Confession: I like Plot

[Desdichado]

If you want to rephrase my statement so... but I don't know why you would. My objection is merely that you're attempting to use the term railroad contrary to how it's usually used when discussing roleplaying games.

A railroad is subjective. It also contains Shrodinger's train, to a certain extent. Is a scenario a railroad if there's only one way to go through it, but the PC's choose that way, without any constraint from the GM? Who knows? The GM never had to constrain the PCs and the PC's never felt that their reasonable actions were constrained. Therefore at no point did any of the symptoms of a railroad actually take place, even though it had the (strong) potential to be one.

A railroad can only exist as a railroad when the PCs and the GM are at loggerheads about what to do, and if it can be done. Scenarios in and of themselves cannot really be railroads; they can only have greater or lesser potential to be railroads in the hands of poor GMs.

In my experience, although the hypothetical "could be a railroad, but the players make all the 'right' choices" sounds strange, that's actually exactly what happens frequently. If the GM puts down hints and plot hooks, for the most part, players tend to naturally follow them.

In fact, the more I think about it, and this hasn't occured to me until just now, if a group is frequently running into railroad situations, it could just as easily be a problem with the players refusing to engage the GM except on his own terms, combined with an inflexible GM. GMs tend to bear the brunt of the blame for railroady experiences, but players could share a fair amount of the blame too. I've known plenty of players who refuse to play the game presented to them, and just to be ornery, always try to do something "unexpected."

 

[Desdichado]

Guess what, Hobo? The objective referent remains. Even if -- and I think it unlikely -- you manage to deprive us of the "railroad" term, we can (and of necessity will) come up with another.

On what do you base this? Setting aside for a moment anecdotal experience of local usage, does common sense really suggest to you that such a self-negating construction should have attained wide currency in the very referential context you dismiss as irrelevant? Or do you think that it has not?

Hobo's notion of the historical context of "story telling game" in another thread does not give me confidence in his credentials as an authority on game-jargon history.

Ahh... you edited while I was responding.

I'm not trying to deprive anyone of the term railroad. I just wish you'd use it the same way most others use it instead of trying to redefine it to fit your needs.

But I see from the rest of the paragraphs that you seem unlikely to really want to discuss this. This isn't a case of "my anecdotal evidence trumps yours" and I'm not talking about local usage. I'm talking about widespread online usage, and if you'd read the rest of this thread, it would be pretty obvious to you that you're causing plenty of people besides just me grief with your attempt to redefine a term that has a current, common usage already.

I'm restating what has been said multiple times in this thread already. Your definition of railroad is off the reservation.

 

[Janx]

There's another factor in play (literally, in this instance): the command crew of Enterprise has some measure of responsibility to respond to the situation, whereas adventurers may or may not (I assumed the latter) have any responsibility toward or even affinity for Princess Pinkflower.

this is also the core challenge of choosing your plot hooks in the first place.

Having plot hooks that are highly likely to be followed.

If your party "works for the federation" they WILL most likely go on the mission.

If your party is a unaffilliated group sitting in a bar, then you will have a harder time making a plot hook to please them all. But in the same vein, any player who doesn't bit the hook, is slowing down the rest of the group from getting to the action.

If your party is "good" they are likely to follow any "good needs help" plot hook.

If your party is employed by the king, the are likely to follow any reasonable order from the king, thus making that a mission for the king a valid plot hook

if your party owns/runs a business/holding, they will likely follow any plot hook that is a threat to their interest.

if your party is evil, you will probably need a plot hook that presents a direct threat to all the PCs to get them to work together and follow it. Otherwise, each PC's reaction will be random.

My players are pretty predictable in what types of plot hooks they will follow. I can't predict how they'll solve it, but I can create a plot hook and reasonably expect them to go for it. In turn, I know I can guesstimate the outcome. So I prepare the stuff I need for that. Each thing I write down has an expected outcome, I just adjust or dump what doesn't apply anymore. Whatever fits.

You'd do the same in a pre-generated dungeon. After the first 5 noisy fights, you could leave all the monsters in the rooms that your paper has them in. Or you could start moving some of them into the halls, or getting them on alert. Since it's too cumbersome to document all that, I think the expecation is that all GMs must alter, re-organize, or drop elements of the written adventure as befits the game events.

I'd also expect that if your group uses published adventures, you probably DO have to accept a bit of rail-roading just to prime the pump of getting into the adventure. The reason is simply, the plot hooks in the module have to be written for EVERY game group. Whereas, when you write your own, especially beyond the first session, you are most likely building on what has gone before.


There might also be a flaw in the LotR scenario. Frodo gets a ring. in adventure 1. It's cool, he has some uses for it in adventure 2. He learns it has side-effects in adventure 3.

Before adventure 4, the players talk about it and decide they need to destroy it, so they tell the GM that they are going to investigate that idea. The GM tells them that they try melting it and hammering it, and the sages suggest throwing it in a volcano.

