"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[CleverNickName]

The problem for me is, what happens if I'm not interested in walking through your "carefully-adapted" module? What if I'm more interested in pulling off a heist of the crown jewels, and I convince the other players? Do you stop the action to tell us we're off your reservation?

To me, this . . . . . . is exactly what I don't enjoy in roleplaying games. Multiple ways for me to follow your story do not constitute "player choice" in my book, particularly if I can look forward to a meta discussion along the lines of, "No, you can't pickpocket the king because you need him on your side in Episode 3!"

Hmm, I think you might be right.

If you aren't interested in playing (or even merely 'walking through') the module, then you are certainly sitting at the wrong game table. I assume that everyone who shows up is interested in playing the adventure I present. (shrug) If one of my players wants to play something else, I'd hope he would speak up before it starts instead of trying to hijack the story from me and everyone else who wanted to play CM1. That's not cool.

I don't like open-ended games where the DM creates a map and says "So, what do you guys want to do today?" I need a plot, I need NPCs, I need a story. I get bored quickly unless I can care about the people and events going on around me. (I am ADHD, after all.)

I think we both can agree that successfully roleplaying games are a balancing act. Just like making beer.

Ultimately it is the brewmaster's (the DM's) job to make sure that the beer is delicious (that the game is fun). And to do that, he needs a good blend of quality malted wheat and barley (a strong plot and structure), and he needs both bittering and aromatic hops (input and participation from the players.) Now, some people like IPAs, beer that's easy on the grain and heavy on the hops (sandbox games). Other people like Stouts and Hefeweizens, beers that are malty and rich but not very bitter (railroads.)

But at the end of the day, we all agree: beer is awesome.

EDIT: Eh, forget the beer reference. Go read Celebrim's 'Railroads & Rowboats' post instead. Two posts up.

 

[the Jester]

The opposite of the railroad is what I call the rowboat or rowboat setting. A rowboat setting is when the players have the appearance of complete freedom but can't actually do anything...

That is an excellent descriptive term.

 

[Nagol]

Hmm, I think you might be right.

If you aren't interested in playing (or even merely 'walking through') the module, then you are certainly sitting at the wrong game table. I assume that everyone who shows up is interested in playing the adventure I present. (shrug) If one of my players wants to play something else, I'd hope he would speak up before it starts instead of trying to hijack the story from me and everyone else who wanted to play CM1. That's not cool.

I don't like open-ended games where the DM creates a map and says "So, what do you guys want to do today?" I need a plot, I need NPCs, I need a story. I get bored quickly unless I can care about the people and events going on around me. (I am ADHD, after all.)

I think we both can agree that successfully roleplaying games are a balancing act. Just like making beer.

Ultimately it is the brewmaster's (the DM's) job to make sure that the beer is delicious (that the game is fun). And to do that, he needs a good blend of quality malted wheat and barley (a strong plot and structure), and he needs both bittering and aromatic hops (input and participation from the players.) Now, some people like IPAs, beer that's easy on the grain and heavy on the hops (sandbox games). Other people like Stouts and Hefeweizens, beers that are malty and rich but not very bitter (railroads.)

But at the end of the day, we all agree: beer is awesome.

My sandboxes have all sorts of plots, NPCs, and many, many, many stories unfolding. It's the players' choice which ones to engage.

And I hate beer. Too much water in it.

 

[nedjer]

Dumb post game conversation:

the train - stuck on the rails
the rowboat - start bailing
the trawler - who let George Clooney get on the boat
the golf cart - by the numbers but choose your own clubs
the skateboard - freestyling
the Harley - freewheeling
the war elephant - big set pieces
the trojan horse - beware Dark Elves bearing gifts

 

[kitsune9]

"Ok, you are in a row boat in the middle of the ocean. There is no land in sight anywhere and you have no idea where you are. What do you want to do?"

However, any sparcely described setting with few obvious features, limited player mobility and empowerment, and no discernable purpose or direction qualifies. Virtually every setting I've ever encountered by someone who prides themselves on their ability to 'wing it' qualifies.

