PDA

View Full Version : An Acceptable Amount of Railroading?



BrokenChord
2014-02-04, 07:50 PM
Hey, guys! I hope you're all having merry days in whatever part of the world you live in.

I come to you guys today with a question, from the perspective of player, GM, whatever: What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?

For me, personally, I think there are exactly two situations where DM railroading is okay.

The first (to be used in situations such as introducing the BBEG and having him burn down the town or something early in the campaign) is when the DM talks it over with the players beforehand that he's going to try to do it that way and it's up to said players what they do, but that they will in fact die horrible deaths for attempting to oppose this part of the plot. Or, alternatively, he might say that an NPC will save you; not a problem as long as said NPC doesn't keep doing it for the rest of the campaign, I reckon. I mean, usually an NPC sacrificing their lives to save the player characters is highly frowned upon, but if it's how the main plot of the campaign kicks off and the players know it should happen (and don't oppose it, because the DM SHOULD change it if the group says it will be un-fun) then it isn't too bad of a thing.

The second is not exactly railroading in the specific sense, but I'm including it here. Combat railroading. Now, no enemy should ever only have one way to be killed; that's just... Bad. But I think it's permissible if, say, as one of my DMs did pretty recently, the BBEG is at the top of their evil tower, with all the encounters made for on the way up, with lots of potential plot resolution, awesome combats, and other such stuff on the way up the tower... And the players' responses are to try every method they have at their disposal to try to completely bypass everything except the BBEG. I mean, the DM didn't say something like "no, you can't do that" but it WAS kind of close to; there were a lot of powerful magical defenses preventing most of our tactics for bypassing, such as just flying straight up and blasting through or teleporting in, and the DM admitted after the campaign had ended that she had made most of them up on the spot. I mean, it wasn't much of a plot railroad; we didn't technically have to do the fight at all, we wouldn't have been adversely affected much by the BBEG succeeding, and we wouldn't have lost our Good alignments or anything like that if we decided we didn't stand a chance and could only do the good guy thing if we retreated and tried again later. However, and I agree with this mindset, the DM had pretty much poured everything into making that tower and giving us the opportunity (as we chose to) to fight through the strong minions and last remaining lieutenants and go toe-to-toe with the BBEG in a climactic battle, all of which I must say she set up beautifully. I forgive her for not wanting us to skip to the BBEG bit without going through the gauntlet, and I think most DMs are okay for doing something like this.

What do you guys all think? Are those acceptable ways to railroad, and are there any other times where you guys think railroading is okay? And when it is, how MUCH of it is okay? Hoping to spark some good discussion here. Have at it, guys!

Rhynn
2014-02-04, 07:59 PM
Both of your examples are, IMO, unnecessary at best, unacceptable at worst, and are mostly an attempt to make up for poor GMing.

They exemplify the style of GMing where the GM has pre-planned how things will play out, and then during play tries to adjust the PCs' actions (reducing player agency) to his story instead of adjusting his story to the PCs' actions, which is IMO always a bad way to run a game.

The game should be about the PCs' actions against the background the GM has set up.

I think both approaches are inferior to creating good set-ups and environments and scenarios that the PCs can approach in their own ways, and must approach with some thought.

The Oni
2014-02-04, 07:59 PM
For the final boss? Yeah, I get that. No one wants you to skip their Very Definitely Final Dungeon.

I dunno, if it'd been me, I'd have planned for the players to do exactly that; if they tried to crash an airship into the top floor, I'd block them with a big flying something and then have the lieutenants fight the PCs in midair.

nedz
2014-02-04, 08:38 PM
I rail road shamelessly at the very beginning in order to get the party together, but play hasn't really started at that point. After that I avoid it.

BBEGs aren't compulsory BTW, there are other campaign styles.

valadil
2014-02-04, 09:38 PM
How much you railroad depends on the group and the game.

Some players want to be dragged around on a leash and won't take action until you tell them where to go. Other players can take their character and run with it with no guidance from a GM. What Nedz said rings true too - you may need to railroad to get the game started, but once the momentum is there the players can carry the game on their own.

There is no fixed dial for how much you should be railroading. Instead you need to learn to read your audience.

One method I use is to start with as little railroad as possible, and turn it up slowly when the game stagnates. I feel like this way I end up using the least railroad necessary to get the game moving.

Rakaydos
2014-02-04, 09:42 PM
When I railroad my players, I hang a lampshade on it. Usually with references to videogame logic, like cinimatic cut scenes.

Silus
2014-02-04, 09:57 PM
The trick I think (Have yet to actually implement it yet) is to railroad but give it he illusion of choice.

Example: The plan for the story's beginning is this big bad MFer raids the PCs hometown (in a sort of Fallout setting). They raze it to the ground and kill like 90% of the people in search of some MacGuffin. The objective is that the players come to hate this guy for wrecking their stuff and their home and want some revenge on him. Tracking him down and killing him leads them to clues that he was working under orders of some higher power and that...well, in Fallout, it would be like finding out the Raider boss was working for the Enclave and said Enclave wants the MacGuffin to rule a sizable chunk of the wasteland and do bad things to not so good people.

The way you go about it is to do your damnedest to make the players HATE the NPC. Like they're at the top of the 'ol ****-list. Get the players to want to kill the guy not because the story says so, but because the NPC is such a pain in their side and has caused them so much grief that they, on some level of their being, HAVE to kill them to make things right again in their little world.

The problem is getting the players invested enough.

"Ok, so the guy destroyed the town and killed everyone in it except us. Well, off to someplace new."
"Um, guys, he just murdered and did unspeakable acts to your friends and family and burned down the only place you've ever called home..."
"So?"
"So...no thoughts of revenge or justice?"
"Nope. In fact, we want to work for him now!"
:smallannoyed:

Red Fel
2014-02-04, 10:17 PM
Gonna agree with Silus.

Frankly, I prefer a situation where railroading is irrelevant. My favorite DMs (and the kind to which I aspire) are the ones who can adapt to anything the players do. In an ideal world, the players can do whatever they can do, at least mechanically speaking. Want to travel the world rather than fight the ultimate evil? Go ahead. Bail on the villagers before the invading army arrives? Fine. Find a way to destroy everything in the dungeon before you actually step foot inside? Good job.

Is it frustrating? Absolutely. But there are two points.

1. I am extremely, extremely reluctant to punish creativity. If you managed to out-think me, I may be annoyed, but that's no excuse for me to punish you. Maybe I won't give you the reward I had planned, but if you managed to accomplish the goal in a way I didn't anticipate, I have only myself to blame.

2. I find the idea of robbing players of agency abhorrent. I don't want my players to feel that their PCs' actions are futile; that's one of the quickest ways for the players to lose interest in the game. The suspension of disbelief requires that once the rules of the game are established, they should be adhered to; if I drop sudden vetos on previously acceptable actions, I'm changing the rules in the middle of the game. Nobody should have to deal with that.

All that aside, if I honestly have to force the players into a situation, as Silus said, a great way is simply to give them motivation to take the actions I wanted them to take in the first place. I'm not actually forcing them, but I'm incentivizing action - which, in my mind, is fine, because they're still technically free to ignore the incentive.

jindra34
2014-02-04, 10:19 PM
Somewhere between putting a signpost up saying 'PLOT this way' and putting down the first rails. Really once the players stop following along of their own accord its going to far to keep them following anyway.

AMFV
2014-02-04, 10:22 PM
Hey, guys! I hope you're all having merry days in whatever part of the world you live in.

I come to you guys today with a question, from the perspective of player, GM, whatever: What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?

For me, personally, I think there are exactly two situations where DM railroading is okay.

The first (to be used in situations such as introducing the BBEG and having him burn down the town or something early in the campaign) is when the DM talks it over with the players beforehand that he's going to try to do it that way and it's up to said players what they do, but that they will in fact die horrible deaths for attempting to oppose this part of the plot. Or, alternatively, he might say that an NPC will save you; not a problem as long as said NPC doesn't keep doing it for the rest of the campaign, I reckon. I mean, usually an NPC sacrificing their lives to save the player characters is highly frowned upon, but if it's how the main plot of the campaign kicks off and the players know it should happen (and don't oppose it, because the DM SHOULD change it if the group says it will be un-fun) then it isn't too bad of a thing.

I would say that how workable this is, depends on your group. If you have a group that's good with this sort of narrative involvement, then it works, if you have a group that doesn't enjoy that, it doesn't.



The second is not exactly railroading in the specific sense, but I'm including it here. Combat railroading. Now, no enemy should ever only have one way to be killed; that's just... Bad. But I think it's permissible if, say, as one of my DMs did pretty recently, the BBEG is at the top of their evil tower, with all the encounters made for on the way up, with lots of potential plot resolution, awesome combats, and other such stuff on the way up the tower... And the players' responses are to try every method they have at their disposal to try to completely bypass everything except the BBEG. I mean, the DM didn't say something like "no, you can't do that" but it WAS kind of close to; there were a lot of powerful magical defenses preventing most of our tactics for bypassing, such as just flying straight up and blasting through or teleporting in, and the DM admitted after the campaign had ended that she had made most of them up on the spot. I mean, it wasn't much of a plot railroad; we didn't technically have to do the fight at all, we wouldn't have been adversely affected much by the BBEG succeeding, and we wouldn't have lost our Good alignments or anything like that if we decided we didn't stand a chance and could only do the good guy thing if we retreated and tried again later. However, and I agree with this mindset, the DM had pretty much poured everything into making that tower and giving us the opportunity (as we chose to) to fight through the strong minions and last remaining lieutenants and go toe-to-toe with the BBEG in a climactic battle, all of which I must say she set up beautifully. I forgive her for not wanting us to skip to the BBEG bit without going through the gauntlet, and I think most DMs are okay for doing something like this.

What do you guys all think? Are those acceptable ways to railroad, and are there any other times where you guys think railroading is okay? And when it is, how MUCH of it is okay? Hoping to spark some good discussion here. Have at it, guys!

I think the acceptable way to railroad is for nobody to be aware that any railroading has occurred at all, otherwise it's generally a pejorative because of how it's perceived. Character agency is important.

Silus
2014-02-04, 10:34 PM
Another way to generate incentive (outside of pre-made campaigns) is to make it more lucrative and rewarding to follow the plot you've laid out.

Sure, you can go out and raid random tombs instead of following the plot the DM had planned, and sure, you'll make some money. But if you follow the plot, you can bet the DM likely has some nice rewards already planned out instead of rolling on random loot tables. Power, station and prestige sometimes trumps the 5k gold you'd get from raiding some randomly generated tomb while actively avoiding the plot.

squiggit
2014-02-04, 10:37 PM
I think the acceptable way to railroad is for nobody to be aware that any railroading has occurred at all, otherwise it's generally a pejorative because of how it's perceived. Character agency is important.

I think this is the biggest thing. As a player the DMs who have irked me the most aren't DMs that railroad me, but the DMs who railroad me in such a way that I keep bumping into invisible walls.

I even have an example here: I ran into almost the same situation in two games (although one was DnD and the other was vampire).

In both situations I was playing a fairly trigger happy character confronted with the BBEG murdering some semi-important NPC to prove to us how evil he was. Naturally my character decides to take a potshot at him while he's distracted.

In the first game I find out the BBEG has a big nasty shield around him and my attack fails and he teleports away. Shenanigans happen and we move on. In the second game the DM simply says "You can't attack him. This isn't the boss fight it's like a cutscene. Even if you could he'd just instantly kill you". The latter went over much more terribly both with myself and other players in the ground even though the end result was exactly the same in both instances.

The reality of it is is that railroading is going to happen in most games. It's rare that a group left up to their own devices will just happen to follow the exact path the DM wants them to. And frankly a well executed themepark style game isn't a bad thing.

The problems arise either when you railroad things too heavily in a game that isn't built for it or when the railroading is too blatant.

AMFV
2014-02-04, 10:41 PM
I think this is the biggest thing. As a player the DMs who have irked me the most aren't DMs that railroad me, but the DMs who railroad me in such a way that I keep bumping into invisible walls.

I even have an example here: I ran into almost the same situation in two games (although one was DnD and the other was vampire).

In both situations I was playing a fairly trigger happy character confronted with the BBEG murdering some semi-important NPC to prove to us how evil he was. Naturally my character decides to take a potshot at him while he's distracted.

In the first game I find out the BBEG has a big nasty shield around him and my attack fails and he teleports away. Shenanigans happen and we move on. In the second game the DM simply says "You can't attack him. This isn't the boss fight it's like a cutscene. Even if you could he'd just instantly kill you". The latter went over much more terribly both with myself and other players in the ground even though the end result was exactly the same in both instances.

The reality of it is is that railroading is going to happen in most games. It's rare that a group left up to their own devices will just happen to follow the exact path the DM wants them to. And frankly a well executed themepark style game isn't a bad thing.

The problems arise either when you railroad things too heavily in a game that isn't built for it or when the railroading is too blatant.

It is certainly true that different degrees of railroading are involved in different games. Ironically both games at either end of the player agency spectrum tend to be more railroad heavy, those with high player agency tend to involve player contribution to the narrative and so you have player driven railroading, those old school games that have DM power at a premium have lots of railroading, since "The DM says no" is an acceptable response for an attack.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-04, 11:08 PM
The only time I can recall being grateful for "railroading" is when it's obvious we're going to a dungeon, but the players are still faffing about in town, and the GM asks something like "Since it looks like that's where you're going, can we just do a time-skip and get to the dungeon?", because the alternative is usually to waste 2-3 OOC hours doing nonsense like haggling over a jar of marbles.

Razanir
2014-02-04, 11:13 PM
If it's to set up the plot, I'm more okay with it. Like your example of having an NPC save the day to help introduce a villain. But it has to be almost at the beginning.

Otherwise, I'd prefer an illusion of choice. Maybe they get to choose where they want to go next, but the same plot event might happen wherever they choose to go. I'm actually considering using that in a campaign I'm planning. "You get to choose which plot location to go to. No matter where, though, you're fighting the same villain."

Airk
2014-02-04, 11:26 PM
I think the acceptable way to railroad is for nobody to be aware that any railroading has occurred at all, otherwise it's generally a pejorative because of how it's perceived. Character agency is important.

This is getting into weird philosophical stuff though. If the players THINK they have agency, but they actually DON'T, is that bad? Is it bad if they subsequently discover that they didn't?

There was a huuuuuge topic on this stuff over on the Story Games forum a while back, it got messy.

Anyway, my version of "acceptable railroading" is pretty close to what SlipperyChicken mentioned. Basically, scene frame and cutaways. "Okay, so we need to make a plan to infiltrate the Castle and reach the princess's room..." <way too long passes while the players argue back and forth>

"You stand outside the Princess's room. The guards lie unconscious at your feet. Go."

Note: This is only a good idea when you don't want to bother with certain aspects of the game. Don't want to play out long travel? Cut past it. Don't want to drag out a long infiltration scene? Cut. Haggling going on too long for everyone? Cut.

This is basically a "keep the damn game moving" tactic, more than a "make player's decisions for them" tactic, except inasmuch as the fact that there could have been decisions made, but they DON'T MATTER. ("Do we take the river, or cross the plains?" "Irrelevant! Nothing is going to happen until you reach the Capital, stop arguing!")

AMFV
2014-02-04, 11:39 PM
This is getting into weird philosophical stuff though. If the players THINK they have agency, but they actually DON'T, is that bad? Is it bad if they subsequently discover that they didn't?


That really depends on your group to be honest, agency is more important to some folks than it is to others. So it really really depends on your group and the style of the game. Certain games include player agency in terms of the story, others don't. The system assumptions are going to be very important here. As I said I find those with with high degree of player agency, and high degree of DM agency tend to have to less character agency, in my experience, although that may not always be the case.

mephnick
2014-02-04, 11:40 PM
I try to railroad as little as possible. It's more fun for me as a DM to react to what the players do, it's like playing a whole game to myself.

In one campaign I had an enemy character I really liked and was excited to use. His first scene was basically administering a public execution, which the party crashed and they killed the HELL out of him. This led me to change the focus of the campaign to the side enemy character he brought with him, which ended up being a more interesting enemy in the long run.

Kane0
2014-02-04, 11:40 PM
When a party of 6+ has been hemming and hawing for 1 or more hours about what to do first/next is also an acceptable time for a railroading NPC to appear and give them some directions already.

Airk
2014-02-04, 11:43 PM
That really depends on your group to be honest, agency is more important to some folks than it is to others. So it really really depends on your group and the style of the game. Certain games include player agency in terms of the story, others don't. The system assumptions are going to be very important here. As I said I find those with with high degree of player agency, and high degree of DM agency tend to have to less character agency, in my experience, although that may not always be the case.

Yeah; The story games people describe this as "Illusionism" (Fooling players into thinking they have choices even when they don't - and is generally regarded as bad) and "Participationism" (Everyone understanding that, yeah, the game is basically going to go in a certain direction and being okay with that - generally regarded as perfectly fine, even if it's just tactic consent.)

The problems tend to crop up when someone thinks the game is participationist ("Well of course they're going to follow the plot") and so ends up being an illusionist and people find out later that they've been "cheated' in some way.

Honestly, the whole thing is a little bit weird to me, and I think discussing this stuff like rational adults before you play the game, or maybe using the Same Page Tool pretty much eliminates room for hard feelings here, but clearly this isn't the case everywhere. (Or maybe people just don't DO those things. That's possible too.)

AMFV
2014-02-04, 11:47 PM
Yeah; The story games people describe this as "Illusionism" (Fooling players into thinking they have choices even when they don't - and is generally regarded as bad) and "Participationism" (Everyone understanding that, yeah, the game is basically going to go in a certain direction and being okay with that - generally regarded as perfectly fine, even if it's just tactic consent.)

The problems tend to crop up when someone thinks the game is participationist ("Well of course they're going to follow the plot") and so ends up being an illusionist and people find out later that they've been "cheated' in some way.

Honestly, the whole thing is a little bit weird to me, and I think discussing this stuff like rational adults before you play the game, or maybe using the Same Page Tool pretty much eliminates room for hard feelings here, but clearly this isn't the case everywhere. (Or maybe people just don't DO those things. That's possible too.)

Definitely there could be a problem if there are differing expectations in that regard. Some games are more clear on this, nWoD, and AD&D tend to be very very DM heavy and have much less player and character agency. Other systems tend to have more player agency. I'm not familiar with a system where there is a dramatic increase in character agency at the expense of the other two, that would be interesting to say the least.

Legato Endless
2014-02-04, 11:51 PM
Both of your examples are, IMO, unnecessary at best, unacceptable at worst, and are mostly an attempt to make up for poor GMing.

Pretty much. If the players manage to bypass your dungeon with a bit of cleverness, you should congratulate them and move on. Creative play is to be encouraged, not shut down. Unless one player is taking the spotlight away from others constantly, this really isn't an issue. I don't understand the mindset behind preventing this.

You don't lose anything. That awesome set piece you worked so hard on that they completely avoided? What is preventing you from utilizing it for something later? You're a DM. Recycling is both practical and encouraged. The plot might be lost as a whole, but those moments you wanted to evoke can always be inserted later. Is this your one shot before the players evict you?


How much you railroad depends on the group and the game.

There is no fixed dial for how much you should be railroading. Instead you need to learn to read your audience.

One method I use is to start with as little railroad as possible, and turn it up slowly when the game stagnates. I feel like this way I end up using the least railroad necessary to get the game moving.

Agreed completely.




1. I am extremely, extremely reluctant to punish creativity. If you managed to out-think me, I may be annoyed, but that's no excuse for me to punish you. Maybe I won't give you the reward I had planned, but if you managed to accomplish the goal in a way I didn't anticipate, I have only myself to blame.

2. I find the idea of robbing players of agency abhorrent. I don't want my players to feel that their PCs' actions are futile; that's one of the quickest ways for the players to lose interest in the game. The suspension of disbelief requires that once the rules of the game are established, they should be adhered to; if I drop sudden vetos on previously acceptable actions, I'm changing the rules in the middle of the game. Nobody should have to deal with that.

Pretty much. It should also be noted, these moments aren't all bad. Being completely surprised when the PCs pull something unexpected is part of what makes Tabletop's fun personally. A group that always does what you wanted can grow dull. An unexpected divergence is an opportunity, not damage you need to minimize and patch up.

I think the real question when railroading comes up, excepting the variable players and the stylistic differences* in some games, is this:

Am I doing this to improve the group dynamic and experience, or am I doing this to better my the story? The former is legitimize excuse. The second may imply other things on your end.

*Call of Cthulhu implies quite a bit of railroading at times. You're not doing your job as DM if you aren't railroading in Paranoia. But in heroic fantasy like DnD, it's much more case by case.

AMFV
2014-02-04, 11:53 PM
*Call of Cthulhu implies quite a bit of railroading at times. You're not doing your job as DM if you aren't railroading in Paranoia. But in heroic fantasy like DnD, it's much more case by case.

Depending on which edition on D&D, the older editions are much more railroady and in fact say so explicitly in the rules.

Legato Endless
2014-02-04, 11:56 PM
Depending on which edition on D&D, the older editions are much more railroady and in fact say so explicitly in the rules.

True, but first edition DnD especially also promoted the mindset of it being players vs. the DM in a type of contest, which seems stylistically out of synch with what the OP is describing.

souridealist
2014-02-04, 11:57 PM
In the first situation, I don't think it's exactly how I would run things, but I'd say it also comes under the heading of "It's a game; if everyone is having fun, you're good."

In the second case: would you have known the DM was pulling those shields out of the clear blue sky if she hadn't told you later? If you wouldn't have known, I would say that's probably fine.

And really, there's no particular gold standard for railroading, I think. When the players start getting frustrated, it's too much railroading; if everyone's having a good time, nothing needs to change.

AMFV
2014-02-04, 11:58 PM
True, but first edition DnD especially also promoted the mindset of it being players vs. the DM in a type of contest, which seems stylistically out of synch with what the OP is describing.

True, I was more trying to posit that an acceptable degree of railroading varies dramatically by system, since the OP is asking about an acceptable degree of railroading I figured that was a line of thought on the subject.

Legato Endless
2014-02-05, 12:03 AM
True, I was more trying to posit that an acceptable degree of railroading varies dramatically by system, since the OP is asking about an acceptable degree of railroading I figured that was a line of thought on the subject.

To which I agree completely. I just tend to come down a bit hard on the anti railroading side because more the frequent problem I see is DMs being blind to such subtleties and being uniformly track happy. The opposite problem is usually much easier to correct.

Tvtyrant
2014-02-05, 12:03 AM
I think the right answer is "ask your party what they want." Because honestly the opinions of strangers on the internet is not going to be the best source of advice.

Mastikator
2014-02-05, 12:14 AM
Any amount of railroading is acceptable if you're up front about about it, no amount is acceptable if you aren't.

A simple "look guys, just stay on the railroad and bear with me, it will be worth it ok?" is all it should take. If honesty is not good enough then nothing is.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 12:40 AM
As usual, a lot of people seem to have a really loose definition of railroading - interpreting it to be something like "the adventure has a narrow scope of design."

That's not railroading, though. That's a narrow or linear adventure, which can be perfectly fine.

Railroading is when you start blocking players'/PCs' actions because they're "wrong."

"We take the road to the north."
"The bridge is out."
"We make a raft and pole it over the river."
"A dragon turtle shows up, guess you better go back!"
"We fight it."
"It capsizes your raft and you all wash up back on the shore!"

That sort of thing. It's a terrible, horrible awful thing. And it's always active.

Some games work better with or encourage linear play. Nothing wrong with that if everyone enjoys it. Railroading is just horrible and bad GMing. Railroading is not going "hey, here's the path to take to get through the planned adventure." That's just linear. Railroading is "you can't get off these tracks I've laid down for you!"

AMFV
2014-02-05, 12:43 AM
As usual, a lot of people seem to have a really loose definition of railroading - interpreting it to be something like "the adventure has a narrow scope of design."

That's not railroading, though. That's a narrow or linear adventure, which can be perfectly fine.

Railroading is when you start blocking players'/PCs' actions because they're "wrong."