The players agree and ask where's the nearest one. The GM says Mount Doom. The players say, ok, then we'll head for that. The GM says, then let's stop here and I'll go write up the next adventure for that.

Adventure 4, the players do a lot of walking, towards mount doom. Stuff happens along the way, as this is a mostly a travel adventure. Eventually they get to the mountain. Frodo tosses the ring in while Sam and Golum wrassle. A good time was had by all.


The bad GM hands the PCs a ring and says your quest is to destory it by throwing it in the volcano. A good GM lets the players figure that out by themselves. It is entirely possible (if the GM had NOT known about LotR) that he had no idea of how to destroy it, and the players are the ones to suggest a volcano.

My point then, is if you use plot to forcibly recreate LotR, it'll probably suck. It you use plot and storytelling elements to add to your game, you'll end up with sessions that make good stories. And were fun. And were focused on the PCs and decided by the players.

 

[Desdichado]

The bad GM hands the PCs a ring and says your quest is to destory it by throwing it in the volcano. A good GM lets the players figure that out by themselves.

Not necessarily. A good GM could also give the PC's a ring and tell them how they need to destroy it. A bad GM could give them the ring, and nothing else, so the PC's wander around entirely unclear what it is they're supposed to do with it. That could be OK, if they're an inventive bunch and the GM can have interesting things happen to them as a result of owning it. But I disagree with your dichotomy. Both of those situations could easily be what happens with both a bad and a good GM.

 

[Janx]

Hobo, RC: So, if you're defining it for us then a "railroad" is all in the eye of the beholder, eh? It has absolutely no referent to a scenario in itself.

A scenario can allow no choices at all and it's not a railroad if someone, somewhere happens to like going through it.

Your repeated objection, Hobo, indicates that I am not entitled to my opinion but must -- like everyone else in the world -- be bound by the opinion of that one hobo who says, "I like to ride the rails, so it's not a railroad."

In other words, no scenario is a railroad.

On what do you base this?

Hobo's notion of the historical context of "story telling game" in another thread does not give me confidence in his credentials as an authority on game-jargon history.

Guess what? The objective referent remains. Even if -- and I think it unlikely -- you manage to deprive us of the "railroad" term, we can (and of necessity will) come up with another.

The standard definition on most every rail-roading thread comes down to this:
"A railroad is a very specific type of degenerate game condition in which the players attempt to make choices that they should reasonably expect to be able to make that the GM thwarts."

it happens NOT because the GM wrote some stuff down and the party is or isn't trying to do exactly that, but because the DM is trying to BLOCK any action the party takes that doesn't lead to the DM's foregone conclusion.

Throw away all your DM notes. Run a game from your head. You are just as capable of running a railroad game.

Railroad has nothing to do with what the notes say, it has everything with the GM trying to force certain player actions or events on the players, and blocking any other valid alternative.

Let's say the DM has the idea that the party is in the desert, and they will meet a new PC who will befriend them by resucing them from dehydration and then later betray them. While the party is planning their trip to WaterVille, the DM blocks every method of transport (including teleports), only allowing camels, because he plans on having the camels get scared and run off during a dust storm, stranding the party. Once he gets them there, he has the storm put holes in all the waterskins. Blocks any create water spells, and it turns out the Decanter of Endless water the party owned was pick-pocketed back in town. All this, so he can have the party collapse of thirst, just in time for the new "friendly" stranger to save the day.

That is a railroad. it takes no notes. Only DM intent to force specific events or player actions to lead to his forced situation over the players rational alternatives.

This is why if the DM has notes that describe the path a party takes (and the encounters) they have as they travel, it is not a railroad. It is only a railroad when the players cannot get off. Until then, the GM has not been tested. A good GM could take those same notes, and adapt as the party takes a shortcut. A bad GM will not let them get off the road, and will force encounters on the party despite them having taken reasonable precautions.

a railroad GM is making the same abuse of power as the rocks-fall-you-die GM. You are playing a game where the GM is the final arbiter of what happens. it isn't a crime to re-arrange your scenes or notes. It is a crime to abuse your power.

 

[The Shaman]

That is why I think it is necessary to distinguish between framework and story. You easily accept the framework of Star Trek because you know it. It should be obvious that a non-Star Trek RPG could have a similar framework.

I'm currently preparing a Flashing Blades campaign. Adventurers in Flashing Blades may pursue career options such as soldier, banker, bureaucrat, lawyer, clergyman, fencing master, or member of a club or chivalric order. In the course of play an adventurer may advance to considerable heights in these careers - a student of theology may eventually become a bishop or a cardinal, a soldier may earn a marshal's baton, a knight may become grandmaster of his order, a bureaucrat may become a royal minister, and so on.

