What is "railroading" to you (as a player)?

[Hriston]

To what degree? Where do "campaign constraints" turn into "railroad"?

When they are imposed by someone other than the player, and they control the PC's decisions or opportunities for decisions in any way which, in the player's opinion, breaks the agreements and expectations which govern play for that group.

 

[Reynard]

When they are imposed by someone other than the player, and they control the PC's decisions or opportunities for decisions in any way which, in the player's opinion, breaks the agreements and expectations which govern play for that group.

I mean, "We want to go to Sigil," vs "This campaign is set in ancient Ireland."

There is a line. "The GM says No," can't be the definition of "railroading". That is just silly.

 

[Umbran]

When they are imposed by someone other than the player, and they control the PC's decisions or opportunities for decisions in any way which, in the player's opinion, breaks the agreements and expectations which govern play for that group.

You know, I have issues with this being only two states, and only one party gets any input on what state you are in.

RPGs are endeavors in which people have to cooperate. Cooperation generally means nobody involved always gets exactly what they want. So, granting some space in there is probably in order.

 

[Hriston]

I mean, "We want to go to Sigil," vs "This campaign is set in ancient Ireland."

There is a line. "The GM says No," can't be the definition of "railroading". That is just silly.

What's silly is that you're positing a group where play has been predicated on the expectation of being able to go to Sigil even though the (presumably agreed upon) campaign setting is ancient Ireland. This group needs a session zero!

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's silly is that you're positing a group where play has been predicated on the expectation of being able to go to Sigil even though the (presumably agreed upon) campaign setting is ancient Ireland. This group needs a session zero!

If that specific example is a point of contention, then yes, absolutely.

 

[Hriston]

You know, I have issues with this being only two states, and only one party gets any input on what state you are in.

RPGs are endeavors in which people have to cooperate. Cooperation generally means nobody involved always gets exactly what they want. So, granting some space in there is probably in order.

I'm answering a question about when a "campaign constraint" meets the condition of a railroad, so the two states are railroad or not railroad, right?

I think it's highly subjective and has to be interpreted from the player's point of view because it's their character that's getting railroaded or not. No one (except you) is taking about anybody always getting what they want. I'm talking about table expectations and a player's interpretation of an instance of play with regard to those expectations.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A few people in a thread on teh interwebs isn't meeting that definition of language change. Railroading has a long history of use in terms of RPG games and it has never simply referred to linear design.

I dunno. You can argue the majority usage has made a distinction there, but there always have seemed to be a fair number of people who don't consider there to be a meaningful difference between "linear game" and "railroad", and as such don't use the former term as anything but a matter of degree. These are admittedly usually people who consider the less sandboxy a game is the worse it is. I know, I've argued with them any number of times, since its a position that excludes any number of campaign types and whole genres as legitimate ways to play.

 

[Umbran]

I'm answering a question about when a "campaign constraint" meets the condition of a railroad, so the two states are railroad or not railroad, right?

I think there are degrees of GM influence on game progression, so, that simple dichotomy fails to describe the real things that happen at our tables.

 

[SkidAce]

Just because certain story paths have a clear line to a solution/ending...doesnt make it a railroad.

If there was only one magical key that opens the magical gate to your goal...then finding the key is not a railroad.

Your character can do/try anything they want, and we will play it out. Have fun hiring a sage from each of the 15 mystical lost lands...if that's your plan, I will build those scenarios.

But if you want to open that gate, yah need that key.*



*I dont make every adventure like that, but if I did, its not a railroad. You can do anything you want. It may not be as effective as you wish. And who knows, I suppose there's a chance you could come up with an idea that the mage who locked the gate didn't protect against. If you do...huzzah! Success.

 

[zarionofarabel]

2) In general, how do you define "railroading" or being railroaded as a player ina game?

For me it's pretty simple. If there are predetermined scenes, plotlines, story beats, encounters, or solutions to problems, that the PCs cannot change and must engage with the way the GM has decided they will, it's a railroad. Functionally, I don't see any difference between a "linear" game and a railroad, other than whether or not the players are okay with it. If the players are happy to jump through the GMs hoops exactly as the GM intended, then it's a "linear" game. If the players aren't happy about it, it's a railroad. I don't think there is anything wrong with running/playing a railroad game. I do think it completely fails to embrace the one and only thing that makes TTRPGs unique, which is the ability to wholly customize the experience for the people playing the game. Basically, in a railroad game you could swap out any player or PC for any other player or PC and not much about the main events would change. Whereas in a game where everything is tailored specifically to the particular players and PCs, then swapping anyone out would drastically change the game via the butterfly effect.