"We take the road to the north."
"The bridge is out."
"We make a raft and pole it over the river."
"A dragon turtle shows up, guess you better go back!"
"We fight it."
"It capsizes your raft and you all wash up back on the shore!"

That sort of thing. It's a terrible, horrible awful thing. And it's always active.

Some games work better with or encourage linear play. Nothing wrong with that if everyone enjoys it. Railroading is just horrible and bad GMing. Railroading is not going "hey, here's the path to take to get through the planned adventure." That's just linear. Railroading is "you can't get off these tracks I've laid down for you!"

I disagree with the idea that the railroading is always bad though. As I said there are systems that encourage it. The original Tomb of Horrors has many elements that could be considered railroading. Many elements of most SAS adventures are pretty heavily railroaded. It's a system dependent thing. In some systems railroading is considered completely appropriate.

BrokenChord
2014-02-05, 12:45 AM
For those of you mentioning "just use it later" it's important to know that was the final dungeon and fight of the campaign. And really, I had no reason to expect anything at the time, so the illusion was pretty consistent. We weren't exactly creative, and even low-op, a BBEG level 21 arcane caster who would be in the middle of a ritual really SHOULD have, at minimum, magically defended walls and protection against being Teleport/Plane Shifted in on. I forgive that this was the first final boss fight this DM has done and she wasn't exactly familiar with what high levels do when they need to be able to sit in one place for a while. Though even if she had been more experienced, I think I would agree with everything she did except that she told us after. :P

TheThan
2014-02-05, 01:06 AM
The problem with railroading in an RPG is that well, if the players want to play the game, they should be interested in biting whatever hook the Dm dangles in their faces. So to some extent, the Dm will always have to railroad at least a very little bit in order to get the game rolling.

If the player’s aren’t going to even nibble at the hook, then why are they there?

Now I know someone’s going to say “but what if they’re not interested in the Dm’s hook?” my response to that is that they are the players of the game, if they don’t like what’s happening they should play a different game.

Here’s a new concept, talk to your players.
That’s right, find out what sort of stuff they like, what they expect from a game, what they actually feel like doing in a game.

For example, one of my friends has been in several games where they’ve built a financial empire.
When I asked what he was interested in, he said he wanted to actually go on a real quest with an actual plot for a change and not make their brothel (not joking) better.

I got feedback and input into what one of my players wanted to do in a game. armed with that knowledge I can create a campaign that caters to that player’s wants and desires.

The players have to be invested in the game as much as the Dm is for everything to work smoothly and for everyone to have fun at the gaming table. Otherwise the game begins to suffer problems.

GungHo
2014-02-05, 09:51 AM
This is getting into weird philosophical stuff though. If the players THINK they have agency, but they actually DON'T, is that bad? Is it bad if they subsequently discover that they didn't?
There are times where I have taken off my glasses, placed them down on the table, and said, "let me be straight with you, I planned for you guys to go the other way... we can go this new way, but I'm going to be making things up on the fly from now on and you're just gonna have to deal with the inconsistency and time lag. Or, you can change your minds and go the way I planned and things will be a little more smooth. What would you like to do?"

Red Fel
2014-02-05, 10:02 AM
The problem with railroading in an RPG is that well, if the players want to play the game, they should be interested in biting whatever hook the Dm dangles in their faces. So to some extent, the Dm will always have to railroad at least a very little bit in order to get the game rolling.

If the player’s aren’t going to even nibble at the hook, then why are they there?

Now I know someone’s going to say “but what if they’re not interested in the Dm’s hook?” my response to that is that they are the players of the game, if they don’t like what’s happening they should play a different game.

Disagree in part.

Admittedly, I also agree in part. If you say, for example, "This is going to be a modern noir detective-style game. There will be grit, and murder, and intrigue." And somebody says, "I want to play a Half-Elf Wizard." They should not be in the game. Their concept and your concept are mutually exclusive. If they're not interested in the overall plot - modern murder mystery - they shouldn't be playing.

But that's the overall plot. Individual plots, the players should be free to accept or reject. These events may or may not happen whether the players are present or not; they may have an impact on the world or not; but the players can choose to absent themselves. And admittedly again, if the players choose to spend multiple sessions ordering drinks in the tavern, "Why are you even playing" becomes a valid inquiry. But the fact that they want to play in your world, just not with your story, is not, in my mind, a reason to tell them they should play a different game.

Maybe they like your DMing. Maybe they think you're a cool guy with a rad table who runs a mean game, but they happen to think your plot hooks are kind of rubbish. Doesn't mean they should play a different game.


Here’s a new concept, talk to your players.
That’s right, find out what sort of stuff they like, what they expect from a game, what they actually feel like doing in a game.

For example, one of my friends has been in several games where they’ve built a financial empire.
When I asked what he was interested in, he said he wanted to actually go on a real quest with an actual plot for a change and not make their brothel (not joking) better.

I got feedback and input into what one of my players wanted to do in a game. armed with that knowledge I can create a campaign that caters to that player’s wants and desires.

The players have to be invested in the game as much as the Dm is for everything to work smoothly and for everyone to have fun at the gaming table. Otherwise the game begins to suffer problems.

All true. Particularly the bit about running a brothel being emotionally unfulfilling.

ElenionAncalima
2014-02-05, 11:34 AM
I think the ideal gaming situation is one where there is a social contract between the players and the GM. The GM should not force his expectations upon the players and has to be willing to adapt. However, the players also shouldn't seek throw the campaign out of the window, just because it is fun to watch the GM squirm.

Regarding railroading, I think the GM's goal should be to keep the story feeling believable and natural. As others have commented, the best rails are invisible rails. By all means, manipulate events and incentivize your players to keep things heading towards your plan, but never make your players feel like they are doing something they don't want to, just because the plot demands it. Most importantly, if your campaign is going off the rails due to logical and natural player decisions...just let it happen. Everyone will be happier for it.

Pocket lint
2014-02-05, 03:13 PM
As a GM, I find the best solution to railroading is simply to roll with what the players come up with. This is less simulationist and more of moving in the direction of Plot, no matter what that happens to come out as.

The plan is for the players to go west, but they decide east is the right way? Fine, I guess the evil guys had the same idea (move dungeon). They decide to dig into the barkeep's backstory due to player paranoia? Well, what do you know, he *does* have a connection to the conspiracy. The BBEG dropped in the surprise round? Fine, he was the henchman, not the true evil - go back and redesign for a later session. (Or not - sometimes a BBEG is powerful not due to personal prowess but connections. It *can* end with a single arrow.)

Every door leads somewhere. The players are unlikely to open every single one of them, so a bit of fudging and inconsistency can keep the plot moving and prevent needless frustration. And sometimes you just have to accept that the players found a weakness and were able to overcome your carefully thought-out defenses. Go them - extra XP all around.

Now, the only place where you might have an issue is where they're just not interested in foiling the bad guys. Might need to have a chat then, or just up the stakes to get them personally interested.

My only problem situation is when the players keep planning and planning and planning and planning.... as a player, I tended to go Leeroy Jenkins in that situation. As a GM, it gets more tricky. You can try to summarise (Ok, you've rallied the villagers, bought extra healing potions etc etc and your forces are now in position. Anything else?)

Razanir
2014-02-05, 03:46 PM
Yeah; The story games people describe this as "Illusionism" (Fooling players into thinking they have choices even when they don't - and is generally regarded as bad) and "Participationism" (Everyone understanding that, yeah, the game is basically going to go in a certain direction and being okay with that - generally regarded as perfectly fine, even if it's just tactic consent.)

Well what counts as illusionism? What about planning something, then moving it around in the world based on where the players go? Because that sounds like a very fair tactic to me.

gellerche
2014-02-05, 05:06 PM
I'll restate what others have said:

Putting the PCs in a situation against their will? As long as it's not regular, no problem. Overcoming adversity is part of what makes an RPG interesting, and asserting your will against a world that doesn't care what you want is a great way of doing that.

Limiting the PCs ability to react to that situation? I've yet to see a good reason to do this.

For example: PCs get forcibly drafted into a roaming barbarian army because the GM wants them to travel to a country that the army is going to conquer. It's a neat plot device, and has been used in lots of fantasy/sci-fi novels.

But if this is the response to their attempt to escape instead of going to the DM's country, then there's a problem:

"Our thief sneaks around after nightfall to find the poorly-guarded parts of the camp."
"Your tent is heavily lit up from the outside, and he'll be seen."
"Then we'll cast Sleep on the guard."
"There are many guards."
"Well, then, we'll cast Sleep for each of . . . ".
"They're immune."
"They're immune?!?"

Now, could it happen that a huge army could keep a bunch of PCs under their thumb? Sure. Will the players have fun watching you, essentially, play their characters? Nope.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-05, 05:10 PM
But if this is the response to their attempt to escape instead of going to the DM's country, then there's a problem:

"Our thief sneaks around after nightfall to find the poorly-guarded parts of the camp."
"Your tent is heavily lit up from the outside, and he'll be seen."
"Then we'll cast Sleep on the guard."
"There are many guards."
"Well, then, we'll cast Sleep for each of . . . ".
"They're immune."
"They're immune?!?"


I'd totally quest with an army of barbarian elves.

gellerche
2014-02-05, 05:24 PM
I'd totally quest with an army of barbarian elves.

At the risk of going off the rails myself, I'm going to steal this for my signature. Taken in context, it's pretty funny. But out of context, it's both bizarre and amusing!

CombatOwl
2014-02-05, 05:25 PM
Hey, guys! I hope you're all having merry days in whatever part of the world you live in.

I come to you guys today with a question, from the perspective of player, GM, whatever: What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?

Depends entirely on the genre and intended tone of the game. A game about a squad of military special forces? Pretty much 100% railroading because they'll be getting orders and following them. I mean, a character is always free to disobey, but they're not going to remain playable once they get back to base. A game about freewheeling rogues trying to get wealthy with crazy hijinks? Pretty much 0% railroading, let them hang themselves with the rope you provide.

Railroading is only bad when it runs counter to expectations.

Jay R
2014-02-05, 06:18 PM
What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?

"Railroading" has many different meanings. I certainly believe it's all right to have a specific task, or BBEG, or dungeon in front of them. The alternative is for me to have to design every square foot and every NPC in the entire world before play begins. The examples you give seem like a straightforward story plotline. No problem.

Also, I have a certainly level of sympathy for this famous answer to a related question


Not any time. Only when it was funny.

kyoryu
2014-02-05, 06:41 PM
The amount of railroading that is acceptable is what the group will accept, and have agreed to. That's the only real answer.

Railroading isn't inherently bad and evil. It just *is*. It has advantages and disadvantages.

Now illusionism I have an issue with. Not because of the railroading aspect, but because it's a *lie*. It's telling your players "hey, you have a choice in how things unfold," when they really *don't*. And I find that to be a pretty poor foundation for a game.

It's like horror movies and romcoms. Both are fine. But if the advertising for a movie suggests a movie is a horror movie, I'm going to be kinda pissed if it's really a romcom, or vice versa.

The idea that it's okay if the players never notice? That's basically saying "lying is okay if you don't get caught". And I can't sign on for that.


Depends entirely on the genre and intended tone of the game. A game about a squad of military special forces? Pretty much 100% railroading because they'll be getting orders and following them.

Doesn't have to be. Sure, you get orders, but the amount of latitude you get in achieving your missions is critical. If your mission is to get some papers, and the players get to choose how to approach the mission, how to infiltrate the base, how much force/stealth/deceit to use, etc., then I don't really consider it 'railroading'.

That's doubly true if subsequent missions aren't set in stone, but may change based on the results of the previous missions.

Lorsa
2014-02-05, 07:02 PM
Like Rhynn I tend to think Railroading is always bad. By definition it involves removing much of what a players is supposed to do and put it in the GMs hands by force. The Forge defined railroading as "GM force that breaks the social contract". It's one of the few definitions I think is both easy to understand and hits the mark pretty well. Railroading isn't asking your players if they can kindly go to X place or if they want to go along with Y plan. Railroading is telling your players, not only a story, but YOUR story. It removes the entire reason that I am roleplaying and the GM would've been better off writing a book. I might even have read it!

Anyway, I think this picture is a pretty good flow chart of GM procedure:

http://evilbrainjono.net/images/Finding_your_GMing_Style.jpg

AMFV
2014-02-05, 07:08 PM
Like Rhynn I tend to think Railroading is always bad. By definition it involves removing much of what a players is supposed to do and put it in the GMs hands by force. The Forge defined railroading as "GM force that breaks the social contract". It's one of the few definitions I think is both easy to understand and hits the mark pretty well. Railroading isn't asking your players if they can kindly go to X place or if they want to go along with Y plan. Railroading is telling your players, not only a story, but YOUR story. It removes the entire reason that I am roleplaying and the GM would've been better off writing a book. I might even have read it!

Anyway, I think this picture is a pretty good flow chart of GM procedure:

http://evilbrainjono.net/images/Finding_your_GMing_Style.jpg

I'm not sure I like that chart it seems to invite a belief that there are only a few "good" ways to DM and those are all pretty participationist, which is not always the case depending on system and game assumptions. "Old School Sandboxes" were extremely extremely extremely railroaded. Look at Tomb of Horrors, you go the way the DM wants or you die. Of course that's more of a system assumption in that setting.

Edit: Although it's totally fine for you to not enjoy that style of play. But it is a style choice.

jindra34
2014-02-05, 07:09 PM
Going to expand on what people have said about railroading. Railroading is NOT plotting out an adventure. Railroading is plotting out an adventure, and then when the PCs attempt to diverge from that plotted path, pushing it (either subtley or not) back onto the path. Linear adventure paths are fine, if the players go along. But if, for example, the players decide to join the 'big bad' upon seeing what (s)he can do, then roll with it. Because you are going to have a very hard time at that point getting back on track.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 07:11 PM
Going to expand on what people have said about railroading. Railroading is NOT plotting out an adventure. Railroading is plotting out an adventure, and then when the PCs attempt to diverge from that plotted path, pushing it (either subtley or not) back onto the path. Linear adventure paths are fine, if the players go along. But if, for example, the players decide to join the 'big bad' upon seeing what (s)he can do, then roll with it. Because you are going to have a very hard time at that point getting back on track.

You mean like an adventure that has three paths but if the players pick the wrong one, or two, they instantly die. That would be railroading, there are systems that are more prone to this as CombatOwl pointed out, a military simulationist game is going to have very little character agency over the plot. Now you may have a varying degree of player agency, but that's not always what people want.

Rhynn
2014-02-05, 07:51 PM
Going to expand on what people have said about railroading. Railroading is NOT plotting out an adventure. Railroading is plotting out an adventure, and then when the PCs attempt to diverge from that plotted path, pushing it (either subtley or not) back onto the path. Linear adventure paths are fine, if the players go along.

Yes. Until you're actively negating player/PC agency, you're not railroading. "Setting a scope" (e.g. a cop campaign, a dungeon crawl adventure, whatever) is not railroading.

kyoryu
2014-02-05, 08:28 PM
as CombatOwl pointed out, a military simulationist game is going to have very little character agency over the plot.

Why do people keep asserting this?

Given a simple mission like "Go into city <X> in enemy territory, and find their secret weapon plans!", you might have the following possible results:

1) Find someone who is willing to act as a double-agent to sabotage the plans in a subtle way, that they won't work on being built or will backfire.

2) Do the sabotage described above yourself.

3) Destroy the plans.

4) Copy the plans.

5) Steal the plans.

6) Destroy the facility where the research is occurring.

7) Blow up the whole damn city.

8) Either 6 or 7 above, but pinning it on some other enemy city.

Any of those above eight outcomes should result in the world changing in significantly different ways. Blow up the city without finding a scapegoat? Congratulations, you started a war (which might be better than the alternative). Sabotage the plans by using a defector? Great, they don't even know they've been hit until they try to use the weapon, *and* you've got an additional source of info.

If the game *doesn't* diverge heavily at that point, I have to question the GM running the game.

AMFV
2014-02-05, 08:42 PM
Why do people keep asserting this?

Given a simple mission like "Go into city <X> in enemy territory, and find their secret weapon plans!", you might have the following possible results:

1) Find someone who is willing to act as a double-agent to sabotage the plans in a subtle way, that they won't work on being built or will backfire.

2) Do the sabotage described above yourself.

3) Destroy the plans.

4) Copy the plans.

5) Steal the plans.

6) Destroy the facility where the research is occurring.

7) Blow up the whole damn city.

8) Either 6 or 7 above, but pinning it on some other enemy city.

Any of those above eight outcomes should result in the world changing in significantly different ways. Blow up the city without finding a scapegoat? Congratulations, you started a war (which might be better than the alternative). Sabotage the plans by using a defector? Great, they don't even know they've been hit until they try to use the weapon, *and* you've got an additional source of info.

If the game *doesn't* diverge heavily at that point, I have to question the GM running the game.

I've been in the military, and if it's at all accurate, then you will have no choice as to your methodology. I would find any other kind of game to be disingenuous and lacking verisimilitude, it's not so much that the characters have options but in a realistic military setting, they don't, you don't get to decide how you're going to do things beyond a very narrow margin. What you're discussing is a different style of game that what I'm discussing. You're discussing a military action adventure romp, which is cool, what I'm discussing is a military realism simulation, which has a great deal more railroading in it.

It's really a convention of the style and of the game system.

Thrudd
2014-02-05, 10:18 PM
I'm not sure I like that chart it seems to invite a belief that there are only a few "good" ways to DM and those are all pretty participationist, which is not always the case depending on system and game assumptions. "Old School Sandboxes" were extremely extremely extremely railroaded. Look at Tomb of Horrors, you go the way the DM wants or you die. Of course that's more of a system assumption in that setting.

Edit: Although it's totally fine for you to not enjoy that style of play. But it is a style choice.

Not exactly accurate. Sandboxes are the opposite of a railroaded adventure. There isn't a "right" way to go, and the DM doesn't need to have any opinion about where the players go or whether or not they succeed. The fact that the players might die if they stumble into something beyond their abilities or get unlucky is an expected part of the game. In Tomb of Horrors, the players die because there are tons of insanely deadly traps, not because they are going against the DM's plan. In fact just the opposite, the DM probably plans for them to die. Why else would the Tomb of Horrors be there? :smallamused:
Deadly things aren't there to keep players within the bounds of the DM's plan, they are there because it is a dangerous world full of monsters. The players need to be smart enough to know when they are strong enough to take on a challenge and when they need to avoid it or retreat. A monster or dungeon too difficult today could be revisited later with more levels under your belt, and conquered. Or you could get lucky and beat the monster today, against the odds, and gain two levels in one shot. Good for you! That's a sandbox. The DM shouldn't stop you from doing or trying anything you want, no matter how deadly it is.

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 04:25 AM
I'm not sure I like that chart it seems to invite a belief that there are only a few "good" ways to DM and those are all pretty participationist, which is not always the case depending on system and game assumptions. "Old School Sandboxes" were extremely extremely extremely railroaded. Look at Tomb of Horrors, you go the way the DM wants or you die. Of course that's more of a system assumption in that setting.

Edit: Although it's totally fine for you to not enjoy that style of play. But it is a style choice.

Do you know what participationism is? It's when the GM moves you from one place to another and has already figured out how it will end and you sit there rolling dice and experiencing the story but don't really affect the outcome and you are completely fine with it.

There ARE only a few good ways to GM and I think the chart explains it pretty well. The good ways depend on the expectations of your players.

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 07:02 AM
Time to make a bit of a longer reply to various people. I've been really low on time lately it seems (too much education and roleplaying).


Hey, guys! I hope you're all having merry days in whatever part of the world you live in.

Yes thank you. Sweden isn't too bad right now. I hope you're having merry days as well.


I come to you guys today with a question, from the perspective of player, GM, whatever: What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?

As I said before, I don't think railroading is ever acceptable. Railroading by definition is already too much (of something else).


For me, personally, I think there are exactly two situations where DM railroading is okay.

Exactly two? Wow! How did you reach this conclusion? What scenarios did you skip?


The first (to be used in situations such as introducing the BBEG and having him burn down the town or something early in the campaign) is when the DM talks it over with the players beforehand that he's going to try to do it that way and it's up to said players what they do, but that they will in fact die horrible deaths for attempting to oppose this part of the plot. Or, alternatively, he might say that an NPC will save you; not a problem as long as said NPC doesn't keep doing it for the rest of the campaign, I reckon. I mean, usually an NPC sacrificing their lives to save the player characters is highly frowned upon, but if it's how the main plot of the campaign kicks off and the players know it should happen (and don't oppose it, because the DM SHOULD change it if the group says it will be un-fun) then it isn't too bad of a thing.

If the DM will change it if the group says it won't be fun then it isn't railroading. Giving players an option or choice and going along with it regardless of what they choose will never be railroading.


The second is not exactly railroading in the specific sense, but I'm including it here. Combat railroading. Now, no enemy should ever only have one way to be killed; that's just... Bad. But I think it's permissible if, say, as one of my DMs did pretty recently, the BBEG is at the top of their evil tower, with all the encounters made for on the way up, with lots of potential plot resolution, awesome combats, and other such stuff on the way up the tower... And the players' responses are to try every method they have at their disposal to try to completely bypass everything except the BBEG. I mean, the DM didn't say something like "no, you can't do that" but it WAS kind of close to; there were a lot of powerful magical defenses preventing most of our tactics for bypassing, such as just flying straight up and blasting through or teleporting in, and the DM admitted after the campaign had ended that she had made most of them up on the spot. I mean, it wasn't much of a plot railroad; we didn't technically have to do the fight at all, we wouldn't have been adversely affected much by the BBEG succeeding, and we wouldn't have lost our Good alignments or anything like that if we decided we didn't stand a chance and could only do the good guy thing if we retreated and tried again later. However, and I agree with this mindset, the DM had pretty much poured everything into making that tower and giving us the opportunity (as we chose to) to fight through the strong minions and last remaining lieutenants and go toe-to-toe with the BBEG in a climactic battle, all of which I must say she set up beautifully. I forgive her for not wanting us to skip to the BBEG bit without going through the gauntlet, and I think most DMs are okay for doing something like this.

Funnily enough I think this scenario is much worse than the first. There could be overwhelming forces attacking a village or whatever that would kill the players if they attack (but you should let them attack and die if that's what they want). Similarly there could be NPCs that wants to help and die to save the players. That's part of there being an actual world with people that choose to do things on their own accord.

This scenario is much more close to "I (the DM) want my players to follow this path that will take them to through this set of encounters (that won't actually kill them because I want them to reach the final boss) and I'm going to do everything in my power to make it happen". So what if the players skip directly to the last encounter? If that's what they want to do then let them! If they find the idea of walking through the entire tower tantalising then that's what they'll choose to do. Also, don't have BBEG's living in a tower in D&D. They should live in inverse towers below ground.

I remember a fortress full of orcs that the players wanted to attack, and they sent in the sorceress invisible with flight to scout around and find the main room where the leaders were and then teleported back to the camp, grabbed the other characters and teleported right back to the main room. I thought it was a great way to solve a difficult situation.


How much you railroad depends on the group and the game.

Some players want to be dragged around on a leash and won't take action until you tell them where to go. Other players can take their character and run with it with no guidance from a GM. What Nedz said rings true too - you may need to railroad to get the game started, but once the momentum is there the players can carry the game on their own.

There is no fixed dial for how much you should be railroading. Instead you need to learn to read your audience.

One method I use is to start with as little railroad as possible, and turn it up slowly when the game stagnates. I feel like this way I end up using the least railroad necessary to get the game moving.

Yes, there is a fixed dial. The fixed dial says "no amount of railroading is acceptable". As long as the players are okay with you dragging them around, you're actually not railroading them. You're just dragging them around with their permission. Railroading is when you do it without their permission.


The trick I think (Have yet to actually implement it yet) is to railroad but give it he illusion of choice.

No, the trick is to give the players a real, actual choice and have no personal investment in whatever they'll decide.


I think this is the biggest thing. As a player the DMs who have irked me the most aren't DMs that railroad me, but the DMs who railroad me in such a way that I keep bumping into invisible walls.

