Techniques for Railroading

[Celebrim]

Thinking about it more, Schrodinger's Map can also be unmasked when a DM is playing favorites. (This isn't quite "railroading" in the traditional sense).

Typically this would be the case where the DM's "favorites" always gets an easy walk every single time. On the other side of the coin for players the DM really doesn't like, the DM will consistently make things really miserable for such players.

EDIT: Essentially it is like the DM trying to railroad certain players they don't like, straight out of the game.

The way to summarize it is: softballs for the DM's favorites, and extreme hardballs for the players the DM doesn't like.

This most often is seen when the DM is winging it, and can happen unconsciously whenever a DM is winging things without prep that usually require prep - such as a map.

Schrodinger's Map, when implemented as part of a plan, is generally as fair as a linear dungeon/environment of the same construction would be. You just simply remove the false choices from the environment so that the true linearity is on display.

But when winging it, yeah, who knows. That's why I consider it almost impossible to avoid railroading the players when you wing it. Winging it almost gaurantees Schrodinger's Map by definition, because nothing gets on the map until the circumstances leading to its need have just occurred. Even worse, I've seen 'Winging It' lead to numerous instances of 'Schrodinger's Trap' where a trap exists because the group searched for it but does not exist otherwise (observable by observing two different play groups pass through what was ostencibly the same dungeon), which in further leads to the problem that now that you've started the DM thinking about traps you have to continue searching for them because now they'll come to existance because you didn't search for them. Conversely, I've seen 'Schrodinger's Ambush' occur from winging it as well, usually as a result of the DM consciously and unconsciously tailoring the obstacles to the immediate events and abilities used by the players.

Seriously, while railroading is usually associated with DMs trying to keep their carefully laid plans for derailing, if you'll look over the above list you'll realize that it requires an almost inhumanly unbiased DM to successfully wing it without using these techniques. A world that is being created entirely on the fly without prior sandbox prep is almost inherently a Tiny World (no where exists unless it is visited), Shrodinger's Map, filled with Hand Waves, Endurium (in the form of fiat decisions being made based on circumstance), False Choices, and Schrodinger's Stat Blocks no matter how hard you are trying to be fair.

If you have a carefuly crafted plot, you might be a railroad conductor. But if you have no plot and are just making things up in response to player actions, then you are a railroad conductor (and the first time you get in a situation where there is a 'control group' to test it, it will become really obvious).

 

[Janx]

a good thread idea. Though i do think a few are rather broadly defined. I suspect its because i'd like to see more specific break-downs. The hand-wave in particular.

Taking the core concept, though, without judging it seems a fair way to break down the techniques. I tend to look at is as "don't do this in your game" and give an example.

False Choices is what I consider related to predicted/assumed paths. For a party of good PCs, if I present them with a damsel in distress, they will probably save her. Or if I threaten your PCs land holdings,you will probably act to intervene.

You PC's character probably won't ignore these things. Thus, almost any other choice is a non-choice. A False Choice as the OP might say.

A DM can certainly use this propensity to get the PCs going on the quest. I don't like seeing it over-used as a direct threat to the PCs, as there is very little choice for them. A threat to something of concern (the damsel) could still be a choice if there's something else needing saving.

The OP's false choice is more direct, do X, or very bad Y happens. It's no choice, as you don't want Y to happen.

I would prefer to limit threats to do X, or Y happens which will change the game world but it will still remain playable (odds are good the PCs will retain their gear, but lose social standing).


Scene Framing
In Hand-Waving, one aspect the OP describes is what I call Scene Framing.

The start of a scene, is where the GM describes the starting state of all the PCs and the game world (perhaps describing the start of the game session, or a specific encounter at the campsite with a goblin attack).

Personally, I think it's fair to describe the scene in a way that the players would accepted. "Time passes in the village, as you all becoome a part of the village and your business ventures are successful." or "You all settle in for sleep, with your standard rotation of watch." Then you introduce the new element that would attempt (key word, attempt) to disrupt this accepted situation. "you hear noise in the brush to the east of camp." or "your business dealings with the north have turned sour, as your rival has been spreadiing bad rumors about your product"

What abuses the Scene Framing is when you dramatically change the status quo, moving past events the PCs would have wanted to make choices. "Being blamed for the deaths of children by your product, you are all rounded up and put in jail, awaiting your execution tomorrow."

The PCs likely would have wanted to take action long before children were dying, and probably would have resisted arrest and had a chance of getting away. Which brings us to my next railroad trick.

The powerful NPC who kidnaps the party and starts them in his dungeon is a classic example of Abusive Screen Framing to start an adventure (usually a mad wizard and his chaotic dungeon).

Scripted Outcomes
A classic scripted outcome is an encounter designed to capture the PCs so you can have the next scene be based on them starting as captured.

It's one thing, to assume that if you present a BBEG at the beginning of the session, that they'll want to fight him when they meet him at the end of the session. Combat as a resolution is so predictable as a choice, that when confronted with a bad guy who needs killing, the players will gladly oblige.

