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

[chaochou]

I personally think that railroading at some level was so endemic to gaming for so long that it's easy to see it as the only way to game, and to defend against accusations of doing it. Personally, I don't care whether a railroad stops me picking the King's pocket or is of the 'All roads lead to Rome' variety, where we have every freedom exept to avoid the boss fight at the end - it's still railroading.

I think what needs to be accepted is that railroading can be fun. It can work. A published scenario is a railroad. Writing a plot is a railroad. But if everyone is cool with that, fine. More power to you. I've run and played a ton and had a blast.

When people talk about railroading in a bad sense, what it actually means is you have conflicting playstyles at the table.

Take the pickpocketing the king example. The underlying assumption is that the party is going to co-operate with 'the story'. And that the thief 'not co-operating' with 'the story' is going to mess things up and the rest of the players are going to be unhappy.
But really, all that demonstrates is that two different play styles at the same table don't mix.

All this stuff about 'sandbox' gaming being 'directionless' just means the game was badly run, perhaps by someone who lacked the tools to do the job properly. I've gacked it a number of times myself.

That style of game requires, from the outset, motivated NPCs with agendas and relationships, motivated pro-active PCs with agendas, weaknesses and relationships, and a situation with immediate threats to deal with which will put all those agendas into conflict. Check out Sorceror, Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World... There's no lack of direction, no scarcity of things to do, but critically, no plot. What happens in game is the plot.

Going back to the pickpocketing example. The style I prefer now is for the thief to say 'I'm picking the King's pocket' and the rest of the players go 'Awesome, this is going to be so coool' and we tell the story of the day the thief picked the King's pocket. I don't impose my story, I help the players tell theirs.

But that wasn't always the case. I can enjoy both.

 

[Remathilis]

This assumes that the only generative source of plot is the GM. This is true in the video games you're using as your model/analogy, but it's not true in a tabletop game: Players do not have to be entirely reactive. They can generate plot.

Here's where I end up getting confused/frustrated with the sandbox crowd; what constitutes a "plot"?

Lets take, for example a classic canard; there is a tiny keep on the borderlands and there is a bunch of caves not too far away from them that is loaded with monsters and evil cultists. On the surface, this is a quintessential sandbox, right?

Lets take it one step further; what are the monster's goals? Why have they all amassed there. Gathering an army? Digging for a lost chieftain's riches? Dupped by a real-estate ponzi scheme? Lets assume, for a moment, they are called by the cultists in cave H* to serve some dark and nefarious master.

We're still in sandbox land, all we've done is add some backstory to our dungeon scenario.

So reasonably, the PCs are lured by one or more hooks to want to explore the caves. Gold, hostages, fighting evil by moonlight, etc.

Waitasecond...

First, we assume the PCs actually WANT to go to the caves, because quite easily here the DM could use the power of the choo-choo to force them there. Even if the DM starts them all out in the Keep with the classic 3d6x10 gp worth of stuff, they might, as a group, be more interested in other things. They may want to go south and explore swamps, check out Quasequenton (which the module strictly tells the DM to railroad the PCs away from if he's not prepped for it) or any number of side events. Hell, they may want to raid the keep, kill the guards, rape the horses and ride off on the women while the keep burns.

Have we hit our first railroad: the assumption that since the adventure is based around the Caves of Chaos, we are actually GOING to the caves of chaos?

However, for simplicity, they are typical PCs and they know the drill; fight, loot, retreat, repeat. Several sessions of increasingly larger HD humanoids later, they reach the Cult. Through luck, will, and guile, they subdue the head priest and one bad save vs. charm person later, the priest sings like a canary about how he's gathering humanoids because his master, Vecna/Orcus/Bane/Sauron whatever, told him to gather an army to march on the realms of men.

What we've done is spill the "backstory" we created to the PCs. They are appalled by the revelation, put their "friend" to the sword, and decide they MUST do something about this!*

* This isn't railroading here, the PCs come to this conclusion on their own. We could, for a moment, assume the PCs feel their job is done and head off to, say, check out the Ghost Tower of Inverness, but they actually feel it is their job to explore this further.

What they don't know is that, right now, they bit the DMs plot hook. They did it willingly. No Deity or NPC told them to, no black-robed cultist is holding their friends/family/dog hostage. They have chosen, of their own free will, to figure out what the BBEG is doing and stop him. As the DM, I will continue to throw clues and hints their way as to the nature of their foe, ways to stop him, and occasional "plots" by the bad guys to foil (the king is a doppelganger!).

