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

[Celebrim]

Honest question: You don't think there was any way the pcs, or at least some of them, might have escaped?

I think it is possible, although I would haven't rated it highly likely. However, even if they had escaped - "scattering into the woods" as you would have it - they would have become hunted bandits in the winter in the mountains. This would not have been the game most signed up for, and it probably just would have delayed the TPK a bit.

There was no chance that the pcs, or at least some of them, might surrender themselves when they realized that fighting their way out or escaping was a hopeless proposition?

They could have, but this isn't a society with a 20th century idea of what constitutes justice or anachronistic notions of what amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Having realized that fighting their way out is hopeless, surrendering puts them in no less of a hopeless position. This is less likely to work than fleeing, and probably even less likely to work than fighting out the encounter and hoping the enemy rolled nothing but ones.

There was no chance that the pcs, or at least some of them, could have talked the local watch commander into starting an investigation?

Oh, they wouldn't have needed to have talked him into starting an investigation. He would have launched into one on his own. Problem is, he would have had convincing evidence of banditry, and that's a death penalty all on its own.

I see a lot of assumptions about the party's actions or attitude in your post.

Huh? I didn't make a single assumption about the PC's. I'm extrapolating how the NPC's would act based on what I know of them, and at first level there is no reasonable way the party would have survived the wrath the town watch. And its not like the NPC wasn't even a reasonable guy, because he was willing to help negotiate the PC's out of a later situation that they got themselves into that could have got them hung... but that was in a much different sitaution (they'd already proved themselves heroic by that point, they hadn't killed anyone, the offended party was alive and able and eventually willing to drop the charges, etc.). In this situation, the likely outcome would have been very grim.

You doubtless know your group, and maybe those assumptions are valid for that group, but I can see tons of ways that the situation you prevented could have led to a memorable series of adventures with the party trying to prove their innocence as (whatever other events rush on by). I think it could have been awesome. But then, that's operating based on my group's style and preferences.

I don't know what you are seeing, but I think you have this all set up wrong in your mind. This wouldn't have been a case of the party being wrongfully accused. They would have been actually guilty of banditry, and so they had no way to prove their innocence. They were armed on the Prince's highways, stole property and were found in possession of said property. No evidence in their favor existed. Case closed.

 

[Celebrim]

You are replying as if I was advocating a railroad, when I was actually saying exactly the opposite. I recommend reading more carefully in the future before hitting the "Reply" button.

I recommend more politeness in the future. My reading comprehension is not in question.

There are two possibilities:

(1) The group is okay with PC death and TPK. In which case, this isn't a problem.

(2) The group isn't okay with PC death and TPK. In which case, why would I take a situation which can be adjudicated in so many different ways and choose the one thing the group isn't going to be okay with?

So, you are suggesting that the world conforms itself to certain outcomes which the group is going to be more okay with?

Are you sure you object to railroading? Because that sounds to me a lot like illusionism. And once you have illusionism you are just one more convienent rationalization from a railroad if you aren't yet already on board, which at this point I require some convincing of. Seems to me that you snuck on the back of the train but ended up in the same station as the DMs you have been arguing with. I'm admitting to putting the party on rails for a brief time 'for their own' good and for my own reasons. You just admitted to doing the same thing, but with alot more illusionism and rationalization.

You appear to be very confused.

It may be, but since I feel the same about you, let's refrain from making that the basis of our understanding of each other.

I offered four different possible outcomes. Only one of them featured an alternative path to the Norworld mission.

I know that. But let's look at those four outcomes again:

- You're going to get something valuable from the king.

Afterwhich, you get the mission from the King - who is none the wiser about the theft - to clear out Norwold.

- You're going to get involved in an epic chase through the palace.

And if you are captured, well you can be sentenced to clear out Norworld.

- You're going to be arrested and thrown in prison and need to concoct your escape.

And if you fail to escape, well you can be sentenced to clear out Norworld.

- You're going to be captured and sentenced to clear out Norworld and make it habitable for civilized folks.

Like we didn't see that one coming. In practice, I'm willing to bet virtually every 'outcome' ends up in the same place, because by your own admission: "why would I take a situation which can be adjudicated in so many different ways and choose the one thing the group isn't going to be okay with?"

See, we've already established what sort of DM you are. You are the DM who makes the world change to conform to what will be interesting for the group, because well a TPK would be an undesirable outcome (unless everyone wanted that). We've already established that you adjudicate in ways that you think lead to the interesting story. You're a conductor, and you are on the train.

 

[pawsplay]

I was listening to a podcast today and I heard one of the guest hosts utter something that nigh made my blood boil: '"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for "a game in which the group actually accomplishes something!"' He went on to say "at least they're on the train" and not "stuck in the station."

