"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[Canor Morum]

The player is a first time PnP gamer, with extensive video game experience. Problems of this sort have cropped up repeatedly. He's repeatedly engaged in actions that seem utterly irrational to me, but which become understandable if you start to view them with cRPG logic.

This is worth highlighting. I think that some players and DMs wrongly assume the goal of a table top RPG is to simulate a video game experience. This is understandable given that many initially learned about RPGs from video games. A TTRPG offers so much more than even the best sandbox video game could, however.

Ignoring the open ended flexibility and improvisational storytelling aspects defeats the whole purpose in my mind. The world should not exist as a static background. The players actions and imagination should breathe life into the world and shape it in unique ways. Predetermined outcomes and scripted events stifle this process.

 

[Steelwill]

Railroading is only a problem when its noticeable.

 

[Hussar]

you do not need to reverse linearlity.

But, in Star Trek, the best way to solve any problem with the Enterprise is to reverse the linearity.

I'm curious about some thing though. The Shaman, you talk about NPC's in your world having pre-scripted fates. If the PC's do not intervene, NPC X will die on a certain day in a certain way.

How is that not a pre-scripted event? I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted. Now, since there is no way the players could possibly know that NPC X is going to die on a particular day in a particular way (unless they read your notes), does it actually matter?

To put it another way, what makes it better that NPC X will die on such and such a day in such and such a way, predetermined before play even begins, vs a DM who decides that NPC X will die in such and such a way in order to serve a particular theme or plot development in his game?

Since the event is entirely pre-scripted, and, since the PC's have no way of knowing that he's going to blow his own brains out on such and such a day, they have no way of actually preventing this, how is this not a railroad? It's an event which may affect them (if they have ties in some way to this NPC - if they don't then who cares if he lives or dies anyway) that they have zero control over not no ability to affect.

In what way is this not a railroad?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted.

This should be taken, perhaps, as a clue that you don't understand what is meant by the term, "sandbox", by those running sandbox-style games.

In what way is this not a railroad?

It doesn't steal agency from player choices.

 

[The Shaman]

I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted.

Are you confusing tabletop rpgs with video games?

I make no assumptions about what the adventurers will do, but many events in the setting exist independent of the adventurers, unless or until the adventurers get involved. A status quo setting can (and in my opinion, should) have lots of stuff going on - it's about creating a living setting for the adventurers to explore, and by 'explore' doesn't mean just filling in blank hexes on a map.

Right now in my game a French army is laying siege to Genoa while the king readies another army at home to attack the Huguenots again. The adventurers are not likely to change either of these events right now, so they will follow their historical courses. Neither event may involve the adventurers directly, but one of the npcs who befriended our gallant musketeer last Saturday will be joining the campaign against the Huguenots during the summer, so the event affects his availability as a resource to the adventurer.

Video game-worlds do nothing until the players do something; tabletop game-worlds need not be so static.

Now, since there is no way the players could possibly know that NPC X is going to die on a particular day in a particular way (unless they read your notes), does it actually matter?

Yes, it may, directly and indirectly - directly, if indeed the npc is a friend or rival, or indirectly, as part of the living setting.

To put it another way, what makes it better that NPC X will die on such and such a day in such and such a way, predetermined before play even begins, vs a DM who decides that NPC X will die in such and such a way in order to serve a particular theme or plot development in his game?

It doesn't make it objectively "better" - it makes it different.

Your whole post seems to ignore, for whatever reason, the key point of what I wrote however, specifically, ". . . unless the adventurers change the future-history of the setting by their actions."

Frex, if Cardinal Richelieu is killed or otherwise removed from his position by the actions of the adventurers, for example, then the duc de Guise may not be forced into exile, and the comte de Soissons may never get shot in the face leading a rebellion against the king.

(It's worth noting that in Flashing Blades, a character may rise to occupy the position of first minister to the king, a cardinal, a marshal of France, the grandmaster of an order of knights, and so on - their ultimate ability to affect meaningful changes on the setting is considerable.)

In one case you there are events in the game that take place unless or until the adventurers act. In the other case, your 'serving a theme or plot development' case, there are events in the game in which the adventurers are supposed to act by design.

