Plot Railroading: How much?

[Frozen_Feet]

"Giving people what they want" is reasonable only when the want is itself reasonable. "Giving people what they want" is not reasonable when a want is stupid. There should be no default, each want should examined on its own merit.

As for telling people... did you see me advocate somewhere that you should not tell people what you're giving them? No, you did not. If you somehow cheated yourself into thinking otherwise, you failed the generosity principle.

[ImNotTrevor]

Me refusing to participate in whatever wants and desires involving myself rather straightforwardly negatively affect people's capacity to choose to fullfill those things. That you choose to pick that nit suggests to me you didn't actually get what I disagreed with or how.

To recap: you are under no obligation to give people whatever stupid thing they want. This is important because you made an obtuse two-fold claim: "no more, no less"

If you had worded your claim as "enough railroading is at most what a group wants", we wouldn't be here. When someone asks for something with a sideorder of stupid, you can always nix the stupid part. If someone asks for a cheeseburger with extra salt and you know salt is bad for them, you can nix the salt. If someone asks for a railroad game, you can always give them a non-railroad game instead.

Pretending that fullfilling the exact wish is somehow better when the exact wish is stupid is obtuse. Their capacity to choose can be neglected, because when you are the cook or the GM or whatever, the choice is yours. Not theirs.

You're pretending like their preference in trpgs is in any way comparable in scale to choices that are litetally bad for your health and well-being.

This is laughable and as a sane person i dismiss it out of hand.

As a GM or player you can opt out of any style of game you dislike. Trying to sneakily give them what they don't want is disrespectful.

(And again, compating trpg style preference to things that harm your heath is asenine exaggerstion in the extreme. )

[Frozen_Feet]

It is you who made the comparison to unhealthy food, I simply ran with it. I initially made no such comparison and if you think that's the extent of my argument, you too fail the generosity principle and are engaging in a strawman argument. In the post where I outlined my disagreement, my scale for ignoring your wishes starts from stupid and counter-productive; the remark that people's wishes can carry from there to "even harmfull" does not constitute a claim that railroading is harmfull.

You are free to argue for non-harmfullness of attitudes related to tabletop games; you maybe right, you maybe wrong, but it makes a poor counter-argument because my statement was and is not limited to tabletop. Even if we move just to adjacent hobby of Live-action Roleplaying, suddenly the thing "no sane person would take seriously" is taken seriously enough that a person here was given an award for writing a book about it.

[Max_Killjoy]

You can have railroads and meaningful player agency. If their actions have consequences then they have some degree of agency.

Then you've already started to leave the railroad.

[ImNotTrevor]

It is you who made the comparison to unhealthy food, I simply ran with it. I initially made no such comparison and if you think that's the extent of my argument, you too fail the generosity principle and are engaging in a strawman argument. In the post where I outlined my disagreement, my scale for ignoring your wishes starts from stupid and counter-productive; the remark that people's wishes can carry from there to "even harmfull" does not constitute a claim that railroading is harmfull.

"What i said had secret meaning and your failure to divine this meaning is your fault."

Speak clearly what you mean. It is your job to make your point clearly, not my job to read your mind.

You are free to argue for non-harmfullness of attitudes related to tabletop games; you maybe right, you maybe wrong, but it makes a poor counter-argument because my statement was and is not limited to tabletop. Even if we move just to adjacent hobby of Live-action Roleplaying, suddenly the thing "no sane person would take seriously" is taken seriously enough that a person here was given an award for writing a book about it.

Uhuh.
So this conversation about trpgs is suddenly not about that.

Mmmmmmmmmk.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I think this disagreement may just stem from a slightly different definition of a railroad. For me, if I had players actually honestly ask me to railroad them I'd probably want to clarify with them that we're even working with the same definition.

[Quertus]

I think this disagreement may just stem from a slightly different definition of a railroad. For me, if I had players actually honestly ask me to railroad them I'd probably want to clarify with them that we're even working with the same definition.

"I want you to make this like a video game, where we have to follow the clues, read your mind, and use trial and error to solve the adventure in the one and only one way that you have designed for the story."

