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

[Cadfan]

That's why I think this definition is either way too broad...or railroading is a proper DMing technique.

The problem is that "railroading" really means "constraining player choice, but with a perogative connotation."

At times constraining player choice is necessary or inevitable, and sometimes both. This should be obvious to anyone. The difficulty is that the attachment of a perogative connotation makes discussing it really tough.

Lets say we've got a word, "Blargle." And it means, including connotation, "Shrumpkins, but bad." If someone asks, "Can Blargle ever be good?" the obvious answer is No. Its got "but bad" right in its definition! Of course it can't be good. But the discussion really shouldn't be about Blargle, it should be about Shrumpkins. And the negative connotation attached to Blargle doesn't automatically apply to Shrumpkins. It might, and in some cases obviously it does, or there wouldn't be an entire word for "Shrumpkins, but bad." But the "but bad" doesn't necessarily apply in all contexts.

 

[Lanefan]

By my definition of railroad, no. It is only a railroad if a player attempts to derail the train and fails. In other words, the player(s) must object to the railroading in order for it to be a railroad. If the players don't notice or don't mind, it's no longer a railroad.

Let's look at this in reverse for a second: if the players attempt to derail the train and succeed, are they now railroading the DM?

I've also seen (and done, on occasion) players railroad themselves, based on the characters they are playing. Consider a party containing one or more Paladins or other similar types, where the DM chucks out the following hooks:
a) there's rumour of a hoard of treasure in the Mucky Swamp
b) there's rumour that a demon just escaped from Castle Bonehead
c) there's rumour that an earthquake opened a way into the wizard's tower that's been sealed for centuries.
As DM, you *know* the players of the Paladins are going to drag the party out after the demon, even if your preference would be to run (or worse, the next station on your railroad is) the Mucky Swamp adventure: they'll railroad themselves.

Lanefan

 

[pawsplay]

This is pretty much my point. If you define railroading as a willingness to remove meaningful choices, then that describes nearly every DM I've ever met. No DM gives their players infinite choice...that way lies madness. Some DMs have nearly no improvisational skills, but are still good DMs. If things go away from what they've planned out in advance, their games get really, really bad. So, they nudge things, fudge things, and arrange things so that things stay on track. If they plan well enough, no one should notice.

You are definitely not using meaningful choice in the same I am. I would not play with a DM who was willing to remove meaningful choices. Pragmatically, a DM might do exactly that, but if the players were interested in a certain course of action, no matter what, a good DM, IMO, lets them. As a DM, I might remove a meaningful but unimportant choice in order to present them with a meaningful, much more interesting choice. I am prepared, for instance, to ruthlessly smite a red herring, just as I am willing to let the PCs dither while the bad guys destroy the world.

EDIT: This is the definition I use:

http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningful_choices

 

[pawsplay]

Let's look at this in reverse for a second: if the players attempt to derail the train and succeed, are they now railroading the DM?

I've also seen (and done, on occasion) players railroad themselves, based on the characters they are playing. Consider a party containing one or more Paladins or other similar types, where the DM chucks out the following hooks:
a) there's rumour of a hoard of treasure in the Mucky Swamp
b) there's rumour that a demon just escaped from Castle Bonehead
c) there's rumour that an earthquake opened a way into the wizard's tower that's been sealed for centuries.
As DM, you *know* the players of the Paladins are going to drag the party out after the demon, even if your preference would be to run (or worse, the next station on your railroad is) the Mucky Swamp adventure: they'll railroad themselves.

Lanefan

That's definitely not a railroad. The paladins, and the other players, do have a choice. The paladins could decide that the treasure is a more important long term goal. The paladins could fall and turn evil. The party could devolve into civil war between the paladins and the other characters. And, most importantly, they could go to Castle Bonehead and the demon is actually there, and the treasure in the swamp is, in theory, still there as well. Choices still exist.

 

[Barastrondo]

That's definitely not a railroad. The paladins, and the other players, do have a choice. The paladins could decide that the treasure is a more important long term goal. The paladins could fall and turn evil. The party could devolve into civil war between the paladins and the other characters. And, most importantly, they could go to Castle Bonehead and the demon is actually there, and the treasure in the swamp is, in theory, still there as well. Choices still exist.