This was in reference to a popular investigative RPG in which the GM is required to emplace solid, definable "core clues" in each and every scene, one that has on occasion been criticized for essentially institutionalizing railroading.

Is this a cop-out? I personally think that the PCs should be given all the freedom in the world to rund own blind alleys and chase red herrings; indeed, interesting roleplaying situations can pop up when this happens and it can end up leading to more interesting RPG experiences than the GM had originally intended.

On the other hand, are GMs missing out on something by not railroading? Is all this "the PCs must be free!" chatter robbing us of our right to tell a good story?

IME, objections to the pejorative term "railroading" arise from a desire to uphold story as an unalloyed good. Further, there is a confusion between story and plot. All RPGs have stories, whether they are paint-by-numbers quests or meandering slaughterfests, whereas a plot is an artificial purpose, one which may not be relevant to RPGs.

The PCs must be free. Telling the GM's preferred story may be, well, preferred, but is definitely not necessary. RPGs with less real freedom are not necessarily poorer experiences, but they are lesser examples of roleplaying. The argument that "railroading is good" necessarily involves a different definition of railroading than I use. My definition of a railroad is a game which has become degenerate BECAUSE of insufficient player freedom and further the loss of the illusion of freedom where it normally exists. Not only are the players thwarted in pushing their PCs down a desired course, but they realize that deviating from the GM's course is futility.

While games may vary on a continum from programatic to freeform/sandbox, a real railroad is degenerate on nearly all levels. Social contracts are violated, player freedom is restricted, no emotionally satisfying events occur, and uncertainty evaporates. I object to redefining the term "railroad" as something else, because there must be a term for such a game, and railroad is the historically preferred one. There are other terms, like programmatic, linear, plot-driven, or event-driven scenarios, that adequately describe less freeform games in a non-pejorative sense. A traditional plot-driven game is more like a "highway" than a railroad; it does not start and stop according to the conductor's whim, and the possibility exists, however disasterous it may be, for the players to deviate from the course. If deviation is impossible, it's hard to argue that you are actually playing an RPG at all.

 

[Hussar]

When you have a Bob that is willing to pick the king's pockets, the other pcs are well served by being willing to let Bob hang alone.

That said, yes, you are absolutely right that this kind of thing can derail a campaign if the campaign is story-focused.



And this is really the crux of the matter.

If you run a story-focused game, don't play with people that will, by nature of their personality, disrupt the story in order to throw it off-track. If you run a sandbox, don't play with people that will, by nature of their personality, be bored and unengaged if you don't lead them to a story.

Really, whatever your playstyle, you want to have players that enjoy and engage with that style, or else you'll have problems. And that's ignoring the 'problem player' phenomenon completely.



And let's all all keep this in mind- there isn't a right way to play or a wrong way to play, there are only personal preferences and dms that are better at some of the subskills of dming than they are at others.

QFT. Must spread xp around. Yadda Yadda yadda. Could someone cover me please for saying stuff so much better than I can?

 

[Hussar]

Pawsplay- I can pretty much agree with that.

I do wish there was a non-pejorative term for a DM nudging the action along in a non-invasive (or at least non-intrusive) manner that is acceptable to everyone at the table. In other words a term for a non-degenerative form of railroading. Because it certainly exists. You can have plotsy games that don't piss off your players. The popularity of the Adventure Paths proves that.

I'm just not sure what to call that game style.

Although, I have one minor quibble. I would reverse your terms story and plot. Plot is simply the actions that occur in a story, as separated from theme and setting and other elements. I would say that all RPG's have a plot, even if it's just Go Here and Kill Everything. Story is what comes after play has finished and you can tie it all together in a coherent narrative.

IMO, a keyed dungeon map is a plot. It's a loose plot that will be add-libbed much of the time and events in that dungeon will certainly vary from one play group to the next, but it's still a plot. You enter Cave C, meet the goblins, fight your way through, meet the Goblin Chief and get the Big Treasure. Or, you die horribly in the first encounter. Or second or have to retreat, or whatever.

But, the keyed dungeon oulines a vague, general plot that the players are going to interact with.

 

[pawsplay]

Pawsplay- I can pretty much agree with that.

I do wish there was a non-pejorative term for a DM nudging the action along in a non-invasive (or at least non-intrusive) manner that is acceptable to everyone at the table. In other words a term for a non-degenerative form of railroading. Because it certainly exists. You can have plotsy games that don't piss off your players. The popularity of the Adventure Paths proves that.