"I want you to heavy-handedly prevent any creative PC action that you hadn't planned for, no matter how obviously it ought to work. Ideally, you'll punish those players who dare to think and be more creative than you so hard that they'll quit the game."

"Adding in threats that are way above our pay grade, so that we really can't accomplish anything anyway, and need to constantly be bailed out by your super cool, nigh-omnipotent DMPCs, is an added bonus."

Can you run that railroad?

[Tinkerer]

"I want you to make this like a video game, where we have to follow the clues, read your mind, and use trial and error to solve the adventure in the one and only one way that you have designed for the story."

"I want you to heavy-handedly prevent any creative PC action that you hadn't planned for, no matter how obviously it ought to work. Ideally, you'll punish those players who dare to think and be more creative than you so hard that they'll quit the game."

"Adding in threats that are way above our pay grade, so that we really can't accomplish anything anyway, and need to constantly be bailed out by your super cool, nigh-omnipotent DMPCs, is an added bonus."

Can you run that railroad?

I don't know about Koo but with the exception of that last paragraph yes, yes I could. And I have. It was a very particular concept game designed to run in a format that allowed for next to no communication and which was intended to run for about 2 months. It was a lot of fun for what it was. Due to limited communication time excessive creative input was discouraged since that often takes more time and it was a competitive thing between two teams so the GM was encourage to be as strict with the rules as possible. Kinda a cross between an RPG, a puzzle, and chess.

[The Extinguisher]

"I want you to make this like a video game, where we have to follow the clues, read your mind, and use trial and error to solve the adventure in the one and only one way that you have designed for the story."

"I want you to heavy-handedly prevent any creative PC action that you hadn't planned for, no matter how obviously it ought to work. Ideally, you'll punish those players who dare to think and be more creative than you so hard that they'll quit the game."

"Adding in threats that are way above our pay grade, so that we really can't accomplish anything anyway, and need to constantly be bailed out by your super cool, nigh-omnipotent DMPCs, is an added bonus."

Can you run that railroad?

Those are super loaded.

But yeah, o could run a puzzle mystery, where finding the solution is the only objective. I could run it in a world where the players are severely restricted in their options, maybe like in a computer or something and they can only interact through specific actions. And let's make it horror, so threats are dangerous and are meant to be avoided, not confronted.

I don't know what game this cyber murder mystery is best in but I'm sure it's out there.

[Max_Killjoy]

"I want you to make this like a video game, where we have to follow the clues, read your mind, and use trial and error to solve the adventure in the one and only one way that you have designed for the story."

"I want you to heavy-handedly prevent any creative PC action that you hadn't planned for, no matter how obviously it ought to work. Ideally, you'll punish those players who dare to think and be more creative than you so hard that they'll quit the game."

"Adding in threats that are way above our pay grade, so that we really can't accomplish anything anyway, and need to constantly be bailed out by your super cool, nigh-omnipotent DMPCs, is an added bonus."

Can you run that railroad?

Indeed.

To me, those are examples of actual railroading.

(Not "I want to make railroading not-bad so I'm going to push a false dichotomy between ill-defined railroading, and a strawman about total chaos and do-nothing GMs and aimless wandering campaigns" railroading.)

[Florian]

Can you run that railroad?

Sure, without flinching, at least if I have to (you know having to gm but absolutely no time to prep)

[Frozen_Feet]

"What i said had secret meaning and your failure to divine this meaning is your fault."

Speak clearly what you mean. It is your job to make your point clearly, not my job to read your mind.

1) There was no secret, I specified stupid, counter-productive or harmfull from the get-go.
2) generosity principle (AKA principle of charity) is a thing. There was never need for you to assume that I think railroading falls into "harmfull" category because it was irrelevant to the overall point.

That isn't reading my mind. That's not casting my point as something "no sane person would take seriously" when there is a broader reading available which does not possess that quality.

Uhuh.
So this conversation about trpgs is suddenly not about that.

Mmmmmmmmmk.

Just because we're talking about trpgs doesn't mean a point is limited in applicability to them. Again, you yourself thought the comparison to fast food, drinking and smoking was somehow material. Let's play another "What if?" : If you had left the comparison out and simply said "you have neither authority nor responsibility to decide that", I would've simply answered "if I'm the GM, I have all the authority, and as much responsibility as anyone has in tabletop games". And once more, we wouldn't be here.

