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

[the Jester]

Or another way to look at it: 'Does anyone at the table care?'

If everyone in the game is down with going to planet Y and doing the mission thing and you're all having fun, it doesn't need a label. It's functional, it's fun, it's play.

And this is an excellent point. As several folks have pointed out, there is a spectrum here, not two distinct states. (From railroad to rowboat, the extreme and negative ends, through story-based and sandbox play styles to some mushed-up half-and-half in the middle.)

I think this is open to some legitimate debate. Saying "you can't find X no matter what you do" is certainly a railroading technique.

But given the full context of how Gygax designed his campaigns (with dungeons that constantly shifted and changed when you weren't looking at them), this particular application looks more like "they can't find it because it doesn't exist yet; if some sort of explanation is later demanded, here's a retcon you can use".

And failing to find something because it doesn't exist wouldn't be railroading.

First of all, RC, you're covered.

Second, this is a very important point. The dungeons of early D&D were not static. Passages appeared and disappeared, populations came and vanished almost magically, doors stuck for adventurers but not monsters, all monsters could see in the dark- all IIRC, but I don't think I'm far off. Early dungeons were almost alive in themselves, constantly mutating.

(As an aside, I think the mythology surrounding Torog in 4e is a great step towards this type of dungeon.)

All that said...

Does it limit a PCs legitimate choices in a given scenario? (IE Search the area, find the dungeon)?
Does it create a bottle-neck for the adventure the DM has prepped over what the PCs have chosen to do?
Is it done for an out-of-game, rather than in-game reason?
Is it explained in the world via a handwave that cannot be detected, dispelled, or otherwise affected by the PCs?

How, exactly, is it any different from telling your PCs "You can't go south, I don't have an adventure planned"? Shouldn't the DM have to "wing it" because that's part of the beauty of sandbox play?

Unless you make some kind of assumption that justifies the whole "Whoops, how did I miss that?" thing, I would agree that this is railroading.

"Can" and "should" are what are in question here. The DM does a lot of work, is it right that the players should expect him to do more just because they want to go in X direction?

Sure, the DM can wing it, but I highly doubt it's going to be as good as what he had planned.

Which begs the question: if the choices of the PCs make the game sub-par, should the DM indulge them?

Which further begs: if players decisions should always be indulged, what is the point in creating any content for them, if the game is always going to give them what they want?

Well, the dm can feel free to say either, "OK, we'll have to resume next time" or "Give me a couple of minutes to do some quick prep." Heck, if you have any smokers, you know they're ready for a break any time!

However, one of the arts within the art of sandboxing is the ability to improvise. Most sandbox dms that I have played under seem to do pretty well, and if they don't, the group generally knows that they are leaving the 'cool stuff' when they go in an unexpected direction. It is up to them, though- sometimes they just want to explore something new.

Improvisational dms develop the skill by doing it. While the winged stuff might not be very hot tonight, perhaps by next April it's not bad, and in June and July there could be a couple of mostly improvised sessions that hit a home run. Just like designing encounters, you get better at improvising with practice.

Now, not all dms are good at improvisation, not even all sandbox dms. But let's not just assume that a game is bad because the dm is winging it.

And yes, the dm should 'indulge' the pcs' in-game choices. It simply isn't his place to dictate what they do. As always, YMMV- but to me, that's the whole issue right there.

Re: What's the point of creating content in a sandbox? First, I would guess that most sandbox dms love creating campaign content for its own sake. Second, sandbox content might be for this group, but the next group in the area could easily run across it instead- or as well. Sandboxers get to reuse maps, dugneons, npcs, etc a lot.

 

[chaochou]

See, it's gone like this.

I identified the problem in the thief pickpocketing the king scene as one of a fight over narrative control. Over who gets to control the fiction.

You rejected that, saying players never have narrative control.

I pointed you to a number of games where they do, in game and pre-game.

You said 'Oh, but that's not D&D' I'm talking about D&D, it never happens in D&D.

Well, I'm afraid you're talking horlicks. I can give narrative control, world creation, NPC creation, problem creation and story progression to players as easily in D&D as in Sorcerer. Just with a certain GMing approach.

I've even shown you the first step by getting the players to say what's in the king's purse and therefore how to give them control of the story.

And you still flatly assert that it's impossible.

