Plot Railroading: How much?

[Tinkerer]

It seems, to me, to be extremely compatible with those definitions. Which do you see it being incompatible with?

Here's my basic definition of railroading:

A railroad is a game where the GM will determine the contents and ordering of all important scenes/encounters in the game. So, the GM decides you'll go here, then here, then there. The players may get to decide "okay, we go to the market", or "okay we look in this place", but the important things will be determined by the GM - if you look in an unimportant place, you won't find anything useful. You can change some of the fluff, but not the meat.

Note that in some cases the GM will determine what the scenes are - but you might determine the order. Or something similar. It's possible for a game to be railroady without being a pure railroad.

Note that this isn't a value judgement at all, but rather descriptive, and there's certainly value in the GM getting to prep all the scenes before a game! It means the prep can be far more detailed, and encounters can be better customized.

It also doesn't talk about "forcing" or illusionism. If everyone agrees to get on the train, you're still on a railroad.

To reiterate - there's nothing inherently wrong with railroads. They're just not why I play games. They're perfectly awesome for a number of people.

This is where tying it back to the definition of a railroaded court case or government bill comes into play. A judgement which was forced through ignoring the normal conditions which would normally apply. It also helps to illustrate the negative connotations associated with it. Now every accused criminal has the right to a fair trial right? Well with a railroaded accused criminal that right gets bypassed. They don't have the opportunity to defend themselves, or in the instance of a government bill it doesn't receive the consideration which it normally should. The conclusion was reached before the case was even started.

Saying that the definition doesn't include being "forced" in it as a positive note for the definition when being forced is the very thing being objected to and explicitly referenced in several of the definitions which I listed is the part which I find incompatible.

[The Extinguisher]

That's not what people are saying, and you would know that if you read the things you are saying. Railroading isn't "having a linear game". It's "having a linear game that pretends to be a sanbox until you go off the rails". It's absolutely fine to have a linear game. Have all the linear games you want. Just don't dress them up like sandbox games. If you don't want to give me an option, fine. But don't say you've given me the option, then act all offended when I try to use it.

To go back to the horror game discussion, it's fine if the game doesn't give the players the ability to kill all the monsters with impunity. But if the game gives you an option that should let you kill all the monsters with impunity, stopping the players because you don't want that to happen is bad DMing.

Sure, but how much of that is a GM misrepresenting their linear game, and how much of it is the non GM players assuming it's a sandbox game? I've said from the very beginning that sitting down and talking about the game before hand is the best possible way to avoid these issues.

I mean yes, putting in a door when what you really want is a wall is bad design, but why can't we just call it bad design instead of using loaded buzzwords with no meaning

(Also I disagree, sometimes weird stuff happens and you need to be able to have control of the games tone. Sometimes you need to tell your players that this thing you didn't think of will break the game and you can't allow it. This isn't a bad thing)

[Cosi]

I mean yes, putting in a door when what you really want is a wall is bad design, but why can't we just call it bad design instead of using loaded buzzwords with no meaning

Because it is a specific kind of bad design. Having a mechanic that is unwieldy to use is also bad design, but it is a different kind of bad design than putting a door where you want a wall. As a result, we give them different names, and the name that we give the specific kind of bad design that includes having doors where you want walls is "railroading".

[BRC]

Because it is a specific kind of bad design. Having a mechanic that is unwieldy to use is also bad design, but it is a different kind of bad design than putting a door where you want a wall. As a result, we give them different names, and the name that we give the specific kind of bad design that includes having doors where you want walls is "railroading".

I think "Putting a Door where you want a Wall" is a bad metaphor, since that implies the GM is deliberately creating a door they don't want the players to go through, which could be done as PART of railroading, but by itself is just being a bad GM.

Railroading is more like building one door and some walls, then building walls everywhere the Players try to go until only the single door remains.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sure, but how much of that is a GM misrepresenting their linear game, and how much of it is the non GM players assuming it's a sandbox game? I've said from the very beginning that sitting down and talking about the game before hand is the best possible way to avoid these issues.

