Why I Dislike the term Railroading

[Doug McCrae]

I remember a thread a while back, Hobo was heavily involved in it, where the OP had a very extreme definition of railroad. Though it really seemed to be coming more from his group than from him.

Afaics, this guy's group would call it a railroad if the players were given a stronger reason to do A than B. So for example if they have two separate job offers to clear out orc lairs, and one pays 1000gp and the other 900gp, but they are otherwise pretty similar, then that's a railroad because the PCs would obviously take the 1000gp job. Or if they are offered two similar jobs but one is eight day's journey away and the other only three days then that is also a railroad cause they would have a stronger reason to take the nearer one.

Sounds crazy, I know, but these people are out there, using words wrong. Or, at least, damn weirdly.

 

[Desdichado]

Some days I think I'd like to run a campaign a group of vocal "sandbox" types, then after it's all over, see how much of my moving things around behind the scenes they noticed. My guess? Very little.

I'd probably agree. I think from the front side of the screen, a lot of these styles are mostly indistinguishable when utilized by a halfway decent GM.

Then again, maybe the most vocal sandboxy types are going to be adamant on ignoring any plot hooks and going around inventing their own. I almost get that impression from... well, from a lot of discussion that I've been involved with lately.

There wasn't a lot of discussion about railroading before the sandbox crowd got involved. There were gamer horror stories, but I don't recall any cases of the gamer horror stories eliciting the reply "that's not a railroad".

I heard it discussed plenty, although I agree that it was less in the theoretical framework and more in the "this really sucks, so don't do it, and here's some ways to help you not do it." Or, as you say, horror stories passed from gamer to gamer as cautionary tales.

 

[Desdichado]

You might try reading the thread. It's not that hard and it's a lot easier than me re-posting the same crap every three pages because you can't be bothered.

Good heavens. Really?

But to sum up: The net result of railroading is that player impact on the scenario is dampened or eliminated. It's true, as I said in the post you're responding to, that there is a difference between invisible and visible railroading. But I think that difference, while significant, is still minor compared to the much larger commonalities created by limiting the potential playspace.

That's not very specific.

And I still venture to say that from the front side of the screen, the difference is usually indistinguishable, unless the GM is remarkably poor.

There's also the commonality in how railroaded scenarios are designed. The guys practicing invisible railroading are better at keeping the servants out of sight (so to speak), but they're using the same basic techniques. Robust non-linear scenarios, on the other hand, are fundamentally different in their design.

I think your attempt to coin the new terms invisible and visible railroad will probably fail. What you call "invisible railroad" is just what most gamers I've ever talked to call "the game."

But it's also true that people have been using the term "railroad" to refer to published adventures for decades now. The use of the term as such is just as prevalent as the use of the term to describe behavior at the actual gaming table. (Do a search on "Dragonlance" and "railroad" if you don't believe me.)

No, you're right. And as I said already (oh, hey, you mean now I'm repeating myself over and over again too?) certain modules certainly are more conducive to a railroad experience. Such modules might be called railroads because they're written as such, or they're so frequently played as such that that's the experience many players had with them, if they were run as written.

But I'm trying to further refine the discussion a little bit. They call such modules railroads because either 1) their experience with them was a railroad, or 2) as written, they anticipate that the experience with them would be a railroad. Fundamentally, it's the experience at the table that is really the railroad, and by calling the module itself a railroad, it's semantic transferrance.

And I don't say that in an attempt to coopt or change the term; again, just to approach it from a different angle and refine the discussion a bit.

 

[Desdichado]

It's pretty simple. When my friend K. is DM, he's got an 'adventure' planned, and we can either go through it or play something other than D&D. If we say, "No, we're not going to go get this thing for that guy" -- or whatever the 'plot' may be -- and go off to try something else, then he's just going to close up shop. He's not prepared for that.

(We have not put him to the test, mind you! That's just the word, and sometimes we'll end a D&D session earlier than expected because he has run out of material.)

I think we might be able to retrain him to let us pick from open options at the end of one session, so he could prepare to run our adventure in the next. The trouble is that he's one of those "epic story teller" types (for all that he's the only one who can keep the story straight).

That's cool. I would prefer more of a real game, but it's just an entertaining pastime, part of the social gathering. We'll do different things other times.

Well, that's a Melkor waiting to happen right there!

 

[Desdichado]

In hopes of adding to the confusion, here's another possible meaning.

Instead of a threshold, railroad is seen as one direction on a continuum, the other direction being referred to as sandbox. Railroad means less player freedom, sandbox means more. There is, probably, no such thing as a perfect railroad or a perfect sandbox in actual play. Neither railroading nor sandboxing is inherently good or bad, they are just tools to be used by individual gaming groups, and adjusted to taste.

I tried to frame the discussion in those terms in the thread you mention that I was involved with.

Didn't fly very well. Personally, I still feel that that's a perfectly reasonable definition, and one that is frequently used. However, clearly, fine semantic differences in how one uses the word railroad clearly permeate the community here, since we all seem to be arguing frequently about what exactly makes a railroad and what doesn't.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I still venture to say that from the front side of the screen, the difference is usually indistinguishable, unless the GM is remarkably poor.

I have a wide variety of experience with both styles, both as a player and as a GM, with many players and GMs over several decades and in several locations (due to moving, particularly when I was in the US Army).

My experience is that the difference is usually very easily distinguishable, regardless of who is GMing, and almost irregardless of who the players are, from the front of the screen.