Are we rail-roading yet?

I mean, the DM has an end-point in mind (stop the cultists before Armageddon) and the PCs are going to follow the bread-crumbs to get to it. At any point, they can deviate from the trail to do other things (slay a dragon, start a keep, marry the princess, etc) and possibly even give up altogether (and face the consequences of an evil army marching on the realms of man). The PCs aren't strictly "forced" into it, but they will follow my "plot" be reacting to events as well as trying to out-think and outmaneuver the cult. Eventually, if they are smart/lucky/good, they will face the BBEG and stop him once and for all.

Is that a rail-road? If yes, why? If not, why not?

The DM here is generating the plot. The PCs are reacting to it. Did the PCs just take the last train out of Sandboxland?

 

[Sunseeker]

Or the player rolls his eyes, shrugs his shoulders, and says, "Well, that could've gone better. Someone hand me a character sheet, please?"

But I'm not commenting upon good player behavior, I'm talking about bad behavior.

I can't speak to your experiences, of course, but I tend to run into very few drama queens when I game.Such as the player of the paladin dictating to the player of the thief, using out-of-character knowledge to over the thief character in-game?Lighten up, Francis.Overgeneralize much?

If players are TRYING to harm other players, either through getting them in trouble with the law or some such, it's a problem. But if the paladin says to the thief OOC, that because he's playing lawful good, he'll have to try to stop the rogue, that is good roleplaying. Likewise, a criminal, or wanna-be criminal who hears that his buddy will have him arrested if he sees him commit a crime right in front of his face, will if he's a good RPer, realize the best time to rob the King is not right in front of the LG paladin buddy.

You're splattering a lot of gamers who don't deserve it with that tarry brush you're waving around. Again, maybe this is't something you've experienced, but there are lots and lots of gamers out there who are not self-absorbed me-monkeys, who recognize that failure may carry consequences for their characters, and are fine with that.Because every crime lord in every world thinks exactly the same way? Because a clever thief could never find a way to get past the guards?

Of course there are. If this discussion had turned to be about good behavior, I would have talked about that. Since it isn't, I didn't. And I'm talking about specifically, people who do things that will obviously put the whole party in a stick and possibly damage the game. If those people choose to STILL do that, then I have no love for them.

In my settings? No, they wouldn't. Because if every upstart criminal on the streets could get past the King's guards, then the King would probably be dead because these guards would be unlikely to stop a well-trained professional assassin.

Your thinking about what is possible seems extraordinarily narrow.Now we're getting into the realm of pure silliness.

Kings stay kings for a reason. One of those reasons is that they are very good about not allowing just anybody to get close to them. Now, at lvl 15, a theif may not be "just anybody", but that depends largely on the scale of the world.

Imprisonment. Branding. Loss of a digit or a limb. Forced servitude. Enslavement. Chained to a galley oar. Exile. Laugh it off for the pure brazeness of it.

No. I don't find humor in having to torture the party because the thief decided it was his lucky day.

Again, your assumptions about the range of possibilities seem terribly limited and limiting.My approach to gaming is far less rigid and proscribed than yours. I have no problem with an adventurer showboating once in awhile. I have no problem with adventurers working at cross-purposes with one another. I enjoy a more freewheeling atmosphere, which is why I work to create an environment were the players and their characters drive the action, and my role behind the screen is mostly reactive. I enjoy adventurers who dream big, who scheme relentlessly and take big risks, even for things that may seem trivial to others.

Ah, because I dont want to risk my game over foolishness, I am "restrictive" and "limiting". I can live with that. I do no like player-driven stories as they generally tend to be driven into the ground or the nearest tavern. Participation should be equal on both sides of the screen.

I'm not against the thief plotting to rob the King, but plotting out a strategy to rob the King is very different from spotting him on the street and deciding to pick his pockets.

For me gaming requires both give and take, and in my experience demands for group-think work against everyone's enjoyment more than they facilitate it.

Group-think is bad. But rarely have I seen players behave as a mindless mob. Moreoften, when 4/5 players say "hey, we'd rather you didn't do that, it could get us all killed.", the 5th player consents. When he doesn't, that is a sign of behavior I'd rather not tolerate in the given contexts.

