The Nature of Railroading

[Talakeal]

Apples and oranges. Reserving some space or already introducing some stubs to build upon later is good practice.

Being endlessly boring about details that bring nothing to the game is quite different.

Yes, it is apples and oranges. Quality =\= quality.

Chekov's gun is about not having extraneous set dressing at all, it says nothing about the quality of said details.

[Max_Killjoy]

Apples and oranges. Reserving some space or already introducing some stubs to build upon later is good practice.

Being endlessly boring about details that bring nothing to the game is quite different.

How do you know for certain which details will "bring something to the game", and which won't, if you're running something that's not linear?

And then there's the fact that those details that some people think "bring nothing to the game" or "nothing to the story" are often more interesting or important to me than the details that they think are the only important details under some misbegotten version of Chekhov's gun.

Frankly there are some game products and works of fiction that I find more interesting for the setting itself than for the campaigns that might be run there, or the stories that have been told about people there and things happening there.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's just the way the game functions.

In baseball, when a player slides to the plate as the ball is getting there, the player is technically neither safe nor out until the umpire makes a call. The rules dictate how the umpire makes the call, but given the imperfect nature of the process, the game defaults to accepting the ruling of the umpire, even if it is technically wrong by the rules.

I'm not making any mistakes or assumptions. This is how DMing works. The game proceeds how the DM says it does.

If we want to call the game an off road vehicle, then the players are the driver and the DM plays the car and "railroading" becomes the point where the vehicles control methods stop functioning (brakes or gas don't work, steering freezes, etc).

Forget the word, "story." The DM adjucates the events that comprise the game.

Sure, there are RPGs that don't have the DM role. Do they also experience Railroading (the subject of the thread)?

My point is that Railroading is the same as an Umpire rigging the match. Railroading is a consequence of the abuse of DM authority to prescribe the results of gameplay.

No one is talking about or thinking of "story" at this point.

You're describing an assumed power structure, and a specific process of how GMing works, that leaves out a lot of details, and doesn't fit how ever table works -- I wouldn't game with a GM who approached the role as if they were the typical pro-sports umpire/referee lording it over the playing field.

Furthermore, and more importantly, your responses are evading the actual question -- when the PCs' decisions and actions actually matter, and shape the course of the campaign, where are the rails?

If you really mean what you've been saying, and you consider "the GM gets to make decisions" as "rails" and all GMing as "railroading", then you're just watering down "railroading" and "rails" to be meaningless... I'll leave why you'd do that to speculation, but we've seen repeatedly why posters like DU try that nonsense.

[Segev]

If the players can change the course of the game (as they are supposed to be able to), then are there even tracks to begin with?

There's a sliding scale of freedom between "singular tracks," "multiple-choice tracks," "canyons that are very hard to climb out of," "roads through difficult terrain," "roads through flat and even terrain," and "an open sandbox." And there's even a step beyond that, which Darth Ultron likes to use as a strawman, of essentially Limbo, where the loudest and most strong-willed player dictates reality.

Video games tend to be somewhere in the first two or the fourth. Tabletop RPGs hit their sweet spot in the "canyons that are hard to climb out of" to the "open sandbox."

And then there's the kind of railroad mixed with (poorly-done) illusionism that pretends to be canyons or just roads through difficult terrain, but has deliberately set up insurmountable obstacles in every direction save the chosen path, rendering what looks like particularly steep canyon walls into essentially rails, because nothing but following the rails will "work."

[Willie the Duck]

I wouldn't game with a GM who approached the role as if they were the typical pro-sports umpire/referee lording it over the playing field.

So, now we're getting to hypothetical DMs who are lording things over people. I'm going to interject here because that's where a lot of threads blow up. Regardless of opinions on the appropriateness of any kind of railroading structures is to gaming or not, someone being a genuine jerk-player or jerk-DM is a separate issue. If a DM decides they're going to 'lord it over' a game or playing field, they will do so (and presumably lose players because of it) completely independent from any railroading going on. I'm not going to call it a non-issue, because we have all met 'that guy' in gaming. But it has very little to do with the subject at hand and runs the risk of conflating the two issue/accidentally implying that all those who do not game as MK prefers are somehow the same venn circle as these people.

