General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The problem is that "railroading" really means "constraining player choice, but with a perogative connotation."
At times constraining player choice is necessary or inevitable, and sometimes both. This should be obvious to anyone. The difficulty is that the attachment of a perogative connotation makes discussing it really tough.
Lets say we've got a word, "Blargle." And it means, including connotation, "Shrumpkins, but bad." If someone asks, "Can Blargle ever be good?" the obvious answer is No. Its got "but bad" right in its definition! Of course it can't be good. But the discussion really shouldn't be about Blargle, it should be about Shrumpkins. And the negative connotation attached to Blargle doesn't automatically apply to Shrumpkins. It might, and in some cases obviously it does, or there wouldn't be an entire word for "Shrumpkins, but bad." But the "but bad" doesn't necessarily apply in all contexts.
It seems to me that people aren't really attending to Cadfan's post, so it needs to be restated. "Railroading" is permanently tainted. You can't ask whether railroading is ever good, because it isn't.
Also, on a separate note, I must admit that my frustration with the term "railroading" is nearing its apex. It seems like this term is being thrown around with such abandon that it has lost coherence, and has instead become a badge of membership. "Railroading" is the whatever you don't do. You're a sandbox GM! Your campaign is a world of freedom, choice, and flexibility. Other people's campaigns are worlds of narrow limitation, linearity, and authoritarian GMs.
Railroading, like sin, must always be guarded against. Should you let your guard down for even a moment, temptation shall take you, and forever shall your players be ushered unto its narrow hallways! Admonish your players: Open all doors! Talk to all NPCs! Walk through the forest for days aimlessly! Yay, that you may demonstrate the absence of rails!
Last edited by underthumb; 1st April 2009 at 03:17 AM..
Railroading, like sin, must always be guarded against. Should you let your your guard down for even a moment, temptation shall take you, and forever shall your players be ushered unto its narrow hallways! Admonish your players: Open all doors! Talk to all NPCs! Walk through the forest for days aimlessly! Yay, that you may demonstrate the absence of rails!
Can I bribe you to post more often????? You really should share this wisdom with us on a much more regular basis.
It seems to me that people aren't really attending to Cadfan's post, so it needs to be restated. "Railroading" is permanently tainted. You can't ask whether railroading is ever good, because it isn't.
It isn't that we aren't attending. It is that we aren't agreeing. That Cadfan said it, does not make it so.
The abstract idea of "railroading" sounds bad, raises my hackles, and makes me growl. That's as a Player. As a DM, however, sometimes (no matter how rare) there are times when you have little or no other choice. You've dropped the hints, you've dropped the BIGGER hints, and you've beat the players (gently) about the head and shoulders with the hints, and they still fail to get it. You've planned out this adventure, are you supposed to abandon your idea and do whatever the players want just because it's their game?
And, on the other hand, well, YEAH, it is all about the players! The whole game is primarily for their enjoyment. Any pleasure that the DM gets is supposedly merely coincidental.
I see both arguments. But I also see that both arguments are totally full of it! If you're having this trouble often enough that you feel compelled to start a thread at ENWorld about it, maybe you should look for a new gaming group? Better yet, just do pbp gaming with us here!
As a DM, however, sometimes (no matter how rare) there are times when you have little or no other choice. You've dropped the hints, you've dropped the BIGGER hints, and you've beat the players (gently) about the head and shoulders with the hints, and they still fail to get it. You've planned out this adventure, are you supposed to abandon your idea and do whatever the players want just because it's their game?
::shrug:: Sure, why not? If the players have some other agenda (or for whatever reason just aren't interested in where the hooks are leading) then as DM you'll have much better player buy-in if you let 'em go where they want. And best of all, your origianlly-planned adventure is still out there, waiting...
::shrug:: Sure, why not? If the players have some other agenda (or for whatever reason just aren't interested in where the hooks are leading) then as DM you'll have much better player buy-in if you let 'em go where they want. And best of all, your origianlly-planned adventure is still out there, waiting...
Lan-"come on baby, do the Locomotion"-efan
Well, you kinda glossed over half my post and half my point, but, hey, it's cool. The thing is some of the DMs that I had in my younger days were not so understanding and adaptable. If their players did what you say, then they would be prone to whining and hissy-fits. That's why I don't play with them any more.
If, say, they met ever-tougher monsters whenever they went the way that that the DM didn't want, it would be railroading.
RC, I hope this doesn't look like I'm picking on your posts, but I'm trying to tease out the key distinction here.