Disregard for the well being of your fellow PCs, and the overall enjoyment of the game is bad.

 

[gamerprinter]

I haven't read the thread beyond the first page - too damn many pages. But all this depends on your definition of 'railroading'. Personally, as a DM for my players, if I don't create a little direction for them, they don't go anywhere, so often its more than just plot hooks to guide.

However, as I said, it depends on your definition. I've heard definitions from both extremes. To me 'railroading' is not giving the players any options and forcing them through your story, only as the GM intended. But I've heard, especially from those who absolutely hate railroading, that any element that takes away total freedom of choice is considered railroading. And I don't agree with this.

Some groups want total freedom of choice and they do things compelled by their own reasoning, which is fine, but this doesn't describe my group. And if I provided no direction, they'd still be at the inn they met each two months ago. I don't know if its lack of motivation, or one active decision to stay and the rest being just followers.

When I give them direction they get to it and get things done.

So I don't believe in railroading, but I also don't believe in total freedom for the players, because at least mine need some direction.

GP

 

[Nagol]

Here's where I end up getting confused/frustrated with the sandbox crowd; what constitutes a "plot"?

A plot is a series of events leading from a starting situation to a defined end state.

Lets take, for example a classic canard; there is a tiny keep on the borderlands and there is a bunch of caves not too far away from them that is loaded with monsters and evil cultists. On the surface, this is a quintessential sandbox, right?

Lets take it one step further; what are the monster's goals? Why have they all amassed there. Gathering an army? Digging for a lost chieftain's riches? Dupped by a real-estate ponzi scheme? Lets assume, for a moment, they are called by the cultists in cave H* to serve some dark and nefarious master.

We're still in sandbox land, all we've done is add some backstory to our dungeon scenario.

So reasonably, the PCs are lured by one or more hooks to want to explore the caves. Gold, hostages, fighting evil by moonlight, etc.

Waitasecond...

First, we assume the PCs actually WANT to go to the caves, because quite easily here the DM could use the power of the choo-choo to force them there. Even if the DM starts them all out in the Keep with the classic 3d6x10 gp worth of stuff, they might, as a group, be more interested in other things. They may want to go south and explore swamps, check out Quasequenton (which the module strictly tells the DM to railroad the PCs away from if he's not prepped for it) or any number of side events. Hell, they may want to raid the keep, kill the guards, rape the horses and ride off on the women while the keep burns.

And that's understood in a sandbox. The PCs can decide to do anything or nothing. It's up to them.

Have we hit our first railroad: the assumption that since the adventure is based around the Caves of Chaos, we are actually GOING to the caves of chaos?

At this point it's not a railroad, merely an area developed because the DM believes the area MAY be of interest to the PCs. If not, it gets put back in the binder as the PCs wander off to a different map.

However, for simplicity, they are typical PCs and they know the drill; fight, loot, retreat, repeat. Several sessions of increasingly larger HD humanoids later, they reach the Cult. Through luck, will, and guile, they subdue the head priest and one bad save vs. charm person later, the priest sings like a canary about how he's gathering humanoids because his master, Vecna/Orcus/Bane/Sauron whatever, told him to gather an army to march on the realms of men.

What we've done is spill the "backstory" we created to the PCs. They are appalled by the revelation, put their "friend" to the sword, and decide they MUST do something about this!*

* This isn't railroading here, the PCs come to this conclusion on their own. We could, for a moment, assume the PCs feel their job is done and head off to, say, check out the Ghost Tower of Inverness, but they actually feel it is their job to explore this further.

Agreed.

What they don't know is that, right now, they bit the DMs plot hook. They did it willingly. No Deity or NPC told them to, no black-robed cultist is holding their friends/family/dog hostage. They have chosen, of their own free will, to figure out what the BBEG is doing and stop him. As the DM, I will continue to throw clues and hints their way as to the nature of their foe, ways to stop him, and occasional "plots" by the bad guys to foil (the king is a doppelganger!).

Are we rail-roading yet?

Nope. The choice to proceed (or not) and deal with the situation in front of them remains firmly in the PCs hands.

I mean, the DM has an end-point in mind (stop the cultists before Armageddon) and the PCs are going to follow the bread-crumbs to get to it.

