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.

The sandbox railroad

Can a sandbox be a railroad?

Despite numerous definitions, sometimes I think of sandbox as "you can go anywhere in here" and railroads as "you can ONLY go this way".

But last week the PCs were exploring an unknown area of the hex map, looking for a ruined castle of legend. 

They were surrounded by forests, and had no exact clues about the location of the castle (only that it is "near the river" and a couple of clues they can find in the way), so they just wandered around a bit, looking for more information, "opening" new hexes.

(BTW, Hextml has this cool "fog of war" effect that can help you manage that).

They still haven't found the castle; I decided that it is big enough that they will see it if they cross the right hex.

So, you could say they are in a sandbox... they can go anywhere, but... until they find the castle, there is no difference. There is just more forest and rolling for random encounters.

This is not exactly a railroad, but the result is the same no matter the direction they go (again, until they find the castle).

Let me illustrate this:

Lets say the green area is a forest, brown is mountain, blue is sea.

In an hex map, if you're going from "B" to "A", you can try different ways - assuming you cannot simply draw a straight line because you don't know the EXACT location of B.

But it doesn't make a difference. It is all forest. Same speed, same chances of getting lost, same random encounters.

In fact, even if the PCs suddenly decide to go THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, to C, or if they get lost and wander into the mountains of the North, or travel South until they see the ocean... you STILL know exactly what is going to happen in the next week or so (if that's the distance from A to B).

Of course, this does not feel like a railroad if you have interesting, preexisting, features in EACH hex (which I don't).

Random features and random encounters, however, do not change the railroad "format" of this experience. If you roll to find out there is a cottage or an ogre in the new hex, it still doesn't matter if the PCs went North or South: the result would be the same.

Anyway, I don't think this is an actual railroad, because, while the PATH seems identical, the destination is different. The PCs haven't had their choices negated. Their choices are irrelevant for this week (they literally have a random encounter with an ogre whichever direction they go), but ultimately they'll arrive in a different destination.

But this is an interesting aspect to consider. There are SEVERAL dungeons scattered across my sandbox, and I'm always a bit worried that the PCs choose to go to a dungeon I'm not entirely familiar with (I cannot memorize all this stuff, TBH). 

I don't want to "force" them into a dungeon , but I'd really like to spend at least half an hour reading it before they enter.

The fact that I know exactly what happens on the way to the dungeon - NO MATTER WHICH WAY - might be an interesting tool to give me time to prepare. 

Maybe I could even roll/prepare half a dozen encounters beforehand (I'm currently using this) and know exactly what is coming in the next session - regardless of the direction the PCs take.

Fudging, lying and cheating

[D&D] is a game, and outcomes shouldn’t always be predictable! Removing the risk of failure also removes most of the fun. (From an upcoming random encounter book).

"Fudging" is a very contentious topic; most people reading this might have an strong opinion before reaching my conclusion. But before we discuss it, we need some definitions. The Cambridge dictionary defines it as to avoid a direct answer or "to cheat about something slightly, esp. by not reporting facts accurately or not telling the exact truth".

In the context of RPGs, most of the fudging discussion refers to the moment when the GM secretly changes the results of the dice (or other statistics of the game, such as monster HP) - usually in combat - in order to save players characters (PCs) - or even NPCs - from a fate that the GM deems inappropriate, anti-climatic, etc.

There could be other definitions (and I'll discuss some), but this is the most common.

The debate has two vocal sides: the ones that say fudging is cheating, as per the dictionary, and the ones who think fudging is necessary to avoid anti-climax or to save the PCs from fates they do not deserve. Curiously, the first camp is full of "old school" gamers like myself, despite the fact that the 1e DMG suggests saving "undeserving" PCs from death.

I believe both sides are too extreme and there is some nuance to be considered.

First, a small caveat - this is NOT a moral judgment

In the past, I've seem people get offended by discussing this topic. I'm not calling anyone a cheat for fudging - it is your table, not mine.

I think every GM has fudged in some circumstances, and I certainly did. 

