The railroading problem: source & solution

[OldTrees1]

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.

Have you considered that your "continuum" conflates 2 separate variables? Compare the extremes of "the GM barely cares about their own ideas but does not care at all about the players" and "the GM cares a lot about their own ideas but also cares a lot about the players' ideas".

Of the 2 variables, caring about the players' ideas correlates closer with not railroading. (although it is not 1:1)

[Comet]

Have you considered that your "continuum" conflates 2 separate variables? Compare the extremes of "the GM barely cares about their own ideas but does not care at all about the players" and "the GM cares a lot about their own ideas but also cares a lot about the players' ideas".

Of the 2 variables, caring about the players' ideas correlates closer with not railroading. (although it is not 1:1)

Sure, in an ideal world everyone would get their say. But there's only a limited amount of minutes given to any gaming table, so eventually the GM has to decide whether to spend those minutes talking about his own cool ideas or listening to those of his players.

A GM that decides to spend every single one of those minutes listening to what the players think would be great for the game is just watching. A GM that decides to spend every single one those minutes telling the players about the thinks would be great is just telling a story. Neither does a roleplaying game any favours, though both can be made to work if the whole group is prepared for it. A happy medium is probably preferred in most groups, though.

Railroading, then, comes from a GM that has a lot of cool ideas prepared but not enough time to present those ideas while also listening to the ideas of his players. It all comes down to those precious minutes.

[Knaight]

Sure, in an ideal world everyone would get their say. But there's only a limited amount of minutes given to any gaming table, so eventually the GM has to decide whether to spend those minutes talking about his own cool ideas or listening to those of his players.

That's not the point being made. The point being made is that two separate spectrum are being collapsed together. A GM has a given amount of investment in their work (which can vary game to game, group to group, etc.). They also care a given amount about what the players are doing. These don't necessarily affect each other much, and it's possible to have both or neither in any real quantity. Both generally looks like the sort of really good game people talk about for years afterwards. Neither tends to look like phoning in a railroad.

[Comet]

That's not the point being made. The point being made is that two separate spectrum are being collapsed together. A GM has a given amount of investment in their work (which can vary game to game, group to group, etc.). They also care a given amount about what the players are doing. These don't necessarily affect each other much, and it's possible to have both or neither in any real quantity. Both generally looks like the sort of really good game people talk about for years afterwards. Neither tends to look like phoning in a railroad.

Fair enough, a good GM can and probably will be equally interested in everyone's input. In actual play, though, you're going to have to decide how much of that interest in the players' input translates into actually listening and reacting to that input when it can actively subtract from time spent on material that you have prepared ahead of time and spent quite a bit of work on.

Railroading only happens when a GM doesn't have the time or the interest to involve the players in the game. This can happen for the best of reasons, maybe the GM has put a hundred hours into maps and lore and really thinks the players' lives will be enrichened by witnessing all that great work, but it still fundamentally means that the GM is not actually all that interested in what the players bring to the table.

I'm talking in the broadest possible terms here, which is a bit frustrating but necessary since there are so many different games and styles of gaming out there. What I'm trying to get at, and I don't think we disagree here, is that a good GM is capable of examining his priorities and seeing whether the players are actually involved in the game or not. Railroading is one specific example of this larger dynamic of how roleplaying games fundamentally function. I say something, you say something back and the story is built out of that interaction if and when both parties are actually interested in what the other has to say.

[Lacco]

Have you considered that your "continuum" conflates 2 separate variables? Compare the extremes of "the GM barely cares about their own ideas but does not care at all about the players" and "the GM cares a lot about their own ideas but also cares a lot about the players' ideas".

Of the 2 variables, caring about the players' ideas correlates closer with not railroading. (although it is not 1:1)

Sounds like we could create a GM alignment table...

[Cluedrew]

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

OK ... and? I mean you seem to be trying to make a point about that because you called out that particular line and responded to it. If your point is just "oh that's interesting" its fine.

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.

Not really, I have to make some assumptions about Primus Beno's games from my own experiences with Hacked World systems. But although the system does encourage distributing parts of the MC's (=GM=DM) role the MC remains very distinct from the other players.

A simple way to put it is that the system builds in player input to the MC, but it still maintains the MC as the final arbiter. That's sort of an approximation but I'm out of time.

[OldTrees1]

Sounds like we could create a GM alignment table...

Rather boring table

	P value=0	P value>0
DM value=0	Apathy	Simulation
DM value>0	Tyrant	Subjective Zone

[kyoryu]

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.

I view "immersion" as flow state + world (rather than rules) focus.