[kyoryu]

Can you run that railroad?

Well, yes, for the non-strawman versions of the game.

"I want a game where you have prepared the situation enough that we have to work with what is prepared in the game to solve the problem, rather than just making up things, because that way it feels more real to me."

"I want a game with a strong, well-written plot with interesting twists and turns."

"I want a world with threats that really scare us and cool NPCs that will go with us on our adventures."

Now, I probably still *wouldn't* run that game, because I don't like railroads, but there's no reason to misrepresent the view of people that like those things.

[BRC]

For me, "Railroading" comes, not from the planning, but from the moment of Denial.


When I run a game, I often have a pretty good idea of how it's going to go. I don't claim to be some sort of super genius chessmaster, but in my experience players are pretty easy to predict, and will often accept the challenge put in front of them, even if the solution is something as straightforwards as "Go Kill Things". In situations where the solution is less straightforward, it's not especially difficult to determine a handful of obvious solutions, and have some thoughts ready for whichever one they choose.

I don't consider any of this a problem. Not every campaign needs to be a sandbox, and there's often plenty of room for creative solutions in a given adventure, enough to scratch the Player's itch.

For example, my adventure notes might read

Previous session: The PC's discovered that Cultists had kidnapped several villagers!

This session:
Stage 1) PC's find Cult hideout, either by tracking the cultist raiders, getting information out of the villagers about strange sounds coming from the old mine, or finding and interrogating the Cult's spy within the village.
Stage 2) PC's assault the Mine. Primary entrance is guarded by several Cultists and an Ogre Zombie. Secondary air shaft might work as an entrance, guarded by traps.

Stage 3) Cult Leader is preparing to sacrifice Villagers at midnight, Leader and six Cultists are in the sacrificial chamber at the bottom of the mine, along with the villagers.


If I put this adventure in front of my players, I'd feel reasonably confident that they would end up defeating the Cult Leader and rescuing the villagers. I may, in fact, start laying some loose plans around that assumption.


The Problem doesn't happen during my planning step, it happens during Play, it happens when I say "No, you can't do that, because it's not what I want to happen", or if I start inventing nonsensical reasons why certain solutions won't work to justify "No You Can't Do That".

If, for whatever reason, the PC's don't get to the cult hideout in time, that's fine. The Villagers are dead.
If they decide to rally an angry mob of peasants to help them storm the hideout, I shouldn't say "No"
If they try to talk the cultists at the door into overthrowing, and sacrificing, the cult leader instead, that's not going to be an easy route, but I shouldn't try to stop them.
If they decide to ignore this whole plot hook and go elsewhere, that's a valid choice (there may be consequences for it, but it's still valid).

Even if there is only one valid solution (Slay the Cult Leader), there's plenty of opportunity for creativity and expression within combat. If you find your players are chafing against the walls you've built, you should start building fewer walls.


It's pretty hard to railroad in the planning stage, at least not unless it is your intention (Which sometimes it is. Some GM's don't realize that railroading is a bad thing, and so they intentionally build their adventures to be railroaded, but realizing that is a bad thing is easy, and it's easier to make unrailroaded adventures than railroaded ones).

"I want you to make this like a video game, where we have to follow the clues, read your mind, and use trial and error to solve the adventure in the one and only one way that you have designed for the story."

"I want you to heavy-handedly prevent any creative PC action that you hadn't planned for, no matter how obviously it ought to work. Ideally, you'll punish those players who dare to think and be more creative than you so hard that they'll quit the game."

"Adding in threats that are way above our pay grade, so that we really can't accomplish anything anyway, and need to constantly be bailed out by your super cool, nigh-omnipotent DMPCs, is an added bonus."

Can you run that railroad?

I mean, yes. I could.

Heck, if they want me to I could brainstorm my best fantasy adventure novel featuring their OCs, and we could just do a group reading of that and skip all the "Dice" stuff altogether. If that's what they want, I don't see a problem with it.

[Frozen_Feet]

"I want you to make this like a video game, where we have to follow the clues, read your mind, and use trial and error to solve the adventure in the one and only one way that you have designed for the story."

