The railroading problem: source & solution

[Mordar]

Not sure I agree. I think that any time you've got a linear structure, you're pretty much railroading. I mean, that's kind of the term, right? Forgeites (bleagh) had adopted the terms "illusionism" and "participationism" to distinguish between the "you don't know it's railroading" and "you're on board the train, choo choo!" varieties, respectively.

I mean, ultimately, there's basically three concepts here - a GM having a linear (or mostly linear) list of specific things the players will do, a version of executing that where the players are on board, and a version of executing that where the players do not realize that they're on a linear list of specific things/scenes. Where you really put the terminology is less relevant to me. I use 'railroading' as the first, personally, and then differentiate from t here.

I don't think linearity is the defining criteria for railroading...particularly if, as is mentioned elsewhere, the things that are linear are events or problems.

1. The Baron's heir kills the Baron
2. The heir becomes the new Baron
3. The new Baron blackmails the Bishop and gains power
4. The new Baron and the Bishop plot to kill the King
5. The king is assassinated, Gildor is framed, the Baron leads the army in glorious battle and, returning triumphant, becomes King

That's pretty linear, and those are the key events that have been laid out in the GM's brainstorm. Now, maybe the PCs become caught up in the Baron's plan...or maybe they see little bits of it unfold from a distance while they investigate the sewers of the capital city with nary a care for who wears the crown...or maybe they wander to Fudgeland to uncover the mystery of the marshmallow swamp and never give two rocky roads about who killed who and why. Maybe that's not what you meant, but having a linear array of events doesn't mean forcing the PCs to participate in those events, right?

There are 2 schools of thought on that and neither is entirely wrong. You require the rails to become visible in our timeline for you to call it railroading. Your judgement is focused on the present and the past. The other school of thought is examining the branching paths of the future and judging the potential presents in those paths as you would judge them presuming they occurred.

Essentially it boils down to: Is the DM railroading you if they would have forbidden your choice if you had chosen anything other than what you happened to choose? The second school sees the rails and labels it railroading. The first school sees the rails, but notes they did not change what happened and thus does not label it railroading. Neither is wrong because neither disputes the existence of the rails, they just are describing related but different concepts.

I see both terms as useful and regret them sharing the same word.

Well, I think there are three choices...if not three schools. One says "Let's take the train to Clarksville!" and jumps on board. One complains that they are not now, nor are they likely ever, inclined to go to Clarksville and say "You're railroading me!" But I think there is a third that says "Just because we're walking along the tracks doesn't mean we're riding a train" and may well elect to diverge when they see the marshmallow swamp mentioned above. You don't have to buy all the way in as a player, and if as a GM you've built a beautiful and enticing system of ties and rails, you're not a bad GM. Tie the players to those ties and rails, though...then you can curl your mustaches and wear your black top hat!

- M

[kyoryu]

I don't think linearity is the defining criteria for railroading...particularly if, as is mentioned elsewhere, the things that are linear are events or problems.

Right, which is why I tried to specify that it's a linear set of specific actions the PCs will do or scenes they will take part of.

1. The PCs save the heir, who then kills his father.
2. The PCs protect the heir during his coronation when loyal elements try to stop it.
3. The PCs gather information on the Bishop for the Baron.

... (note that in each of these cases, it probably further breaks down into more than one scene)

Maybe that's not what you meant, but having a linear array of events doesn't mean forcing the PCs to participate in those events, right?

Again, it's more about a linear list of scenes that the PCs will take part in. Also, probably worth noting that in the example, but it should totally be possible for the players to thwart the heir's plan at some point in his plot.

But I think there is a third that says "Just because we're walking along the tracks doesn't mean we're riding a train" and may well elect to diverge when they see the marshmallow swamp mentioned above.

The only issue I have with this presentation is that it can lead to the GM logic of "if your players complain about the tracks, you just need to learn to manipulate them better." I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying here, but it's logic I've seen.