I even have an example here: I ran into almost the same situation in two games (although one was DnD and the other was vampire).

In both situations I was playing a fairly trigger happy character confronted with the BBEG murdering some semi-important NPC to prove to us how evil he was. Naturally my character decides to take a potshot at him while he's distracted.

In the first game I find out the BBEG has a big nasty shield around him and my attack fails and he teleports away. Shenanigans happen and we move on. In the second game the DM simply says "You can't attack him. This isn't the boss fight it's like a cutscene. Even if you could he'd just instantly kill you". The latter went over much more terribly both with myself and other players in the ground even though the end result was exactly the same in both instances.

Wouldn't you have felt even better if you were allowed to attack, injure or maybe even kill the BBEG? Why does he have a shield now and not in the "final fight"?


The reality of it is is that railroading is going to happen in most games. It's rare that a group left up to their own devices will just happen to follow the exact path the DM wants them to. And frankly a well executed themepark style game isn't a bad thing.

The problems arise either when you railroad things too heavily in a game that isn't built for it or when the railroading is too blatant.

Why must the players follow the exact path the DM wants them to? Maybe the players like their own path better? Usually when you go to a themepark you expect to choose which rides to go on and in which order. Or if you just want to sit down and have a drink and watch other people have fun.


The only time I can recall being grateful for "railroading" is when it's obvious we're going to a dungeon, but the players are still faffing about in town, and the GM asks something like "Since it looks like that's where you're going, can we just do a time-skip and get to the dungeon?", because the alternative is usually to waste 2-3 OOC hours doing nonsense like haggling over a jar of marbles.

This isn't really railroading, it has to do with scene framing. Also, you framed it as the GM asking the player if they can skip to the next part. Whenever you ask the players if they want to do something and go along with their answer you're not railroading.


If it's to set up the plot, I'm more okay with it. Like your example of having an NPC save the day to help introduce a villain. But it has to be almost at the beginning.

Otherwise, I'd prefer an illusion of choice. Maybe they get to choose where they want to go next, but the same plot event might happen wherever they choose to go. I'm actually considering using that in a campaign I'm planning. "You get to choose which plot location to go to. No matter where, though, you're fighting the same villain."

Wouldn't you prefer an actual, real choice as opposed to an illusion of one? As in, depending on where you go you get to fight a different foe?


When a party of 6+ has been hemming and hawing for 1 or more hours about what to do first/next is also an acceptable time for a railroading NPC to appear and give them some directions already.

Maybe they like hemming and hawing about what to do? Besides, having NPCs giving directions isn't railroading. It's having NPCs giving directions.



That really depends on your group to be honest, agency is more important to some folks than it is to others. So it really really depends on your group and the style of the game. Certain games include player agency in terms of the story, others don't. The system assumptions are going to be very important here. As I said I find those with with high degree of player agency, and high degree of DM agency tend to have to less character agency, in my experience, although that may not always be the case.


Definitely there could be a problem if there are differing expectations in that regard. Some games are more clear on this, nWoD, and AD&D tend to be very very DM heavy and have much less player and character agency. Other systems tend to have more player agency. I'm not familiar with a system where there is a dramatic increase in character agency at the expense of the other two, that would be interesting to say the least.

Yes, agency is more important to some than it is to others. That's why participationism is a functionable play style. I disagree that some games need it more than others though. I am currently running two nWoD campaigns where the player(s) (one campaign only has one player) have very much agency, both as players and characters. There is nothing explicit (unless you read their crappy GMing suggestions) or implicit that tells you that you need to play a participationism game with those rules.

prufock
2014-02-06, 08:34 AM
What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?
The only railroading I find acceptable is that which has internal logical consistency. I'll explain further using your examples.


The first (to be used in situations such as introducing the BBEG and having him burn down the town or something early in the campaign) is when the DM talks it over with the players beforehand that he's going to try to do it that way and it's up to said players what they do, but that they will in fact die horrible deaths for attempting to oppose this part of the plot.
It's reasonable for PCs to be up against something that is out of their league. Running away/escape is an option. If the BBEG is powerful and has a big army, it makes sense that there is little a group of less powerful PCs could do about it. However they should be able to try and death should come from a logical extension of the situation. IT SHOULD NEVER be guaranteed. If the PCs have a great idea and manage to kill the BBEG in the opening scene, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. Roll with it, plan better next time.

If you are uncomfortable with this possibility, make the town-burning part of the backstory - a cutscene to describe before the game begins. Put the players in a situation where it is impossible to intervene (they are traveling back home and see it burning from afar, for example).


Or, alternatively, he might say that an NPC will save you; not a problem as long as said NPC doesn't keep doing it for the rest of the campaign, I reckon. I mean, usually an NPC sacrificing their lives to save the player characters is highly frowned upon, but if it's how the main plot of the campaign kicks off and the players know it should happen (and don't oppose it, because the DM SHOULD change it if the group says it will be un-fun) then it isn't too bad of a thing.
There is nothing wrong with an NPC saving their hides once in a while, as long as there is good plot consistency for doing so. However, you should not set up a situation in which the only chance of winning is deus ex machina - that's bad form. If they're in over their heads and an NPC knows it, he can help.


I think it's permissible if, say, as one of my DMs did pretty recently, the BBEG is at the top of their evil tower, with all the encounters made for on the way up, with lots of potential plot resolution, awesome combats, and other such stuff on the way up the tower... And the players' responses are to try every method they have at their disposal to try to completely bypass everything except the BBEG.
It's perfectly reasonable for a BBEG to have defenses around his tower to protect himself, with means to prevent circumvention of those defenses. If the BBEG could have access to such means, installing them in his tower makes perfect sense. However, if you get to the situation where the DM is making up reasons on the fly as to why "no, you can't fly up to the roof" it's railroading.


I rail road shamelessly at the very beginning in order to get the party together, but play hasn't really started at that point. After that I avoid it.
I take a different tack: players have to railroad themselves together. Part of my pre-game is to say "have a reason why you guys are working together" even if it's something as simple as "we all arrive at the job posting board at the same time."


The way you go about it is to do your damnedest to make the players HATE the NPC. Like they're at the top of the 'ol ****-list. Get the players to want to kill the guy not because the story says so, but because the NPC is such a pain in their side and has caused them so much grief that they, on some level of their being, HAVE to kill them to make things right again in their little world.

The problem is getting the players invested enough.

"Ok, so the guy destroyed the town and killed everyone in it except us. Well, off to someplace new."
"Um, guys, he just murdered and did unspeakable acts to your friends and family and burned down the only place you've ever called home..."
"So?"
"So...no thoughts of revenge or justice?"
"Nope. In fact, we want to work for him now!"
:smallannoyed:
DM: "Also, he stole/destroyed 90% of your magic items."

Nothing gets players invested like loot. I don't think this counts as railroading - it's just good story planning.


The original Tomb of Horrors has many elements that could be considered railroading.
I've only played the 3.5 update, and there wasn't really any railroading there. What would you consider railroading in the original?

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 09:09 AM
I've only played the 3.5 update, and there wasn't really any railroading there. What would you consider railroading in the original?

I think this is the expanded definition, where "this hallway has a deadly trap in it" is railroading.

The Tomb of Horrors is an example of "scoping," sort of. To start, if you're playing it, then the game is over if you leave the dungeon and don't go back. Then, all those traps - they're there to be challenges. They're just realities of the physical situation of the environment. It's scope, in the physical and metagame sense (extent and content of the playable world). Not railroading.

Railroading in a dungeon would be pulling things out of your hat to counter things the PCs do. There may have been an element of this to many dungeons originally, but it's not exactly the same. For instance, the Undermountain is proof against teleportation in or out of it (but not within it), and against scrying. That can definitely seem like railroading when it comes up in a session, but if it's pre-established and the PCs theoretically have ways to learn about it beforehand, it's not - it's scope and nature of the environment.

It becomes railroading once the GM starts throwing in things specifically to force the players to do what he wants or go where he wants. If you've never experienced it, it can absolutely be hard to even imagine, but it is frequently outrageous, up to and including DMPCs who just use magic to take you where the DM wants you to be, and punish any PC who doesn't do what the DM wants them to.

Railroading generally (almost by definition) involves the PCs having no way to prevail. You can't win against the GM when he's dead set to prevail over you - the only option you have is to not play his game, either by talking him out of it outside the game, or by walking away from the game.

Brookshw
2014-02-06, 09:43 AM
I didn't read any of the above, just wanted to share.

Started up Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and am using it as a stand alone. I was having a carriage collect the party to answer the letter they received. One of the players (jokingly) started questioning getting on the carriage. My response, "you hear the sound of a railroad in the distance. Now get on the bloody carriage before a train hits you".

Red Fel
2014-02-06, 09:50 AM
One of the players (jokingly) started questioning getting on the carriage. My response, "you hear the sound of a railroad in the distance. Now get on the bloody carriage before a train hits you".

If you're going to railroad, that's one way to do it with style!

Airk
2014-02-06, 09:52 AM
I think the problem with this discussion is that we haven't even successfully agreed on what "railroading" is, so it's impossible for us to debate how much of it is 'okay'.

I suspect people are MOSTLY in agreement if we look at it this way:

#1: Anytime the players are fine with you making a choice for them, it's not railroading (This rules out AMFV's "military simulation" scenario. Either the players are okay with that scenario, in which case it's not railroading, or they're not and you shouldn't do it.)
#2: Anytime the players are NOT fine with you making the choice for them, it is railroading (just the flipside of #1)
#3: Any amount of railroading as defined by #1 and #2 is bad.

BrokenChord
2014-02-06, 09:54 AM
I didn't read any of the above, just wanted to share.

Started up Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and am using it as a stand alone. I was having a carriage collect the party to answer the letter they received. One of the players (jokingly) started questioning getting on the carriage. My response, "you hear the sound of a railroad in the distance. Now get on the bloody carriage before a train hits you".

Now I'm just curious. I know what trains sound like, but what kind of sound does a RAILROAD make?

... Darn, "what does the rail say" doesn't sound nearly as catchy...

AMFV
2014-02-06, 09:56 AM
I think this is the expanded definition, where "this hallway has a deadly trap in it" is railroading.

The Tomb of Horrors is an example of "scoping," sort of. To start, if you're playing it, then the game is over if you leave the dungeon and don't go back. Then, all those traps - they're there to be challenges. They're just realities of the physical situation of the environment. It's scope, in the physical and metagame sense (extent and content of the playable world). Not railroading.

Railroading in a dungeon would be pulling things out of your hat to counter things the PCs do. There may have been an element of this to many dungeons originally, but it's not exactly the same. For instance, the Undermountain is proof against teleportation in or out of it (but not within it), and against scrying. That can definitely seem like railroading when it comes up in a session, but if it's pre-established and the PCs theoretically have ways to learn about it beforehand, it's not - it's scope and nature of the environment.

It becomes railroading once the GM starts throwing in things specifically to force the players to do what he wants or go where he wants. If you've never experienced it, it can absolutely be hard to even imagine, but it is frequently outrageous, up to and including DMPCs who just use magic to take you where the DM wants you to be, and punish any PC who doesn't do what the DM wants them to.

Railroading generally (almost by definition) involves the PCs having no way to prevail. You can't win against the GM when he's dead set to prevail over you - the only option you have is to not play his game, either by talking him out of it outside the game, or by walking away from the game.

Well if you actually read through a lot of older game manuals the "DM is law" is typically an expectation, and usually it's an assumption people made, there was a lot more railroading there, because players weren't even allowed to know the rules in many cases (or it was strongly discouraged), this allowed the DM to railroad or handwave things without their knowledge.

It's really a question of system and style, there are systems and styles of play where railroading is entirely expected. The military campaign was an example, certain SAS adventures (I wasn't specifically referring to nWoD as a whole, just many of the adventures written for it, which include being railroaded by powerful NPCs), this is all because not everybody has the same negative viewpoint about this.


I think the problem with this discussion is that we haven't even successfully agreed on what "railroading" is, so it's impossible for us to debate how much of it is 'okay'.

I suspect people are MOSTLY in agreement if we look at it this way:

#1: Anytime the players are fine with you making a choice for them, it's not railroading (This rules out AMFV's "military simulation" scenario. Either the players are okay with that scenario, in which case it's not railroading, or they're not and you shouldn't do it.)
#2: Anytime the players are NOT fine with you making the choice for them, it is railroading (just the flipside of #1)
#3: Any amount of railroading as defined by #1 and #2 is bad.


What if the players are unaware of it, as was the system expectation in many earlier systems. I really think that it's more system dependent than your including, if you read any of Gygax's campaign stories you'll see that there was tons of railroading, and a lot of no-win situations (I consider a no-win situation to be railroading, since there is only one outcome and you get no choice). The point is that if they are unaware of the rails #2 can be fine, or if it's a system expectation and they still have fun despite having one grip it can be fine, it varies too drastically by system.

Airk
2014-02-06, 10:19 AM
What if the players are unaware of it, as was the system expectation in many earlier systems. I really think that it's more system dependent than your including, if you read any of Gygax's campaign stories you'll see that there was tons of railroading, and a lot of no-win situations (I consider a no-win situation to be railroading, since there is only one outcome and you get no choice). The point is that if they are unaware of the rails #2 can be fine, or if it's a system expectation and they still have fun despite having one grip it can be fine, it varies too drastically by system.

I don't really agree, mostly because I don't think the players are actually unaware of it most of the time. In much the same way that the audience of a magic show doesn't REALLY think the magician has magical powers, many times the players -know-. The problem arises when they REALLY DON'T.

Additionally, I don't really endorse doing things to people without their knowledge that would make them upset if they knew. So really, the only time it's "okay" to do "without player knowledge" is when you have reason to believe that the players would be okay with it if they did know. Which is basically putting us back in the same paradigm. Would you want to run a game where your players would be ROYALLY PISSED OFF at you if they knew their decisions didn't matter? I wouldn't.

And you don't have to worry about it either. There's no actual REASON to guess if the players would be okay with it. You can say, at the start of the campaign, "Hey guys, sometimes I'm going to manipulate things to keep the story going." and then your players will either go "Not cool man." and you know you shouldn't do that, or they'll nod and say "Well duh, of course." in which case, carry on. But either way, this is a much better idea than trying to pull over on them.

And honestly? "Early D&D [modules|books|articles] encouraged this!" is one of the worst justifications for anything, ever. ;)

jedipotter
2014-02-06, 10:21 AM
What do you guys all think? Are those acceptable ways to railroad, and are there any other times where you guys think railroading is okay? And when it is, how MUCH of it is okay? Hoping to spark some good discussion here. Have at it, guys!

Railroading is just one of them polizering words. Most gamers would say they hate it and it should never be used in a game. But then the same gamers would make like 101 exceptions. So that makes it both wrong and ok. So it is fine as long as you say it is wrong all the time, and then only do it in the ways that the players of the game your in like it done.

I guess Railroading gets it's bad stigma from video games and the type of DM that does things like ''you travel to the Pit of Doom, nothing else in the world exists.''

And the song and dance that players want to feel like they have a choice is just odd. I guess it works like this: The DM makes up an adventure, and then drops hooks and clues as to where the train tracks are. Then the players find and follow them and....somehow feel like they are making a choice and have free will?

Most games need a railroad. The players must be kept on the tracks. It is great to say that a random unplanned game is the most fun of all, but not every DM can do that. The idea that the DM would just show up with nothing planned, and the players would just say ''oh, we go over there and find a haunted mine'', and the DM creates that in three seconds, just does not work for every DM.

More players need to think of the railroad leading to fun and not some totalitarian state. A good DM adds in things that the players will like, find a challenge and have fun doing. But you need to weave it into a plot and story, because if things just fall out of the sky they feel cheep and pointless.

And I really don't get the idea of adventure planning with the players. Other then the vague things the like. Are there DM's that sit down and plan out a whole plot and story with the players? ''Ok, you guys will meet Fovf the gnome in the backwoods and travel with him through the badlands. There will be three ''level appropriate'' encounters with fire type creatures, and then you will get to the balck castle.''

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 10:58 AM
It's really a question of system and style, there are systems and styles of play where railroading is entirely expected. The military campaign was an example, certain SAS adventures (I wasn't specifically referring to nWoD as a whole, just many of the adventures written for it, which include being railroaded by powerful NPCs), this is all because not everybody has the same negative viewpoint about this.

If the players agree to play in a military campaign, it's not railroading for 1. the GM to decide that PCs who leave the military are out of the game and player needs a new PC and 2. for there to be realistic consequences encouraging the PCs to follow their orders and chain of command.

That's the buy-in of the campaign: "You're in the military." If the players don't want to play that kind of game, they don't buy into it.

Problems arise when one party is dishonest about the buy-in: either the GM sells the game as something it's not, or the players aren't actually buying into the premise and then act out, trying to ignore the premise, causing a conflict where both sides try to get their way (unless one side realizes the issue and does the mature thing, which is talk about it).

Railroading is much more blunt and obvious than "you should follow orders unless you want a reprimand/latrine duty/a court martial." It's "no you can't break down that door because I say so" or "get in that carriage because I say so." It can even be "no, you do get in that carriage, you have no say in what your character does right now."

If the players follow the scope and premise of the game, there is no railroading. Railroading is active GM interference and abuse.

A good GM can run a campaign with a very flexible premise even if the original scope is narrow. For instance, I very much want to use my cyberpunk Los Angeles Metroplex setting to run a cop game in the style of The Shield mixed with Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. It will be partly episodic and GM-driven just because there's a structure for it: the PCs catch cases. I am leaving it very open in execution, though: are the PCs going to be good cops or bad cops? (Indeed, the whole point, in a way, is to see what kind of cops they turn out to be!) Do they stay cops or go rogue, in the face of megacorp injustices, cyberpunk counterculture, and the temptation of corruption from megacorps, gangs, and organized crime?

However, if the players decided to leave the LAM indefinitely or permanently, I'd pretty much have to sit down and talk to them about whether they want to create new PCs or just end the campaign there, or maybe even start a new campaign with the same characters in another place after I've had time to prepare it (perhaps with a scope and premise set by me and the players together).

I don't need to railroad them into doing this or that, but part of the whole point of the premise is that they have to deal with the consequences - personal, social, financial, and legal - of what they do.


What if the players are unaware of it, as was the system expectation in many earlier systems. I really think that it's more system dependent than your including, if you read any of Gygax's campaign stories you'll see that there was tons of railroading, and a lot of no-win situations (I consider a no-win situation to be railroading, since there is only one outcome and you get no choice).

Any specific examples? I can't think of any myself. (None of the Tomb of Horrors counts, because it is possible to avoid the traps, ultimately; it's just very, very hard; and it's definitely possible to finish the dungeon and "win.")


And honestly? "Early D&D [modules|books|articles] encouraged this!" is one of the worst justifications for anything, ever. ;)

Shush, you! The B-series of modules is still unparallelled. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though, old D&D modules don't actually include railroading; they're overwhelminly the opposite of railroading, presenting not a plot and scenes and encounters, but a location and characters, leaving the "what happens?" up to the players. Later, the DL modules and AD&D 2E adventures are far more conducive to railroading, being linear (and the DL modules even giving instructions to break the rules and have NPCs cheat death, etc., in the interest of "story integrity", because obviously you just want to recreate the novels rather than play your own adventures!).

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 11:29 AM
Railroading is just one of them polizering words. Most gamers would say they hate it and it should never be used in a game. But then the same gamers would make like 101 exceptions. So that makes it both wrong and ok. So it is fine as long as you say it is wrong all the time, and then only do it in the ways that the players of the game your in like it done.

I guess Railroading gets it's bad stigma from video games and the type of DM that does things like ''you travel to the Pit of Doom, nothing else in the world exists.''

And the song and dance that players want to feel like they have a choice is just odd. I guess it works like this: The DM makes up an adventure, and then drops hooks and clues as to where the train tracks are. Then the players find and follow them and....somehow feel like they are making a choice and have free will?

Most games need a railroad. The players must be kept on the tracks. It is great to say that a random unplanned game is the most fun of all, but not every DM can do that. The idea that the DM would just show up with nothing planned, and the players would just say ''oh, we go over there and find a haunted mine'', and the DM creates that in three seconds, just does not work for every DM.

More players need to think of the railroad leading to fun and not some totalitarian state. A good DM adds in things that the players will like, find a challenge and have fun doing. But you need to weave it into a plot and story, because if things just fall out of the sky they feel cheep and pointless.

And I really don't get the idea of adventure planning with the players. Other then the vague things the like. Are there DM's that sit down and plan out a whole plot and story with the players? ''Ok, you guys will meet Fovf the gnome in the backwoods and travel with him through the badlands. There will be three ''level appropriate'' encounters with fire type creatures, and then you will get to the balck castle.''

Games don't need a railroad. My games certainly don't have them.

Don't confuse setting up situations or having events happen with railroading. The GM controls the world, whatever NPCs does towards the players' characters is fair game. Railroading is when the GM takes control of the PCs AWAY from the players and into their own hands.

The players say: "We go right."
The GM say: "No you don't, you go left."

THAT is railroading. No game needs that. Ever.

Showing up with things planned is not a sign of a railroading GM. A railroading GM shows up with an already established idea of what the characters will do, how challenges will be solved, in which order things will happen and when enemies can be beaten (and how). Seriously, read the flow chart I posted, it explains it pretty well.


If the players agree to play in a military campaign, it's not railroading for 1. the GM to decide that PCs who leave the military are out of the game and player needs a new PC and 2. for there to be realistic consequences encouraging the PCs to follow their orders and chain of command.

That's the buy-in of the campaign: "You're in the military." If the players don't want to play that kind of game, they don't buy into it.

Problems arise when one party is dishonest about the buy-in: either the GM sells the game as something it's not, or the players aren't actually buying into the premise and then act out, trying to ignore the premise, causing a conflict where both sides try to get their way (unless one side realizes the issue and does the mature thing, which is talk about it).

Railroading is much more blunt and obvious than "you should follow orders unless you want a reprimand/latrine duty/a court martial." It's "no you can't break down that door because I say so" or "get in that carriage because I say so." It can even be "no, you do get in that carriage, you have no say in what your character does right now."

If the players follow the scope and premise of the game, there is no railroading. Railroading is active GM interference and abuse.

Quoting to make sure people read it twice. Having a military campaign where you are given orders of missions and how to execute them is not railroading. Railroading is when if a player decides to refuse orders, instead of following the logical consequences, the GM has the character going on the mission anyway in some fashion.


A good GM can run a campaign with a very flexible premise even if the original scope is narrow. For instance, I very much want to use my cyberpunk Los Angeles Metroplex setting to run a cop game in the style of The Shield mixed with Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. It will be partly episodic and GM-driven just because there's a structure for it: the PCs catch cases. I am leaving it very open in execution, though: are the PCs going to be good cops or bad cops? (Indeed, the whole point, in a way, is to see what kind of cops they turn out to be!) Do they stay cops or go rogue, in the face of megacorp injustices, cyberpunk counterculture, and the temptation of corruption from megacorps, gangs, and organized crime?

Oooooooh. Now I want to play that. Sounds like a great premise!

Airk
2014-02-06, 11:32 AM
The players say: "We go right."
The GM say: "No you don't, you go left."


It's time for fun with hypotheticals!

The players say: "We go right."
The GM says: "Okay, you go right."
The GM then transfers all the content he had for "left" to "right.". The players have, now, essentially, chosen to go left even though they went right.

Is this:
Railroading?
Okay?

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 11:41 AM
The players say: "We go right."
The GM says: "Okay, you go right."
The GM then transfers all the content he had for "left" to "right.". The players have, now, essentially, chosen to go left even though they went right.

Is this:
Railroading?
Okay?

I think that's "steath railroading," and I think it's weak and poor GMing, but at least it's the most inoffensive kind.

Like I said early on, railroading is at best (e.g. the above example) unnecessary. The above is unnecessary. You could have created a more open or complete environment, you could be a more flexible GM, you can do things to help you run things off the cuff, you could let their choice have an effect and then just re-use the stuff somewhere else later.