Would've been faster to say "can we play Twenty Questions?"

Can you run that railroad?

Yes, but why should I?

---

Well, yes, for the non-strawman versions of the game.

[ . . . ]

Now, I probably still *wouldn't* run that game, because I don't like railroads, but there's no reason to misrepresent the view of people that like those things.

Your examples aren't non-straw versions of Quertus's examples, they aren't even superficially similar save for the first entries on the list. More to the point, all of those wishes can be implemented as non-railroad scenarios so why would you call them railroads?

[Tinkerer]

Well, yes, for the non-strawman versions of the game.

"I want a game where you have prepared the situation enough that we have to work with what is prepared in the game to solve the problem, rather than just making up things, because that way it feels more real to me."

"I want a game with a strong, well-written plot with interesting twists and turns."

"I want a world with threats that really scare us and cool NPCs that will go with us on our adventures."

Now, I probably still *wouldn't* run that game, because I don't like railroads, but there's no reason to misrepresent the view of people that like those things.

One could view that as another misrepresentation though because there is nothing on your list which requires railroading. Indeed the example you gave appears to be against railroading because of the first sentence in quotation marks. In a railroaded game the GM has to go outside of what was prepared and make up things in order to block players from pursuing any type of action which would take them off the rails.

EDIT: Mostly ninja'd

[jayem]

For me, "Railroading" comes, not from the planning, but from the moment of Denial.
...
This session:
Stage 1) PC's [try to] find Cult hideout, either by tracking the cultist raiders, getting information out of the villagers about strange sounds coming from the old mine, or finding and interrogating the Cult's spy within the village.
Stage 2) PC's assault the Mine. Primary entrance is guarded by several Cultists and an Ogre Zombie. Secondary air shaft might work as an entrance, guarded by traps.
Stage 3) Cult Leader is preparing to sacrifice Villagers at midnight, Leader and six Cultists are in the sacrificial chamber at the bottom of the mine, along with the villagers.
....

The nice thing with that is that you instantly have (three+) options that have great potential for putting a different spin on Stage 2. If they track the cultist raiders they perhaps have more time/or can explore the area carefully (find the air shaft). If they ask the villagers they might find the back air shaft (and then find main gate). If they interrogate the spy they know the finish (and perhaps a passcode).
Ultimately their destination will be the same (probably) but the little journey will be different, and it will be the players choice.

[Max_Killjoy]

For me, "Railroading" comes, not from the planning, but from the moment of Denial.

Agreed.

Which is part of what makes the whole "railroading = plot = planning = 'the opposite of total chaos caused by selfish jerkidiot players and do-nothing DMs'" fallacy so tiresome.

[ZamielVanWeber]

For me, "Railroading" comes, not from the planning, but from the moment of Denial.

The Problem doesn't happen during my planning step, it happens during Play, it happens when I say "No, you can't do that, because it's not what I want to happen", or if I start inventing nonsensical reasons why certain solutions won't work to justify "No You Can't Do That".

I wanted these two to be juxtaposed. As a DM it is alright to say "No," but it cannot be for the examples illustrated above and even then alternate avenues should be explored. The Denial, at least as far as I view railroading=bad, should come from the DM's unwillingness to permit the party to do something. If it comes from incapacity and the DM is willing to generate the needed information for next session then I would not view them as having some anything wrong.

[Pleh]

For me, "Railroading" comes, not from the planning, but from the moment of Denial.

In fact, you could go a bit further and notate the difference between denying it in game as opposed to out of game.

Few people would cry about, "railroading" if the DM just stepped out of character and admitted they were not prepared to provide material for the players' alternative path. Few people would be upset that the DM wants to get the chance to run the stuff they spent time setting up.

So "railroading" comes at denial, but really is also a problem of solving OOC issues with IC responses.

[2D8HP]

If the ever wise, witty (and stylish) kyoryu wasn't already posting to this thread, I would quote him first, and if I WASN'T SO VERY HUMBLE I would quote myself

correct

... at length on the dangers of "Locked into Lameness" (my prefered term for what most criticize as "railroading" and "Empty Room Worlds" (underprepared and/or lazy GM'ing)

...2D8HP's Empty Room comes in when the DM hasn't prepared anything at all and is unwilling or unable to lead the PCs in any particular direction, so you can see that Empty Room is the "anti-railroad,"...