It's also *really really* hard to put in a ton of prep for something, and then throw it away unused, so I think that even prepping a "track" leads to some level of subconscious forcing people onto it, but I have no proof or evidence of such :D

[Cluedrew]

To everyone who has been discussing the finer edges of railroading:

I posted my personal definition of railroading already, but since it was a ways back I'll say again, "Railroading is one player/the GM forcing the players along a set path through the story." So "we are on the rails and enjoying it" is essentially an oxymoron because if they are enjoying it is simply a linear adventure (to kyoryu: I believe this is your good railroading). Now a GM tricking the players could be railroading depending on how you define force. But if a GM knows a set of players and characters so well they don't have to adjust a single plot point this is impressive to say the least (high unbelievable at the most). But I don't think it would count as force, more a good prediction than anything else and so it is not railroading either.

That just leaves us with the "bouncing off the rails" case which is the most classic type of railroading. That is railroading to me. The only other type of railroading I can think of is people have given up trying to overstep the rails because they have been knocked back to many times. (Railroading by the thread of rails.)

Appropriately enough I have a rather narrow definition of railroading.

[Thrudd]

An important distinction for me in the consideration of railroading is whether or not the players and characters are self-motivated to pursue whatever it is the DM is putting in front of them, and whether the game's scope was dictated before/during character creation. It is very hard to expect the players to be involved in any sort of linear series of events unless they enter the game specifically designed to do so. If you decide to make the game about the players being involved with the intrigues of the Baron and the Bishop, then the characters need to be designed to specifically be tied into this plot and the players briefed on important elements of the setting and the expectations that they all have appropriate motives/goals to drive their participation. Otherwise, you almost guarantee that you must railroad the game, because it is likely that some or all of the players will have characters that could not give two hoots about intrigue and couldn't believably participate in that plot even if they wanted to.

The potential to railroad is very high when a DM plans out a linear plot like this and also fails to control the character creation process. When a game is presented as having a specific scope, I don't consider it railroading when the game and characters are required to remain within that scope. If I don't like the suggested premise of the game, I wouldn't play it.
However, when a game (especially D&D) is presented with no specified scope and no or few character creation guidelines (other than the rulebook), I would assume the game is standard in scope - an open fantasy world where my goals are to find treasure and fight monsters and look for adventure in order to gain XP and levels. Unless my characters' parameters are specified beforehand, I will make whatever sort of character I feel like, with whatever goals I feel like giving them. I will play them in a way that makes sense to me in the context of the game world. When you have a group of such characters and players, with little or no collaboration and no restrictions or requirements from the DM, railroading is also almost inevitable, since the chances that they all will want to go in the same direction, let alone go in one specific direction that the DM has planned, are very low.

The lesson is: carefully consider the character creation options for your game and inform your players as to the scope of the game you intend to run, in order to coordinate as much as possible before you get into a position where you are considering using railroading as a GM'ing strategy.

[goto124]

About the linear adventures and railroading thing:

The players, even if they have agreed to follow the linear plot, could easily go off the rails because they interpreted the events wrongly and think they are still on the rails. A offhand detail being interpreted as an important plot event, for example ("why else would an otherwise useless NPC make a comeback?").

A bit of nudging from the DM would be required to get back onto the plot. But how does one do that without being too heavy-handed, which tends to ruin the fun?

[Cluedrew]

On gentle nudges: Well the GM could just ask for one. If they don't want to go out-of character than either let the characters wonder off the main plot for a bit or make a few changes so that A) this is more obviously not where the players are supposed to go or B) it leads back towards where they are suppose to go.

The making changes bit may seem odd in a linear adventure, which is usually synonymous with pre-set, but I think it fits. There are lots of superficial details that can be changed will the direction of the plot remains constant. In fact I could say that little wobbles in the plot still work because the overall direction of the plot is maintained.

[Lorsa]

About the linear adventures and railroading thing:

The players, even if they have agreed to follow the linear plot, could easily go off the rails because they interpreted the events wrongly and think they are still on the rails. A offhand detail being interpreted as an important plot event, for example ("why else would an otherwise useless NPC make a comeback?").

A bit of nudging from the DM would be required to get back onto the plot. But how does one do that without being too heavy-handed, which tends to ruin the fun?

Well, if they have agreed to follow the linear plot, how about simply saying "you're going off the plot"?

[kyoryu]

Well, if they have agreed to follow the linear plot, how about simply saying "you're going off the plot"?

I've never understood why this idea is so terrible to some.

[BayardSPSR]

I've never understood why this idea is so terrible to some.

