From what I heard it described as, a situation where the GM just refuses to let anything happen except for the PCs' own actions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;596046From what I heard it described as, a situation where the GM just refuses to let anything happen except for the PCs' own actions.

RPGPundit

I think it is real. Every style of play has potential pitfalls. The way i run my modern mafia games, this is always a concern: trying to respect the free will of the pcs while supllying a living and reactive world. It would be easy to only react, and forget their are other forces out there that can act on the pcs as well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;596046From what I heard it described as, a situation where the GM just refuses to let anything happen except for the PCs' own actions.

Is this even a real style of play?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;596051I think it is real. Every style of play has potential pitfalls. The way i run my modern mafia games, this is always a concern: trying to respect the free will of the pcs while supllying a living and reactive world. It would be easy to only react, and forget their are other forces out there that can act on the pcs as well.

This seems like a legitimate concern and something that might actually happen in play.

The RPGNet discussion is defining it as "forcing your players to make a decision". Which is a pretty stupid definition and will never happen in actual play. It gets even dumber when they claim that it's as bad as actual railroading because you're "forcing your players to do something".

It's like claiming that refusing to spoon-feed a grown adult is as bad as locking that grown adult in a room and refusing to give them any food.

In either case, I don't find the term "reverse railroading" to be particularly descriptive of the behavior being described. The opposite of railroading is not railroading.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;596057This seems like a legitimate concern and something that might actually happen in play.

The RPGNet discussion is defining it as "forcing your players to make a decision". Which is a pretty stupid definition and will never happen in actual play. It gets even dumber when they claim that it's as bad as actual railroading because you're "forcing your players to do something".

It's like claiming that refusing to spoon-feed a grown adult is as bad as locking that grown adult in a room and refusing to give them any food.

In either case, I don't find the term "reverse railroading" to be particularly descriptive of the behavior being described.

Not familiar with the rpg.net thread, so was going by the OP. i dont see forcing the players to make a decision as a problem. Also agree that reverse railroading is an odd term. Really I just think there is always the potential the GM doesn't do enough on his end during live play. In a sandbox game or one that focuses on letting interesting situations emerge, it is something to watch out for.

For reference, here's the original post from the Big Purple thread.

QuoteJust read another thread about a Sandbox GM and On Rails players.

Some suggestions that I saw basically boiled down to "force them to sandbox/make decision".

My question to you is this. Is this sort of "Reverse Railroading" (i.e. refusing to do anything until the players start playing with the sand) as bad as classic railroading.

To me, the answer is yes. In both situations, you have a GM trying to force his/her players into a game or gamestyle that the players aren't wanting to play in.

Players who would rather be told what to do than decide, or react to something instead of be proactive, absolutely exist. My regular player-group back in the 80s-90s was like this - I'd give them a map and a bunch of rumors and tell them they could do whatever they wanted and they'd, basically, stare at me blankly until I had someone approach them with a job offer or attack them. But the idea of a GM who, faced with players like that, refuses to throw some catalyst at them, and would really allow the game to reach an impasse where everybody's staring at each other across the table waiting in vain for the other side to make the first move, yeah, I doubt that's ever actually happened.

I think it's a potential risk with sandbox-style games that the GM becomes too reactive, yes. But I tend to think just sitting there with the players and saying to them "Right, you're in a bar, do something!" without anything to interact with or pick up on is probably just not very imaginative GMing. There doesn't need to be a special name for it.

I'd still expect any players worth their salt to work with it, though. "Who do I know who might be looking for somebody to do a job?" might be an obvious response. Or "Who is in the bar?" or whatever.

Quote from: noisms;596071I think it's a potential risk with sandbox-style games that the GM becomes too reactive, yes. But I tend to think just sitting there with the players and saying to them "Right, you're in a bar, do something!" without anything to interact with or pick up on is probably just not very imaginative GMing. There doesn't need to be a special name for it.

I'd still expect any players worth their salt to work with it, though. "Who do I know who might be looking for somebody to do a job?" might be an obvious response. Or "Who is in the bar?" or whatever.

The usual response for us would be:

"Is there someone else here?"

"Yes."

"I attack them."

Or

"Is there someone else here?"

"No."

"Then I attack Fred."

It's a short logic tree, and we're both easily bored, and easily amused by rolling dice.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;596057In either case, I don't find the term "reverse railroading" to be particularly descriptive of the behavior being described. The opposite of railroading is not railroading.

"Shitty Sandbox/Unprepared GM" would be a close second in my book.

Quote from: T. Foster;596063Players who would rather be told what to do than decide, or react to something instead of be proactive, absolutely exist. My regular player-group back in the 80s-90s was like this - I'd give them a map and a bunch of rumors and tell them they could do whatever they wanted and they'd, basically, stare at me blankly until I had someone approach them with a job offer or attack them. But the idea of a GM who, faced with players like that, refuses to throw some catalyst at them, and would really allow the game to reach an impasse where everybody's staring at each other across the table waiting in vain for the other side to make the first move, yeah, I doubt that's ever actually happened.

I had some players in Cyberpunk 2020 like that back in the day, I am sure I have mentioned them before.  Went to the day job, went home, ignored the massive plot hook, went home, ignored the next several plot hooks, went home...  YOU ARE CYBERPUNKS GO FIGHT THE SYSTEM.

But yeah, we didn't sit at the table staring off into the distance, they did things and interacted with people while avoiding the plot hooks that I threw in because they weren't doing anything else.

Quote from: StormBringer;596104"Shitty Sandbox"

Litterbox.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;596106Litterbox.

:hatsoff:
You have coined a phrase, sir!  Your recognition plaque and membership card will arrive shortly.  

Quote from: StormBringer;596116You have coined a phrase, sir!

Nah, I heard it from at least three different sources, all of whom seem to have coined it independently of one another.

I'm just the popularizer.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;596057This seems like a legitimate concern and something that might actually happen in play.

The RPGNet discussion is defining it as "forcing your players to make a decision". Which is a pretty stupid definition and will never happen in actual play. It gets even dumber when they claim that it's as bad as actual railroading because you're "forcing your players to do something".

It's like claiming that refusing to spoon-feed a grown adult is as bad as locking that grown adult in a room and refusing to give them any food.

In either case, I don't find the term "reverse railroading" to be particularly descriptive of the behavior being described. The opposite of railroading is not railroading.

As I see it, the railroad consists of one, and only one, option. So, it's opposite would be an infinite number of options, all of them equally meaningless. At least, as far as the players can tell they're all equally meaningless.
Maybe we'd be better off calling this the blank canvas or similar?

Anyway, this is the natural result of excessive worry over not railroading the players. Having rejected the tedious carrots and sticks of the railroad, he recoils from giving the players any input at all, fearful he will sully their pristine solipsistic protagonism.

Or maybe he's just inept, or lazy.

Quote from: Dan Vincze;596126Or maybe he's just inept, or lazy.

Usually, this.

<3 the term "Litterbox".