[Max_Killjoy]

So, now we're getting to hypothetical DMs who are lording things over people. I'm going to interject here because that's where a lot of threads blow up. Regardless of opinions on the appropriateness of any kind of railroading structures is to gaming or not, someone being a genuine jerk-player or jerk-DM is a separate issue. If a DM decides they're going to 'lord it over' a game or playing field, they will do so (and presumably lose players because of it) completely independent from any railroading going on. I'm not going to call it a non-issue, because we have all met 'that guy' in gaming. But it has very little to do with the subject at hand and runs the risk of conflating the two issue/accidentally implying that all those who do not game as MK prefers are somehow the same venn circle as these people.

When someone describes the GM as equivalent to a sports referee (see the post I was replying to for the context), that's that they're describing as far as I'm concerned. Most sports officials are way WAY too full of themselves and have a grossly exaggerated opinion of their own importance to the games.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's a sliding scale of freedom between "singular tracks," "multiple-choice tracks," "canyons that are very hard to climb out of," "roads through difficult terrain," "roads through flat and even terrain," and "an open sandbox." And there's even a step beyond that, which Darth Ultron likes to use as a strawman, of essentially Limbo, where the loudest and most strong-willed player dictates reality.

Video games tend to be somewhere in the first two or the fourth. Tabletop RPGs hit their sweet spot in the "canyons that are hard to climb out of" to the "open sandbox."

And then there's the kind of railroad mixed with (poorly-done) illusionism that pretends to be canyons or just roads through difficult terrain, but has deliberately set up insurmountable obstacles in every direction save the chosen path, rendering what looks like particularly steep canyon walls into essentially rails, because nothing but following the rails will "work."

I'd not argue against any of that, really.

But my question remains, when the players' choices and the PCs' actions actually matter and shape the present reality and future possibilities they have in front of them, in a way similar to how the choices and actions of real people affect their future choices in the real world -- where are the "rails" / "tracks"?

[Florian]

How do you know for certain which details will "bring something to the game", and which won't, if you're running something that's not linear?

And then there's the fact that those details that some people think "bring nothing to the game" or "nothing to the story" are often more interesting or important to me than the details that they think are the only important details under some misbegotten version of Chekhov's gun.

Frankly there are some game products and works of fiction that I find more interesting for the setting itself than for the campaigns that might be run there, or the stories that have been told about people there and things happening there.

I know because I've created to world?

Personally, I'm getting the impression that you've got a problem with size and scope that comes along with certain settings.

[Talakeal]

I know because I've created to world?

Personally, I'm getting the impression that you've got a problem with size and scope that comes along with certain settings.

Could you please elaborate on this? I am not sure what you are trying to say or what it has to do with knowing what settig elements the players will choose to interract with.

[Max_Killjoy]

Could you please elaborate on this? I am not sure what you are trying to say or what it has to do with knowing what settig elements the players will choose to interract with.

That was going to be my question... what does that response (Florian's) have to do with knowing what the players will choose to interact with, and where those choices will take them?

[Florian]

Well, ok. This touches on a little bit about the difference between stage and background.

Take Space Opera of any kind, be it Star Wars or MechWarrior. The setting, as in the background, is more or less normal with regular folks doing regular things as is part of the in-game reality. The setting as stage is quite different tho. Only a handful of people really matter and their actions are blown out of proportions (in contrast to regular folks).
That might be because the use of high-level abstractions or because the focus is on the symbolic value of the action.
(In Star Wars, you can have 1,2,... 300 Rogue Ones and they still can't compare to Luke killing the Emperor)

Point being that I know that Max doesn't like the separation of the setting in stage and background, but that's what happens at most regular tables and should be acknowledged as such, simply because it is an reduction in complexity.

[OldTrees1]

Well, ok. This touches on a little bit about the difference between stage and background.

Take Space Opera of any kind, be it Star Wars or MechWarrior. The setting, as in the background, is more or less normal with regular folks doing regular things as is part of the in-game reality. The setting as stage is quite different tho. Only a handful of people really matter and their actions are blown out of proportions (in contrast to regular folks).
That might be because the use of high-level abstractions or because the focus is on the symbolic value of the action.
(In Star Wars, you can have 1,2,... 300 Rogue Ones and they still can't compare to Luke killing the Emperor)

Point being that I know that Max doesn't like the separation of the setting in stage and background, but that's what happens at most regular tables and should be acknowledged as such, simply because it is an reduction in complexity.

