Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[pemerton]

Personally, I take railroading to mean the DM has taken away player agency in such a way that the player objects.

I agree. If the agency is taken away and the players know about it and consent, then we have some sort of scene-setting, more or less aggressive, by the GM. If the agency is taken away and the players don't know about it but (at least implicitly) consent, then we have illusionism.

I'm personally not a big fan of illusionist play, but there are features of D&D that push towards it. Because D&D has very open-ended action resolution rules - bascially, players are allowed just to identify a task that they might want their PC to perform in the current situation, and then have their PC attempt it - it is very hard for the GM to close a scene unless the players stop having their PCs attempt actions in that scene. One way to get the players to stop attempting actions is to go through the charade of dice rolls, but ignore the results. Hey presto! - illusionist GMing is born. Part of the attraction of confict resolution mechanics is that they allow the scene to come to an end without the GM needing to fudge/cheat in this way - if the PCs attempt to win the conflict, and lose, then that's the end - the players can't keep trying and trying to roll again. In D&D this only happens once the PCs are reduced to 0 hp - a very aggressive form of scene closing! (Less aggressive, but still annoying if used as a regular substitute for otherwise crappy scene-setting rules: subjecting a high-level D&D party to anti-magic.)

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.

That's not necessarily a railroad.

If the GM lets the players roll dice to hit (for example) and declares misses regardless of the result, then instead of railroading we have illusionism, and pretty modest illusionism at that. (Provided the players don't suspect.)

If the GM just tells the players "the coach escapes - no dice rolls are needed here" then we don't have railroading or illusionism, just aggressive scene closure. Whether that is acceptable or not will depend upon the group's approach to play, and also how aspects of action resolution mechanics interact with scene-framing/closing - eg, in D&D a GM who doesn't let a wizard PC cast "rock to mud" to stop the coach is overriding the standard action resolution mechanics in order to frame the scene, which some players would reasonably regard as cheating ("railroading" would be the politer term). As noted above, other RPGs don't have such open-ended approaches to action resolution, however, and so can give the GM the power to close a scene like this without it being cheating.

If the players cannot affect the sequence of events in any way, then how is that not a railroad?

It depends a lot what the events are, and what the group in question cares about. For example, if you're playing a game set in Greyhawk then it's pretty much given that there are two moons shining down on you at nighttime. The players can't effect that, or the lunar sequence. If the GM (as I once did) introduces rules about lunar conjunctions affecting magical power, the players can't do anything about that either.

None of that is railroading, though. In a standard fantasy RPG it's the GM's job to do this sort of work specifying the background details. And the natural disaster or zombie swarm scenario is, in princple, just a more localised version of the same thing. Maybe it doesn't make for a fun game - I'd want to make sure my players were up for a bit of zombie madness - but I don't think it would count as railroading for the typical fantasy RPGer. (Maybe it would be if playing Primal Order, or Immortals level D&D, where the expectation is that these things aren't background details but rather are the very subject matter of play.)

A completely linear dungeon is also unobjectionable per se. The players choose to go in, or not. If they do, they encounter a series of monsters in order. If not, they don't. The linear dungeon might be more boring than a branching one, but not necessarily if the encounters are interesting. It gets more tricky if the GM doesn't give the players the choice to take their PCs elsewhere - that looks more like a railroad, although it might scrape in as plaintive scene-framing ("Guys, I don't have anything else prepped for tonight!").

It also gets tricky if the players try to use Passwall or something similar to bypass the linearity. The more the GM piles on half-baked reasons why this doesn't work (see, eg, the D-series approach to teleport denial, which I think is on the verge of crossing the line) the more this starts once again to look like railroading by cheating - especially in a game that emphasises the importance of players using spells to achieve operational advantages, which D&D at least traditionally does.

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.

This will be true in some games, but not all. In a very traditional D&D dungeon crawl, moral and social issues are not all that importance, so nerfing passwalls but letting the players choose whether they defeat the lizardmen by challenging them to a duel or by sneaking in under cover of darkness might still come across as railroady in play. On the other hand, if you nerf passwalls but set up a situation where there are many and varied operational choices to be made, the passwall nerf might be forgiveable (this is the argument in favour of the D-series teleport denial).

On the other hand, in a game where moral and social themes are important to the players, then I absolutely agree that linearity of situations need not be railroading at all, if each situation is one in which players get to make thematically meanginful choices, and if the presentation of each downstream situation reflects the conseof the players' prior choices. This is more-or-less the approach to adventure design promoted by games like HeroQuest and Burning Wheel. It's interesting to contrast it with a WotC module like The Bastion of Broken Souls, which attempts to be a thematically rich event-based adventure, but fails in that attempt because (i) a lot of the events don't allow for thematically meaningful choices, and (ii) no provision is made for earlier choices affecting later events. I think Speaker in Dreams is probably better in this respect, although still a bit underdeveloped.

