Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Umbran]

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.

I don't mind that as the definition of something that many GMs and players might like to avoid.

I just note that it is not an intuitive definition to attach to "railroad". Your definition specifies that the appearance and the actuality are different. When was the last time you stepped on a train, and you had the perception that you could steer that turned out to be false?

I personally tend to think that "railroading" is forced linearity, in general. Whether it matches perceptions, and whether it matches player desires or expectations, are separate questions. This prevents "railroading" from always being problematic - if it meets player expectations, or does not conflict with their desires, the railroad may not be a bad thing.

The issue isn't whether you are on a railroad or not - the issue is whether you wanted to be on a railroad or not.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

That's a reasonable definition. It captures the highly subjective nature of rr with the 'appears', and the concept of the GM presenting a scene, such as a combat or other significant encounter, where it looks like player decisions matter, but they don't really.

Maybe it should say players instead of characters, as I think player freedom is the key issue. A character might have no real choice due to roleplaying considerations, for example a dogmatic paladin, and yet the player might be perfectly happy with that because the player made him that way.

Here's a summary of my thoughts on the meaning of rr-ing (some of them are contradictory)
1. Subjective.
2. Players lose agency to the GM, but not necessarily in a bad way.
3. Player choices that should matter don't.
4. GM abusing his power in order to control the PCs.
5. GM breaking the game rules or the rules of the game-world's 'reality'.
6. Negative connotations.

 

[Nifft]

I just note that it is not an intuitive definition to attach to "railroad". Your definition specifies that the appearance and the actuality are different. When was the last time you stepped on a train, and you had the perception that you could steer that turned out to be false?

Analogies are imperfect.

Railroad apartments, for example, have existed for ages, and they don't move on rails. Nor is there a conductor. Nor does one buy tickets for them. Nor does one call their building's lobby a "station".

- - -

However, all that's less than relevant in this case, because in this case, we're not building a term from first principles. We're seeking to nail down a term that has already come into use.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Desdichado]

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.

That's a pretty fair definition. Contrary to eveileeyore's claims upthread, I firmly believe that railroading is in the eye of the railroadee; i.e., if the railroadee doesn't feel like he's being railroaded, then he's not. You can only be railroaded if you feel that valid actions are disallowed by DM fiat.

Ergo... the way I see the term, no module can actually be a railroad. Some modules encourage railroading more than others, definitely, but fundamentally a railroad is something that happens at the table. No game inherently has a railroad structure, railroads only happen in the interpersonal interaction between GM and players.

 

[Ariosto]

The pressures are the result of a shared view that anything less granular is in a certain sense "cheating", not allowing the action resolution mechanics to do there thing and really tell us what is happening in the gameworld.

"You see gum on the street, leave it there. It's not free candy."

I don't know where you picked up that view. I don't recall ever playing with folks who held it. I certainly did not find it in any rules-set of my acquaintance.

Another way to overcome the problem is to build various sorts of limits on the action resolution mechanics into the rules.

Then you can call it "unlimitedism", or "pervy modeling", for that Edwards touch.

What he says about simulationism made sense to me when I was a purist-for-system simulationist (Rolemaster, to be precise).

What he says seems not to have much to do with simulating, which is typical of his "-isms" and other jargon. His usage is pretty weirdly at odds with how most other people use the terms.

I don't think there's anything particularly compelling about running together purist-for-system and high-concept simulationism.

What is so compelling about the faux-academic enterprise? Anyhow, it's a safe bet on principle that you're wrong!! about what high-concept-simulationism is. Someone should be along in the next hundred posts to inform you that it's really just scene-framing, or sub-meta-post-structuralism, or maybe a cigar.

One might almost say the whole reason for the Forge's existence is the belief that White Wolf's 'storytelling system' is very inappropriately named.

It's appropriate if you consider GM-fiat railroading a 'system", I guess. It comes as sort of a punchline, though, after all those pages of points allocations and calculations, special procedures and tabulated data and funky dice-rolling schemes.

What's the difference between action-resolution and task-resolution?

Action resolution is a general category that includes task resolution and conflict resolution.

The difference is that for conflict resolution you wear a beret, smoke unfiltered cigarettes, and dig Mose Allison. Plus, if you don't get the result you want, then it was obviously task resolution and you need new, hip dice.