I mean yes, putting in a door when what you really want is a wall is bad design, but why can't we just call it bad design instead of using loaded buzzwords with no meaning

(Also I disagree, sometimes weird stuff happens and you need to be able to have control of the games tone. Sometimes you need to tell your players that this thing you didn't think of will break the game and you can't allow it. This isn't a bad thing)

If the GM openly says "Ooops, sorry, I didn't anticipate this, let's work out a way we can all agree on to move the game forward" or "Hey, sorry, this is outside what I had material for and I need a little time to adjust" has the benefit of the GM being open and honest. Most players I've known would appreciate that a lot more than being stonewalled or deceived.

[Drakevarg]

I think "Putting a Door where you want a Wall" is a bad metaphor, since that implies the GM is deliberately creating a door they don't want the players to go through, which could be done as PART of railroading, but by itself is just being a bad GM.

Railroading is more like building one door and some walls, then building walls everywhere the Players try to go until only the single door remains.

Part of the problem of having a habit of communicating through analogies is that they can sometimes be taken too literally.

The hallway scenario I presented was meant to display the problem with minimal variables to make it obvious. The door on the left could just as easily be a window, or a ledge, or a fork in the road. It doesn't matter. The point is that the party attempted to deviate from the DM's intended course (the door on the right) and all of their attempts to do so were stonewalled until they relented and got back on the tracks (or left the table).

[The Extinguisher]

Absolutely.

This sounds very much like where I draw the line on what is and is not railroading.

Not sure why there's an apparent effort to make "railroading" a neutral term for a broader set of things and then work back to "good railroading" and "bad railroading", when there are other terms to cover those other things, and the actual defining aspect of railroading is inherently bad on multiple levels. It violates player agency, violates the "social contract", and breaks verisimilitude. This is an issue on which I will openly and unflinchingly make an objective value statement. Railroading is by its very nature a bad act.

On your tangent, as both a player and a GM, that's where I draw the line myself -- players don't get to declare secret passages into existence in that manner, the passageway either exists or it does not. I would not enjoy an RPG or a campaign in which that happened. Here, though, I'll leave room for people who do enjoy that to enjoy it, so long they leave room for the sort of game I enjoy (I say this because I've seen repeated attempts to exclude the middle and paint anything that isn't full shared authorship ("storygames") as if it were a "railroad" or a "gamist hackandslash").

this is exactly my point. railroading cannot be both a personal line drawn in the sand and an inherently negative value statement. their incompatible because everyone will draw that line in a different place.

gaming, tabletop gaming in particular, has a real bad problem with declaring one type of gaming as "good" and all others "bad", and using terms like railroading encourages that when we need to be stopping it. talk about what games you want to run and play. be honest with other players. respect the types of games other players want to play. lumping everything you dont like about linearity and player agency into a single term does nothing to make a better community.

[Max_Killjoy]

this is exactly my point. railroading cannot be both a personal line drawn in the sand and an inherently negative value statement. their incompatible because everyone will draw that line in a different place.

gaming, tabletop gaming in particular, has a real bad problem with declaring one type of gaming as "good" and all others "bad", and using terms like railroading encourages that when we need to be stopping it. talk about what games you want to run and play. be honest with other players. respect the types of games other players want to play. lumping everything you dont like about linearity and player agency into a single term does nothing to make a better community.

This isn't about one type of game versus another, or personal preferences, or "badwrongfun".

[kyoryu]

This is where tying it back to the definition of a railroaded court case or government bill comes into play. A judgement which was forced through ignoring the normal conditions which would normally apply. It also helps to illustrate the negative connotations associated with it. Now every accused criminal has the right to a fair trial right? Well with a railroaded accused criminal that right gets bypassed. They don't have the opportunity to defend themselves, or in the instance of a government bill it doesn't receive the consideration which it normally should. The conclusion was reached before the case was even started.