Um. Why are you making a distinction?

In my sandbox worlds I can derive / extrapolate content to answer questions I or the players had. This seems consistent with what Max likes. In that same sandbox there are many entities and the degree of agency each entity has can differ drastically. The local blacksmith has a lot less agency that the entity "John Smith" that is playing at running a general store both of which are NPCs. So without differentiating between a "stage and background" you have a some entities that have a lot more impact than other entities.

However, how do I know if adding "John Smith" is going to add, detract, or do nothing to the game? I personally cannot answer without knowing the players. Although I can make some guesses based upon how such an entity would impact the amount of agency the PCs have in the game and what tone of game I wanted to run.

[Segev]

I'd not argue against any of that, really.

But my question remains, when the players' choices and the PCs' actions actually matter and shape the present reality and future possibilities they have in front of them, in a way similar to how the choices and actions of real people affect their future choices in the real world -- where are the "rails" / "tracks"?

Well, let's take a fairly linear game as an example. One where the players bought into the notion of playing it. The players' and their characters' choices and actions are allowed to have meaningful impact, and the DM is good enough at his job that he can roll with unusual choices to a fair degree. But, because it's linear, ultimately the players need to follow the plot to the next plot point. This isn't a big deal, because they bought into it, and probably are cooperating with the DM by actively trying to find the path to the next plot point.

But the "rails" are there in that, if they refuse to follow that path, there's not much extant behind the curtain. The DM can try to improv stuff, but he didn't make a full campaign setting with multi-order-of-magnitude-removed established facts. He's got an adventure path.

This is very benign, and usually isn't a problem, because, again, the players are complicit in staying on the path. It's like going through a haunted forest attraction that is made up for halloween: there is a marked path, and if you stay on it, you meet the ghosties and ghoulies and the haunted spook-features. If you willfully step off of it, you effectively leave the "haunted forest" and either wind up with security forcing you back onto the path, or you just wander off on your own and aren't really playing the game anymore. (Leaving aside possibility of actual other dangers, IRL.)

Does that make sense?

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, let's take a fairly linear game as an example. One where the players bought into the notion of playing it. The players' and their characters' choices and actions are allowed to have meaningful impact, and the DM is good enough at his job that he can roll with unusual choices to a fair degree. But, because it's linear, ultimately the players need to follow the plot to the next plot point. This isn't a big deal, because they bought into it, and probably are cooperating with the DM by actively trying to find the path to the next plot point.

But the "rails" are there in that, if they refuse to follow that path, there's not much extant behind the curtain. The DM can try to improv stuff, but he didn't make a full campaign setting with multi-order-of-magnitude-removed established facts. He's got an adventure path.

This is very benign, and usually isn't a problem, because, again, the players are complicit in staying on the path. It's like going through a haunted forest attraction that is made up for halloween: there is a marked path, and if you stay on it, you meet the ghosties and ghoulies and the haunted spook-features. If you willfully step off of it, you effectively leave the "haunted forest" and either wind up with security forcing you back onto the path, or you just wander off on your own and aren't really playing the game anymore. (Leaving aside possibility of actual other dangers, IRL.)

Does that make sense?

What you are describing is a game where the players evidently agreed that their choices would have tightly constrained impact before the game started, not a game where the player's choices have varied impact of potentially great depth and breadth. They've agreed to stay within a narrow path, maybe even on the rails.

So to me it's not really answering the question.

In a game where the choice space is broad and deep, and the PCs' actions set the present and define their own future choice space via interaction with the setting and other characters... where are the rails?

[Segev]

What you are describing is a game where the players evidently agreed that their choices would have tightly constrained impact before the game started, not a game where the player's choices have varied impact of potentially great depth and breadth. They've agreed to stay within a narrow path, maybe even on the rails.

So to me it's not really answering the question.

In a game where the choice space is broad and deep, and the PCs' actions set the present and define their own future choice space via interaction with the setting and other characters... where are the rails?

