Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[pukunui]

A linear adventure is not the same thing as a railroad. Linear just implies a sequence of events - not that the players have no choice or agency.

I dunno. I think it very much implies that. At the very least, I think linear adventures lend themselves to railroading much more than other kinds of adventures. If the players cannot affect the sequence of events in any way, then how is that not a railroad?

If the PCs start at A and have to get to C and their only option is to go via B, they don't exactly have much choice, do they? If, however, the PCs have the option to get from A to C via B1, B2 or even B3, then it's not entirely linear, nor is it a railroad. Now, of course, if B1, B2 and B3 all involve the same encounter (tweaked for each path's particular circumstances), then the GM is only giving his players the illusion of choice. But so long as the players still have the ability to affect the outcome, then that's not really a problem.

I've already spoken at length about NWN2, so let's go with a different example: the WotC D&D 3.5 module, Barrow of the Forgotten King.

The metaplot is that a bad guy has broken into an old king's tomb in search of his magic sword. The PCs are hired to chase down the bad guy and catch him before he gets to the king's coffin. The tomb turns out to be a winding, twisting series of tunnels, hallways, natural caverns, and manmade rooms. However, it is entirely linear, at no point giving the PCs any options on how to progress. It's entirely A -> B -> C -> D and so on. No B1, B2, or B3 here. Not only that, but many of the rooms are stocked with extremely perilous terrain and/or monsters. And because of the linear nature of the dungeon, this creates a series of chokepoints. If the PCs are unable to defeat the monster or get past the terrain (but do not suffer a TPK in the process), then they are simply unable to continue with the adventure. And, of course, even if the PCs successfully overcome each encounter, they cannot catch up to the bad guy until the very end, when he is already breaking into the king's coffin (and the module's authors tell the GM just to assume that, if the PCs get stuck or decide to spend 24 hours recuperating in a cleared-out room, the bad guy is doing the same thing).

As an aside, what really irked me about that module was that it pretty much took every bit of encounter design advice that WotC had put in the 3.5 DMG and threw it out the window. Now, I know that WotC is notorious for ignoring their own rules and advice, but still ... Barrow really takes the cake in that respect.

I think I may just be rambling now, and I need to go pick up my daughter from kindy, so I'd better leave it there. I might be willing to accept that not all linear adventures are railroads, but I would also be willing to be that most of them are.

I think it would be more helpful to consider railroading as something a DM does - not a characteristic of a given adventure or module. I think that's where everything goes awry.

I think it's entirely possible for a module's author to build railroading right into it. Although, sure, an experienced, creative GM can compensate for it, so it would really only be an issue for an inexperienced and/or unimaginative GM. What I mean are things like the module giving certain NPCs plot immunity or simply not accounting for what might happen if things don't turn out as expected.

Sometimes it's there in the text. For example in Whispers of the Vampire's Blade there is a scene near the start in which the PCs pursue the BBEG who is escaping by coach, but they *cannot* catch him because if they do the rest of the module doesn't work.

I was waiting for someone to bring up that module. Doesn't it literally involve a railroad?

 

[Ariosto]

A linear adventure is not the same thing as a railroad. Linear just implies a sequence of events - not that the players have no choice or agency.

The outcome isn't pre-determined, either.

I think it would be more helpful to consider railroading as something a DM does - not a characteristic of a given adventure or module. I think that's where everything goes awry.

-O

Linear implies a particular sequence of events that the GM enacts, no matter what we players do.

In that case, we who dislike getting 'railroaded' do not have the choice or agency that we want to have as players of a game.

Should one coincidentally desire to do what a gunman wants, then it is not necessary for the threat even to be made. That does not change the fact of the weapon's readiness should one turn out to be uncooperative.

It is the intent to thwart the players, the commitment to employ arbitrary and capricious means as necessary to force the sequence of events one wants, that is inherent.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A linear adventure is not the same thing as a railroad. Linear just implies a sequence of events - not that the players have no choice or agency.

The outcome isn't pre-determined, either.

I think it would be more helpful to consider railroading as something a DM does - not a characteristic of a given adventure or module. I think that's where everything goes awry.

-O

I can agree that only DM's allow railroads to actually happen even if all that means is failing to ignore 90% of published material.

 

[Ariosto]

If, however, the PCs have the option to get from A to C via B1, B2 or even B3, then it's not entirely linear, nor is it a railroad.

Wrong. It is your determination that they must arrive at C that makes it a railroad.

All the rest is just details of laying rails.

If you were running a game instead of a railroad, then you would not be concerned with choosing the players' moves for them. You would not be rigging the outcome.

You would let the players play the game, and so discover the outcome.

 

[Nagol]

I dunno. I think it very much implies that. At the very least, I think linear adventures lend themselves to railroading much more than other kinds of adventures. If the players cannot affect the sequence of events in any way, then how is that not a railroad?