Saying that the definition doesn't include being "forced" in it as a positive note for the definition when being forced is the very thing being objected to and explicitly referenced in several of the definitions which I listed is the part which I find incompatible.

My point is that, ultimately, the "forcing" comes from the fact that the GM *has* determined what encounters must happen and in what order.

That design is a prerequisite for the "forcing". If you don't have that, there's no need.

Also, by my definition, the outcome is equally certain. If the GM has already prepared the full list of encounters, then the outcome is, for all practical purposes, predetermined. The fact that the forcing doesn't need to happen if the situation happens to go that way is nice, but the structure is still the same, and the GM would absolutely do the "forcing" if necessary.

By pointing out the underlying structure, we can also look at the advantages of such a structure - the disadvantages are obvious. But by having a known, smaller space to work with, it's much easier for a GM to do a more detailed, thoughtful job of prep of the specific encounters. So long as players are okay with this, they can reap those advantages. The problem comes when they're unaware of this, and try to fight against it.

This is part of why i try to not use the "legal" railroading definition, in favor of the "train on a track" definition. The former almost always happens in service of the latter, and is almost always bad, but the latter definition is the cause of the behavior, and can, if used properly, have advantages in some games. (Even if it is not, by leaps and bounds, my preference).

[The Extinguisher]

This isn't about one type of game versus another, or personal preferences, or "badwrongfun".

In what way is "where I draw the line on what is and is not railroading" and "Railroading is by its very nature a bad act." not using personal preference to prescribe objective quality?

[BRC]

My point is that, ultimately, the "forcing" comes from the fact that the GM *has* determined what encounters must happen and in what order.

That design is a prerequisite for the "forcing". If you don't have that, there's no need.

Also, by my definition, the outcome is equally certain. If the GM has already prepared the full list of encounters, then the outcome is, for all practical purposes, predetermined. The fact that the forcing doesn't need to happen if the situation happens to go that way is nice, but the structure is still the same, and the GM would absolutely do the "forcing" if necessary.

By pointing out the underlying structure, we can also look at the advantages of such a structure - the disadvantages are obvious. But by having a known, smaller space to work with, it's much easier for a GM to do a more detailed, thoughtful job of prep of the specific encounters. So long as players are okay with this, they can reap those advantages. The problem comes when they're unaware of this, and try to fight against it.

This is part of why i try to not use the "legal" railroading definition, in favor of the "train on a track" definition. The former almost always happens in service of the latter, and is almost always bad, but the latter definition is the cause of the behavior, and can, if used properly, have advantages in some games. (Even if it is not, by leaps and bounds, my preference).

Yeah, No.

Yes, you can't force people to follow your plan if you don't have a plan. But, you can also HAVE a plan, and not force people to follow it. Your plan can be vague enough for there to be plenty of room for the PC's to show agency, and yet still be following "Your Plan".

You can also have only a very vague plan and yet still force the PC's to follow it, stonewalling any option that doesn't lead them towards your pre-determined result.

And, no matter how intricate and carefully laid your plans are, you can't railroad unless you are forcing your PC's to follow them.

Because, believe it or not, Planning is useful, even if the plans are not always followed. Good plans are made with the knowledge that you are not forcing them to happen, and the flexibility to be adjusted on the fly.

I'd like to focus on this part of your post.

Also, by my definition, the outcome is equally certain. If the GM has already prepared the full list of encounters, then the outcome is, for all practical purposes, predetermined. The fact that the forcing doesn't need to happen if the situation happens to go that way is nice, but the structure is still the same, and the GM would absolutely do the "forcing" if necessary.

You're assuming that the act of preparing the encounters means the GM is also committed to Forcing those encounters. The encounters are just notes on paper, nothing more. They have no special hold over the GM, and can be altered or discarded at any time.

[Scripten]

In what way is "where I draw the line on what is and is not railroading" and "Railroading is by its very nature a bad act." not using personal preference to prescribe objective quality?

