What best describes railroading as you understand it?

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I don't think any of these are railroading.

#5 could be an example of unfun dungeon design, if it was pervasive throughout your entire campaign, but it still isn't railroading. Think about how many caves in real life have only one entrance.

Now, if the entire dungeon had powerful magic preventing scrying past room 1 or using dimension door or tunneling through the wall or such, I'd call that railroading, unless room 2 is a lich's lair, or the crypt of a dead archmage, or some such. And even then, it should theoretically be possible to supress/destroy thes magicks, by application of the proper high level spells.

This thread has already served its purpose; it has demonstrated overwhelmingly that people agree with your definition. Therefore, it already has provided the result I was after -- information.

I do, however, take exception to your telling Quasqueton that he is judging your position harshly, or that I am taking "a single quote out of context from such a large discussion." You are correct, however, that anybody would be best served by reading the other thread.

However, if Quas judged you harshly, why didn't you answer his questions?

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.​

 

[Kormydigar]

Where do you draw the line between running the game and railroading?

The trick to walking this line involves not getting too wrapped up in what you WANT to happen vs. what the players make happen. When I am preparing campaign material it is usually done in several layers. The first thing is to prepare maps/ stats for the physical locale(s) , then detail major NPC's/monsters the PC's will be possibly encountering. After this "grunt work" is done its time for story elements. I simply give the NPC/monsters short and long term goals and make some notes about how they plan to achieve these goals. This usually spawns several plot hooks (some very minor). After that I like to sketch out a rough timeline of recent events leading up to when the PC's come on the scene and also a similar timeline for future events that will occur IF the PC's take no action- done. As far as the initial campaign setup, the players are informed of the beginning situation before character creation.

This way, if the players don't follow the plot hooks I most expect them to, then I have ready made sequence of events for the things they did not act upon. Things are happening behind the scenes and the PC's can see the consequences of not acting. It helps the characters realize that they are important and what they do (or don't do) really matters.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Note that I said "such [as you described] DM manipulation", not "any DM manipulation".

Yup.. and that is one of the thinly veiled lines between railroading and running... it is apparent that the word 'manipulation' carries a negative overtone for you. For me, manipulation is expected and the ulterior motives are the only real question.

Be careful, there. I haven't said, in either thread, what my game (with regards to railroading) is like.

I know.. but I have seen your posts hither and yon.. and am quite a compliant player as I understand quite intimately the difficulties of running a game.

 

[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.

it is apparent that the word 'manipulation' carries a negative overtone for you. For me, manipulation is expected and the ulterior motives are the only real question.

manipulation: Exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage.

The word does have negative overtones, literally by definition.

I know.. but I have seen your posts hither and yon.. and am quite a compliant player as I understand quite intimately the difficulties of running a game.

Then you should know that "compliance" is not a requisite for my campaigns, as evidenced by the multitude of lost, abandoned, ignored, unfound, and killed adventures, encounters, plots, people, and places in my games I only request that you let me know where you’re “going” next game session so I can be prepared for the game, as I do not “wing it” – that way lies madness (and a bad game experience for all).

Quasqueton

 

[The Shaman]

...I cannot imagine a game where DM manipulation doesn't exist. Its just that the better DM's do a better job of hiding the manipulation behind an illusion of player free choice.

I think my head is about to explo*SPLORT! splattersplattersplattersplatter*

 

[Lanefan]

Be careful, there. I haven't said, in either thread, what my game (with regards to railroading) is like.

Even so, given what I've read here, you seem to have the requisites to run a playable and fun game: intelligence, creativity, and above all common sense. Sight unseen, I too would join.

That said, your post about wanting to know where the party is going so you can prepare for next session: you assume the party *knows* where it's going!

Lanefan

 

[fusangite]

For me, railroading always has a negative connotation. People who have been railroaded feel like they have been railroaded. I would offer the following necessary conditions for railroading:
1) PCs proceeding through a predetermined series of events in a predetermined order
2) PC choices negated or rules suspended in order to force the party through this predetermined path
3) PCs feeling that this GM usurpation of RAW or PC authority is unwarranted

None of these three things constitutes a sufficient condition but all, in my view, are necessary conditions.