Sometimes people seem to forget that RPGs are games played at tables with other people who you can directly communicate with outside your roles of "GM" or "player."

[goto124]

I've never understood why this idea is so terrible to some.

Seems hamfisted, to be honest. Especially if it has to be repeated constantly over the course of the adventure.

[Lorsa]

Seems hamfisted, to be honest. Especially if it has to be repeated constantly over the course of the adventure.

If it happens often enough and you dislike verbal statements, perhaps use some form of body language to signal it? Or changes in speech pattern? Most humans are very good at understanding non-verbal cues.

[ImNotTrevor]

Seems hamfisted, to be honest. Especially if it has to be repeated constantly over the course of the adventure.

It's not hamfisted. Hamfisted would be yelling "Stop going off the rails" This is just saying "Here there not ne dragons nor dungeons nor any form of prepared thing"

[Darth Ultron]

Well, if they have agreed to follow the linear plot, how about simply saying "you're going off the plot"?

This really breaks the immersion and ruins the game.

Most RPG's work best if everyone believes the ''game reality'' is ''real'' once the game starts and that they are not just ''sitting around playing a game''. So a player gets all into ''role playing the character in the world'', not ''just playing a game''.

So when the DM says something like ''ok, guys stop the game! You need to take the left path'' is not a good thing.

[Segev]

This really breaks the immersion and ruins the game.

Most RPG's work best if everyone believes the ''game reality'' is ''real'' once the game starts and that they are not just ''sitting around playing a game''. So a player gets all into ''role playing the character in the world'', not ''just playing a game''.

So when the DM says something like ''ok, guys stop the game! You need to take the left path'' is not a good thing.

Agreed, though generally speaking, if the party has refused to follow the hooks and is harring off to where nothing is prepared, then somebody's already made a mistake, and an OOC correction of that mistake might be less harmful than increasingly ham-fisted attempts to force it. Immersion is lost either way, once the rails become obvious; if everybody's okay with being on the rails, pointing them out so they can get back to "the good stuff" is usually better than making them play "guess where the plot hook was."

[ImNotTrevor]

This really breaks the immersion and ruins the game.

Most RPG's work best if everyone believes the ''game reality'' is ''real'' once the game starts and that they are not just ''sitting around playing a game''. So a player gets all into ''role playing the character in the world'', not ''just playing a game''.

So when the DM says something like ''ok, guys stop the game! You need to take the left path'' is not a good thing.

"Immersion" is a big pile of nonsense and I don't understand the need to cultivate it like it's sacred.

At no point in the game will you become unaware of the reality of being a person playing a game unless things get straight-up theatrical in the room. But there is no way in hell that you'll be sitting at a table reading a character sheet and eating cheetos while at the same time feeling like you are ACTUALLY in a vaguely european medieval town and you're actually a wizard and etc. Immersion isn't a thing that happens outside of actual simulated experiences. And even then, not really.

At worst, this puts a hiccup in the flow of the in-character conversation. (What most people are actually talking about when they complain about immersion) The good news is, this hiccup will be forgotten within minutes, and it does more good than harm.

[Cluedrew]

I'm in the boat that the GM commenting on the plot is no more "immersion breaking"* than the other types of out-of-character of conversation. Asking about stats is a big one but things like passing around snacks also count. So really things have to be happening outside of the game all the time and coordinating what his happing in the game seems like one of the better uses of out-of-character chatter.

* I do feel you can be aware that you are in the real world while at the same time feel like you are a part of the story, which is why a lot of the following things are not very immersion breaking to me on their own.

[kyoryu]

If it happens often enough and you dislike verbal statements, perhaps use some form of body language to signal it? Or changes in speech pattern? Most humans are very good at understanding non-verbal cues.

Ideal? No. But I think that version of suckitude is less than the suckitude of blocking everything the players do or "invisibly" (which is never as invisible as GMs think) guiding them back onto the rails.

Sometimes there's no ideal solution, just a less sucky one.

[Darth Ultron]

I know there are games that play very robotically. Where the DM will say things like "your characters move to location A12 and will now have Encounter 7-1". And, sure that is a valid play style and is fun to some.

It is a play style thing sure. Some people think it's fun to play an RPG in a very detached way...like a video game.