In the same way that has been repeatedly described in this thread: "It violates player agency, violates the "social contract", and breaks verisimilitude." As Max_Killjoy has explained along with others.

The players are specifically not complicit in railroaded situations. They are explicitly attempting to engage their agency and are being actively shot down. What part of that is so confusing?

[Max_Killjoy]

In what way is "where I draw the line on what is and is not railroading" and "Railroading is by its very nature a bad act." not using personal preference to prescribe objective quality?

What we see in this thread is a set of definitions that almost all attempt to pin down what is fundamentally the same specific thing -- the denial of agency, the stonewalling of all paths but the one predetermined by the GM, choices that aren't choices, etc. There's an attempt to nail the term down as something useful for communication.

And then there's a scattering of "undefinitions" that attempt to make "railroading" into a weaponized term that serves to advance an agenda via "argument by definition".

1) "Railroading is any preplanning or limitation, so everyone railroads unless they're a do-nothing GM and their players are allowed to get away with anything they want. So railroading is good, and it's just players being jerkidiots when they complain."

2) "Any preplanning or limitation is railroading, and this means that any game that isn't absolute "no-preplan no-myth shared-authorship" is badwrongfun."

In the same way that has been repeatedly described in this thread: "It violates player agency, violates the "social contract", and breaks verisimilitude." As Max_Killjoy has explained along with others.

The players are specifically not complicit in railroaded situations. They are explicitly attempting to engage their agency and are being actively shot down. What part of that is so confusing?

Exactly.

[Tinkerer]

Kyoryu what you defined was a railroad when what you said you were defining was railroading. The noun vs the verb. I suppose I could say that I am generally opposed to railroading when it is done in session if that would work better?

[BRC]

What we see in this thread is a set of definitions that almost all attempt to pin down what is fundamentally the same specific thing -- the denial of agency, the stonewalling of all paths but the one predetermined by the GM, choices that aren't choices, etc. There's an attempt to nail the term down as something useful for communication.

And then there's a scattering of "undefinitions" that attempt to make "railroading" into a weaponized term that serves to advance an agenda via "argument by definition".

1) "Railroading is any preplanning or limitation, so everyone railroads unless they're a do-nothing GM and their players are allowed to get away with anything they want. So railroading is good, and it's just players being jerkidiots when they complain."

2) "Any preplanning or limitation is railroading, and this means that any game that isn't absolute "no-preplan no-myth shared-authorship" is badwrongfun."

There's also an equally useless third definition, although at least it doesn't push anything particular as Badwrongfun.

"Any preplanning or limitation is Railroading, so everybody railroads, and that's fine, the problem is railroading TOO MUCH or XYZ" And thus, a term everybody uses to mean "The GM is taking away player agency and freedom" becomes basically useless. You can't say "The GM is railroading" any more, because every GM railroads. You have to say "The GM is taking away player agency and freedom" or whatever.

[The Extinguisher]

In the same way that has been repeatedly described in this thread: "It violates player agency, violates the "social contract", and breaks verisimilitude." As Max_Killjoy has explained along with others.

The players are specifically not complicit in railroaded situations. They are explicitly attempting to engage their agency and are being actively shot down. What part of that is so confusing?

sure, and once again i agree that people need to talk about the games they are playing before they play them. But not all games need high player agency, or verisimilitude. Calling railroading both a bad thing, as well as a personal preference in terms of player agency is intellectually dishonest.

What we see in this thread is a set of definitions that almost all attempt to pin down what is fundamentally the same specific thing -- the denial of agency, the stonewalling of all paths but the one predetermined by the GM, choices that aren't choices, etc. There's an attempt to nail the term down as something useful for communication.

And then there's a scattering of "undefinitions" that attempt to make "railroading" into a weaponized term that serves to advance an agenda via "argument by definition".

1) "Railroading is any preplanning or limitation, so everyone railroads unless they're a do-nothing GM and their players are allowed to get away with anything they want. So railroading is good, and it's just players being jerkidiots when they complain."

