Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Nifft]

This is the internet. I challenge you to find a term that isn't used to be negative about something.

How about the term "positive"?

 

[Dungeoneer]

How about the term "positive"?

What are you, some kind of positivist?

 

[Dungeoneer]

Well, hopefully the players won't read the adventure beforehand, so it'll all be new to them. The purpose of playing out a premade adventure is the same as the purpose of playing out a story-based video game: to find out what the story is and how you can change the story depending on how you do x or y.

Personally, I'm OK with railroading so long as it's not blatant -- that is, so long as I at least have the "illusion of choice" (eg. the GM has only prepared one encounter even though he's given us two paths from which too choose ... and he'll end up running that one encounter, with some adjustments, regardless of which path we take ... and we'll most likely be known the wiser).

I strongly agree with this. The illusion of choice is key, whether or not an actual meaningful choice has been made.

It's my experience that what goes on behind the DM screen is opaque even to players who have DM xp of their own. So many times after a session I'll have a player ask me "So, we really caught you on the hop with X didn't we?" when I actually had X all planned out. Other times they're complimenting me on Y which I made up entirely on the fly. For the most part, the players' information on the game world is so limited that they can't distinguish between a genuine choice and a cleverly disguised railroad.

Of course you have to do more than simply pat the player patronizingly on the head and say "Sure, I'll be taking THAT into account..." You have to be subtle, and willing to improvise little details here and there. And sometimes you really do have to let them make a choice or go off track a bit before gently leading them back on.

The point is that you're responding to the player, which makes the world and story feel alive and dynamic to them, even if it is largely pre-scripted. It's when you refuse to engage them and are simply ramming chunks of exposition down their throat that things go awry and players revolt.

The crime is not having a story in mind or failing to give your players complete and total freedom (paralyzing for most!); it's refusing to interact with them and failing to make them feel like they have a meaningful role in your world. That is railroading, in my book.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I honestly don't care what you call it. I just have zero interest in a game where it is going on.

YMMV.


RC

 

[BenBrown]

I strongly agree with this. The illusion of choice is key, whether or not an actual meaningful choice has been made.

It's my experience that what goes on behind the DM screen is opaque even to players who have DM xp of their own. So many times after a session I'll have a player ask me "So, we really caught you on the hop with X didn't we?" when I actually had X all planned out. Other times they're complimenting me on Y which I made up entirely on the fly. For the most part, the players' information on the game world is so limited that they can't distinguish between a genuine choice and a cleverly disguised railroad.

Oh yes. Now, perhaps my players aren't as wily as all of those who decry this as "illusionism!" or "railroading!" Presumably they have some way of knowing, or failing that, GMs who are just really really bad at doing this.

Of course you have to do more than simply pat the player patronizingly on the head and say "Sure, I'll be taking THAT into account..." You have to be subtle, and willing to improvise little details here and there. And sometimes you really do have to let them make a choice or go off track a bit before gently leading them back on.

I'm not even sure it's a question of "leading them back on," so much as them taking an alternate route. The destination may well be the same, but the journey can be completely different.

The point is that you're responding to the player, which makes the world and story feel alive and dynamic to them, even if it is largely pre-scripted. It's when you refuse to engage them and are simply ramming chunks of exposition down their throat that things go awry and players revolt.

The crime is not having a story in mind or failing to give your players complete and total freedom (paralyzing for most!); it's refusing to interact with them and failing to make them feel like they have a meaningful role in your world. That is railroading, in my book.

By any name, it's bad GMing.

 

[Ariosto]

If one happens to like the phenomenon in question, then one might prefer to use a term other than "railroading".

Maybe "plotting" would be appropriate.

The 4e DMG, at page 98, has a section on "Fixing Problems" concerned with the fact that, "Occasionally, the characters decide to go exactly the wrong way, pursuing a path not covered in the adventure at all."

Headings include "Wandering Off Course" and "Skipping to the End". Not only is one fix "Introduce More Plot Twists", but there is throughout an affectation as if one were dealing not with refereeing a game but with writing a story.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

If one happens to like the phenomenon in question, then one might prefer to use a term other than "railroading".

Maybe "plotting" would be appropriate.

The 4e DMG, at page 98, has a section on "Fixing Problems" concerned with the fact that, "Occasionally, the characters decide to go exactly the wrong way, pursuing a path not covered in the adventure at all."

Headings include "Wandering Off Course" and "Skipping to the End". Not only is one fix "Introduce More Plot Twists", but there is throughout an affectation as if one were dealing not with refereeing a game but with writing a story.

The problem creeps in when there are folks who love plotting (hello!) and hate railroading (me again!). Railroading is when the plot determines the entire direction of the game, rather than being the motive force behind the game.
Good plotting - The bad guys have a plot, you know what they will do if they are not checked. They adapt their plans when necessary, but the actual direction of the game is determined by the players and their actions.

Bad plotting (i.e. railroading) the bad guys have a plan, and there is only one possible solution. The PCs must adhere to the plot, and Raistlin must turn evil. (One of the above mentioned 'worst gaming experiences - the GM was running Dragonlance (first ed. AD&D), told us not to read the books, then got angry when we did not do what the characters in the book did. (As an example, my version of Raistlin was leaning towards Lawful Good, and told the 'voice in his head' to go pound sand.)

The Auld Grump, you want me to turn evil because a voice in my head tells me to? What am I, Son of Sam?

 

[Obryn]

If one happens to like the phenomenon in question, then one might prefer to use a term other than "railroading".

Maybe "plotting" would be appropriate.

The 4e DMG, at page 98, has a section on "Fixing Problems" concerned with the fact that, "Occasionally, the characters decide to go exactly the wrong way, pursuing a path not covered in the adventure at all."

Headings include "Wandering Off Course" and "Skipping to the End". Not only is one fix "Introduce More Plot Twists", but there is throughout an affectation as if one were dealing not with refereeing a game but with writing a story.

It's a section about published adventures. A new DM who'd never played before would get some mileage out of it. You overlooked the headings "Let it go and move on" and "move on and scavenge for future adventures," though - where it basically says, "Maybe your players hate this adventure. Stop playing it."

I mean, the entire section is there to help newbie DMs avoid a railroad - "Your players were creative and figured out something unanticipated! Good on them! It's time to improvise! If you still want to get some use out of the adventure you bought, try some of these ideas..."

-O

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It's a section about published adventures. A new DM who'd never played before would get some mileage out of it. You overlooked the headings "Let it go and move on" and "move on and scavenge for future adventures," though - where it basically says, "Maybe your players hate this adventure. Stop playing it."

I mean, the entire section is there to help newbie DMs avoid a railroad - "Your players were creative and figured out something unanticipated! Good on them! It's time to improvise! If you still want to get some use out of the adventure you bought, try some of these ideas..."

-O

Actually, not bad advice, for any edition of the game. The moments when the PCs come up with something that I didn't plan for, that makes sense! are my favorite moments in the game. Double that of the moments when I do that to someone who is running a game that I am playing in.

The thing to keep in mind is that players really don't want to feel like they are not in control, that their characters are merely cogs in the great machinery of the campaign.

The Auld Grump, I give bonus XP when the players pull that off.

 

[Ariosto]

Well, it's just a suggestion of a possibility.

If you have a better idea, then please share it.

If all you can do is complain that you don't like anything, then I don't see how that is any help.