I concur. If the paladins do go chasing the demon, I wouldn't call it a railroad, just effective use of story hooks. You've provided something of interest to the players that they feel is worth their time. If I drop a threat against a beloved NPC and all the players rally to immediately make that Priority Number One, that's just a matter of baiting the hook.

When you bait the hook and the players don't bite like you expected — whether it's a railroad or not depends on what you do next. If they opt to go to the Mucky Swamp, and you let them, and they have an adventure, that's the antithesis of railroad-style GMing.

Railroads tend to happen when GMs overestimate their ability to bait a hook, and tend not to bother with any options other than the proffered adventure. When the players don't bite, then comes the temptation to get them back on the rails. I'd honestly say it's impossible to know if any given GM (even yourself!) is prone to railroading until the players don't bite. You won't know if you're a bleeder or a clotter until you get cut.

 

[LostSoul]

Consider a party containing one or more Paladins or other similar types, where the DM chucks out the following hooks:
a) there's rumour of a hoard of treasure in the Mucky Swamp
b) there's rumour that a demon just escaped from Castle Bonehead
c) there's rumour that an earthquake opened a way into the wizard's tower that's been sealed for centuries.

Is the DM offering a meaningful choice here? I would say no, he's not. Of course the Paladins are going to hunt down the escaped demon. It's what Paladins do, right? They aren't motivated by treasure or the chance to explore some old tower. They fight evil. From my point of view, there really isn't a choice to be made.

However, what if the choice is meaningful? What if the Paladins need the treasure? What if there's an ancient tome that contains a secret that the PCs need to close an evil portal? What if the rumours aren't just that a way is open to the wizard's tower, but that evil creatures and monsters are pouring forth, causing refugees to flee and flood nearby lands?

What do the Paladins do then?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Railroads tend to happen when GMs overestimate their ability to bait a hook, and tend not to bother with any options other than the proffered adventure. When the players don't bite, then comes the temptation to get them back on the rails. I'd honestly say it's impossible to know if any given GM (even yourself!) is prone to railroading until the players don't bite. You won't know if you're a bleeder or a clotter until you get cut.

That is why I adore mystery games, I can set up lots and lots of hooks (clues and such) and scatter them about with some set-pieces here and there to get momentum going. But always thanks to it being something the players need uncover I can have another plot hook ready if one they have uncovered doesn't catch them.

With it being a mystery too, with the clues focusing toward a conclusion, it isn't randomized adventure either and can still have a cohesive and flowing storyline. Now what conclusion they may have at the end or path they take will of course alter depending on what clues/plot hooks they follow.

 

[Hussar]

Earlier it was mentioned (and appologies for not looking at the last page to exact quote who said it) that sometimes players, or the campaign are inherently railroaded. A military campaign is the immediete example that springs to mind. You are part of an heirarchy, that heirarchy has the power to order you to do things and that heirarchy has goals separate from your character's goals.

Does that mean we can never play something like Battletech or Twilight 2000 because it's a railroad and railroading is bad? I think the obvious answer is no. You can certainly play those games and those games can be a lot of fun.

What we really, REALLY need is a term, separate from railroading which carries all this negative baggage, that describes a campaign or a scenario in which freedom is being taken from the players, but, it's okay because it makes sense either within the context of the game (military member for example) or because of the agreements between the players and the GM.

I have no idea what a good word for that is, but, that's what we really need.

 

[FireLance]

Railroading is the deliberate act of limiting or eliminating choices, so that the choices of the players, whatever they are, lead to the same point.

This sounds like a pretty good starting point for a definition of railroading, but how important would you consider the "same point" clause to be? If the DM limits or eliminates choices to allow for only two outcomes (e.g. the PCs must either fight the monster or run from it, or the PCs may only go to site A or site B) and no others (e.g. the PCs cannot negotiate with the monster, or go to site C), would that also be railroading?

 

[FireLance]

What we really, REALLY need is a term, separate from railroading which carries all this negative baggage, that describes a campaign or a scenario in which freedom is being taken from the players, but, it's okay because it makes sense either within the context of the game (military member for example) or because of the agreements between the players and the GM.

If we're talking about limitations in terms of choices for the players, perhaps "menu-driven" game might be a more neutral term?

If we're talking about limitations in terms of outcomes for the players as well (in that various combinations of choices might only lead to a small number of possible outcomes) perhaps "flowchart" game could be used?