Honestly, any time you've set up a "left or right?" choice and only prepare for one of the directions, you're being a lazy and poor GM, IMO. That's the most obvious case of "plans won't survive contact with the enemyplayers" - there's a 50/50 chance they'll do the thing they're "not meant to"!

Airk
2014-02-06, 11:56 AM
I think that's "steath railroading," and I think it's weak and poor GMing, but at least it's the most inoffensive kind.

Like I said early on, railroading is at best (e.g. the above example) unnecessary. The above is unnecessary. You could have created a more open or complete environment, you could be a more flexible GM, you can do things to help you run things off the cuff, you could let their choice have an effect and then just re-use the stuff somewhere else later.

Honestly, any time you've set up a "left or right?" choice and only prepare for one of the directions, you're being a lazy and poor GM, IMO. That's the most obvious case of "plans won't survive contact with the enemyplayers" - there's a 50/50 chance they'll do the thing they're "not meant to"!

Well, most of that is inherent in my lazy hypothetical. There are plenty of situations where it's not a question of "left or right" so much as just offering choices to players that aren't actually choices.

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 12:02 PM
It's time for fun with hypotheticals!

The players say: "We go right."
The GM says: "Okay, you go right."
The GM then transfers all the content he had for "left" to "right.". The players have, now, essentially, chosen to go left even though they went right.

Is this:
Railroading?
Okay?

That is Illusionism until the players find out and then it is Railroading. Is it okay? Depends on the expectations of the players. Do I think it's okay? No.

Red Fel
2014-02-06, 12:02 PM
I think that's "steath railroading," and I think it's weak and poor GMing, but at least it's the most inoffensive kind.

Like I said early on, railroading is at best (e.g. the above example) unnecessary. The above is unnecessary. You could have created a more open or complete environment, you could be a more flexible GM, you can do things to help you run things off the cuff, you could let their choice have an effect and then just re-use the stuff somewhere else later.

Honestly, any time you've set up a "left or right?" choice and only prepare for one of the directions, you're being a lazy and poor GM, IMO. That's the most obvious case of "plans won't survive contact with the enemyplayers" - there's a 50/50 chance they'll do the thing they're "not meant to"!

Happen to agree with Rhynn. If you prepared separate "left" and "right" content, or decide to wing it, there's no railroading. If you only prepared one, so the outcome is the same, they are effectively being robbed of true agency, but are unaware of it. If you only prepared one, and explicitly prevent them from doing anything but that, they are being robbed of agency and know it, so it's classic railroading.

In some ways, I think of it like planning an event. Nobody knows what went into the event. They don't know the bills, or the negotiations with the caterers, or the selection of napkins and tablecloths; they don't know the innumerable last-minute phone calls because the entertainment backed out or the kitchen caught fire or a goat got into the venue and became violently ill; they don't know the difference between what you saw in your mind's eye, what you had planned, and the reality of the final product. All they know is what they get. And if that's good, some people - players included - call it a win.

The catch is when you pull away the curtain. As mentioned, should the players ever discover the truth - in this case, that they were going left whether they go left or right - they may feel cheated.

So there are several ways you could measure railroading. First, here are our three scenarios again:
A. The players may choose X or Y. Whichever they choose, it happens.
B. The players may choose X or Y. They are told, however, that they must choose X.
C. The players may choose X or Y. Whichever one they choose, you use the plans for X.

Now, the metrics:
1. The Objective. Do the players' decisions have any meaningful impact on what you do as DM, and do they have the freedom to make those choices? In an Objective Railroading metric, the players' knowledge of their lack of agency is irrelevant; if their choices are limited or rendered meaningless, they are railroaded. In scenario A, their actions have a meaningful impact and they can make the choice; they are not railroaded. In scenario B, they have no free choice; they are railroaded. In scenario C, they have a choice, but it makes no difference; they are railroaded, whether they know it or not.
2. The Subjective. Do the players believe their actions have an impact? In a Subjective Railroading metric, what matters is the players' feeling of agency, whether that feeling is validated by the facts or not. Thus, while scenario A is still not railroading and scenario B is still railroading, scenario C changes; because the players are not aware of what goes on behind the curtain, they still feel like their decision matters - it is therefore not railroading by the subjective metric.

The question as to which metric to use, I think, boils down to two things - the players' canniness and the DM's integrity. Smart players can see behind the curtain fairly quickly; they can deconstruct DMs and plans with ruthless efficiency. Expect them to notice when your pile of campaign notes is half the size it should be. Similarly, a DM who truly wants his players to have agency - not just to have fun, but to truly leave the impact of their choice on his world - must, by necessity, give them the actual freedom, not just the perceived freedom, to do so.

Are you hip to my jive?

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 12:20 PM
Well, most of that is inherent in my lazy hypothetical. There are plenty of situations where it's not a question of "left or right" so much as just offering choices to players that aren't actually choices.

Sure, but I think most of the solutions apply to most railroading: "if you had done a better job before, you wouldn't be thinking of railroading!"


2. The Subjective. Do the players believe their actions have an impact? In a Subjective Railroading metric, what matters is the players' feeling of agency, whether that feeling is validated by the facts or not. Thus, while scenario A is still not railroading and scenario B is still railroading, scenario C changes; because the players are not aware of what goes on behind the curtain, they still feel like their decision matters - it is therefore not railroading by the subjective metric.

This is an interesting point to raise. This can work the other way, too: players can feel railroaded when they weren't! That's difficult territory, because it's more about the players' perceptions than what the GM is actually doing. Many GMs have heard players whine at one time or another that they don't have any options or choices, and shaken their heads.

This is subtler and more challenging to deal with, because it's about your presentation being right for the audience. It can be hard to balance right, and definitely a matter of skill.

Of course, there's also the approach of changing the players' attitudes. If you teach them, both by explicit instruction and by results during play, that there is never a situation where they are being railroaded or forced into something (as players; their characters might be, but not in a way that is literally overwhelming the way the GM railroading the players is), they are less likely to despair or feel railroaded, and more likely to try alternatives.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 12:25 PM
I don't really agree, mostly because I don't think the players are actually unaware of it most of the time. In much the same way that the audience of a magic show doesn't REALLY think the magician has magical powers, many times the players -know-. The problem arises when they REALLY DON'T.

Additionally, I don't really endorse doing things to people without their knowledge that would make them upset if they knew. So really, the only time it's "okay" to do "without player knowledge" is when you have reason to believe that the players would be okay with it if they did know. Which is basically putting us back in the same paradigm. Would you want to run a game where your players would be ROYALLY PISSED OFF at you if they knew their decisions didn't matter? I wouldn't.

And you don't have to worry about it either. There's no actual REASON to guess if the players would be okay with it. You can say, at the start of the campaign, "Hey guys, sometimes I'm going to manipulate things to keep the story going." and then your players will either go "Not cool man." and you know you shouldn't do that, or they'll nod and say "Well duh, of course." in which case, carry on. But either way, this is a much better idea than trying to pull over on them.

And honestly? "Early D&D [modules|books|articles] encouraged this!" is one of the worst justifications for anything, ever. ;)

Well people enjoyed them, so they have to have been objectively fun for at least some portion of people. The system is not equipped for transparency in that case, it's not a goal and in fact the sneaky DM style is encouraged, that's not the case in all games, and it's fine for you to not enjoy it, but some players do. I've participated in games with heavy railroading and enjoyed them, it really depends on you group and the style of play what's going to be "acceptable" I would talk to the group and see what they want.

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 12:26 PM
objectively fun for at least some portion of people

I'm pretty sure that means "subjectively fun" ...

AMFV
2014-02-06, 12:31 PM
I'm pretty sure that means "subjectively fun" ...

Yes, that was what I meant... It was a joke, I apologize if it wasn't clear. The point still stands though that some people find railroading fun, and if that's the case then it's fine to have a game that involves that.

For the military example, if you want the whole experience then a large portion of it has to be doing things that you aren't that comfortable with, or that you don't want to do, maybe people enjoy that, lord knows, when I was in the military, there were people that genuinely had no problem with doing things that most people would consider unpleasant, and it didn't factor into their fun.

The same is true of railroading, for some people it literally doesn't matter, not one bit.

Airk
2014-02-06, 12:32 PM
The system is not equipped for transparency in that case, it's not a goal and in fact the sneaky DM style is encouraged, that's not the case in all games,

So it's a problem with the system, that it just doesn't WORK if the GM isn't sneaky? Should be the GM be -telling- the players that he is going to be sneaky? If he -can't-, what happens when he gets a player who has already GM'd and KNOWS the GM is going to be sneaky? If the players are FINE with the GM being sneaky, then the GM isn't -really- being sneaky, is he? So there's no reason for him to not be transparent. And if the players AREN'T fine, it's going to be a trainwreck in at least some of the aforementioned situations. Again, I would argue that it is NOT OKAY to do something to someone without their knowledge if you know that that something is something they would object to if they knew. That's like...basic good human behavior.

This whole situation as you have set it up is so fraught with potential badness that it's a wonder this hobby survived. Of course, the number of people with horror stories indicates that surviving might be about all we've managed.

In any event, if, in fact, the system DOESN'T work without the GM being sneaky, then maybe that is a bad system. And if that's a bad system, maybe there's a way to make a system that ISN'T bad? If so, wouldn't that be a design challenge? That some games have met? That might indicate forward progress in game design?

Airk
2014-02-06, 12:33 PM
The same is true of railroading, for some people it literally doesn't matter, not one bit.

Only, by the definition of railroading that is the only one that works, as soon as people "don't care" then it's not railroading anymore.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 12:34 PM
So it's a problem with the system, that it just doesn't WORK if the GM isn't sneaky? Should be the GM be -telling- the players that he is going to be sneaky? If he -can't-, what happens when he gets a player who has already GM'd and KNOWS the GM is going to be sneaky? If the players are FINE with the GM being sneaky, then the GM isn't -really- being sneaky, is he? So there's no reason for him to not be transparent. And if the players AREN'T fine, it's going to be a trainwreck in at least some of the aforementioned situations. Again, I would argue that it is NOT OKAY to do something to someone without their knowledge if you know that that something is something they would object to if they knew. That's like...basic good human behavior.

This whole situation as you have set it up is so fraught with potential badness that it's a wonder this hobby survived. Of course, the number of people with horror stories indicates that surviving might be about all we've managed.

In any event, if, in fact, the system DOESN'T work without the GM being sneaky, then maybe that is a bad system. And if that's a bad system, maybe there's a way to make a system that ISN'T bad? If so, wouldn't that be a design challenge? That some games have met? That might indicate forward progress in game design?

I disagree that it's a problem with the system, you prefer systems with transparency, others don't. I don't really care either way. At least one person I have roleplayed with prefers systems that have absolute DM control and no transparency. Now you could argue that he prefers "bad" things, and that may be the case, but the point is that there are those that appreciate those things regardless of how "bad" you may believe them to be.

Now I would agree that it's not for everybody, but as I've said, some people enjoy it, and then that would be something that they'd look for in a game.


Only, by the definition of railroading that is the only one that works, as soon as people "don't care" then it's not railroading anymore.


I disagree as I've pointed out, it's part of the experience, well let me rephrase that, it didn't affect their fun, if you're argument is that any kind of DM arbitration that isn't fun is railroading then again it comes down to a matter of taste. If you enjoy experiences that other people find unfun, then it's a different question.

Of course if you're going to define railroading as being explicitly unfun, then it's questionable if it's ever appropriate, but even still that depends on the amount of fun that results, if you have to put up with a little bit of crap that you don't enjoy to get an enjoyable or more enjoyable result. Then it's good.

Airk
2014-02-06, 12:38 PM
I disagree that it's a problem with the system, you prefer systems with transparency, others don't. I don't really care either way. At least one person I have roleplayed with prefers systems that have absolute DM control and no transparency. Now you could argue that he prefers "bad" things, and that may be the case, but the point is that there are those that appreciate those things regardless of how "bad" you may believe them to be.

Now I would agree that it's not for everybody, but as I've said, some people enjoy it, and then that would be something that they'd look for in a game.

The question is simple: Why would you want to play a game in which you are being LIED TO about your decisions? How is that EVER preferable to knowing how your decisions work or don't?

I'm not saying there's anything bad about players sitting back and saying "Okay, Mr. GM, let's do your story." I'm saying there is something bad about a GM saying "Okay, players, drive the story." and then manipulating the results to be the same regardless. One involves people being unwittingly manipulated and can upset people. The other allows willing participants to decide what they enjoy.

Are you against letting people decide what they enjoy? Otherwise, why do you feel you have to lie to them?


I disagree as I've pointed out, it's part of the experience, well let me rephrase that, it didn't affect their fun, if you're argument is that any kind of DM arbitration that isn't fun is railroading then again it comes down to a matter of taste. If you enjoy experiences that other people find unfun, then it's a different question.

Do you even read what I write?

I said: "anytime the GM takes choices away from people without their consent." Presumably, if it is FUN for them, they give their consent, right? This has nothing to do with who finds what "fun" in spite of your efforts to misdirect the conversation in that direction. It is about TELLING PEOPLE up front WHETHER this is going to be something they are going to find fun, or whether you choose to mislead them into thinking it is one thing, when in fact it is another and HOPE they find -that- fun.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 12:43 PM
The question is simple: Why would you want to play a game in which you are being LIED TO about your decisions? How is that EVER preferable to knowing how your decisions work or don't?

Because it's fun. Some games are structured around this idea, Paranoia for example is, a lot of oWoD is, some nWoD is, it depends. Agency isn't the most fun part of roleplaying for me. While it can be enjoyable, and I like games with lots of agency, I don't think it's the most important thing.



I'm not saying there's anything bad about players sitting back and saying "Okay, Mr. GM, let's do your story." I'm saying there is something bad about a GM saying "Okay, players, drive the story." and then manipulating the results to be the same regardless. One involves people being unwittingly manipulated and can upset people. The other allows willing participants to decide what they enjoy.

Are you against letting people decide what they enjoy? Otherwise, why do you feel you have to lie to them?

Because it's a system assumption, there are game systems where the DM is expected to be duplicitous, AD&D, Paranoia, Shadowrun (some editions), some WoD games. It's part of the fun for some people. For me, it's neither way, but for some people the battle of wits and trying to sneak things past the DM or figure out when he's sneaking stuff past you is part of the fun. It creates a very antagonistic game, yes, but that's fun for many folks. And who are you to decide what other people should enjoy? If they enjoy it, then who cares? I don't. As I've said, I know people who very much prefer that style, I don't understand it, but it is clearly more fun for them.


Th


Do you even read what I write?

I said: "anytime the GM takes choices away from people without their consent." Presumably, if it is FUN for them, they give their consent, right? This has nothing to do with who finds what "fun" in spite of your efforts to misdirect the conversation in that direction. It is about TELLING PEOPLE up front WHETHER this is going to be something they are going to find fun, or whether you choose to mislead them into thinking it is one thing, when in fact it is another and HOPE they find -that- fun.


Because you are narrowing the definition of railroading to "DM control that is not fun", which is NOT the common use definition if it, and is a definition intended to prove your point. Furthermore as I said, some people are okay with a little bit of discomfort, they don't enjoy the discomfort, but they're okay with it, it really varies depending on your group and system.

jedipotter
2014-02-06, 12:48 PM
So there are several ways you could measure railroading. First, here are our three scenarios again:
A. The players may choose X or Y. Whichever they choose, it happens.
B. The players may choose X or Y. They are told, however, that they must choose X.
C. The players may choose X or Y. Whichever one they choose, you use the plans for X.

The thing is, with a role playing game choices get fuzzy.

The set up for the choice is that the players need some help. They have three choices: The Wildwood elves, The Stonehall dwarves and the Happyland halflings. The elves are isolationist and won't help unless the threat is to them, the dwarfves would help if a good case is made, the halflings are simply too weak. The players and the characters know all of this. Now, naturally, to keep the game flowing they should just head to the dwarves. Now this part is not railroading as the DM has simply made each society long before this came up. They can choose any of the three, but only the dwarves can help. But the players might want to try to get the help of the elves. So they head over and take two hours of game time...to do nothing. Then finally go to the dwarves. But now it is midnight, and the game is over.

So if the DM ''railroads'' and says ''oh the elven woods are closed and the halfling's bridge is washed out, only the dwarf path is open'' would anyone have a problem with that? Save two hours of game time and get to the climax before midnight?

Airk
2014-02-06, 01:12 PM
Because it's a system assumption, there are game systems where the DM is expected to be duplicitous, AD&D, Paranoia, Shadowrun (some editions), some WoD games. It's part of the fun for some people.

You're still missing the point.

Do the players KNOW that the GM is supposed to be duplicitous? If so, why does the GM need to bother with the duplicity? And if not, how do they know they wouldn't have more fun if the GM weren't lying?


Because you are narrowing the definition of railroading to "DM control that is not fun", which is NOT the common use definition if it, and is a definition intended to prove your point.

There IS NO "common use definition" for "railroading" which is why the first page of this thread is a bunch of people going "Here's an example of acceptable railroading" and "No, that's not railroading, that's... <X>"


Furthermore as I said, some people are okay with a little bit of discomfort, they don't enjoy the discomfort, but they're okay with it, it really varies depending on your group and system.

But why would you voluntarily ADD discomfort?

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 01:14 PM
So if the DM ''railroads'' and says ''oh the elven woods are closed and the halfling's bridge is washed out, only the dwarf path is open'' would anyone have a problem with that? Save two hours of game time and get to the climax before midnight?

That's the boring way to do things, and is rooted in the idea that there's a "correct path" to take.

In my game, in the same set-up, it'd be up to the players to decide what to do. If they go and get the halflings to help, maybe they fail in whatever they were trying to do. Failing is okay! Don't railroad to keep the PCs from failing, just make sure you spin more things to do out of the failure. Maybe they have to reconsider their options, and now the elves are more open to helping; but the fight will be that much harder, and maybe that leads the PCs to decide to get both the dwarves and the elves to help.

"Wasting time" is a tricky one.

If the PCs went to the elves, and I could see and tell they had no leverage to use to get the elves to help, I'd hurry the scene along and not let them waste time. I wouldn't roleplay out a lengthy negotiation, I'd ask them for their goals and their strategy and tell them if it didn't work out. I'd try to spin out some other paths to take, too, but they could always backtrack and go try the dwarves. (But future events might be more dire because the PCs wasted weeks with the elves.)

For me, it's about player decisions, PC actions, and the results; about agency and consequences. I don't want to negate agency or consequences with my own decisions, just because I didn't foresee them. Things are more fun for me, as a GM, when I didn't see the coming or plan them. Sometimes, the players get to entertain me!

Red Fel
2014-02-06, 01:59 PM
The thing is, with a role playing game choices get fuzzy.

The set up for the choice is that the players need some help. They have three choices: The Wildwood elves, The Stonehall dwarves and the Happyland halflings. The elves are isolationist and won't help unless the threat is to them, the dwarfves would help if a good case is made, the halflings are simply too weak. The players and the characters know all of this. Now, naturally, to keep the game flowing they should just head to the dwarves. Now this part is not railroading as the DM has simply made each society long before this came up. They can choose any of the three, but only the dwarves can help. But the players might want to try to get the help of the elves. So they head over and take two hours of game time...to do nothing. Then finally go to the dwarves. But now it is midnight, and the game is over.

So if the DM ''railroads'' and says ''oh the elven woods are closed and the halfling's bridge is washed out, only the dwarf path is open'' would anyone have a problem with that? Save two hours of game time and get to the climax before midnight?

The problem is that this falls between scenarios B and C. You're giving the players an almost-choice - "Yes, you could go to the elves or halflings, but it would be a waste of time." You then let them go if they want to, and proceed to waste their time until they learn to do what you wanted them to do in the first place.

As Rhynn said, the flaw there is that you've created a world where the players must go to the dwarves if they want to get anywhere. That's the railroad. Even if they are allowed to choose the elves or halflings, you as DM have already decided that their actions will have no impact. That's the railroad.

Now, does that mean that if you, as DM, create a world like the one you described, and the players decide to go to the elves or halflings, that you must suddenly make the elves less isolationist, or the halflings more combat-ready? Of course not. But it does mean that you should come up with a way for the players to feel accomplished.

Suppose, for example, the party face says, "I'm a half-elf, child of an elven noble mother. They have to at least grant us an audience, at which point I'll make a magnificent diplomatic speech and wow them into activity." Give the players the chance. You can set high DCs, but if they can come up with a reason that it might work, let them at least try it.

Or suppose the party Pokedex says, "I know the halflings aren't combat-ready, but I've heard rumors that their alchemists are top-notch, and that their lands hide the entrance to a network of caves full of treasure." Give the players the opportunity. Even if the halflings themselves won't be of much use, a capable and adaptable DM will see it - as he would see almost any choice the players make - as an opportunity for a new quest hook. Not only that, but if the players go to the hapless halflings for help, how horrible would they feel to happen upon the halflings' homes later to discover that some hideous horror has harmed their half-pint helpers? You can use this as an opportunity to get the players really mad at a villain for hurting the innocent and weak halfling villagers.

You see, your answer - that only the dwarves can help them - assumes that there is only one outcome. That assumption is the shortest distance to the railroad. When you allow player creativity - when you permit the players to pursue their ideas, even if they are unlikely to succeed, even if they are far-fetched or imbecilic, even if they require an old priest, a young priest, seven goats, a log from a young pine, and the Elder Sign of the King in Yellow - the players have true agency in the world. That, at least for me, is the best result.

At least until they trigger the apocalypse.

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 02:08 PM
Because you are narrowing the definition of railroading to "DM control that is not fun", which is NOT the common use definition if it, and is a definition intended to prove your point. Furthermore as I said, some people are okay with a little bit of discomfort, they don't enjoy the discomfort, but they're okay with it, it really varies depending on your group and system.

Actually, that IS the definition. The only one that will ever make any sense. Also it isn't "DM control that is not fun" it is "DM control without consent". In the off-chance that there is someone that actually enjoy having things done towards them without their consent it will most often NOT be fun. The lack of fun isn't in the definition but it's a common result.

Railroading is a verb. It's something the GM actively does. Furthermore, the lack of choice is even within the word itself. It implies someone is being forced to follow a certain path without any ability to diverge from it. If the GM presents a railroad with a train and says "hey guys, you wanna jump on it and see where it takes you?" and the players say "sure!" then it's not railroading. If the GM forces the players onto the train, then it is.

I'm not sure what definition you are using, or claiming to be the "common one". The only ones that has actually stated what definitions they are working on are those that are on the "Railroading is always bad" side. Also, isn't it better to have different terms for different things, as in one term for when the GM is forcing you to go a certain path with your consent, one for when it's without consent and a third for when you are tricked? If your definition of railroading is too loose it becomes a bit pointless to talk about it.

This is what Railroading is:

GM: "So you go on the train."
Players: "Uhm, no, we want to explore a bit, maybe go to that hill over there..."
GM: "So you're on the train, it is moving forward."
Players: "But we really wanted to go to that hill, and weren't done with the last town, can we stop the train?"
GM: "No, it's going to stop at station X."
Players: "Eh?"
GM: "You are now at station X and you go off."
Players: "We're not sure we want to go off at station X, can't we go to station Y instead?"
GM: "So you've gone off at station X and Z happens (roll initiatve?)."
Players: "Guess we [solve Z by the obvious way to solve it]."
GM: "Good. So Z is taken care of, and you go on the train again."
Players: "Can't we explore the town a bit? Maybe look for some clues for what those people in Z where really up to, see if we can find a better way to deal with them in the future. And we'd really like to go to that hill over there..."
GM: "So you're on the train, it's heading for station Å..."


Also, as a general note, I have no idea how people can say that players can railroad? How does that work?

Jay R
2014-02-06, 02:20 PM
It's time for fun with hypotheticals!

The players say: "We go right."
The GM says: "Okay, you go right."
The GM then transfers all the content he had for "left" to "right.". The players have, now, essentially, chosen to go left even though they went right.

Is this:
Railroading?
Okay?

I don't care.

It's not railroading, because railroading is forcing their decisions. But there was no meaningful decision to make here. It's the illusion of a T-intersection when there is actually a single passage. Why bother with the intersection at all?