Each of these careers carries with it commitments and responsibilities, both express and implied. When I create NPC schemes for the game, I consider the nature of an intersection, if any, between someone pursuing any of the various careers and the NPCs schemes. For example, Arnauld Collinoire becomes a Knight of St John and a member of the Cardinal's Guard; as a result he may be called upon to mount a raid against a Barbary slave bagno or pursue a conspirator against his Eminence.

The adventurers also have Advantages and Secrets which may connect them to various people or institutions as well. Advantages include Favor or Contact; Secrets may include Sworn Vengeance, Secret Loyalty, or Debt of Honor. Characters may be called upon by their Contacts or Secret Loyalties to perform a service, for example, another responsibility that an adventurer may incur.

The key here is that the player chooses to pursue a career, or not; the player chooses to take an Advantage or Secret, or not. If the player's character willingly assumes responsibilities or obligations, then it's reasonable to say that certain events in the game-world will involve those adventurers.

In the Star Trek example, the players agreed to an even higher level of responsibility: our characters will be members of Star Fleet, serving aboard a Federation starship, subject to commands from above and the Prime Directive. The key once again is that the players choose this level of responsibility for their characters.

In-game consequences of player choice I can dig; out-of-game assumptions about what the adventurers "will" or "should" do are often, in my experience, the mark of a weak referee.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I believe 'linear' is the word used to describe published scenarios where there's no choice at the structural level, at least as written. Scene A leads to scene B leads to scene C, etc. Though each scene could permit a lot of freedom (it might be a dungeon with many branching corridors for example), the overall structure is equivalent to a railroad.

'Linear' usually doesn't have negative connotations and 'railroad' usually does.

I think Hobo is right that what constitutes a railroad does depend very much on player perception. However I don't think reasonableness comes into it - if players think they're being railroaded, then they are, whether it's a reasonable belief or not.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Yes, that is a game. It's reminiscent of some video games.

In the context of D&D, that's a notably hobbled game. An occasional bottleneck can be part of the challenge, but it should not be a continual gauntlet.

There's a reason that video games use such a structure. Bottlenecks are useful. They limit the size of the present "sandbox" so that it fits the players' level (and, perhaps, the amount of detail that the DM is willing/able to devote to areas and encounters within the PCs' reach). A progressively bigger sandbox goes hand in hand with the increasing power of D&D characters. It might not be contextually appropriate to an RPG system where the characters don't gain levels, but I find it almost essential to a well-run D&D game. (And so did the author of the old Dungeoncraft articles in Dragon, so good on him.)

 

[Janx]

I believe 'linear' is the word used to describe published scenarios where there's no choice at the structural level, at least as written. Scene A leads to scene B leads to scene C, etc. Though each scene could permit a lot of freedom (it might be a dungeon with many branching corridors for example), the overall structure is equivalent to a railroad.

Just because the module is written that way, doesn't mean the GM has to run it that way. He should be altering things as befits the players' choices at game time.

I think Hobo is right that what constitutes a railroad does depend very much on player perception. However I don't think reasonableness comes into it - if players think they're being railroaded, then they are, whether it's a reasonable belief or not.

A whiny player can call anything a railroad. We don't have D&D Court with Judge Monte to decide these issues, but there are likely false-instances of railroading, where the DM hasn't done anything wrong. The realrailroads have been described pretty well as war-stories in other railroading threads. They're pretty obvious and blatant.

As a GM, I have every right and responsibility to rearrange my ideas and stuff I had planned to fit and react to what the players do in order to provide an entertaining challenge and a sensible chain of events.

I do not have the right to force them to my pre-chosen solution, or to block all other valid alternatives.

That means I'm allowed to move the Orc that was in Room 1, to the next corridor, because the party skipped room 1, and I think they could use a combat encounter to get them to stop dithering.

I'm allowed to change the time table of events to have an NPC who has an important clue so that he runs into them sooner.

I'm not allowed to have the evil assassin bypass all the incredible security system the party put up, just because I hadn't anticipated them preparing for it. I had an assassin planned, the party unwittingly thwarted it. Fine, that encounter gets skipped, or the assassin trips the alarms and the encounter starts with the PCs having the advantage.


These are the guidelines of GMing. You either run a crappy game or you don't. There's a lot of tools to achieve it, and a lot of good kinds of games to have. But the fundamentals apply to almost all kinds of D&D game styles.

 

[Ariosto]

My objection is merely that you're attempting to use the term railroad contrary to how it's usually used when discussing roleplaying games.

You say that, but I do not see it when I look around!

What I see is that giving the players no meaningful choices does in fact fit the bill for a railroad in terms of "how it's usually used when discussing roleplaying games". In fact, other than recent encounters here at ENworld, I have never come across a usage that would exclude that. In my experience, the whole reason a "perception" of not having real choices matters is because it's believed to be true. That confirmation in actual fact should somehow make the characterization not true is just bizarre.

"'E's dead, Jim."
"No no! He's pining!"
"'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"
"Just what I said. If you only thought he was dead, then he'd be dead. As it is, he's just pining for the fjords."