But I also think this is usually a mistake, should be almost always be avoided, and it can ruin games. I'm not saying it is "evil", but I think it is fair to say it is "bad form".

This discussion is akin to asking "is sugar bad for your health?". It probably is, but I'm not calling you unhealthy or forbidding you to eat a cake when I say that. I eat too much sugar myself...

Please skip this post if you don't like the idea of criticizing fudging.

Is fudging cheating?

The dictionary seem to indicate so, although some seem to think it is "cheating with good intent", and therefore shouldn't be considered cheating. 

RPGs are a cooperative game; between a GM and a player, there are no winners and losers, which is why the "cheating" term feels inadequate. 

To that I often reply that GMs who defend fudging in never had to deal with a fudging player. I have, and it is exhausting. I also noticed a GM was fudging and it almost ruined that game for me (but there are exceptions - read on).

[I didn't expel the player or quit the campaign, FWIW; but I avoided these situations in future games]

Or put it in another way: fudging is NOT cheating if you are honest about it. "So, I rolled a natural 20 here, and that would probably kill your PC... but you know what, that goblin encounter shouldn't be that hard, my bad, let say the goblin missed".

On the other hand, if you're fudging and constantly lying about it, then it is probably cheating, even if "cheating with good intent". 

After, why would you lie is what you're doing is good and expected?

Maybe you can START the campaign by saying that "look, I want to provide a good time to everyone, so I will occasionally change the result of the dice to avoid that any PCs die by accident. I'll try to use it sparingly and you guys try to avoid abusing the system".

I'm not sure I'd play in such a game (I probably would!), but I'd like it one hundred times better than being duped into that.

PC death is a problem

The death of a PC is a problem. That is why HP were created - people get attached to their PCs. 

A TPK (total party kill, i.e., the death of ALL PCs at once) is a big hurdle in a campaign unless you already have other PCs/NPCs involved in the campaign to avoid starting from scratch.

Fudging is one solution, but not the only one. You can also:

- Create a new PC.

- Turn hirelings or NPCs into PCs.

- Use some form of resurrection.

- Make 0 HP mean unconsciousness/maiming as suggested in the 1e DMG.

- Have immortal PCs (examples: Toon RPG, Dark Souls).

I wrote an (unpublished) RPG (with some story-game influence) that actually required the player to DECLARE his PC is willing to die for this fight. If the answer is negative, the worst that can happen is capture, failure, unconsciousness, etc. If positive, you get some temporary bonus but risk death, let the dice fall where they may.

This solution is as good as any of the above, depending on the kind of game you're playing.

The best way to address this is make it explicit. Talk to your players in the beginning of the campaign. What do we do if a PC dies? Or in the event of a TPK?

Do PCs ever "deserve" death?

Many GMs fudge to save PCs from an "unfair" death. Maybe two or three enemies hit in the same round, all with near maximum damage, not giving the player option of running away.

What is more, maybe it was a surprise attack and not a battle the players chose. Maybe the PC lost initiative and didn't even get to act or parlay.

I find that most of these cases enhance the fun of the game by adding risk and unpredictability. But if you believe otherwise, the best policy is, again, discussing this with your players beforehand and even changing the rules in advance to match your play-style.

In addition, judging if a PC "deserves" death is an extra burden to the GM. The GM is not there to morally judge the PC's choices, but to present a coherent setting. In any case, a brave PC might be more "deserving" of an heroic death than an NPC who decided to be a farmer instead.

In short, let the PCs decide what risk they are willing to take. Sometimes, simply traversing the wilderness can be deadly. If you don't find that fun, let your players know that they will always have the option of running before the battle starts (which is NOT the case for most D&D systems; surprise and initiative can kill you before you can act).

What about "unfair" challenges?

Fudging is sometimes related to the idea that encounter difficulty should match the PCs level. I usually advise against that, because:

- It makes the setting feel “fake”, as if it was built around the PCs.

- It robs the players of the satisfaction of finally facing stronger creatures that were once too powerful for them.

