Can you railroad a willing player? (Forked from "Is World Building Necessary?")

[Hussar]

ALL PLOTS ARE RAILROADS!

I mean "plot" in the literary sense, changing the referee into Author and the players from those of a game to those who strut upon a stage -- not in the sense of the plans of NPC mice and men.

It seems to me really not hard to grasp, based on my experience of D&D in the 1970s and 1980s.

It blows my mind that the basic concept of D&D should (in such precincts as these) be probably even stranger than swimming in the ocean is to one who has never known anything but plains beneath the Big Sky.

EDIT: Basically, this seems to be getting "thought about" to an absurd degree. Instead of debating a spectral analysis of chocolate ice cream, my advice is to give it a taste. Then you might know the difference between it and carob-flavored soy milk by way of information processors in development long before photography!

But how do you differentiate between Authorial plot and NPC plot? I mean, both are 100% generated by the DM. And, if they are the same, then railroad should have no negative connotation, but it does.

Let me give you an example. Is there any difference between the DM saying, "There is a plot by Baron McBaddass to take over the kingdom by killing the king" and "Baron McBaddass has decided to take over the kingdom by killing the king"?

You are make a distinction here that I don't think holds any water. There is no difference between Author and NPC, they are both the same person.

Again, I agree with you that I know railroading when I see it. But, trying to nail down an objective definition is far more nuanced than you seem to be attempting.

 

[Ariosto]

Hussar, it's simple:

Erwin Rommel was among the generals who plotted to assassinate Hitler, take control of the government and negotiate a peace with the Allies. That kind of plot can fail.

The plot of Alien is such that only Ripley and the cat escape the Nostromo. That kind of plot is ensured by the author.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar, it's simple:

Erwin Rommel was among the generals who plotted to assassinate Hitler, take control of the government and negotiate a peace with the Allies. That kind of plot can fail.

The plot of Alien is such that only Ripley and the cat escape the Nostromo. That kind of plot is ensured by the author.

I've given you XP to recently to do so again for this post, but I would like to thank you for posts.


RC

 

[howandwhy99]

I'd also like to point out that the GM is not a game designer. He or she may suggest modules to play, but the GM certainly does not need to be the one who designed the adventure module.

Nor is the DM in full command of authoring an NPC's actions. Most of those actions are predetermined by the game designer too. And even 0-level NPCs that are talked to can have their characterization rolled randomly.

But all of that is pretty solid information if a person knows pre-d20 D&D. What I think the main confusion here is the difference between a Player who is in the Protagonist position when roleplaying and a person running an NPC (DM or aid) who is in the Auxiliary position when roleplaying. Auxiliaries are all about putting the Protagonists in specific social positions according to the processed design of the situation and the pre-determined characterization of the character they are portraying.

That's the big difference and I think most DMs know it. As NPCs they are under contract to act out a specific character where as Players can act however they wish. It's just about which behaviors are rewarded or not depending upon the role being investigated.

 

[pawsplay]

I'd also like to point out that the GM is not a game designer.

I'd like to point out that, by a definition used by many people in the hobby, including Gary Gygax, you are incorrect.

 

[pawsplay]

Can I get a bit of clarification here?

Chosen by whom? Choices that are negated by the player or choices that are negated by the DM? I think I agree with you, but, I'm just not 100% clear what you mean here.

If the DM decides, because the players choose Unexpected Thing X, that Unexpected Thing X will fail, that is railroading.

Stacking the deck is not railroading... the players still have the choice to ice-skate uphill. The game world still has integrity. Whether the path set forth by the DM is good or not is just an aesthetic decision.

Similarly, "all roads lead to Rome" is not a railroad. You can arrange it such that both paths A and B lead to the boss vampire... but having done that, you need to establish how that is logically so. In some cases, there are multiple paths that do lead to the boss vampire, while in other cases you are intentionally removing one meanginful choice and you simply flip the map/NPC helper/whatever to the reverse, if need be. Simply removing a meaningful choice is not railroading. Even if the PCs save Sweet Sue from the orcs, you may have it set up so she will be murdered later anyway.

Railroading is a meta-decision that breaks the integrity of the game. The PCs take path A to the vampire, but wise up along the way, backtrack, and choose the logically necessary B, forcing you to consider them avoiding or running into situations you did not intend. If you respond by removing logic, the game has degenerated and you are now a railroader. Luke may join the Dark Side; a kender may shatter the orb of dragonkind; the PCs may choose to estimate the position of the dragon's lair and drill into it from the surface; the players may choose to play with an artifact you put into play; wealthy PCs might give away their positions and go to live in the wilderness until they are called again; PCs die; NPCs die; nameless minions get interrogated and must suddenly have names; innocent tavernkeepers get shanghaid into intrigue or felonies; hapless hirelings are used as living mine detectors.

While striving in every way to make a scenario flexible, logical and entertaining, the GM must be prepared at any moment to watch the whole thing devolve onto decisions made by the players, or dumb luck, or being backed into a corner by logic.

Keeping the bad guy alive for the third act because you wanted him there is cheating in the only way that really matters. What separates RPGs from fiction is real uncertainty, real (fictional) danger.

To remove a meanginful choice can be justified. But if the choice exists, and you choose to nullify the consequences of that choice, that is the most elemental particle of the railroaded game.

 

[LostSoul]

Stacking the deck is not railroading... the players still have the choice to ice-skate uphill. The game world still has integrity. Whether the path set forth by the DM is good or not is just an aesthetic decision.

Where do you draw the line?

"There's a dragon here, and he wants to burn down the town of Townsburg in an act of revenge for the adventuring party who raided his lair that came from Townsburg."

The PCs hear about this and decide to kill him before he can do so. But, you know, he's 20th level and the PCs are 8th level.


What's the difference there? Aren't you just presenting the players with a non-choice? (Barring some desire on the players to play the martyr.)

This is why I think you need to consider goals for play when you talk about railroading.

 

[Ariosto]

"All roads lead to Rome" is not a railroad

What do you mean by that? If I set out by Ferrari on the road to Milano, and end up by GM Fiat in Roma instead ...

 

[Ariosto]

Lost Soul, that dragon attack is not railroading. If the DM were to dictate how the players respond to the situation, then that would be railroading.

Is the difference really unclear?

 

[pawsplay]

Where do you draw the line?

I don't see an area that needs a line drawn through it. There is no continuity between "This is a bad idea because it is dangerous" and "I, as the GM, forbid you from doing something." I could use deities or other over-the-top measures to steer play in a certain direction, but even then, players have a choice of participating in that style of game or not.