What best describes railroading as you understand it?

[Nonlethal Force]

"Linear" in this case would be a reference to the structure of the adventure- it allows for only one overall sequence of events to take place.

I agree that it would be really hard to have non-linear play, railroading or not.

Okay, with this definition of linear I can at least understand what is being said. I would argue whether linear is the right word there, however. In my mind, linear is a good thing. It means the players are able to get stuff done and have a good grasp of the plot because they are moving it forward. Yet, it seems like linear here is being used to indicate a lack of choices of how to get from point A to point B.

Non-linear play is perhaps a bit of a misnomer. Non-linear adventure design is not, however.

Non-linear design is perhaps a better term here. When I DM, I usually only think forward to the final confrontation with the BBEG and his minions. I let the players have the fredom to figure our a rational means of getting to that final conflict. To me that makes the most sense. Let the PCs do the thinking and the playing. It is up to them to do what makes sense for their characters ... not the DM to pick a set of "plot points" that must be met in order to get to the final scene.

Rather than linear/non-linear, might I introduce a different set of expressions? Rather than linear, wouldn't something line mono-plot or uniplot be more descriptive? [Yes, I know these aren't words ... but in today's day and age we don't worry about that any more. If it gets the point across better than any known word, use it!] Of course, the reason I like mono-plot is because it is easier to contrast with its opposite: variable-plot. When I DM, I employ a variable plot system. The players can do whatever the heck they want to do and it is my job as the DM to legitimately referee whether their approach - while perhaps different than mine - can get them where they need to go or not.

Honestly, I think 'mono' vs. 'variable' plot design is really the terminology that should be employed. Or .. something like that.

 

[catsclaw227]

I voted for the third option with the caveat that the DM would be usurping reasonable player choices. I also believe that a linear plot in an adventure, and a linear plot in an adventure series are two different things. It is possible to have an overarching storyline that can require some linear sequencing of events, both in PC control and out of PC control (the world still goes 'round, even when the PCs are away.) But when a specific encounter or small series of encounters force a party down a path they don't want to go down, is... well... just poor adventure design.

I have been caught trying to force player actions when DMing, in order to not ruin the 25 hours of campaign planning I've done, but it never feels right when I do it.

On the other hand, when certain members of a party specifically try to derail a campaign's plot just to see if the DM will allow it, I take offence. Especially after the DM has spent countless hours to make an enjoyable game. (I've seen this as a player and a DM.)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

First of all, I have not read the other thread and am not voting due to a lack of a fitting option.

A properly run game is one in which the GM manipulates events, NPC's, and circumstances in order to follow a story line, usually prepared in advance, in the attempt to reach a climax that is entertaining for all involved.

A railroad is when a player objects to what they consider unfair restrictions on thier actions, funneling them through a plot they have no desire to fulfill.

Run Ravenloft I a couple of times. At least once someone will complain about the killing mists that traps them in Barovia and forces them to confront Strahd. Is this an excellent module or a hopeless railroad?
That depends entirely on how the player chooses to view it.

Any time I sit at a table for a game, I expect a degree of funneling towards the plotline that the GM has spent hours preparing for. I know that even tho my character might choose another path, this one will be more entertaining in the long run.

Other people sit at a table, I have had my share of, and think that because they spent 5 minutes creating Mr Badd-Ass Fighter with Cleave...that they should wander merrily about the campaign setting chasing after whatever they want.. regardless of whether the game was announced as following a module.

So, what exactly is a rail-road? It is when the group fails to communicate the intent and scope of the campaign and both the DM and the player refuse to compromise.

All that being said, the most memorable and engaging CP session I have ever run was a pure, total railroad from start to finish.. the difference is that I hid the lack of options by, IMHO, clever trappings where the players *thought* they were making thier own choices.
End result... I got called a RBDM and immediately asked when I was running the next session

Its all about communication and entertainment. You want to play Badd-Ass Fighter hunting down your fathers killer while chanting the mantra 'I am Inigo Montoya......'
Won't happen unless you work with the DM to include it.
You want to run a Dawn of the Dead game with a bunch of Rogue characters and no Cleric in sight.. better chat with your players!

