Railroading - a slightly tongue in cheek blog post with good points

[Eyes of Nine]

Criminal RPG Activity Chapbook: Railroading

Pictured: A Criminal Naturally, we all hate railroading, as all good people do. Railroading is the act of a criminal...a scofflaw...a bandi...

jdcspot.blogspot.com

Funny stuff here, but also thought-provoking

Captures some of the many perspectives I have heard in the discourse about railroading.

The question for you dear judge - which "railroading" crimes are the most heinous? And which ones are mere infractions, maybe worth a simple fixit ticket

 

[Composer99]

Not related to the blog's particular topic, but given my son is big into the SCP stuff, it was interesting to see the blogger has analysed some of those critters for use in games.

I thought the descriptions of the punishments were hilarious: "Now we all know this is a serious railroading crime for which the GM must be punished by no fewer than 10,000 words being written about them on OSR blogs over no fewer than three months." Comedy gold!

The question for you dear judge - which "railroading" crimes are the most heinous? And which ones are mere infractions, maybe worth a simple fixit ticket

I'm on record suggesting that railroading is more about DM/GM/referee motivations, attitude, and overall conduct, as opposed to any specific in-game declaration of goings-on, so I'd be inclined to say that all the examples are basically innocuous - or at least, that there is insufficient information to say that railroading as a pattern of GM conduct is happening.

For scenario I, question (A), I'd actually go somewhere between 2 and 3 for an answer - if I were GMing that scenario, instead of announcing the player characters are now at the mansion, I'd prompt the players with something like, "it seems you're getting frustrated at the apparent lack of progress, did you want to go ahead and get to the mansion proper?" This also means that if the players are actually having a good time and are roleplaying their characters' frustrations, that will be made clear.

For scenario III, I would say that if the game system expects the GM to make sure the player characters have enough information to keep the game moving, it's a neglect of their duties as GM according to that system's expectations (and genre tropes), but not railroading. So answer 2, but without exonerating the GM of an error.

 

[overgeeked]

The question for you dear judge - which "railroading" crimes are the most heinous? And which ones are mere infractions, maybe worth a simple fixit ticket

I define railroading as ignoring or subverting the players’ choices to ensure the referees pre-determined outcome occurs. By that definition, there’s no such thing as a minor infraction. The referee in question should stop running games and go write novels as that’s clearly what they want to do.

 

[pemerton]

I read the blog. I won't comment on its comedy (I'm a po-faced poster). But when it comes to RPGing technique, I don't find it that insightful. In particular, it seems to take for granted that - at least in a lot of RPGing - the players' main activity is to declare actions that will prompt/trigger the GM to reveal hitherto-hidden backstory, so that the players can then declare more actions to either (i) prompt/trigger the revelation of yet more backstory, or (ii) prompt/trigger the GM's main event.

This underpins both I and III in the post, and seems to inform the discussion of IV as well. From my perspective, RPGing that works in that way is railroading full stop, before we get to questions of what happens when the players get sick of, or fail at, "clue"-hunting?

As far as II is concerned, the Champions move looks like a railroad (or something in the neighbourhood), the M&M move looks like it is part of the game, and the Masks example doesn't have enough detail of the custom move and what it is done in response to. In GMing MHRP I have had NPCs with the ability to spend Doom Pool to have a defeat turn out not to be one (eg spend 2d8, and it turns out the heroes only defeated a Doom Bot, not Dr Doom himself). That worked pretty well, and fit within the overall game parameters (which make the Doom Pool a constraint on GM moves).

 

[Emberashh]

Its been strange observing people pitch rpgs as games where you can do or try anything and yet simultaneously refuse to run actual sandboxes. Thats where I feel a lot of the railroading behavior is coming from, as a contradiction in expectations.

And historically, since Dragonlance there's been a persistent thread of attempts at (forcing) long form narratives, which also leads to this.

But besides that, theres also the other kind of railroading, fudging. Having such a fundamental distrust in the fun of the game you're playing that you start selectively abandoning it in favor of fiat storytelling.

Storytelling is fine and all, but if you don't find the game itself fun you should probably find something that is fun for you and play that.

Its touchy, but thats the logic that leads me to believe a lot of people in the hobby don't actually like these games at all. Sure enough many are just stuck in an obligation to DND, but thats just more of the same idea.

How many people ostensibly play and enjoy DND but have zero interest, to the point of active refusal, in playing something else? They may or may not genuinely like DND, but I think it says something if no other RPG can capture their interest, and it isn't really that DNDs better or does something some other game doesn't do (nevermind do better).

It says that person probably doesn't actually like rpgs and wouldn't miss it if the game disappeared in the midst of whatever it is they're actually there for.