[Cluedrew]

OK Darth Ultron if you were describing my ... anecdote as a detached let me tell you another anecdote. When my character is handcuffed (that doesn't happen very often) I will put my hands behind my back to mimic the position the character is in. There are other examples of things like that but I hope that get the point across I am actually a very "attached" sort of player. On another note I often feel that stats are more immersion breaking than conversation about the plot. (I know nothing was addressed to me but the timing.)

Other wise yes, I agree with you. Some people do play RPGs like computer-less video games. D&D is a great system for that in my opinion because it has a lot of underpinnings in common with video games. The type of "detached" play I can think of is when role-playing starts to transform into story-telling. A closely related/overlapping sort of game but one where you don't really descend into the characters in the same way.

[goto124]

When my character is handcuffed (that doesn't happen very often) I will put my hands behind my back to mimic the position the character is in.

Why am I suddenly wondering if you crash into the gaming table and knock over the snacks while trying to pick up your miniature with your teeth?

[Primus Beno]

The best source I can find that prevents me from railroading my PC's as a DM was the way Dungeon World presents playing a game. Let the characters make up the world around them with some guided questions.

For example, we started our last game off like this.


-Now that the cell door's open, which one of you is
getting sprung?

-What's so important that the duke had you arrested?

-Why aren't the guards arresting all of you right now?

- What was the hardest part about breaking into prison?

- What other prisoner can't you leave behind and what
will happen if you do?

-After what you did to him, will the jailer live?

-Had the dead breached the walls of the city when you
entered the dungeon?


With those questions, I just need to plan for a Duke, maybe a Dungeon and a lot of low level undead. I let the players answer all of those questions, coming to a consensus about where they want their story to go and then I run with what they come up with. It was a lot of fun and they were quite creative about who the Duke was, why someone was in jail, how much time till the Dead were in the city, how they were related to the guard...and at no time did I ever feel that they were "off plot" since they came up with the plot themselves.

It was very satisfying.

[neonchameleon]

"Immersion" is a big pile of nonsense and I don't understand the need to cultivate it like it's sacred.

At no point in the game will you become unaware of the reality of being a person playing a game unless things get straight-up theatrical in the room. But there is no way in hell that you'll be sitting at a table reading a character sheet and eating cheetos while at the same time feeling like you are ACTUALLY in a vaguely european medieval town and you're actually a wizard and etc. Immersion isn't a thing that happens outside of actual simulated experiences. And even then, not really.

At worst, this puts a hiccup in the flow of the in-character conversation. (What most people are actually talking about when they complain about immersion) The good news is, this hiccup will be forgotten within minutes, and it does more good than harm.

This is a misunderstanding of what immersion actually is (caused by most people who talk about immersion not knowing what immersion actually is).

Immersion is about flow. It's about having sufficient mastery of what is going on that you can respond intuitively rather than having to consciously think about what you should be doing at a mechanical level. When I was in practice at chess, I used to be able to play pretty well almost entirely using my intuition and without actually calcuating what was going on. When a chess grand master plays they literally don't see the bad moves, they're so in tune with the game.

The key for immersion is "Oh, that's so natural I don't have to think about that". You've accepted whatever the chains of thought for the game are so they don't get in your way and you can concentrate on the situation.

And one of the reasons D. Vincent Baker's games are so easily immersive is that he builds the resolution structure round the natural flow of freeform roleplay - you only ever role when a freeform roleplayer would hand the narration over, so the rules only intrude for someone with no tabletop RP experience at the point where there would be a handover anyway. They almost never cut the player off in full flow unless they would be god-moding.

[ImNotTrevor]

This is a misunderstanding of what immersion actually is (caused by most people who talk about immersion not knowing what immersion actually is).

Immersion is about flow. It's about having sufficient mastery of what is going on that you can respond intuitively rather than having to consciously think about what you should be doing at a mechanical level. When I was in practice at chess, I used to be able to play pretty well almost entirely using my intuition and without actually calcuating what was going on. When a chess grand master plays they literally don't see the bad moves, they're so in tune with the game.

The key for immersion is "Oh, that's so natural I don't have to think about that". You've accepted whatever the chains of thought for the game are so they don't get in your way and you can concentrate on the situation.