If railroad means an exertion of GM power that is regarded by the players as intrusive (on player decision making), or implausible, and plot means a sequence of events which affect the players that the GM wishes to see occur then, yes, there can definitely be a plotted non-railroaded game.

Fully agree. See above.

 

[pemerton]

So does a plotted adventure mean that someone somewhere in the adventure has a plot/s or agenda/s they are trying to make happen?

No. That would be a plot-filled adventure.

Who's plot was the whole cursed sword business?

If we can't point the finger to any agency within the gameworld we have choo-choo ville.

I can't agree with this at all.

The cursed sword scenario does involve GM metagaming. It does so whether the GM, having had the idea, decides which demon in the gameworld placed the cursed sword, or whether the GM leaves all these details to be made up later if necessary (ie pre-planning, or winging it, doesn't reduce the metagamie-ness). But this is not railroading, which has to do with action resolution and scene-setting (see my previous post). It is metagaming at the level of backstory/world design - which is the analogue, for the GM, of players metagaming at the character build stage (which they do in every mainstream RPG I'm familar with except Classic Runequest, Classic Traveller and 3d6-in-order D&D).

Some play groups may object to this sort of GM metagaming, just as some prefer non-metagamed character building, but my instinct is that they are probably a minority. Even Gygax metagamed in this way - he put features into Castle Greyhawk, like the Fraz-Urblu'u (sp?) face, because he knew they would be appealing encounters for particular players. I think it is a pretty typical conception of the GM's role that it involves preparing encounters that provide adversity to the PCs, based on the hooks the players have built into those PCs. In Doug's example, the hooks are (i) a willingness to risk curses delving into dungeons in search of treasure, which the player has signalled by agreeing to play a typical D&D game, and (ii) a desire to use a particular sort of weapon, which has been sginalled by choosing a weapon for his/her PC - weapon choice is a big deal in most versions of D&D, though not in all fantasy RPGs.

But no railroading. And if the player, having put those hooks into his/her PC, then refuses to engage the cursed sword challenge, I even think that many GMs and fellow players might reasonably regard the player as not fully co-operative. Of course, there are many ways to engage the challenge - in traditional D&D, one way would be to look for a sage or a Legend Lore spell to tell you whether or not the sword is cursed!

 

[pukunui]

It depends a lot what the events are, and what the group in question cares about. For example, if you're playing a game set in Greyhawk then it's pretty much given that there are two moons shining down on you at nighttime. The players can't effect that, or the lunar sequence. If the GM (as I once did) introduces rules about lunar conjunctions affecting magical power, the players can't do anything about that either.

Of course. I'm not sure I'd classify those things as events, though. I'd say they're more "environmental effects" or something. Besides, I think you've taken my comments out of context. Obryn defined a linear adventure as a set sequence of events. I was saying that if the players cannot affect the outcome of that sequence of events (that is, if the PCs' actions during Event 2 has no bearing on the subsequent Event 3, which proceeds as scripted no matter what), then there must be some railroading going on. That's all. I never meant to imply that there shouldn't be anything that the PCs cannot affect. I think that would make gaming next to impossible.

I think the most important thing is that the GM and the players communicate. As long as everyone is on the same page, it really shouldn't be an issue if the GM introduces some scripting or prods the players to move in a particular direction. If the players are happy to go along with it, what does it matter? It only becomes a problem when the GM is doing it against the wishes of his players. In more plot-based adventures, too, the GM needs to make sure the players are on board so that they do not continually strive to sabotage or disrupt the adventure by being contrary and so on. It's all about communication. And there may be something about a "social contract" too, but I can't remember exactly what that's all about. I've just seen the term tossed out there on occasion.

 

[FireLance]

You know what, I think I'm starting to dislike the term "railroading" because it seems that everyone has a different definition of it. Hence, whatever advantage of conciseness that is gained by using it in a conversation instead of a wordier but clearer phrase is offset by the confusion that it creates.

If you don't like linear scenarios, then say that you don't like linear scenarios. If you don't like it when the DM arbitrarily restricts the players' agency, or comes up with implausible scenarios to foil the PCs' plans, just then say that instead.

And now I can't decide whether I was railroaded into typing that.

 

[pemerton]

if the players cannot affect the outcome of that sequence of events (that is, if the PCs' actions during Event 2 has no bearing on the subsequent Event 3, which proceeds as scripted no matter what), then there must be some railroading going on. That's all.