But anyway, I soapboxed there what do you know. Long story short, railroading is an expectation issue. If you're going to try make a story happen, it should be collaborative unless everyone's on board with just riding the rails, and collaborative means it should be, at bare minimum, sandboxy, if not a true sandbox.

 

[Golden Bee]

JDCSpot Run is joining my rotation. Great blog!​

 

[DEFCON 1]

I play RPGs with those who believe as I do that the focus of these games is creating drama and narrative together and seeing characters play out their stories within said narrative. As a result, none of us worry about whether we "follow rules" or whatnot. If the drama, conflict, and resolution is interesting and compelling in whatever form it is presented or generated, then that's all that matters. Players at my table have no concerns about the possibility of "railroading"... what matters to them instead is a natural and logical progression of story. So if that means the Big Bad escapes an early scene (with the players knowing full well they are going to face that Big Bad again for a bigger showdown at a more appropriate time)... they are fine with it because they expect it will make the overall story arc more interesting and make the eventual conclusion probably more exciting and fun.

And it doesn't matter if the rules of the particular RPG have a "mechanic" that allows the GM to have that escape happen-- mechanic / no mechanic doesn't matter and is not necessary either way. Me and my players aren't concerned with the mechanics, we're mainly just concerned with the story that derives from the mechanics. The mechanics are a story aid that's all, they are not the actual game itself.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I play RPGs with those who believe as I do that the focus of these games is creating drama and narrative together and seeing characters play out their stories within said narrative. As a result, none of us worry about whether we "follow rules" or whatnot. If the drama, conflict, and resolution is interesting and compelling in whatever form it is presented or generated, then that's all that matters. Players at my table have no concerns about the possibility of "railroading"... what matters to them instead is a natural and logical progression of story. So if that means the Big Bad escapes an early scene (with the players knowing full well they are going to face that Big Bad again for a bigger showdown at a more appropriate time)... they are fine with it because they expect it will make the overall story arc more interesting and make the eventual conclusion probably more exciting and fun.

And it doesn't matter if the rules of the particular RPG have a "mechanic" that allows the GM to have that escape happen-- mechanic / no mechanic doesn't matter and is not necessary either way. Me and my players aren't concerned with the mechanics, we're mainly just concerned with the story that derives from the mechanics. The mechanics are a story aid that's all, they are not the actual game itself.

Sounds like you are at a high-trust table. I bet that didn't 100% happen by accident or happy chance

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sounds like you are at a high-trust table. I bet that didn't 100% happen by accident or happy chance

You are correct. I knew the type of game I preferred to play and found other players who felt similarly.

That is always a person's best chance of getting a game to go the way they want it to... find the right group of players. If you are unable to find those players then you have to just lower your expectations a little bit. The game can still be a fantastic experience, it just won't be perfect.

But then again... most of the time it's not going to perfect anyway, even with the right group of players playing in the style you prefer. So there's no reason to get too worked up about it no matter what the issues may be.

 

[bloodtide]

My favorite topic!

So the first one is not Railroading at all. It is simply the DM moving the Main Game Adventure Plot forward. The same way the DM would say "the sun sets at the end of the day". And as the Main Game Adventure Plot is chosen by everyone in the game, it is not "the DMs".

Note One: But, this is also an example of bad DMing. The DM has not made the adventure game play focused and streamlined enough for the players to understand when to move to the next scene.

Note Two: This is also an example of Toxic Players. Players that want to ruin the game by doing nothing but "looking for more clues" when it's clear to even a non gaming five year old that there are no more clues to be found and the game play should move on to the next scene, should not be pandered too.

If the players insist they "must" be allowed to look for more clues, the DM is within their rights to just end the game. "Well, game over for tonight. Any player that wishes to "look for more clues": you are now free to go home and write all of that charterer looking for clues into your novel."

The second one The Champion one, is again just bad DMing and/or bad adventure writing. If you have your villain, for whatever reason, stand five feet from the PCs and go "haha"...there is a chance they will be captured or killed. So...simply put: don't do it. Keep the villain out of reach.

Of course it IS a Superhero Trope that villains escape. The Joker always has a trap door. So does the Red Skull. And some villains use robot doubles to get away, like Dr. Doom.

For three....M&M...well, if the GM is using the game rules...it's not Railroading.

Four....the game is Masks(?)...again this is a game rule....so no Railroading.

For the B one: Most intelligent villains, and really most NPCs should have escape plans. This is just just common sense.

The Chandler One: having an NPC show up is not Railroading as that does not even effect the players. Unless the NPC alters game reality.

And again, this is another example of bad DMing.

And no for the Quantum Ogre.