WARNING Will Robinson! This is the point of danger. The DM has an end-point goal. In a sandbox, he doesn't. The DM can prepare a timeline of bad/really bad/worse things that will happen unless the PCs stop it, but there is no goal on his part to get them there. Perhaps the PCs would prefer to play a rebellious cadre out to topple the new regme once the Armageddon strikes.

At any point, they can deviate from the trail to do other things (slay a dragon, start a keep, marry the princess, etc) and possibly even give up altogether (and face the consequences of an evil army marching on the realms of man). The PCs aren't strictly "forced" into it, but they will follow my "plot" be reacting to events as well as trying to out-think and outmaneuver the cult. Eventually, if they are smart/lucky/good, they will face the BBEG and stop him once and for all.

Is that a rail-road? If yes, why? If not, why not?

So long as the Pcs can take any action and face the resulting situations, no. If the DM has a particular end-point he wants to reach, it can be very frustrating for him if the PCs don't share that goal of their own accord though.

The DM here is generating the plot. The PCs are reacting to it. Did the PCs just take the last train out of Sandboxland?

The DM is generating events. So long as the PCs are free to deal with those events on their own terms, it isn't a railroad.

Railroads are built to get the PCs "back on track" to reach a defined end-goal.

 

[chaochou]

Some groups want total freedom of choice and they do things compelled by their own reasoning, which is fine, but this doesn't describe my group. And if I provided no direction, they'd still be at the inn they met each two months ago.

And that's what this thread has shown in almost every post.

It's not that one way or the other can't work - it's just that they can't co-exist at the same table.

If a game is a railroad with a GM authored or bought scenario 'plot' that's cool. A group can have a lot of fun with those provided everyone 'knows the drill' as someone put it earlier.

The problems start when the GM tries to hand over narrative control to players who don't want it, or a player tries to take narrative control from a GM who won't share it.

I'm not against the thief plotting to rob the King, but plotting out a strategy to rob the King is very different from spotting him on the street and deciding to pick his pockets.

I suspect this is illustrative. This is not about the amount of planning - it's about who's in control of the fiction.

I mean, you'd be fine if a player had plotted this heist perfectly on his own without telling you and then did it, right?

Or is that not possible? No, you'd want to make sure he had to talk to you about lots of stuff to do this. Which keeps you in control of the fiction, right?

 

[Sunseeker]

I suspect this is illustrative. This is not about the amount of planning - it's about who's in control of the fiction.

I mean, you'd be fine if a player had plotted this heist perfectly on his own without telling you and then did it, right?

Or is that not possible? No, you'd want to make sure he had to talk to you about lots of stuff to do this. Which keeps you in control of the fiction, right?

If any player wants to do something, then they have to run it past the DM. It's not a matter of controlling the fiction, but for every room he wants to sneak into, for every guard he has to avoid, I, the DM, have to come up with a suitable challenge for him. Even if it's as simple as telling him he's entered a room w/X guards and what the DC for sneaking is.

No player just "does something" in the game because otherwise they're playing in their world, not mine. Because even in the most sandboxy world, you the DM still tells the players if there are buildings, caves, dungeons, ect...

Yes, he can't just invent dungeons and guards to avoid, because then he's playing his game, not mine. And if he'd rather play his game, which harkens back to my original point of a player who disregards others in favor of his own personal whatevers, why is he playing a group game?

 

[Remathilis]

A plot is a series of events leading from a starting situation to a defined end state.

WARNING Will Robinson! This is the point of danger. The DM has an end-point goal. In a sandbox, he doesn't. The DM can prepare a timeline of bad/really bad/worse things that will happen unless the PCs stop it, but there is no goal on his part to get them there. Perhaps the PCs would prefer to play a rebellious cadre out to topple the new regme once the Armageddon strikes

I think here is where Sandbox and I gently part ways then...

When I plan out a game, I tend to have an opening (cave of chaos) and a nebulous endpoint (lets say, stop Orcus). They're might be 1,000 different ways to get there, but if I introduce an element like "the cult is gathering an army for Orcus" I think its safe to say the PCs will go investigate it and the chase is on. In all my years, with probably dozens of players, introducing such a plot hook means the PCs will follow it. Why? I dunno. They like heroic quests, think that's what the DM wants, I can't guess. I do know that I've NEVER met a player who heard such news and said "that's nice. I wonder what's happening in Greyhawk right now?"