By definition, they're faint if extant at all. One could make a spurious argument (and Darth Ultron has) that they MUST exist because there are setting rules in place that will mean players can't just declare that their characters are now kings of the universe and that all bow to them, and rewrite the map at a whim, but few would agree with him that those constitute rails.

[awa]

isn't darth ultron banned, why keep bringing him up?

[Segev]

isn't darth ultron banned, why keep bringing him up?

1) I didn't know he was banned; I will refrain from talking about somebody who can't speak in his own defense, now.
2) Because I like to acknowledge when I'm addressing points others hold a position on. It makes it easier to reference entire discussions without having to rehash them in their entirety.

[Max_Killjoy]

By definition, they're faint if extant at all.

That's my position -- that there aren't rails.

Someone said that there are rails even in that type of campaign and style of GMing*, and I was asking, "where are these rails you keep insisting are there"?


*where the choice space is broad and deep, and the PCs' actions set the present and define their own future choice space via interaction with the setting and other characters.

[Segev]

That's position -- that there aren't rails.

Someone said that there are rails even in that type of campaign and style of GMing*, and I was asking, "where are these rails you keep insisting are there"?


*where the choice space is broad and deep, and the PCs' actions set the present and define their own future choice space via interaction with the setting and other characters.

As I don't hold the position that there are "rails," and largely agree with you, all I can do is try to articulate what is meant by that claim. Best I can figure out is that the claim is equating the limitations the simulation of the game world and setting place on the characters being "rails" because the players can't "go anywhere and do anything" when they're constrained from things that would break verisimilitude.

[Max_Killjoy]

As I don't hold the position that there are "rails," and largely agree with you, all I can do is try to articulate what is meant by that claim. Best I can figure out is that the claim is equating the limitations the simulation of the game world and setting place on the characters being "rails" because the players can't "go anywhere and do anything" when they're constrained from things that would break verisimilitude.

And my response to that claim would be that the PCs are no more "on rails" for that situation than a real person in the real world is "on rails" simply because they can't flap their arms and create enough lift to overcome gravity.

[Segev]

And my response to that claim would be that the PCs are no more "on rails" for that situation than a real person in the real world is "on rails" simply because they can't flap their arms and create enough lift to overcome gravity.

*shrug* I agree. You asked what people meant. I gave my best understanding of their position. I agree; they're not right.

[Quertus]

@Quertus:

Immersion means that you are actively trying to blend out that you are a player in a game and fully focus on your character and the game world being real. "How would Sara Landsknecht, if she were a real person, react to this situation based on her knowledge and personality?". For a not insignificant amount of people, D&D-style combat can break their immersion because the logical optimal set of actions and the personality of their characters don't mesh.
Same as pulling the emergency break, calling a time-out and talking about rules or rulings, this is what brings people "back" to the awareness that they are players in a game.

I fully agree, that sounds like the definition of - or, at least, a description of - immersion, to me.

Still holds no value to me.

I like and value role-playing: being aware that you are in a game, and focus on your character as if the game world were real. "How would Sara Landsknecht, if she were a real person, react to this situation based on her knowledge and personality?"

Or the (sadly) superior metagaming: being aware that you are in a game, and trying to focus on your character as if the game world were real, while still paying attention to out of character concerns. "How would Sara Landsknecht, if she were a real person, react to this situation based on her knowledge and personality? How will that affect the enjoyment of the group? What other options might she take that are still in character?"

I'll admit, metagaming certainly breaks something (concentration on role-playing?) that I'll call "immersion" at times.

If the logical thing for a combat-savvy character to do does not match the player's concept of the character's personality, then the player should strongly consider that they are at fault, for not making a character who "grew up" in that world. Fortunately, playing Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, I don't have to worry about "optimal" choices, as Quertus' general tactical ineptitude frees me to just roleplay his decisions correctly. No need for lost immersion.

[kyoryu]

*shrug* I agree. You asked what people meant. I gave my best understanding of their position. I agree; they're not right.

I don't think it's a good faith argument. IOW, I don't think it's actually a position that anybody holds.

I think it's an argument that pro-railroading people make to "prove" that railroading is good and that people that don't like railroading are wrong. Even if you accept that at face value, it ignores the obvious fact that even people that are anti-railroading are perfectly fine with consistent, logical restrictions on their actions.

So, yeah, I kind of just ignore it.