[Darth Ultron]

Railroading only happens when a GM doesn't have the time or the interest to involve the players in the game.

This seems far to simple of a definition.

Railroading is one specific example of this larger dynamic of how roleplaying games fundamentally function. I say something, you say something back and the story is built out of that interaction if and when both parties are actually interested in what the other has to say.

It's a bit much to say ''role playing games''. They are not all group hug think collaboration of fairness and happiness. Sure, there are games like that, notably ones made by D&D haters. But a lot of role playing games, like D&D are more ''DM makes up the stuff and runs the game and the players just play''.

Not really, I have to make some assumptions about Primus Beno's games from my own experiences with Hacked World systems. But although the system does encourage distributing parts of the MC's (=GM=DM) role the MC remains very distinct from the other players.

A simple way to put it is that the system builds in player input to the MC, but it still maintains the MC as the final arbiter. That's sort of an approximation but I'm out of time.

And again, there are tons of anti-D&D type games out there. Lots of people played classic D&D way back when, but they did not like this or that in the game. Then one day they made their own game and added in all sorts of rules to make sure there game was nothing like D&D and supported all their wacky ideas about everything else too.

[Cluedrew]

Hey Darth Ultron: I am currently working on my own pen & paper role-playing game. It's two largest influences are Dungeons and Dragons and Apocalypse World. So this whole "work together" thing found in Apocalypse World is not just some lashing out against D&D.

Personally, I think "everyone gets to make up stuff" is one of the greatest strengths PP/TT RPGs have over computer games. If you don't like that part, you don't have to use it and that is fine. But don't act like it is some weird anti-D&D fringe movement, its not, I've seen it recommended in D&D DMing Guides.

[kyoryu]

It's a bit much to say ''role playing games''. They are not all group hug think collaboration of fairness and happiness. Sure, there are games like that, notably ones made by D&D haters. But a lot of role playing games, like D&D are more ''DM makes up the stuff and runs the game and the players just play''.

It's really not. The basic loop of a roleplaying game is:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this!"
GM: "Okay, this is the new situation. What do you do?"

(There's a couple minor of variations, but this one is the case for about 90% of games).

[Lorsa]

It's really not. The basic loop of a roleplaying game is:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this!"
GM: "Okay, this is the new situation. What do you do?"

(There's a couple minor of variations, but this one is the case for about 90% of games).

Actually it's more like 99.99% of the games.

[SirBellias]

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.

I'd like to say that a large portion of d&d games I've played in have been like what you said most games are.

Most games I run using d&d are a mess of ideas my players give me and my own. I like to cooperate with my players when creating the world because I think that it makes them more involved in it. Dungeon World and other Powered by the Apocalypse games are meant to be played like that (up to it being a major portion of the book). I don't know if most games have the DM make up almost everything, but in my experience it's around half of them, most of which can be played with everyone contributing easily and to great effect. Really, most systems that I've read that say "this is how you have to run this game" are of the cooperative world building perspective, and most systems that don't clearly state how the GMs have to play are assumed to be the "DM builds the world singlehandedly" variety by lots of people. It can be done either way though, so based on my experience cooperative building is more prevalent.

EDIT: I missed a page, but most of this is still relevant, it seems. I'd agree that kyoryu's model of the structure of most role playing games is exactly correct for almost all of them. Accept Paranoia on a fun day.

Also, most of my earlier observations are about building the world before and in the first session. Obviously, most of the world creation after the start of play is collaborative on all accounts.

[Cluedrew]

I'm going to take a stab at modifying kyoryu's game loop to show how railroading effects the cycle.

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this!"
GM: "Okay, this is the new situation despite what you did. What do you do?"

It is small but I think that is roughly what it looks like.

[Lorsa]

I'm going to take a stab at modifying kyoryu's game loop to show how railroading effects the cycle.

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this!"
GM: "Okay, this is the new situation despite what you did. What do you do?"

It is small but I think that is roughly what it looks like.

Yes, that is one example of railroading. Others would be:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this!"
GM: "No you don't."

or

GM: "This is the situation. You do this. This is the new situation. You do this. This is the last situation, NOW what do you do?"
Player: "... I go home, this game sucks."

[Lorsa]

This seems far to simple of a definition.

Unlike your definitions, which are stellar examples of non-simplicity, clear logical reasoning and resonates well with everyday language?

It's a bit much to say ''role playing games''. They are not all group hug think collaboration of fairness and happiness. Sure, there are games like that, notably ones made by D&D haters. But a lot of role playing games, like D&D are more ''DM makes up the stuff and runs the game and the players just play''.