What I see as a bad railroading technique (and most often in this exact scenario), is the notes say the guards will capture the PCs and bring them in. On starting the encounter, the GM finds the PCs don't want to be captured, and NPCs start dying, and the PCs are going to get away. So the GM brings in reinforcements, tougher troops etc. Anything he can to thwart the PCs. Just so he can get them captured and start the next scene.

The problem comes from writing down a specific outcome. Instead of writing that the guards will attempt to capture the PCs.

Telling PCs what they do/feel
If a GM had a specific story to tell, a master of it would instill the fellings in his player that he hopes to invoke and through that subtly manipulate them to moving through his story. A crappy DM just tells you what your PC does and how he feels.

It's pretty much a GM crime to say how a PC feels or make him take an action that the player didn't ask for. It's probably safe to say "your PC tumbles to the ground safely when he fell off his horse" or "you raise your shield defensively to block the surprise attack". It sounds like an action, but its mostly fluff to explain why the PC took no falling damage or got missed by the attack.

But this leads to the other side, things your PC can't do...


Your PC wouldn't do that
There are some blatant acts that a PC probably wouldn't do. He probably wouldn't for no reason, stab himself to death in the middle of the street. The paladin wouldn't start killing the kids at the orphanage. If you have a PC about to do these "out of character" things, you've got a problem with the player. Dealing with it in game, just isn't going to work.

If you've got a PC wanting to do something that he thinks is OK, and you don't. That's a bit trickier. You don't have to say "No", but you do have control over the consequences, which you can make pretty severe. For a player, its pretty dumb to do things your DM objects to, knowing that he can do that....

Before things get to a pissing match, its probably best to ask why the player wants to do it, and the explain why you're concerned. Once again, best solved out of character.

 

[pawsplay]

False Choices is what I consider related to predicted/assumed paths. For a party of good PCs, if I present them with a damsel in distress, they will probably save her. Or if I threaten your PCs land holdings,you will probably act to intervene.

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

 

[Haltherrion]

Interesting analysis & generally agree with it.

I will confess I make use of #6 at times (love the title for it though; I kind of think of it that way myself ): having put some hours into prep'ing certain things, I will look for opportunities to work it into the game, even if it isn't the initial place I had in mind for it. I like to think that isn't railroading but efficient use of limited DM bandwidth.

But there are limits to how much I'll try to "force" something. That is, I might re-use a hook if I put a fair amount of effort into it or really like the idea but if they spit the hook twice, it's history.

Anyway, good summary. Should be useful for all as a reminder.

 

[Janx]

Negation of Player Effort
If the party says they take the north road, to avoid the rabid goblins to the south, and you use Shrodinger's map to move the goblins to where they are, just so upu can run the rabid goblin encounter, you have railroaded.

Whats happened is, the PCs have knowledge of a danger, taken precaution against that danger and are still made to face the danger that realistically, they should have been able to avoid.

There's probably some fine line where a player's effort was still unsufficient to bypass an encounter, but the gist is, don't thwart their intentional avoidance of a danger by making them face it anyway.

This concept is where Shrodinger's product line get abused.

I've never thought to present the numbered rooms in order of encounter, rather than showing what's actually placed. Given how a dungeon can be designed to constrain the sequence of exploration, it didn't seem needed.

 

[Janx]

I'm going to tell a hopefully short tale of railroading.

A friend of mine wanted to try his hand at running a serious campaign. He'd been doing relatively silly stuff for his students after school in a game club.

So I gave him some tips, including "never capture the party" and "never strip them naked, especially the PCs of women players".

So he writes the adventure and runs it for us. Presumably, it'll have political intrigue and stuff he claimed. It starts off with some rich guy asking to hire us to transport something to a city. Being amiable players, we almost always bit at the obvious and reasonable plothook, just to get the game moving.

Halfyway there, at an inn, we're attacked. By the guy who hired us an his goons. They capture everybody and strip them down so they can't hide any means of escape, except for me, because my Jackie Chan-like monk was just so awesome.

His reason for having the guy show up to capture us, was to get us to the city. Where we were already going voluntarily. He stripped everybody, to prevent escape, because he thought it was something a smart bad guy would do.

That campaign died. Nobody wanted to play it again. So my Jackie Chan-like monk never got to play again.

My friend tried to force an outcome. He needlessly tried to Shrodinger us to the city. Needless, because the players had already chosen to go there. There was no need for bringing in a stick, when the carrot was already working.

Though the fact that he had that stick ready was also a railroading offense. If we really didn't want to do the quest that bad, surely, there could have been multiple calls for adventure out in the city (maybe that pay better). Or whatever was so bloody important in the city could have happened whereever we were.


The capture and stripping of PCs removes player agency. It can also just be downright offensive to players. Iit also means you've cut off any means of escape short of what the GM grants as an opportunity. I hate capturing the party, ideally I'd rather only use it to prevent a TPK with the hope that the party escapes quickly so they can get back to doing stuff

 

[Celebrim]

Negation of Player Effort
If the party says they take the north road, to avoid the rabid goblins to the south, and you use Shrodinger's map to move the goblins to where they are, just so upu can run the rabid goblin encounter, you have railroaded.