Since the event is entirely pre-scripted, and, since the PC's have no way of knowing that he's going to blow his own brains out on such and such a day, they have no way of actually preventing this, how is this not a railroad? It's an event which may affect them (if they have ties in some way to this NPC - if they don't then who cares if he lives or dies anyway) that they have zero control over not no ability to affect.

In what way is this not a railroad?

First, one can't 'railroad' non-player characters.

Second, the adventurers may indeed have the ability to affect the outcome, as noted above and in my previous post. They do not have ultimate power over life and death by their mere presence, however, so the duc de Guise dies of natural causes in 1640, whether or not he's been forced into exile.

 

[the Jester]

I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted....

Since the event is entirely pre-scripted, and, since the PC's have no way of knowing that he's going to blow his own brains out on such and such a day, they have no way of actually preventing this, how is this not a railroad? It's an event which may affect them (if they have ties in some way to this NPC - if they don't then who cares if he lives or dies anyway) that they have zero control over not no ability to affect.

In what way is this not a railroad?

First of all, the pcs can prevent or change this npc's fate by interacting with him. The Shaman is talking about a game in historical context, where one of the assumptions is that history goes on as we know it unless the pcs interfere with it.

It's not a railroad because the pcs have freedom of choice. This npc's ultimate fate assumes no player action. I would wager that, should the pcs so choose, they could kill him long before his 'appointed day' comes.

 

[the Jester]

We tend to frame the discussion in terms of railroad at one end of the spectrum and sandbox at the other. On the surface, that seems pretty logical. After all, in a railroad you have no meaningful choices and in a sandbox, you have lots.

The problem comes in when the connotations are added. Pawsplay illustrates this perfectly. He's hardly alone in saying that railroaded games are bad. And, really, if you just asked most DM's, "Hey, is your game a railroad?" most would probably say no, simply because railroad has such negative connotations.

But, take that a step further. if Railroad=bad game, and the opposite of Railroad is Sandbox, then doesn't it follow that Sandbox=Good Game?

Yes- that's why I've been trying to use "sandbox" and "story-based game" ("linear" has negative connotations too imho), with "railroad" and "rowboat" the extremes where, as Pawsplay puts it, things get dysfunctional.

 

[Celebrim]

And this means I can do a Shrodringer's Gun with the locations: the dungeon just happens to be where I need it to be for the players to find it. They've missed a few plot hooks, and I've had to provide them with more obvious ones, but since they are more inclined to talk to NPCs than the first group I took through the module I've had to improv a lot.

When I feel like railroading, I always think of Shrodringer's Gun and that usually kills the temptation. Ask yourself "How important is it that X happens?"

Do the players have to talk to the king to get the quest? Does the King have to be in a certain place in order to give the players the quest? As long as you keep your object firmly in mind, you won't railroad...much.

- emphasis added

I honestly can't tell what stance the poster is making, but he says clearly and well what I find seems to be the position a lot of other posters are hedging around.

Namely, he seems to be saying that so long as you keep the illusion of player choice up, you aren't actually on the railroad.

But look at that last sentence, "As long as you keep your object firmly in mind, you won't railroad...".

That to me shows the inherent contridiction in such a stance. The whole concept of "railroading" is that the DM has some destination (and often some journey) so fimly in mind that he doesn't allow deviation from it. Nothing so gaurantees that you'll railroad the players as having some destination firmly in mind.

The most powerful tool a DM has for railroading his players is there lack of knowledge about the game universe and his ability to manipulate what they can't see to force them back onto the DM's desired path. Some DMs are better than hiding the rails than others, but its all railroading and no proper discussion of railroading can be undertaken until you realize that. Otherwise, you'll be busy trying to say that your railroading isn't railroading because its 'good' and railroading is inherently bad, so what you are doing to insure the PC's do exactly what you want them to do can't be railroading.

Railroading refers to a broad variaty of techniques for effectively limiting player choice so that the story proceeds according to the DM's wishes. Sometimes these ways are subtle, sometimes they are intrusive, sometimes they are arguably justifiable. In fact, the majority of players accept railroading as a necessary feature of the game in some circumstances. But all the different techniques share in common that they limit player choice and turn players into observers with limited ability to effect the current or future situations.