What counts as "playing" in your mind?

If "just play" equals "sitting still listening to the DM and occasionally rolling dice", then that is hardly a lot of games, and especially NOT how D&D is meant to be played.

If "just play" equals "listening to the DM and then replying with character action and occasionally rolling dice", then it is the same as the above-mentioned group hug think collaboration of fairness and happiness.

And again, there are tons of anti-D&D type games out there. Lots of people played classic D&D way back when, but they did not like this or that in the game. Then one day they made their own game and added in all sorts of rules to make sure there game was nothing like D&D and supported all their wacky ideas about everything else too.

Yes, just because a game differs from another, it means it is "anti" the other.

Even for you, this is a new low.

[OldTrees1]

I'm going to take a stab at modifying kyoryu's game loop to show how railroading effects the cycle.

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this!"
GM: "Okay, this is the new situation despite what you did. What do you do?"

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this!"
GM: "No you don't."

or

GM: "This is the situation."
GM: "You do this."
GM: "This is the new situation."

Yeah, these 3 examples seem to cover the spectrum of railroading fairly well(with the top being the least and the bottom being the most railroaded). I think most of the continuum falls under Cluedrew's example(since that is the formulation that people tend to be okay with to some degree or another).

[Knaight]

Actually it's more like 99.99% of the games.

I doubt it. GMless games alone probably come to more than 0.01% of games, and obviously they don't have that loop. Then there are games with more complicated loops, which include things like players temporarily taking the narrative via spending some sort of metagame currency, cuts to other groups of PCs as every player has more than one, or other such things.

[Lorsa]

I doubt it. GMless games alone probably come to more than 0.01% of games, and obviously they don't have that loop. Then there are games with more complicated loops, which include things like players temporarily taking the narrative via spending some sort of metagame currency, cuts to other groups of PCs as every player has more than one, or other such things.

Fair enough. I merely had a feeling that the 90% was underestimating a bit, but you're right that 99.99% is overestimating. Probably true statistics are hard to get, and quite irrelevant anyway.

[kyoryu]

Actually it's more like 99.99% of the games.

The other two major models that I've seen are:

GM: "This is the situation."
Player: "I modify the situation using this defined mechanical rule."
GM: "I modify the situation using this defined mechanical rule."

and...

Player 1: "This happens!"
Player 2: "Then this happens!"
Player 3: "And then this happens!"
(in this model, one of the players can be a GM, but it's not inherently necessary.)

[Darth Ultron]

Personally, I think "everyone gets to make up stuff" is one of the greatest strengths PP/TT RPGs have over computer games. If you don't like that part, you don't have to use it and that is fine. But don't act like it is some weird anti-D&D fringe movement, its not, I've seen it recommended in D&D DMing Guides.

You might note I said ''classic D&D'' and not ''all types of D&D''. I'm talking classic before 3E D&D: All powerful DM, Rules as suggestions, Unfairness, Unbalncedness, Harsh, Cruel, and very politically incorrect.

I know there are other types of styles.

It's really not. The basic loop of a roleplaying game is:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this!"
GM: "Okay, this is the new situation. What do you do?"

(There's a couple minor of variations, but this one is the case for about 90% of games).

And how is this a ''collaboration?" This is describing a player interacting with the DM's world, right? So the DM has 99.9% of the control, and the player has that mostly illusionary control over the single PC.

Most games I run using d&d are a mess of ideas my players give me and my own. I like to cooperate with my players when creating the world because I think that it makes them more involved in it.

I see a big diffrance between ''the players make a suggestion or two and then be silent and play'' and ''the players are CO-DM's making up the world as they go along even more so then the DM''.

If "just play" equals "listening to the DM and then replying with character action and occasionally rolling dice", then it is the same as the above-mentioned group hug think collaboration of fairness and happiness.

Well, no the above is ''normal game play'', like in my games.

The ''group hug think collaboration of fairness and happiness'' is playing like ''the DM says something and the players take it and shape it into something wonderful that not even the poor, poor DM could have thought of and then the players show it to the amazed DM, who gets to add a tiny touch or two and everyone just sits in amazement and awe at what was made...oh, and roll some dice maybe.''

Even for you, this is a new low.

When you hit rock bottom you can only go sideways.

[kyoryu]

You might note I said ''classic D&D'' and not ''all types of D&D''. I'm talking classic before 3E D&D: All powerful DM, Rules as suggestions, Unfairness, Unbalncedness, Harsh, Cruel, and very politically incorrect.

I know there are other types of styles.