....I think the opposite would be something like the empty room 2D8HP described. Instead of too much pre-planning and focus on the world and background characters, there is too little...

But "Empty Room" also results from "Passive-Aggressive Railroading" ("If your not going to follow the tracks, NO ADVENTURE FOR YOU"), but you know if everyone's upfront and friendly ("Sorry guys, that's all I prepared", rather than "MY STORY DAMN YOU") I forgive a lot.

Oh there's also player led "Competitive Soliloquies" in the mix as well.

Anyway many of the "usually suspects" are posting in this thread like the last time we had this dance (Hello! ), so I don't have many left to quote who aren't posting themselves, but I still have:

....One of the most delightful feelings that can come from playing the game is the feeling of having out-witted the DM. Your job is to provide enough background and props and other complications that it's possible to do so. Describe the walls, stairs, furnishings, trees, rocks, streams, etc. Give them terrain and props to do things with. Nobody can swing from the chandeliers, or pull a rug out from under the bad guys' feet, or turn over a table, unless there's a chandelier, rug, and table.

When somebody comes up with an idea, don't ask what skills they have. Picture the scene in your mind and decide how likely it is to occur.

One consequence is that you shouldn't invent the way out of the situation. If you do that, then they aren't outwitting the DM; they are just following his path. And if they don't find his path, then they fail.

Create a situation with no obvious way out, and then any idea the players have can be the clever way to win, and they have just outwitted you.

What people think they want today is a safe encounter they can defeat easily. But what they will want tomorrow is to have been in a deadly encounter which they barely escaped, due to their own ideas and cleverness.

Everybody hates railroading. But we often mean very different things when we say it. For instance:

Spoiler: Levels of railroading, spoilered for length

Show

No Railroading: an entire world is defined. Go anywhere, do anything, and we’ll simulate the results.

Railroading, level 1: I’ve designed a continent. Please don’t try to plane shift or sail away.

Railroading, level 2: There’s a tyrant who is the big bad evil guy. He’s oppressing your people. Try anything you like, but he’s the real enemy.

Railroading, level 3: You've been hired to take out the BBEG. There’s a town here to interact with, and a forest with many paths you could take on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG

Railroading, level 4: There’s a town here to interact with, followed by a road north through five designed encounters on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG.

Railroading, level 5: You must equip yourselves, leave town, follow the road north to the castle, and defeat the BBEG. You cannot buy a sword without locating the blacksmith. You cannot leave town without paying the gate tax. You cannot get past the goblins except by combat. You cannot get past the gnolls without a sleep spell. You cannot find the castle without a compass. You cannot enter the castle gate without a Knock spell. You cannot go down the first corridor without pulling the red lever. You cannot open the door at the end of the corridor without standing on the right flagstone. You cannot …

You could easily invent many more levels.

But the point is that the game with no railroading doesn't really exist, and would most likely be dull. How would we find the adventurous parts?

The original objections IO heard about railroading were objection to level 5 - traps with only one escape, puzzles with only one solution.

The best games I've been in have all been pretty far up the railroading scale - levels 3 or 4 out of 5, as defined above.

So we should probably be careful when describing something as "railroading". Very often we are objecting to the actual adventure.

Now full disclosure, instead of my just complaining about a lack of willing GM's

or just giving

advice to others

(no matter that my wisdom IS OBVIOUS

I find myself generally agreeing with 2d8HP..

)

I have given some consideration to "putting on the hat" again.

Now when I first DM'd I would minutely detail out a location (in a Dungeon natch'), and so be prepared whether the PC's would turn left or right etc, but I don't have that kind of time anymore.

Later I just improvised most everthing (which were the games my players most enjoyed), but I'm out of practice, and I'm just don't have the mental agility I once had, so now I seek advice on "hiding tracks":

It's been decades since I successfully GM'd and obviously I should practice more with pre-gen adventures to get my feet wet, but that's boring!

So... some advice please.

I'm doubtful that I may still be able to improvise like I once could, so it's time for some hypocrisy: Quantum Ogres and hidden (hopefully) tracks railroading!