There are such terms.
"nudging"
"multiple victory pathways"
"illusion of choice"
"bald-faced GM hinting"
"narrative buy-in by the players"
"writing adventures that make sense on their own merits and don't require constant GM intervention to avoid losing their purpose to the relentless logical progression of events caused by PC actions"

I'm just not sure what to call that game style.

I made several suggestions, depending on emphasis. The "core clue" game would be event-driven.

Although, I have one minor quibble. I would reverse your terms story and plot. Plot is simply the actions that occur in a story, as separated from theme and setting and other elements. I would say that all RPG's have a plot, even if it's just Go Here and Kill Everything. Story is what comes after play has finished and you can tie it all together in a coherent narrative.

IMO, a keyed dungeon map is a plot. It's a loose plot that will be add-libbed much of the time and events in that dungeon will certainly vary from one play group to the next, but it's still a plot. You enter Cave C, meet the goblins, fight your way through, meet the Goblin Chief and get the Big Treasure. Or, you die horribly in the first encounter. Or second or have to retreat, or whatever.

But, the keyed dungeon oulines a vague, general plot that the players are going to interact with.

No, a plot is what you *want* to have happen. As you note, story is inevitible, and unfolding. You seem to be talking about events. Plot is a way of organizing events.

I am deeply suspicious of "plot" in an RPG for a number of reasons.

1. The GM's view of the future is hazy.
2. Plot is a modernist concept that presupposes thematic unity; aside from the question of whether your players are modernists, RPGs with their focus on text and freedom from artifical constraints of theme and consistency are a fundamentally postmodern form.
3. The GM does not know best.
4. The best goal is to have no goal.

Writers use plots to hang a story on. RPGs have a similar concept. However, the analog in an RPG is not a "plot," it's an adventure. The adventure is the framework for the story, including various decision points made by the players. The scenario is the structure, a starting point with an uncertain ending point.

Instead of plot, I think of "trajectories"... events that are likely if the PCs do nothing, or if they take one of several likely choices. But any trajectory can be altered in a second by a force generating new motion in another direction.

 

[Canor Morum]

There seems to be a disagreement as to how much control the players should have over the world. When I run a game there is no argument. The players control their characters, I control the world. I can suggest ideas or say "are you sure that's what you want to do?" but ultimately it is up to them.

This is one reason I don't use adventure modules or plan things out too far in advance. In my opinion, saying "no, you can't do that because it ruins my story" is poor DMing. You are basically telling the players that their characters don't matter and you are not imaginative enough to involve them in the story.

It is difficult to make up events, npcs, and details on the fly and there is nothing wrong with running a pre-planned adventure if that is what everyone agrees to. I think most players come to the table with higher expectations though. They participate with the idea that their decisions will influence the outcome of the story and shape of the world.

 

[Beginning of the End]

You are replying as if I was advocating a railroad, when I was actually saying exactly the opposite. I recommend reading more carefully in the future before hitting the "Reply" button.

I recommend more politeness in the future. My reading comprehension is not in question.

Your reading comprehension is pretty much nonexistent. You're replying to someone calling your reading comprehension into question by claiming that your reading comprehension isn't in question.

I'd like to assume that was intentional irony on your part, but the rest of your post suffered from a similar basic failure to read what I wrote.

I'm assuming with 6,000+ posts under your belt that you're capable of doing better than this. Please try harder in the future.

Mod Edit: Ladies and gentlemen, this is called "being rude". Don't do it, or you too can earn a nice restful vacation from EN World. ~Umbran

 

[Hussar]

Pawsplay - Trajectories, I like that.

 

[Celebrim]

Your reading comprehension is pretty much nonexistent. You're replying to someone calling your reading comprehension into question by claiming that your reading comprehension isn't in question.

Since you fail to understand the reference or the meaning, I will explain it to you.

There is a story told in New Orleans. I don't remember the exact details, but it goes like this:

A wealthy planter comes into Galatoires and says, "I brought the little lady down to New Orleans so she could have a fancy dinner.", and the Maitre'd says, "We shall endeavor to impress." So the man orders all the most expensive items on the menu, but when they arrive he does nothing but complain. "This is undercooked.", "This is too spicy.", "The portions are too small.", "Not enough salt.", and so on and so forth. Finally at the end of the meal, the man demands that the Maitre'D bring the chef out, but the Maitre'D refuses. The man is now fuming with rage and says that he shall tell everyone how he ate at Galatoires and it was the worst meal he'd ever had. And the Maitre'D just smiles and says, "You may tell anyone you wish. This is Galatoires. Our taste is not in question."

Hopefully that clears up my meaning for you.

I'm assuming with 6,000+ posts under your belt that you're capable of doing better than this. Please try harder in the future.

Assume whatever you like. Neither my reading comprehension nor my ability to write is under any sort of question.