Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Beginning of the End]

There's a perfect example. The encounters all pretty much follow one after the next. Until you solve X encounter, you cannot move on to Y encounter. Until you find the secret door in the pit in the first room, you don't get to move on, for example. The few branches you get are almost all dead ends (in more ways than one. )

I was going to bring this up last night but I was pretty tired:

If you're modeling the geographic flow of the Tomb of Horrors, you cannot ignore the teleport effects.

If you just look at the layout of corridors, the Tomb of Horrors is a fairly simple branching dungeon. But with the teleport effects there's actually quite a bit of sophisticated looping going on.

And this analysis assumes that other solutions aren't possible. For example, a couple of friends of mine successfully navigated the tomb by

Spoiler

casting locate object on their personal items after they were teleported to the demi-lich's tomb and then using stone shape spells to tunnel directly there.

That being said, I agree with your general points.

OK. Now we are talking scenarios. In a mystery situation the players begin with something to solve and some introductory information to start the investigation. This could be linear if the mystery has only a single way to solve it by following a prescribed trail of breadcrumbs-but that would also make it a railroad.

I would disagree. Let's assume a simple mystery structure of "solve for the location". In other words, the clues in Location X point to Location Y; the clues in Location Y point to Location Z; and so forth.

Even if we follow the Three Clue Rule and include multiple, diverse clues at Location X pointing to Location Y (allowing the PCs to approach Location X in a number of different ways), I still think it's fair to describe this X to Y to Z structure as being a linear one.

 

[BenBrown]

The World of Darkness in the '90s created a generation of dysfunctional railroaders. And when the railroad methodologies of the gaming table got applied by to the ongoing design of the game world itself we ended up with even more dysfunction. I'm not sure the term "metaplot" is ever going to recover, which is unfortunate because properly executed metaplot can be pretty awesome.

This is, to put it politely, a load of hooey.

The WoD games I played in were pretty much like any others. In the hands of a GM with control-freak tendencies, they could become a railroad. In the hands of a GM able to improvise, they were about as railroady as an ocean liner.

The GM advice in WoD books isn't great, but it's certainly no worse than run-of-the-mill. But then, really great GM advice in game books is rare.

I'm not a real fan of the WoD (I own precisely one book, and it's for Changeling, which was something of a misfit), but claiming that it screwed up an entire generation of gamers is wrong and not conducive to a civil discussion.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would disagree. Let's assume a simple mystery structure of "solve for the location". In other words, the clues in Location X point to Location Y; the clues in Location Y point to Location Z; and so forth.

Even if we follow the Three Clue Rule and include multiple, diverse clues at Location X pointing to Location Y (allowing the PCs to approach Location X in a number of different ways), I still think it's fair to describe this X to Y to Z structure as being a linear one.

I was looking at the scenario as a whole as opposed to any structured pathway within it. It would appear to be linear (and a railroad) if there was no possible way to get to Y or Z without one (or 100) clues from X.

If the PC's were really on the ball (or lucky) and were able to get to Y (or even Z) completely on their own then the adventure would not be linear.

If the adventure was structured so that a clue (any clue or multiple) was mandatory before Y was a possibility then it becomes linear (and a railroad).

 

[Beginning of the End]

I was looking at the scenario as a whole as opposed to any structured pathway within it. It would appear to be linear (and a railroad) if there was no possible way to get to Y or Z without one (or 100) clues from X.

What definition of "railroad" are you using here?

I also find it interesting that you can recognize constricted geographic pathways as a natural part of the campaign world and not representative of linear adventure design, but when pathways of constricted information naturally crop up in the campaign world you leap straight to "linear design" and equate that with "railroad".

 

[Ariosto]

I'm saying that GM metagaming is not per se railroading.

That's not all you appear to be saying. It's not what's at issue!

What does "GM metagaming is not per se railroading" have to do with calling railroading railroading?

 

[Ariosto]

The second sort of game - in which the GM metagames in order to give effect to the players' choices - is the one in which, if a player specifies in her backstory that her wizard PC betrayed her mentor before setting out on the road to adventure, then the players can know with a pretty high degree of confidence that the cult leader, or the shadowy figure they saw ducking back inside the wizard's guild, is that mentor.

Who is calling that 'railroading'?

 

[ExploderWizard]

What definition of "railroad" are you using here?"

An adventure in which real choices and the consequences resulting from them are not available to the players.

In the mystery example above requiring the players to jump through the hoops of X and Y even if they want to go straight to Z qualifies.

I also find it interesting that you can recognize constricted geographic pathways as a natural part of the campaign world and not representative of linear adventure design, but when pathways of constricted information naturally crop up in the campaign world you leap straight to "linear design" and equate that with "railroad".

Geography is simply the lay of the land. An adventure that takes place in a canyon does not need to be a linear scenario and an adventure set in a city with 1000 streets can easily be set up as one.

What do you mean by constricted information? Information is just that. The players may find all there is to find or might not. Either way life (and the adventure) moves on. If this information bottleneck brings the whole scenario to a screeching halt then there was obviously something that the players were required to do and thus (being denied a choice) a railroad.

 

[BenBrown]

Here's a shot at a definition.

Railroading occurs when it appears that the characters have, or should have a choice of actions which lead to different results, but in fact have no choice.

This means that a dungeon crawl, no matter how linear, isn't really railroading, since there is no appearance of choice. It's still usually bad design, but it's not railroading.

The one point of debate is the "magician's choice" issue, which in its most blatant form is railroading, but in others may not be.

 

[Ariosto]

Can you address Premise this way?

I don't care. Maybe the people playing Scrabble are interested.

Excuse me, but where is AD&D billed as a "Premise game"? I'm just not seeing it. I'm not seeing it in Squad Leader or Mille Bornes, either.

If someone's invited to play Poker, and gets all weird because he'd rather play My Little Pony, then it's not the game that's messed up. Dysfunctional attitude is dysfunctional.

 

[rogueattorney]

I don't think linear dungeon design (as in a straight line of rooms instead of various branches) isn't railroading. It might be bad or boring dungeon design, but it's not railroading.

Taking Tomb of Horrors as an example, as written, the players can at any time turn around and walk out. The module actually encourages this at a number of points (the false tomb being the prime example). Railroading would only come into it if the DM somehow contrived to make it so that the players had no choice but to continue on to the final confrontation with the demi-lich.