So to that end, I guess I'm a gentle railroader. I don't give my PCs enough choices to pick X or Y, or X is such an obvious choice that Y is mostly token opposition. It works with my group, so I'm happy with it. I've given up tight railroad control decades ago, and I'm well aware that, if given unlimited choice, the PCs would never leave the tavern (rowboating). Its a fair trade from my players and I; they accept some loss of autonomy for a greater DM-designed storyline.

 

[Nagol]

I think here is where Sandbox and I gently part ways then...

When I plan out a game, I tend to have an opening (cave of chaos) and a nebulous endpoint (lets say, stop Orcus). They're might be 1,000 different ways to get there, but if I introduce an element like "the cult is gathering an army for Orcus" I think its safe to say the PCs will go investigate it and the chase is on. In all my years, with probably dozens of players, introducing such a plot hook means the PCs will follow it. Why? I dunno. They like heroic quests, think that's what the DM wants, I can't guess. I do know that I've NEVER met a player who heard such news and said "that's nice. I wonder what's happening in Greyhawk right now?"

So to that end, I guess I'm a gentle railroader. I don't give my PCs enough choices to pick X or Y, or X is such an obvious choice that Y is mostly token opposition. It works with my group, so I'm happy with it. I've given up tight railroad control decades ago, and I'm well aware that, if given unlimited choice, the PCs would never leave the tavern (rowboating). Its a fair trade from my players and I; they accept some loss of autonomy for a greater DM-designed storyline.

A way to handle that situation without a railroad is to build it into the explicit table contract for the game. In other words, rather than say "Let's play D&D" you say "Let's play a game where the PCs stop a great demonic invasion." That way the DM and player expectations are aligned and PC direction is more predictable.

I've had groups decide the current situation wasn't to their taste and a grand exploration was in order. My current group walked 1,000 miles from their home base to look for a rumoured lost city because it caught their fancy more than the political/military intrigue happening around them. They've never gone back.

I've had groups decide to avoid rather than confront. A oft-talked about group in my gaming circle were instrumental in starting a doom and fled the continent rather than deal with it. The doom wasn't their fault, but they released something that started it. Stopping it wasn't too hard, but they told a few people and then left to a safe distance. The people they told didn't really believe them or thought they were handling it until...

 

[chaochou]

If any player wants to do something, then they have to run it past the DM. It's not a matter of controlling the fiction, but for every room he wants to sneak into, for every guard he has to avoid, I, the DM, have to come up with a suitable challenge for him. Even if it's as simple as telling him he's entered a room w/X guards and what the DC for sneaking is.

No player just "does something" in the game because otherwise they're playing in their world, not mine. Because even in the most sandboxy world, you the DM still tells the players if there are buildings, caves, dungeons, ect...

Yes, he can't just invent dungeons and guards to avoid, because then he's playing his game, not mine. And if he'd rather play his game, which harkens back to my original point of a player who disregards others in favor of his own personal whatevers, why is he playing a group game?

We can turn this round - if it's your world, and your personal whatevers, why are you playing a group game?

The reality is that most games with the playstyle that encourages the thief to pick-pocket the king (the sandboxy ones as you call them) do so in a world created by the players and encourage the players to keep creating it.

In that situation, if the thief pickpocketed the King, I'd be asking all the other players 'What's the coolest thing that could be in that pouch?' Which is to say 'Where do you want the story to go next?'

A glowing pendant of Orcus and a magic ring, you say? Maybe the kindly old king ain't so kindly after all. And what does this ring do?

A huge gem of unfathomable value? Hmmm. How exactly are you going to sell that? And what's the King doing carrying it round with him?

A handkerchief with 'Meet me behind the Abbey' written in make-up you say? Who is the frisky King meeting, I wonder?

Or 50 gp and we're back on 'the story'.

The Dresden Files has players create the city and all the major NPCs. Apocalypse World does as well, hell Dust Devils lets players narrate entire scenes how they want them to go. Sorcerer lets players frame scenes with who they want, where they want. With guards to avoid if that's fun for them. So lots of games allow players to do exactly what you said they can't. It's all out there.

So some games aren't about mine, or yours, but ours. When that 'ours' becomes a fight over 'mine' or 'yours' then there's a problem. Who controls the fiction? Everything you've just said is entirely about who controls the fiction. And in your games the answer is clearly 'me' 'my world' 'my game'.

I'm not saying it isn't fun, but it's not the only way to play.