And the "choice" meant nothing unless there was something to base it on.

If we choose to go up the hill away from the swamp, and a rockfall forces us into the swamp, that's railroading. There was a real choice, the players made it, and the DM unmade it.

If the players decide to go into the dungeon to avoid the war on the surface, and the tunnel takes them straight to the battlefield, that's railroading.

If we refuse to touch the cursed sword, and it jumps into somebody's hand, that's railroading.

But "Right or left"? I don't care. Wake me up when we have a real decision to make.

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 02:38 PM
But "Right or left"? I don't care. Wake me up when we have a real decision to make.

I think the left or right is meant to be metaphorical. At least it was in my original example. :smallsmile:

kyoryu
2014-02-06, 02:58 PM
It's time for fun with hypotheticals!

The players say: "We go right."
The GM says: "Okay, you go right."
The GM then transfers all the content he had for "left" to "right.". The players have, now, essentially, chosen to go left even though they went right.

Is this:
Railroading?
Okay?

It's illusionism, as you're offering the *illusion* of a choice, but no real choice.

In my opinion it's the worst type of railroading. Because it's fundamentally dishonest, and dishonesty is a very poor basis for a social game.

Airk
2014-02-06, 03:58 PM
It's illusionism, as you're offering the *illusion* of a choice, but no real choice.

In my opinion it's the worst type of railroading. Because it's fundamentally dishonest, and dishonesty is a very poor basis for a social game.

This is pretty much my opinion, but AMFV seems to be of the opinion that people like it when you lie to them and that it's perfectly fine to design a system with that as a base assumption. :smallannoyed:

AMFV
2014-02-06, 04:03 PM
You're still missing the point.

Do the players KNOW that the GM is supposed to be duplicitous? If so, why does the GM need to bother with the duplicity? And if not, how do they know they wouldn't have more fun if the GM weren't lying?


Because you don't know exactly what he's hiding or what he's lying about, it turns the game into a battle of wits, which can be very very fun. It's like tying to guess exactly what somebody is hiding.



There IS NO "common use definition" for "railroading" which is why the first page of this thread is a bunch of people going "Here's an example of acceptable railroading" and "No, that's not railroading, that's... <X>"


But redefining it in a way that you think supports your argument is a little bit disingenuous, don't you think?



But why would you voluntarily ADD discomfort?

Because it reduces other kinds of discomfort, some people find that a smooth running game is more fun than one that stalls even if they have to give up player agency. It's really a matter of taste. Basically there are dozens of choices where you have the lessor two evils. This is one of them for some players.


It's illusionism, as you're offering the *illusion* of a choice, but no real choice.

In my opinion it's the worst type of railroading. Because it's fundamentally dishonest, and dishonesty is a very poor basis for a social game.

Bull****, Poker, War, Spades, Clue, Stratego, Bridge, and many more.


This is pretty much my opinion, but AMFV seems to be of the opinion that people like it when you lie to them and that it's perfectly fine to design a system with that as a base assumption. :smallannoyed:

Also Paranoia as far as roleplaying game systems go. Which is loads of fun.

kyoryu
2014-02-06, 04:10 PM
Because it reduces other kinds of discomfort, some people find that a smooth running game is more fun than one that stalls even if they have to give up player agency. It's really a matter of taste. Basically there are dozens of choices where you have the lessor two evils. This is one of them for some players.

So either don't give the choice, or be up-front about the railroading. Boom! All of the benefits, none of the dishonesty.

For the left/right choice, why not just make one path out of town? What does it gain to tell the players that there are two paths, when the choice is utterly meaningless?

The *only* reason that I can see is to get people to play the game that might not if they knew how the game was actually structured.

Look, someone might claim that sleeping around on their wife makes their marriage better, because they're happier that way and learn some neat bedroom tricks. They may even be right in some ways. That doesn't mean it's not cheating, and the right answer to their wife getting upset when she finds out isn't "well, it's only a problem if they find out, so I need to learn to hide it better."


Bull****, Poker, War, Spades, Clue, Stratego, Bridge, and many more.

Actually in most of those games, it's about information concealment, not lying. There's also a huge difference because those are games where are the players are equal, and the areas of bluffing/concealment are well known and part of the game.

When you offer the "left path/right path" choice, and they're both going the same place, you're not acting from a place of gamesmanship. You're flat-out lying. In essence, you're lying on a meta-game level (what game are we playing?) vs. an in-game level.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 04:13 PM
So either don't give the choice, or be up-front about the railroading. Boom! All of the benefits, none of the dishonesty.

For the left/right choice, why not just make one path out of town? What does it gain to tell the players that there are two paths, when the choice is utterly meaningless?

The *only* reason that I can see is to get people to play the game that might not if they knew how the game was actually structured.


Well the illusion of choice is important, perhaps more important than the actual choices themselves sometimes, and you can force and cajole and control in certain game systems, but you have to realize that in many of them the players are actively working against you.



Actually in most of those games, it's about information concealment, not lying. There's also a huge difference because those are games where are the players are equal, and the areas of bluffing/concealment are well known and part of the game.

When you offer the "left path/right path" choice, and they're both going the same place, you're not acting from a place of gamesmanship. You're flat-out lying. In essence, you're lying on a meta-game level (what game are we playing?) vs. an in-game level.

Paranoia, there's a popular counter-example with lying, and if you play old school games the lying and manipulation was also expected, it's a much a part of the system as trying to play the cards in spades in a manner that will confuse the other team is. It's a system assumption, which I can understand you not enjoying, that's completely fair, but other people do.

Airk
2014-02-06, 04:14 PM
Because you don't know exactly what he's hiding or what he's lying about, it turns the game into a battle of wits, which can be very very fun. It's like tying to guess exactly what somebody is hiding.

Why does the GM need to HIDE that he is "cheating" in this situation? It's perfectly fine to tell the players beforehand "Hey, I'm gonna fudge some stuff." because the battle of wits is still on, don't you think?


But redefining it in a way that you think supports your argument is a little bit disingenuous, don't you think?

No. Because I defined it that way because it's the only way that makes sense. If I were, in fact, defining it a way that -didn't- make sense to support my argument, that would be dirty, but as is, I arrived at the best definition I could, and have built an argument from there. You have yet to provide a usable definition at all, so maybe I should just discount your opinions entirely?



Because it reduces other kinds of discomfort, some people find that a smooth running game is more fun than one that stalls even if they have to give up player agency. It's really a matter of taste. Basically there are dozens of choices where you have the lessor two evils. This is one of them for some players.

Again, what does this have to do with being dishonest? There is NO reason to lie to support this agenda. As kyoryu points out, the only reason to lie is because you're afraid people wouldn't play if you told them what you are actually doing.



Also Paranoia as far as roleplaying game systems go. Which is loads of fun.

False. Paranoia is very open about how it works. I've never heard of anyone going into Paranoia without a very clear expectation of how the game is going to work.

Rosstin
2014-02-06, 04:17 PM
Well the illusion of choice is important, perhaps more important than the actual choices themselves sometimes,

This is actually super insightful. This is one of the most important not-so-secret secrets of game design.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 04:18 PM
Why does the GM need to HIDE that he is "cheating" in this situation? It's perfectly fine to tell the players beforehand "Hey, I'm gonna fudge some stuff." because the battle of wits is still on, don't you think?

Yes, the DM doesn't need to hide that, but he can hide what he's fudging or what he's about, I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, you've said all railroading and all dishonesty were bad in the context of a game, and I presented examples where they weren't. So are you okay with those sort of examples, with even having it as a design element.



No. Because I defined it that way because it's the only way that makes sense. If I were, in fact, defining it a way that -didn't- make sense to support my argument, that would be dirty, but as is, I arrived at the best definition I could, and have built an argument from there. You have yet to provide a usable definition at all, so maybe I should just discount your opinions entirely?

Railroading is when the DM presents a scenario where there appears to be multiple options but there is really only one option, how does that suit you. You'll notice I didn't include any elements of fun, or anything that was pejorative or supportive of it.



Again, what does this have to do with being dishonest? There is NO reason to lie to support this agenda. As kyoryu points out, the only reason to lie is because you're afraid people wouldn't play if you told them what you are actually doing.

I never said that you should conceal what type of game it is, that was what the paranoia example was about, is that if it is a system assumption it's fine. There are games where DMs lie, and it's fine, and those where it wouldn't be, it's a system assumption.



False. Paranoia is very open about how it works. I've never heard of anyone going into Paranoia without a very clear expectation of how the game is going to work.

The game is, but the DM is expected to lie. About many things, in fact the DM is never supposed to be honest, its a system assumption, the same as for many old school games. You stated that it was not good design to include that, so is paranoia badly designed? Or is it a matter of taste.

Airk
2014-02-06, 04:39 PM
Yes, the DM doesn't need to hide that, but he can hide what he's fudging or what he's about, I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, you've said all railroading and all dishonesty were bad in the context of a game, and I presented examples where they weren't. So are you okay with those sort of examples, with even having it as a design element.

Correct. Dishonesty is bad. Telling people "I'm occasionally going to add more stuff to encounters or fudge die rolls to keep things entertaining" removes any element of dishonesty from the proceedings. You are the one who has been arguing that "No no! You HAVE TO HIDE EVERYTHING! You can't let them know you're cheating!"



Railroading is when the DM presents a scenario where there appears to be multiple options but there is really only one option, how does that suit you. You'll notice I didn't include any elements of fun, or anything that was pejorative or supportive of it.

What about situations in which there should be more than one option, but the GM only presents one? Or is that too much of a technicality?



The game is, but the DM is expected to lie. About many things, in fact the DM is never supposed to be honest, its a system assumption, the same as for many old school games. You stated that it was not good design to include that, so is paranoia badly designed? Or is it a matter of taste.

But it's crucial that the players KNOW the system assumption. That's the difference. When you have a game that says "Lie to the players, otherwise it won't be any fun." you have to make that clear. To the players. And at that point, it's NOT ILLUSIONISM anymore.

But then, you keep avoiding definitions, so it's hard to show you when you're being incorrect.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 04:49 PM
Correct. Dishonesty is bad. Telling people "I'm occasionally going to add more stuff to encounters or fudge die rolls to keep things entertaining" removes any element of dishonesty from the proceedings. You are the one who has been arguing that "No no! You HAVE TO HIDE EVERYTHING! You can't let them know you're cheating!"

I have never, repeat NEVER said anything of the sort, I said that in certain systems dishonesty was a system expectation, or with certain groups and it isn't a problem if they enjoy it, or bad design.

Edit: Also, please stop putting words in my mouth, that I didn't say, please. This is not something I've argued for. Although to be honest if the players never find out, I don't think it's something that really matters, in the long run, but I'd understand folks that do.



What about situations in which there should be more than one option, but the GM only presents one? Or is that too much of a technicality?


I would call that railroading, provided that the DM was aware of, or had thought of the other options.



But it's crucial that the players KNOW the system assumption. That's the difference. When you have a game that says "Lie to the players, otherwise it won't be any fun." you have to make that clear. To the players. And at that point, it's NOT ILLUSIONISM anymore.

But then, you keep avoiding definitions, so it's hard to show you when you're being incorrect.

We are in agreement then, you said that it was bad game design to have any degree of dishonesty.


This is pretty much my opinion, but AMFV seems to be of the opinion that people like it when you lie to them and that it's perfectly fine to design a system with that as a base assumption. :smallannoyed:


This is what I was responding to, I was stating that it is perfectly fine to base a system on that, and I provided several of them. To that effect, if you're okay with that as a system assumption then we are in agreement.

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 04:53 PM
Railroading is when the DM presents a scenario where there appears to be multiple options but there is really only one option, how does that suit you. You'll notice I didn't include any elements of fun, or anything that was pejorative or supportive of it.

Most people call that Illusionism. The functional game type that comes out of it is called Participationism which is also the same functional game type which does also only have one option but without the perception of multiple ones.

I haven't ever read any system where this is the implicit way to play.

Perhaps you can explain to me, that do not know how Paranoia works, what sort of lying the GM is doing and how it is integral and required for the game. What is this "battle-of-wits" that you speak of and what do you do when you catch the GM lying?

There are many forms of deception, some are ok and some are not. Lying about giving the players meaningful choices is not one of those according to me.

EDIT: Lying about what you are going to lie about is also extremely bad form, and is what I think Airk is arguing against.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 04:57 PM
Most people call that Illusionism. The functional game type that comes out of it is called Participationism which is also the same functional game type which does also only have one option but without the perception of multiple ones.

I haven't ever read any system where this is the implicit way to play.

Perhaps you can explain to me, that do not know how Paranoia works, what sort of lying the GM is doing and how it is integral and required for the game. What is this "battle-of-wits" that you speak of and what do you do when you catch the GM lying?

There are many forms of deception, some are ok and some are not. Lying about giving the players meaningful choices is not one of those according to me.

And that's a fair statement. In Paranoia the DM is allowed to bend the rules, is encouraged to in fact, if the players admit knowledge of the rules their character is killed, it's a game based around an evil supercomputer and the DM is supposed to be dishonest, it's part of the game.

In certain old school dungeon crawls the DM is supposed to deliberately mislead the players (sphere of annihilation inside a statue's mouth), and it's expected. You're directly competing with the DM and he's tying to trick you into dying, or losing all your stuff, and that's fun for some.

Now I can understand that player agency is important to you, and as such you would probably not like paranoia, or certain old school ways to play D&D, but it isn't uniformly important for everybody.

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 05:19 PM
And that's a fair statement. In Paranoia the DM is allowed to bend the rules, is encouraged to in fact, if the players admit knowledge of the rules their character is killed, it's a game based around an evil supercomputer and the DM is supposed to be dishonest, it's part of the game.

Isn't it the supercomputer that is supposed to be dishonest?


In certain old school dungeon crawls the DM is supposed to deliberately mislead the players (sphere of annihilation inside a statue's mouth), and it's expected. You're directly competing with the DM and he's tying to trick you into dying, or losing all your stuff, and that's fun for some.

Now I can understand that player agency is important to you, and as such you would probably not like paranoia, or certain old school ways to play D&D, but it isn't uniformly important for everybody.

Actually, for that old school dungeon crawl you talk about agency is everything. If you are trying to trick your players, then their choices need to matter or they can't outsmart you. There's no trick anymore. If you put a sphere of annihilation inside a statue's mouth and a player say "I look inside the mouth" they die. That's not removing their agency, they chose to look inside it. Removing their agency is saying "you look inside the mouth and now you die".

Without knowing much of Paranoia I think it is similar. For there to be any meaningful game about tricking and dishonesty and finding it out there needs to be agency. Otherwise there isn't any trick anymore. It's just the GM telling you what you are doing and what happens.

veti
2014-02-06, 05:30 PM
It's illusionism, as you're offering the *illusion* of a choice, but no real choice.

In my opinion it's the worst type of railroading. Because it's fundamentally dishonest, and dishonesty is a very poor basis for a social game.

Curious: do you think this is any different from the oft-quoted advice to "just use it later" - when the PCs take one look at your lovingly-crafted dungeon and just drop a nuke on it?

Taelas
2014-02-06, 05:37 PM
It's illusionism, as you're offering the *illusion* of a choice, but no real choice.

In my opinion it's the worst type of railroading. Because it's fundamentally dishonest, and dishonesty is a very poor basis for a social game.

I couldn't disagree more. It is the only acceptable type of railroading.

I don't tell my players how things work behind the scenes; there is no point, and it risks ruining the game for everyone involved. Sometimes, players decide to go in a different direction just as something is about to happen in their location concerning the ongoing plot. They aren't aware they are effectively dodging out on the story -- it's set up to be a complete surprise to them. So I have a choice: I can let it happen as it was supposed to, robbing the players of the opportunity to react. I can delay it until they return, though this risks a loss of verisimilitude when they do finally come back. Or, I can have it happen somewhere else, so they still get to react to it. Whichever choice I make, the players can end up feeling cheated. So I choose the option that is least likely to bring trouble for the group. (Not the party, mind you--the actual players at the table.) Depending on the group, and the situation in question, I will even choose differently.
Sometimes, that involves giving players only the illusion of choice. There is nothing wrong with that.

It's a tool in the DM's arsenal. As with any tool, it can be used incorrectly and make things worse, but I take offense at the suggestion that if I am not "honest" with my players, I am doing something wrong. No one is perfect. Sure, if I were, I could probably completely avoid the situation, but I am only human. I can't prepare for every situation, and sometimes I can't think of a way past a problem without fudging things.

I am not saying that you should keep the fact that occasionally you fudge things a secret, but for the sake of verisimilitude, you should keep it a secret when you do it. There is no need for them to know, and it risks ruining the game. That is why it is the only acceptable form of railroading.

Legato Endless
2014-02-06, 05:50 PM
I think the left or right is meant to be metaphorical. At least it was in my original example. :smallsmile:

The real question is, what do you do when players opt to take both paths?

BootStrapTommy
2014-02-06, 05:53 PM
The real question is, what do you do when players opt to take both paths? Tell them that maybe next time their stupid ass should DM.

Legato Endless
2014-02-06, 05:58 PM
Tell them that maybe next time their stupid ass should DM.

Seriously?

kyoryu
2014-02-06, 06:00 PM
Curious: do you think this is any different from the oft-quoted advice to "just use it later" - when the PCs take one look at your lovingly-crafted dungeon and just drop a nuke on it?

Honestly, depends on the situation. If the players didn't want to do *that* dungeon, then it gets on sketchy ground. If nuking the dungeon was just how they decided to deal with a particular situation (that wasn't about *that* dungeon, specifically), then I don't see it as particularly a problem.

Lorsa
2014-02-06, 06:09 PM
The real question is, what do you do when players opt to take both paths?

Let them suffer the consequences of both.

Knaight
2014-02-06, 06:10 PM
And that's a fair statement. In Paranoia the DM is allowed to bend the rules, is encouraged to in fact, if the players admit knowledge of the rules their character is killed, it's a game based around an evil supercomputer and the DM is supposed to be dishonest, it's part of the game.

There is no dishonesty involved at the player-GM level in Paranoia. The GM is supposed to play Friend Computer as an extremely deceitful entity, and the GM is supposed to keep the rules hidden, but presenting misinformation out of character is not a part of the game.

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 06:11 PM
The real question is, what do you do when players opt to take both paths?

Mu.

Seriously, though, that should be enough reason to never design false choices, shouldn't it? :smallamused:

Jay R
2014-02-06, 06:21 PM
No matter how much freedom you like to give people, sometimes it’s good to get them to place X before place Y. It’s good to have the baron offer a reward for the return of his daughter before they rescue said daughter, for instance. And if a Mace of Disruption and a bunch of ghouls are both nearby, which order the PCs find them in matters. Alternatively, I may want them to explore the maze *before* they find the Arrow of Direction.

On those rare occasions that I intend to try to control their decision, I favor a certain amount of self-serving mendacity disguised as unselfish and brutal honesty.

“Guys, I designed this world, and I’m the only one who knows what your choices now will lead to. From where you are, the most obvious paths lead to:
A. a kobold village with copper pieces that would have been a fun adventure when you were first and second level,
B. A deadly swamp with quicksand and an Evil High Priest’s castle that will be a great adventure for you when you have about five more levels,
C. A city of Stone Giants that will make a great adventure for you in ten levels, and
D. A level-appropriate encounter with some really good loot, which could help you against an EHP and some giants.

Do whatever you want — you’re the PCs. But I recommend that you go east.”

(Then I have five levels’ time to design a swamp, and ten levels’ time to design a giant city.)

Raum
2014-02-06, 06:35 PM
No matter how much freedom you like to give people, sometimes it’s good to get them to place X before place Y. Good for whom? Good is subjective.

Whichever order things get accomplished in, there's a story emerging. Maybe they are mercenaries who need the lure of gold before rescuing a princess. On the other hand, they may well be concerned citizens who help princess or cowherd as needed...and accept any (or no) reward gracefully whether it's a chest of gold or fresh cream.

The story changes as the order changes, but it's only good or bad if you have some preconceived idea of what "should" occur.

To the OP:
I come to you guys today with a question, from the perspective of player, GM, whatever: What do you consider an acceptable amount of railroading in a game, or what situations do you think railroading is okay in?Exactly as much as the group has explicitly accepted.

Simple really. If more groups discussed goals (and any limitations) there would be fewer flame wars about failed expectations - which is what we're really talking about. Whether it's the GM's expectation of telling his story in a certain way or the players' expectations of having choices and the ability to choose a path and, to some degree, an outcome - either way it's failed expectations. Communicate!

AMFV
2014-02-06, 06:44 PM
Isn't it the supercomputer that is supposed to be dishonest?



Actually, for that old school dungeon crawl you talk about agency is everything. If you are trying to trick your players, then their choices need to matter or they can't outsmart you. There's no trick anymore. If you put a sphere of annihilation inside a statue's mouth and a player say "I look inside the mouth" they die. That's not removing their agency, they chose to look inside it. Removing their agency is saying "you look inside the mouth and now you die".

Without knowing much of Paranoia I think it is similar. For there to be any meaningful game about tricking and dishonesty and finding it out there needs to be agency. Otherwise there isn't any trick anymore. It's just the GM telling you what you are doing and what happens.

Well it's not about the trick, it's about trying to keep the players on the rails while the players are trying to buck them. The amount of agency that requires is not necessarily the same depending.


There is no dishonesty involved at the player-GM level in Paranoia. The GM is supposed to play Friend Computer as an extremely deceitful entity, and the GM is supposed to keep the rules hidden, but presenting misinformation out of character is not a part of the game.

Well it depends, also presenting misinformation to the players could easily be a part of the game. Depending on how you're playing, I would argue that the DM is supposed to present the players with objectives that are opaque, but this is a system assumption.

Legato Endless
2014-02-06, 06:58 PM
Paranoia is difficult because it runs on an entirely different paradigm compared to the normal games you hear railroading bemoaned. Depending on how you organize it, and if you're players are actually new to the experience, they might not be able to metagame even if they wanted to because they have no clue what's happening. The 4th wall can be soft to nonexistent. I've heard a DM talk about how he made eating green candy skittles at the table treasonous. So player expectation and the contract between the DM is fairly divergent.

kyoryu
2014-02-06, 07:01 PM
Well it's not about the trick, it's about trying to keep the players on the rails while the players are trying to buck them. The amount of agency that requires is not necessarily the same depending.

So why not tell the players "hey, there's a plot, there's rails, if you're good with that, let's play"?

Why is this a bad thing? If players are trying to "buck the rails", then clearly either they haven't bought into the game premise, or think that they should have agency that they do not.

Why is the presumption that if the players "buck the rails", that they should A) be forced on them, and B) done so in a way that doesn't give away the fact that their agency is being removed?

If there are rails, why not get agreement from the players in the first place that they're gonna get on the Adventure Train to awesometown? Why hide it?

If you'll notice, I"m not inherently against rails. I'm against *lying about their existence.* And sure, sometimes you can get away with it, but if somethings "okay as long as you don't get caught", then it's *not okay*.

Rhynn
2014-02-06, 07:05 PM
Why is this a bad thing? If players are trying to "buck the rails", then clearly either they haven't bought into the game premise, or think that they should have agency that they do not.

Exactly. To think otherwise is to think that the GM is or should be in some kind of position of power over the players, making them do things. That's awful.

Jay R
2014-02-06, 07:08 PM
Good for whom? Good is subjective.

Whichever order things get accomplished in, there's a story emerging. Maybe they are mercenaries who need the lure of gold before rescuing a princess. On the other hand, they may well be concerned citizens who help princess or cowherd as needed...and accept any (or no) reward gracefully whether it's a chest of gold or fresh cream.

The story changes as the order changes, but it's only good or bad if you have some preconceived idea of what "should" occur.

I do have a pre-conceived idea of what "should" happen. The PCs "should" get a reasonable challenge.

They should not be destroyed by a being that they cannot defeat or escape. Therefore, I believe that they should find weapons that can damage wights before they are trapped with wights.