- It misrepresents the (RAW) danger of wilderness travel.

The last point is especially relevant here. If you keep fudging the dice, the players will never learn how dangerous a group of orcs really is.

Fudge now, and you'll fudge forever

This brings us to another problem? if you misrepresent the danger of these orcs once, it is unfair to expect your players are more careful next time. Then, you`ll need to fudge again.

Also, if you save ONE PC from death, it is unfair to not save ANOTHER PC under different circumstances - no matter how you justify it, it might feel like you're playing favorites.

Honesty is the best policy

My PC was recently on the receiving end of a critical hit by a zombie that "should" be easily defeated. The DM was a bit apologetic, but for me it was the first time in the game that I felt my PC was in danger (he lost an eye). It made he game more interesting to me.

As a GM, I don't like the burden of having to lie about dice results. I always roll in the open and never use a DM screen in order to avoid temptation (as someone else commented, would you like your players bringing "player screens" to hide heir rolls?). 

[In fact, if you use a DM screen when you make attack rolls I will assume you are fudging. I might even agree that your players should know you're fudging, although I'd prefer if you said it out loud. Online play brings a number of related issues that we will have to face soon - will there be "fudging tools" for the GM in RPG apps such as roll20? I wouldn't know, but I find the idea interesting.]

I let the players choose the risk they are willing to take, and the dice decide if the risk materializes.

If I am "saving" the PCs whenever I want, I am to blame whenever I don't.

Fudging and story-gaming

I have said before that "fudging" in D&D is the result of a misconception, since the role of the GM is not to protect the plot or the pacing of the story". 

Fudging seems more common in people that want to play D&D as a story-game, using it as a tool to provide a "satisfactory narrative".

Again, if that is how you like to play, it doesn't matter what other people say, have fun.

I will just remind you that actual story-games usually do not encourage fudging either. You don't get to choose your rolls in Fiasco or with Rory's Story Cubes AFAICT.

In fact, these games often have no DM, or at least include multiple tools to allow the players to meaningfully participate in the creation of the setting without directly controlling their PCs.

Fudging in D&D seems to create a weird, asymmetric situation in which the DM is playing one kind of the game and the players are  doing something different; as if the DM could change the dice at will, but PCs will be seems as cheaters if they do the same thing.

Fudging players seems to be an ignored point in this topic. Can players "fudge" too or they always cheat? How come DMs get to "save" PCs and NPCs, while the player cannot simply decided that letting his barbarian die against a lowly goblin would not be appropriate to his "character arc"?

If changing the result of the dice is cool for GMs, it should occasional be permissible to players - unless they agreed beforehand only one person gets to change results.

Fudging and random tables

There is at least one example of "recommended fudging" in the 1e DMG: ignoring random encounters rolls to spare the PCs who are "undeserving" of more danger.

Curiously, many people do not see that as fudging. Even GMs that are vehemently against changing an attack roll to save a PC can feel comfortable by planning encounters beforehand and ignoring results that feel "too hard".

In any case, you can see the method and results are very similar: changing dice rolls to save PCs from danger.

I do not like this idea, for the reasons described above ("What about "unfair" challenges?"), but I don't think it is exactly the same situation.

There is an oracular quality to random tables - which could be an interesting discussion, but this post is too long already. For now, I'll just say I'd happily "fudge" the results of a random table when creating a dungeon, for example.

For random encounters, I'd prefer to have better tables then to fudge results. I'm working on that...

"Acceptable fudging" - or "not-fudging"

There are cases in which the GM is expected to be able to change the dice or mechanics as he sees fit.

I use quotation marks because, as my friend Jens pointed out, this might deserve a different name altogether.

I often change stats from monsters in published modules. I think it is important to say I change the monsters when I do that - these are not super-strong goblins, but morlocks, etc.. 

I ignore encounters I don't like and even erase entire sessions of dungeons.

I am not sure I'd call this "fudging", but I don't mind if you do - in any case, this is not what people usually refer to when they say fudging (instead, it is a part of "prep"), so I see no reason to make things more confusing. 