YMMV

 

[happyelf]

I find this concept to be so far removed from sensible that I suspect many of the folks voting for it as a definition of railroading are misunderstanding the true vagary of it. Usually I like polls on ENWorld, but my mind just cannot conceive of this definition being acceptable.
Quasqueton

I think you're reading my definition very harshly and I don't think it's a fair reading at all.

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, GM's who railroad their players often think their efforts are reasonable, but that doesn't change the fact that their players are not enjoying the game because of the choices that are being taken away from them.

Linear isn't bad. If the players are ok with not making certain kinds of choices, or having a certain kind of control, that's ok!

Railroading is bad. If the players want to have a certain kind of control, or power, or make certain kinds of choices, and the GM, doesn't allow that, that is not ok.

I'm not evne saying that a railroading GM is a bad GM- it can simply be a matter of poor comunication, or poor assumptions about what type of game people want to play.

I'm also not saying the players should be able to overrule every ruling the GM makes- but the GM has to be accountable for their game and if at some point the players feel they are not getting the game they want, then so be it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you're reading my definition very harshly and I don't think it's a fair reading at all.

You did agree that

there is no objective assessment that can be made regarding railroading, that the only criteria required for subjective assessment is how the player feels about something that occurs in the game, that there must be some removal of player choice or power so long as the caveat that only how the player feels determines whether or not there was removal of player choice or power and/or whether such limitations were legitimate, and that this is the most commonly accepted useage of the term "railroading".​

was a correct paraphrase of your position. Given that, I don't think Quasqueton is being harsh at all.

RC

 

[The Shaman]

A properly run game is one in which the GM manipulates events, NPC's, and circumstances in order to follow a story line, usually prepared in advance, in the attempt to reach a climax that is entertaining for all involved.

*AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!*

YMMV

Yeah, a bit.

 

[Quasqueton]

I think you're reading my definition very harshly and I don't think it's a fair reading at all.

Please identify these examples as either a railroad or not a railroad:

1- Being targeted with a hold person in a combat -- the Player is unhappy because he wants to act in the battle.

2- Being confronted by normal constabulary for burning and killing through the city -- the Players are unhappy because they were having fun tossing fireballs around.

3- Telling the paladin he needs to atone for torturing and raping captives -- the Player is unhappy because he doesn't want to go on a quest for the atonement.

4- Telling the Players, “no warforged ninjas in this campaign” -- one Player is unhappy because he really wants to play a warforged ninja.

5- Room 1 in the dungeon has one door other than the entrance, which leads to room 2 -- the Players are unhappy because they want to skip the fight in room 2 and sneak into the room 3 from a back way.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

A properly run game is one in which the GM manipulates events, NPC's, and circumstances in order to follow a story line, usually prepared in advance, in the attempt to reach a climax that is entertaining for all involved.

I can't imagine any climax reached through such DM manipulation to be enteraining at all.

Quasqueton

 

[painandgreed]

A properly run game is one in which the GM manipulates events, NPC's, and circumstances in order to follow a story line, usually prepared in advance, in the attempt to reach a climax that is entertaining for all involved.

Wow...just wow. I guess I strive to improperly run games then.

Other people sit at a table, I have had my share of, and think that because they spent 5 minutes creating Mr Badd-Ass Fighter with Cleave...that they should wander merrily about the campaign setting chasing after whatever they want.. regardless of whether the game was announced as following a module.

Lucky you. I spend most of my time trying to get players to show some initiative and come up with their own goals. So many have been led by the nose for so long that most seem to have lost any ability to think for themselves.

I can't imagine any climax reached through such DM manipulation to be enteraining at all.

I can think of several cute DMs where I would have enjoyed her manipulating me to climax. (sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[Kormydigar]

I said as much in the other thread but will repeat it here for good measure. A DM who writes a story before the PC's come on the scene has set up a railroad. A DM who writes a detailed exposition and lets the story be written in game has not gone the route of railroad.

As far as linear and non-linear adventures are concerned, it is easier for a railroad to take place in linear ones but it can happen in any type of campaign where the DM gets too caught up in one particular vision for the story.

There are various types of railroading that can happen in a campaign. The most commonly referred to type is the plot railroad of which many fine examples have been given. There is also the "heroes must survive" railroad in which the DM decides that a PC can't die. It is interesting that this type of play is rarely called railroading, yet if the DM keeps preserving the life of a baddie against all reason he becomes a "plot device" villan and the DM is running a railroad campaign.