2) "Any preplanning or limitation is railroading, and this means that any game that isn't absolute "no-preplan no-myth shared-authorship" is badwrongfun."

You can't just ignore how the word is used because it doesn't suit your means. Yeah, there are people trying to pin down things they dont like and group them together under a negative banner (which again is all degrees of preference), but people also are using it as line in the sands on what is and isn't a "good" amount of player agency.

There is no benefit to using words like railroading when talking about game design. It is always better to talk about the actual specifics, like you did above. Not only does is it actually constructive critique, giving actionable discussion points, but it also doesn't contribute to the culture of "ideal gaming" that is so very bad in the gaming community.

Sometimes... things that are more words... are worse

[BRC]

There is no benefit to using words like railroading when talking about game design. It is always better to talk about the actual specifics, like you did above. Not only does is it actually constructive critique, giving actionable discussion points, but it also doesn't contribute to the culture of "ideal gaming" that is so very bad in the gaming community.

Sometimes... things that are more words... are worse

Hence why we're trying to take a word: Railroading, that is commonly used, and give it a specific definition that fits with how most people use it.

If it helps, we can weasel words the judgement.

"Railroading is denying the Players their agency in order to force a specific outcome, many people think this is a bad thing".

If I say "You are Railroading", that means you are denying your players their agency in order to force a specific outcome. The actionable discussion points are the ways in which you have denied them agency, and outcomes you are trying to force.

[Max_Killjoy]

You can't just ignore how the word is used because it doesn't suit your means.

There are really only a few people doing that on this thread, one most notably and notoriously so.

Yeah, there are people trying to pin down things they dont like and group them together under a negative banner (which again is all degrees of preference), but people also are using it as line in the sands on what is and isn't a "good" amount of player agency.

No, they are not just lumping a bunch of stuff together subjectively. They're almost all trying to find a wording that works to convey what is effectively the same concept, with the disagreement around the edges of the thing.

If you plotted out their definitions as if on a graph, you'd see a bunch of hits clustered together around the same idea that they're trying to communicate by using the word as words are supposed to be used -- to mean something and convey a specific idea.

And then you'd see this one little dot, way the hell over there, somewhere off the paper entirely... and you might mistake the label for "depleted uranium".

Hence why we're trying to take a word: Railroading, that is commonly used, and give it a specific definition that fits with how most people use it.

If it helps, we can weasel words the judgement.

"Railroading is denying the Players their agency in order to force a specific outcome, many people think this is a bad thing".

If I say "You are Railroading", that means you are denying your players their agency in order to force a specific outcome. The actionable discussion points are the ways in which you have denied them agency, and outcomes you are trying to force.

Exactly.

And I'm not even going to weasel-word the fact that it's an inherently negative thing.

[ImNotTrevor]

Proposal:
I'm all for Railroading being used to mean a specific and objectively negative thing, and perhaps I can wrap that up in a definition:

Railroading is the specific action of granting the players LESS agency than was agreed upon in the social contract for the game, and/or granting less agency than should reasonably be expected in a fictional situation to produce a certain specific outcome.


Does that cover enough bases?

[The Extinguisher]

Okay but why? Why take a word, without a meaningful definition, that is used inconsistently even then, only ever in a negative sense, to encompass things that are both personal preference and specific design faults. Whats the point? The word has baggage. It has an implicit and explicit value judgement built into it, which means that any attempt to codify a hard, objective definition is pointless because its an easy place for people to go when they want to say that something is Bad because they didn't like it. It will only ever be a word used inconsistently. You can say that they are wrong for using it that way, but that will not change that people will use it that way.

Instead, you can focus on the actual specifics. Instead of saying "this was railroading" you can say "i didn't like that my options were restricted" or "the illusion of choice was frustrating here" or "why is there a door im not allowed to open". And by doing this, when someone tries to use railroading "improperly" (as you see it) you can say to them "hey thats a poorly defined, nebulous concept what did you mean by that" so they need to air out their greivences and you can see if its bad design or personal preference.