Suppose the DM decides that dangerous monsters lurk in a few areas of the world, and every time the PCs enter those areas, they meet dangerous monsters. Suppose that those areas also contain campaign secrets that the DM does not intend to reveal to the PCs until some time has passed in the campaign world (presumably, enough time for them to become powerful enough to defeat those monsters). Would that be railroading? Why or why not?
RC, I hope this doesn't look like I'm picking on your posts, but I'm trying to tease out the key distinction here.
Suppose the DM decides that dangerous monsters lurk in a few areas of the world, and every time the PCs enter those areas, they meet dangerous monsters. Suppose that those areas also contain campaign secrets that the DM does not intend to reveal to the PCs until some time has passed in the campaign world (presumably, enough time for them to become powerful enough to defeat those monsters). Would that be railroading? Why or why not?
Are the PCs being guided along a particular path? Are the "choices" they are presented essentially non-choices that lead to the same destination?
If not, then, no, it is not a railroad.
EDIT: If the DM changes the monsters to prevent the players' cunning plan to gain access to that area from working, then if you are not being railroaded you are experiencing something akin to it. Likewise, I would say, if the DM changes the monsters so that you can defeat them despite your lack of planning.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
I use "railroad" as a negative term. Though there are folks using the term to describe attributes I don't consider bad. I therefore, don't use the term to describe the postive aspects.
A game is bad when:
the DM actively and deliberately blocks and thwarts attempts to do reasonable things that have a reasonable chance of success.
The example of the party that avoids the hills in order to avoid the dragon they know about, and the GM makes every other direction impossible to pass is a good one.
This kind of problem happens not because the DM planned an encounter, but because the DM refused to adjust the plan after interacting with the players.
I call the above scenario "railroading", as in the act of.
1) The worst kind, is when the players are acting in good faith towards the completion of the adventure, and they are attempting a solution that is viable, and the GM won't accept any solution but the one that was created for the adventure. This is directly a GM mistake.
2) Another scenario of railroading is when the players deliberately try something to throw the game off. Trying to kill the duke in a scene where its "obvious" your supposed to talk to him and get clues. Naturally, the GM is going to try to block it, which technically creates the railroad scenario, though it was player induced. What causes a player to do this, is the real problem, solve this, and the GM won't knee-jerk a prevention railroad.
3) Another scenario of railroading is when the GM presents a plot-hook that the players (and possibly even the PCs) aren't interested in, and when the players try to dodge it, the GM finds a way to force them to do it. This type gets to be the most complicated. One the one hand, the GM failed to pick a hook that appealed to the players and/or PCs. On the other, it is justifiable that if you create a plot hook (i.e. a problem) and the PCs don't solve it, then the problem gets bigger, and this can APPEAR to be railroading, when it is simply the GM applying consequences for PCs actions (or inactions).
I argue that example #3 is manageable by solving the first two scenarios. As long as I'm not actively blocking reasonable PC actions, I'm allowed make the consequences for failing to chase a plot hook. It is rationally explainable and fair.
If orcs are massing for an attack on the town, as a player, I have a choice: this is all the GM has come up with, I either go for the hook, or he's going to wing it. As a PC, regardless of alignment, I either try to stop the attack, or the town in which I'm doing business will likely be gone next week (or I'll have to fight through a town invasion adventure). In either case, it's pretty stupid and disruptive to not bite the hook. Yes, I could wish the GM had written a session about finding loot and workign on my PC's quest to find who killed his dog, but fact is, the GM gets to initiate events in the world, and if you don't deal with them, the world will probably be changed in a way that isn't useful to the player or PC.
This is the point that players and GM's don't get. The GM can make anything he wants happen. He'll have happier players if he incorporates things the players want, but he has the right to make anything happen.
#1 really is the cardinal sin. It is the hammer that is used for all the higher level instances of "is this a railroad". Ultimately you are being railroaded because #1 is happening. #3 might seem like a railroad, but unless you really check to see if what the DM is doing is thwarting, or simply applying rational consequences, you don't know.
Thwarting reasonable player action is abuse of the GM's power of "make anything happen." Rather than abjudicating fairly, and adjusting the plan, the GM is trying to rigidly stick to the script. This actually defeats the point of GMing, which is to continuously adapt the script to what the players do. This adaptability occurs within combat encounters (GM's certain don't plan what squares the PCs and NPCs move into each round), it should occur outside the encounter as well.
It's not a crime (and not railroading) to move things around, as the game proceeds. It's efficient, and can be rationally explained in game. What is wrong is blocking legitimate and rational actions, solely to avoid changing the plan. As some general said, "no plan survives contact with the enemy."
