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

[The Shaman]

In almost any case: Session ruined.

For whom?

If the players enjoy the fight, or the diplomacy, or the escape attempts, then why do you think it's better to tell them 'no' and move on?

 

[CleverNickName]

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

Because the DMG says it's up to the DM. But even if that weren't the case, I think I would still prefer a single person (either the DM or the author of a published module) in charge of the story, because not everyone knows how to write a good one.

(I know that "good" is a highly subjective term. But hear me out.)

According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers. It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas. There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting. The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.

I know that we aren't writing the next Great American Novel at my game table. And a lot of people prefer a less-cohesive storyline that flows from one scene to the next without any sort of pattern (whatever happens in this episode has nothing to do with what happened last week, nor will it affect what happens next week.) It just doesn't work for us.

I'm a Guinness man, myself.

And strangely enough, I prefer hefes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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...

My current group, when we first started playing, was like this. After a couple of years of trying all kinds of things to get it to change (talking about it, begging, showing by example, system changes ... you name it, if you can imagine it, I probably tried it), I finally hit on something that worked:

I got a fairly big, wooden, 3-minute egg timer. I would watch when someone started repeating what had already been said. As soon as that happened, I flipped the timer, in full view of everyone. If the sand ran out before they acted, I made sure that, "something bad would happen" that would demand a reaction.

I explained exactly how this would work, before the session started, and reminded them every session until it was ingrained. They can talk for an hour if they want. As long as it's rolling along and people are having fun, it is all good. Just no boring, rehashing of the same tired stuff. (They get bored before I do. So it is not as if I'm pushing them on my account. I just watch for repeats in the arguments and signs of boredom from the players.)

Having since talked to other people who tried this, I'm fairly convinced that the key is having an egg-timer big enough where they can see the grains flowing. I'd tried various digitial versions earlier with no effect whatsoever. The other necessary part is being vague about the consequences, but following through. I actually start pretty minor, and rachet up consequences throughout the session, but ambiguity works wonders on this group. You don't want, "ninjas attack," to derail the session, after all.

The really funny thing is that they all know exactly what I'm doing and why. It's never been the slightest bit hidden. But it got for awhile where I didn't even need the egg-timer. When things started dragging, I'd merely glance over at the case where I usually kept it, and someone would subconsicously notice this, take charge, and within 60 seconds have everything back on track. We haven't actually had the sand run out this decade. They just needed a push to get into something that was more fun for everyone.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers. It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas. There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting. The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.

You can easily get surprises, mystery, intrigue, along with a cohesive background and setting, and compelling heroes and villains. You can also have multiple, interesting, twining conflicts rise out of it. And that is with everyone contributing.

It's true that it is difficult to get a single, central conflict without a single author. But that is one of the big differences between a written story and a roleplaying game. (That is, feature, not a bug.) With twining conflicts, cohesion is less important, and you can get enough from the framework provided by the setting and discussion/agreement before the game starts.

It's also true that with multiple inputs, each player can't be totally surprised, all the time. Sometimes, they are the ones contributing, and thus that particular mystery ... isn't. But on balance, I'd rather have 9 surprises and 1 contribution from me, than 10 surprises from one person. After a little gaming, I find it hard for that one person to much surprise me anymore, especially when no one can effectively throw a monkey wrench into his plans. Whereas, with everyone contributing, I may not be surprised about Mr. X being the villain, but I may very well be surprised at how Mr. Y, who I did not anticipate, interacts with him.

 

[FireLance]

As Celebrim's "rowboat" analogy indicates, there are many ways to fail at DMing. Too much direction ("railroading") is one. Not enough direction ("rowboating") is another. And more importantly, neither is the solution to the other.

You do not cure a man of hypothermia by setting him on fire.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's true that it is difficult to get a single, central conflict without a single author. But that is one of the big differences between a written story and a roleplaying game. (That is, feature, not a bug.) With twining conflicts, cohesion is less important, and you can get enough from the framework provided by the setting and discussion/agreement before the game starts.

I disagree.

It is possible to have a single, central conflict within a role-playing game. In fact, I prefer it that way. Less work for everyone, fewer distractions, easier to follow, etc.

For me, cohesion doesn't become less important with entertwining conflicts, it becomes more. And harder to accomplish.

And I can't really get "enough" from a mere framework provided by the setting and an open discussion. I can get started with that, but before long, I'm bogging the game down by asking too many questions. Then everybody yells at me a lot.

 

[Jacob Marley]

According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers. It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas. There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting. The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.

My experiences with Mythic -- in particular: Mythic Game Master Emulator -- have shown me that it is quite easy to have all the elements necessary to create a good story, without the need of one person to guide said story. This system allowed us to create a very cohesive narrative, while allowing for a great deal of individual player latitude.

I think, though, that it requires a certain type of player to really make a system like this shine.

Oh, and I prefer Newcastle.

 

[the Jester]

Because the DMG says it's up to the DM. But even if that weren't the case, I think I would still prefer a single person (either the DM or the author of a published module) in charge of the story, because not everyone knows how to write a good one.

(I know that "good" is a highly subjective term. But hear me out.)

According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers. It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas. There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting. The more contributing authors you have, the less cohesive the story becomes.

All very true in a story... or at least somewhat true (there are certainly great novels that violate all these rules).

In a roleplaying game, though, this is not what I personally look for. Again, it's a matter of playstyle, and that's okay; but I think the needs of a good rpg are very different from the needs of a good story.

As someone else on ENWorld once posted, "The story is what we tell after the game when talking about what happened." [/misquote]

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

Illusionism drives me nuts

<snip>

OTOH, confronted with the need to do a certain amount of railroading, I'll quite happily go to OOC discussion to resolve the issue

Great post (but still can't posrep you at this time).

I'd add - when you go out of character to resolve the issue in the way you describe, I don't think of it as railroading anymore. It's working with the players to set up the next situation, recognising that this is subject not only to limitations that arise ingame (eg the situation is unlikely to involve a giant robot attack, if it's a fantasy game) but also limitations that arise from real life (eg the GM can't impromptu GM a massed dragon attack, either, and hasn't got one prepped).

 

[The Shaman]

According to my Creative Writing classes, a good work of fiction needs surprises, mystery, intrigue, and such elements that must be withheld from the readers. It also needs a cohesive background and setting...it has to be more than just a patchwork quilt of good ideas. There has to be a central conflict, there has to be a clear path of resolution, there has to be heroes and villains, and they all have to make sense within the context of the setting.

What I like most about roleplaying games are the ways in which they are not like stories. The contributions of multiple imaginations and the influence of the dice top my list.

So what's important to you is about as far removed from what I want out of playing a game as it gets.

Different strokes make a horse race, or something like that.