This encourages thoughtful discussion, good critique and inclusive communities.

[Tinkerer]

You can't just ignore how the word is used because it doesn't suit your means. Yeah, there are people trying to pin down things they dont like and group them together under a negative banner (which again is all degrees of preference), but people also are using it as line in the sands on what is and isn't a "good" amount of player agency.

There is no benefit to using words like railroading when talking about game design. It is always better to talk about the actual specifics, like you did above. Not only does is it actually constructive critique, giving actionable discussion points, but it also doesn't contribute to the culture of "ideal gaming" that is so very bad in the gaming community.

Sometimes... things that are more words... are worse

Using such a term greatly shortens the length of communication haha. Although speaking of which this is the third(fourth? fifth?) thread on this topic with this same poster and they have yet to define their terms. Well they did at the start of this thread however that definition runs contrary to their previously stated viewpoints. Under the initial viewpoint which judging by their other posts they still hold, any form of plot whatsoever is a railroad.

Indeed I would be quite comfortable changing the terms which we are using to something else however DU insists on using the wording of railroading. Bear in mind that this is not a case of the majority of people insisting that railroading is a negative thing (well they are but it was in response to-), it is a case of a DU insisting that railroading is a positive thing. This was aggravated by the fact that DU has stated repeatedly that people who do not view things that way are either only running simple roll-playing games or are whining blubbering children incapable of functioning at a table. Not to mention their pathetic little attempt at trying to bring politics into the conversation earlier this thread.

I fully agree with you that there is no ideal form of gaming. Although I will hold by my statement that a railroad game generally requires less work than a sandbox game simply due to how each of them is constructed.

EDIT: Whoo boy I just saw that you mentioned inclusive communities as a desirable goal of gaming. I might suggest that you read DU's Custom Creations thread from a while back. They make their viewpoint on those quite clear.

[kyoryu]

You're assuming that the act of preparing the encounters means the GM is also committed to Forcing those encounters. The encounters are just notes on paper, nothing more. They have no special hold over the GM, and can be altered or discarded at any time.

Not at all. If you plan the encounters, but do not enforce them, then you're not saying that the GM is the one who decides a strictly linear set of encounters. In fact, then the players are deciding what they'll encounter.

[2D8HP]

Okay but why? Why take a word, without a meaningful definition, that is used...

I could get behind "railroading being a value neutral style/technique descriptor (and have in the past), but it's too close to railroaded which has just about only negative connotations.

I think it's a losing fight.

[Drakevarg]

I'm not sure what your objective here even is, Extinguisher. You seem to resent that the word "railroading" exists at all, as you alternate arguing that it lacks a consistent definition and is therefore useless, and arguing that it shouldn't have the definition people attempt to articulate for it because not everybody agrees it's an objectionable practice.

The idea that you could simply use other words to describe the idea is kind of meaningless, because that could be said about virtually anything. Language is intensely redundant and yes, sometimes has value statements built into definitions.

[Frozen_Feet]

...people saying that linear games are "lazier" then sandbox games, that some rules are better than others...

As one of the people who specifically called out railroads as lazy design, I feel like addressing this.

First, as previously touched upon, railroads are particularly lazy even for linear adventures. It only takes token effort to turn a railroad into a linear scenario with meaningfull player choices in it, so why bother with a railroad?

But comparing amounts of effort required for linear versus sandbox scenarios is a thing which can be discussed absent of any mention of railroads. Usually, a linear scenario takes less work to implement, due to being more limited in scope, and hence can be called the "lazier" option. But this is not a hard rule. An involved linear scenario may indeed take more work than a non-linear one. But then ask yourself, if you could do a non-linear scenario with less trouble, why are you sticking to a linear model?