Certainly, not each incidence of "dramatic change" is noted, but the cumulative effect is almost always noted, regardless of GM skill. In fact, my experience suggests that a more skilled GM doesn't hold the illusion longer, because the really skilled GMs I have been lucky enough to know aren't in the business of trying to trick the players about the nature of the game they are playing. That hardly fosters GM trust.

Some players want a more linear, plotted, game. Some want a more free, player-driven game. Good GMs are pretty open about what they are presenting, so that players know what they are signing up for. That way, you can pick the GM that suits what style of game you want.

IME, it is most often the poorer GMs who lie to the players about the nature of the game that they are presenting, and who then imagine that the players are somehow unable to parse out their experiences and realize how the game is rigged. And I have met quite a few of these types of GM.

Some of them are successful at running a game because they have other qualities that make them good GMs. Some of them, I understand, keep players because they are the "only game in town". Some of them have rotating groups of players because no one wants to stick around after they've figured it out. All of them, IMHO and IME, would be better GMs if they were a bit more honest about what they were doing.

IMHO, and IME. YMMV.


RC

 

[the Jester]

My experience is that the difference is usually very easily distinguishable, regardless of who is GMing, and almost irregardless of who the players are, from the front of the screen.

Yeah, eventually you notice the scenery moving outside and realize you're just along for the ride.

IME the players have to actively work to delude themselves to miss this when they are on an adventure sufficiently to the railroady side of the spectrum.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

[snip]...Right there, I think, is one reason the 'sandbox' term seemed suitable. There's a lot of fun to be had in building castles and knocking them down!...[snip]

If this is a widely accepted view of what makes a game a sandbox then I see two ways this has caused friction and negativity in the community.

First is the insistence that this is the One True Campaign by the rules. That other styles of Campaigns are wrong as they don't follow The Rules set out by the creators of the game. As pointed out by another poster, the original rules were not all inclusive and therefore other emergent styles of Campaign play are no more wrong than developing rules for how a character can jump a gorge. Those who insist or imply that the type of Campaign you describe is the One True Way are the first cause of friction and ill feelings related to this subject among those in our greater gaming community.

Second is any insistence or inference that Railroading is the antonym of Sandboxing. That any campaign that doesn't follow the style you describe above is automatically a Railroad. Even if you try to pry of the negative connotations related with the word, it still puts forth an implicaton that one style of campaign is objectively better than another.

My take on things is a bit different. The style of campaign you describe above is more "Explore and Conquest" or "Hexcrawling" than "Sandboxing" in the way I understand things. I believe the DM of such a campaign is obviously encouraged to apply Sandbox behavior to the campaign, but could just as easily Railroad his players as in any other style of campaign. While I do enjoy a good "Hexcrawling" campaign, I mainly run campaigns that focus less on the players exmploring sites or hexes and more on exploring the plots and motivations of NPCs. We've also moved away from conquest (gathering henchmen and building strongholds) entirely. If the only two definitions of campaign styles are what you describe as "Sandboxing" or "Railroading" this is the point where I (and I'm geussing many others) take offense, because my campaigns do not espouse the behaviors of a railroad.

You mention your DM K. above (I'm also DM K. and I hope you're not one of my players, because if you are we need to talk) having one adventure prepared. Because of the necessities of life I'm in the same boat as K. But even so this doesn't make my campaign a Railroad. I've got plenty of room within what I've prepared to take things in most of the directions my players would want to go. One thing that helps is knowing my players and agreeing in what type of general game we like to play up front.* If they do take an unexpected turn, I try to improvise. If we get to the point where I think my lack of preparedness will damage my players enjoyment of the game I may call the game to a halt, but only so I can prepare better for the route the players have chosen.

*Someone above noted that players wanting to join an evil cult and being disallowed by the DM are being railroaded. If, as a group, you agree to play a heroic non-evil campaign, does this make the entire campaign a railroad? I'm curious how people view these pre-agreed limitations to player choice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*Someone above noted that players wanting to join an evil cult and being disallowed by the DM are being railroaded. If, as a group, you agree to play a heroic non-evil campaign, does this make the entire campaign a railroad? I'm curious how people view these pre-agreed limitations to player choice.

This is why usurpation of player agency is important in my definition; players have the right to give away any agency they so desire. If I agree to play Savage Tide, for instance, I have no cause to go crying that the DM is forcing me to play an AP. If the DM creates unnatural limitations on how I can approach the material because the scenarios as written do not envision my going a certain way, or using a certain tactic, that would still be railroading, because agreeing to play ST does not mean that I agree my actions can be curtailed in this way.

Nor, BTW, does it follow that simply because the players wish their PCs to join an evil cult, that the evil cult wishes to have them as members.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

First is the insistence that this is the One True Campaign by the rules. That other styles of Campaigns are wrong as they don't follow The Rules set out by the creators of the game.

Hmmm.

I think you are reading too much into this.

I think that neither (1) that a given set of rules were written with a particular playstyle in mind, or (2) that a given set of rules supports a particular playstyle better than another particular playstyle (especially if the second is philosophically opposed to the first), is entirely a subjective observation.

Whether or not railroading is the antonym of sandboxing or not, I would say that the idea of allowing players to have reasonable agency is philosophically opposed to the usurpation of that agency. While "allowing players to have reasonable agency" does not define -- and is not exclusive to -- sandbox play, it is a core tenet.


RC