What best describes railroading as you understand it?

[happyelf]

You did agree that

I agree to nothing. I've given my position in brief here, and in depth there. If anyone wants a summary of my definition they can read my post, above.

 

[ThirdWizard]

There are several different kinds of railroads and several different levels at which railroading can take place. I think that is a key issue in the other thread, and one that needs to be taken into more consideration when one is discussing what "railroading" is.

Railroading on the combat level is completely different than railroading on the "field" or "adventure" (ie NPC interactions, PC decisions and plans, etc), which is also completely different than railroading on the "campaign arc" level.

If you ignore that these things are different and try to create one definition for railroading that fits all of them, then you'll just confuse the issue and will lead to arguments with people who think of them differently. It's fine if one person can fit their own definition into all of them, but most people are not going to.

For example, some people would consider the DM dictating the PC actions as railroading. But, then many people would consider the DM starting an adventure with "You're riding toward X destination" as perfectly normal. Indeed some people said the DM starting an adventure with the PCs having lost all their equipment is not railroading. Would the same be true for the combat level? Adventure/field level? Maybe. Maybe not.

But, I think a distinction really does need to be made between these different aspects of game and where railroading begins in each contnext.


For me, railroading can basically be boiled down to the literal meaning of what a railroad is, for the most part. A railroad is when there is a track and the PCs can't get off of it. That's not a defnition, but an idea instead. It's a context that will change from person to person.

For example, I assume that a game can be heavily railroaded and fun for all because the Players in this case like the tracks, enjoy the tracks, and can't wait to see where it takes them. And, that's fine. Others believe that it is only railroading if the Players aren't happy with it. That's fine, too, and its a difference of oppinion, but a very very large gulf between us.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree to nothing. I've given my position in brief here, and in depth there. If anyone wants a summary of my definition they can read my post, above.

LOL. Just so we're clear, when I asked if that summary was quite right, you responded "It is quite right, even if you don't accept it. When a player says "this is railroading!" that is why they are saying it."

(http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2963018&postcount=194)

If you've backed off from that sort of absolute position, however, I'm glad to hear it.

However, your base description of your position, above still doesn't allow for any legitimate use of the word "No" by the DM.

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.​

At least not as I read it, in light of your previous comments.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

OTOH, I am certainly forced to agree that your definition is in mass useage, for what it's worth.

 

[Rothe]

....

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.

....

YMMV

Wow...I've never properly run a game. I'd be more likely to say:

A properly run game is one in which the players manipulate events, NPCs, and circumstances in order to create a story of adventure from a rich detailed setting, usually prepared in advance, that is entertaining for all involved.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wow...I've never properly run a game. I'd be more likely to say:

A properly run game is one in which the players manipulate events, NPCs, and circumstances in order to create a story of adventure from a rich detailed setting, usually prepared in advance, that is entertaining for all involved.

QFT

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

This poll is railroading me! I want more options!

 

[Hussar]

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.

QFT

As far as setting up the adventure, as ThirdWizard says, in medias res, it is railroading. You have stripped away player choice. However, it is also a generally accepted form for getting the game going as well. As ThirdWizard says, not all railroading is created equal. Some is even considered beneficial, such as starting in a tavern or whatever, just to get the game off the ground.

Thus, really, the definition of railroading must include some flexibility or at least a minimum value where it becomes a bad thing. Starting an adventure at Town Ecks is, by and large, acceptable. Starting an adventure where my 15th level character has been captured and stripped of equipment by flumphs is perhaps not. There does need to be a level of reasonable level included in the definition. My problem with the first definition is that the only judge of that level is the player.

As I said in the other thread, the player is not in command of all the facts and may perceive railroading where none exists or, conversely, may not see any railroading at all despite being locked into a single track. Remove the "that the player finds objectionable" bit and replace it with "an informed person would find objectionable" and I can probably live with the first one.

 

[happyelf]

I get the feeling that some people are going to be active on this thread for a long time, and who knows, eventually they might even get the result they're after, but I think spreading the debate across two threads is only going to confuse things.

LOL. Just so we're clear, when I asked if that summary was quite right, you responded "It is quite right, even if you don't accept it. When a player says "this is railroading!" that is why they are saying it."

(http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2963018&postcount=194)

If you've backed off from that sort of absolute position, however, I'm glad to hear it.

I've done nothing of the sort, I simply refuse to take a single quote out of context from such a large discussion. Anybody who wants a brief rundown of my position can see the posts i've made on this thead. If anybody wants to talk about the other thread, they're best served by reading and responding there.

However, your base description of your position, above still doesn't allow for any legitimate use of the word "No" by the DM.

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.​

At least not as I read it, in light of your previous comments.
RC

This is not acurate, regardless of'how you 'read it'. as I said earlier in this thread, it's not a matter of the player over-ruling the GM, it's a matter of the GM, ultimatly being accountable for their decisions, and recognising that at some point the players will juge the merit of the game, if they find they are not having fun with it. The nature of that jugement will depend on their preferences for fun, and specific to this concept, their preferences and standards for making choices and having control, and input into the game.

I'd really apreciate it if you don't try and migrate the debate from one thread to the other, but I guess that's a vain hope. It's only going to make things more confusing for people trying to read the threads.

This poll is railroading me! I want more options!

I do agree that the poll is hardly comprehensive, but i'll also note that my definintion carries with it a lot of potential sub-definitions, baed on play style.

Different players will define railroading differently based on their own preferences, but overall, I feel railroading is as I defined it, and I think it's important that people respect that different players have different ideas about what constitutes a railroad.

 

[tzor]

A linear plot is only railroading if the DM refuses to abandon the plot if the players ignore it.

I once was running an online campaign which broke up because I finally got upset at players, abandoning (as opposed to ignoring or not starting) the plot mid stream, AD&D wasn't supposed to stand for attention deficit disorder. If I spend a fair amount of time working out all the posibilites that they might decide to do, and then they decide to go do something completely different, ignoring all implications of their actions, I think I should have the right to ask them if they would at least finish the plotline for a change.

I'm all for giving a player choice, but with choice comes responsibiliy, players and DMs have to work together to make everything happen.