Then you say that giving the rogue freedom is going to cause all sorts of problems. Of course it is, if you railroad them. I've shown you a couple of options of how not to railroad the rogue or the paladin and you've said, variously 'Now you're just making stuff up' and 'No, you're just railroading the paladin, I'm railroading the rogue.'

Key point 1. Yes, I just made stuff up. Stuff which helps tell a story. Stuff which helps tell the story the players are doing. That's just called GMing. That's what we're doing. GMing the situation.

(I'd point out that you've made loads of stuff up to try and enforce your railroad - about legions of guards, and how pickpocketing him is impossible with all the people around. About how it's an automatic death sentence. Even how the Paladin spots the pickpocket attempt before it happens and tackles the thief to the ground. Must be a mind-reading Paladin I guess.)

Key point 2. I haven't railroaded anyone. The rogue has acted - and if you remove his agency to act (your option) you deny the player any function at your table. So I've let the rogue act and the rogue's action has prompted a moral dilemma on the part of the paladin. You're accusing me of railroading through inaction? Jeez.

Key point 3: Whether the 'rest of the group' feels this behaviour disruptive or not is irrelevant to my definition of the problem being 'Who controls the fiction?'. Calling it disruptive means they side with the GM on narrative control rights. If they want the player to have control of the story, the GMs a railroader. If it never comes up, the game runs with fun for everyone.

So if you want to argue about it more, you need to provide an alternative definition of railroading. Without that, as has been the case, you're not actually arguing, you're just continuing this barrage of gainsaying.

Have fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would just like to thank everyone for making this one of the most enjoyable threads on EN World in quite some time.

Thanks.


RC

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, the dm can feel free to say either, "OK, we'll have to resume next time" or "Give me a couple of minutes to do some quick prep." Heck, if you have any smokers, you know they're ready for a break any time!

I suppose that is true. But I still feel as if the content created in 15 minutes is going to be lackluster to the content created over a week or more. Likewise, if they can do this at any time, they could do it the moment you all sit down. Thus wasting an evening.

However, one of the arts within the art of sandboxing is the ability to improvise. Most sandbox dms that I have played under seem to do pretty well, and if they don't, the group generally knows that they are leaving the 'cool stuff' when they go in an unexpected direction. It is up to them, though- sometimes they just want to explore something new.

I suppose as long as the group understands that they are asking for improv, and that it will be only as good as that can get, then it's all right. Expecting equitable to pre-prepared content out of improv I take issue with.

Improvisational dms develop the skill by doing it. While the winged stuff might not be very hot tonight, perhaps by next April it's not bad, and in June and July there could be a couple of mostly improvised sessions that hit a home run. Just like designing encounters, you get better at improvising with practice.

No argument there.

Now, not all dms are good at improvisation, not even all sandbox dms. But let's not just assume that a game is bad because the dm is winging it.

And yes, the dm should 'indulge' the pcs' in-game choices. It simply isn't his place to dictate what they do. As always, YMMV- but to me, that's the whole issue right there.

I think there's a fine line between what you can't do and what you're told not to do. I can let you steal the King's pouch, I can also make it incredibly hard. I can make it so difficult, you may think it unwise to do so.

Making things difficult is not the same IMO, as saying "no you can't", but sometimes the latter, IMO, is necessary. Sometimes the carrot doesn't work and you must use the stick.

Re: What's the point of creating content in a sandbox? First, I would guess that most sandbox dms love creating campaign content for its own sake. Second, sandbox content might be for this group, but the next group in the area could easily run across it instead- or as well. Sandboxers get to reuse maps, dugneons, npcs, etc a lot.

I suppose this is because I tend to run smaller, shorter campaings. With smaller worlds come more detail, and thus, more work. I would rather not apply the work that goes into creating one small town and it's surrounding area, for the game that will likely never leave it, to an entire world.

See, it's gone like this.

I identified the problem in the thief pickpocketing the king scene as one of a fight over narrative control. Over who gets to control the fiction.

You rejected that, saying players never have narrative control.

Which I did not. I questioned how MUCH control players or the DM should have.

So if you want to argue about it more, you need to provide an alternative definition of railroading. Without that, as has been the case, you're not actually arguing, you're just continuing this barrage of gainsaying.

Have fun.

Lets start from the bottom, since you appear to have missed that I've yet to call "railroading" anything.