 

[kolikeos]

Interesting. You would argue that every dungeon room has to have at least two ways in/out in order to avoid railroading?

Please note that under "A removal of player choice which the player finds objectionable or innapropriate." all of the above are railroading because the only qualifier is that the player finds the situation objectionable.

EDIT: I would have said #3 if any, because the DM is telling the paladin that he has to atone, whereas I would argue that the paladin actually faces an IF/THEN choice. IF he does not atone THEN he is not a paladin.

On second thought, I would have started with IF he commits those acts THEN he is not a paladin. The DM is being extremely lenient, IMHO, to allow any form of atonement to work.

YMMV.

railroading is not necessarily something that the player finds objectionable. sometimes railroading is unavoidable or necessary.
1 is not railroading. how can combat be railroaded? he might have made his save.
2 is not railroading. it is the result of player activity. railroading is when player choice has no effect on the outcome.
3 is not railroading. it is also the result of player choice. also, the paladin does not have to atone.
4 is not railroading. railroading happens during the adventure. it has nothing to do with character creation unless the dm dictates what character each player plays.
5 is railroading. there is no way to get to room three without going though room 2 (actually, that is not true. depending on level and available resources. but lets say it is for now), this means that no matter what the players do, there is only one way in which this adventure will continue. unless they can go back and find a different adventure, this is railroading. the fact that the players find that objectionable is not railroading in itself.
a good example of railroading is computer games: there is almost always only one outcome to the player's activities.
in many adventures the final outcome is planned ahead of time but there are different ways to get there that affect things throughout the game. a big railroad that has sub non-railroadings in it. (am i making any sense?)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

The word does have negative overtones, literally by definition.

Ah.. but the 'by definition' undertone is only one of multiple options.. www.m-w.com lists:
1 > to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2 > to manage or utilize skillfully
3 > to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
4> to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose

I prefer to view manipulation as managing skillfully and to change by arful means so as to server one's purpose {that purpose being to provide an entertaining gaming session for the players}

As to your campaign, I would expect my character to have its own goals and desires.. and have in the past had characters part ways with the group simply because they no longer fit into where the character was going... meaning I had to make a new character up.
Compliant, in this case, means I will work within the framework of the social contract to play a valuable member of a party who quests to overcome the challanges presented by the GM.
On the side I will provide the GM with a number of potential plot hooks with which to challange us, as well as solid reasons for adventuring with the group.
Basically, I will try my best to be the sort of player I would like to have in a game I run

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think my head is about to explo*SPLORT! splattersplattersplattersplatter*

Are you suggesting that a GM can run a game without manipulating the players in any way shape or form?

No focusing of the players attention to an area due to description provided {or notable lack thereof}?
No leading of the players with NPC interation that provides 'clues' as to the 'better' way to go?

Given the media of the game we play it is impossible to run a game where a turn of a phrase does not change how the players react to the described encounter.

I think this debate is merely an aspect of the difference in which definition of 'manipulation' we are using. Just because manipulation can be used in insiduous and unfair manners to acheive a goal of an individual over the goals of the group doesn't mean that all manipulation is badfun.

Blunt and obtuse manipulation for the purpose of fitting into the GM's idea of how the game should go leads to complaints about rail-roading.
Skillful and artful manipulation for the purpose of challanging and entertaining leads to memorable games that are fondly recalled years after the fact.

T'is interesting how extreme a response I get based on a reading of one word
Consider, use of a different wording would have gotten a different result...er.. would that mean I would have manipulated you to respond as you did?

But, as RC stated upthread, this thread has served its purpose to show the 'norm' of opinion. Mine seems to be an aberrant viewpoint based on a more cynical outlook on life.
After all, Everything has its cost, everyone has ulterior motives, and its never a question of being paranoid...its a question of if you are paranoid enough.

As usual, YMMV