That makes sense. I'd add - what counts as "no bearing" is game-relative and group-relative. In a game/group that focuses on tactical play, the players' tactical choices should make a difference. In a game/group that focuses on thematic play, the players' thematic choices should make a difference. What exactly the GM has to do to achieve this - in terms of altering the sequence of events, altering aspects of pre-planned encounters, giving the players bonuses or penalties in new encounters carrying over from earlier ones, etc - is highly dependent on the mechanics of the game in question, and the relevant dimension(s) of meaninfulness.

To give a simple but concrete example - suppose the GM has planned two encounters, first with a powerful demon and then with an aspect of Demogorgon. It is not per se railroading for the Demogorgon aspect to turn up regardless of the upshot of the demon encounter (even if the PCs die, presumably Demogorgon can conjure an aspect into the shadowfell to confront them). But one would expect the outcome of the demon encounter to make a difference to the framing of the Demogorgon encounter. At a minimum, the PCs may have more daily powers or action points left if they used tactical skill to fight the demon. Or if the PCs didn't fight the demon but accepted it's promise of future power in return for sparing its life, the Demogorgon encounter might play out as a non-combat encounter of some sort.

I think the most important thing is that the GM and the players communicate.

<snip>

And there may be something about a "social contract" too, but I can't remember exactly what that's all about. I've just seen the term tossed out there on occasion.

Fully agree. Communication and social contract (ie the upshot of the communication) are key. In many cases (eg with friends) implict understandings will do the job, but sometimes the communication has to be explicit.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's possible in a linear A-B-C scene progression scenario for the players to have a lot of freedom within each scene. I played in a game where this was extremely noticeable at a convention once, convention games tending to be more structured/linear/railroaded/whatever you want to call it. At the structural level, the players had no freedom at all. But within each scene, we seemed to have complete freedom of action.

One can see something similar in an adventure path such as G1-3. If a GM has planned to run the G modules in order, and that's non-negotiable, then the players have no freedom at the 'choosing the adventure' level, but within each adventure they have pretty much total freedom.

Actually I think this is extremely common in rpging. The GM typically prepares one adventure for the evening, so the players pretty much have to go on that adventure, otherwise there's no game. But what happens after that is up for grabs. That's mostly how I run my games, btw.

It's a compromise between player freedom and lack of freedom, but most players have really consented to go on whatever adventure the GM serves up, simply by turning up for the session.

 

[pemerton]

You know what, I think I'm starting to dislike the term "railroading" because it seems that everyone has a different definition of it.

Well, this is a bit like the "grognard" thread. Because different play groups find different aspects of play and player choice important or unimportant, they're going to have different views of what counts as railroading.

If you don't like linear scenarios, then say that you don't like linear scenarios. If you don't like it when the DM arbitrarily restricts the players' agency, or comes up with implausible scenarios to foil the PCs' plans, just then say that instead.

This strategy isn't guaranteed to work, though. Because what counts as linear, or as implausible, is probably also in the eye of the beholder to a significant extent.

There's no reason to think that discussion of RPGs, and the merits of various approaches to play, is going to be any less contested than criticism of other media.

 

[pemerton]

Actually I think this is extremely common in rpging. The GM typically prepares one adventure for the evening, so the players pretty much have to go on that adventure, otherwise there's no game.

<snip>

most players have really consented to go on whatever adventure the GM serves up, simply by turning up for the session.

That's what I called "plaintive scene framing" a few posts upthread.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I have seen railroaded used in a non-pejorative sense fairly often also, just to add to the confusion over the term. So railroaded doesn't necessarily mean bad, though it usually does.

I'm going to suggest an alternative definition:
The GM in an rpg has a lot of power. But the GM's presence is normally invisible. He acts thru NPCs, the environment, the world. The players can suspend their disbelief and believe that they are living in a secondary world. Railroading occurs when the GM's normally invisible hand becomes visible. It becomes apparent that the GM has wants other than those of the NPCs in his world. Things begin behaving in unlikely ways, the game rules are bent or broken, the world seems to be acting with one mind, as if there were some grand conspiracy of everything, to push the PCs in a particular direction.

This is where the issue of implausibility comes in, which we've not been talking about so much, focusing instead on player freedom.

By this definition, railroading is not necessarily a bad thing. Okay, it's bad that the players can no longer suspend disbelief, but that might be the lesser of two evils. It can be beneficial for the players to know where the plot is, to know where the GM's prepared material is, to be directed toward the adventure. This is where the visible hand, pushing, is a good thing, because it becomes perfectly clear what the PCs should do.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That's what I called "plaintive scene framing" a few posts upthread.

Yeah, that describes my style pretty well. Plaintive GMing.