If the PCs start at A and have to get to C and their only option is to go via B, they don't exactly have much choice, do they? If, however, the PCs have the option to get from A to C via B1, B2 or even B3, then it's not entirely linear, nor is it a railroad. Now, of course, if B1, B2 and B3 all involve the same encounter (tweaked for each path's particular circumstances), then the GM is only giving his players the illusion of choice. But so long as the players still have the ability to affect the outcome, then that's not really a problem.

I can think of two ways where a linear adventure won't be a railroad.

If the consequences of the method the players use to overcome the adventure will affect their relationship with the game world then it's not a railroad. The players may have little choice as to what obstacles to overcome in what order, but the decisions can be meaningful and show consequence.

If the players have the option to retire from the adventure then there is at least one other option or them to pursue.

It really only beomes a railroad when the player choice will be intentionally blocked in order to force an outcome.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wrong. It is your determination that they must arrive at C that makes it a railroad.

All the rest is just details of laying rails.

If you were running a game instead of a railroad, then you would not be concerned with choosing the players' moves for them. You would not be rigging the outcome.

You would let the players play the game, and so discover the outcome.

I gotta spread some around. Yeah. If a plot driven adventure can circumvent this problem then perhaps we can speak in terms of possibly not being a railroad.

 

[Reynard]

Linear implies a particular sequence of events that the GM enacts, no matter what we players do.

In that case, we who dislike getting 'railroaded' do not have the choice or agency that we want to have as players of a game.

An interesting example that tests the "linear=railroad" hypothesis is the "(Super)Natural Disaster" adventure. You know the kind: some wizard's experiment goes awry and for a night the town is plagued by zombies, frozen in ice, whathaveyou. there's no agency and no way to stop it, just a schedule of inevitable events (whether its x zombies per hour squared, or the ice zone doubling in diameter every hour), the Stuff (people, places and things around the PCs), and the PCs themselves.

It's certainly immutable and linear, which suggests its a railroad. But at the same time, there's no presupposed endpoint or requirement set upon the PCs, which suggests a freeform (or "sandbox") adventure. So which is it?

 

[Obryn]

Wrong. It is your determination that they must arrive at C that makes it a railroad.

All the rest is just details of laying rails.

If you were running a game instead of a railroad, then you would not be concerned with choosing the players' moves for them. You would not be rigging the outcome.

You would let the players play the game, and so discover the outcome.

That's just it, though - IMO it's still not a railroad even then. If the DM actively shuts down alternative paths and alternative solutions, and only allows the adventure to move in the direction that he wants - that's the railroad.

And, even within a linear adventure, the DM isn't controlling or necessarily restricting players' autonomy over their characters. If there's a two-hour-long ritual, set back in a cave, there might be a straight line of A-B-C to get to them, but the players can get through A, B, and C however they see fit. (Or fail to do so entirely!)

Linearity can be a function of the game world.

Sometimes it's there in the text. For example in Whispers of the Vampire's Blade there is a scene near the start in which the PCs pursue the BBEG who is escaping by coach, but they *cannot* catch him because if they do the rest of the module doesn't work.

I can see your point, and concede that my distinction may not be helpful. If the DM ensures that the BBEG cannot be caught no matter what, through fiat, it's a railroad. If the PCs simply can't because they lack the resources, it's not.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

Obryn, might it help to differentiate between a scenario (location, NPCs, monsters) and an adventure (what actually happens) in this particular instance?

A scenario can be linear, but not a railroad, if the players choose whether or not to engage in it, or can engage in it in such a way as to attempt an escape from the linear model. For example, in Reynard's post, if the PCs can attempt to affect, excape, or otherwise deal with the events that are occurring, it is not necessarily a railroad. OTOH, if the means by which the events can be dealt with are proscripted to a predetermined sequence of events, IMHO it is.


RC

 

[Obryn]

Obryn, might it help to differentiate between a scenario (location, NPCs, monsters) and an adventure (what actually happens) in this particular instance?

A scenario can be linear, but not a railroad, if the players choose whether or not to engage in it, or can engage in it in such a way as to attempt an escape from the linear model. For example, in Reynard's post, if the PCs can attempt to affect, excape, or otherwise deal with the events that are occurring, it is not necessarily a railroad. OTOH, if the means by which the events can be dealt with are proscripted to a predetermined sequence of events, IMHO it is.

RC

That's just it, though - when I see a "linear" adventure it's almost always the former. (For example, the 4e adventure P3 is insanely linear in structure.) I'm having a hard time thinking of pre-scripted and immutable adventures, though.

I have zero problem with calling an immutable series of events which the PCs can't affect in any meaningful way a "railroad" (if, that is, it's happening once the DM and players get their hands on it). But if there's even a player-directed chance of success or failure that's more involved than the GM basically saying, "Guess what I'm thinking!", I'm reluctant to use the term.

-O