And one of the reasons D. Vincent Baker's games are so easily immersive is that he builds the resolution structure round the natural flow of freeform roleplay - you only ever role when a freeform roleplayer would hand the narration over, so the rules only intrude for someone with no tabletop RP experience at the point where there would be a handover anyway. They almost never cut the player off in full flow unless they would be god-moding.

That's all well and good, but a lot of AW involves out-of-character conversation about the game. You literally bring up the rules so often that no one will forget about them, and players will constantly make sarcastic OOC jokes because that's a solid portion of the fun. You switch between being in and out of character CONSTANTLY as you play any trpg. Doing it to bring uo a problem is at worst slightly more flow-breaking than the standard OOC banter.

And what's more, Immersion isn't actually used like that in gaming. It's why games without HUD's are considered more immersive, why Immersive Mods make the game behave less noticeably like a game, etc. People use it in exactly the same sense when talking about TRPGs, not in the way you're talking about. Whatever that is, is a very different sense of the word that nobody is talking about. Whenever people ask for how to make their experience more immersive, people NEVER recommend improving the flow of the game. It always has to do with making the world seem real-er. Let's at least be honest about how people actually use that word.

[neonchameleon]

And what's more, Immersion isn't actually used like that in gaming. It's why games without HUD's are considered more immersive, why Immersive Mods make the game behave less noticeably like a game, etc. People use it in exactly the same sense when talking about TRPGs, not in the way you're talking about. Whatever that is, is a very different sense of the word that nobody is talking about. Whenever people ask for how to make their experience more immersive, people NEVER recommend improving the flow of the game. It always has to do with making the world seem real-er. Let's at least be honest about how people actually use that word.

And you've just managed to trip over yourself with your own example. Games without HUDs are considered more immersive not because it's more realistic to do things without a HUD. It isn't. They are considered more immersive because HUDs are intrusive unless you've spent a lot of time getting used to them. Your own examples are arguing in favour of a simplified gamist unreality over a more complex reality where the reality would be complex.

And the reason most supposedly realistic games have flopped is because no one wants to deal with an actually realistic situation. Reality is complex. They want a simplified gamist environment with no jagged edges to get stuck on. It's one of those cases where what people ask for and what they want are normally at odds.

[Cluedrew]

Why am I suddenly wondering if you crash into the gaming table and knock over the snacks while trying to pick up your miniature with your teeth?

I don't know why you are wondering that. Clearly I would just use my mind powers to move the miniatures.

On Immersion: I'm going to say that neonchameleon's definition of immersion makes more sense to me, but I don't think that means ImNotTrevor is wrong. First off because that latter was talking about how people use the word, which is often not quite what the word really means. Which is intern is explained by some of the things he said. For instance out-of-character and in-character, seems like a big jump but people do it all the time and barely notice because of game flow.

For instance (using the Apocalypse World as an example) a player describes an action, MC calls a move, player looks up stat, rolls dice, determines strength of hit, chooses some options, MC may answer some questions or narrate part of the result, player will continue with the character action. There are a sequence of jumps between who is in control, what they are doing, in/out-of-character and more, but you hardly notice because it is all part of the flow.

However if even if one of these jumps goes outside the flow, say the GM brakes out a game of hangman to give the players a clue (S.U.E.), well people notice really quickly.

Similar idea with HUDs (or bits of UI to give information to the player), if they are well designed they are part of the game flow and you barely notice the switch, but if badly designed each switch is a jitter in the game flow.

So actually there seem to be some really good examples in there.

[ImNotTrevor]

And you've just managed to trip over yourself with your own example. Games without HUDs are considered more immersive not because it's more realistic to do things without a HUD. It isn't. They are considered more immersive because HUDs are intrusive unless you've spent a lot of time getting used to them. Your own examples are arguing in favour of a simplified gamist unreality over a more complex reality where the reality would be complex.

This sounds eerily like Circular Logic.
Allow me to kick this idea in the crotch:
Killzone 2.

Killzone 2 was marketed as being more immersive SPECIFICALLY because the HUD was not visible except when strictly necessary. (Playing as a footsoldier without a helmet on would mean no HUD, just like in real life.) This was billed as being Realistic, not as being Non-distracting.