Here's the dilemmas I perceive in herding the players characters to stick to what I've prepared...

My assumption is that most of what is criticized as "railroading" is due to inexperienced or out of practice GM's, what reasons would there be otherwise?

[ImNotTrevor]

1) There was no secret, I specified stupid, counter-productive or harmfull from the get-go.

Concepts which, gramatically, you associated with Railroading.
Sentence structure still holds sway here. If you want harmful to apply to something else, you need to specify that. Since the most recent like you were talking about was railroadinh

2) generosity principle (AKA principle of charity) is a thing. There was never need for you to assume that I think railroading falls into "harmfull" category because it was irrelevant to the overall point.

Why are you making points about not-railroading in a thread about railroading?
And then getting mad that someone associated that point to THE TOPIC?
Your wikipedia link is real neato but not is a suggestion, not a rule, and certainly shouldn't be used to try and cover up your erroneous communication. Come on, man.

"That's not what I meant to communicate. What I meant to say was:" is sufficient.

That isn't reading my mind. That's not casting my point as something "no sane person would take seriously" when there is a broader reading available which does not possess that quality.

I tend not to look for broader readings when talking in the context of a narrow topic. If you want to go broader, indicate such. This is called Clarity of Communication.

Just because we're talking about trpgs doesn't mean a point is limited in applicability to them.

Sure, but these other applications are irrelevant at best and red herrings at worst. In no wise do they matter here.

Again, you yourself thought the comparison to fast food, drinking and smoking was somehow material. Let's play another "What if?" : If you had left the comparison out and simply said "you have neither authority nor responsibility to decide that", I would've simply answered "if I'm the GM, I have all the authority, and as much responsibility as anyone has in tabletop games". And once more, we wouldn't be here.

You'd still be factually wrong because you have no authority or responsibility to dictate their CHOICES or their PREFERENCES. Unless you have obtained a mind-control device, the only choices and preferences you have any sort of control over are yours. You can make a suggestion, but if the answer is no, it's no.
Again, opting out of that campaign or opting out of having that player is choosing not to participate in their preference or choice, which is fundamentally different from weilding your authority to enforce that they play a certain way.

Problems come from the latter, not the former.

(GMs also don't have all the authority. You have as much as your players let you have. They have feet, and will travel.)

[2D8HP]

...Interesting that you believe that players can railroad a game. Can you explain / give an example?

I'm not who you asked, but yes a insistent player can make another meeker player or even the GM act against their preferences. The "classic" is some existing players telling a newer one, "No you can't play a fighter, we need a healer so you'll play a cleric, "We already have a Magic-User, you can't play one".

"YOU WILL CHECK FOR TRAPS"!

"No GM we don't wanna play your stupid Elf game, we want Cyberpunk", "No we don't want Cyberpunk we want Vampires", "FATE! No we want to play rules were used to", etc.

Two or even one strong-willed players can insist on the others going their way against the others preferences, this especially common when they're new or even just young players.

Basically peer pressure or bullying.

If it's one person doing the insisting than the rest usually walk, but just two bullies can bend a table to their will

[Cluedrew]

I have a problem with the idea that it is wrong to use ''force''. As if the players must agree with everything the DM does before the DM can do it.

You are focusing on the wrong thing that is forced. The players don't have to agree with everything the GM does, nor does the GM have to agree with everything the players do*. In fact if they did that would be more forcing things than otherwise.

Put a different way, railroading is thinking you know the answer to the question "what happens next?" and when you are wrong, trying to make it come out that way. So not agreeing with what happened, but rolling with it anyways is the opposite of railroading.

* In both cases, anything like "can we not have rape in this game" operates under different rules.

Interesting that you believe that players can railroad a game. Can you explain / give an example?

Well the only tool a regular player lacking is the default control of the setting (those things can change). They have all the same out-of-game tools, and your character gives you plenty of in-game tools to build on that. Still it mostly happens out-of-game in that case, unless your character completely outstrips the other characters. (I have heard of that in a few stories.)

[2D8HP]

I haven't read any posts after the first one, but My friend doesn't like my character being good looks like a bit player on player "railroading" to me.