Key point 3: Whether the 'rest of the group' feels this behaviour disruptive or not is irrelevant to my definition of the problem being 'Who controls the fiction?'. Calling it disruptive means they side with the GM on narrative control rights. If they want the player to have control of the story, the GMs a railroader. If it never comes up, the game runs with fun for everyone.

No, it doesn't. Players can disagree with the DM, and disagree with a player as well. Perhaps I allow the rogue this attempt, but other players still don't want him to do it, and even upon offering them the possibility of great reward, they refuse.

Disruptive behavior is behvaiour that distrubs the fun and enjoyable atmosphere of the game. It may be small, and not an issue to me the DM, it likewise may be a huge game issue.

Key point 2. I haven't railroaded anyone. The rogue has acted - and if you remove his agency to act (your option) you deny the player any function at your table. So I've let the rogue act and the rogue's action has prompted a moral dilemma on the part of the paladin. You're accusing me of railroading through inaction? Jeez.

Touchy! Railroading can come through inaction as well as action. By your choices of what was in the "Kings Bag-o-Mystery", forced a players hand. Don't pass the buck off the rogue, the king could very well have simply had a pretty note in there written from the Queen about how much she loved him.
YOU are the one who chose to put something in there that forced a player to question their moral standing. Key words: "You" "forced" "player". The player must now question his morality, or side against the party. If that's not forcing someone into action and therefore railroading, I don't know what is.

Key point 1. Yes, I just made stuff up. Stuff which helps tell a story. Stuff which helps tell the story the players are doing. That's just called GMing. That's what we're doing. GMing the situation.

(I'd point out that you've made loads of stuff up to try and enforce your railroad - about legions of guards, and how pickpocketing him is impossible with all the people around. About how it's an automatic death sentence. Even how the Paladin spots the pickpocket attempt before it happens and tackles the thief to the ground. Must be a mind-reading Paladin I guess.)

Oh so now GMs are in charge? I thought players were in charge? Or is your argument only that players should be in charge when it suits you and GMs should be in charge when it's important?

Having a legion of guards, having tons of people looking, noticing what someone in your own party is doing is not "enforcing a railroad". These are what actually happens in the real world and in a game with other players. When a King travels, he is guarded, where the King travels, people come to watch, and your party almost always notices what individual party members are doing.

Actively dodging the eye of your own party generally means you are aware your party doesn't approve, and if they knew they would stop you. How then does it elicit a positive reaction from them once you succeed in your efforts you know they disapprove of?

Then you say that giving the rogue freedom is going to cause all sorts of problems. Of course it is, if you railroad them. I've shown you a couple of options of how not to railroad the rogue or the paladin and you've said, variously 'Now you're just making stuff up' and 'No, you're just railroading the paladin, I'm railroading the rogue.'

No, you attempted to avoid drama and the issue at hand within the party by handing them a cookie. By distracting from the problem of a law-abiding citizen standing by while a crime is committed.

Allowing the rogue to damage party relations is beneficial to noone. Your options have simply been to railroad someone else. The train was never derailed, it simply went to Tulsa instead of Denver.

I've even shown you the first step by getting the players to say what's in the king's purse and therefore how to give them control of the story.

And you still flatly assert that it's impossible.

Because the issue isn't about what's in the purse. The issue is about taking it in the first place. Before they even know what's in it. Even if I randomly decide what's in it, perhaps only a rose, does that make it not a crime? Aren't those who stop crime bound to turn criminals in? The issue has only been dodged, it hasn't gone away.

You said 'Oh, but that's not D&D' I'm talking about D&D, it never happens in D&D.

Well, I'm afraid you're talking horlicks. I can give narrative control, world creation, NPC creation, problem creation and story progression to players as easily in D&D as in Sorcerer. Just with a certain GMing approach.

As I already stated, that's great so long as this is known to all players at the beginning.

 

[Janx]

I would just like to thank everyone for making this one of the most enjoyable threads on EN World in quite some time.

Thanks.


RC

It has stayed fairly diplomatic, considering its length. Though Umbran may have a point that we keep re-hashing that the other guy doesn't get it.

I have a very specific definition of railroading. Mainly to flag it as OMG, don't do that regardless of play-style.

Ken Hite in the OP basically implied by his apparent definition that NOT railroading, a sandbox led to stagnation, which meant nothing got done.

While I'm not a sandbox fan (namely in that I don't want to do the work I think I need to do to run one, nor am I confident in the results of doing so), I still think Hite's quote is BS.

