Can you railroad a willing player? (Forked from "Is World Building Necessary?")

[Leif]

Heh, I'm going to disagree with this point, but, I'm also going to leave it for another thread. I've derailed enough threads lately.

To me, railroading isn't even forcing the players down one particular path. That certainly can be, but, not always. If the building the players are in is on fire, is that railroading? Is it railroading that there is only one path to the top of the tower? There are always going to be points where all choices narrow down to just one.

Honestly, while I'm not sure it's the best way, the definition of railroad is kinda like the definition of porn - I know it when I see it. I think that a good definition of railroad isn't an objective one. You can't really, because there are just too many variables and opinions lumped into what a railroad actually is.

Really, I'd leave the part in about the players finding the situation objectionable. If the players don't care, then it's not really a railroad. If the players object to the heavy handedness of the DM, then it's a railroad.

So, to answer the OP's original question, No, I don't think you can railroad the willing.

Perhaps you're right to disagree with my point. Unfortunately I can't tell because of your fear of derailing! I do think that you either need to watch more porn or build more worlds so that you can easily tell the difference!

Leif, not always. I've been railroaded by a very talented DM who in my opinion was unwilling to allow for any possibility other than the story he wanted to craft. He even did this in other genres. Example: friends were playing in a pulp game. One of them wanted to search a sarcophagus for a clue. He prevented that search until his plot unwound to the precise right moment. Later (another game I didn't participate in), he ran the exact same campaign down to the same adventures for two separate groups two years apart. The only change in the second game was in places where the PCs did mildly unexpected things that had slightly altered some outcomes, he fixed those encounters to preclude it.

If your DM was so determined to have events in the adventure unfold in exactly one certain way, then I question whether he is really as good a DM as you claim. Creative perhaps, but there's more to being a good DM than that. Maybe he should try his hand as a novelist?

That doesn't sound like railroading to me.
If, say, they met ever-tougher monsters whenever they went the way that that the DM didn't want, it would be railroading.

And yet some folks deny that this has any effect on actual play.

Go figure!

 

[Leif]

So, basically, any GM who preps up to run a published module, and who isn't prepared to freewheel when the PCs don't choose to go into that adventure, is "inadequately prepared"?
I think that shows that the term "adequate" is thoroughly subjective.

No, not my point at all! I guess I hadn't considered enough of the implications of my statement. And, yes, the term 'inadequate' was intended to be purely subjective.

[sblock=Umbran]You do know that I am still scared to death of you, don't you?? Please don't hurt me? *friendly, engaging smile offered here* [/sblock]

 

[Scribble]

Hm. Poor wording on my part. How about, "...has no stops or turns that the DM has not preplanned."

The issue on the railroad is that player initiative is lost. Sometimes, the players don't care if they cannot choose their own path, as sometimes life limits your choices.

I think I see what you're getting at, and I kind of agree. Any DM, good or bad, can preplan stops. A BAD DM actively forces players to use those stops. (Despite the fact that other stops SHOULD be equally viable.)

For me, that's pretty much the crux of it- For a railroad to exist the DM must be actively restricting player choice at the table. It's not the adventure or the preplanned stops that are the rails. The DM is the rails.

If the DM puts out say "hooks" for an adventure, and the players follow said hooks, and just continue to follow whatever clues the adventure/DM toss at them- it's not a railroad. It's just players basically not wanting to do anything else for whatever reason.

If the DM puts out hooks, or clues, and the players choose to aproach it from some other avenue, and then the DM actively finds a way to restrict those other avenues, or flat out says they don't exist (despite how improbable that would be) then it becomes a railroad.

One thing I do have to say is I also don't think making other avenues less attractive consitutes railroading nessesarily. I think it's only a railroad if that less attractive avenue is highly improbable, or only seems to miraculously appear when the "wrong" choice is made.