Note to Darth Ultron: The term "railroaded" meaning "coerced" existed before D&D, so in trying to define "railroading" as "GM directed" or "linear plot" you're fighting that.

I use the phrase of (hopefully) hidden track railroading to describe my trying to provide enough "plot carrots" that the players will want to go to areas that I've prepared an adventure for, and not discover an "Empty Room" (perhaps I should call it "herding"?).

Anyway, unless I'm reading from a text, and the PC's have no agency at all (the point of which escapes me), no matter what improvisation is always called for in my experience.

[kyoryu]

For me, "Railroading" comes, not from the planning, but from the moment of Denial.

I disagree.

I think railroading occurs when the GM decides that "here is the series of events or encounters the players will go through." If you've decided that here's the path, come hell or high water, then that's a railroad. The tracks are laid. If nobody tries to get off of the tracks, that doesn't mean the tracks are magically gone.

That's why people split railroading into two things: Participationism (the players know there's a railroad and agree to go for a ride) and illusionism (the GM pretends there's no railroad, but works to keep people "on the path"). Both are railroading.

But a lot of times people will plan out what will happen but say "but if that's not what happens, okay". The problem is that when you've invested in a path, it's really, really easy to start subtly pushing for that to happen in various ways.

I don't plan a series of events, specifically to avoid that. I never plan what the players will do. I do plan the major antagonists. I plan their agendas, and what they're going to do. I know who they are, what they want, and what they'll do to get it. Then it's basically pool - the players shoot the ball (do something), and balls get hit and bounce around and make other things happen.

That's the alternative to both "railroading" and "empty room" games. Active antagonists that want things, and have their own agendas, that can essentially be played like pseudo-PCs. The issue there is that that style of gameplay doesn't really work for "probing" sorts of games, which many people like.

[Quertus]

So, in playing devil's advocate for koo, I said what I imagined a player asking for a railroad might say. And several of the responses I got back are why I no longer just claim "railroading is bad". It's decidedly not for me, but others clearly can enjoy at least certain aspects of railroading.

Well, yes, for the non-strawman versions of the game.

"I want a game where you have prepared the situation enough that we have to work with what is prepared in the game to solve the problem, rather than just making up things, because that way it feels more real to me."

"I want a game with a strong, well-written plot with interesting twists and turns."

"I want a world with threats that really scare us and cool NPCs that will go with us on our adventures."

Now, I probably still *wouldn't* run that game, because I don't like railroads, but there's no reason to misrepresent the view of people that like those things.

I wasn't making a straw man, I was describing actual railroads, especially many that GMs have tried to put me on. So, uh, describing my experiences, and what I imagine players asking for more of the same might sound like, in response to, "if a player asked for a railroad, I'd ask them wtf they mean" can't really be made of straw, can it?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of players "just making things up" - railroading usually involves players using what has been provided, and the GM just making stuff up / changing facts or changing the rules to keep the story on the rails.

As to the rest, I'm curious how those who like railroads respond to both of our descriptions.

I'm not who you asked, but yes a insistent player can make another meeker player or even the GM act against their preferences. The "classic" is some existing players telling a newer one, "No you can't play a fighter, we need a healer so you'll play a cleric, "We already have a Magic-User, you can't play one".

"YOU WILL CHECK FOR TRAPS"!

"No GM we don't wanna play your stupid Elf game, we want Cyberpunk", "No we don't want Cyberpunk we want Vampires", "FATE! No we want to play rules were used to", etc.

Two or even one strong-willed players can insist on the others going their way against the others preferences, this especially common when they're new or even just young players.

Basically peer pressure or bullying.

If it's one person doing the insisting than the rest usually walk, but just two bullies can bend a table to their will

Well the only tool a regular player lacking is the default control of the setting (those things can change). They have all the same out-of-game tools, and your character gives you plenty of in-game tools to build on that. Still it mostly happens out-of-game in that case, unless your character completely outstrips the other characters. (I have heard of that in a few stories.)

... To me, railroading is when the GM changes facts / changes the rules to make player actions not have their logical outcomes in order to keep the story on its pre-assigned rails. Players can't really do that, can they?