At this point you may, of course, ask me: wasn't lack of effort, AKA laziness, supposed to be a bad thing? The answer is, it's a matter of scale. And here we get to the "which rules are better?" part:

For any given goal, some algorithms are more efficient than others, at the cost of being less efficient are something else. (This can be mathematically proven, see "No such thing as Free Lunch" in context of statistics and machine learning.) And games, all games, and all methods of scenario design, can be transformed into series of algorithms.

It logically follows that, for something like "how can I run an interesting tabletop roleplaying game?", there are indeed sets of rules which serve this goal better than others. Which rulesets are better and which are worse, as well as what they trade off, is not settled science. But the difficulty of establishing the answer should never be taken to mean that all rulesets are equal. They aren't.

So now you can get back to the question, why are you sticking to a linear model if it's more work than a non-linear one? You ought to gain something from it since you're trading effort for it, so what is that? By contrast, it's usually easy to name what you would gain from spending effort to make a non-linear scenario: more possible events, more player freedom, greater replay value.

So, lazy is bad when better rules would only take token effort. Laziness is justified when more effort no longer gives you better results. On another axis, you are trying to determine whether a linear scenario would constitute better rules for the goal you're after than some other scenario shape.

...and the fact that everyones point "low player agency" becomes "railroading" is different.

This tangent is starting to give me a headache.

As has been demonstrated, multiple sources and multiple people place "railroad" at zero player agency. So no, not everyone's point where "low agency" becomes a railroad is different. Sometimes a person may feel they have zero agency when they have some, or vice versa, but that's an issue with perceptions, not definitions.

To use a different metaphor, we could compare "low player agency" with "low temperature" and call "railroad" a "frozen scenario", because water freezes at 0 Celsius. Now, people frequently complain how they feel "freezing cold" even when it is not, in fact, freezing, due to subjective feeling of cold. Again, an issue of perceptions, not definitions. As long as the person can agree on the definition, it's possible to have a fruitfull conversation with them, point out where they are wrong, and eventually find out and adress their actual source of discomfort.

By contrast, in this framework DU's argument would translate to claiming "anything below melting point of iron is freezing" and "0 celsius is not freezing, it's utterly god-damn cold!" Which would be a definitional problem. And also stupid.

[The Extinguisher]

Using such a term greatly shortens the length of communication haha. Although speaking of which this is the third(fourth? fifth?) thread on this topic with this same poster and they have yet to define their terms. Well they did at the start of this thread however that definition runs contrary to their previously stated viewpoints. Under the initial viewpoint which judging by their other posts they still hold, any form of plot whatsoever is a railroad.

Indeed I would be quite comfortable changing the terms which we are using to something else however DU insists on using the wording of railroading. Bear in mind that this is not a case of the majority of people insisting that railroading is a negative thing (well they are but it was in response to-), it is a case of a DU insisting that railroading is a positive thing. This was aggravated by the fact that DU has stated repeatedly that people who do not view things that way are either only running simple roll-playing games or are whining blubbering children incapable of functioning at a table. Not to mention their pathetic little attempt at trying to bring politics into the conversation earlier this thread.

I fully agree with you that there is no ideal form of gaming. Although I will hold by my statement that a railroad game generally requires less work than a sandbox game simply due to how each of them is constructed.

EDIT: Whoo boy I just saw that you mentioned inclusive communities as a desirable goal of gaming. I might suggest that you read DU's Custom Creations thread from a while back. They make their viewpoint on those quite clear.

Yes, using more words encourages longer communication, which leads to more thoughtful conversation, better critique and chances to improve. thats the goal.

Also, i do not care about this forum vs darth ultron thing thats going on. i really dont. its not and has never been my intention to take a side on that particular ball of garbage. im simply using this discussion of railroading to talk about my issues with the concept. i very much dont agree with how they are using it either.

(more work sure, but less work =/= laziness by any stretch of the imagination)

I'm not sure what your objective here even is, Extinguisher. You seem to resent that the word "railroading" exists at all, as you alternate arguing that it lacks a consistent definition and is therefore useless, and arguing that it shouldn't have the definition people attempt to articulate for it because not everybody agrees it's an objectionable practice.