Like the Rowboat analogy. Can't tell you how many DM's that wanted to run games "fast and loose" and make up their adventures as they go delivered a Rowboat game.

Hey that's a new term we can coin--a rowboat game!

 

[The Shaman]

Hmm, I think you might be right.

Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

I think that means you've told me, "You might be right," more times than my wife has, though.

If you aren't interested in playing (or even merely 'walking through') the module, then you are certainly sitting at the wrong game table. I assume that everyone who shows up is interested in playing the adventure I present. (shrug) If one of my players wants to play something else, I'd hope he would speak up before it starts instead of trying to hijack the story from me and everyone else who wanted to play CM1. That's not cool.

Absolutely - matching expectations at the table is essential.

I enjoy modules as one-shot games - I had a lot of fun playing in Good King Despot last year and Necropolis this year at SoCal MiniCon with some local Dragonsfooters . . . Dragonsfeeties . . . uh, gamers from Dragonsfoot. But for a campaign, I prefer a lot more freedom to pursue in-character goals than being led through the adventure-path-of-the-moment.

I don't like open-ended games where the DM creates a map and says "So, what do you guys want to do today?"

Whereas I think Pinky and the Brain are the ultimate roleplayers, because the answer to that question is always, "The same thing we do every night - try to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!"

That's how a proactive player thinks, in my humble opinion.

I need a plot, I need NPCs, I need a story. I get bored quickly unless I can care about the people and events going on around me.

My characters care very much about the people and events going on around them - they develop friendships and rivals, make allies and enemies. help others and receive help in turn, set goals and meet or change them as the game unfolds.

The plot is created by the adventurers, but it's an emergent plot that is really only seen after the action moves on. It's a story told in retrospect, of events that happened in actual play, not by the machinations of the referee.

The games I enjoy most, from either side of the screen, are driven by the players and the adventurers, not the referee or the setting.

I think we both can agree that successfully roleplaying games are a balancing act. Just like making beer.

Ultimately it is the brewmaster's (the DM's) job to make sure that the beer is delicious (that the game is fun).

Is it? Why isn't it up to the players?

And to do that, he needs a good blend of quality malted wheat and barley (a strong plot and structure), and he needs both bittering and aromatic hops (input and participation from the players.)

For me, what a good roleplaying game needs is a richly textured setting of interesting people and places and sense of life and vibrancy, characters with goals or ambition, and proactive players who don't wait around for an adventure to fall out of the sky on their heads.

Now, some people like IPAs, beer that's easy on the grain and heavy on the hops (sandbox games). Other people like Stouts and Hefeweizens, beers that are malty and rich but not very bitter (railroads.)

I'm a Guinness man, myself.

But at the end of the day, we all agree: beer is awesome.

Yes, on that we agree.

 

[pemerton]

I don't like open-ended games where the DM creates a map and says "So, what do you guys want to do today?" I need a plot, I need NPCs, I need a story.

I agree with this.

A key to making a story-driven game work with players that prefer their freedom is to allow the illusion of choice- let them make up their own mind about what to do and just feed them to the same storyline regardless.

But I don't agree with this. It's one way, but not the only way, and not a way that I'm interested in playing or GMing.

Sandbox and railroad are not opposite ends on a spectrum. There are other possibilities.

I prefer a game in which the players design PCs laden with thematic and story potential just waiting to be triggered. The GM then sets up situations which pull those triggers. And then the game unfolds in accordance with the players' responses (via their PCs) to those triggers.

This is a story driven game which has a plot and NPCs, but the story is initiated by both players (via PC design) and GM (via situation design), and resolved by the players. There is no need for the illusion of freedom, because players can exercise actual freedom.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think that when railroading or sandbox (or "rowboating", nice one!) gets discussed with some heat, there is nearly always something else involved, often unspoken. For example, I think illusionism has been mentioned only once in this topic thus far. I can tolerate a great deal of pre-plotted material in the right circumstance, despite my preference for sandbox, but I can't stand illusionism.