Not only that, but you've railroaded badly. The essense of being able to get away with Shrodinger's Map is that the PC's are making what is actually a random choice. And the legitimate excuse for Shrodinger's Map is that in a random choice, the players haven't really any agency to lose. Once however the players obtain some information about the consequences of their actions, they have become empowered and the choice is really meaningful.

This suggests for us how we should use Shrodinger's Map in a way that is inoffensive. We should feel ourselves somewhat justified as a DM to use Shrodinger's Map when doing so provides players with the information that they need to make informed choices.

For myself, I only use Shrodinger's Map to escape the rowboat. If the players find themselves in a situation where they don't have enough information to make an informed choice, then they will find a floating encounter that gives them the information. Choosing to go north or south isn't really that meaningful. In your case, I find it reasonable practice to give the players an encounter that provides the information, "Dangerous goblins to the north" so that players can make a truly meaningful choice, "Face goblins or not?", rather than the meaningless choice, "North or south?"

That isn't to say that random choices should be completely elimenated or that players always need some foreknowledge of the results of their choices, but that introducing an encounter always found no matter which way the party chooses to go can be an effective remedy to a rowboat scenario. In this case, we are actually using a railroading technique with the end goal of empowering the players! We are violating the normal rules we build our simulation by in order to avoid potential pitfalls with a pure simulation approach.

Many of the best designed games mix extreme techniques to remedy the failures in one approach. One of the best designed adventure games of all time is 'Grim Fandango'. Much of the story plays out in a linear manner, which would feel very 'railroady', except for the fact that it employs a narrow-broad-narrow structure to alleviate the linear flow of the story. Particularly in the second act, the player encounters a rather large number of problems which do not have to be resolved in any particular order. Only after all the problems are resolved does the character get back on the rails. These periods of comparitive freedom help immerse the player and make them more accepting of the sections of the game that are only slightly interactive cut scenes.

I've never thought to present the numbered rooms in order of encounter, rather than showing what's actually placed. Given how a dungeon can be designed to constrain the sequence of exploration, it didn't seem needed.

A technique like that is used to make a linear dungeon appear to be non-linear to the player. While I probably wouldn't do it, the appearance of non-linearity can be important to some players enjoyment of the game.

 

[MrMyth]

Negation of Player Effort
If the party says they take the north road, to avoid the rabid goblins to the south, and you use Shrodinger's map to move the goblins to where they are, just so upu can run the rabid goblin encounter, you have railroaded.

Whats happened is, the PCs have knowledge of a danger, taken precaution against that danger and are still made to face the danger that realistically, they should have been able to avoid.

I think one of the trickiest parts in these discussions is that there are a couple very fine lines here, both in terms of results as well as intent.

Say the DM has a goblin encounter statted out that he wants to use. The players go north instead of south. The DM still wants to use the encounter, so just has the goblins show up there - obvious railroading.

What happens if he simply, on the spot, reflavors the goblins as small lizardfolk? The players feel like their choice has made a difference - they fight lizardfolk instead of goblins - but in practice the outcome is the same.

What happens if he makes enough adjustments to the stat-block that the lizardfolk feel like a genuinely different type of encounter? The players don't actually have the context to know the difference, but their choice yielded a different outcome.

Or what happens if the DM has actually statted out the entire region beforehand. But happens to have a similar tribe of goblins in the north as in the south - the only difference is that there are more travelers from the south, so more chance the PCs will know about that group of goblins. So they head north... and fight goblins anyway. Same result as the first example, but the DM isn't guilty of any actual railroading. (Just, perhaps, an uninspired setting design. Or not giving players enough information to make informed decisions.)

I'm not really sure what conclusions to draw from these comparisons, admittedly. My own games tend to lean towards being linear and story driven, while also trying to anticipate different directions players could go in and have options based on that... and, if something truly unexpected happens, hoping I can roll with it. Methods 4 through 6 are the ones I'm most likely to take advantage of if I really need to.

Of course, it should be noted that even then, players will defy expectations. I know I had one game development that I expected to be, essentially a 'False Choice' - the PCs uncover a plot by Vecna to destroy Hestavar and its citizens, with the ultimate goal that this would draw the gods of Hestavar into an ongoing battle against the Primordials.

I liked the plot because I thought it gave the feeling of offering the players a tricky moral choice, but I expected the outcome to be a foregone one - I assumed that 'letting thousands of innocents die' was simply not an option for them. Instead, they seriously considered it, and only just ended up deciding to stop the plot and save the dominion.

And I think they found it a strong and compelling scene - but the truth is, I have no idea what I would have done if they had decided to let the city be destroyed. I don't think I would have just stepped in and prevented it, so it wasn't true railroading in that sense - but it did underscore the lesson that if you present an option to your players, no matter how unlikely a choice it seems, be prepared to follow through on it.

Now, what form that response might take can vary, and can end up as some of the invisible forms of railroading in its own right. But I think a lot of the more rigid forms of railroading can come up essentially unconsciously - not because the DM is trying to deny agency to the party, but because something has happened that they didn't even consider, and so there is no room for them to even react to it other than try and prevent it from happening.

 

[Celebrim]

Casting 'Raise Dead' since the front page seems to have this very discussion now.