The idea that you could simply use other words to describe the idea is kind of meaningless, because that could be said about virtually anything. Language is intensely redundant and yes, sometimes has value statements built into definitions.

Yeah thats basically it. Its a loaded, inconsistent, garbage word that only exists to cast value judgments on things people dont like. I would very much like it if people stopped using it when critiquing game design because its bad critique that adds nothing meaningful to the conversation.

[ImNotTrevor]

Yes, using more words encourages longer communication, which leads to more thoughtful conversation, better critique and chances to improve. thats the goal.

By this standard the clearest way to communicate is to talk using as many words as possible. Or, rather:

In keeping with the particular goal that this set of sentences puts forth, there is a particular method of moving information from one brain to another brain which has the least possible chance of error, which method is to utilize a large amount of verbiage.

Yeah, no.

Yeah thats basically it. Its a loaded, inconsistent, garbage word that only exists to cast value judgments on things people dont like. I would very much like it if people stopped using it when critiquing game design because its bad critique that adds nothing meaningful to the conversation.

>tfw nearly all critique of subjective material is inherently a value judgement.

Listen, I understand that buzzphrases like "X game is the Dark Souls of [genre]!" Are irritating and usually based on incompetence, and "I didn't enjoy this" is just an opinion. Noted.

However, since we are not evaluating products for public consumption, and rather are finding words to describe a SITUATION that happens to people in the context of SOCIALIZATION, this has only tangential touchpoints to game design.

Yes, a game is being played. Game rules are being used or ignored to cause this thing to happen. But at the end of the day, being Railroaded is a SOCIAL interaction that mimics dealing with the Bossy Kid, hence why people find it obnoxious.

The problem is likely not even found within the game points themselves. Thesebare symptoms of the SOCIAL thing happening of one player stamping their foot and demanding everyone have fun THEIR way. So to the degree people are bought into that way of playing, things will change. But this is not for realsies a game design issue, I'm realizing. It just happens in the CONTEXT of a game, and so people notice it through that lens.

[Tinkerer]

Yes, using more words encourages longer communication, which leads to more thoughtful conversation, better critique and chances to improve. thats the goal.

Also, i do not care about this forum vs darth ultron thing thats going on. i really dont. its not and has never been my intention to take a side on that particular ball of garbage. im simply using this discussion of railroading to talk about my issues with the concept. i very much dont agree with how they are using it either.

(more work sure, but less work =/= laziness by any stretch of the imagination)

That's definitely fair. And yeah I should really disengage. We lived with a perfectly adequate definition of railroading for 25+ years but then again if literally means figuratively now maybe I can let that go. Still upset about literally meaning figuratively though. I mean that's so stupid I can't even believe that they would go and name something it's opposite grumble grumble... *goes off an mutters in a corner*

(I stated that it was generally lazier to make a railroad than a sandbox much like how a match is colder than a propane torch but still quite hot. The thing which I called lazy was doing an asspull and rewriting reality to allow the NPC to escape rather than doing proper planning and giving them an escape plan or three in the first place)

EDIT: I just saw that Frozen_Feet used the temperature comparison before me. Didn't notice that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah thats basically it. Its a loaded, inconsistent, garbage word that only exists to cast value judgments on things people dont like. I would very much like it if people stopped using it when critiquing game design because its bad critique that adds nothing meaningful to the conversation.

Wait, back up, when did this become about game system design?

Railroading can happen in just about any system.

It's a gameplay / social / "at the table" issue.

[kyoryu]

First, as previously touched upon, railroads are particularly lazy even for linear adventures. It only takes token effort to turn a railroad into a linear scenario with meaningfull player choices in it, so why bother with a railroad?

Not sure I agree.

I can imagine a railroad design for an adventure with lovingly-designed, handcrafted encounters, lots of custom creatures, etc. I can see someone putting a *lot* of prep into a railroad game. Prep that wouldn't make sense if you didn't know the players would actually use those encounters.