After all, I COULD climb the wall outside of my house to get to the second floor bedroom, but the steps are much more attractive an option... Is that god railroading me into that nifty hallway outside the bathroom encounter with my dog he spent so much time on?

 

[Leif]

Is that god railroading me into that nifty hallway outside the bathroom encounter with my dog he spent so much time on?

By Jove, I think he's onto us!!

 

[Cadfan]

After all, I COULD climb the wall outside of my house to get to the second floor bedroom, but the steps are much more attractive an option... Is that god railroading me into that nifty hallway outside the bathroom encounter with my dog he spent so much time on?

And that's why I think that the term "railroad" is almost meaningless, in that it means "restricted choice, but bad." The implication of your post is that I can completely restrict your choice at the game table without being accused of railroading, simply by designing the game world ahead of time so that you inevitably follow one path.

 

[Leif]

And that's why I think that the term "railroad" is almost meaningless, in that it means "restricted choice, but bad." The implication of your post is that I can completely restrict your choice at the game table without being accused of railroading, simply by designing the game world ahead of time so that you inevitably follow one path.

Maybe I'm confused. PROBABLY I'm confused. Are you saying that's a BAD thing?

 

[Cadfan]

Maybe I'm confused. PROBABLY I'm confused. Are you saying that's a BAD thing?

Which part?

My overall point is that "railroading" has a connotation and a denotation. Its denotation is restricting player choice. Its connotation is restricting player choice in an improper way. But everyone discusses railroading as if it were just restricting player choice, and as if restrictions on player choice that they do not mind are not in fact restrictions on player choice, even though of course they are.

From there I made some other arguments about not being able to railroad the unwilling or the unaware.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If your DM was so determined to have events in the adventure unfold in exactly one certain way, then I question whether he is really as good a DM as you claim. Creative perhaps, but there's more to being a good DM than that. Maybe he should try his hand as a novelist?

I'd accept "creative" as more applicable wording, although he was also excellent at a number of other aspects of game play, and in fact it took several years to realize that we were on bright shiny rails.

Originally Posted by Cadfan
And that's why I think that the term "railroad" is almost meaningless, in that it means "restricted choice, but bad." The implication of your post is that I can completely restrict your choice at the game table without being accused of railroading, simply by designing the game world ahead of time so that you inevitably follow one path.

Maybe I'm confused. PROBABLY I'm confused. Are you saying that's a BAD thing?

Yes.

 

[Scribble]

And that's why I think that the term "railroad" is almost meaningless, in that it means "restricted choice, but bad." The implication of your post is that I can completely restrict your choice at the game table without being accused of railroading, simply by designing the game world ahead of time so that you inevitably follow one path.

Kind of, but what I was trying to get across was that it's the DM, and entirely the DM that is the rails. Just like the rails actively force the train in a particular direction, the railroad DM is actively forcing the PCs in a particular direction.

It's only a railroad if the DM forces the PCs to do a particular thing for no other reason then he wants them to do it. (Which is why it's hard to point to any particular scenario as ALWAYS being a railroad.)

Sure the backdoor might have a better lock, a better magic ward, and be made of bettr material, but that might just be beacuse the back door tends to go less noticed by the guards. It only become a railroad when the DM has decided the pcs have no chance AT ALL EVER of opening and using that back door no matter how hard they try, or how long the spend at it. The DM will even move goalposts if needed to prevent it's use, simply because he wants the PCs to go through the front door.

 

[Leif]

My overall point is that "railroading" has a connotation and a denotation. Its denotation is restricting player choice. Its connotation is restricting player choice in an improper way. But everyone discusses railroading as if it were just restricting player choice, and as if restrictions on player choice that they do not mind are not in fact restrictions on player choice, even though of course they are.

I'd accept "creative" as more applicable wording, although he was also excellent at a number of other aspects of game play, and in fact it took several years to realize that we were on bright shiny rails.
Yes. [That's a bad thing]

Wow. Ok.