Illusionism drives me nuts, and I avoid it like the plague when I'm the DM. Problem is, it is not uncommon for a DM to think that the way to run a railroad is to use illusionism like mad. I see it invoked in gaming advice, many times I'm convinced unconsciously.

OTOH, confronted with the need to do a certain amount of railroading, I'll quite happily go to OOC discussion to resolve the issue: "Hey, you want to get on this train and do X, Y, and Z?" Or you want to try something else to do something similar and let me adapt on the fly? Or you want to do something totally different and let me wing it? Because normally I'd have more options, but this was a rough week, and I was tired when prepping."

I can hear the deep immersionists screaming, "That isn't roleplaying to me!" Well, maybe not to you. I just call it taking a shortcut to the fun, the fun being defined as something I'm willing to run and the players excited to try. If a decision point happens to fall mid-adventure, then it is no less valid for its location. If you'd rather handle that situation with illusionism, and the group likes it, more power to you. Just don't do it with the idea that illusionism is the only effective way to handle the issue.

I think you get similar disconnects over such things as splitting the party, level of dissent tolerated between player characters, scope of the playable world, etc. Depending on the groups' preferences on a whole host of issues, and how conscious they are of those preferences, they may show a preference for a certain amount of scripted versus sandbox, but I think it is more a symptom of those other preferences than a simple preference in its own right.

 

[The Shaman]

"Ok, you are in a row boat in the middle of the ocean. There is no land in sight anywhere and you have no idea where you are. What do you want to do?"

"First, we need to take an inventory of supplies - what are our resources, particularly expendables, particularly water. How much do we have, and how long can we expect it to last?

"We also need to get a handle on where we are, so we need to observe the sun to determine cardinal directions and maybe a bit about our latitude, based on how high the arc of the sun is. Once night falls, we need to figure out if there's a polestar or a similar object which can be used as an absolute marker for latitude. Do we have a bit of wood and string to make a kamal? Is anyone trained in navigation?

"Someone will need to watch the water and the sky for wildlife - do we see any birds, and if we do, which way are they travelling? Does the water have a greenish hue suggesting the presence of phytoplankton, or is it open ocean blue? Which way is the swell moving relative to the sun? Are there clouds? What do they look like, and which way are they moving? Do we have a rope we can use to sound the depth and maybe see how far down the light goes?

"We need to think about gathering food and especially water. We'll also need to rig a shelter of some kind - lack of food can kill you in weeks, lack of water in days, exposure in hours.

"So . . . how 'bout it, ref?"

 

[Remathilis]

It shouldn't take 2 to 3 hours to resolve that situation. You simply tell them the guards have arrested their friend. They can get him out using diplomacy, paying a sum of gold, breaking him out, etc. The rogue could also attempt to escape on his own if the players feel like leaving him in there. Any of these options could be done quickly with a skill challenge.

The rogue learns a lesson, gets his moment in the spotlight, and creates an ongoing dialogue between the PCs. "All right, rogue, don't steal anything this time, were not bailing you out again." "Remember that time you tried to steal from the king?"

You have a group which is brutally effective.

My group would insist on playing out a combat, with all the speed and grace 3e/4e combat offers.
They would spend a concocting a plan to rescue him, either through a prolonged diplomatic trial or simply breaking into the prison. Meanwhile, the rogue would do everything in his power to break out.
They would ultimately succeed OR give up. If they succeed they spend the remainder of the time discussing the rogue's fate. An honest mistake? A finger-wagging and move on. A serious habitual offender? They'll leave him on the side of the road. More than likely, the player is rolling up a new PC, with all the fun THAT entails...
The king is offended, the module ruined, and the game is adjourned until the DM can retool his game for next session.

In almost any case: Session ruined.

In what way is that better than telling the player "no" and moving onto the adventure at hand?