That's a pretty interesting view of early D&D. Perhaps I'll ask some of the people I know that played with Gary or his family if they think that's accurate. Though, I'd suspect they'd disagree with at least some of the points, if not the implications thereof.

And how is this a ''collaboration?" This is describing a player interacting with the DM's world, right? So the DM has 99.9% of the control, and the player has that mostly illusionary control over the single PC.

Because the original description you took exception to was:

I say something, you say something back and the story is built out of that interaction if and when both parties are actually interested in what the other has to say.

I see a big diffrance between ''the players make a suggestion or two and then be silent and play'' and ''the players are CO-DM's making up the world as they go along even more so then the DM''.

And nobody said that. As usual, you're arguing against points people aren't making.

Well, no the above is ''normal game play'', like in my games.

The ''group hug think collaboration of fairness and happiness'' is playing like ''the DM says something and the players take it and shape it into something wonderful that not even the poor, poor DM could have thought of and then the players show it to the amazed DM, who gets to add a tiny touch or two and everyone just sits in amazement and awe at what was made...oh, and roll some dice maybe.''

Really, just try answering what people actually said instead of a twisted verison of it. It makes conversations more productive.

[Cluedrew]

You might note I said ''classic D&D'' and not ''all types of D&D''. [...] I know there are other types of styles.

I understand you know there are other styles, my point here was they are not "anti-D&D". Well there might be a few but I have never seen a game defined as "not D&D". Secondly, many of them are worth playing. Third, yes you didn't say "all types of D&D", you also didn't say "all types of RPGs".

And how is this a ''collaboration?" This is describing a player interacting with the DM's world, right? So the DM has 99.9% of the control, and the player has that mostly illusionary control over the single PC.

I agree 99.9% of the world is under the GM's control, but the world is nothing but props. How much of the script does the GM control? Usually less than half. I think you drastically underestimate the power locked inside of step 2.

An aside: What is you non-D&D role-playing game experience Darth Ultron?

[Darth Ultron]

That's a pretty interesting view of early D&D. Perhaps I'll ask some of the people I know that played with Gary or his family if they think that's accurate. Though, I'd suspect they'd disagree with at least some of the points, if not the implications thereof.

Sure, I guess if the way Gary or a couple other people you know know played one way that must mean something to the untold millions who have played the game right?

And how is this a ''collaboration?" This is describing a player interacting with the DM's world, right? So the DM has 99.9% of the control, and the player has that mostly illusionary control over the single PC.

And nobody said that. As usual, you're arguing against points people aren't making.

The co-DM idea is pretty clear, I'm not sure where you don't see it.

Normal game: DM makes up and controls everything and makes out a plot/plan/story. A player might randomly say ''this would be cool or I'd like this'', but it's utterly meaningless. Though the DM can, of course, use the players suggestion if they want too.

The other game: The DM makes up random stuff. The players then interact with the stuff, a random and the players make outright demands of ''I want this or that'' and the DM willing rolls over and says ''ok-day'' and makes whatever the players tell him to do.

An aside: What is you non-D&D role-playing game experience Darth Ultron?

Whitewolf, GRUPS, Star Wars(ye old west ends game d6), Toon, Savage worlds, Robotech, Marvel Super Heros, and, um, is Traveler the one where ''the computer is your friend?"

[Brookshw]

An aside: What is you non-D&D role-playing game experience Darth Ultron?

Just an observation but everytime I see someone bold the person they're addressing, calling them out by name, it seems they're trying to undercut the argument by the virtue of who's making it rather than upon the merits with a side of playing to the audience. When you're replying to a wall of quotes by someone its a pretty safe bet we know who you're talking to/about.

is Traveler the one where ''the computer is your friend?"

I think you're thinking of Paranoia but my security clearance isn't high enough to be sure.

[Segev]

Normal game: DM makes up and controls everything and makes out a plot/plan/story. A player might randomly say ''this would be cool or I'd like this'', but it's utterly meaningless. Though the DM can, of course, use the players suggestion if they want too.

The other game: The DM makes up random stuff. The players then interact with the stuff, a random and the players make outright demands of ''I want this or that'' and the DM willing rolls over and says ''ok-day'' and makes whatever the players tell him to do.

I am disappointed to see you back to calling anything that is not the DM's "plot/plan/story" "random." Because improvisation, as we've discussed, is not inherently random.

