain this?

In this case, the players DO NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION that allows them to make a decision. Their decisions end up being random. But there is a very significant difference there: if the villain is already defined BEFORE they open the door, players can SEEK that information. They can, for example, put their ears to the door and try to listen, or knock on the door and hide. These are RELEVANT CHOICES.

But what if the villain is silent, waiting for the PCs, and there is NO way to get that information? Then, we are back to where we started.

But then... is EVERYTHING a railroad? An unexpected surprise for the PCs is enough to ruin the module? Well, no. That's what I want to demonstrate: railroad is a MOMENT that happens in all adventures: that situation in which the players' choices do not exist, do not matter, or are made randomly. 

Some adventures are railroading ALL THE TIME. In others, we have only a few points and events like that, but a lot is determined by the actions of the PCs. The adventures that give a little space for relevant choices deserve to be criticized for being too "railroad-y".

But much worse than that are the adventures that try to FORCE the railroad, inventing bizarre ways to make the actions of the PCS irrelevant. 

For example, saying that the villain cannot be faced before the last part of the adventure so as not to spoil the ending. Or saying that if the PCs do not accept the king's mission to kill the ogre, he will send the royal guards to beat them up ("Say, your IMBECILE highness, why don't you send the royal guard to kill the ogre instead?). 

It is common for novice GMs not to remember to give players many options. No problem. As players and GMs learn, they will realize that RPG is a game of infinite possibilities. What really should be avoided is this second case: forcing the railroad when players have already invented other interesting options. 

Justin says "Railroads happen when the GM negates a player’s choice in order to enforce a preconceived outcome". 

This definition is incredibly useful; it is what I call a "forced" railroad. Fortunately, this is much rarer today... But it still happens, even in D&D 5e campaigns, as we will see.

--- 

Further reading: 

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36900/roleplaying-games/the-railroading-manifesto

The post below is the main inspiration behind mine. In fact, this is not muich more than a summary I've felt like writing. I've found the idea of a "forced" railroad is useful to explain to new gamemasters what they shouldn't do, since I've modules described as "railroads" more often than GMs.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/03/rpg-and-design-iii-crunch-is-fluff.html

I think I've never wrote my definition of RPGs, but that post has some ideas.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/04/rpg-and-design-vi-unproductive-fluff.html

I do mention "meaningful choice" here.