The situation should not be trivial for them either, therefore they should complete the maze challenge before they find an Arrow of Direction.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 07:18 PM
So why not tell the players "hey, there's a plot, there's rails, if you're good with that, let's play"?

Why is this a bad thing? If players are trying to "buck the rails", then clearly either they haven't bought into the game premise, or think that they should have agency that they do not.

Why is the presumption that if the players "buck the rails", that they should A) be forced on them, and B) done so in a way that doesn't give away the fact that their agency is being removed?

If there are rails, why not get agreement from the players in the first place that they're gonna get on the Adventure Train to awesometown? Why hide it?

If you'll notice, I"m not inherently against rails. I'm against *lying about their existence.* And sure, sometimes you can get away with it, but if somethings "okay as long as you don't get caught", then it's *not okay*.

I don't think that's necessarily the case, some groups have differing expectations regarding the transparency in the game.

The bucking the rails was a specific style of game, and the bucking is as expected as the rails existence and the fact that they're hidden. It's just a part of some games.


Exactly. To think otherwise is to think that the GM is or should be in some kind of position of power over the players, making them do things. That's awful.

But there are some games where that is in fact exactly the case, and those are fun for some people.

Raum
2014-02-06, 07:18 PM
I do have a pre-conceived idea of what "should" happen. The PCs "should" get a reasonable challenge. Then you need to make it clear to the players that your preconceptions will drive the game even when it means they don't get choices.

There's nothing wrong with playing a game however the group chooses to play. There is something wrong with lying to friends (presumably) and justifying it with something as weak as "...because I'm the GM". Get everyone on the same page and it doesn't really matter how tight the rails are.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 07:21 PM
Then you need to make it clear to the players that your preconceptions will drive the game even when it means they don't get choices.

There's nothing wrong with playing a game however the group chooses to play. There is something wrong with lying to friends (presumably) and justifying it with something as weak as "...because I'm the GM". Get everyone on the same page and it doesn't really matter how tight the rails are.

There are games where transparency isn't that important though, it really varies from game to game.

Raum
2014-02-06, 07:27 PM
There are games where transparency isn't that important though, it really varies from game to game.It's not the game which needs to be transparent, it's the roles. The same group may play Paranoia and FATE with completely different expectations. Those are what need to be discussed.

kyoryu
2014-02-06, 08:02 PM
I don't think that's necessarily the case, some groups have differing expectations regarding the transparency in the game.

The bucking the rails was a specific style of game, and the bucking is as expected as the rails existence and the fact that they're hidden. It's just a part of some games.

So, you're saying that in some games, the expectation going in is that the GM will railroad, and the job of the players is to break that railroad?

That's not a game in any meaningful sense. It's just dysfunctional. That's just disruptive behavior brought on by dishonesty on the part of the GM. That's like saying that part of Monopoly is getting your sister to get so mad that she cries and throws her money around.

I mean, look, I'm all on board the "people game for different reasons" train. But at some point disruptive behavior is just disruptive behavior, and a dysfunctional game is just dysfunctional. When you start talking about a game where the GM promises agency but doesn't deliver, and the players respond by trying to wrench that agency away, you've crossed that line (frankly, on both sides).

I mean, the closest analogy I can think of for that is going to someone's house to play poker, where you *know* he's going to cheat ahead of time, and so the reason that you go is to try to get him so mad he throws the poker chips on the table. It's just messed up, and has nothing to do with playing poker.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course, but I find no way to argue that it's a positive thing at all.

AMFV
2014-02-06, 08:21 PM
So, you're saying that in some games, the expectation going in is that the GM will railroad, and the job of the players is to break that railroad?

That's not a game in any meaningful sense. It's just dysfunctional. That's just disruptive behavior brought on by dishonesty on the part of the GM. That's like saying that part of Monopoly is getting your sister to get so mad that she cries and throws her money around.

I mean, look, I'm all on board the "people game for different reasons" train. But at some point disruptive behavior is just disruptive behavior, and a dysfunctional game is just dysfunctional. When you start talking about a game where the GM promises agency but doesn't deliver, and the players respond by trying to wrench that agency away, you've crossed that line (frankly, on both sides).

I mean, the closest analogy I can think of for that is going to someone's house to play poker, where you *know* he's going to cheat ahead of time, and so the reason that you go is to try to get him so mad he throws the poker chips on the table. It's just messed up, and has nothing to do with playing poker.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course, but I find no way to argue that it's a positive thing at all.

Some people like it, that's enough for me to say that it's a positive thing. One of the advantages of RPGs is that it allows more different styles of play than a standard game and are more open to having different experiences for different folks. I can see how you wouldn't enjoy it, but clearly there are people that do.

TuggyNE
2014-02-06, 09:15 PM
The real question is, what do you do when players opt to take both paths?

Heh. Maybe that's the real reason for the old saw, "never split the party"? DMs got tired of players accidentally exposing their quantum dungeon chicanery?

Razanir
2014-02-06, 11:11 PM
Now what if it was somewhat illusionism? The same events happen either way, but in a different setting.

Jay R
2014-02-06, 11:11 PM
Then you need to make it clear to the players that your preconceptions will drive the game even when it means they don't get choices.

There's nothing wrong with playing a game however the group chooses to play. There is something wrong with lying to friends (presumably) and justifying it with something as weak as "...because I'm the GM". Get everyone on the same page and it doesn't really matter how tight the rails are.

Raum: it really seems important to you to try to put my words in the worst possible light.
Everybody else: please note that even though he put the words "...because I'm the GM" in quotation marks, it is not a quotation. I did not say that; he invented it. It is unfair and untrue.

A. There is never a time in which they don't get to make choices. Some choices, however, are not possible, even if it's on the level of telling them that they cannot choose to fly over the river if their characters cannot fly.

B. My examples in the second post made clear that there was always a reason, and gave specific examples of reasons that were not ""...because I'm the GM"".

C. In this century, I've never given the players less than 4 pages of introductory material. Nobody is unsure about what's expected.

D. After the second session, I always send out an email asking for critique. And yes, I modify my game based on that critique.

E. Nobody has *ever* criticized the amount of choice they have.

F. Yes, I will give the players a false impression sometimes. Nobody thinks I am "lying to friends" beyond the normal amount of confusion of the situation necessary to running a game in which I know what's behind each door and they don't.

G. My post contained the following phrases:
"No matter how much freedom you like to give people"
"sometimes it’s good to get them to place X before place Y" (emphasis added).
"On those rare occasions that I intend to try to control their decision" (emphasis added).
"Do whatever you want — you’re the PCs. But I recommend that you go east.”
A careful reading of my words does not justify your response.

Rosstin
2014-02-06, 11:49 PM
ITT: People don't understand that sometimes DMs cheat a little and that's okay.

AMFV
2014-02-07, 01:02 AM
ITT: People don't understand that sometimes DMs cheat a little and that's okay.

Well they believe that transparency is an important element for their games, in which case cheating or hiding things is not acceptable. At least that was my understanding, and that's a fine stance to have, but it's the criticism of people (or game systems) that don't place a high premium on transparency that bothers me. It's fine to have transparency as an important part in the player-DM relationship at a given table, but it's also fine to have it at not a premium.

Lorsa
2014-02-07, 02:55 AM
I don't think that's necessarily the case, some groups have differing expectations regarding the transparency in the game.

The bucking the rails was a specific style of game, and the bucking is as expected as the rails existence and the fact that they're hidden. It's just a part of some games.

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is that people approach the game knowing that the GM is going to try and secretly Railroad them and the GM knowing that the players will try to mess it up.

That means it's not Railroading anymore. It's something all involved have agreed upon when entering the game. There are some logical faults in your statement. If you approach a game with certain expectations and those are met then there is no lying to players on a meta-game level on what the game is about.


To the OP: Exactly as much as the group has explicitly accepted.

Which would make it none. Railroading is the GM forcing you in a way you didn't accept.


Do whatever you want — you’re the PCs. But I recommend that you go east.

I'm just quoting this for the benefit of Raum. A statement like this isn't a sign of Railroading.

Of couirse there'll be some things that are better to do in a certain order. Usually players can figure this out as well.

Taelas
2014-02-07, 06:15 AM
Lorsa, your definition of railroading is rather different from most I've seen, and it completely focuses on when it is undesirable. That is not what most people mean by railroading.

If the DM takes away their choice and only leaves one option, it's railroading. Period. It doesn't matter if the PCs agreed to it. It doesn't matter if they are aware of it or not.

Railroading is leaving the PCs only one outcome, regardless of what they do. Even if they are aware of this and accept it.

Brookshw
2014-02-07, 08:19 AM
Now I'm just curious. I know what trains sound like, but what kind of sound does a RAILROAD make?

... Darn, "what does the rail say" doesn't sound nearly as catchy...

Kinda like "what's the sound of one hand clapping" but more like "what's the sound of two DMGs being thrown at you".

Actually a railroad probably sounds like a whole bunch of trains. DOOODDDGGGEEE!!!!!

Razanir
2014-02-07, 09:17 AM
If the DM takes away their choice and only leaves one option, it's railroading. Period. It doesn't matter if the PCs agreed to it. It doesn't matter if they are aware of it or not.

But what if there are legitimate in-universe reasons? I offer some examples:

1) You're starting a campaign at level 1. And this world is designed such that the wilderness actually is a dangerous place. There are a bit higher-level monsters out there that would be dangerous to extremely low-leveled characters. So their only non-suicidal option is to stay close to the town and solve local problems until they get a level or two under their belts.

2) They're exploring some sort of lair, and the owner seals off a passageway behind them. If they're at too low of a level for teleporting to be an option, the only way out is forward. (Definitely legitimate if said owners are Tucker's Kobolds)

3) They fell in a pit trap. Their only option is to find a way back out.

4) TUCKER'S KOBOLDS. The original story includes them escaping down a dark chute to get away from the kobolds. Except by the wording of the story, you can infer that they didn't have access to teleportation. So they brought the lack of choice upon themselves.

nedz
2014-02-07, 09:32 AM
Isn't it the supercomputer that is supposed to be dishonest?
The Computer never lies. Will Lorsa-2 please report for briefing.

AMFV
2014-02-07, 09:56 AM
But what if there are legitimate in-universe reasons? I offer some examples:

In the first part railroading isn't always negative, which is exactly what was being said, there are times when it is fine.



1) You're starting a campaign at level 1. And this world is designed such that the wilderness actually is a dangerous place. There are a bit higher-level monsters out there that would be dangerous to extremely low-leveled characters. So their only non-suicidal option is to stay close to the town and solve local problems until they get a level or two under their belts.

Not railroading, they have dozens of options pertaining to which local problems to solve, and how to solve them. If you go back far enough everything, everything looks like railroading from that angle. So I would say not a problem, and also not railroading.



2) They're exploring some sort of lair, and the owner seals off a passageway behind them. If they're at too low of a level for teleporting to be an option, the only way out is forward. (Definitely legitimate if said owners are Tucker's Kobolds)

Possibly railroading, it depends on how available other options are, and it may or may not be a problem, depending on how the group treats it and how it's run.



3) They fell in a pit trap. Their only option is to find a way back out.


There are dozens of ways out of said pit trap, to include teleportation, climbing, using a grappling hook, freerunning, or even tunneling down or opening a different way with explosives, it's only railroading if the DM won't allow any other options, and again that may or may not be a negative.


4) TUCKER'S KOBOLDS. The original story includes them escaping down a dark chute to get away from the kobolds. Except by the wording of the story, you can infer that they didn't have access to teleportation. So they brought the lack of choice upon themselves.

I actually loathe Tucker's Kobolds, not because it's a bad way to play, but because the whole thing is the DM "educating" his players about the "right" way to play, and that sort of thing bothers me, that is a pretty railroading example, but if the players enjoy it, it's not a really a negative one.

BootStrapTommy
2014-02-07, 10:51 AM
I think the very idea that there is such a thing as "railroading" is absurd. It's not a real thing, just something whiny players made up to complain about the GMs choice of cause and effect. Usually because they died.

The GM is the god of the game. Their very purpose is to present goals, options, and choices to the players and to create and populate a world for those things to happen in. But players need to understand cause and effect. They need to understand that actions have consequences and when they make choices the GM is not just being an ******* enforcing the resultants. There is nothing wrong with the GM saying "These are the perimeters of this world. Should you choose to exceed them, you will find the result much to your displeasure." That is how the world works, is it not?

The problem is player's want to be catered to. They have plans for their characters and they want to instantly gratify those desires. Yet things don't work that way and if they want their plans to come to fruitition they should be made to work for it within the parameters of the game (which includes not just the Rules but the Plot), not just served their favored result because the GM enforcing the simple principle of cause and effect is "railroading" and "a sign of bad GMing".

The truth is a GM being able to think on their feet and make quick changes IS a usefull skill. But if the GM dictates such is the result, such is the result. No need to get your panties in a bunch because it seems to force you into actions you don't want to take. Coercion is a reality. And it's not a restriction on free agency but rather the world putting a price on certain choices' heads. Which is not unreasonable.

Lorsa
2014-02-07, 11:06 AM
Lorsa, your definition of railroading is rather different from most I've seen, and it completely focuses on when it is undesirable. That is not what most people mean by railroading.

If the DM takes away their choice and only leaves one option, it's railroading. Period. It doesn't matter if the PCs agreed to it. It doesn't matter if they are aware of it or not.

Railroading is leaving the PCs only one outcome, regardless of what they do. Even if they are aware of this and accept it.

It's not only me who are using that definition. Others are too. In fact, The Forge, for all their faults, at least reasoned at length on how to define roleplaying terms and they define Railroading in my way.

It's also the only one that really makes sense. There's very little benefit of talking about railroading like you define it because then it will happen every bloody time. Railroading is not about limiting choices in general. It is always about doing it in a way that people didn't agree on. If you walk on track voluntarily you are not being railroaded. If you are forced to walk on tracks then you are being railroaded.


The Computer never lies. Will Lorsa-2 please report for briefing.

Of course! Lorsa-2 reporting for duty!


I think the very idea that there is such a thing as "railroading" is absurd. It's not a real thing, just something whiny players made up to complain about the GMs choice of cause and effect. Usually because they died.

It is most definitely a real thing. It exist. People have experienced it. You want to go with your character to a bar and the GM says you can't go to the bar and forces you to go to the castle. It has nothing to do with case and effect or dying.

----------------------------

General thought: It seems that railroading most often occurs when the GM has prepared something that will happen some other place. That's not very constructive. It is usually much better to prepare for things to happen where the characters are now or alternatively where they have decided to go.

Red Fel
2014-02-07, 11:09 AM
I think the very idea that there is such a thing as "railroading" is absurd. It's not a real thing, just something whiny players made up to complain about the GMs choice of cause and effect. Usually because they died.

The GM is the god of the game. Their very purpose is to present goals, options, and choices to the players and to create and populate a world for those things to happen in. But players need to understand cause and effect. They need to understand that actions have consequences and when they make choices the GM is not just being an ******* enforcing the resultants. There is nothing wrong with the GM saying "These are the perimeters of this world. Should you choose to exceed them, you will find the result much to your displeasure." That is how the world works, is it not?

Short answer? No, that's not how the world works.

There's a difference between imposing a natural consequence for a PC's actions - which I absolutely agree is good DMing - and imposing limitations by fiat upon the PC's actions.

For example, if a PC wanted to enter the space program, I won't stop him. I might say, "Your character is 400 pounds, blind in one eye, and missing a leg. He fails the physical exam." But I won't stop him from taking the exam first. That, in my mind, is fair; I let the player take an action, and told him the consequence. Similarly, if a PC wanted to go into space without a space suit, I would warn him of the consequences; if he persists, I would allow it, and then (when he fails all saving throws) describe his death in the vacuum of space. Rational consequence. This latter example resembles the "These are the perimeters of this world" statement you made - a player can pass beyond the boundaries at his own peril, but the decision is his to make.

I won't stop the PC from applying to the space program, going into space without a space suit, or hurling himself headfirst into the dragon's mouth if he wants to; I may warn him, but the decision is his. He is free to face the consequences of those actions. I will not tell a player that, as a matter of table law, he cannot undertake an action. Consequences are imposed after a person takes an action, not before; I will not tell a player in advance that he is barred from taking an action because it is doomed to fail. Failure is a thing that my players may choose to avoid or embrace.

That, and it's so much more gratifying when the PCs' grisly deaths are of their own devising, rather than mine.

Cikomyr
2014-02-07, 11:24 AM
I seem to have a rather hybrid GM playstyle...

- I accept my player's lateral thinking, but I try to limit them to discourage metacheating. Bypassing challenges through intelligent actions (ex from OP: flying up the tower) is a great example of why I am not playing a video game but a game promoting CREATIVITY

But then, I will actually turn toward my players and flat out tell them: "you had a great idea, and you manage to skip a few encounters, but I don't want you to abuse this idea and just skip the very game I tried to make, mkay? Let's say you see archers ready to shoot you down if you climb higher than the 3rd story"

The basic idea is one of balance: I want to reward creativity in my players, but I don't want them to rely on 1-trick pony all the time. Come up with more ideas, and I will allow you to bypass even more. But ONE good idea won't get you a "skip the entire dungeon".


- I perform a lot, lot of illusionism. But it's not applied on the outcome of the game; instead it's illusionism of plot hook/plot points.

In the end, the outcome and game world consequences are going to depend on my player's actions and choices. Because, let's admit it: nobody cares how the characters got to where they are at Chapter 1. They will care about how the characters go to Chapter 10.

Therefore, I will cheat to get the pieces in place for Chapter 1-3, and then I let the game roll on its own. At times tweaking a bit the story to fit my player's preferences, and adjusting to THEIR great ideas. I want them to feel rewarded, to feel that their own intelligence managed to get themselves out of trouble.


I will flat-out tell a player when I am cheating him for plot purposes, and I always promise him that "it will be worth it". Be example: I fudged one of the player into being caught in a canal with a big ship coming his way, that would drown him. I litteraly set the situation so he would drown.

But then, he discovered he could breath underwater, as a sign of his God's favor. That was a big plot point I wanted established, and I actually enlisted everybody to help me get there. My players trusted me that there wouldn't be negative consequences to my own fudging.

But once that plot point was established, I had no longer any control as to how it would have been exploited.


- I rely on a healthy mix of Participationism and Sandbox, with my players actually the ones with agendas and ambitions, but they have to play in the world (usually a city) I created for them.

The Illusionism part is to get them moving. It's to hook reluctant players who are a bit uncertain of their characters' desires and motivations.

I usually have a big Meta-plot prepared for the entire game. The illusionism means I find ways to tie-in the Metaplot into my player's action. They discover clues, antagonists and allies who are related to the Metaplot, until the player's personal agenda gets integrated into the Metaplot.

This helps the players establish a gamestyle the way they wanted (they want to be a Crime Syndicate? Politicans? Heroes in Shining Armor?) and still keep my own creative input. If there are plot hooks they seem to ignore early on, I keep it as Chekov's Gun (or Gunman) until I can make it fit again.


Saying "Illusionism is bad" is making a blanket judgement call that I personally despise. Illusionism of the outcome is bad, but illusionism of the set-up is probably the best behaviour.


Also, I've had horrendeous plot derails by my players. They've latched on a minor, minor world-building detail I included for flavor, and they decided to make their entire quest about IT, going 180 on the entire campaign's plot.

Well, guess what? I adjusted. The players wanted to be involved in THAT story, so I let them, and I found ways to tie-in their newly found ambitions to the set pieces I had established, and still dangle certain plot points in their face at the right time.

Ultimately, my players felt they had a huge impact on the world's fate. They played the game they wanted to play, but they resolved the story I set out for them.

And that was only the 3rd campaign I ever GMed

BootStrapTommy
2014-02-07, 11:40 AM
There's a difference between imposing a natural consequence for a PC's actions - which I absolutely agree is good DMing - and imposing limitations by fiat upon the PC's actions.

For example, if a PC wanted to enter the space program, I won't stop him. I might say, "Your character is 400 pounds, blind in one eye, and missing a leg. He fails the physical exam." But I won't stop him from taking the exam first. That, in my mind, is fair; I let the player take an action, and told him the consequence. Similarly, if a PC wanted to go into space without a space suit, I would warn him of the consequences; if he persists, I would allow it, and then (when he fails all saving throws) describe his death in the vacuum of space. Rational consequence. This latter example resembles the "These are the perimeters of this world" statement you made - a player can pass beyond the boundaries at his own peril, but the decision is his to make.

I won't stop the PC from applying to the space program, going into space without a space suit, or hurling himself headfirst into the dragon's mouth if he wants to; I may warn him, but the decision is his. He is free to face the consequences of those actions. I will not tell a player that, as a matter of table law, he cannot undertake an action. Consequences are imposed after a person takes an action, not before; I will not tell a player in advance that he is barred from taking an action because it is doomed to fail. Failure is a thing that my players may choose to avoid or embrace. Yes tellng players flatly "you cannot do that" is bad. But from what I've gathered that's not exactly what anyone is complaining about here.

They're complaining about how the GM is leading them down a path of his choosing by inventing obstacles for their chosen actions to steer them where he wants. To them he's forcing an action upon them when they want to take another. Which, as I said, is a natural reality. Sometime the action you WANT to take is unavailable because you lack the MEANS or an obstacle stands in the way you cannot pass.

I'd like to absolutely wreck my boss' face when he's a epic jerkoff to me, but I lack the actual martial prowess to do so. Therefore, I cannot. Even if I could, it would be a bad idea. And if I did, I'd pay the consequences. But ultimately though I wish to, I cannot. Not because it's a bad idea but because of another factor, namely my lack of martial skill to do so.

Get me? They're complaining "The ol' mean GM won't let me take the action I want to. Railroading!" after the GM tells them "You can't punch him, there is a wall in the way and you cannot punch through walls."

AMFV
2014-02-07, 11:49 AM
It's not only me who are using that definition. Others are too. In fact, The Forge, for all their faults, at least reasoned at length on how to define roleplaying terms and they define Railroading in my way.

It's also the only one that really makes sense. There's very little benefit of talking about railroading like you define it because then it will happen every bloody time. Railroading is not about limiting choices in general. It is always about doing it in a way that people didn't agree on. If you walk on track voluntarily you are not being railroaded. If you are forced to walk on tracks then you are being railroaded.

Railroading is exactly about limiting choices in general, and it does happen in almost every game. The origin of the term is that it's like riding on a train and looking at the scenery, following from that, if I buy a ticket and ride the train, I'm still as much on the train as somebody who's forced onto it.

Furthermore, even using the negative definition there are still moments where it could be useful, if for example it cuts down on other negative elements that will reduce fun more than it will.




It is most definitely a real thing. It exist. People have experienced it. You want to go with your character to a bar and the GM says you can't go to the bar and forces you to go to the castle. It has nothing to do with case and effect or dying.

----------------------------


And that's not always a negative, depending on your group, or it may not even be enough of a negative to bother some players. It's a matter of taste. Maybe the DM really doesn't want to spend another two hours doing a bar scene that gets nowhere and the players became bored the last time that happened, in which case a minor discomfort is better.



General thought: It seems that railroading most often occurs when the GM has prepared something that will happen some other place. That's not very constructive. It is usually much better to prepare for things to happen where the characters are now or alternatively where they have decided to go.

Well that's not necessarily the case either, and railroading isn't necessarily bad, even if some players find it unpleasant.


Yes tellng players flatly "you cannot do that" is bad. But from what I've gathered that's not exactly what anyone is complaining about here.

You forgot to add, "is bad, in my opinion." Because there are at least several people who have said that they don't mind that sort of thing or it's not a problem for them, or that it's better than other options. I've just become very frustrated at how many people are claiming that something in a game is objectively better or worse.

wumpus
2014-02-07, 02:24 PM
I guess a better question should be, what should the GM prepare? I guess this is an old-school style of play where the rule was simple: the GM is defined by how fun & cool his world is. There is simply no way to cheat here (paraphrasing Gary Gygax).

Illusionism means wildly less preperation (although more than railroading). On the other hand, if you give the players *any* amount of information to make a desicion, you better be ready to modify the changes into your plans: example, players decide between a city with an elvish or dwarvish minority. Poof! the "rocky quarter" becomes the "woodland quarter". Players might get a bonus on haggle rolls in a city chosen due to good prices (but the city might otherwise be the same).