You're bending the cause to suit your definition. Which isn't the actual reasoning, and by nitpicking one small example instead of disproving the core idea. (Which you didn't do.)

And the reason most supposedly realistic games have flopped is because no one wants to deal with an actually realistic situation. Reality is complex. They want a simplified gamist environment with no jagged edges to get stuck on. It's one of those cases where what people ask for and what they want are normally at odds.

Which realistic games that have flopped? Where do you get your figures for "most?"
Dark Souls doesn't claim to be "realistic" but dragons and hellish demons are as hard to kill as should actually be expected. And I would hardly call it a "flop." (Though I'm still not sure what we're counting as Realistic, here. Train Simulator sold well enough for a few sequels, as did Euro Truck Simulator.) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare billed itself as realistic, as well. And we all know how badly that sold. The series died then and there, right? Right?

There is a point where Simulationism can get to extreme for its own good, but most games claiming to be more immersive and realistic are doing fine. Hell, VR is starting to take off because it is "more immersive" to actually look around and see the world.

As I said, no one actually uses "Immersion" in the way you're describing, nor is what you're talking about what they think of when they hear that word.

Here, hold on. I'll ask my wife. Irl.

My question:
"When you hear a game described as 'Immersive,' what does that mean to you?"

Her response:
"I immediately think of VR headsets. A game so realistic and engaging that you forget you're playing a game."

Data point of 1, but it's closer to what I'm talking about than it just being a flowing experience. It obviously does need to be engaging to be immersive, but engaging on its own is not immersive.

For good examples, see here:

https://m.reddit.com/r/Games/comment...you_have_ever/

Some praise the HUD being there realistically vs. When it ought not to be. Most, though, are about little details that make the game world feel real.

[Thrudd]

What I mean/think of as "immersion" in relation to an RPG is the degree to which the players are making decisions as though they were the characters, from the characters' points of view. Being immersed in the game world. Ideally, the game mechanics support this, and being engaged as a player means being immersed in the world as much as possible.

[Cluedrew]

I decided to get the actual definition of immersion (as much as a word can have an actual definition). It reads as follows:

: the act of immersing or the state of being immersed: as

1. baptism by complete submersion of the person in water
2. absorbing involvement <immersion in politics>
3. instruction based on extensive exposure to surroundings or conditions that are native or pertinent to the object of study; especially : foreign language instruction in which only the language being taught is used <learned French through immersion>

Pay particular attention to meaning (b), as that is the one that relates to our conversation. It says nothing about how it is created or reduced. In other words things that "immerse" are defined only in that they create immersion. Which in this context is actually pretty subjective. But if the things mentioned above create immersion, then they are immersive and not to the exclusion of each other.

Now we can go and try to define absorbing involvement and what that means for role-playing, but I'd bet that it would turn out to be pretty subjective too. Thrudd's definition looks like a pretty good benchmark though.

[Darth Ultron]

OK Darth Ultron if you were describing my ... anecdote as a detached let me tell you another anecdote. When my character is handcuffed (that doesn't happen very often) I will put my hands behind my back to mimic the position the character is in.

I've never seen this, but then I have also never had a game where people dressed up like their characters either.

The best source I can find that prevents me from railroading my PC's as a DM was the way Dungeon World presents playing a game. Let the characters make up the world around them with some guided questions.

For example, we started our last game off like this.

Well, your game sounds like a good example of the ''everyone is a DM'' style or the ''players are DM's'' or even, at worst, ''the DM is a slave to the players. It's a fine playstlye, but not too common. Most games have the DM make up everything with no input from the players other then vague suggestions.

[Comet]

The way I see it, the whole railroading GM thing boils down to a pretty simple continuum:

The GM is interested in his own ideas <------------------------------------------------------> The GM is interested in his players' ideas

Most GM's land somewhere in the middle there, leaning one way or another and that's fine. The extremes are dangerous as you're either going to want to write a novel or just watch the game if you have too little or too much interest in what everyone else but you has to say.

So, yeah, that's the way I see it. The GM should be interested in what the players bring to the table, but I definitely understand that gut feeling of having done a lot of work with maps and backstory and all that creative stuff and wanting to present that to the players as entirely as possible. That's dangerous territory, for sure, but I understand where it comes from.