 

[Ariosto]

So? You have anything to add or subtract from what I said or are you just admiring your own voice?

I thought I had added it pretty plainly.

The subtraction is the notion that just giving NPC X a shopping list constitutes a "linear scenario" in the sense under discussion. It does not.

The only way that becomes a linear scenario is with railroading.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

Imagine a simple 3-room dungeon: Room A has a door to Room B. Room B has a door to Room C.

Imagine a simple 3-location mystery: Location A has a clue to Location B. Location B has a clue to Room C.

Structurally those scenarios are identical*, but you seem to be saying that one is linear and the other isn't. This makes no sense to me. And I'm not really comfortable describing "you have to open the door before you can walk through it" as being a railroad.

(*Caveat: A typical dungeon door is usually obvious and clues are typically difficult to find. Ergo, designing a 1 door = 1 clue equivalence isn't quite accurate. The latter will tend to encourage railroading since the PCs are "expected" to find the clues and the scenario stops working if they don't.

But this distinction is largely irrelevant: If you use the Three Clue Rule you'll generally make the linear mystery robust. And if you make all the doors in the linear dungeon secret doors you'll generally make that scenario fragile.)

EDIT: Okay, I take that back. It's not largely irrelevant. It's the entire point. Fragility is one of the defining qualities of railroaded scenario design. And in order for that fragility to exist, a linear design is almost always a prerequisite. But linearity, by itself, is not inherently fragile. So if we're looking for the distinction between "linear design" and "railroaded design", that fragility would be one of the things I would look at.

The other would be the GM mandating that the PCs have certain goals.

That's a pretty fair definition. Contrary to eveileeyore's claims upthread, I firmly believe that railroading is in the eye of the railroadee; i.e., if the railroadee doesn't feel like he's being railroaded, then he's not. You can only be railroaded if you feel that valid actions are disallowed by DM fiat.

I would disagree with this on the grounds that "invisible railroading" or "illusionism" still has a very real effect on gameplay, and those effects are very similar to and arise from the same root causes as visible railroading.

IOW, I think there's a useful distinction between visible and invisible railroading. But the two are still clearly joined at the hip.

 

[Ariosto]

As to Acerak's pretty linear tomb and similar, I reckon it a 'railroad' when -- as was the case in the tournament context -- the only way out is Game Over.

That was perfect for tournament judging! Each team faces the same tests. Just look at how far the bodies fall, and the last one standing is MVP.

As time went on, there were more modules available. As the investment in rules-books went up, there was probably selection for people with more money to spend on modules (which increasingly were regarded rather as 'adventures').

If turning away from the tomb means one can go on playing, choosing one's moves on the "game board" of the world, then it's not a railroad.

If it's always Hobson's choice -- the DM's chosen 'adventure' or nothing -- then there's always a little choo-choo ride, no matter what the rest of the scenario is like.

It's basically replacing the campaign game with the tournament game.

 

[Desdichado]

I would disagree with this on the grounds that "invisible railroading" or "illusionism" still has a very real effect on gameplay, and those effects are very similar to and arise from the same root causes as visible railroading.

I don't think so. What effects? What root causes? What similarities are you vaguely referring to?

The whole point of your so-called "invisible railroading" is that the players never actually know or feel like they're being railroaded. There may be some obvious similarities to the GM's POV, but if the players don't ever see it, then there is a massive difference in game play.

Historically, and in all the discussion I've seen online on this for years and years before the sandbox crowd started coopting and attempting to change well-known and well-used RPG jargon, your "invisible railroad" wasn't a railroad at all; those were tips and techniques for GM's who needed a well-prepared game and specifically wanted to not railroad their players, but who were unable (for whatever reason) to roll with the punches very well.

 

[Umbran]

Analogies are imperfect.

Not looking for perfection. Looking for intuitive quality.

If you wanted just a term, you could call it "flapdoodling," give a precise definition, and there you go, one perfectly good piece of jargon.

The point of using a term that invokes an analogy is to enhance understanding quickly. An important (I'd even say *the* important) part of BenBrown's definition is the issue of expectation - the players expect to have an effect, and don't.

Real world railroads are pretty darned obvious. So, you'll still have to explain the term frequently, as it fails to match a major operative portion of the definition.