By your logic, if the PCs walk into a tavern and don't stick to a specified script, the NPCs saying anything that the DM hadn't written down verbatim is "random." So if the PCs attack the bartender by stabbing him, and he says "ow," him saying "ow" was "random," according to your apparent logic. Not, you know, a reasonable verbal outburst for having been stabbed. Similarly, "You jerks!" and "why would you do that!?" are random, not, again, reasonable improvisations based on the situation. Calling for help, too, is "random," because it's not to be expected that a civilian being attacked by thugs would cry out for help. It's "random," too, when a patrol of city guards (pre-established in the DM's notes to include 4 people with specified stats) show up in response to the loud cries for help.

[SirBellias]

I see a big diffrance between ''the players make a suggestion or two and then be silent and play'' and ''the players are CO-DM's making up the world as they go along even more so then the DM''.

Yes, so do I. I was just giving an example based on my experience with what works in my group. Both of those are valid options. The other DM in my group frequently runs the other way, with players less involved in building the world, and it works fine. That is due, primarily, to him planning out a few encounters he thinks would be interesting, and then improvising the rest based on what the players try to do, that makes sense in the world. After one game he told me he completely made up one of the witnesses of a robbery during the game, because we asked about it (showing interest) and it was a viable way to get us some clues we were in need of to come to the right conclusions. If he didn't have that character in there, we would have probably have spent a lot longer trying to piece together what happened, and possibly wasted time exploring dead ends.

My way is similar, except I plan less and take more suggestions. I just like to let my players do things they're interested in. There are all sorts of mediums between "barely any collaboration on startup" to "mostly player based startup," but after the game starts it is entirely driven by the player and character motivations.

Hmmm. I don't recall having a point I was trying to get at, but oh well. I guess it was that I DM one way, and typically end up playing the other way, but my experiences don't match up to either of those definitions very well.

[Lorsa]

I am disappointed to see you back to calling anything that is not the DM's "plot/plan/story" "random." Because improvisation, as we've discussed, is not inherently random.

By your logic, if the PCs walk into a tavern and don't stick to a specified script, the NPCs saying anything that the DM hadn't written down verbatim is "random." So if the PCs attack the bartender by stabbing him, and he says "ow," him saying "ow" was "random," according to your apparent logic. Not, you know, a reasonable verbal outburst for having been stabbed. Similarly, "You jerks!" and "why would you do that!?" are random, not, again, reasonable improvisations based on the situation. Calling for help, too, is "random," because it's not to be expected that a civilian being attacked by thugs would cry out for help. It's "random," too, when a patrol of city guards (pre-established in the DM's notes to include 4 people with specified stats) show up in response to the loud cries for help.

Since neither Darth Ultron's, nor any other DM's life follow a specific pre-planned script, we can only conclude that all actions and decisions taken by Darth Ultron and everyone else are inherently random, therefore all games are random. Since random applied to all games, it is not a good qualifier to differentiate between different games, especially not railroading vs. no railroading.

[OldTrees1]

Since neither Darth Ultron's, nor any other DM's life follow a specific pre-planned script, we can only conclude that all actions and decisions taken by Darth Ultron and everyone else are inherently random, therefore all games are random. Since random applied to all games, it is not a good qualifier to differentiate between different games, especially not railroading vs. no railroading.

Nope, try again. When critiquing someone like Darth Ultron you are held to a higher standard than them. Darth would just reply "It doesn't matter if the cause of a script was random, a script is railroading not random" (I think my English->Darth translation worked ).

Darth's definition of "random" is crazy and harmful to his ability to understand the situation, but it is a consistent distinction (although we here would call it Tyrant and EverythingElse because he includes an awful lot of railroading inside his category he dubs "random").

[Lorsa]

Sure, I guess if the way Gary or a couple other people you know know played one way that must mean something to the untold millions who have played the game right?

Considering you brought up early D&D and how it was played (and the role of the DM), I think Gary is extremely relevant. I mean, if he didn't play that way, it can only mean the other way you are describing is the one that is "anti-D&D".

The co-DM idea is pretty clear, I'm not sure where you don't see it.

Normal game: DM makes up and controls everything and makes out a plot/plan/story. A player might randomly say ''this would be cool or I'd like this'', but it's utterly meaningless. Though the DM can, of course, use the players suggestion if they want too.

The other game: The DM makes up random stuff. The players then interact with the stuff, a random and the players make outright demands of ''I want this or that'' and the DM willing rolls over and says ''ok-day'' and makes whatever the players tell him to do.

You do know that nobody agrees with you with what is a "normal game"?

To most of us a "normal game" = The DM controls the world, and the players control the actions of their characters within that world.

After that, there isn't a THE other game, there are many different games, ranging from the DM controls everything, including the actions of the PCs, to there isn't a DM at all.