Just as somebody's cure for Stagnation is to RR them to action. I don't define it nore recognize the cure.

Stagnation is when the PCs aren't accomplishing anything, to their own detriment of fun. The cure is to bring in stimulous to get them to react, and hopefully be pro-active after dealing with the stimulous. A minor Threat, like an orc patrol coming upon then whilst they argue about the best way to enter the dungeon, for instance.

That's not RR. Nor does it force an outcome or force them towards anything else. it simply spurs them to SOME action, and might reveal new information and Opportunity.

I'm a lazy DM. I don't want to generate too much material. So I ask my players what they're goals are, and examine their backstories. I then generate one or two Opportunities or Threats that I think they'll go for (and my group tends to do so). I build enough material to fulfill them pursuing that goal.

Yes, I assume they'll succeed, but that's just a handy tool to determine what content they'd need next to get to their goal.

If the PCs said no, they don't want to pursue the Opportunity or Threat, I guess I'm screwed. I'd have to apologize and say, "well, I need to revise things. What DO you want to do, since you aren't interested in X?"

If the PCs are going the "wrong" direction, and I only mean "wrong" in the sense of they want to go to cuba, but are going North" I will relay, in game or out of game, new clues or blatant GM advice that what they're doing doesn't seem to be moving them to their chosen goal. Also not RR, as I'm simply giving them more info, and even verifying that their goal has not actually changed.

On the point of Apocalyptic adventures, not be mean, but only and idiot GM runs an adventure where player failure causes an unrecoverable change in the campaign world. Basically, if you're not sure your PCs will work to stop the apocalypse (and not just because they want it to happen), then don't run a game where if they go surfing, the world ends.

When you run a game where the PCS HAVE to deal with it, you've got risk of negative world impact. If you can't accept that, then lower the stakes or be prepared to have NPCs deal with it. The "war to save the day by NPCs" can be a backdrop to the PCs actions, rather than be the PCs adventure.

There are non-RR ways to deal with stuff in sandbox or "narrow scope" styles.

If you don't want the PCs to get side-tracked, don't present them with more Opportunities or Threats than they are able to handle. The whole planet x,y and z thing wouldn't happen if the PCs didn't KNOW there was a counter-offer. if the PCs are going to the next story element, don't mess with it.

If you want to do a cool speeder bike chase in the forest and they're about to go to Endor, don't freaking tell them they can get a better deal on Tatooine.

Lastly, something I've just pondered. It may not be functionally useful to consider a dungeon as a sandbox. It is a place, where for practical purposes, once entered, the PCs will enter rooms and kill stuff until they achieve their goal. Regardless of play style (all but the worst GM, anyway), they all run about the same. In truth, because the choices are so limited. Choose a direction, enter a room. or don't.

The tricky part, that sandbox style debates would be better to endorse/explain is the concept of how the party gets started into doing ANYTHING MEANINGFUL. The sandbox/narrative difference starts with assumptions about how the party learns about their adventuring choices and what they do. The dungeon's such a narrow and small thing, that its not really relevant. it runs itself. What's tricky is how and why does the party get to the dungeon, and what could they be doing if they didn't go there.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I think we actually need to go back and look at where the phrase "railroading" came from. From what I know it came from the phrase "on rails" which referred to stories that progressed, with or without player interaction, the same way as themepark rail rides such as the Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean. Do to their resistance/immunity to interaction these types of stories are disliked if not hated in games where one of the main selling points is PC/Story interaction.

As for the "thief pickpocketing the king" situation? It is a game disruption plain and simple. The player is interrupting the setup of the adventure, just as if someone's phone had gone off. There are multiple ways to deal with such disruptions, all of which vary in quality, and that DM chose to veto the action. The only thing that this has to do with "railroading" is that the thief's player attempted to justify why his disruption should go through anyways was to accuse the DM of railroading.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Why should players be allowed to have that expectation? And why should the DM bother to plan or prepare anything, if he knows players can just walk away from it any time they like?

The reason I, personally, come to the game table is in order to see what happens when the PCs interact with the scenario I've designed. If I'm only interested in my pre-conceived plot, then why don't I just write a story?

YMMV, but the appeal of the sandbox campaign is to take that core concept and write it large across the entire campaign world.

Likewise, if they can do this at any time, they could do it the moment you all sit down. Thus wasting an evening.