Authors and other fiction creators get away with it all the time. Consider the "prinicple of character conservation" (not linking there, you're welcome): GM's not only have to invent every character, but locations that aren't being used, balance encounters that won't be used, create loot that won't be grabbed (and somehow wind up with characters with the right amount of loot). I can't imagine a GM not taking advantage of a well known principle that is older than dirt.

I'm wondering how many choices a GM really has. So far, I came up with a few:

1. Railroading. Varies from reading a script written by the DM to the unbranching dungeon crawl.
2. Handholding: Asking the players nicely to stay close to rails. The catch is this tends to limit the worldsize like railroading or explodes like free-form, since any choices the PCs have need to be fully fleshed out.
3. Illusionism: the point of this thread.
4. Free form: None of the above. I suspect it would quickly revert to one of the above, with either the players asking to be directed to the cool parts or the GM running out of ideas for the world and using the last completly made up but never used city.

[my suggestion for players deciding to switch from the city that also has elves to the one that also has dwarves would be to have a helpful NPC warn the players off "that city is boring" (i.e. handholding) followed by creating "Clicheville" if they insist.]

I guess it is a deep philosophical position that has little to do with the actual game, but I can't help but thinking in terms of early modern physics. In Einstein's world, God doesn't roll dice and the unseen universe already has form. In the illusionist's world, God (i.e. the GM) certainly rolls dice and the unseen universe depends both on the player's choices and character's knowledge (the informed choice will typically be better, but over doing the research may lead to find the location of the best possible adventure. At least it was until an NPC party recently grabbed all the loot & xp). Judging by this thread I would suggest that GM's should strongly consider being a bit open about their illusionist tendancies before starting the campaign (and then being very, very quiet about it to allow for greater immersion).

Taelas
2014-02-07, 03:07 PM
It's not only me who are using that definition. Others are too. In fact, The Forge, for all their faults, at least reasoned at length on how to define roleplaying terms and they define Railroading in my way.

It's also the only one that really makes sense. There's very little benefit of talking about railroading like you define it because then it will happen every bloody time. Railroading is not about limiting choices in general. It is always about doing it in a way that people didn't agree on. If you walk on track voluntarily you are not being railroaded. If you are forced to walk on tracks then you are being railroaded.

So, please, tell me: what do you call a situation the DM has set things up so there is only one possible outcome -- with the caveat that the players are "fine with it"? They cannot get off the rails. They just agree to play along.

"Railroading-that-isn't-railroading"?

Railroading, as the word implies, simply means a situation where you cannot deviate from the present course, because you are on a rail. There are no connotations involved.

Choosing to follow a railroad implies precisely that you have a choice to not follow it. If you can choose something else, it is by definition not a railroad. But it's entirely possible to accept not having a choice. If you are forced to follow the tracks, even if you want to do so, then you are being railroaded.

Usually, railroading is negative, because options are wonderful. But it is not inherently a pejorative term, regardless of how much you try to force it.

How the players feel about the situation matters not one jot as to whether or not it is railroading. All that matters is that they do not have the possibility to choose a different outcome.

Cikomyr
2014-02-07, 03:47 PM
What's the point of playing if the outcome is determined?

Rosstin
2014-02-07, 04:01 PM
I played in a 4E game which was extremely railroaded. The DM prepared huge setpiece battles ahead of time, with hundreds of miniatures and painstakingly drawn maps. We all knew this was going to happen, and so there wasn't much argument when the captain of the guard would tell us "you must enter the swamp and fight the goblins, then attack the hydra in her lair".

We had other choices to make; how we roleplayed outside of combat, how we overcame the obstacles within the combat, how we fought, how we built our characters. And we could influence the course of the game by making plans at the end of the session for the next session and telling the DM how we wanted to solve the latest long-term goal.

Anyway, the game was still loads of fun because we as players understood the "rules" and were able to accept them.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/AsterAzul/1095058_10102000084890673_972658792_n-1.jpg

(Funnily enough, there was a hardcore roleplayer in that game who was playing a wizard, and I found myself ironically sighing at his build choices. He built a skill monkey with carefully considered roleplay-oriented abilities that were never useful. A hardcore roleplayer myself, I realized that this game was about minis combat and just built my character around the paradigm the game was running on.)

Lorsa
2014-02-07, 06:07 PM
Railroading is exactly about limiting choices in general, and it does happen in almost every game. The origin of the term is that it's like riding on a train and looking at the scenery, following from that, if I buy a ticket and ride the train, I'm still as much on the train as somebody who's forced onto it.

If you're riding on a train you are not being Railroaded. It's a verb that happens when the GM forces you to be on the train. It can't happen if you choose to go there yourself.


Furthermore, even using the negative definition there are still moments where it could be useful, if for example it cuts down on other negative elements that will reduce fun more than it will.

If the players want something to take place it is not negative and therefore no longer in my definition.


And that's not always a negative, depending on your group, or it may not even be enough of a negative to bother some players. It's a matter of taste. Maybe the DM really doesn't want to spend another two hours doing a bar scene that gets nowhere and the players became bored the last time that happened, in which case a minor discomfort is better.

If the players got bored during the last bar scene, why would they want to play out another scene? You're assuming the players willingly do things that they find boring. If they don't want to play out a two hour long scene, they'll just say "we go to the bar and get some drinks" and the GM describes in like 5 minutes what happens while they are there and then when everyone is happy they move on to the castle (if they want to go to the castle at all).


Well that's not necessarily the case either, and railroading isn't necessarily bad, even if some players find it unpleasant.

I said it was most often the case. Do you think there are other cases that are more prominent? If so, care to provide examples rather than saying it's not necessarily the case? If players find something unpleasant it is defninitely bad for them. And since I define Railroading as something that players find unpleasant, it is always bad.

Razanir
2014-02-07, 06:48 PM
Two more scenarios:

1) The players are given agency, and use it to make a bad decision. The consequences temporarily limit them to a single course of action. (For instance, attacking someone important and being arrested)

2) The players have an actual choice between two (or more) locations. However, whichever path they choose leads to the same NPCs and more or less the same plot. The difference between the locations is just the setting and minor details of the events.

Lorsa
2014-02-07, 07:24 PM
So, please, tell me: what do you call a situation the DM has set things up so there is only one possible outcome -- with the caveat that the players are "fine with it"? They cannot get off the rails. They just agree to play along.

I call that a situation with only one possible outcome. Or possibly a very poorly constructed situation. But really, how many situations only have one possible outcome? Honestly, give me just one example.


Railroading, as the word implies, simply means a situation where you cannot deviate from the present course, because you are on a rail. There are no connotations involved.

Railroading, as the word implies, means pushing or forcing someone along rails. It's a verb. It doesn't describe a situation, it describes an action. The action is not "setting up a situation", the action is "forcing a specific outcome/player action (against the player's wishes)".

If the GM forces a specific player action with the consent of the players that is simply the use of Force. Some Force may be acceptable, some may not. When it isn't, it's Railroading.


Choosing to follow a railroad implies precisely that you have a choice to not follow it. If you can choose something else, it is by definition not a railroad. But it's entirely possible to accept not having a choice. If you are forced to follow the tracks, even if you want to do so, then you are being railroaded.

If you want to follow tracks, you can't be forced upon them. Yes, if you have a choice not to follow a certain linear path then you're not being Railroaded. If you go onto the linear path by your own free will, and accept that the GM will guide you (use Force) to get you to the end station, how can that be Railroading? What action is the GM doing? Offering a linear path that you may or may not follow? That seems like a very weird definition of Railroading ("Hey guys? Want to follow this path here? No? Ok, cool, you can go somewhere else, no problem").


Usually, railroading is negative, because options are wonderful. But it is not inherently a pejorative term, regardless of how much you try to force it.

Force is a neutral term. I quite like it for a situation where the player's actions are being decided upon by the GM. When the Force breaks the social contract between the player and GM it leads to Railroading.


How the players feel about the situation matters not one jot as to whether or not it is railroading. All that matters is that they do not have the possibility to choose a different outcome.

So what do you call a situation where the players do not have a possibility to choose a different outcome and they don't like it?

Lorsa
2014-02-07, 07:25 PM
Two more scenarios:

1) The players are given agency, and use it to make a bad decision. The consequences temporarily limit them to a single course of action. (For instance, attacking someone important and being arrested)

How does being arrested limit someone to a single course of action?


2) The players have an actual choice between two (or more) locations. However, whichever path they choose leads to the same NPCs and more or less the same plot. The difference between the locations is just the setting and minor details of the events.

Again Illusionism.

Jay R
2014-02-07, 08:25 PM
What's the point of playing if the outcome is determined?

Just because I know who you will fight doesn't mean the outcome is determined.

The Seattle Seahawks were railroaded. They had no choice. They had to come to this specific stadium, at this specific time, to play against this specific team. That doesn't mean the outcome was determined.

Cikomyr
2014-02-07, 08:31 PM
Just because I know who you will fight doesn't mean the outcome is determined.

The Seattle Seahawks were railroaded. They had no choice. They had to come to this specific stadium, at this specific time, to play against this specific team. That doesn't mean the outcome was determined.

But failure HAS to be an option

AMFV
2014-02-07, 08:34 PM
If you're riding on a train you are not being Railroaded. It's a verb that happens when the GM forces you to be on the train. It can't happen if you choose to go there yourself.


It completely can. but that's beside the point.



If the players got bored during the last bar scene, why would they want to play out another scene? You're assuming the players willingly do things that they find boring. If they don't want to play out a two hour long scene, they'll just say "we go to the bar and get some drinks" and the GM describes in like 5 minutes what happens while they are there and then when everyone is happy they move on to the castle (if they want to go to the castle at all).


Because people are gluttons for punishment, people frequently repeat the same actions expecting different results, this sort of thing is no different.



I said it was most often the case. Do you think there are other cases that are more prominent? If so, care to provide examples rather than saying it's not necessarily the case? If players find something unpleasant it is defninitely bad for them. And since I define Railroading as something that players find unpleasant, it is always bad.

Yes, but there may be other things that they find MORE unpleasant that can be mitigated by railroading in which case it's a net gain.


I call that a situation with only one possible outcome. Or possibly a very poorly constructed situation. But really, how many situations only have one possible outcome? Honestly, give me just one example.

Being on a train, bound and gagged. Being on an airplane, being on a ship (although that may have multiple outcomes depending). In any case even if the scenario is artificially limited.



Railroading, as the word implies, means pushing or forcing someone along rails. It's a verb. It doesn't describe a situation, it describes an action. The action is not "setting up a situation", the action is "forcing a specific outcome/player action (against the player's wishes)".

If the GM forces a specific player action with the consent of the players that is simply the use of Force. Some Force may be acceptable, some may not. When it isn't, it's Railroading.

I disagree, the only people that are holding that definition are you and another person who has chosen to argue against railroading and claim that it was always (or almost always bad)



If you want to follow tracks, you can't be forced upon them. Yes, if you have a choice not to follow a certain linear path then you're not being Railroaded. If you go onto the linear path by your own free will, and accept that the GM will guide you (use Force) to get you to the end station, how can that be Railroading? What action is the GM doing? Offering a linear path that you may or may not follow? That seems like a very weird definition of Railroading ("Hey guys? Want to follow this path here? No? Ok, cool, you can go somewhere else, no problem").


For example in a military campaign, the players may not want to perform a specific action, but they are forced to, that's railroading, Tucker's Kobolds was presented and is a fairly good example. Against the Drow (the bit where you get captured and stripped, regardless of what you do), in fact Against the Drow is often thought of as one of the best published adventures and it includes clear examples of railroading.



So what do you call a situation where the players do not have a possibility to choose a different outcome and they don't like it?

That's also railroading, railroading is defined as a situation where you force only a single outcome, regardless of the player's liking it or not, at least to my mind and as far as I can tell to most folks in this thread.

TuggyNE
2014-02-07, 08:47 PM
I think the very idea that there is such a thing as "railroading" is absurd. It's not a real thing, just something whiny players made up to complain about the GMs choice of cause and effect. Usually because they died.

The GM is the god of the game. Their very purpose is to present goals, options, and choices to the players and to create and populate a world for those things to happen in. But players need to understand cause and effect. They need to understand that actions have consequences and when they make choices the GM is not just being an ******* enforcing the resultants. There is nothing wrong with the GM saying "These are the perimeters of this world. Should you choose to exceed them, you will find the result much to your displeasure." That is how the world works, is it not?

The problem is player's want to be catered to. They have plans for their characters and they want to instantly gratify those desires. Yet things don't work that way and if they want their plans to come to fruitition they should be made to work for it within the parameters of the game (which includes not just the Rules but the Plot), not just served their favored result because the GM enforcing the simple principle of cause and effect is "railroading" and "a sign of bad GMing".

The truth is a GM being able to think on their feet and make quick changes IS a usefull skill. But if the GM dictates such is the result, such is the result. No need to get your panties in a bunch because it seems to force you into actions you don't want to take. Coercion is a reality. And it's not a restriction on free agency but rather the world putting a price on certain choices' heads. Which is not unreasonable.

The problem with this philosophy is that you appear to believe that the GM has not only the ability, but the inalienable right to do absolutely whatever they want to the players within the game, and that there is no possible situation in which the players can say, "No, I don't like that, you're doing a bad job, and this is not fun for me."

Put quite simply, this is tolerant of and encouraging to abuses of any and every kind. Power corrupts, and power with a lack of accountability corrupts rapidly. I do not trust a soul in this world with unaccountable power of this sort, however small the scope.

AMFV
2014-02-07, 09:08 PM
The problem with this philosophy is that you appear to believe that the GM has not only the ability, but the inalienable right to do absolutely whatever they want to the players within the game, and that there is no possible situation in which the players can say, "No, I don't like that, you're doing a bad job, and this is not fun for me."

Put quite simply, this is tolerant of and encouraging to abuses of any and every kind. Power corrupts, and power with a lack of accountability corrupts rapidly. I do not trust a soul in this world with unaccountable power of this sort, however small the scope.

But there are games that work fine with that sort of environment. Adversarial games where players scheme and the DM lords it over them. Games where the DM is just autocratic. You do need to trust the DM, but the scope of his abuses, are making one evening a little bit unpleasant, that's entirely tolerable, at his worst he can ruin a short bit of an evening.

Taelas
2014-02-07, 09:19 PM
Railroading, as the word implies, means pushing or forcing someone along rails. It's a verb. It doesn't describe a situation, it describes an action. The action is not "setting up a situation", the action is "forcing a specific outcome/player action (against the player's wishes)".
Words have meanings. 'Railroading' is the act of constructing a railroad. That is the origin of the term. You are forcing in a meaning that is simply not what the word actually means.


If the GM forces a specific player action with the consent of the players that is simply the use of Force. Some Force may be acceptable, some may not. When it isn't, it's Railroading.
Feel free to explain the logic of a term that means "putting down rails" suddenly becoming "against the consent of the travellers".

Because it makes no goddamn sense.


If you want to follow tracks, you can't be forced upon them. Yes, if you have a choice not to follow a certain linear path then you're not being Railroaded. If you go onto the linear path by your own free will, and accept that the GM will guide you (use Force) to get you to the end station, how can that be Railroading? What action is the GM doing? Offering a linear path that you may or may not follow? That seems like a very weird definition of Railroading ("Hey guys? Want to follow this path here? No? Ok, cool, you can go somewhere else, no problem").
"Hey guys, in order for this next part of the adventure to make sense, you can only do X here. It'll be worth it, don't worry, and you'll get your revenge later." "What if we don't?" "Then you guys are stuck until you do it." "Well, okay, I want to get the full story, so fine. But the comeuppance had better be good."

That is clearly railroading. The person it affects accepted it but that didn't give him a different choice (aside from quitting, but that choice is always there).


Force is a neutral term. I quite like it for a situation where the player's actions are being decided upon by the GM. When the Force breaks the social contract between the player and GM it leads to Railroading.
There's already a neutral term.


So what do you call a situation where the players do not have a possibility to choose a different outcome and they don't like it?

Bad or negative railroading.

TuggyNE
2014-02-08, 12:18 AM
But there are games that work fine with that sort of environment. Adversarial games where players scheme and the DM lords it over them. Games where the DM is just autocratic. You do need to trust the DM, but the scope of his abuses, are making one evening a little bit unpleasant, that's entirely tolerable, at his worst he can ruin a short bit of an evening.

And if these abuses ruin every evening you devote to the game, why would you not say "enough of this, GM, stop doing X"?

Saying "the GM does not answer to anyone at all for any reason ever" is just not robust at all, and is fundamentally wrong: there is no obligation for the players to continue playing, so it is only by deception or misconception that this absolutist regime can continue. And I consider that any power play that relies on arm-twisting your peers into giving you complete unquestioned control over four hours every week (or whatever it might be) is one that should be dismantled posthaste. It's unhealthy and unethical.

If, on the other hand, you are fine with the GM having to answer to the players for, say, forcing all the characters into some sort of disgusting orgy against their will, or ignoring any attempt the characters make to accomplish anything of any sort, or wasting the players' time rolling up new characters with a minimum of five paragraphs backstory and a different class and equipment list each time and arbitrarily killing them off after five minutes in game, then we agree on the basic point: there are some things that a GM should not do, and those things may be left to the judgement of the players (in the absence of some neutral third party, which seems unnecessary).

AMFV
2014-02-08, 12:21 AM
And if these abuses ruin every evening you devote to the game, why would you not say "enough of this, GM, stop doing X"?

Saying "the GM does not answer to anyone at all for any reason ever" is just not robust at all, and is fundamentally wrong: there is no obligation for the players to continue playing, so it is only by deception or misconception that this absolutist regime can continue. And I consider that any power play that relies on arm-twisting your peers into giving you complete unquestioned control over four hours every week (or whatever it might be) is one that should be dismantled posthaste. It's unhealthy and unethical.

If, on the other hand, you are fine with the GM having to answer to the players for, say, forcing all the characters into some sort of disgusting orgy against their will, or ignoring any attempt the characters make to accomplish anything of any sort, or wasting the players' time rolling up new characters with a minimum of five paragraphs backstory and a different class and equipment list each time and arbitrarily killing them off after five minutes in game, then we agree on the basic point: there are some things that a GM should not do, and those things may be left to the judgement of the players (in the absence of some neutral third party, which seems unnecessary).

It really depends on the group dynamics, there are groups that are much more okay with autocratic leadership. It just depends, if the players are okay with it, then it may not be a problem. Really there are vastly different social dynamics in different groups and what may work for one group may not for another.

jedipotter
2014-02-08, 12:23 AM
Well they believe that transparency is an important element for their games, in which case cheating or hiding things is not acceptable. At least that was my understanding, and that's a fine stance to have, but it's the criticism of people (or game systems) that don't place a high premium on transparency that bothers me. It's fine to have transparency as an important part in the player-DM relationship at a given table, but it's also fine to have it at not a premium.

I don't get the transparency at all. If the players know even a tiny bit about the plot, setting or story from the omnipotent narrative perspective, then it ruins the immersion. Then the players are play acting in the worst way: ''Ok, guys we gotta loose this fight for the plot, so kinda act that way''. And things like ''gosh, oh, I wonder who attacked the town...oh, yea it must have been the werewolf army we all agreed we wanted to fight.''

AMFV
2014-02-08, 12:25 AM
I don't get the transparency at all. If the players know even a tiny bit about the plot, setting or story from the omnipotent narrative perspective, then it ruins the immersion. Then the players are play acting in the worst way: ''Ok, guys we gotta loose this fight for the plot, so kinda act that way''. And things like ''gosh, oh, I wonder who attacked the town...oh, yea it must have been the werewolf army we all agreed we wanted to fight.''

I don't know, it's important for some people, in the same sense that transparency isn't paramount for all groups, immersion isn't either. To be honest I'm ambivalent with both. Transparency isn't that important to me in a game, and neither is immersion. As such I can enjoy a game with high transparency, or one with no transparency, or one that's completely immersive (all conversation is in character) to one that's completely simulative (no actual reference to the characters thoughts or feelings occurs).

Knaight
2014-02-08, 12:36 AM
I don't get the transparency at all. If the players know even a tiny bit about the plot, setting or story from the omnipotent narrative perspective, then it ruins the immersion. Then the players are play acting in the worst way: ''Ok, guys we gotta loose this fight for the plot, so kinda act that way''. And things like ''gosh, oh, I wonder who attacked the town...oh, yea it must have been the werewolf army we all agreed we wanted to fight.''

This is not what transparency means in the context it's used, it has more to do with how mechanics are used, what is, broadly within a game, whether the GM can fudge things, etc. That said, If your plot*, setting, or story* are only any good if they are kept hidden, their quality is already dubious. There's much more to stories than finding out new things, and the same applies to games.

*Though the whole "predefined GM's plot/story" aspect is generally not well liked by the pro-transparency group anyways.

AMFV
2014-02-08, 12:41 AM
This is not what transparency means in the context it's used, it has more to do with how mechanics are used, what is, broadly within a game, whether the GM can fudge things, etc. That said, If your plot*, setting, or story* are only any good if they are kept hidden, their quality is already dubious. There's much more to stories than finding out new things, and the same applies to games.

*Though the whole "predefined GM's plot/story" aspect is generally not well liked by the pro-transparency group anyways.

Well most suspense movies keep large parts of the plot hidden, and it's definitely an element in a particular style of game, I wouldn't say that it's inherently any more or less dubious than anything else, now if the DM does this and it it's not fun, then it's dubious.

Axinian
2014-02-08, 01:01 AM
Well most suspense movies keep large parts of the plot hidden, and it's definitely an element in a particular style of game, I wouldn't say that it's inherently any more or less dubious than anything else, now if the DM does this and it it's not fun, then it's dubious.

I agree, but note that Knaight said



are only any good if they are kept hidden
Emphasis mine.

I agree with this also. A story should still be solid (even a mystery or suspense one) even if the cloak of deception is cast away. Making such plots available in their entirety kind of ruins the fun of discovering it through intrigue in mystery, but "oh they won't know about this thing until they discover it" isn't really an excuse for poor writing. Granted, good writing is highly subjective, but one still needs to critically think about one's story even if the audience doesn't see most of it for a while.

Gods that was rambling and confusing. How about this: one still needs to consider the payoff and make it good, even if the journey of discovery is more the point of the experience.

Knaight
2014-02-08, 01:19 AM
Well most suspense movies keep large parts of the plot hidden, and it's definitely an element in a particular style of game, I wouldn't say that it's inherently any more or less dubious than anything else, now if the DM does this and it it's not fun, then it's dubious.

Sure, but after you've engaged with a piece of media once (be that reading a book, watching a movie, listening to a radio drama, whatever), the mystery is gone. You know what's going to happen. Yet some of these are still good enough to be worth reading, watching, or listening to again. I'd say the same thing is true of an RPG setting. Even if the game is centered around unveiling a conspiracy, how the unveiling works and the implications of what the conspiracy does should be of as much relevant as who turns out to be involved, and the processes can still be interesting once you already know of them.

TuggyNE
2014-02-08, 02:25 AM
It really depends on the group dynamics, there are groups that are much more okay with autocratic leadership. It just depends, if the players are okay with it, then it may not be a problem. Really there are vastly different social dynamics in different groups and what may work for one group may not for another.

And what happens if the players are no longer OK with it? Are they stuck forever, forced to continue attending a game they are no longer comfortable with? If so, that's clearly abusive. If not, then clearly they have some sort of recourse. QED.

Lorsa
2014-02-08, 05:33 AM
Because people are gluttons for punishment, people frequently repeat the same actions expecting different results, this sort of thing is no different.

Then why not make the result different this type? Describe what happens in 5 minutes? Make sure the 2 hour long scene actually becomes interesting and fun? There are much better options than saying "you can't go to the bar, you go to the castle instead".

Besides, if people are gluttons for punishmen, who am I to keep punishment away from them?

I usually play with people who are interested in having fun but I can adapt if they don't want that...


