Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Ariosto]

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.)

That's railroading.

It might also be 'illusionism' or 'absurdism' or something.

But it's definitely railroading.

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.

That's total baloney.

 

[Obryn]

But I've seen it called railroading and I've seen it called not railroading.

I've seen it used a bunch of different ways, so to me you insisting one definition is the correct one, simply because you feel it is, as you say- is a stretch.

In fact, when I was more actively going to conventions and gaming at hobby stores (and therefore interacting with a wide variety of gamers) I more commonly saw it being used in the method I mentioned earlier.

Here's the transformation I've, personally, seen over the past 5-6 years. It's grown, I think, because of the re-emergence of Sandbox play and a very active OSR movement - but this is not to say that everyone who sandboxes, and everyone who's into the OSR is responsible. I think it's just an unfortunate example of definition drift.

Before: Railroading is bad gaming. It's a degenerate state of affairs where a DM basically plans both the adventure and the PCs' reactions to it ahead of time. Most problems only have one solution, and there's only one right path - and deviation from that path is severely punished. Stuff like mandatory capture scenes, unavoidable ambushes, NPCs you can't attack, and so on are hallmarks. Railroads are best defined by their inflexibility during play, the lack of player agency over their characters' actions, and the arbitrariness of the DM's decisions. It's to be dreaded as a player, and avoided as a DM.

After: "Railroading" can include anything from linear adventure structures (where the PCs actions still aren't constrained by fiat), to branching flowchart adventures, to even presenting an adventure plot to your group up-front rather than having them pick one from a list of rumors. Opinions vary; it depends who you talk to. "Railroading" gets conflated with other gaming styles, and it's no longer limited to the earlier definitions. However, there's often a caveat - some railroading is good! Really! It's not all bad, it's just a different way of gaming, so it's okay if you like to be railroaded in your "story-games"!

Personally, I find the latter definition (or lack of definition, frankly) rather useless because nobody can quite agree on it anymore - and the former, negative definition no longer has a name of its own. I also think "It's okay if you like to be railroaded" is more than a bit condescending; the term has historical negative connotations, and pretending they don't exist anymore is a dodge, at best. I think it's more often used in a "my-sandbox-gaming-is-better-than-your-story-gaming" manner. And, frankly, I dislike that this redefinition has been allowed to happen without a fight.

-O

 

[Ariosto]

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

Different people have different tolerances for it.

Different people who change it to mean "only railroading I don't like" change it to mean different things.

Some people who really like it a lot do all sorts of things with the language that leaves it pretty useless for communication except with fellows fluent in their cant.

Confusion is a weapon in the cause of attacking critics of railroading.

If you don't like linear scenarios, then say that you don't like linear scenarios.

That does not look like an improvement. It's just a wordier way to say 'railroads', subject to all the same trickery in rhetoric.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Confusion is a weapon in the cause of attacking critics of railroading.

We could just go by the majority interpretation, which is that if a player doesn't feel railroaded then they aren't. This has, I believe, been demonstrated by past polls on ENWorld.

But I appreciate that a significant minority, including yourself, believes it to depend on actual, not apparent, freedom.

It's not an attack. If anything, it's showing respect, maybe too much, for a minority. Maybe we need the tyranny of the majority to sweep away minority definitions in the aid of clarity of language.

 

[Mallus]

Some people who really like it a lot do all sorts of things with the language that leaves it pretty useless for communication except with fellows fluent in their cant.

Is now a bad time to mention your own posts can get a bit... err... cant-y on occasion? This is the pot calling the kettle esoteric... or something...

Confusion is a weapon in the cause of attacking critics of railroading.

I think we all can agree that railroading is the removal of player choice. But it's best seen as a spectrum, which neatly accounts for the number of differing definitions of it.

A certain amount of railroading --limiting player choice-- is an unavoidable. A DM/GM can only prepare so much. Past that, they improvise... up until the point they can't. Eventually, the players and DM/GM need reach a mutual agreement as to where the action goes.