#2 is harder to deal with. If the players aren't happy with the game, or they're simply disruptive, then expect to see #2 happen. Oddly enough, #2 can be a side effect of #3. It's all a matter of the players trying to disrupt the logical course of events.
The first solution is to make sure you have plots and scenes that make sense, and anticipate the most obvious things YOUR players and PCs will do. This means making plot hooks that involve the PCs and interest the players. It means leaving room in encounters for some solution type variety. If these steps don't work, look at the player. Are they disruptive for the sake of being disruptive? If yes, fix them or dump them.
In my own gaming group, we have a house rule of "always bite the hook." We trust our DM to make hooks that involve our character goals at times (and we tell him what we're looking to do next). But we also realize that the GM hasn't got time to write 20 plot hooks for us to peruse (and I wouldn't want to suffer the consequences of the 19 hooks we had to ignore). In exchange, the GM also understands that the "screw the players for picking the wrong hook" isn't fair game. We're expediting game initialization, in exchange for the trust that we're giving the GM. It works for us.
Leif, not always. I've been railroaded by a very talented DM who in my opinion was unwilling to allow for any possibility other than the story he wanted to craft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
Heh, I'm going to disagree with this point...
Guys, I didn't say that what I described was ALWAYS the case. I just said that in my experience such has often been the case. So I really said nothing to agree or disagree with, unless you are disagreeing with my memories of my own life, which I hope you are not doing.
I still stand by my porn analogy really. I know railroading when I see it.
We can come up with example after example, but, it's not going to create a consensus on what railroading means. For some, it's any restriction on player actions. For others, it's restriction by the DM solely for the purposes of forcing the players to do what the DM wants.
Heck, I'm pretty sure we can agree on the extremes. The problem comes when we try to come up with one single catch-all definition. It really doesn't work.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
RC, I hope this doesn't look like I'm picking on your posts, but I'm trying to tease out the key distinction here.
Suppose the DM decides that dangerous monsters lurk in a few areas of the world, and every time the PCs enter those areas, they meet dangerous monsters. Suppose that those areas also contain campaign secrets that the DM does not intend to reveal to the PCs until some time has passed in the campaign world (presumably, enough time for them to become powerful enough to defeat those monsters). Would that be railroading? Why or why not?
I'm going to say, no, it's not railroading. The PCs have a real choice of being hideously slaughtered by monsters attempting to find out stuff that many people have tried finding out about. In a railroading scenario, the PCs might, despite the GM's expectations, actually defeat some of the monsters but bullheadedly push on; rather than let the PCs live with their choice, the GM then either causes a giant force field to cut off that part of the campaign world, or the encounters start multiplying in size by double or ten times, despite it having been established previously that there are no standing armies in the area. Ordinary encounters with creatures turn into encounters with much more advanced versions of the creatures, with only the flimsiest explanation, and the creatures seem more interested in scaring the PCs back the way they came, Scooby-Doo style, than actually killing them. Attempts to simply sneak past the monsters are met with invisible, flying, incorporeal spies dogging them every step of the way, and the man bad guy's caster level suddenly shoots up to allow him to scry them at all times.
From what Hussar said, agree folks aren't seeing eye to eye. For myself, it's as plain as day.
This quote probably sums up what I call a railroad warning sign. It could be refined, but it's the gist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
For others, it's restriction by the DM solely for the purposes of forcing the players to do what the DM wants.
This one, I disagree with, because there are too many valid reasons to restrict player actions that it makes this criteria meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
For some, it's any restriction on player actions.
Here's the silly extreme restriction scenarios that make it useless:
1st level fighter who wants to cast fireball
player wants to kill every NPC he meets, GM brings in threat of law-enforcment
player doesn't want to save the world, whines when the world is going to be destroyed
player is mad because he wants to be mayor, but not enough people voted for him
I don't buy restrictions being a "railroad flag". There's too many things a player could call a restriction, but are really just logical consequences for in game actions (or inaction). There are things a player can want to do, that the GM is under no obligation to allow happen. There are things a player can want to do, that aren't in the scope of the campaign (and potentially unfun for other people). These are all restrictions, but that's got nothing to do with railroading.
Kind of, but what I was trying to get across was that it's the DM, and entirely the DM that is the rails. Just like the rails actively force the train in a particular direction, the railroad DM is actively forcing the PCs in a particular direction.
It's only a railroad if the DM forces the PCs to do a particular thing for no other reason then he wants them to do it. (Which is why it's hard to point to any particular scenario as ALWAYS being a railroad.)