Let me suggest some definitions:

"Linear": A game where one event follows logical from the previous and moves toward a predictable destination without side treks.

"Theme Park": A game that is sparcely detailed except for a few areas intended to be attractions. The attractions are usually connected by some sort of short railroad that whisks the players between attractions. Players have an expectation of empowerment and freedom only within the attractions.

"Adventure Path": A linear theme park. Often associated with published modules because a complex adventure can be orchestrated on a comparitively few pages and requiring comparitively low reliance on DM experience.

"Sandbox": A game, or a portion of a game, which is evenly detailed over a wide area and carries an assumption of a large amount of player freedom and empowerment. Generally seen as the opposite of 'linear'. Often associated with home brews because of the large amount of work involved to successfully set up the sandbox, although some published worlds (FR, HARN, and campaigns based loosely in the 'real world') are sufficiently detailed to support some sort of sandboxing.

"Rowboat": A degenerate sandbox which involves scant or nonexistant details and poor player empowerment. Often associated with 'winging it', especially by GMs with limited experience running other types of games and thus without a ready toolbox of plots, places, and characters to draw from.

"Railroad": A degenerate Adventure Path where not only you can't get off the train, you can't choose not to get on it, or an Adventure Path that consists solely of train and no attractions. Often associated with homebrew adventure paths where the GM has fallen to much in love with his own imagined story and outcomes, but sometimes seen in published adventures (DL if played without a DM experienced in sandboxing, some 2e AD&D especially for the FR, published VtM modules, certain CoC adventures, etc.)

"Playset": A campaign that liberally switches between adventure paths and sandboxes to try to capture the best of both, frex a sandbox that contains numerous themeparks or an adventure path which passes through several very broad attractions with multiple sidetreks.

 

[billd91]

I'm curious about some thing though. The Shaman, you talk about NPC's in your world having pre-scripted fates. If the PC's do not intervene, NPC X will die on a certain day in a certain way.

How is that not a pre-scripted event? I thought that in a sandbox, nothing was pre-scripted. Now, since there is no way the players could possibly know that NPC X is going to die on a particular day in a particular way (unless they read your notes), does it actually matter?

In a sandbox, nothing is assumed about what the PCs will do or what they should do. That doesn't apply to NPCs who are entirely under the DM's control. If the PCs don't know an NPC is going to die on x day in y way, it may still matter. But it will be up to the PCs to decide how they'll deal with those events, similarly, if the PCs have an effect on the NPC that makes the death less likely, the DM certain can and should adjust his plans for the background.

To put it another way, what makes it better that NPC X will die on such and such a day in such and such a way, predetermined before play even begins, vs a DM who decides that NPC X will die in such and such a way in order to serve a particular theme or plot development in his game?

It's not better and if you dig down, it's not even really different. Even in a sandbox, the campaign can have plots going on and themes. In fact, I think they should. It's just that the PCs have control of what plots they'll get involved in or how they will react to ones that happen to cross their paths. Think of it as the campaign world having its own ongoing story (or collection of stories) that would unfold if the PCs never got involved. Then think of how it changes as the PCs take specific actions and get involved in their own particular and specific ways.

Since the event is entirely pre-scripted, and, since the PC's have no way of knowing that he's going to blow his own brains out on such and such a day, they have no way of actually preventing this, how is this not a railroad? It's an event which may affect them (if they have ties in some way to this NPC - if they don't then who cares if he lives or dies anyway) that they have zero control over not no ability to affect.

In what way is this not a railroad?

It's not limiting the choices of the PCs. You can't railroad an NPC. It's how the life of the NPC plays out from a particular point in time if adventurers don't happen along and change it. Maybe they'll change it for the better, maybe even for the worse. Maybe their influence will be so minimal that they won't change it much at all. But the choices of how they interact with that NPC will be all in the hands of the players.

 

[nedjer]

The illusion of player choice sure ain't player choice. Can't say I favour any of those options. Even the playset. A compromise between player choice and adventure paths also ain't player choice.

I choose 'the path less travelled', where player choice builds and mediates gameplay in the adventure playground beyond the sandbox.