 

[Obryn]

Confusion is a weapon in the cause of attacking critics of railroading.

I don't think the confusion is coming from the direction you think it is. As I said above, I think you're using a novel and idiosyncratic definition of "railroading" and are therefore creating this confusion, yourself.

That does not look like an improvement. It's just a wordier way to say 'railroads', subject to all the same trickery in rhetoric.

Well, for starters, "linear adventure" doesn't carry the same negative connotation that "railroad" does. That's a point in its favor, right there. For another, the players' agency over their characters isn't denied in a linear adventure - their reactions to it aren't scripted ahead of time, and they aren't necessarily restricted from finding inventive ways to solve the linear adventure's problems.

-O

 

[Ariosto]

Some stuff that is railroady to one person might not even feel that way to another. Neither is "more correct." It is what it is to the specific player.

And yet, here we have people insisting that it's just wrong to use the term, because Joe S. happens to adore this or that thing and consider 'railroading' proper only when applied to things he personally dislikes.

Why can't Joe get over the fact that not everyone shares his taste?

The fact is, most of us who actually have use for the term get use out of it.

That is not changed by intentional and obstinate insistence on absurdities on the part of people bent on employing the "argument from weariness of argument" to run down everyone whose views do not toe their "players ought to be passengers" line.

 

[Reynard]

That does not look like an improvement. It's just a wordier way to say 'railroads', subject to all the same trickery in rhetoric.

Problem is, we're back to saying "linear scenario" and "railroading" are exactly the same thing. Which they are not.

I think that the resurgence in interest in "sandboxing" is primarily a response to the popularity of "adventure paths", and that "railroad" and "sandbox" came to be the antonyms for each other, which in and of themselves are actually rather broad playstyles. Roughly, "railroading" is a playstyle in which players give up some real or perceived freedom of action in return for a more focused play experience, and "sandboxing" is where the players give up directed focus on the part of the DM in exchange for freedom. there's a lot of room in each of those defintions to cover a lot of the particulars.

Now, prior to the new sandbox movement -- if we can call it that -- railroading had a singular definition, based purely on the metaphor itself: get on the train and end up at the destination, no matter what. or, more concisely, Dragonlance.

I think of it this way: sandboxing in Fallout 3 or WoW, while railroading is God of War or Arkham Asylum. Using that context, railroading isn't necessarily a bad thing if that's what you're after.

Plus, although I consider myself philosophically a Sandbox GM, practicality means I must occassionally engage in a little railroading just to keep the game moving.

 

[Ariosto]

Before: Railroading is bad gaming.

Right. Now it's not bad gaming to a lot of folks.

What has changed, though, is not the nature of the phenomenon.

What has changed is the fashion in "good gaming".

 

[Doug McCrae]

Personally, I find the latter definition (or lack of definition, frankly) rather useless because nobody can quite agree on it anymore - and the former, negative definition no longer has a name of its own. I also think "It's okay if you like to be railroaded" is more than a bit condescending; the term has historical negative connotations, and pretending they don't exist anymore is a dodge, at best. I think it's more often used in a "my-sandbox-gaming-is-better-than-your-story-gaming" manner. And, frankly, I dislike that this redefinition has been allowed to happen without a fight.

Yeah, railroading always meant bad at first, and then the term was reclaimed, a bit. People started to say stuff like:

"There's nothing wrong with a railroad if the train's headed to Awesome Town."

I think it still has mostly negative connotations. Though I'm wondering if those are on the part of the players experiencing the railroading or of a third party talking about the game on teh interweb. Is it still railroading if the players are okay with it, but the third party wishes to use the term and keep the negative connotations? Is he implying by his use of the term that the players didn't enjoy the game? Or just that he wouldn't enjoy it if he was a player? Or is he one of these "Nothing wrong with a railroad types"?

I believe I may now have identified *three* meanings of the term. This can only help discussion. I r awesome!