Exactly. I think people are conflating railroading with at least other things that are not railroading:
1. Scenario design - The GM is in charge of this. The PCs are allowed, although not necessarily encouraged, to do whatever they want. But the GM is allowed, though not necessarily encouraged, to set up the initial scenario in whatever way the GM wants. World design, events already in motion, attributes of various characters, all of those things, the GM decides. Not railroading, however much it might contrain the PCs' reasonable choices. It's only railroading if the GM constrains the PCs' actual choices.
2. Carrot-and-Stick - Ordinary carrot-and-stick attempts to guide the players are not railroading. Considering the game world as though it were the GM's character, the GM can have the world behave in any reasonable fashion. if it is sensible for terrible monsters to lurk in the Spooky Woods, there is no good crying foul when terrible monsters attack you in the Spooky Woods. See #1, scenario design, above. Even some elements of deus ex machine have their place, as long as they logically follow, though of course the GM should, from an artistic standpoint, make sure the PCs still have a useful role to play in events.
Railroading departs from both expectations. There is no actual scenario design; there may appear to be at first, but as time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that there is no life outside the game map, and events are transpiring on a moment to moment basis because of the GM's inclination, not because of a coherent back story. In a railroaded game, the scenario design is a cardboard cutout thinly disguising the fact that the entire game takes place in a box.
Second, there is no carrot-and-stick. Instead, you have Aladdin's treasures and the A-bomb. The GM may attempt to bribe you, but of course taking the bribe is going to almost certainly cause you to play into a trap. The A-bomb option is always present, because there is no proportionality to the GM's actions, no cause, only the unlimited desire to constrain the PC's choices.
I still stand by my porn analogy really. I know railroading when I see it.
We can come up with example after example, but, it's not going to create a consensus on what railroading means. For some, it's any restriction on player actions. For others, it's restriction by the DM solely for the purposes of forcing the players to do what the DM wants.
Heck, I'm pretty sure we can agree on the extremes. The problem comes when we try to come up with one single catch-all definition. It really doesn't work.
Agreed, Sir! xp 4u, ka-ching! Oooops, can't do that again yet, since I just gave you xp yesterday. Just attribute that point to this post as well! Sorry.
I thought railroading was the term for wielding 2 sledge hammers and racing against a steam powered hammer to prove that humans can lay tracks faster than any machine. John Henry, the Steel Drivin' Man, proved it....but then he died.
So technically, railroading means that you can do anything that you want, but you'll die.
Which means, it's really the players that are railroading when they try to go off course. The DM is just trying to keep them from dying by not allowing them to do what they want...probably because we learned a thing or two from John Henry.
I thought railroading was the term for wielding 2 sledge hammers and racing against a steam powered hammer to prove that humans can lay tracks faster than any machine. John Henry, the Steel Drivin' Man, proved it....but then he died.
So technically, railroading means that you can do anything that you want, but you'll die.
Which means, it's really the players that are railroading when they try to go off course. The DM is just trying to keep them from dying by not allowing them to do what they want...probably because we learned a thing or two from John Henry.
Dude John Henry is Skynet's brother. We learned that last Friday.
I had a situation in which two party members (a rogue... and was it a cleric?) got separated from the rest of the party.
The rest of the party was knee deep in a titanic battle, while the two party members were unwilling to wade into the battle because they perceived themselves as disadvantaged. The rogue, for example, couldn't hide and sneak attack in the open battlefield. The cleric(?) had the wrong spells or something.
Essentially, the rogue and cleric(?) were out of the game. Those players would be sitting there waiting for the others to be uber smashing heads and winning the day.
I decided to change the situation and sent some low-level mooks to sneak up on the cleric(?) and rogue. Of course, the rogue had high Spot, warned the cleric, and went into hiding. The mooks went after the cleric(?), and the rogue sneak attacked them to bloody death.
(In a different thread with another poster named Varis, a similar situation happened to his game, but in his case, the separated characters encountered nothing, was a little bored, and demanded that something exciting should have happened.)
From some posters on this thread, the fact that I changed the situation to have the rogue and cleric(?) encounter something would be considered railroading. However, all of the players were entertained, the rogue player got a chance to show off his Combat Reflexes l33tness, and the cleric felt that he had participated in the overall narrative/fight. My players told me that it was a fun session.
From some posters on this thread, the fact that I changed the situation to have the rogue and cleric(?) encounter something would be considered railroading.
Mildly so, yes. And also, appropriately so. If there are some other "folks" who defined railroading as such and disagree, they may contradict me, but I also said that railroading is sometimes useful/necessary.
Also
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leif
In that case, YOU WIN! Who cares what anybody else thinks?
Leif makes a very good point.
For the record, though, pawsplay's post about what is/isn't railroading wins the thread AFAICT, and I officially adopt his definition as my own.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