Theoretically, yes. That's possible. Realistically? No. That doesn't happen. People don't spend all week saying "we're definitely going to attack the slavers next week" and then sit down at the game table and say "actually, it, let's go kill the king instead".

Players are not random number generators.

With that being said, there is the possibility of a curve ball being thrown early in a session that causes the players to radically revise their plans. There are two solutions for this: (1) Anticipate the effect of the curve ball and prep accordingly. (2) If you see a curve ball coming don't end the session until after you've thrown it.

If the incentive for players to play this sandbox is because they can do anything because the DM will create it for them, what is the DM's incentive? To do more work?

IME, a properly prepared sandbox generally requires less work in the long-term. (With the break even point coming right around session 3 or 4 for me.)

First, know what your players are planning to do and prep for that.

Second, prep flexible material. If you prep a plot and the PCs don't follow it, then you've wasted prep. If you prep a cult of bad guys and the PCs don't pursue them, then the activities of that cult can continue generating background detail; events; new adventuring locales; etc. Don't prep plots, prep scenarios.

Third, weave your material. Stuff in the real world interconnects. Do the same thing with your campaign world: The cult can form an alliance with the local mob bosses; the corrupt vizier can be a cult member; and the cult might be trying to recruit orcs from the Tribe of the Third Scar. You aren't trying to force the PCs to pursue the cult, but (a) you're giving them multiple chances to follow that thread if they want to and (b) even if they don't engage directly with the cult, all that cult-based stuff you prepped has now manifested itself into the campaign world in multiple ways. Node-Based Scenario Design

Fourth, multitask the sandbox. Either run another campaign in the sandbox after your first or you can run multiple campaigns in the sandbox at the same time.

My sandbox campaigns see very little wasted prep and a lot more recycling than my plotted campaigns.

I suppose this is because I tend to run smaller, shorter campaings. With smaller worlds come more detail, and thus, more work. I would rather not apply the work that goes into creating one small town and it's surrounding area, for the game that will likely never leave it, to an entire world.

Nothing about running a sandbox requires you to prep material that will never be used. My current sandbox campaign is located entirely inside a fantasy metropolis. The players could theoretically leave, but it's really unlikely that they're going to. So how much time have I spent prepping material outside of that metropolis? Absolutely none. Why would I?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Man, first post in a long, long time. I think I picked a good discussion - it's been interesting reading ...

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.

As (for argument's sake) the thief's player, I might feel justified in pointing out the fact that I am currently standing next to the king, who is, by all accounts, not expecting me to attempt pick his pocket. Rather, he's attempting to grant me a title and some land on his borders.

I have, in effect, already succeeded in my grand plan to worm my way into the king's good graces and next to his person to enable my pickpocket attempt.

I don't need the DM to create rooms for me to sneak through or rooftops to climb or guards to ghost past, because I just did.

 

[the Jester]

As for the "thief pickpocketing the king" situation? It is a game disruption plain and simple. The player is interrupting the setup of the adventure, just as if someone's phone had gone off. There are multiple ways to deal with such disruptions, all of which vary in quality, and that DM chose to veto the action. The only thing that this has to do with "railroading" is that the thief's player attempted to justify why his disruption should go through anyways was to accuse the DM of railroading.

I disagree. This has everything to do with railroading. Again, the litmus test (to me) is: Did the dm dictate player action? In this case, the answer is yes. So yes, it's a railroad.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't really feel the force of this distinction. Did the GM decide that the guy in question is on planet Y?

Either the players may or may not choose to go to planet Y. If they have no choice, then force is being exerted. If the GM exerts that force by manipulating the action resolution system, or by vetoing the choices the players make in the course of play, whether via ingame or metagame techniques, then we have a railroad.

If, as GM, you want the players on planet Y then why not just drop the railroad and start things on planet Y. This will make it clear to the players where you think the game's action is.

And also make it clear to the players that they're riding the rails; because regardless of whether you as GM want them on planet Y or not there realistically needs to be a choice for the players/PCs as to whether (and how) they go from planet X to Y and whether they do it in a straight line.

If they're on planet X they're probably there for a reason - say, they just busted up a smuggling ring on planet W and took the bad guys to the authorities on X. To suddenly jump them to planet Y seems like the very definition of railroading, and needs to be done only rarely and with much forethought.

That said, there are occasions when jumping the party right into mid-scene can work well.

Lan-"party teleports in by divine action in answer to someone's prayers"-efan