There are other examples, as pointed in Jens post. Changing the rules, even during the game, can be more or less expected when play-testing, or getting to know a system. As he suggests, "don't call it fudging".

But I'd be careful with that too. I often think of my Shadow of the Demon Lord campaign, in which the PCs almost suffered a TPK in the FIRST adventure by fighting A SINGLE GHOUL. It was certainly "unfair" - nobody had played this game before and they were coming from an "heroic D&D" background.

But it DID set the tone for the rest of the campaign. They immediately realized SotDL is a hard, gritty game. If I had changed the dice (or HP etc.) at that moment, I would ruin the player's understating of the system - unless I explained what I had done.

I still think the first adventure in Tales of the Demon Lord is too hard, and I'd change it if I were to run it again - but I'd avoid misdirecting the players or they'd never really get to experience the system.

In conclusion...

I find fudging a dangerous tool.

Letting the dice fall where they may takes a heavy burden of my back when I GM.

Ignoring this tool has a cost, but it creates new and interesting opportunities.

In any case, you should always talk to your players about which kind of campaign you're planning to run. Don't assume they expect this or that.

This feels like an endless topic, and don't feel like I considered every angle. I only hope this post has helped to make my opinion on the subject clearer.

Additional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/06/escape-truman-show-escape-matrix-god-dm.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/03/what-if-you-dont-fudge-your-rolls.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/09/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-ix-pages-100.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/12/wotc-is-recommends-fudging-peril-in.html

https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2024/03/protect-your-gamemasters-and-dont-call.html

D&D (6e) recommends fudging? (Peril in Pinebrook)

I've been using X/Twitter lately, but I have no idea if I'm doing it right. 

I just take a look at what people I follow are talking about and start rambling over half a dozen tweets.

Today I've seen two related subjects: encounter balance and fudging (more specifically, a kind of "deus ex machina" that is tantamount to fudging, i.e., send the dragon or Paladin to save the PCs if they ever get caught in a bad situation).

The reason seems to be this bit from an upcoming D&D module that teaches new players how to play (Peril in Pinebrook). Apparently, it is a specifically written for children:

As you can see, they avoided recommending that you simply change the results of the dice - but the effects are pretty much the same.

Well, I have written several posts against fudging and illusionism already, so I'll try to avoid repeating myself too much.

Instead, I'll just mention a couple of thoughts I expressed on X/Twitter today.

---
"Fudging" and "illusionism" are popular among D&D players in 2023.
It's okay if your table likes them, but I hate to see it taught as if this was the ONLY valid playstyle.
ESPECIALLY while you are learning the game.

---
I don't like this, but if your table wants kids gloves this is a valid playstyle... just be honest that this is what you're doing.
I think kids have to learn honesty and fair play too.

---
You absolutely can run a game where no PCs ever die for good.
E.g., Dark Souls. Or Toon.
Just be honest to your players about it.

---
I wish that everyone that recommends fudging the dice would add at least a few caveats:
- It is not universally accepted (and there are several people that strongly advises AGAINST it).
- Can lead to loss of trust (the GM is lying/cheating) and wrong assumptions (e.g., "we can defeat an adult red dragon"!).
- Puts an undue burden on the GM (e.g., "I am responsible for saving the PCs").

---
Some people believe both in "balanced encounters" and that "fudging is okay".
So, the encounters are designed for the PC's convenience, but if they (or you) FU you STILL have to save their asses?
I can see defending one or the other - I like neither - but defending BOTH is strange IMO.
Makes you think that the GM is not only responsible to create "fair" fights (or, to be more precise, fights the PCs will probably win) but ALSO to save them if they don't.

---
That's all I have for today... "Balanced encounters" deserve a post of its own.

For now...

I wish you all a Merry Christmas!

---

Aditional reading:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/06/escape-truman-show-escape-matrix-god-dm.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/03/what-if-you-dont-fudge-your-rolls.html

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/09/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-ix-pages-100.html

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.