Yes, but there may be other things that they find MORE unpleasant that can be mitigated by railroading in which case it's a net gain.

I agree that there could be things that are more unpleasant.


Being on a train, bound and gagged.

Is it possible to struggle and get loose? If not, then indeed the options are limited. Kind of a stupid situation though and I don't think anyone would consider it fun.

Note that if someone comes to free them, or an event sets them free, then the situation is "just having been set loose after being bound and gagged on a train". A minute of real time for describing players being bound and gagged and pausing for dramatic effect doesn't make a scene.


Being on an airplane,

You can do plenty of things on an airplane.


being on a ship (although that may have multiple outcomes depending). In any case even if the scenario is artificially limited.

You can do plenty of things on a ship as well. Or are we still in the bound and gagged scenario?


I disagree, the only people that are holding that definition are you and another person who has chosen to argue against railroading and claim that it was always (or almost always bad)

Not the only people. (http://big-model.info/wiki/Railroading)


For example in a military campaign, the players may not want to perform a specific action, but they are forced to, that's railroading, Tucker's Kobolds was presented and is a fairly good example. Against the Drow (the bit where you get captured and stripped, regardless of what you do), in fact Against the Drow is often thought of as one of the best published adventures and it includes clear examples of railroading.

If the military campaign you speak of has times when the players' characters are forced to (by the NPCs or whatever on the game) to perform certain actions then I'm quite certain the players knew about it and has accepted it as a premise of the game.

However, in a military campaign I'm sure you always CAN refuse to do certain actions. You might get punished for it, but you can refuse.

Tucker's Kobolds, while impossible to beat, still offers choices in how you want to die against them. If you've accepted that the DM may throw impossible encounters against you then I don't think it's Railroading.

A written adventure, like Rhynn says, can be linear. Railroading is what the DM does to make said adventure happens as planned.


That's also railroading, railroading is defined as a situation where you force only a single outcome, regardless of the player's liking it or not, at least to my mind and as far as I can tell to most folks in this thread.

The problem is that if the players like it you haven't really forced a single outcome. You've allowed for them to make a choice to go along with an outcome if they wanted to, and they accepted.


Words have meanings. 'Railroading' is the act of constructing a railroad. That is the origin of the term. You are forcing in a meaning that is simply not what the word actually means.

Feel free to explain the logic of a term that means "putting down rails" suddenly becoming "against the consent of the travellers".

Because it makes no goddamn sense.

Origins of words often have litle meaning to how they are being used today. Besides, I don't know any GMs who construct literal railroads during sessions. It would make our game room look very interesting for sure...

Since the term has already moved away from its original meaning, I would claim it is better to find definitions and ways to apply it that work in the roleplaying world.


"Hey guys, in order for this next part of the adventure to make sense, you can only do X here. It'll be worth it, don't worry, and you'll get your revenge later." "What if we don't?" "Then you guys are stuck until you do it." "Well, okay, I want to get the full story, so fine. But the comeuppance had better be good."

That is clearly railroading. The person it affects accepted it but that didn't give him a different choice (aside from quitting, but that choice is always there).

Yeah, I don't think that's really accepting it. True acceptance meand not asking the question "What if we don't?". I would even say true acceptance means having agreed upon before playing that there will be times in the adventure where you have to do one very specific action. You don't have to know what the action is before hand, but you can agree on performing specific actions at specific times at the request of the GM.



There's already a neutral term.

Bad or negative railroading.

I think it is better to have more terms. One that describes negative or dysfunctional play where the GM is controlling the player's actions or forcing a specific outcome and one for constructive play.

Having two terms makes it much easier to discuss. Then someone can come and say "I was being Railroaded!" and people can say "Bad bad!" without getting into page-long arguments about when it might or might not be acceptable. Alternatively, someone can come and say "I thought my players had agreed to a Participationist game, but now they complain that I am Railroading them!" and people can say "It appears they had misunderstood the amount of force you'd be using to bring the adventure along." without getting into long arguments.

I think more terms are superior. Can you give me a reason why it wouldn't be?

Jay R
2014-02-08, 08:10 AM
Railroading is not a well-defined term. It means many different things, from "the game is a quest." to "You cannot go anywhere except through that door, you cannot go through that door without defeating the click-clicks, and you cannot defeat these click-clicks any way other than shouting out 'November!'."


I think more terms are superior. Can you give me a reason why it wouldn't be?

More terms that we agree on would be superior. More terms that we don['t agree on are merely more things to get bogged down into. And gamers aren't good at coming up with clear, non-ambiguous terms (see "railroad", above.)

Once we realize that the terms we use aren't communicating, inventing more terms to disagree on won't necessarily help, and distracts us from the main point.

We need to drop the word "railroading," and start discussing what kinds of DM choices are acceptable.

kailkay
2014-02-08, 08:34 AM
I've always been of the opinion that if you want to dictate the PCs actions so much that major plot point decisions are made for them, sit down and spend the time to write a novel instead. The players will hate being told what they do without having agency, and you'll hate trying to run a game when all the players stop turning up.

You can lead a PC to plot points, but you can't make them... drink.

wumpus
2014-02-08, 08:42 AM
This is not what transparency means in the context it's used, it has more to do with how mechanics are used, what is, broadly within a game, whether the GM can fudge things, etc. That said, If your plot*, setting, or story* are only any good if they are kept hidden, their quality is already dubious. There's much more to stories than finding out new things, and the same applies to games.

*Though the whole "predefined GM's plot/story" aspect is generally not well liked by the pro-transparency group anyways.

Way, way, back in the day things like the Dungeon Master's Guide would warn players against reading it. This wasn't even D&D specific, other games would follow suit (until everybody realized that it was limiting sales). While this was rarely true amoung my friends (we all took turns as DM), I did play a campaign of Villians and Vigilantes without ever reading the rulebook.

Has anyone here ever played such a non-transparent game? It was one of the best games I ever played, and I'm sure the lack of transparency gave my excelent GM even more creative room. I think it is too late to put the rules genie back in the bottle (giving lip service to "rule 0" isn't the same as Gary Gygax saying that DMing is creating your own set of rules), but some ability to make mechanics more flexible (as opposed to 3.5's "your legendary archer can't shoot the noose unless you took the 'ranged sundering' feat") is a great thing.

I guess that people who value "transparency" also insist on "rules heavy" gaming. I can't see how you fit it into "rules light" systems.

Silus
2014-02-08, 09:04 AM
Seems to me that "Railroading" covers everything from throwing down plot hooks with incentives to bite to "Your characters HAVE to do the thing this way".

:smallannoyed:

Raum
2014-02-08, 10:44 AM
Yes, the term is used inconsistently and definitions are often defended religiously. Some see it as nothing more than a pejorative.

It's more useful to discuss how much or how little the GM is allowed to script gameplay. Talking about the same thing as far as I'm concerned but it avoids loaded terms.

jedipotter
2014-02-08, 11:30 AM
This is not what transparency means in the context it's used, it has more to do with how mechanics are used, what is, broadly within a game, whether the GM can fudge things, etc. That said, If your plot*, setting, or story* are only any good if they are kept hidden, their quality is already dubious. There's much more to stories than finding out new things, and the same applies to games.


Well, most plots and stories are secret...it much more fun to play that out then be told. I really don't get ''telling the players everything'' or worse ''having the players plan the game''. So the players want to assault a castle, they tell the DM to make that. Then they say ''we want to sneak in through a hidden tunnel that the dwarf builder knows about''. So a couple minutes later in the game when a dwarf comes over to the group, they just say ''ah the dwarf tunnel guide is here!" ?

And I always think mechanics, if your talking about game rule details, should be secret.

And fudging things should be the biggest secret of all. The great secret burden of all DM's. Sometimes you need to fudge things to have fun. But you ruin the fun if everyone knows. Then everyone knows the action was not real. Then everyone knows that they failed, but only made it with a fudge. It feels fake and hollow. But if they don't know......

BootStrapTommy
2014-02-08, 11:42 AM
The problem with this philosophy is that you appear to believe that the GM has not only the ability, but the inalienable right to do absolutely whatever they want to the players within the game, and that there is no possible situation in which the players can say, "No, I don't like that, you're doing a bad job, and this is not fun for me."

Put quite simply, this is tolerant of and encouraging to abuses of any and every kind. Power corrupts, and power with a lack of accountability corrupts rapidly. I do not trust a soul in this world with unaccountable power of this sort, however small the scope. That's because the GM does. But there are many possible situations in which the players can call the GM out. If it's not fun, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLAY.

In reality, the challenges life forces us to face aren't always the ones we want to face, so I guess I'm at a loss as to why a GM would be required to cater to every whim of the players by challenging them with only things they want to be challenged with. I honestly think it's the players here, not the GMs, who need to readjust their approach. They should be making the most of the situation, not sitting about complaining about how the mean ole GM is a jerk. The GM's VERY PURPOSE in the game is set the world and the plot. If you cannot find a way to work with the constraints the GM presents you, it is you, the player, who are doing your job poorly.

Yes, a good GM can readjust to any situation or eventuality. But so can good players.

We had other choices to make; how we roleplayed outside of combat, how we overcame the obstacles within the combat, how we fought, how we built our characters. And we could influence the course of the game by making plans at the end of the session for the next session and telling the DM how we wanted to solve the latest long-term goal. Thus this.

AMFV
2014-02-08, 12:59 PM
Then why not make the result different this type? Describe what happens in 5 minutes? Make sure the 2 hour long scene actually becomes interesting and fun? There are much better options than saying "you can't go to the bar, you go to the castle instead".

Besides, if people are gluttons for punishmen, who am I to keep punishment away from them?

I usually play with people who are interested in having fun but I can adapt if they don't want that...

Because the punishment isn't fun, they want to have fun, they're just not good at figuring out what will be fun beforehand. Maybe it's my real life experience in the Marines, but I've met dozens of people who have done idiotic things (myself included) and only realized it was a bad decision mid-way through, like going on a run with a flak, it sounds like it might be a cool idea, but half-way through you're regretting it. The tavern is the same exact sort of thing. Being a glutton for punishment doesn't mean that they enjoy it, just that they're bad at consciously avoiding it.



I agree that there could be things that are more unpleasant.

Is it possible to struggle and get loose? If not, then indeed the options are limited. Kind of a stupid situation though and I don't think anyone would consider it fun.

Against the Drow again.



Note that if someone comes to free them, or an event sets them free, then the situation is "just having been set loose after being bound and gagged on a train". A minute of real time for describing players being bound and gagged and pausing for dramatic effect doesn't make a scene.

You can do plenty of things on an airplane.


Not really, you can't leave it, and that's a pretty railroaded scenario, it has a destination and that's where you're going, just because you can pass the time on the train doesn't transport you off it.



You can do plenty of things on a ship as well. Or are we still in the bound and gagged scenario?


Again you can't leave the ship, it's going to the same destination, no matter what you do.



Not the only people. (http://big-model.info/wiki/Railroading)


And I disagree with their definition, it's unnecessarily pejorative, and it removes a lot of usage from the term, requiring to use even more ambiguous terms like "force" or "trick" which could be covered by railroading. I've given my concise definition for railroading. I can see no further point in debating that definition, since we're not getting anywhere, suffice to say that when I use the term I am referring to my definition, as are many here.



If the military campaign you speak of has times when the players' characters are forced to (by the NPCs or whatever on the game) to perform certain actions then I'm quite certain the players knew about it and has accepted it as a premise of the game.

However, in a military campaign I'm sure you always CAN refuse to do certain actions. You might get punished for it, but you can refuse.


Not as effectively as you might imagine, you'll get punished and then made to do whatever it was you were being told to do in the first place, there's no easy out. Outside of desertion and then you're fundamentally altering the premise of the game anyways.


Tucker's Kobolds, while impossible to beat, still offers choices in how you want to die against them. If you've accepted that the DM may throw impossible encounters against you then I don't think it's Railroading.





A written adventure, like Rhynn says, can be linear. Railroading is what the DM does to make said adventure happens as planned.


That adventure ends with the players captured regardless of their actions, period, that's the way that it moves into the second bit, you get captured and stripped of your equipment, that's pretty clearly a railroaded scenario.



The problem is that if the players like it you haven't really forced a single outcome. You've allowed for them to make a choice to go along with an outcome if they wanted to, and they accepted.


But there wasn't a choice, there wasn't even a suggested alternative, if there is no choice, there is no choice it doesn't matter if you resign yourself to it, you still didn't have a choice, and the lack of choice is the main part of railroading.



Origins of words often have litle meaning to how they are being used today. Besides, I don't know any GMs who construct literal railroads during sessions. It would make our game room look very interesting for sure...

Since the term has already moved away from its original meaning, I would claim it is better to find definitions and ways to apply it that work in the roleplaying world.

And your definition requires creation of dozens of other nebulous terms rather than using the one that was already in place, conciseness of definition is important, and a definition that gets bogged with baggage becomes fundamentally less useful not more useful.



Yeah, I don't think that's really accepting it. True acceptance meand not asking the question "What if we don't?". I would even say true acceptance means having agreed upon before playing that there will be times in the adventure where you have to do one very specific action. You don't have to know what the action is before hand, but you can agree on performing specific actions at specific times at the request of the GM.


Well then 100% of my examples where people were being railroaded weren't true acceptance, since they may have all involved some questioning.



I think it is better to have more terms. One that describes negative or dysfunctional play where the GM is controlling the player's actions or forcing a specific outcome and one for constructive play.

Having two terms makes it much easier to discuss. Then someone can come and say "I was being Railroaded!" and people can say "Bad bad!" without getting into page-long arguments about when it might or might not be acceptable. Alternatively, someone can come and say "I thought my players had agreed to a Participationist game, but now they complain that I am Railroading them!" and people can say "It appears they had misunderstood the amount of force you'd be using to bring the adventure along." without getting into long arguments.

I think more terms are superior. Can you give me a reason why it wouldn't be?

Because firstly there is no need for a negative or positive term, because the action of reducing choices isn't in and of negative or positive. So adding that, is adding the baggage that people are now arguing about, and as I've pointed out even your negative term isn't always negative (since there cases when it's an acceptable alternative)

Secondly, you haven't defined the other term very well, and force is a word that has a lot of negative connotations wrapped into it, if you have a strong emotive feeling regarding something, and you've said that you do regarding the reduction of choices, then you probably shouldn't be the one developing terms, because you are likely to choose something like force that has extreme negative connotations with it. For example if I "Force" somebody to go to the store, that's a pretty negative statement. So we could force for the negative and railroading for the positive, since railroading has less social connotations than force does, but force definitely is not the proper term if you want to remove emotional baggage.

Thirdly, RPG folks in particular are prone to over-definition and over-complication, it's much easier to say railroading in a bad way, railroading in a inconsequential way, or railroading in a good way. Instead of arguing over whether it's force, railroading, narrative push, storytelling shove, DM prerogative, or the 55 terms that you have invented and only 4 people agree on the defitions for. See GNS for an example where inventing has not reduced but increased controversy.

Taelas
2014-02-08, 01:08 PM
Origins of words often have litle meaning to how they are being used today. Besides, I don't know any GMs who construct literal railroads during sessions. It would make our game room look very interesting for sure...

Since the term has already moved away from its original meaning, I would claim it is better to find definitions and ways to apply it that work in the roleplaying world.
It's a metaphorical railroad, which you know very well.

The problem is, it is an actual word with meaning outside the roleplaying community. When you begin using words with actual meanings differently than how they are used outside of your niche community, it very rapidly becomes incomprehensible jargon. Anyone who is aware of metaphors and the meaning of 'railroading' can see how the definition is applied when we follow my interpretation. Yours just doesn't make sense when looked at from the outside.

My definition involves all of yours, and no one is unsure of what it means (unless they don't understand metaphors), and you can quickly explain it regardless. "Well, railroading is when you can't deviate from the DM's plot, just as a train can't deviate from the tracks." It's enough to get the gist of the usage.


Yeah, I don't think that's really accepting it. True acceptance meand not asking the question "What if we don't?". I would even say true acceptance means having agreed upon before playing that there will be times in the adventure where you have to do one very specific action. You don't have to know what the action is before hand, but you can agree on performing specific actions at specific times at the request of the GM.
Now you're quibbling. They can't just "accept" it anymore, now it has to be "true acceptance"? Come on.


I think it is better to have more terms. One that describes negative or dysfunctional play where the GM is controlling the player's actions or forcing a specific outcome and one for constructive play.
But that is not what you are doing! You are throwing out a neutral term, one which can be applied to either one situation or the other depending on the adjective used to describe it. You want to remove the possibility of using 'acceptable railroading', and not replace it with anything that makes sense. (No, 'force' doesn't work, because force can be applied regardless of whether or not the situation involves railroading.)


Having two terms makes it much easier to discuss. Then someone can come and say "I was being Railroaded!" and people can say "Bad bad!" without getting into page-long arguments about when it might or might not be acceptable. Alternatively, someone can come and say "I thought my players had agreed to a Participationist game, but now they complain that I am Railroading them!" and people can say "It appears they had misunderstood the amount of force you'd be using to bring the adventure along." without getting into long arguments.

I think more terms are superior. Can you give me a reason why it wouldn't be?
Adjectives. Incomprehensible jargon far removed from the origin of the terms being used, which becomes a barrier to entry into the community.

You are also creating the very argument you want to avoid.

TuggyNE
2014-02-08, 09:27 PM
That's because the GM does. But there are many possible situations in which the players can call the GM out. If it's not fun, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLAY.

So, the GM can do whatever they want, but the players can protest if it's not fun for them? Or are they only allowed to say "this is fun enough on balance to keep playing"/"this is no longer worth it at all and I'm leaving"? Seems to me it's only reasonable that, if you allow them to veto a GM's actions by leaving the game, that you also allow for communication beforehand to try to avoid that necessity. After all, if there's one thing the GM is doing that is intensely obnoxious, almost enough for them to leave, and talking it out has a chance of getting the GM to stop that without having to change everything else, then that's a good outcome.

Or, in short, feedback keeps the GM doing a good job. There is no good reason to refuse to accept correction in something you are doing for another from the one you are supposedly doing it for; no justification for the belief that you will always know better than they do what's fun for them.


In reality, the challenges life forces us to face aren't always the ones we want to face, so I guess I'm at a loss as to why a GM would be required to cater to every whim of the players by challenging them with only things they want to be challenged with.

Ah yes, I am definitely in the mood to sit down and play through unemployment, debt, failed relationships, health problems, unreasonable family expectations, unrealizable dreams, and coffee spills all down my front.

OH WAIT. :smallannoyed:

It's a game, not a simulator of an average person's life. There is no point in trying to faithfully replicate all the myriad unpleasantnesses of real life, because those are already not fun the first time around! No, players have a reasonable expectation of enjoying whatever challenges and drama they are put through, and if the game doesn't work for that, it has failed in its most basic purpose.

AMFV
2014-02-08, 09:32 PM
So, the GM can do whatever they want, but the players can protest if it's not fun for them? Or are they only allowed to say "this is fun enough on balance to keep playing"/"this is no longer worth it at all and I'm leaving"? Seems to me it's only reasonable that, if you allow them to veto a GM's actions by leaving the game, that you also allow for communication beforehand to try to avoid that necessity. After all, if there's one thing the GM is doing that is intensely obnoxious, almost enough for them to leave, and talking it out has a chance of getting the GM to stop that without having to change everything else, then that's a good outcome.

Or, in short, feedback keeps the GM doing a good job. There is no good reason to refuse to accept correction in something you are doing for another from the one you are supposedly doing it for; no justification for the belief that you will always know better than they do what's fun for them.



Ah yes, I am definitely in the mood to sit down and play through unemployment, debt, failed relationships, health problems, unreasonable family expectations, unrealizable dreams, and coffee spills all down my front.

OH WAIT. :smallannoyed:

It's a game, not a simulator of an average person's life. There is no point in trying to faithfully replicate all the myriad unpleasantnesses of real life, because those are already not fun the first time around! No, players have a reasonable expectation of enjoying whatever challenges and drama they are put through, and if the game doesn't work for that, it has failed in its most basic purpose.

I take some issue with that, there could be a fun sort of game with a more simulationist bent. There's no reason not to focus on average life things, in a certain style of game, or to focus on the realism of certain things. That's an acceptable game. I don't know if I'd enjoy it, but it would be something that I could see others enjoying.

TuggyNE
2014-02-09, 12:59 AM
I take some issue with that, there could be a fun sort of game with a more simulationist bent. There's no reason not to focus on average life things, in a certain style of game, or to focus on the realism of certain things. That's an acceptable game. I don't know if I'd enjoy it, but it would be something that I could see others enjoying.

Yes. There is doubtless a (probably quite small) minority that would indeed find that enjoyable. But the only way to be sure of that is to communicate: the GM can't just say "oh, well, I know (because I am smart and awesome) that you will like this game the way I've planned it and so I will ignore any ill-informed protests to the contrary because you just don't understand yet!" Not only is it not always the desired game style, it almost always isn't.

Thrudd
2014-02-09, 01:39 AM
Having plot hooks for the players to find is not railroading. It is a railroad if nothing the players do will alter the course of events (apart from dying, and even then sometimes the DM fudges things so they can continue the story).
Railroad:
The DM describes a scene, asks the players to interact in character with each other and NPCs. Asks for skill checks and has combat encounters at predetermined times. When the players have met the correct conditions, they move on to the next planned scene and it happens again. Eventually they get to the end of the story, fight the bad guy, and the game is over. The players don't really get to decide what happens at all, if they make an "incorrect" choice, the DM nudges them in the right direction or makes the planned event happen anyways.
The only decisions of consequence the players have to make are in combat, and even then sometimes the DM is fudging the dice so they won't die at the incorrect time.

Some players are fine with this, they enjoy acting as their characters and participating in the DM's story, which might be very clever. The fact remains that in this type of game, the players have very little to no agency to direct the course of events. Their decisions are mostly inconsequential. It isn't really much of a game (though it may provide great opportunity for roleplaying).

This isn't to say all scene/encounter based games are necessarily railroads, especially in systems other than D&D. But they can easily become so if the GM has not prepared much or isn't good at improvisation.

The only type of railroading which is acceptable to me is when it is used for background exposition outside of the normal course of play. For instance, describing a dream sequence or an historical event (from the characters' point of view), and having the players take roles and actually play it out. The scene's ultimate end is decided by me and does not affect the main characters, it is just a way to have everyone participate rather than just reading a passage.

When it comes to the player characters, the players' decisions must direct the story and have real in-game consequences.

BootStrapTommy
2014-02-11, 08:40 PM
Ah yes, I am definitely in the mood to sit down and play through unemployment, debt, failed relationships, health problems, unreasonable family expectations, unrealizable dreams, and coffee spills all down my front.

OH WAIT. :smallannoyed:

It's a game, not a simulator of an average person's life. There is no point in trying to faithfully replicate all the myriad unpleasantnesses of real life, because those are already not fun the first time around! No, players have a reasonable expectation of enjoying whatever challenges and drama they are put through, and if the game doesn't work for that, it has failed in its most basic purpose. Call me a masochist, but games without challenge are boring. Conflict is the foundation of all good story telling. Without conflict you have no story. So what reason is there to dumb the conflict down to appease whining players who want things handed to them on a platter?

I think it's continuously being ignored in this tread that players should have to learn to play, not just GMs learn to GM. A good player makes the most of what he's given and can forge his own fun. It shouldn't just be the burden of the GM is cater to player's every escapist fantasy. The players have to do their damn part too.

TuggyNE
2014-02-11, 09:20 PM
Call me a masochist, but games without challenge are boring. Conflict is the foundation of all good story telling. Without conflict you have no story. So what reason is there to dumb the conflict down to appease whining players who want things handed to them on a platter?

There is no reason to eliminate conflict and challenge, which is why I do not recommend doing so. There is every reason to make such conflicts and challenges interesting and avoid simple rehashing of everyday problems that everyone is likely to have already personally experienced several times.

It is possible to legitimately complain about the running of a game without whining or demanding the easy way out or being impossible to please. Such legitimate complaints should not be ignored by the GM.