hawkeyefan
Legend
One question I have for the group is: What are people's thought on the interaction between buying into a premise and railroading/illusionism?
A: If I start a one-shot with the premise "you are all adventurers sworn to protect the Duke", and the players accept the premise, then is it railroading to expect them to protect the Duke? Specifically if I start a scene with "You meet the next morning with the captain to discuss how to protect the Duke from the assassination", would you consider that railroading?
I don't think so, no. You've set some kind of goal of play, and the players are aware of it, so the expectation should be that play will revolve around that goal. Then you frame a scene asking for input from the players via their characters on how they will defend the duke... that seems to be asking them how they want to engage with the goal, which is not forcing them down one way.
If they're not aware of it, then I think that's poor form on the GM's part. It certainly seems to be the start of a railroad. But if not allowing some choice by the players at the very start is limited to the one instance, then I don't think we can call the entirety of play a railroad.
B: If I started a one-shot with an intro scene that has an assassin attacking the duke and you defending him and then jumped back a week, is that railroading because we're going to get that scene no matter what, or is it the players accepting the premise that we're playing to see how we get to that point?
I think this really depends on how it's handled. This is an atypical structure to an RPG, so I think it could be interesting and I think it could be done in a way that avoids railroading... but that may be tricky. It certainly lends itself to following specific paths that have already been set.
I have run a scenario like this. It begins with the PCs ready to attempt an assassination on the evil emperor, but the details of how they want to do that are selected before play... the location, the means, the collaborators, and the method. Other than the location, none of those things is confirmed in the opening scene. Then you flashback to play and find out if you are able to secure some means of overcoming mystical defenses, help of some sort toward the assassination, and how you're going to do it.
Each of those things, when played via flashback, then gave a bonus toward the attempt itself, which was resolved with one roll.
This was intentionally meant to be a short-term game of only a few sessions, and for that I think it worked and avoided being a railroad. Yes, it was leading to a known conclusion, but the chances of success and the ultimate resolution of that was up to the players.
C: If I run a campaign where I say "The Duke is a key character and will survive as the Duke no matter what", and the players like that idea, buy into it and in play support the premise; is that railroading?
I'd probably need to know more to really decide what I think about this. Is this also in a game where their goal is to prevent the duke's assassination? Or something else? Having an element that cannot change seems to lean toward railroading in a way, but it depends on how central it is to play, and how much what the players do is impacted by it.
So, as a summary question: Given that players buying into a premise is explicitly giving up some agency, does the fact that they have done so essentially make railroading (which is the GM forcing players down a route) not applicable?
I don't think so. I think there's a difference between having a game with a central premise that is agreed upon before play, and subverting/not allowing choices to impact play.
All games limit player agency to some extent. I think removing player agency is what makes something a railroad.