Hmmm... or a GM can railroad a certain outcome by fudging rolls. And players can fudge rolls - that is a tool they have in common. Yet I've stated in other threads that I don't care when other players fudge dice. I may need to reevaluate my positions for consistency in light of this juxtaposition of data.

As to the bullying... That's totally me. "WTF, dude, you've sent nothing but monsters immune to sneak attack since Player started playing a rogue. That's uncool. Shape up." I'll totally hold the game and the GMs reputation hostage if they're being a ****. So you'd call that "railroading"?

[2D8HP]

.....The issue there is that that style of gameplay doesn't really work for "probing" sorts of games, which many people like.

"Probing"?

---

....So you'd call that "railroading"?

In gamer-speak "railroading" seems to mostly mean "linear one way plot", but in colloquial English "railroaded" means "made/pressured to do something against their will", so an innocent person who is convinced to confess to a crime because of the threat of an even worse punishment if they don't may be said to be "railroaded". There's a value judgment involved, a gunman who is convinced to give up hostages is typically referred to as "persuaded" rather than "railroaded". In the example you gave, it would depend on who seemed like a bigger jerk. If both parties seem at fault then it's a "squabble".

Oh, there's also "Model Railroading" (toy trains), perhaps I may "railroad" gamerdom into re-defining "railroading" as using miniatures?
(in my day we called them lead figures because they were made of good tasty wholesome lead. No dain brammage resulted neither dagnabbit!)

[kyoryu]

I wasn't making a straw man, I was describing actual railroads, especially many that GMs have tried to put me on. So, uh, describing my experiences, and what I imagine players asking for more of the same might sound like, in response to, "if a player asked for a railroad, I'd ask them wtf they mean" can't really be made of straw, can it?

You're describing how *you* see railroads, and the common things in them, and focusing on the negative aspects of them.

I was trying to turn that around and look at what the potential positives are. (For what it's worth, I'm in the anti-railroad camp). So, no, a player probably won't ask to have his plans foiled at every turn, but he might well ask for a detailed, intricate plot - which requires, to a certain extent, that the players go along with what the GM has planned. And so on.

I mean, I don't railroad, which means I don't have a lot of cool set pieces, because I don't know when or where those things will happen in most cases. If you want those things, you have to basically agree to the railroad, because otherwise I can't get you *to* the cool set piece, right?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of players "just making things up" - railroading usually involves players using what has been provided, and the GM just making stuff up / changing facts or changing the rules to keep the story on the rails.

One of the things I've seen with people that want lots and lots and lots of prep (and often railroady type stuff) is that they want to have the feeling that everything is prepared in advance, and that the GM doesn't just describe on-the-fly what's reasonable and what's not. You can only do that if you know where the PCs must go - which is often an indicator of railroading (unless you're doing a megadungeon or something of the like).

As to the rest, I'm curious how those who like railroads respond to both of our descriptions.

It's an alternate prep style, and is mostly meant as a response to "if you're not railroading, you're just making everything up on the fly and obviously aren't doing prep." You can still do prep, it's just different prep - situation prep, not a series of encounters.

"Probing"?

Yeah, it's the style of play where the players are given an unknown thing, and they basically poke and prod it to find out what they can safely do with it before deciding what is reasonable.

Dungeon crawls are almost always "probing" games.

[Florian]

As to the rest, I'm curious how those who like railroads respond to both of our descriptions.

I think a lot comes down to what level of player agency is associated with certain game systems and derived play styles/settings/the stories that are told.

For example, D&D has a steady rise in power and hands out more and more options, broadening and deepening overall agency, while having a steady focus on the party, and only the party.
Contrast that to L5R where the limits to agency are a major theme in play and the chosen era to play in modifying this further, or DSA, where you often play a "everyday hero" touching the outskirts of the "big picture" where the real power players are, but never going to reach that level.

So if we were to start a fresh L5R campaign set in the Clan War era, the characters will have a social rank of 2 or 3, ultimately limiting their agency, while the major plot that will happen in the back- or foreground will have a constant impact on the happening. Part of the appeal is the struggle of a "common samurai" when a major war break out and if you decide to play a Scorpion Clan character, you must even know that you will ultimately lose.